Talk:Evanescence/Archive 3

message: I think we don't need a citation here..
Although usually categorized as rock, Evanescence does not easily fit into any one rock subcategory. The band is sometimes labeled by media sources as, and takes influences from gothic rock[citation needed]
Just listen to most of the songs and you'll see it "takes influences from gothic rock" (but i think it is gothic rock). Armando (talk|ImgTalk|contribs) 00:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually think we don't need that entire line and list.  I mean, it rather conflicts with the whole MySpace thing, and weakens our position of citing it as a reason to keep the genre's as they are.  I'd vote to remove. -- Huntster T • @ • C 00:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Those are factual assertions ("labeled by media sources" and "take influences from") and those require evidence beyond your own personal opinion.  --ElKevbo 23:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it should be removed too. Armando (talk|ImgTalk|contribs) 00:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gothic rock 

message: Hi, I added the link to the Evanescence Dictionary.  It's on a new site that I love, and am trying to help build up.  Please check it out and help contribute.  As you can see on the Bad Religion dictionary on Musician Dictionary, this site has the potential to hold a lot more info for us about our favorite bands than wikipedia.
musiciandictionary.com/wiki/Evanescence The Evanescence Dictionary @ MusicianDictionary.com
Caredemption 18:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but we generally do not link to other unestablished and non-notable wikis outside of the Mediawiki network.  This one definitely qualifies as both.  -- Huntster T • @ • C 20:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MusicianDictionary.com 

message: This band have never cited gothic rock acts as an influence on their music. The media has sometimes compared them to Lacuna Coil who are a gothic METAL act, nothing to do with gothic rock. I'll give it three days for a source to be found before the false claim is removed. - Deathrocker 01:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's obvious that Evanescence takes influences from gothic rock...just listen to the music! We really don't need to cite every phrase on the article. Armando (talk|ImgTalk|contribs) 05:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The primary reason Evanescence is labeled "gothic" anything is likely because of their visual image, as far as I can tell. For example, the way Amy Lee dressed in whatever that music video was that they featured a clip of in the TV ads for the last album; the tone and sometimes content of some of their other videos, the black and white one where Lee was a ghost-type figure for instance, or the one that used imagery taken from Little Red Riding Hood. From what I've seen, many of their younger female fans like to dress in the mainstream goth/punk-derived fashions from places like Hot Topic. It's amusing, because a lot of the ones I've seen will call themselves "goth", but they listen to bands like Evanescence, who while they use some imagery and clothing that shows that kind of visual influence, don't always sound like "goth rock" at all. They're not really members of the Goth subculture (these kids, not the band, is who I'm referring to), but they like to dress up and pretend they are. It's kind of cute, actually (nothing against the styles, here, I think they're fun and I've been wanting to try them more often myself, but today's younger teens really have no idea what "Goth" traditionally means as far as music or subcultures go, I think they honestly think that it's mostly the clothes). I think it's all these kids seeing Amy Lee's clothes and thinking gothy clothes=Goth that end up labeling Evanescence a gothic rock band most of the time. Not to say they aren't occasionally dark and don't seem to show some influence from there, but it's not quite the same as being a "gothic rock" band. 4.235.69.150 17:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not gothic rock influenced

message: It should be keeped as it is now. Fallen, The Open Door and Anywhere but Home are inside the history, and not as aparted topics like the Discography and the Band members...It's like you'd put Former members outside the Members section. Armando.O (talk|contribs) 07:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Alternative rock seems to be the most common consensus around here, but if you can find proof of them being referenced as Alternative Metal, we'll cite that.  But for now, we'll let consensus rule. -- Huntster T • @ • C 20:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About Band history 

message: i think amy took so long on writing her songs because she was dealing with her breakup. i dont think it had anything to do with band members leaving.??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.67.132.254 (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evanescence new album took 3 years to make 

message: The article is already in decent shape, so getting it to GA won't be too much of a problem. I'm glad to see everything integrated into the history section, which is the right move; a lot of times, people will create seperate sections for "criticism" and whatnot instead of injecting it into the history. Seperate sections for criticism usually spawn POV, redundant statements (already described in history), and criticism taken out of context (after all, most critics discuss albums, not whole band careers). Glad to see that this article avoids that.
I changed the structure a little but to minimise subsections and maximize chronology. I also started the initial stages of a copyedit. The lead needs to be expanded by about twice its current size (probably to three paragraphs: intro, history, and influence/reception). Additionally, we need to find more citations for the article. I may have some time to help with that. — Deckiller 22:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with the recent relocation of the Christian Controversy section. The section discusses the controversy as it appears throughout the band's history (one source was a 2006 interview). Therefore, it's best to place it last (or in its own section) as a way to mark it as being an issue for longer than a couple months between albums. — Deckiller 23:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, and that makes logical sense.  I've reverted with reference here. -- Huntster T • @ • C 00:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article

