# Talk:Vampires Will Never Hurt You

I can find no evidence whatsoever that this was ever released as a single. I removed all references to it as such and suggest it be merged with I Brought You My Bullets, You Brought Me Your Love --Friginator 21:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I decided to be bold and redirect the page. Looked everywhere, no single. If someone has an image of what it even looks like, I'll change it back obviously. I've looked on several My Chemical Romance fansites, but they have said there's no single. Never seen it on ebay or amazon. I'm pretty sure it never existed. It's already been established that Our Lady of Sorrows was not a single, so I doubt this is any different. --Friginator 04:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, to be in line with Bullets I will mark this song as post-hardcore. Thundermaster367 12:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Certainly not Horror Punk.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.200.3 (talk) 16:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 

Because the controversy over the genre, I have changed it to "Alternative rock, disputed subgenres." Friginator (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you fix this page? Something weird just happened! Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 01:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

A wierd bug, already reported to the techs. see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 135#Weird deletion display error. I fixed it by purging the page cache. --Diannaa (talk) 01:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Similar to my decision at the page for Thank You for the Venom, I have boldly decided to change this song from a single to a promotional single as I cannot find evidence of this song having been released as one. WP:SINGLE? notes how, traditionally, "promotional singles are distributed free, while singles are distributed commercially". I have found a source saying that this song was released onto MySpace (presumably for free), and a source saying that this song was played at local radio stations; there has also presumably been a limited-edition vinyl of this song released via Spotify, but I can't find a source for this. However, none of these point to this song being considered a "single" by Wikipedia's standards given that it never received a wide commercial release, and I have yet to find an authoritative media outlet referring to this song as a "single". Let me know if there's a source that I've missed! Leafy46 (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

You should probably update the release section accordingly. mftp dan  oops  17:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
@MFTP Dan: This is definitely a weird situation. In the interview attached as a source, for instance, Frank Iero refers to it as the group's "first single" (making a point to use air quotes), and the Rolling Stone piece refers to it as their "debut single" too. On the other hand, though, this song never received a true, commercial single release, and neither of those two previous points are listed on WP:SINGLE? as being valid qualifiers for a single. I've tried to address it, let me know what you think. Leafy46 (talk) 19:31, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Better. We can always revisit this if something is found. mftp dan  oops  19:35, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Vampires Will Never Hurt You/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Leafy46 (talk · contribs) 23:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 15:47, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar): 

b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section): 

b. (citations to reliable sources): 

c. (OR): 

d. (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects): 

b. (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): 

b. (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/fail: 

(Criteria marked  are unassessed)
I will review this article today! --K. Peake 15:47, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for picking up this review! Please do take your time. Leafy46 (talk) 16:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)


### Infobox and lead
Change Naah Studios to Naah in the infobox since this appears in the studio parameter —  Done
The lead is out of order currently; the songwriting and production credits should be the second sentence, then followed by the recording and MySpace sentences and start a new para at the song's lyrics —  Done: I do like this ordering better, but I do wonder what you mean by "out of order"? Is there a prescribed order these sorts of leads should generally follow?
You should order this chronologically, so things like songwriting come first as they were before its release. --K. Peake 09:44, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
""Vampires Will Never Hurt You" was written" → "The song was written" —  Done
"the song's lyrics tell" → "the lyrics of "Vampires Will Never Hurt You" tell" —  Done
""Vampires Will Never Hurt You" was posted on the band's" → "The song was posted on My Chemical Romance's" —  Done
"A music video for the track" → "An accompanying music video" with the wikilink —  Half done: I've added "accompanying", but I personally haven't seen "music video" linked on the articles of songs in general (e.g. in the FAs Blank Space, Get Him Back!, Running Out of Time (song), to show a few)
I am not bothered by the wikilink, although here and the other instance do not need "for the song" after accompanying since this is used to imply that. --K. Peake 09:44, 26 February 2025 (UTC) — I think you already addressed this in your edit labeled "ce", so no action on my part
Split the sentences so a new one begins at "The song was later included on the band's greatest hits album, May Death Never Stop You (2014)." to specify this is a different subject from the mv —  Done
The reception sentence should be the one before music video instead and re-order so it is mentioned first that it was ranked as one of the best songs of My Chemical Romance's discography since when reviews are generally positive, you should mention the good before the bad from critics —  Done, though same question as before about the re-ordering


