# Talk:Good Enough (Evanescence song)

i dont think that this should be put up as a single until we hear further info that is in ENGLISH or put up on Evanescence.com or Evthreads.com

The statement was in English, it was just reported on a foreign site.  It's still a legitamate news website. -- Huntster T • @ • C 11:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously I doubt the validity of that tracklisting, but I'd like to know where it came from. People don't just make stuff up on here! (Tyrannitar 05:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC))

Heh, no offense, but you are kidding yourself if you believe that no vandalism or false data is put on Wikipedia!  I can find no source for such data, and strongly believe that it was simply someone's wishful thinking or simple vandalism.
I must say, I'm quite disturbed by how quickly those folks over at EvBoards latched onto this and rabidly drew up scenarios where songs that have never been mentioned as existing ("Through Her Eyes") could still exist.  Even after I left a message there saying it was vandalism and had been reverted, they still went on and on. Sorry, have to vent annoyance with uberfans occasionally. -- Huntster T • @ • C 06:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
lol thats ok Hunster, cant you just get their IP's blocked from editing articles? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.238.230.34 (talk • contribs) 08:45, 20 June 2007  (UTC)
Unfortunately, I'm not an admin, and only admins can block IPs from editing.  Also unfortunate, but a single instance of vandalism will not warrant such a block.  Now, if it increases significantly, I'll certainly put such a suggestion forth. -- Huntster T • @ • C 13:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

its been almost a month and sweet sacrifice was released within the month and we had a release date! why dont we have one for GE? Zacanescence 05:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

this is true...--Donbu 08:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Is it possibly because there's less hype for this song? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.153.161.185 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 20 July 2007  (UTC)
Wind-up has never been good about promoting singles, for whatever reason.  They are, unfortunately, one of the worst labels I know of. -- Huntster T • @ • C 12:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
The video is out now, but the single hasn't been released yet. 12.214.76.88 00:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

On many video wabsites you can see this video.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.216.77 (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
this song is unreleased??? 24.139.117.90 (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Please read the release information found on the article.  It explains the song's release status. Also, please take notice of timestamps when replying to topics--this section was last replied nearly 3 years ago. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 00:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

so in the article it says amy WASNT approached to make music for the movie? is this true or is it vandalism? Zacanescence 13:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It has a valid citation doesn't it?  Always check citations.  Per the producers, no, Lee was not approached in any way regarding the Narnia film. Check Amy Lee and some other related articles for similar material and citations regarding the subject.  I don't know how it was missed for so long (given the original articles were published in 2004), and thus I find it disturbing that so many EvThread'ers still take the whole Narnia statements by Lee at face value.  I still love the music, but various things happening recently have made me see Lee in a rather shady light. -- Huntster T • @ • C 15:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
The source of this statement (the news website) seems to be pretty shady, there are gramatical errors within the article. It doesn't appear to be very well written. It also seems to be the only source for these claims... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.157.60.118 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 17 July 2007  (UTC)
Um, how does it seem shady?  New Zealand Herald is one of the major newspapers in NZ.  I see but two errors ("as child" and "Lees") and they are in no way significant.  It is a highly valid secondary source, and unless someone can come up with contradictory evidence after this article's facts, there is no reason to remove the information.  You can question this if you want, but I'll say now that I questioned the information about her working on the soundtrack when I first read about it (simply atypical for several composers to work on a film score). -- Huntster T • @ • C 11:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I do not think that you (not an admin) are adequately able to judge the validity of a website, but aside from the article's structure, as I mentioned before, this is the only source I can find making these claims. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.157.52.159 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 18 July 2007  (UTC)
Remember that admins are just editors with more experience, and aren't necessarily experts at any given policy themselves.  They agree to uphold policies and are trusted to have the general knowledge to do so.  I've been here longer than a number of admins (I simply don't want to be one myself).  Also, please do remember to sign your comments with three tildes (~~~~) so that others can tell the who and when of the comment. -- Huntster T • @ • C 06:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
the new zealand herald IS the leading paper in New Zealand. i dont see how it is shady either? and i dont see why you are questioning hunster as he is the person who has contributed to Evanescence on wikipedia the most. Zacanescence 02:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate the vote of confidence and kind words Z, please do remember that everyone is entitled to their opinions :) -- Huntster T • @ • C 12:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

i think it is fake because they haven't spelled 'together again' correctly. but then again, in Australia's CMWYS they spelled some things wrong. Zacanescence 04:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Precisely the reason I removed it, along with the probability that the track titles were faked (white text didn't match anything else).  Also appeared that the "Good Enough" text was simply ripped off the previously fake album cover.  While it is possible that this was similar to the Aussie situation, after that embarrassment, you'd think they'd work in better quality control. -- Huntster T • @ • C 12:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I have uploaded 2 versions of the cover this morning. They are on Evanescence's official Myspace
EvMark
I've also seen the same two versions of the cover on The Evanescence Reference 12.214.76.88 00:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

