Talk:Thriller 25

Continue merger discussion here (PLEASE SEE ARCHIVE 1 FOR DETAILS ON DEBATE)

CONTINUE DISCUSSION HERE;- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realist2 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Review of archived comments

Below are 11 editors whose full comments are in Archive page... now grouped in one place so that consensus can be more easily reviewed. Under the horizontal line are further comments added after initial discussions were archived. - eo (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Separate - Realist2
• Separate - The Elfoid
• Separate - Paaerduag
• Merge - eo
• Merge - Underneath-it-All
• Merge - Red-Blue-White
• Separate - 203.217.77.81
• Separate - Funk Junkie
• Separate - Marnifrances
• Separate - Sai2020
• Separate - 82.69.60.98
• Merge - Extraordinary Machine

---

• Merge - This should be merged. It may have new songs on it, but they're still just remakes or otherwise, remixes or old outtakes. To merge it would make it easier for those searching for 'Thriller' to get the full history behind it. This is not an entirely different album.JamesR

• Merge - I think the article should be merged with the inital Thriller (album) page after the release of the album - it is only a reissue. If you argue that they are different albums, you should also argue the same point of the 2001 reissues of Off The Wall, Bad (album) and Dangerous (album)Mowen1978 (talk) 13:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Separate - Do not merge the two articles. Two completely different albums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.101.250.250 (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Separate - Just have a section with a small explanation of thriller 25 on thriller page then have a link to this page saying read full article. Trust me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.231.217 (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Merge... Re-issues are always present in the original album's article! I dont care if they were totally different songs or they were rerecorded or feature bonus tracks, if its an re-issue then its place is in the original article PERIOD The page could be quite long with all the info, but that's where they belong! If not-merged, then we should create a new article for each and every re-issued album!! :) Maged M. Mahfouz (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Merge - though I must admit I'm slightly torn. Technically speaking this is just a re-release with some new bonus material and thus it should be with the original article... however after listening to the new tracks I hate to think that they are being associated with the original album. Needless to say - this is not a new album its the same album remastered with some new tracks (no different that the Thriller Special Edition). :: ehmjay (talk) 23:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Someone go look at my sandbox. It shows, in semi-finished form, some work by Realist2 and myself. It displays what can happen if a merge occurs. Now, it's not done, but I think it shows clearly that we really should merge. I voted seperate before, simply because it needed more work done on it. I think it's reached the point where people can look at it and see a merge as a plausable option. I think it needs creating within the confines of something like my sandbox before a merge is done however - hence my current stance on seperate. I think copy-pasting Thriller 25 into Thriller would be too messy.

(The Elfoid (talk) 13:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC))

• Separate - this is a SEPARATE album entirely. It is an anniversary addition, and that is different to a special edition re-release. Keep them separate. This is really just common sense. --Paaerduag (talk) 08:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment "Two completely different albums" - yeah, they've got nothing to do with each other right? "It is an anniversary addition, and that is different to a special edition re-release." - it's a re-release. WHY it's being re-released doesn't matter...that's marketting. You think Sony are putting this out cuz they care about Thriller that much? The people in charge weren't even around in the early 80s. Well done on being sucked in by corporate propeganda just because it came out of the mouth of your hero. (The Elfoid (talk) 14:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC))

• Merge - The ARIA album charts has Thriller 25 simply labeled as "Thriller" and the chart positions and sales of the original Thriller album have been included with that of the 25th anniversary edition. That why if you go to http://ariacharts.com.au that it has spent 93 weeks in the charts and is 12 times platinum. So since recording industry associations are including this 25th anniversary edition with the original Thriller album then I think the two articles should be merged as Thriller 25 is not a new album, at least not by industry standards. It's just a re-issue. Street walker (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You might be wrong on that , i honesty believe that irish chart position IS for thriler 1982! Many countries ARE labelling it THRILLER 25 on their chart countdowns. Furthermore on 1 of his respected Fan sites they are saying that "THRILLER" "RE-ENTERED" the Irish album chart at #5 [1], and again for Australia [2] they are not saying Thriller 25. For other countries like the UK the site IS specifically saying "Thriller 25" [3]. When these chart positions come through unless they specifically say Thriller 25 they might actually be the original thriller 1982 edition. --Realist2 (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

