Talk:Youthanasia

Album length

The correct runtime for the original release is 49:57. The 2004 reissue is listed as 65:40. I don't know where the 1:05:11 came from, so I fixed it. Iod 02:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Victory

I think the song "Victory" deserved it's own page so I created one. Can someone please tidy it up and make it look a bit better. Thanx Jay316 14:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Done :] Sherick 23:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

What Happened to it?--71.74.89.94 (talk) 05:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Genre (1st discussion)

this is strictly a heavy metal album, there is no evidence of thrash at all. 159.83.168.253 (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Or hard rock. Like Countdown, this was more mainstream, but this is not "Risk." Just plain old heavy metal. A band can be heavy metal without being hard rock. Remember Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, and Black Sabbath? And without a verifiable citation, it should be taken down. -MetalKommandant (talk) 11:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

But this album does show traces of hard rock. Remember Train of Consequences? And the grinding sound of Reckoning Day is quite unlike Enter Sandman or Symphony of Destruction. Especially the part after the lyrics 'Empty Skies.'- 117.195.49.215 (talk) 13:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not heavy metal. Lamb of God is heavy metal. This band is a Trash Metal band. Think of it as Metallica 2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.42.71.157 (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No, first of it all, it's "thrash metal", not "trash metal". Really don't know what the hell that is. Megadeth had just plain heavy metal in the '90s with some thrash on Cryptic Writings. Lamb of God isn't heavy metal. That's groove metal, thrash metal, and possibly metalcore and grindcore. -MetalKommandant (talk) 13:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Standard Tuning

This article says Killing Is My Business and Peace Sells aren't in standard tuning, which I'm pretty sure they are. Anyone clear this up for me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asterix 13 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

They are in standard tuning, but both of the albums have seemingly been recorded a quarter step down. That's why they slightly sound out of tune when one tries to play along to them. It's probably something to do with the transferring analogue tape recordings to digital formats in the '80s, because a lot of other recordings from the same era also suffered from the same problem. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Millenium of the Blind

Okay, so I recently added information about the bonus track, Millenium of the Blind. Dave had said that he was inspired to write this song after watching the movie Highlander.

Also, I changed the covers section to just other versions in general, since Megadeth themselves have re-recorded some tracks from this album; "A Tout le Monde", and the aformentioned "Millenium of the Blind". 205.221.16.105 (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Genre (2nd discussion)

Currently there is some edit warring over whether or not the album comes under hard rock. I've looked at the professional reviews and none of them state that genre. Therefore, to those users who insist on adding it back, how about finding a reliable source first to back up your claims? I, for one, strongly agree that this album (along with Countdown to Extinction) should be classed solely as heavy metal. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed that across several albums. I either added, or kept (if it was already here) it as a catch-all, as while there are shades of hard rock on some of the tracks, some random IP will always come in claiming that this is Megadeth's hard rock sellout album or some crap.

I would have no problem though with "heavy metal" being the sole genre either on this article and/or CTE, too. For formalities' sake though, cites for "heavy metal" should be included on both album pages, and hidden notes should be provided. I have been working on this article over the last several months, but that is something I just have not gotten around to yet.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 22:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Single purpose UK IPs (belonging to a banned editor) worth having the pages put under temp prot just to calm them down. (although I've noticed the same IP range is targetting several other pages besides the 3 or 4 M_deth pages being hit lately) Mr Pyles (talk) 02:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of who is doing the editing—it could just as well be a non-single purpose WP account user—it still does not address the issue at hand. I'll say this, however: the next time hard rock gets added back, I'll take the liberty of removing it myself until a bunch of reliable sources are brought up. And just one won't do, either, because then we'd have to add thrash and speed metal based on the (highly erroneous) AllMusic categorisation. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 03:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Genre (3rd discussion)

Alright, upon re-writing the article, I noted that the reviews and other sources that discuss the album's genre are somehow contradictory one to another. Generally, none of them classifies the record in a certain category. Some of them say "not a large stylistic departure" from previous albums, others say "abandoning the thrash elements". My suggestion is to leave the genre parameter empty and let the reader come to his own conclusion upon reading the article. Another reason to blank the genre field is to prevent possible genre warring, which appears to be common event at Megadeth albums.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I would go with just "heavy metal" as a catch-all, but of course people are still going to add and then remove "hard rock" and "Thrash Metal (because its ALWAYS capitalized)". Plus, if you leave it blank, someone else will just add something in there anyway.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 20:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

A few years ago, amidst an edit war on another album article, I suggested leaving the genre field blank for that very reason—letting the reader make up their own mind. I'm not sure why, but I quickly backed off from this suggestion before anyone took it on board. In retrospect, and now, I don't agree with leaving it blank. It will only garner the same amount, if not more, users adding whatever they like to it. As above, I am in favour of leaving heavy metal as the sole genre. From what I've read, most sources seem to point towards it, with far fewer stating hard rock, and hardly any for "Thrash Metal" (indeed, it MUST be capitalised. It simply must. No questions asked). Mac Dreamstate (talk)

OK, let then heavy metal stay as the most appropriate genre. If IP users continue to change it, I will seek semi-protection from the administrators, like I did yesterday with Countdown to Extinction.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 05:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Youthanasia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: HotHat (talk · contribs) 02:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

1.Well-written:
a.the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and

• Opening paragraph, "recordings, however", "recordings; however". Done
• Background section, "Producer Max Norman suggested building a studio of their own.", "Producer Max Norman suggested that they build a new self-dedicated studio." Done
• Artwork section, "UK" needs to be "United Kingdom" not abbreviated Done
• Personnel, musician needs to be musicians or "An additional musician", also maybe remastering? Done

b.it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

• Nothing wrong here.HotHat (talk) 02:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

2.Verifiable with no original research:
a.it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

• Nothing wrong here.HotHat (talk) 02:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

b.it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and

• Nothing wrong here.HotHat (talk) 02:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

c.it contains no original research.

• Nothing wrong here.HotHat (talk) 02:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

3.Broad in its coverage:
a.it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

• Nothing wrong here.HotHat (talk) 02:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

b.it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

• Nothing wrong here.HotHat (talk) 02:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

4.Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

• Nothing wrong here.HotHat (talk) 02:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

5.Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

• Nothing wrong here.HotHat (talk) 02:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

6.Illustrated, if possible, by images:
a.images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

• Nothing wrong here.HotHat (talk) 02:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

b.images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

• Nothing wrong here.HotHat (talk) 02:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Addressed all issues. The reviewer may take a second look.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 05:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Genre (4th discussion)

Support. Hi, I think Thrash Metal should be kept because the album is thrash metal even if it is only in very small doses and the Sputnik Music review references it as such. Lukejordan02 (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. "Scarce" means "lacking or hard to find", and besides, Stagno has said that the album features "a more traditional type of metal" in the previous sentence.--Retrohead (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes but it is still there and acknowledged as being thrash even if at a very small level, same for the previous album there has been disagreements on that talk page about wether or not it is thrash or not. The reference acknowledges it as being thrash but more straight metal, it's not like I'm calling it a blues album or something stupid. Lukejordan02 (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not there, it is your own personal interpretation of his words. He clearly says "thrash metal is very scarce on Megadeth's sixth album". When you find some music writer saying that Youthanasia is a thrash metal album or displays thrash metal music, then we can talk.--Retrohead (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

If he said thrash metal is absent then fair enough but he didn't he scarce meaning very little so it is still there. A sentence from the Cryptic Writings page (not written by me says) changes were met with mixed opinions from music critics, who noted the band moving away from their thrash metal roots. That backs up what I am saying that this has thrash on. Lukejordan02 (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia can not be used as a source itself→WP:CIRCULAR. "If he said thrash metal is absent then fair enough". Really? Should we add hip hop and disco music because no sources say it doesn't feature those genres?--Retrohead (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

What a stupid argument you make, there is a difference from a band leaving their roots to playing a complete different genre of music, you completely looked past what I was trying to say, what I meant was if the reviewer was trying to make it clear that this was the first Megadeth album not to feature thrash metal songs he would have said thrash metal is absent not thrash metal Is scarce. Lukejordan02 (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

That is your personal view on the subject and has zero value on Wiki. My argument is not "stupid", it just pushes your thesis to the point of absurd so you can realize how illogical your words are.--Retrohead (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes and that is your personal view, what makes your's more important than mine.... Nothing that's what (and that is why I am waiting for other users to comment because one man's opinion should not be enough to dictate how Wikipedia works or is edited and I don't think you know what you mean why is my comment about if he said thrash metal is absent "illogical". Lukejordan02 (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

What is my opinion? Where have I stated my opinon on what the genre should be?--Retrohead (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

"Where have I stated my opinon on what the genre should be?" Did you really just ask that, well the fact that you reverted me makes it clear on how you think the genres should be. Lukejordan02 (talk) 19:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I reverted you because you were genre warring. Don't spin my words, I've never said "this genre is Youthanasia".--Retrohead (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The only person "spinning words" here is you. Lukejordan02 (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Both the Sputnikmusic and Exclaim reviews (quoted in the article) suggest it is a departure from thrash, which, even if there are "small doses", wouldn't comply with due weight if it be included in the infobox. The purpose of an infobox is to summarize key facts (WP:IBX#Purpose of an infobox), not a minor part (i.e. thrash) of some aspect like the album's music. Dan56 (talk) 19:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The Sputnikmusic review says Countdown To Extinction was a departure from thrash. Lukejordan02 (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, the bit quoted from Exclaim! in #Musical style also suggests it: "the band eroded their brilliant thrash to mid-paced chug" → eschewed their previous thrash music in favor of more mid-tempo "chug". Dan56 (talk) 04:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose as per Dan56. Undue weight given to "small doses" (or whatever) of thrash apparently on the album. This dispute is completely asinine. Is the world going to end if "thrash metal" is not in the infobox? The article is currently, thanks to Retrohead, a good article, with generally accurate and verifiable information. Can we not all agree that, unless someone wants to take a crack at an FA for this or if some relevant development comes up, we should leave it as is? Lets all find something more productive to do.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 20:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose per the Sputnikmusic review: "[i]t is obvious that thrash metal is very scarce on Megadeth's sixth album. In its place is a more traditional type of metal." Furthermore, a small handful of "thrashy" songs is surely insufficient to warrant the inclusion of the genre. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose: The source in question seems to say there is very little if any thrash metal on this album (which also seems to be supported by the Exclaim! review). The infobox should summarize the article, which currently says there is little-to-no thrash metal on this album. Therefore thrash metal should not be included in the infobox. (I realise I've basically rehashed what Dan56 said above, so tl;dr: "Oppose per Dan56 above.") MrMoustacheMM (talk) 20:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose: The genre thrash metal is unsupported by any sources, and sputnik said it was "scarce", so that is not justification enough to label the whole project as thrash. You could make a musical styling section to explain what the music is and is not.HotHat (talk) 04:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose: I stumbled into this, and have not viewed the sources myself, but I'm assuming that all of the above editors quoted them accurately and therefore I conclude that the style is not prominent enough to go in the infobox. "Heavy metal" doesn't preclude thrash, but it also doesn't narrow the album's sound down to that style.--¿3family6 _contribs 20:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Genre (5th Discussion)

Now, I just want to see who could agree with me, but in my opinion, Youthanasia sounds like a groove metal album. The songs "Train of Consequences" and "Addicted to Chaos" in particular sound very "groove metal" but the rest of the album sounds like groove metal. Is there anyone else who has noticed this, or am I the only one who thinks this? Knockknock48 (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Youthanasia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.bpi.co.uk/certified-awards.aspx to http://www.bpi.co.uk/certified-awards.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:19, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Youthanasia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131212164322/http://www.musiccanada.com/GPSearchResult.aspx?st=Youthanasia&sa=Megadeth&smt=0 to http://www.musiccanada.com/GPSearchResult.aspx?st=Youthanasia&sa=Megadeth&smt=0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160716112934/http://www.bpi.co.uk/certified-awards.aspx to http://www.bpi.co.uk/certified-awards.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070626051113/http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH_RESULTS to https://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH_RESULTS&artist=Megadeth&format=ALBUM&go=Search&perPage=50

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)