### Background and recording
Wikilink members like Gerard Way and other names like Geoff Rickly — ?: Would that not go against MOS:DL, as the names are already linked in the lead? Or do you think it crosses over the "contextually important" mark in this case?
I believe they are contextually important, as this is not wikilinking the band itself. --K. Peake 09:44, 26 February 2025 (UTC) —  Done
"he spent time writing" → "Way spent time writing" —  Done
I would suggest starting a new sentence at the early demo CD part to avoid a run-on —  Done
"in Gerard Way's tooth led" → "in Way's tooth led" —  Done
[7][8] should only be invoked at the last sentence per WP:OVERCITE —  Done
"all time in 2013 on Twitter." → "all time on Twitter in 2013." —  Done


### Composition and lyrics
""Vampires Will Never Hurt You" is" → "Musically, "Vampires Will Never Hurt You" is" —  Done
Use your own words instead of thumping to avoid so much quoting —  Done: Replaced with "pulsing"
"changes the song's tone into" → "changes its tone into" —  Done
"tells the story of a person lamenting their transformation" → "tells the story of a man lamenting his transformation" per the source and usage of pronouns later in this sentence —  Done: Whoops
"his life, and about" → "his life, and" since we already know these are subjects it is about —  Done
"how the song consisted of" → "how the song consists of" —  Done


### Release
Retitle to Release and promotion —  Done
"which the band" → "which My Chemical Romance" —  Done
"on July 23, 2002 on the band's debut album" → "on July 23, 2002, as the third track on their debut album" since this placement belongs here to be less wordy —  Done
"An accompanying music video for" → "A music video for" with the wikilink —  Not done: Ditto to above, regarding the wikilink; also not sure why "accompanying" should be removed here but kept in the lead
"rankings of the band's" → " rankings of My Chemical Romance's" —  Done
"praise towards Gerard Way's" → "praise towards Way's" —  Not done: Per MOS:SAMESURNAME, since there are two Ways in MCR and thus his given name should probably be used for clarity


### Reception
"received generally positive reviews" → "was met with generally positive reviews" and the reception summary should be its own sentence, then followed by Alternative Press —  Done
"Alternative Press writing that" → "The staff of Alternative Press wrote that" —  Done
You still need to wikilink --K. Peake 09:44, 26 February 2025 (UTC) —  Done
"a review of the album for" → "Davey Boy's review of the album for" —  Done: Though I'm a bit concerned, given that DaveyBoy could be a pseudonym instead of an actual name
Good point, I have changed this to one word name again. --K. Peake 09:44, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
"for "truly seeming to" → "for "truly seem[ing] to" —  Done
"of the band's discography." → "of My Chemical Romance's discography." —  Done
Pipe Louder Sound to Classic Rock (magazine) —  Done


### Credits and personnel
Use {{spaced ndash}} so there is the right space between credits and personnel —  Done


### References
#### Books
Good


#### Sources
Copyvio score looks decent at 31.0%!
Fix MOS:QWQ issues with ref 14 —  Done
WP:OVERLINK of Kerrang! on ref 20 —  Done: Nice catch!
Wikilink Loudwire on ref 22 instead of ref 29 —  Done
Pipe Louder Sound to Classic Rock (magazine) on ref 41 —  Done
WP:OVERLINK of Gigwise on ref 42 —  Done


### Final comments and verdict
 On hold until all of the issues are fixed; followed through with this article on time! --K. Peake 20:00, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
@Kyle Peake: Thank you for your quick review! I've addressed most of your points, but have left a few questions/comments above for you to quickly look through. Let me know if you spot any more concerns! Leafy46 (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Leafy46 I have responded above and one other point I forgot is to write out the credits in the body, per everything in the lead needing to be written out. --K. Peake 09:44, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
@Kyle Peake: I've addressed all your points above. Would the credits in the "Credits and personnel" section not count as them being written out in the body, as necessary for the lead? That's at least how I've been treating it in the past, but let me know if you still want them somewhere in the article prose itself. Leafy46 (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
Leafy46 For being in the infobox no, although since this in the lead I would say add to the prose of background and recording. --K. Peake 17:24, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
@Kyle Peake: I mean the actual 'Credits and Personnel' section underneath the Reception section. I'll add it into the prose in a bit though as you insist, since this isn't a hill I'm willing to die on. Leafy46 (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
 Pass now, great work on this one and thanks for the engagement! --K. Peake 20:58, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for the prompt review! I hope to work with you again in the future :) Leafy46 (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2025 (UTC)