If a website says it is the Irish charts and it lists "Thriller", Thriller is in the charts. Almost every music organisation in the world classifies every variation on a CD as a separate release (this includes just a digital remaster with no changes in performance/track listing). It's not impossible that it's actually Thriller 25 in the Irish charts...but if you see Thriller in the Irish charts you can't say "it's obviously Thriller 25". That would qualify as WP: POV and is also bordering on WP: Original research. Whether it's Thriller or Thriller 25, if it says Thriller you cannot make the judgement for if it is Thriller 25 or not. That said, I still strongly believe a merge would be a great idea.

Please look at Thriller (album) and see how much more work's been done on it lately. Wouldn't Thriller 25 just slot in beautifully? People are forgetting Wikipedia's an encyclopaedia. It's not about "it's a new release so it gets it's own page" - like I said, a digital remaster qualifies as a new release in almost all places (USA, Canada, the UK, Japan and France I know it does for a fact, others I couldn't name but I believe it's true everywhere) so the "new release" argument's a dead one. It seems to me people who think it deserves it's own article believe that, as it is so different to the original album, and that having it's own page somehow signifies that. I think written content should tell things like that; what's best is to make this MORE ENCYCLOPAEDIC and in such a case, they should be in one page. How important, how big, how whatever really isn't what's important...it's about what makes the most efficient, useful, concise yet complete encyclopaedia. No one's looking at the right things at all. (The Elfoid (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC))

Give it a few more weeks and you might be able to win me over, i think in a months time when this article is complete me MIGHT just be able to get a merger, still while we`re working on it it makes it easier and clearer to edit when its by itself , nothing gets in the way. Realist2 (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Merge: I agree with Elfoid below. Starfighter Pilot (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

A note on the merge debate which I feel everyone is ignoring

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Is it encyclopaedic to split up articles that would fit comfortably together in an easy to read format? Is it a good idea to divide up strongly releated topics when there is space to avoid it?

I keep hearing the same old arguments. I keep getting told it's "notable" enough for it's own article. I keep hearing it's "a completely different album" and I keep getting told "The RIAA will count sales seperately so it's a seperate album". Well, let me tell you something.
1) Being notable doesn't count for ANYTHING in this debate. If something is deemed notable of being Wikipedia, it gets on there. Nothing's "notable" enough for it's own article. I would regard the dictionary/scientific definitions of BSE as notable enough...very notable. But know what? They go in the main BSE article since it'd be insane to do that. People who claim notability as a reason miss the fundamental point of an encyclopaedia and are not making an economic, practical piece to read. If I buy an encyclopaedia, I want something I can get information from as quickly as possible. The information I need. I don't care how it's laid out, I just need something I CAN USE. Wikipedia's about HOW EASY IT IS TO USE, not HOW NOTABLE INFORMATION IS. Notability does not make something read better, it just makes points stand out more when a half-witted reader can work that out themselves.
2) Albums with more changes made to them have been kept on a re-release. When Ozzy Osbourne re-released his solo albums in 2002, ACTUAL RE-RECORDING WAS MADE. The drum and bass tracks were re-recorded by his then-current solo band to avoid royalty fees to theoriginal performers. Actually changing the original tracks is vastly different from tacking on bonus tracks. But there isn't enough to write about to make even a half-hearted joke of an article like this one so it didn't get one. Just like this shouldn't. Infact, the BONUS TRACKS on this album are BONUS TRACKS. Even Jackson's website calls them that. A "totally new album" wouldn't only feature new bonus tracks...they'd be full fledged tracks. They're remixed anyway...Def Leppard did remixes for their re-releases and they didn't get an article. Why? Because Def Leppard fans aren't as obsessive or sucked in by corporate propeganda as the legions of thrall in Jackson's wake. GET A GRIP. Wikipedia's not about Michael Jackson, it's an encyclopaedia.
3) The RIAA regards the special edition of Jackson's "Dangerous" album as a new album. It's a digital remaster with a few new pics in the booklet which were mostly stills from production of his music videos or live shows. There's no way in hell that's gonna get a new article, and if the RIAA are correct it deserves one.
Seriously, it's not about "arguments for and against having a merge". There's no need to give reasons not to merge...there's no damn reasons to keep it seperate in the first place. (The Elfoid (talk) 15:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC))
welcome back elfoid . Realist2 (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Couldn't be anyone else could it? (The Elfoid (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)) I think a merge could be useful between the two pages simply for comparison purposes. All the information would be readily accessible, and it wouldn't require readers to flip back and forth between pages. I think the merge should be done with much care and attention to detail because they are two different albums, but they are built upon each other. Both are great albums and deserve respectful pages. Either way the "Thriller" album is getting the attention is deserves. Alibento6 (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC) I will construct a new sandbox, featuring updated versions of the content on Thriller/T25(The Elfoid (talk) 12:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC))