message: Should the article be semi-protected (only registered users will be able to edit this article)...???
Well, there have been a lot of vandalism...
, , , , , , , , ,  and much more...
 Armando.O  (talk|contribs) 22:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protect 

message: I would like to nominate that the fan wiki The Evanescence Reference be added to the External Links section of the page. It is hosted and mantained by DhammaSeeker who is a well known member of the fan community—notably employed by the band as the head moderator of EvThreads. The wiki is very well established, and extensively refered to within the fan community. Gyakusetsu 08:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This would be ill-advised.  While it may look nice and complete, virtually nothing there is sourced, it is hardly considered stable and there really aren't that large a number of editors, three prerequisites for any wiki to be useful as an external link (much less a reference source). See WP:EL (Links to be avoided #12) if you haven't already.  I find it useful as a jumping off point, to see what may or may not need to be added to Wikipedia, but I'd never consider using it as an actual resource beyond seeing what dirt the fanbase is currently uncovering. -- Huntster T • @ • C 09:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm an editor there, but unfortunetly all the things stated above are true. =S  Armando.O  (talk|contribs) 19:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. I understand Wikipedia's quality standards and would not wish to compromise them. Perhaps time will bring more stability/reliability to the Evanescence Reference Wiki and it can then be added to this article. Gyakusetsu 20:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Evanescence Reference Wiki - External Links 

message: The Christian controversy should be placed a section called Controversies, because if it's placed on the History section, it implies that this happend at a particular point in history.
See here.  Armando.O  (talk|contribs) 21:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No respondes, I'm proceeding.  Armando.O  (talk|contribs) 00:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian controversy 

message: Upon reviewing the article again, I have found that all my concerns that caused me to place the article on hold have been rectified, as well as the expansion of the lead paragraph as recommended by M3tal H3ad. As these concerns have been addressed within the time period specified when an article is put on hold, I am now passing this article into the realm of Good Article status. Excellent work. Kyra~(talk) 03:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah! Now let's go for Amy Lee article xD  Armando.O  (talk|contribs) 04:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: AWESOME!!! It's been a long time in coming. *breaks out champagne* Fantastic work everybody! – Lantoka (talk) 05:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, this is a good day :)  Actually, the Amy Lee article isn't so bad right now.  I'd be interested in getting some "professional" opinions on it. -- Huntster T • @ • C 06:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much; I'm glad to have helped out with this article. — Deckiller 12:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great work everyone.  --Ideogram 23:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coincidentally... 

message: Excuse me Huntster, I didn't notice that there was already a Wiktionary tag at the end of the article. So the first time I didn't understand your revert and that's why I replace it after. Actually, it's better to place the inline template at the top rather than the usual interwiki at the end since the evanescence is firstly a notion before being the name of the famous band. Typically, a person wanting to know what is the evanescence may conclude just by giving a glance to the article that there is no information about the evanescence on Wikipedia (well, that's the disambiguation principle of Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Top links). So if you don't mind, I will remove the Wiktionary interwiki at the end of the article and replace the one at the top. Ok? 16@r 10:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but you are wrong. Actually evanescence (not the band) is a word and that's why Wiktionary exists, doesn't it? ...For example, the word .mm....Early...there's no article in Wikipedia because it's a word, not a topic wich written like the Water article, or the glass article...Armando.Otalk • Ev 16:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, I strongly disagree.  Not only is the wikitionary link mentioned fairly prominently in the body of the article, but if a person is looking for additional related information, they look in the References, See Also, and External links sections of the article, which is where the Wiktionary link is located.  Disambig isn't an issue, as there is no other article that I'm aware of using the term Evanescence, and the actual word is not very prominent.  I continue to recommend leaving as-is. -- Huntster T • @ • C 19:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Huntster and Armando. The current setup is fine. – Lantoka (talk) 01:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiktionary tag 

message: I prefer not to specify explicit image sizes because that allows readers to use the thumbnail size they set in their preferences.  I will make the change so you can see it; if you don't like it feel free to revert.  --Ideogram 23:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah that's reasonable..Armando.Otalk • Ev 17:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image sizes 

message: According to WP:FU, fair use images are only supposed to be used in articles. As a trial, I've been experimenting with the logo in the Evanescence navigation template to limit it to display only in articles. Also licensing should be available, so rather than using , a link to licensing can be provided with mw:Extension:ImageMap. Just letting you know -- seemed like this page would get more traffic than the wikiproject talk page, which doesn't even exist yet! So, when is this article going to appear at WP:FAC? Gimmetrow 02:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Np! Armando.Otalk • Ev 02:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navigation template 

message: I've added the *EvClub. It's the official fanclub, so I think it should be added (it's also linked in the Amy Lee article.) Armando.Otalk • Ev 03:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I've noticed that the Samples section, though pleasantly extensive, contains fifteen audio samples... For a band that has only released the equivalant of 4 albums, I find this a bit excessive. I have no idea if there is an unspoken limit, but I've not come across a band artile yet with so many... 4-5 samples seems more than adequate. Gyakusetsu 05:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Pink Floyd article has samples for almost every song mentioned...I really don't think it's something wrong...Armando.Otalk • Ev 21:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How's that?  I only count six on their main article... I kind of agree that the list needs to be trimmed down...perhaps only the first two singles from each album? -- Huntster T • @ • C 22:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huntster, actually there are like 30 samples (most of them are inline samples)...check it. Armando.Otalk • Ev 20:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: well, I didn't mean remove all the samples.... That's just silly/anal. I've put 5 important ones back in the article. —Gyakusetsu 06:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They should be used inline, where their use may be justified by their context. There is no justification if you use them in a gallery. ed g2s • talk 13:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a valuable piece of info, one that I've not heard before.  I don't even know that I've seen the inline samples before (this is about the only music group I'm involved with).  I'll look into including them in the appropriate articles, then. Thanks for that. -- Huntster T • @ • C 14:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to add to point originally made, while it is tempting to include as many sample as possible (legally, we could probably get away with it), unfree media should always be used minimally, so use clips to demonstrate important points being made about musical style, and not just at the mention of any song. ed g2s • talk 12:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: uh..Armando.Otalk • Ev 02:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too Many Samples 

message: should we include this in the article? or even the albums list, it was recorded at the Palms Casino Resort on March 17th, will include behind the scenes footage, and video/audio of the event and is available on iTunes for download in the coming weeks
more info here.... http://www.evthreads.com/announcement.php?f=5   .Zacanescence 12:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would recommend not including this, at least, not in the discography or in any significant way.  Perhaps some one-liner could be written, but it seems rather superfluous.  There are probably multiple concert recordings out there.  Also, please add new discussions to the bottom of the page, rather than the top. Thanks.  -- Huntster T • @ • C 12:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: theres not multiples of this kind of concert, Evanescence is the FIRST band to perform live from the Palms for iTunes' music store. but yes i agree it should be written in and add that they are the first to perform for this event aswell. Zacanescence 09:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll take your word for it, as I don't use iTunes.  However, are you saying that Evanescence is the first live performance being carried on iTunes, or just the first from Palms?  If it is the latter, that hardly seems notable.  In other words, it's just another performance. -- Huntster T • @ • C 18:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd say add it. No reason not to, in my opinion. Exigence 18:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As said before, if you want to add it, it should comprise of no more than a sentence somewhere.  It simply isn't notable enough...we have a hard time justifying the casual inclusion of some of their non-album releases. -- Huntster T • @ • C 19:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the first concert at the new concert hall at the palms.  It was designed with iTunes specifically in mind and marks a new standard of concert capturing.  Being an Apple fan i can say that there is a big deal being made of this on the iTunes side of thing —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.242.96.200 (talk) 07:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to amend my previous statement: this bit should only be added if it has received at least some press coverage...at least one major news article attributed to it, if nothing else. -- Huntster T • @ • C 08:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this count? An article from Access Hollywood:
http://www.accesshollywood.com/news/ah4493.shtml
does anyone know whats happening with this? because it was meant to be released a long time ago and nothing has happened? Zacanescence 10:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evanescence: Live from Las Vegas, Exclusive to iTunes 

message: The time lapse between Fallen and TOD announcements/rumors were, iirc, pretty substantial. Does anyone have a more accurate, or at least roundabout, number to put on this and maybe speculate a bit on when we might be seeing a third studio release from Amy & Co.? All guesswork at this point, of course, but it may be interesting to see how things pan out as their touring slows down. Exigence 03:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything said would be pure speculation, as they have not given any indication as to their future plans. -- Huntster T • @ • C 04:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: xD, but of course there's gonna be another album xD...Armando.Otalk • Ev 00:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? They produce a half-hearted, sloppy album that sells terribly compared to Fallen, their singles now generate little to no interest, they lose a lot of fans (me included) - these are hardly cues to take it as given that there will be a third album. U-Mos 12:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's refrain from bashing the band, now.  Both your and Armando's statments are OR and have no place here (just kidding!).  Seriously, everyone has an opinion, and fewer than 50% will agree with either of you, I'd imagine.  To put this into perspective, Fallen sales were riding high on the coattails of "Bring Me to Life", and I would say it did far better than most any freshman album should expect to do.  To judge The Open Door by that standard seems a little harsh...I'd say TOD is right on track compared to average, maybe even better (it's been about six months, and has sold over four million copies worldwide...not bad I'd say).  Also, some singles do well, some don't (personally, I don't think any song on TOD is good as a single, but as a whole I feel it is a fine product).  In any case, this thread has nothing to do with the article and really shouldn't proceed further. -- Huntster T • @ • C 13:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evanescence output beyond "The Open Door"?