Talk:Black Holes and Revelations

	Black Holes and Revelations has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 12, 2008 Good article nominee Listed August 15, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted December 21, 2008 Peer review Reviewed
Current status: Good article

Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Black Holes and Revelations article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Albums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum Alternative music Mid‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.Alternative musicWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative musicTemplate:WikiProject Alternative musicAlternative music Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Progressive Rock Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Progressive Rock, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Progressive rock on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Progressive RockWikipedia:WikiProject Progressive RockTemplate:WikiProject Progressive RockProgressive rock Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Rock music Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

It has no detail in it, and the other titles below could be easily incorporated into this change - Release Details would go to Details of Single Releases or words to that effect. I would change it but though i'd better check as most of the stuff i seem to do warrants a reversal. Massau (talk) 15:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page lists Exo-Politics as a digital download single. I never heard about this and Googling 'Exo Politics digital download' reveals nothing but the Wiki page. Can anyone back this up?

Any idea (if any) which classical pieces influence take a bow?

It sounds more like a flamenco chord progression than a classical one, to me. At least in the beginning. 65.248.164.214 (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a bit of a late reply, but I do agree with you. Listening to it I thought that aswell. It looks like the whole bit about this has been taken from the article. I have nothing to back it up, but it may deserve to go back in if anyone finds a source. Bigdon128 (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is it about, at first I thought it was influenced by world war 1 peoms, but I think more that it is a poem to Bush. What do you think, or if Muse have said anything about it what is it about?

Either to Bush himself, or the american people at large. I helped organize an anti-war rally in february 2003, in the middle of the deep south. Unsurprisingly, it was poorly attended. I think the song is addressed more to those who were and are apathetic. 65.248.164.214 (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to this page it appears to have been deleted without reason.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_Of_The_Problematique Anybody know why?

The nazis tend to delete non-"notable" tracks, I just hope that when it is released as a single it'll be restored rather than a new article made in its place (a la Starlight). --Tene 21:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• erm, please refrain from calling the administrators 'nazis' please. The song, no matter how brilliant is happens to be (and let's face it, it is), is simply not notable enough in it's present form (as a non-single album track) for it's own seperate article Karma Llama 23:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of pissing off Radiohead fans with administrator attention, if this is the case then why the hell does Kid A get entries for every one of its songs? I think the existence of a song with a particular title is worth noting in Wikipedia, *as long as there is useful information in the article*.

Zebulon Macon 06:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the song's page should be there and I totally agree with Zebulon Macon. Elevenzeroone ^{talk / contribs} 19:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to Muse's site, the single won't be available for download until June 12th. Is there another site that will be releasing the song earlier, or is the article just inaccurate? -DMurphy 03:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.microcuts.net/uk/news/archives/05022006-new_single_downloadable_on_may_the_9th.php no sources for that but we will find out in 2 days;) Citizen erased 15:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's supposed to be a surprise. It's been confirmed by Tom Kirk, their manager though. http://board.muse.mu/showthread.php?p=1850539#post1850539 BigBlueFish 20:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everywhere where the surrounding prose is correctly capitalised [1] the album is referred to as Black Holes And Revelations. HMV says it is too. I'm changing the references likewise. BigBlueFish 20:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone agree with me that it doesn't look that Muse like... and i don't really like it, i definately prefered the fake one that looked really cool http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Blackholesandrevelations.JPG , anyone else agree?

does anyone know the reason why their atwork is down by storm thorgerson?

Because it is done by him. I'll try to find a source. --Tene 13:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GRRR i Hate that album art!!! i hope its fake! The other fake one was better

It's not fake. It was in the latest Muse newsletter & it is also in their news section. Btw, I can't find a source. --Tene 16:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the album art is very much in keeping with the Muse album art trend, and by that I mean it's dreadful. The album art for 'Showbiz', 'Absolution' and 'Black Holes and Revelations' all look dreadful, and they'll look even worse in the future. The art for 'Origin of Symmetry' is okay, if only because it's a little less pretentious. Drumnbach 10:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er, everything Muse do is pretentious, that's why I love them so much ... Regardless, I dislike the album art - it's hardly accurate. The atmopshere wouldn't allow anyone from the surface to see any planets, & Earth is far too big to be Earth.--Tene 11:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the small issue that there are men sitting round a table. Why haven't their heads exploded from the low pressure, or the men at least collapsed from asphyxiation? Because it's mean to be surreal, that's why. I'm not sure the sky would appear blue with Mars's atmosphere either. Maybe Mars is meant to have spun out of orbit and is on a collision course with Earth? That would certainly be apocalyptic. Then our friends the horsemen could be used to explain this imminent disaster. Makes just as much sense as people's souls casting shadows on the ground, to be honest. Erm. What I meant to say was that this page is for discussing changes to the BHAR article, not for discussion of the album. Any further discussion should be taken to the forums. BigBlueFish 13:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The album art is credited to "the men of mystery"-i presume this is storm etc