Merge vote update

Realist2's list is a bit outdated. I know a headcount's not all that's needed, but it's useful.

• Merge - The Elfoid
• Merge - eo
• Merge - Underneath-it-All
• Merge - Red-Blue-White
• Merge - Extraordinary Machine
• Merge - JamesR
• Merge - Maged M. Mahfouz
• Merge - Mowen1978
• Merge - Street walker
• Merge - Starfighter Pilot
• Merge - Alibento6
• Merge - Ehmjay
• Merge - Marnifrances
• Separate - Paaerduag
• Separate - Realist2
• Separate - 203.217.77.81
• Separate - Funk Junkie
• Separate - Sai2020
• Separate - 82.69.60.98
• Seperate - 192.101.250.250

So as it stands, thirteen people want a merge and seven people do not. One of those seven (Realist2) at least thinks a merge is plausable, it just has to be handled correctly. I don't think that's nearly enough of a majority rule to make a decision, but we're gonna have to make a decision eventually.(The Elfoid (talk) 12:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC))

P.Y.T credits

the album has not been officially released. some ip address makes a claim that it will be a remix of the demo recording. until the album is officially out and we know what the song will be on the album it is best to ashume it will be a remix of the original song over some demo. Realist2 (talk) 01:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The track has been leaked and it is obvious that it is a remix of the original demo version. P.Y.T. 2008 has nothing to do with the 1982 album version.LiterallySimon (talk) 06:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Voice Over Length...

The album has been leaked via P2P -- and in this leaked version the voice over session is merely a "clip" and is merely 25 seconds long... and features price saying "This is vincent price - Michael Jackson Is the Thriller - *laughs*". While I'm not sure if this will be changed for the FINAL released version (I doubt it will because from what I can tell this leak is 100% legit). Just thought that it should be mentioned and possibly changed (though I'm sure people will want to wait until the official release date). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehmjay (talk • contribs) 23:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah i dont like the idea of worrying about these sorts of things now when it will be released in just a week. We will knowfor sure soon enough. Realist2 (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

SONY PRESS RELEASE

I wanted to leave this here as it might contain info wee can come back to later. Its a new sony press release on Thriller 25. It might contain info some feel worth adding to the article. [[4]] --Realist2 (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Age 15 certification

Hey in the uk you must be 15 or older to buy the album because of the inclusion of the Thriller music video. Its got a certification on the front on the album cover but how can I source this? Also were there any age restrictions in other countries. Realist2 (talk) 14:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Take a photo of the thing and upload it. Simple!(The Elfoid (talk) 09:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC))

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball

A blank charts table does not belong here until the album charts. No one knows or can verify when or where this album will chart, in any country. In fact, there is a very good chance that it will only appear on the Top Pop Catalog Albums in the U.S. - eo (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Pepsi advert

When an artist lisences the use of a song for an advert, they get paid for it. Just like if a company owns the rights to the song. This is how lisencing works.

Now, Pepsi see Michael Jackson feaver at the biggest it's been since 2001 (arguably 1997, though it is far from as big now as it was then) and thinks "Everyone's into Jackson...lets use some of his music in our new advert!". So they do. How is that promotion for Thriller 25?

The advert does not mention Thriller 25. Anyone who hears the song and thinks "I wanna buy that!" will go out to a shop and buy Thriller Special Edition (which is still in print at time of writing as part of the Special Edition series). There is nothing in this advert to make someone who already owns Thriller (which a LOT of people do) buy Thriller 25, and nothing to inform anyone that Thriller 25 is out (you cannot sell a product people do not know exists).

When Argos started using "Whatever You Want" by Status Quo in their advertising, that wasn't promotion for Status Quo. Most people I talk to haven't got a clue who originally did that song. That single went out of print in the 1970s and the album's sales are pretty static. But they let Argos use the song anyway...because Argos paid them to do it.

Someone tell me why we have it down as a promotional piece? When I deleted it, Realist2 put it back up because of some press release from Sony which basically said "Everyone is Michael Jackson mad! We have loads of promotional stuff happening! The single is charting! Jackson's music got used in an advert!"...which doesn't change things either.

At best it can be argued the advert is marketting Jackson in general, and thus helping remind people he has Thriller 25 out. It's a tenuous link though, and the piece should be shortened accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Elfoid (talk • contribs) 12:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Technically speaking it isn't even a Pepsi ad but an ad for a Sobe Beverage (which I assume is a Pepsi product...) - however I think the reason that this is being touted as a Thriller 25 advert was that it was mentioned by Michael Jackson news sites (and may have even had a press release from the Jackson camp, I'm not 100% sure). :: ehmjay (talk) 06:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

At the very least the media and sony are touting it as promotion for thriller 25, some ppl ashume that unless there is a huge thriller 25 sign plastering everything it cant be considered promotion. Additionally the heading for that section is no longer called "promotion" as elfoid recently changed it to "history". This has weakened his argument for removal significantly. Realist2 (talk) 13:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Realist2, your source on Sony "touting it as promotion" said, in brief: "Everyone is crazy about Michael Jackson! Loads of people are interested in what he's about to do! There's awesome promotion! He's involved in the Thrillicious advertising scheme!"....it never connects album promotion to Thrillicious. I think it's worth keeping some mention in, since it'll remind people of Jackson, I just think since it's not an advert for Thriller 25 we should shorten it a little. (The Elfoid (talk) 15:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC))

As it is only 2 lines long and thats with the inclusion that it aired at the grammys , you are grasping at hairs. Realist2 (talk) 15:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Writers of the remixes

I don't think will.i.am and Kanye West should be credited as writers of Beat It 2008 and Billie Jean 2008, respectively as those songs do not contain new lyrics like the other ones. A remix doesn't make someone an original author. Also, in the Thriller 25 booklet one can see a "remix written by" credit e.g. for WBSS 2008, but not for Beat It and Billie Jean. So will.i.am and West are not officially writers, only "remixers"/"producers".LiterallySimon (talk) 16:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

we can only follow the booklet , like it or not it credits them , we are not here to give our opinionsd on the issue. Realist2 (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It does not credit them as writers. They are credited with TGIM, PYT and WBSS but not Beat It and Billie Jean!80.139.28.97 (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Just double checked my booklet, and you are correct. They are not credited as writers (nor should they be). I will make the change right now. :: ehmjay (talk) 06:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sound Quality

Is it me or the new remix's track's quality is so low, becuse i downloaded it from iTunes and it was all sound the same, except for the 16th track "For All Time"

and by low quality i mean its like hearing it from an old record, did the lable companey or the writers and remixer's ment to do it like this, or iTunes needs a better quality, because frankly, my stereo keeps doing the scratch sound from every Billie Jean Beat like it was recorded from a tape (Silver mask cube (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC))

They sound fine to me -- mind you I own the actual CD. However in a case like this it could be a matter of opinion - or it could be the case that the remixers/producers did try to achieve that sound. :: ehmjay (talk) 06:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

CORRECT German charts

@ Realist2:

Please stop adding the WRONG charts for Germany. What you are continously posting originates from an English speaking fan-forum which doesn't have a clue at all about the official German album charts.

What you're posting are the WOM (world of music) charts. This is a retailer with online-shop, comparable to Amazon or any department store chain.

