Talk:Evanescence/Archive 2

message: I removed the whole section relating to the alleged abuse (see WP:BLP). Having read both sources, there is NOTHING to say that he was physically abusive. While her attorneys have described it as an "abusive relationship", and Lee has said various uncomplimentary things about Moody, there is no way we can definitively state he was physically and emotionally abusive. The most that should be included is a note about the attorney's description of the relationship, and possibly some quotes from Lee. I also removed the sentence regarding Moody's bipolar disorder and drug/alcohol problem as there is no source cited.exolon 05:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yah, the stuff you removed set up some celebrity gossip alarms for me. Good call. Whether it's true or not, it should definitely be substantiated if it's to be included in an encyclopedia article. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 11:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  REMOVED - abuse section 

message: Depressing. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 17:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This wouldn't be a problem if editors didn't upload failed fair use images. If you plan are uploading fair use images for use in this or any other article on Wikipedia, please make sure it is passes all criteria for a fair use image. Otherwise it will continue to get deleted. If someone is conciously and continually uploading failed fair use images, they may also be putting themselves at risk of being blocked. Read the policy WP:FU and WP:FUC. Roguegeek (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Ev article's pictures have been gutted... 

message: Some things to remember from the old discussion pages...
# Consensus was reached that the official genre is to remain rock / alternative rock / pop, because this is how Evanescence identifies themselves on their MySpace page. Any attempts to change this that are not supported by a change on their MySpace page will be reverted. There's no more official source than the band itself.
# We've had problems on this page before from excessive links and spam in the external links section. It would be a good idea to start a discussion on the addition of new links here before adding them, because only the most official and important links are likely to be retained.
That's all for now! I look forward to collaborating with you all on this article. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 08:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archived 

message: I would like to email Wind-Up Records to ask for permission to use their photo of Evanescence, and photos of the individual band members, under the GFDL. Before I do this. I would just like to check that no one has already tried this. Has anyone tried this? —Gary van der Merwe (Talk) 11:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind - Just saw now that Roguegeek and Huntster have emailed allready. —Gary van der Merwe (Talk) 11:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We've emailed a photographer regarding his work.  If you feel you can draft a quality letter to Wind-Up regarding this, explaining our purpose, then by all means go ahead!  (They ought to view us as free publicity, really)  The more available free-use images at our disposal, the better.  -- Huntster T • @ • C 15:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh - I must have been very tired the night I posted the above message. I did not read properly, and I thought the Roguegeek and Huntster had emailed Wind-Up. I re-read and noted that they had emailed Chris Walter of Photofeatures. So I have now sent a mail to Wind-Up. On a side not I found a realy cool photo. Number 0611003008 on this page:  Higher res here:. I don't think they will give a GFDLicense, but I'm going to try anyway. —Gary van der Merwe (Talk) 21:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asking for permission for photos from Wind-Up 

message: I noticed that the songs are in alphabetical order. -Monkey 13!!! 01:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) Which songs are you talking about? And 2) How does this comment benefit the article at all? // Sasuke-kun27 01:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is referring to a bootleg (unofficial/pirated) album titled Le Nouveau Gothique.  It was released with all tracks situated in alphabetical order.  However, I don't have a clue what point he is trying to raise.  Please clue us in Monkey13?  Note that this is *not* a place for general conversation, though.  -- Huntster T • @ • C 07:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Le Noveau Gothique 

message: Okay, I just removed the links on Evanescence videography for YouTube-hosted videos, and in the future will be keeping an eye out for any other such hosted videos, either at that site or other video-hosting sites.  Whether it is a music video or a TV interview, linking to a site that hosts them is in violation of WP:EL and specifically copyright violations (see also WP:Copyrights, in that YouTube is violating someone else's copyright).  Just keep an eye out for these types of situations, and be ready to remove them.  This doesn't mean that video interviews or broadcast news stories can't be used as secondary sources (though really should not be used as primary sources unless there's no available option, and even then perhaps not), just don't post a link to the video, unless it is video hosted by the originating company (aka MTV, CNN or something similar), in which case there's no copyvio (and is different from images because we're not hosting them).
Secondly, as I've removed the video links on Evanescence videography, is there really a point in even keeping it around, as it basically reproduces information that should already be in the single's main article (and is rather stubby to boot)?  I'll AfD if there's any concensus. -- Huntster T • @ • C 08:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music Videos 