iTunes says its by Storm, the album itself says the men of mystery. Perhaps iTunes just assumed, because the last album was done by him?

im 99% sure that its a storm album sleeve hey hold on, it says in the description that theres 4 horses on the table, but i only see 3, 2 white, one brown at the right side of the table explanation?

This was probably an assumption from when the only available image was fairly poor quality. I had thought the idea was they had one each. I corrected it. BigBlueFish 20:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know why but the image used as album cover was very inaccurate, it lacked square dimensions and it showed band logo and album title, which are clearly not present on the real album. Changed it, and changed it again when my change was undone. 15 October 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg Books (talk • contribs) 13:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was it taken in the Atacama Desert? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajuk (talk • contribs) 13:28, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Can someone restore Assassin now that the album has leaked? It's pretty obvious what was there is fact ... --Tene 04:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the track listing on the leak, it would appear that the last e is accented. Would anyone object to me changing it to be as such? --Tene 04:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would. Of all the professional reviews I have seen, none put an accent on the e. It seems to me whoever leaked it thought they were real good at French. They're not. Although it just occurred to me that the French word is actually spelt problématique. I guess nobody said it was French though, indeed nobody said it had an accent on the e. BigBlueFish 15:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm also pretty sure it doesnt have an é too, since it'd create a pronounciation somewhat like 'Problematikuay' Mr8131127126 10:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it would be "-kay," not "-kuay." --Macarion 19:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the é is not on the cover or in the booklet

No, it's not notable. Most albums get leaked prior to release. This one was leaked less than three weeks prior to sale of the first CDs. The date is unverifiable, it can't be linked to and therefore not cited. The Muse management haven't made any public statement which might make this particular leak somehow noteworthy. Please don't bring it up in the article without justifying doing so over here. BigBlueFish 19:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, someone's just done that on the article again, heh Mr8131127126 08:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How tiresome. I reverted it again. BigBlueFish 10:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Not notable, I had added some cites since there were fact tags. Was reluctant to just ditch the section, but that makes sense. •JZ• 05:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I've seen someone has changed them back. Which copy, may I ask with blantant critisism, are you listening to? I direct rip would seem to disagree with you ... --Tene 08:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tempted to remove the track timings altogether on the grounds that it constitutes embargoed information. Ultimately let's not get too worked up about it while the CD is still to be published. BigBlueFish 22:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article be called "Black Holes & Revelations"? That is what it says on the album cover. The iTunes Music Store says "Black Holes and Revelations" which looks more correct than "And". Any opinions? Mahahahaneapneap 21:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should take that with a grain of salt until at least the Japanese version comes out on the 28th, when someone gets to confirm up front how it's written. Isn't there a problem for MediaWiki software using ampersands in titles, anyway? --Tene 01:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, only on MuseWiki ;). Tom Kirk has spelt it Black Holes And Revelations several times. However, if it is written with an ampersand on the cover, I would assume it flexible and use lowercase "and" per Wikipedia naming conventions. The ampersand is simply an abbreviation of the word "and" anyway, and the catalog registration will use the word "AND". BigBlueFish 16:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest this article should be renamed "Black Holes and Revelations" as per Wikipedia naming conventions. Thus swapping it with the redirect at this title. Chardir 10:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rats. The redirect has a page history, so I can't move it myself. I've posted it on Requested Moves... here is the official bit. BigBlueFish 15:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Black Holes And Revelations → Black Holes and Revelations … Rationale: WP:NC - it appeared at first as if the band may have been meaning to emphasise the "and", but usage is mixed, with stores such as iTunes listing it with a lowercase, and the album artwork itself using an ampersand. Consensus already exists really. —BigBlueFish 15:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (nom) BigBlueFish 15:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support WP usually tries to avoid funny spellings, because the users, or their agency, can change their mind, like this. Septentrionalis 17:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Xtrememachineuk 18:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Looking at various news releases from the band, they tend to use a lower case 'and'. Maybe it should be changed.[reply]
• Support Insufficient evidence to go against convention. Chardir 09:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Mahahahaneapneap 15:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support upper case letters are seldom used for 'and', 'the' or 'of' in titles.Joe Byrne -- Talk -- Contribs - :ga: - :fr: - - 13:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Although the Muse E-mail referrs to it as "And", the cover uses "&". I'd prefer it being changed to an ampersand, but a lower case "and" would be better than upper case "And". --Tene 18:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The cover uses 'AND'. The sticker on the cover uses '&'. --222.153.159.17 04:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clear consensus. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I checked just now to confirm the preview was available on their MySpace page, but can only seem to find two tracks. Have they removed this, or is it only available in some countries? (I'm in Japan) Match 00:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like they've reverted to only two tracks. I've changed the article but I'm not sure it's even notable enough to be mentioned? Chardir 12:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... it might be of some use to people as there might be others wondering what's happened to it, but I don't know much about editorial policy here, only generally editing typos and phrasing myself. Match 23:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Source? I remember reading that they said it is too obvious a single, so wouldn't be released as such. --Macarion 17:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The album notes do contain writing credits, it clearly states on the last page 'Songs by Matthew Bellamy'. Any 'ambiguity to the origin of the songs' is derived only from the original contributors inability to read and is both misleading and possibly damaging to the bands reputation

Secondly, I don't see any spelling errors in the 'Supermassive Black Hole' lyrics, both my own copy of the album notes and this one here include the word 'alight' spelled perfectly (note that both are from the earliest official release, and therefore are not reprints from a later date featuring corrections), does this 'spelling mistake' even exist? What copy of the album does it feature in?

Miranda07 02:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not mine, that's for sure. — mæstro ^t/c, 13:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The suppoedly Martian imagery is incorrect on technical grounds, however, because

• The sky is blue. Blue sky on Earth results from Rayleigh scattering of light by dust particles in the atmosphere. On Mars, the sky is pink due to dust comprising iron compounds suspended in the atmosphere.
• The Earth and Moon in the sky are far too large for realism; Mars appears as a small, reddish point in Earth's night sky, and there is no reason to suspect that Earth would appear much larger from Mars.

I propose this be deleted; it's just artwork, it doesn't have to make sense. Plus, it's really irrelevant to the article. amsterdam528 22:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be mentioned somewhere, though if not in this article I doubt anyone would think it warrants and article of its own. --Tene 00:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I vote for deleting it. It's hardly encyclopedic information. Besides, give the cover artist some artistic license. I mean, you might as well criticise the Sgt. Pepper artwork for multiple anachronisms or something. (this was me by the way. - Tredanse 10:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete, please. I almost did, but opted for just an insult and slight change of grammar so as to make the above statement more palpable. Iffer 04:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the info is encylopedic. I changed the wording to indicate it probably is just artistic license at work-albrozdude 05:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, While it is Encyclopedic, it's art... unless you also want to mention that four men would not scientifically be able to be sitting at a table on Mars without dying in the first place (have you considered that perhaps this is not the present day version of Mars to which these facts apply?), or that having flying people on the Absolution cover isn't physically possible, or that the orange sky and white earth on the Origin of Symmetry cover is innaccurate, or that Matt Bellamy couldn't fall through space and sing at the same time!!1 as seen in the Bliss video... Maybe we should mention that Soldiers Poem was actually written by a band and not a soldier too? Art doesn't need to be factual, it's an album cover, it's not like they are trying to fake a Mars landing, why do you feel the need to overanalyse it? Miranda07 20:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The four men, assuming they're the horsemen (I recall Bellamy stating in an interview that they are), wouldn't need a hospitable environment - they're immortal religious figures. --Tene 20:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And with that said, do you believe that realism is a major contributing factor to the concept of this artwork? Miranda07 23:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then as soon as you delete all the evaluation of fictional literature and art work on the Wiki, then I'll agree to delete :) --Tene 20:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, maybe as soon as you add references to the sky being pink (which funnily enough isn't all that accurate anyway, as while the colour of the sky on Mars is difficult to judge it is generally accepted to be tawny in colour, not pink, and would you believe that at sunrise/sunset the sky on Mars contains, yes... blue!) and the Earth not being visible (common knowledge, but what kind of boring artwork would that make?) to the Mars Wiki page, I will consider agreeing that this information is even remotely relevant to the Wiki page of a music album (or even accurate, for that matter... someone needs to do their homework) :) Miranda07 23:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you didn't read who contributed to that section - I have very little knowledge of the Martian surface, I haven't contributed to the section at all, perhaps you should be asking the contributer(s) to add the "tawny" sky bit. --Tene 11:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps my point was that you and Albrozdude are campaigning to keep information which not only do you fail to notice is incorrect, but is also far too complicated/debated to explain accurately on an album page while still being relevant to the subject, and is even missing from Mars' own page. Not to mention that there is plenty of evidence of blue sky on Mars, and we know how Muse love their conspiracy theories :) Miranda07 15:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I agree completely with Miranda07. Mahahahaneapneap 23:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• What if Thorgerson made those mistakes diliberatly? What if it's meant to signify something? Maybe we don't need to "overanalyze" the artwork, but it is worth mentioning that a)Mars' sky is not blue and b)Earth appears too large in the sky.-albrozdude 20:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also note, the article for Knights of Cydonia points out the mistakes in the roman numerals in the music video.-albrozdude 05:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As of me posting this, the count is:

• Delete - 5
• Keep - 2 (however most of these votes suggest condensing this part of the article more than it currently is)

Unless someone can condense that part into something that we all agree on (like, a sentence or two at most), it should be deleted outright. Tredanse 15:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This song sounds like it draws inspiration rather deeply from the Second Reality demo by Future Crew. Has anyone else drawn the same conclusion? What would be the best way to cover this in the article? (I obviously think it's worth mentioning.) --GargoyleMT 01:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw an advert for the Champions League which used Map of the Problematique. Could someone please add this in somewhere? (I have no souces though) Mahahahaneapneap 18:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not flat out denying this, I just want to know if there's any sources, as it seems to have shown up as a link on the album page, as the next single on the Starlight page and in the singles section in the discography, without a cite =S Anyone got anything on this? AllySDude 22:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The latest fan mailing states that Knights of Cydonia will be the next UK single release. Chardir 12:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/totp/new_releases/soon.shtml CfW 07:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though this may be a rumor, apperantly on December 10th, Kerrang radio announced that Invincible would be the next single from Black Holes and Revelations. However, I have yet to find any articles confirming this, so for now it appears to just be speculation. JAK2112 04:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it says above it was used for an ITV Champions League ad, but I'm sure there's something else (possibly a BBC advert). This is driving me CRAZY, so please can someone tell me what it is! U-Mos 18:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a BBC advert for a drama series (I think on BBC Three or Four but I'm not sure about that) Mahahahaneapneap 19:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! It was for the BBC4 things like Fear of Fanny and A for Andromeda! Now I can sleep more easily... U-Mos 19:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following line from the critical reaction section seems highly biased:

"However, websites such as Pitchfork Media still insist that the band do nothing more than ape Radiohead's muscial stylings and thus rated it 4.2/10."

While the negative reaction geared towards their similarity to Radiohead is valid information, the sentence's rhetoric needs to be toned down. For the time being, the typo has been corrected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Faunis (talk • contribs) 05:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Fixed and referenced. ck lostsword|^queta!|_Suggestions? 21:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added that as well as the critical reaction section; I felt that aped was the correct term for such an opinion, although I didn't mean for it to sound biased as I think it was one of the best albums of 2006. Defunct Lies 22:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following line from the Background and Recording section also seems (at best) highly biased.

"Due to the loudness war and bad mastering several of the tracks on the album suffer heavily from clipping."

Certainly it is asserted with no reference or proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.91.190 (talk) 03:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well written article, all sources referenced. --Nr. 213-140-22-64 17:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of April 23, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Needs copyediting: lots of typos, some run-on sentences, etc.

2. Factually accurate?: It's accurate, as far as I can see, and very well referenced.

3. Broad in coverage?: Needs some expansion; there are too many single-paragraph headings. Also, there is no information on writing and recording.

4. Neutral point of view?: Yes, although it could do with a bit more balancing regarding critical reaction: a MetaCritic score of 75 does not sit well with mostly 4-out-of-5 reviews listed.

5. Article stability? There are still quite a few changes going on from day to day...

6. Images?: Another free image would be nice, but not necessary.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. The article is very well-referenced - far better than most albums I've seen - so keep up the good work and it should meet WP:WIAGA. — 3M163//Complete Geek 00:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who says Dom Howard didn't write Hoodoo? U-Mos 19:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-Album booklet says: "All songs by Matthew Bellamy". (125.238.231.135 07:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Well, so it does! In that case, I'll rephrase my question: how do we know that that is wrong and "All songs written by Matthew Bellamy, Dominic Howard and Chris Wolstenholme" except for Hoodoo, which is written only by Bellamy and Wolstenhome according to the article? U-Mos 17:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Muse Black Hole And Revelations highres.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be noted somehow that Assassin, and possibly Exo-Politics, were #6 and #68 in the UK download charts respectively, and not the UK Singles chart. Can't see the music buying public liking Assassin that much ;) Le.Kwyjibo (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or whitewashing, you decide :-) —Giggy 10:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Almost certainly a conspiracy. A year ago I wasn't even aware that the aussies even had music, let alone were well informed enough to comment on it! Naerii 16:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can have one without the other ;-) —Giggy 10:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, can you guys standardize the date formatting in the article? A GA nomination is upon you!!! WesleyDodds (talk) 05:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, all the dates are now done, except the access dates which use the annoying citation templates that I've recently stopped using. I can try and get those all done at some stage. —Giggy 05:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-cough-British band-cough- WesleyDodds (talk) 08:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to normal British date formatting... just because. naerii 21:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry guys, I'm just so used to use incorrect formatting. I much prefer British, for the record. —Giggy 11:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks good to me! No major issues; a good article indeed. NSR77 ^T_C 21:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! naerii 22:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The album is called "Black Holes & Revelations", not "Black Holes and Revelations"; check the album artwork, official site, everything. Please change this back again. Andre666 (talk) 07:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was moved on the basis that "and" is used everywhere but the front cover. Looking at the titles of some of the refs used (yes, a cursory glance, feel free to disregard), that seems to be true. Giggy (talk) 07:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's because someone changed the titles of all the refs. They used to have the &. Check the diff between my last revert on this article and the most recent revision - it's somewhere in there. naerii 15:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black Holes & Revelations has been deleted ready for the move. Nev1 (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Front covers are not everything. Especially when the title on the front cover is actually on a sticker. Everywhere else ON THE ACTUAL ALBUM uses the "and". Look in the booklet. Look on the spine. Look on the artwork. As for the website, it uses "and" on the discography and "&" on the media section. As I said before, where both are used the "&" is an abbreviation of the "and". Let's use our brains. I am moving this article back. U-Mos (talk) 20:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fair enough, but it still bugs the hell out of me that the front cover uses '&'. No band in their right mind, especially not Muse, would "abbreviate" their album title on the front cover. I agree that the article should remain with 'and' > '&', but it just bugs me that, like I said, the album cover uses '&'. Why? Andre666 (talk) 20:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is just me guessing, but I imagine they used "&" so the title fits better under the Muse logo. Otherwise it would have got a bit squashed. U-Mos (talk) 16:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My removal of that section was reverted. I wonder if we can come to a consensus about this [if there's even enough people watching this page] since the only thing lamer than an 'in popular culture' section is an edit war over one. It seems to me to be little more than trivia, given that it doesn't provide any interesting or relevant information about the album. Here is the content of the section that I'm talking about:

The song "Knights of Cydonia" from the album is on the setlist for the game Guitar Hero III, with "Supermassive Black Hole" and "Exo-Politics" available for download on the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 systems. "Assassin" appears on the setlist for Guitar Hero World Tour. The song "Supermassive Black Hole" was included in the soundtrack to the movie Twilight. The song "Take A Bow" was featured in the second trailer for the upcoming movie Watchmen.