With regards to the internet leak of the unfinished version of the video: is there any way we can find a reliable source for this information? I've read messages from admins on EvThreads.com (the official Evanescence website message board) asking users not to distribute or discuss it there, but I'm not sure these could be considered reliable enough to be used as citations in the article. Extraordinary Machine 20:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't like it either, however, if it isn't allowed here, then we should remove it from any other singles (which I've got no problem with, just saying).  Also, unless something has drastically changed, EvThreads actually isn't the official board.  It was set up by Amy Lee, but afaik, isn't endorsed by the band or Wind-up. -- Huntster T • @ • C 20:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
The video is still on youtube and it is definately the real, unfinished video for Good Enough. Here is a link to it.
Removing link as copyright violation. -- Huntster T • @ • C 06:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
How is it a copyright violation? The video still hasn't been removed from youtube and there have been numerous reports against it. So I will be putting the link back up until you can prove viewing a video on youtube violates any copyright. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.157.57.173 (talk • contribs)  01:37, 3 August 2007  (UTC)
See WP:EL#Restrictions on linking (part one: Sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked.) and Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works (If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work.).  Please do not re-link this video.  Linking to a website that carries copyright infringing material is fully against Wikipedia policy. -- Huntster T • @ • C 11:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Youtube may have videos that violate copyright but it is still used frequently throughout wikipedia. Therefore, until all links to youtube have been removed the link I put up will remain. Also the WP:EL#Restrictions on linking state that you must be careful when linking to youtube if you know the work is infringing copyright; there is no proof that this video violates any copyright as it has been reported numerous times and yet remains fully accessible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.157.68.120 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 3 August 2007  (UTC)
Just because other articles do something, does not make it right or acceptable.  Copyright violation is never acceptable on Wikipedia, even if some cases slip through the cracks, and the above argument doesn't change anything.  The video is owned by Evanescence and Wind-up...this cannot be challenged as it is their creative work and they have not released permission for it to be in the public domain.  Just because it remains on YouTube, just because there is silence on their part, does not make it not copyrighted.  Since you are continually adding copyvio material despite having been warned, this has escalated into vandalism, and will be treated as such. -- Huntster T • @ • C 03:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I doubt there is a copyright on an unfinished, partially edited video so I will be posting the link to the video again. I will continue to do this as long as I'm able. Furthermore, there is no source verifying that this version of video was not released by either Evanescence or Wind-Up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JOE5634 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 4 August 2007  (UTC)
Threats will get you nowhere. This is a copyrighted video that was placed on YouTube by someone who got their hands on a leaked copy.  That's all there is to it.  Do not readd. -- Huntster T • @ • C 08:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
"Furthermore, there is no source verifying that this version of video was not released by either Evanescence or Wind-Up" - there is no info it WAS meant to be released either, and i highly doubt they would put it out unfinished. thats just ignorant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zacanescence (talk • contribs) 06:21, 5 August 2007  (UTC)

Let's not call names now.  The simple fact of the matter is that it is the adding-editor's responsibility to prove material is acceptable for entry, not that it is everyone else's responsibility to prove it isn't acceptable.  It's all about burden of proof, which on this website, almost-invariably falls on the contributor. -- Huntster T • @ • C 11:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Technically, this song isn't a rock/alternative rock song. Should the genre be changed to something else... or is it more convinient to leave the genre as 'alternative rock'? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tokyo0521 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not just that it's more convenient, but its the only genre that the majority of editors can agree to.  Unless something can be directly cited, its been decided to just leave everything as alt-rock. -- Huntster T • @ • C 04:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
But how can it be rock? It's just a piano! Titan50 (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 14:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 

