Talk:Evanescence discography

message: I wonder why the 'Not For Your Ears' album isn't listed...
Tracks on this album:
Track 	Length 	Popularity
*1      Whisper 2002                    05:13   14%
*2 	Everybody's Fool 		03:02 	100%
*3 	Anything for You 		03:25 	20%
*4 	Even in Death 			04:09 	31%
*5 	Further Away 			03:53 	15%
*6 	Imaginary 			03:32 	88%
*7 	My Tourniquet 			03:49 	18%
*8 	Taking Over Me	 		03:19 	82%
*9 	Haunted 			03:31 	90%
*10 	Before the Dawn 		03:17 	22%
*11 	Untitled (I Must Be Dreaming) 	04:20 	2%
*12 	Hello 				03:34 	85%
*13 	Taking Over Me (long version) 	03:42 	0%
*14 	Missing 			04:15 	27%
*15 	Surrender 			03:37 	24%
*16 	Bring Me to Life (original version) 	04:08 	0%
*17 	Breathe No More 		03:48 	17%
*18 	Forgive Me 			03:02 	24%
*19 	You				04:38	19%
source: http://www.last.fm/music/Evanescence/Not+for+Your+Ears
sorry for the formatting...
:It is not listed due to it being a fake Album/Demo CD.  It is apparently a compilation of various other demos and Amy Lee's "You" (which isn't even an Evanescence song).  This is non-notable and for the reasons above should not go in this article. -- Huntster T • @ • C 21:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Notability only applies for existance of articles, not their content. It's a popular album with many sources, so I think it should be included with information about it being a fan compilation. 69.182.106.175 11:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not true.  Notability applies to articles and content...I cannot begin to describe how much minutiae gets deleted from articles because it is minor.  Remember also that just because an item is widespread, as Not For Your Ears is, does not mean it is notable or well sourced.  Aside from message boards and fansites, what kind of mainstream coverage has it received? -- Huntster T • @ • C 20:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:N explicity states it does not apply to content here. However, I do agree that you need sources, of which I cannot find any. 69.182.106.175 04:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Interesting. Well, it has to be the best fake/demo CD I've ever heard. It is completely amazing. Callmeback (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not For Your Ears (2003) 

message: The "complete" list of recordings seems to be missing a few unreleased items.  I've come across the following tracks, downloaded by a friend over a P2P network, which seem genuine to me:
* "Wash it all away (demo)", 7:23.  Production quality isn't great, so probably a very early recording.  From the length, there's an outside chance due to the length of the file that this is "Understanding" (which I haven't yet heard) misnamed.  Most distinctive aspect is probably the spoken sound samples, which seem to be discussing repressed memories, in case that helps identify it as a misnamed file.  Chorus contains lyrics "Can't wash it all away // can't wish it all away." Scratch that: Looks like this is "Understanding". JulesH 21:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Complete"? 

message: Their debut album "Origin" is mentioned in just about every Evanescence article, and even has it's own page. Yet it's not mentioned here at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.105.126.76 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 24 October 2006  (UTC)
:That is because it is not considered a true album.  Origin is a demo CD, released by the band themselves in a very limited distribution back when they were playing in Arkansas.  It is mentioned in the article, under "Complete list of band recordings".  -- Huntster T • @ • C 20:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin 

message: There is something going on with certifications here.  Obviously it would be preferable to have a source for all of these, but I am aware that, with so many, it is hard, if not impossible, to get a source for every one.  It would be nice though, if the accuracy was checked.
Here are some things I just found merely while browsing through:
Anywhere But Home
Canada - Sales: 100,000 (enough for platinum) but somehow ranked Diamond for 1,000,000 sales
Australia - Sales: 30,000 (not even enough for gold) but somehow 2x Platinum
Bring Me to Life
New Zealand - 5,000 but still ranked Platinum
Am I missing something? Or do these need to be fixed.   NRS11 03:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These can be hard to deal with, however, let's see what we can come up with.  Canada's Diamond is at least cited, because it refers strictly to the DVD sales (music video).  The same goes with Australia's x2 Plat, as it too is referring to the DVD certification criteria.  New Zealand is a little harder to figure out, but I'm thinking it too may refer to the video rather than the single (though I'm not sure how that is possible).  The numbers at least work out for it.  See Music recording sales certification for an up-to-date list of certs, if you've not already found it.  It is also possible that these certs refer to older versions of the countries' sales certs, but that is only a guess. Of any of them, New Zealand is the only one I'd have concerns about. -- Huntster T • @ • C 04:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Certifications 

message: I have a video of Missing, broadcasted in "Los 40 Principales" (a tv channel from Spain). I was wondering if it was official or not. It seems weird that a music tv broadcasted a non official video.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.102 (talk) 12:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't believe that they'd go through the trouble of making a music video and then release it only in Spain. I've certainly not heard of any video for "Missing". Is the video present somewhere here? — Huntster (t @ c) 13:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

text: MegaVideo has the same copyright policies as Youtube.  Uploading the video there is still copyright infringement and could likely be removed there as well.  I'm willing to bet that the video you've seen is not an official release since I have never seen any mention of a video for "Missing". (Even the "Evanescence Webiste" (lnx.evanescencewebsite.com) doesn't have it, and they seem to have EVERYTHING.  It's likely a well produced fan video using other (copyrighted) footage. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 23:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Missing" music video 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Evanescence discography's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "aria":
From Going Under: 
From My Immortal: 
From Korn: 
From Call Me When You're Sober: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 06:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Evanescence discography]] 

message: Why the songs like: October, Anything for You, Before the Dawn, Surrender, You aren't mentioned here? 77.29.80.39 (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: With the exception of "October", all of these songs are unreleased, so there's literally no place for them to go in the article, and we do not need to create a section for these. "October", while not technically released, did make it out of the studio, albeit unofficially. Again, though, it is "unreleased", and has no place in this article. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about these songs? 

message: Please show me where in Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style it specifically states that these columns must be a specific size.  The only thing on the entire page regarding page width is "Similar columns between sections and tables should ideally be kept at a consistent width."  This does not make it mandatory, nor does it specifically say what width you must make them.  Having all that "padding" space around the text makes the tables incredibly bulky for most normal screens.  Not to mention that even with the column width settings, all the tables are NOT the same width on the article.  What is the reasoning for such a change other than blindly saying "this is what it says should be done"? ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 17:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The last time I nominated a discography page for a featured status, NO ONE ever pointed out on the width. Check out Lady Gaga discography which is featured. There are samples for tables in WP:DISCOGSTYLE where you can see width is also specific. And by the way, what do you define "normal screen"? — Cannot (talk) 20:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, I didn't see the note to "click [edit] to view wikicode", I just searched the page for "width" and came up with only the one hit.  I define a "normal screen" as 1024x768, but that's probably becoming obsolete (remember when 640x480 was the "new" resolution to 320x240?--I'm old lol).  Anyway, I just dislike any "padding" in general, but if I were to vote for a compromise on this article, I'd say at least just make the column width settings independent from each table so there aren't such huge gaps (in the Title [Fallen vs. Anywhere but Home] and Sales columns, to be specific).  Finally, my apologies for coming across a bit passive-aggressive.. it was a LONG day yesterday at work. lol ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 00:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The general style guide for the site is that tables should not have any padding, and should be allowed to default to whatever width is natural for them. I'm not familiar with whatever rules that the music and discog project folks have dreamed up, but that is non-standard. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Column Width 

message: Why aren't the Bubbling Under Hot 100 positions shown under the singles section? If you must, you can put a note by each bubbling under position stated it charted outside the Top 100 and whatnot. I think these should be shown.— Preceding unsigned comment added by  Crocodileman   (talk • contribs)  22:22, August 23, 2011 
:I see no reason to include the Bubbling Under chart positions because the Hot 100 is the Hot 100 not the Hot 200.  A chart that is specifically there to say that a song almost made a notable chart is not notable, in my opinion.  Additionally, the Bubbling Under chart is a completely different chart than the Hot 100, so it would be misleading to include chart positions under the Hot 100 when it, in fact, did not chart under that category. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 22:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The Bubbling Under Charts just aren't official.--Gbuvn (talk) 12:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree that they aren't important enough to include, they are certainly as "official" as the Hot 100.—Kww(talk) 23:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bubbling Under Positions 