message: Why are the album images getting deleted? Armando (talk|ImgTalk|contribs) 18:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are referring to the Lithium covers, it is because the uploaders are not providing any fair use rationale or (most importantly to me) any image source.  Given that I've seen at least three variations posted on the article so far, that means at least two of them are home-brew images.  Technically speaking, every album cover we have for Evanescence should be nominated for speedy deletion due to no rationale or source, but given that these are established covers, I'm not so concerned for them.  Still, it is a problem that needs to be rectified soon.  To that end, does anyone have a high quality scanner which they can use to scan in their copies of the CD covers?  -- Huntster T • @ • C 21:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, just looked in the history, and saw you added them back to the article.  Because the images on this article fall under fair-use, only one FU image can be used per article, especially given that the cover images are already in use on their respective articles.  For that same reason, they do not significantly contribute to the quality of the article, and thus do not belong. -- Huntster T • @ • C 22:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I' ve put scanned images of the covers? Will you delete it? Armando (talk|ImgTalk|contribs) 22:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because those are scans made by yourself and not released by the company.  Completely valid and exactly what we're aiming for.  See my note below.  Thanks! -- Huntster T • @ • C 07:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the original scans are better, becuase the TOP and ANB are blurred...Fallen is the only good image...Armando (talk|ImgTalk|contribs) 23:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean, they're blurred?  The ones I cleaned up are much clearer and less blurry than the original scans.  I suppose you can do what you want until we can get some higher-quality scans, but I really don't understand your reasoning. -- Huntster T • @ • C 00:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the modification you made to the Fallen cover was great, but the The Open Dorr one wasn't as good as the other was. That's why I haven't changed the Fallen image. Armando (talk|ImgTalk|contribs) 00:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: There is no rule about only having one fair use image, and this is the first such assertion of this opinion that I've seen.  Within this article, each of the albums is discussed at length, and each cover scan is used for a separate album so there is no redundancy.  Postdlf 19:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Album images 

message: I discovered this article on recent changes. This is a pretty nice article. I can't say whether the article is comprehensive, but it seems close to FA quality. Have the regular editors considered submitting this to WP:FAC? Gimmetrow 22:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the vote of confidence, but we've had trouble even getting it certified for GA. We'll resubmit soon though. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 22:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  When you do, submit it for FA and a lot more people will review it and give suggestions. Gimmetrow 23:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with it getting to FA or even GA status is the constant flux that it is in.  We attempt to keep it steady, but it doesn't always work, and lots of fancruft tends to leak in from fansites and boards, and isn't always caught immediately.  I'm hopeful, but there's still a great deal of work to be done.  -- Huntster T • @ • C 01:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC? 

message: It doesn't mean to "disappear." Go look it up.
-Jackmont, Dec 3, 06
:Actually it does.  The definition in the article looks fine. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 10:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't change the definition of evanescence bro. If I were to venture a guess as to why that definition is slightly different than that of its predecessor evanesce, I'd say it's because evanescence is used more metaphorically. But I'm no linguist. In the article, we're just going by what's in the dictionary for evanescence. Again, please see :wikt:Evanescence. – Lantoka (talk) 09:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of band name 

message: While I really like the new photo of the band added by User:EvMark (it includes all 5 members and it goes with the infobox color scheme), there's a couple of reasons why I think the other photo was better:
#The new photo provides no Fair Use Rationale, which I painstakingly hammered out in the other photo so that if somebody objected to it and tagged it for deletion for not meeting FUC#1, it'd have a fighting chance at surviving.
#Shrunk to infobox size, the faces of band members in the new photo (particularly Amy Lee) are really small.
Would anybody object to restoring the old photo? (I'll notivy EvMark of this discussion on his talk page before proceeding) —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 23:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Huntster's comment below. Let's do that. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 07:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Band Image 

message: Well, the Band image discussion is getting a little confusing...Let's decide now...
Wich image we're going to use?
#Image:Ev band.jpg
#Image:Evanescence promo photo.jpg
#Evlithium1.jpg
Armando (talk|ImgTalk|contribs) 18:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *In all honesty I think the first one most clearly portrays their faces. That's my !vote. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 21:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *Actually, I prefer the third image as it shows all members of the band and is a good-enough resolution when opened to clearly make everyone out.  This is, after all, why thumbnails are clickable on articles, to access a better image ;)  Any image can be used, and any editor can add or modify fair use rationales (and etc) on an image even if they did not upload it.  Let's choose an image based on clarity and composition, then work on the rationale and other details.  -- Huntster T • @ • C 04:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *In that case i vote for the third image. Armando (talk|ImgTalk|contribs) 03:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *Lithium —Gary van der Merwe (Talk) 19:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *I say that we go with the third one per reasons stated by Huntster. It shows all the band members and, as Huntster said, "is a good-enough resolution when opened to clearly make everyone out." // Sasuke-kun27 19:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Alright, the consensus is pretty solid at this point. I'll go ahead and take care of the cleanup work needed to implement the change. – Lantoka (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So the final decision is the Lithium promo photo right? . Armando (talk|ImgTalk|contribs) 16:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sí señor. – Lantoka (talk) 22:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decision 

message: Why doesn't someone go to an awards ceremony, or a press conference and take a picture of Evanescence. I would do it my self, but I live in South Africa. We just missed Billboards, but Grammy's will be soon (February.) --Gary van der Merwe (Talk) 20:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think a normal person could have acess to the red carpet of the Grammy's and take an acceptable photo to the entire band? I really don't think so, at least the have a paparazzi or something like this between us. Armando (talk|ImgTalk|contribs) 00:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heheh, unfortunately Armando is absolutely correct in this.  It is virtually impossible these days for a member of the general public to attend one of these events at-will, much less get close enough to a celebrity to take a photo of any quality.  -- Huntster T • @ • C 04:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible source of Free image 

message: Just FYI, I've removed the Trajectory Charts and other miscellaneous charts from the album articles per WP:MUSIC/TABLE, and will continue to refine them to better meet the guidelines at time permits.  I hope to begin major renovations to the Evanescence-related articles over the holidays to bring up their standard of quality.  Any thoughts or suggestions would be most appreciated! -- Huntster T • @ • C 11:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extraneous charts 

message: ..sorry if I'm speaking again of this record, but I wish tell that when I've proposed to integrate "Mystery EP" into Italian version of wikipedia, my application was rejected, so even "Mystery EP" is uncertain.. however there isn't a way to ask this things to self-Evanescence?? maybe through a letter..? please answere.. --Donbu 18:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not know why Mystary EP was rejected, perhaps it is some Italian policy that we don't have.  It is two different projects...not everything works the same way.  BTW, it is "Mystary", not "Mystery".  It is an intentional misspelling.  Also, the band has been asked, and they have responded that Not For Your Ears is entirely unofficial.  There just isn't anything quotable available.  If you want to email them or their record company, Wind-Up, you are more than welcome to do so!  It'd be nice to have some kind of official statement to quote (though at this point it really is a matter of record).  -- Huntster T • @ • C 19:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  ok, sorry for "E" XD.. however, it isn't that the reason why Not for Your Ears isn't official .. : ) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Donbu (talk • contribs) 19:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean... Not For Your Ears is unofficial because it wasn't released by either Evanescence or Wind-Up. -- Huntster T • @ • C 19:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  ) I've done that thing!! I've envoy a e-mail to wind-up with our question about not for your ears and mystAry, soon they will answere to me..--Donbu 19:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know exactly, but is better know, maybe they know something abuot our perplexity..--Donbu 13:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not For Your Ears 