The article would probably double in size if we listed all the places where tracks from BH&R have been sampled. I heard Problematique on an advertisement for a furniture store earlier today :P THE GROOVE 03:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there's no need for a pop culture section. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 07:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well first I only placed in the songs I heard on the GH and Rock Band games. That's only what I wanted to do. But someone had to add something else that wasn't what was needed. I only added songs that were on the Main Setlist or Original Bonus Setlist, not any kind of Track Pack or Downloadable content. I was only placing down two songs. But someone else had to do more to it.--Kagemaru the Ninja of the Shadows (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't establish notability... carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I've seen notable stuff like the songs in the media on other music artist's articles too. Just thought I would do the same on more.--Kagemaru the Ninja of the Shadows (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because there are other crappy articles, doesn't mean we need to imitate them. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 23:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And just how do you know they are crappy? They happen to be very informative and it is what people want to see. You shouldn't have to be thinking of yourself. Think of what other people want to see--Kagemaru the Ninja of the Shadows (talk) 03:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability needs to be established. Trivia is specifically discouraged. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 05:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was also thinking of not trivia but an In The Media section. Since I have also seen this as well on some. This helps because it shows how popular or where these songs have been helped or on famous TV shows, or famous games. This is what I was trying to get at but a Trivia section popped up first, but it seemed more like a In The Media section.--Kagemaru the Ninja of the Shadows (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a similar discussion to this in 2006, but I think this article should be renamed "Black Holes and Revelations" as said on the album itself. Kausill 04:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it back, as there was no discussion for the move made in June. Perhaps this page should be move protected? U-Mos (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is now move protected for one year. If the article is moved again after the protection expires, it should be listed again at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection with a view to getting it move protected indefinitely. U-Mos (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually look at the official liner notes it says "Songs by Matthew Bellamy". That means 100% of the music & lyrics were written by Bellamy, period. Not the band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.192.228 (talk) 06:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added Pitchfork Media. Seems a bit odd not having basically the most famous alt music site online on there.

it isn't the most famous site and the review isn't profesional.

Cjmooney9 (talk) 12:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A recent change to the infobox genre parameter by a genre warrior started me rethinking this album's genre.

The current genre version

• Alternative rock, new prog, progressive metal, space rock, electronic rock

August 2008 GA version

• Alternative rock, progressive rock

December 2008 peer review version

• Alternative rock, new prog

So it looks like the genre parameter has been bulked out since 2008.

With regard to an album's genre, I think the infobox should tell the reader what the sources say about the overall genre of the album. The genre parameter should be more general than specific. I do not think the album genre should be a collection of genres taken from the various songs. Instead, the sources should say that this album is such-and-such genre. Let's see what genres are discussed in the sources:

• Rolling Stone. No genre mentioned.
• NME: "It’s The Book Of Revelations gone rock".
• Melodic.net, staff reviewer Kaj Roth: "[on the whole album] Muse rocks more than disco away through their songs..."
• The Guardian: "Black Holes and Revelations has the usual industrial dollop of space-metal lunacy..." "[On this album] the band has developed an electro-funk wobble..."
• Entertainment Weekly: "[Muse represents] modern, arena-scale art rock..." "If prog is indeed the new punk, these guys are its Green Day."
• Alt Press: No genre for the album as a whole.
• Allmusic: MacKenzie Wilson's prose review labels the band and the songs with various genres but says nothing about the album's overall genre.
• AV Club: "Black Holes & Revelations contains some more conventional modern-rock songs... and the album has an odd Spanish lilt overall..."
• Drowned In Sound: Plenty of genres discussed for the band and the songs but nothing for the album as a whole.
• The Telegraph: No overall album genre.
• Music Emissions, a questionable review likely posted by a user: No overall album genre.
• MSN Entertainment UK: No genres.
• TNT Travel Down Under: No genres.
• Absolute Punk, non-staff reviewer: "[On this album the band is] adding a few new tricks to their huge arena rock sound." "[On this album the band does] a fine job of incorporating different techniques and genres into their already explosive rock noise."
• MusicOHM.com by staff writer Talia Soghomonian: "Black Holes and Revelations ...It's even got a funky twist to it..."

So it looks like there is little agreement about the overall genre of the album. Nobody says prog (new or old), nobody says alt rock. Two reviews say funk or funky and one review says space-metal. The most agreement in the sources is seen with the simple "rock" genre. Binksternet (talk) 17:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the removal of the genres (or trimming to just rock, which is too vague and general). Just because there's little agreement on what the sources say, doesn't mean we should remove it altogether. We should go for the best that's available, which is those two sources cited in the article. So, I restored the genres and sources for progressive rock and space rock. 75.129.101.158 (talk) 08:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Black Holes and Revelations's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "UK":

• From Origin of Symmetry: "Chart Stats – Muse". Chart Stats. Archived from the original on 30 May 2012. Retrieved 12 May 2011. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• From Showbiz (album): "Chart Stats – Muse". Chart Stats. Archived from the original on 30 May 2012. Retrieved 2008-10-08. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For a start, the release and tour sections are almost completely uncited. Popcornfud (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]