message: ...Should this album be listed under Live Albums and Video Albums?  I realize it's a CD and DVD combination, technically making it BOTH.  But should it be listed as such?  Shouldn't we find some consensus to categorize it (the article itself mainly calls it a live album) instead of placing it in multiple locations on the same article? ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 23:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I'm concerned, it is a live album with a packaged DVD. I see no reason to double-categorise it. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the "video album" portion of the article since DVD is clearly mentioned in the "live album" section.  We'll see it this floats. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 03:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anywhere but Home 

message: Amy Lee  confirmed that Made of Stone and The other side are going to be singles but there won't be music vide for them. Lost in Paradise is going to be the following single and there will made a music video for the song. I think LIP should be put in the singles chart with its charts positions already.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.52.218.150 (talk) 06:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: These are all first-party sources through social media or fan pages (see wikipedia's pillars).  Any real reference to this being a single (like the jewel case) would be considered a PROMOTIONAL single and not an officially released single. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 20:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It WAS listed as a promotional single before you removed it.--Gbuvn (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What I meant was that it's a promotional single for the Underworld movie, which is still seems to have no useable sources and is already listed on the discography anyway. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 21:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lost In Paradise and Made of Stone 

message: Made of Stone is a Single. See the second video: http://www.fuse.tv/2012/05/evanescence-talk... 
Other official references:
*http://www.facebook.com/Evanescence/posts/340570762644636 
*http://www.facebook.com/Evanescence/posts/281662988577963
*http://www.facebook.com/Evanescence/posts/352596334795132 
*This is the radio promo CD: http://evanescence-world.com/?page_id=2805
*See also: http://evanescencereference.info/wiki/index.php?title=Made_of_Stone_and_The_Other_Side_singles
--95.246.95.253 (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: These are all first-party sources through social media or fan pages (see wikipedia's pillars).  Any real reference to this being a single (like the jewel case) would be considered a PROMOTIONAL single and not an officially released single. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 20:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It WAS listed as a promotional single before you removed it.--Gbuvn (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What I meant was that it's a promotional single for the Underworld movie, which is still seems to have no useable sources and is already listed on the discography anyway. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 21:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Made of Stone Single 

message: "Together Again" used to be listed here but it was removed. Does anyone know what's up with this? Markhoris (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Together Again" removed from Canadian Hot 100 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Evanescence discography. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20080807133822/http://www.aria.com.au/pages/aria-charts-accreditations-albums-2004.htm to http://www.aria.com.au/pages/aria-charts-accreditations-albums-2004.htm
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5yeDfiDRP to http://www.aria.com.au/pages/httpwww.aria.com.aupagesARIACharts-Accreditations-2007Albums.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140205035631/http://www.aria.com.au/pages/httpwww.aria.com.aupagesALBUMaccreds2012.htm to http://www.aria.com.au/pages/httpwww.aria.com.aupagesALBUMaccreds2012.htm
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5nDfynkk6 to http://www.ifpi.at/?section=goldplatin
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110613144549/http://swisscharts.com/awards.asp?year=2003 to http://swisscharts.com/awards.asp?year=2003
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110706101737/http://www.aria.com.au/pages/aria-charts-accreditations-singles-2003.htm to http://aria.com.au/pages/aria-charts-accreditations-singles-2003.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120112141750/http://www.aria.com.au/pages/aria-charts-accreditations-singles-2004.htm to http://aria.com.au/pages/aria-charts-accreditations-singles-2004.htm
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/697lSTfwO to http://www.infodisc.fr/Single_Certif.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Evanescence discography. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.allaccess.com/hot-modern-ac/future-releases
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120315062900/http://gfa.radioandrecords.com/publishGFA/GFANextPage.asp?sDate=11/01/2011&Format=1 to http://gfa.radioandrecords.com/publishGFA/GFANextPage.asp?sDate=11/01/2011&Format=1
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/esearch/chart_display.jsp?cfn=Bubbling
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aria.com.au/pages/aria-charts-accreditations-albums-2004.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aria.com.au/pages/httpwww.aria.com.aupagesARIACharts-Accreditations-2007Albums.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aria.com.au/pages/httpwww.aria.com.aupagesALBUMaccreds2012.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ifpi.at/?section=goldplatin
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.infodisc.fr/Single_Certif.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Please discuss content here instead of continually reverting edits.  I'm bringing you here to make you aware of the discussion. -INeedSupport-  :3 17:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content Dispute 

message: Evanesence never said that The Chain was a single, so I think it shouldn’t be on the table Gvr1995 (talk) 19:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Chain