Yeah seriously! It should be classified as a ballad!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.130.20 (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Just because a song is "just" a piano and vocals doesn't mean it is banned from the alternative rock genre. look at A Fine Frenzy. but this song is agreed to be Alternative Rock so don't change it without citing refrences.
Terminus777 (talk) 05:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
we all know that this song isnt metal...its barely rock, but really? metal? i get that i need a reliable source and all that sh*t, but i think that we would all agree in classifying this song alternative rock until a reliable source is found to change it, and the same should be with my immortal, but im just sayin  24.139.117.90 (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I read on The Evanescence Reference that Together Again is the Narnia Song and was inspired by movie. Amy herself confirmed this during an interview on evanescencewebsite.com. 12.214.76.88 02:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but when you consider that the producers of the movie have said there was never any such thing as an Evanescence or Amy Lee Narnia song, such a "confirmation" is completely irrelevant. -- Huntster T • @ • C 03:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I understand, and I won't add it again. 12.214.76.88 19:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and please understand I wasn't trying to come down hard on you, but in light of a third party statement by the movie producers saying one thing, a first-person interview with Lee simply cannot be trusted. -- Huntster T • @ • C 23:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I know you weren't trying to come down on me. And I also know that Together Again isn't even finished yet. 12.214.76.88 20:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

why are the lyrics there?
and why would they be there at all? Zacanescence 05:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
dont worry i took them down.
i wouldnt mind them there but whoever put them there should have put them in a different section at least. Zacanescence 05:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for removing them Zacanescence, full song lyrics for modern (and non-free) songs are never permissible on Wikipedia articles. -- Huntster T • @ • C 10:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I read the tracklisting for the Maxi single on The Evanescence Reference. I won't add it to the article, but I will put it here.12.214.76.88 02:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Good Enough (Radio Version)
Good Enough (Live)
Your Star (Live in Tokyo)
Good Enough (Enchanced Video)
That's fine, we just can't include it in the article until we have a source to back it up.  Amy-Fan.org, the originator of this information, doesn't say where it got the information, so it remains suspect. Thanks! -- Huntster T • @ • C 05:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
On my earlier post, I said that I would only put it here, as this is probably speculation. 12.214.76.88 22:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I know, just reiterating the reason for not including it on the article itself (in case others are reading this page). Thanks! -- Huntster T • @ • C 23:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It is true that Together Again is not a B-Side but then Amy Lee said that there will be no B-side for this song and maybe just maybe I think that Together Again will be used for something different like maybe a OST Munnkey 12:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

She had said in this interview that Together Again will not be a b-side to this single. She also mentioned in the same interview that the song "isn't quite finished" and that she's "saving it for a rainy day". If you have a reliable source about the song being in an OST, great. But I don't think the information would be placed into this particular article as this article is about the Good Enough single and not so much the almost/rumoured b-side to the single.  AngelOfSadness  talk  14:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know, but maybe the song called If You Don't Mind is unfinished content as well. 12.214.76.88 20:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is the final tracklist for this single:

Good Enough - Radio Edit
Good Enough - Acoustic From Intl Live
Your Star - Live From Tokyo
Good Enough - Video
source: http://www.amazon.de/Good-Enough-Premium-Evanescence/dp/B000WXK7GW/
I contacted the German record company SonyBMG and they told me, this single will be released on December 14, 2007 in Germany. The video is already playing (I have already seen it). 
The single will be released as basic (track 1+2) and premium (all 4 tracks)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DesperateHouseman (talk • contribs) 23:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC) 

Thanks for scouting this information, I've updated the article accordingly. -- Huntster T • @ • C 00:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, based on Amazon.de, the singles are apparently delayed yet again, with no timeframe given for release. -- Huntster T • @ • C 02:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
66.65.216.77 (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC) Tis is GOOD ENOUGH talk

Considering there are 15 different songs by this name at Good Enough (disambiguation), it doesn't seem all that controversial to move that page to this location, and move this page to Good Enough (Evanescence song). Actually, it used to be that way until last May, when someone shuffled them around without consensus. Thought I should bring it up anyway, though. If there's no huge uproar, I'll do the swap later this week. --Masamage ♫ 07:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to move to your proposed name, I don't think there would be a problem.  However, this song is the only actual article that exists with this title.  All others on the disambig page are redirects back to their respective albums.  My understanding, outdated as it may be, was that there was no need to use a disambiguated name if there were no competing articles amongst peers. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 09:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I've moved the page back here at Huntster's request via IRC because there didn't seem to be any consensus about the move. In order to encourage some sort of discussion before this page gets moved again, I've also locked the page at this title for a week. Please establish a consensus, here or at WP:RM, before attempting to rename the page again. Thanks. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The first post in this thread seems to indicate that there was never consensus to move this to the main title. I don't see why my move was controversial; even if the other songs are redirects now, that may not always be the case. I was relying on the fundamental rule of disambiguation: if someone types in "Good Enough", what are they expecting to find? I see no evidence that the Evanescence song is much more notable than the others, and so they're just as likely to be looking for one of them.
(moved from my talk page)
Greetings, you recently moved Good Enough to Good Enough (Evanescence song) and redirected it to its disambiguation page. This move has been reverted, because the Evanescence song is the only song with that name to have an actual article. Since all other versions are redirects, the 1) existing or 2) most notable article takes the primary name. If you have any questions, please leave a message on my talk page. Cheers! — Huntster (t • @ • c) 02:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Referencing Huntster's comment above, there is no rule that says there must be a primary topic. It's encouraged, indeed to make the main name a disambiguation if it isn't obvious. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 02:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify 72.84.38.176's statement of "Sources say that the flames used in the 'Good Enough' video were, in fact, real."  As seen in Evanescence - The Making of "Good Enough", the flames are real; however, the shot where Amy sits among the flames while the set burns down is an edit in post production.  There are some flames in the background while she sings, but they're controlled and not nearly as immense as in the final video cut. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 00:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this a promotional single?77.29.82.2 (talk) 09:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The song was released as an official single.  I actually remember full well seeing it on amazon.com.  I a also remember kicking myself repeatedly for not buying it when I did because it is the only single I don't own (lol).  I believe it was classified as [import], though.  But whatever the country, it was still released as an official single (there was even a music video made for it).
But even it was just a promotional single, there's still plenty of resources and information to keep this article alive, so I don't understand your point. =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 00:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
If you are going to start a discussion please continue the discussion before making changes, especially when your comment is in the form of a question. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 16:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I think i mightve found a chart possision for good enough on the Portugal Top 50, but im not so sure if it cualifies as a reliable source http://acharts.us/song/29776 24.139.117.90 (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. In this instance, acharts uses a source that isn't permissible. For future reference, please see WP:GOODCHARTS for a breakdown of what is out there, what is good, and what is bad. It's pretty easy to use. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The song has been classified as a piano ballad for quite some time now, and its referenced in the composition section (i think), and even if it isnt, i assumed that a consensus had been reached since no one changed the genre for quite some time, and now someone is changing it to rock music. I honestly doont understand what the fuss is about, it is a piano ballad, why? because It IS a ballad , and its main instrument IS a piano, these are cold hard facts people, just because evanescence is a rock band doesnt mean that every single one of their songs will be rock, if its not rock, dont change it to rock just because evanescence is rock, i dont think it would be a good idea to start this genre debate all over again, whoever it is, i please request that you leave it as a piano ballad, thank you 24.139.117.90 (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Good Enough (Evanescence song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Melicans (talk · contribs · count) 23:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
I see lots of linking of common terms. Per WP:OVERLINK, country names (Hungary) and common objects (mirror, diary, bookcase, etc.) shouldn't be linked. Beware of contractions that aren't in quotes. I've removed a few instances of both but there are more in there. Also, you shouldn't have a section with just one subsection (in this case, Controversy). There should be no subsections or 2+, but not one.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
When you say it was scheduled for release in 2011, do you mean 2007?
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
'Controversy' is an inherent violation of WP:NPOV, and there isn't really any controversial about it either. It might be simplest to just remove the subsection heading; it won't affect/disrupt the flow at all.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
File:Ge-caption.jpg needs an improved fair use rationale. It's not enough to say that it helps the reader; it helps in what way? What makes it indispensible? You can relate it commentary, criticism, production, etc, but it does need some sort of rationale.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
Holding for improvements to be made. Melicans (talk, contributions) 23:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Is it good enough now? My love is love (talk) 00:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it looks excellent. Great work! :-) Melicans (talk, contributions) 00:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Where did these come from? They aren't listed on Amazon.de. --Markhoris (talk) 18:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Good Enough (Evanescence song). 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/20071028133537/http://www.vh1.com/news/articles/1540914/story.jhtml to http://www.vh1.com/news/articles/1540914/story.jhtml
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mad.tv/news/?id=25137
Corrected formatting/usage for http://evanescence.com/news.asp
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091118015531/http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=129880 to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=129880
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.blender.com/guide/articles.aspx?id=2076
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=162133
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 01:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)