message: "The band" didn't have much of a hand in writing 'Fallen' either (look at the writing credits and you'll see). It's not like it's any different now. Terry just replaced Ben as the co-writer.
:I'm sorry, but that's a complete lie. There were only three members of the band when Fallen was being written, Amy and Ben helped write all the tracks and David co-wrote most. Now Amy writes ALL the tracks, three or four on her own even (which is unforgivable), with (you can see from things the band say) Terry merely adding to what she wants in the tracks he co-writes. Rocky and Will had NO writing input (and very little musical too) in The Open Door, and they were part of the band. Also, Good Enough is literally Amy Lee and Amy Lee alone (Hello and My Immortal weren't, as David played keyboards then). So don't go saying very little has changed since Fallen. Evanescence used to be good. U-Mos 16:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, I didn't write that, some Anon did.  They just were never tagged with .  Also, please remember that statements such as "Evanescence used to be good." are simply your opinion, and only serve to be inflammatory to others.  Others might, and certainly do, disagree.  -- Huntster T • @ • C 16:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For me, Evanescence is much beter now and will continue improving. Just because Ben Moody left, it doesn't mean that Amy owns the band...She has said that she could consider a solo career, but not now when she's so young, (maybe on 15 or 20 years though xD)...Armando (talk|ImgTalk|contribs) 23:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Personally, I thought it was one long tour.  Are you saying they are on two tours placed very close together?  If so, do you know where this was stated? -- Huntster T • @ • C 10:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone said... 

message: I know this has been one of the most debated subjects ever, but i can honestly say they are definately NOT a pop band. If you have ripped songs off "Fallen" and "The Open Door", you will see that the genres are: "Gothic Metal", "Hard Rock" and "Alternative Metal".
I am angry with people calling them a pop band as they clearly arent, just because they are successful with the mainstream doesn't mean they are a pop band! I will continue to change the genres until someone comes to their senses and LEAVES IT!!! James x —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.38.246.254 (talk) 15:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We work on facts here.  I may agree that they are not a pop band, I may personally feel they are gothic or whatever, but their official myspace page states Pop, Rock and Alt, so that is what we use.  Until something else official comes along, it will stay that way.  End of story.  If you do keep changing this, it will be considered intentional vandalism, and you face the potential of being blocked.  Just a word of caution. -- Huntster T • @ • C 17:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Emo? elevenzeroonechat / what i've done / email 14:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You should state somewhere - Huntster - that "their official myspace page states Pop, Rock and Alt". elevenzeroonechat / what i've done / email 14:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is one of the reasons for a reference tag, so such explanations don't have to be made in the text. -- Huntster T • @ • C 19:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: No, you are perfectly accurate in your assessment, but that is a citable official source, so we have to use it until something better (more accurate and citable) comes along, whether we agree or not.  -- Huntster T • @ • C 06:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: First of all, why are you agreeing with yourself?  Second, nowhere on the bio page is Alt Rock mentioned, and Hard Rock used as a genre is only mentioned as not a genre description (at least I don't see it as such), but as a component descriptor.  If you want to use that, shouldn't you also use "classical", since it is used right beside "hard rock"?  While I'm still tempted to revert, I won't for the time being. -- Huntster T • @ • C 23:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Aren't we using the genres provided on MySpace? If so, it should say Rock, Alternative, and Pop (see here). // PoeticDecay 21:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We were, but I'd be happy to *keep* it at just Alternative Rock, which seems to be the most agreed upon.  Definitely not Alternative metal though...I've never seen that term used anywhere to describe them. -- Huntster T • @ • C 07:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That's considered original research.  They've actually described themselves as Alt rock. -- Huntster T • @ • C 14:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I should point out that the band did not make those descriptions, but the writer of the article.  That's definitely not the same thing, and should not be used. -- Huntster T • @ • C 23:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd rather recommend against using AllMusic for this purpose.  As I recall, Lee herself has rather pointedly stated they are not a goth band, that this was a label applied by others.  AllMusic says their base genre is "Rock", which is fine, but I'd imagine most individuals would agree that they are not mainstream rock.  Alternative Rock has been used as a descriptor before, and seems to be a nice middle ground in this conflict. -- Huntster T • @ • C 23:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genre: