Talk:Because the Internet

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

GIF used for album cover

There's a .gif being used for the album cover with a sort of fade-to-black effect? Is that official?? --204.154.109.20 (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See: [1] Not only was it announced origionally as the album's cover artwork, the physical copy functions with Lenticular printing where it changes as you angle it. STATic message me! 23:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, that's pretty cool. --204.154.109.20 (talk) 00:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the unusually animated cover originally posted here and then reported here notable enough to warrant a mention in the article? It would also explain why the cover art is animated in the article. —sroc 💬 12:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not the first GIF album cover, but yes definitely notable enough to mention in the article. Best to be mentioned in the background or promotion, in chronology with everything else of course. STATic message me! 15:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the terminology and links, guys. I've added a caption to the album cover. Dmarquard (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Release date

Ok, STATicVapor can you clarify how the album was not released yesterday? Koala15 (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was released first on December 6, 2013, in a country besides your own, see the release history for that. On that date the album was released by Glassnote and Island Records, sometimes we show leaniancy to the artists home country in the lead, but with so many different divisions of Universal releasing the album, that is why we state the first release date and the first release labels in the lead. STATic message me! 20:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does it say we should in the handbooks? Koala15 (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Check any GA or FA, they always use the first release. We can show leniency if every release was handled by the same label(s), but that is not the case here. Either way, you kept changing it to say it was released in the US on December 10, 2013 by Glassnote and Island Records, when Island was not involved in the US release of the album at all. STATic message me! 20:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP handbook(s): Template:Infobox_album#Released
I think, there may be a 'home market' justification to an additional mention of the US release, in the lead.  – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 20:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah i do think the US release should get some sort mention since he is primarily most well known in the US. Koala15 (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, shouldn't we only be using the record label that it was released on in the United States "Only the record label that the album was originally released on should be specified. Where significantly different versions have been released (featuring alternative track listings) e.g. in the US vs UK, the later release date or record label should be mentioned in the article, for example in a Release history section." Koala15 (talk) 20:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are misreading that. Not only is that guideline only for the infobox, is states clearly, "Only the record label that the album was originally released on should be specified." Its first release was in the UK and Australia on December 6, 2013 by Glassnote/Island. Unless you are implying somehow that December 10th comes before December 6th. None of the versions are different, so the last sentence of that quote does not apply. STATic message me! 20:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, i was just trying to figure out what that meant. But i do i think we should mention the US date. Koala15 (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusion of distribution labels is a much bigger question. If they're merely local-manufacturing and/or box-shifters, I don't think the warrant entry. If they play a major role in shaping international marketing, I think they should be in. Trouble is, the two are hard to distinguish verifiability - assuming consensus shares my sensibilities, it seems to give them the benefit of the doubt.
I would support a move to positivity flag labels, for a release, with: (p), (c), (exclusive licencee), (licencee) and (distribution only).   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2013

Please change "Consequently, Gambino decided to reduce his work for NBC, and will only appear in five episodes of Community's 13-episode fifth season. His role was reduced in order to work on his music career.", to "Consequently, Gambino decided to reduce his work for NBC, and will only appear in five episodes of Community's 13-episode fifth season. He left to pursue new creative endeavors."

Referecnces: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oe6yeGMvnc4 25 min , 30 secs in.

All refrences for the prior are not actual comments by him, but this (and other) reference say his heart wasn't in it and wants to do a multitude of things. JohnnyMiller13 (talk) 06:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Yes he left Community to work on other endeavours, but the only think he has significantly worked on this year since that announcement has been this album and its promotion. Atlanta is even just an idea at this point. STATic message me! 06:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception edit request

The "Critical Reception" section claims that "Because the Internet was met with generally positive reviews" because Metacritic assigned the album a 65/100. Although the average numerical result was positive, I don't think this accurately takes account of some of the widely mixed reactions from various critics (2/10 from Spin, 1.5/5 by CoS). 72.93.151.54 (talk) 05:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both those reviews are covered in the ratings template and the article prose. However, the general overall summary of the album's reception was clearly positive, including being named highly on two "Albums of the Year" lists. STATic message me! 06:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on

nobots
|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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.

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).

Cheers.—

Talk to my owner:Online 11:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Because_the_Internet&oldid=1206212304"