Talk:Panic! at the Disco/Archive 3

message: Archived. Qwerty (talk) 11:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

message: this song is significant. don't delete the page. It is panic!'s first new song! aren't you guys excited?
Anyway. Maybe we could merge this article with some article listing future songs. Something like that. Does such an article exist? 24.18.180.44 15:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Song

message: Exactly what type of clean-up does this article need? PrincessOfHearts 22:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean-up

message: I checked the facts and found a reference (from DrownedInSound) proving they did win Worst Band 2007. Being an encyclopaedia, you can't just leave out the bits you don't agree with. 
:Exactly, this is not a fan page. you cant hide all the miss-achivements they have and make the page all glorious. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.47.104.180 (talk) 
I completely agree. It shoulden't be deleted that they won worst band. I have the magazine to prove it.
I think it should be expanded upon as well. You can't just have "Worst Band 2007" award stuck at the bottom of the article with the article proper talking about the bands achievement, musical style etc in a positive way. Surely there should be a "Criticism" section? Someone who knows more about the band should do so, and soon.
I certainly agree with NME and I think it should be added to the criticism section in chronological order.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.225.119 (talk) 16:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NME Worst Band 2007

message: I know it might be minor, but if someone could add Counting Crow's Round Here in the Live Preformances section it would be great. They do cover that song in a concert (although at this point in time I have forgotten)
:I'll add it if you can find a reference for it  PseudoNym 23:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cover Songs

message: I keep trying to add in the trivia secton that the begining of "Time To Dance" is a quote from Carrie by Steven King "Well she's not bleeding on the ballroom floor, just for your attention". i have worked it in with the current trivia statement of that song. Someone keeps removing it, would this be suitable trivia knowledge? --Benmooe 09:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Time To Dance - Carrie

message: Ok so i uploaded the logo a while ago and it was deleted, today i think?. It's known that it's Patd's logo. I got it from the Decaydance website. So i guess i will just put that as the source where i got it from? And i'll upload it again if that is a good enough source. PrincessOfHearts 23:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Logo

message: I have removed the album covers from the album cover discography because fair use of album covers only applies to articles about the albums, they cannot be used on an article about the artist, that's a copyright violation.  And I had to remove the entire singles discography because it was written as an image gallery.  If somebody wants to recreate it as a table like the album discography, then please do, but don't use the images.  Corvus cornix 21:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you actually read the fair use rationale on the album covers' Image pages?  It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of such covers solely to illustrate the audio recording in question, on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.  Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. (bolding mine).  Use of the images in discographies on the artist page does not solely illustrate the audio recording in question.  And the argument that we should keep violating copyright here because it's being violated elsewhere doesn't fly.  Corvus cornix 18:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd just like to say (I don't feel like getting involved in a huge discussion, so forgive me) that the fair use rationale doesn't say it can only be used on the album page, it says "solely to illustrate the audio recording in question".  As long as the image was being used to refer to the album itself (in the section about their albums, for example), I think that qualifies as illustrating the album.  I think that's the rationale for using the images of albums on all the other artists' pages, as well.  The word "solely" doesn't mean that the image can only be used once, it only means that it can only be used when it is completely dealing with the album, and since the section is about their albums, I think it kinda deals with them.  Now, if someone was putting it in some other place that didn't deal directly with the album itself, that would be bad (that would be the "other uses").  And since there is obviously no way to obtain a non-free image of it, I think that their use on this page falls under WP:FU, which states "Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)."  The critical commentary is the context of the article in which the albums are discussed at length.  And while researching this, I came across this page, which I will now defer to:  Template talk:Non-free album cover  I don't want to start a flame war or anything, as this seems to be a very high-strung topic...  Thanks for your time!  Sbrools (talk . contribs) 04:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: They got nominated for best international band 2007. should that be put under awards?  Because their other nominations were put there, and though they haven't won or lost this yet, shouldn't it be mentioned? that kinda leads into though, should the nomination section be seperated from the awards section?24.74.141.22 03:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kerrang! nomination

message: Okay, it appears that Tim62389 has not actually thought of discussing the genre change. Anyways, does AOL count as a relibable source? I would like to ask Tim62389 to not refer to an edit dispute as vandalism and to assume good faith. Zazaban 23:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we discussed every little change made to every article on Wikipedia, I don't think anything would get done. AOL is not created by the band or the fans of the band and it is a reliable source. You're not giving any reason to say it's not reliable. You are just making assumptions based on nothing. I don't refer to edit disputes as vandalism. When someone removes sourced content, it is considered vandalism. This is an edit dispute, and you are vandalizing the page by removing the sourced content, which by the way has two sources, one of which is NOT AOL. I don't see how you could believe you are helping anyone or anything by removing doubly sourced content and replacing it with content that is not sourced at all. Tim Y (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We don't discuss everything, however, this is a dispute, so we discuss it. Most disputes generally revolve around whether or or not content should be in the article, it is not vandalism. Zazaban 23:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  Also, there have been lentghy debates on what the genre is, and It's not in anybody's interest to revive it.  Zazaban 23:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But you are committing vandalism by removing sourced content. You could've just added big beat back as another genre, though I don't think it is one of their genres, but instead you removed the sourced content and completely reverted my edits. Tim Y (talk) 23:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's not the defenition of vandalism. Vandalism is removing content for no reason. Zazaban 23:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  I suggest you scan the genre dispute archive. Zazaban 23:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You did remove the content for no reason. I've already read the discussion on the genre. All these novice users keep saying P!ATD is not emo because it's not on their MySpace page. Wikipedia policy prohibits the use of genres that are on the bands personal websites. These people keep saying to put what the band thinks of themselves as, but it's is not a subjective view of their genres and most likely not correct. Tim Y (talk) 23:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Hopefully everyone can be happy now. I didn't remove any content. I just added emo as one of the genres. Big beat is still there. Please do not remove the added genre anymore. Tim Y (talk) 00:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genre edit dispute. 

message: I know this is probably really weird, but I've looked all over for them, and I still can't find them. Does anybody know how tall ANYONE in Panic! at the Disco is? Just one person is great, if that's all you know. Thanks!!! rockerchic_22 <3 Panic! at the Disco 03:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heights 

message: Should we mention that their old outfits (makeup, circusy stuff) are now replaced with hippie/cowboy outfits?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.194.236.133 (talk) 04:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well they have announced that they have offcially stopped doing the circus show they have not made a statement on being hippies on stage.Could you post a link to a video of them dressed up like that?Parralax (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outfit change? 

message: I think these guys are Just "Emos in a band" but not an actual emo band, like paramore being christians in a band, but not a christian band. I think people look at them and think emo, and the music doesn't really matter then, but they are just a rock band, as stated themselves. I would say they were Rock, Techno and Indie rock.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt 14 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't like them being called emo, that doesn't give you the right to remove genres with five sources. The genres already listed have been agreed upon and should not be changed unless a concensus is reached on different genres, but for now just keep it the way it is. And next time start this discussion BEFORE changing the genres to your liking. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ (talk) 11:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emo band 

message: :Image:Panic! at the Disco - Build God, Then We'll Talk.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 16:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Panic! at the Disco - Build God, Then We'll Talk.jpg

message: Apparently, and I've checked the credits on the show--the episode of Heroes last night "Cautionary Tales" featured the song "Back to the Streets" by Panic! at the Disco.
Is this a new song or just a b-side, because I've never heard it before and it's not listed under the 2nd Album subheading?68.117.23.170 (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is mentioned, they've been playing it often at concerts over the past few months. It was only recently recorded, so it is assumed to be on the new album, and very likely will be. I have a good feeling that this song will be their first single, as they said they had one coming out in the next few weeks and it's the first studio song we've heard. Originally fans called it "Back to the Street", but now it's being called it "Nine In The Afternoon", as I think Ryan or Brendan said the name at a show (but maybe that was just 'Middle of Summer'). I guess we can change the name to 'Back to the Streets', now that we have a somewhat official source, citing it may be an issue, but it least it's more official than fan guesses and youtube titles. I'm suprised the Heroes creators got hold of the song so early, i'm guessing the album has probably been recorded, but anyway the name must be official if they were able to get a copy, when you think about it. Vality (talk) 08:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I take it you didn't even read this? The name Back to the Streets was listed in the credits of heroes. Do you have a source for the name Nine In The Afternoon other than youtube titles? Vality (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Nine In The Afternoon"