BUT the official German Top 100 album charts are compiled by MEDIA CONTROL GERMANY instead!!!!!!!

and they are not announced yet!!!

they are compiled every Monday evening and posted officialy every Friday. but some people with connections and newspaper get some chart positions on Tuesday!

Thriller 25 is #2 on the Top 100 German album charts, that's 100% proven!

Here you can read the correct charts for all countries: (you're also posting the wrong Italian album charts, man!)

| JacksonVillage - internatioal chart report WITH SOURCES!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korgnex (talk • contribs) 16:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no reliable source it is at number 2 as your jackson village site sources a uk blog. I think its best in this instance to leave it until friday when an official announcement is made. Realist2 (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sales

Perhaps to save confusion, on the sales table, current worldwide sales should be added. I don't know how many copies the album has sold, but it has to be at least 25,000 copies worldwide, given the information provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.33.144 (talk) 23:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes when more sales come in we will deal with that, its actually very hard to get hold of sales , i at least, have stuggled with this. Realist2 (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

@ Realist2: Gold equals 75,000 sold albums in France! Certification thresholds were changed in July 2006. This is the fourth time you keep deleting correct information from this page. Please leave it.LiterallySimon (talk) 03:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If you provide a source other an wikipedia sure i will. Realist2 (talk) 04:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Got the Hots

Shouldn't it be moved from the track listing up the the paragraph above, which lists the exclusive tracks on all the different editions? The tracklisting should only have songs that are on EVERY version of the album. Theswillman (talk) 08:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No, because it's standard practise in Japan to release a bonus track for all Japanese pressings of albums. Almost all albums made over there have a Japan only track. Don't ask me why...Thunder, Megadeth, Motley Crue, Ozzy Osbourne, Michael Jackson, Janet Jackson...everyone seems to do it frequently. The notes on different editions is more a promotional thing - stores pay for the rights to some kind of bonuses to encourage people to buy it in THEIR store. Why Japanese albums have a bonus track I don't know, but I know it's for another reason. (The Elfoid (talk) 15:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC))

I *believe* (may be wrong) that Japan normally offers bonus tracks because of the standard retail price of CDs in Japan - they are very expensive compared to other countries/markets. Therefore bonus tracks are tacked on to entice Japanese buyers to purchase. - eo (talk) 15:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Album Chart

Thriller 25 re-entered at #4 on the Canadian album chart (http://jam.canoe.ca/Music/Charts/ALBUMS.html) This information should be added to the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.211.61 (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure i will add it , cheers. Realist2 (talk) 23:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thrillert 25 has sold 381.000 copies in it's first week according to Global Album Chart

http://www.mediatraffic.de/albums-week09-2008.htm

Win. Badboysbadoyswhatugonnado (talk) 05:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanx it is already up on our the chart, but if you get any more info keep us posted. Realist2 (talk) 13:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

"New Singles"

@ Realist2: Do not add singles that do not exist. There is no official statement about them, there is no download store that is offering them for sale, there is no physical release, there is no promotional CD, there is not even a cover! Do you have some prove for a single other than a chart number? LiterallySimon (talk) 13:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thats not my concern , the issue was over your removal of the songs from the singles listing (Im not making a fuss about your alterations in the history section). If you remove them it makes it harder for people to access the pages. A better idea would have been to let the songs on the list , let people get to the page and tell people on that page that the song hasnt even been officially released yet its still charting. By removing from the listing it only limits peoples accessibility to the pages. Realist2 (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

As for a cover even for the official ones the picture is being removed. See the girl is mine talk page. --Realist2 (talk) 13:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to a single cover that does not exist - nowhere. I may have been imprecise on that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LiterallySimon (talk • contribs) 13:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

As you have made those alterations to the song pages there seems to be no problem linking people , it only improves accessibility. Realist2 (talk) 13:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Unit sales

I see unit sales for T25 being listed as double the number of copies sold? The second disc is a DVD, not a CD. So this doesn't qualify as a double album. Only albums with over 100 minutes of CD audio get counted as two sales units by the RIAA, and this album does not feature that. I'm pretty sure DVDs don't qualify anywhere in the world infact. (The Elfoid (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC))