Talk:The Black Parade/Archive 3

message: What happened to the table showing the peak positions of the album and total record sales?--Sadistic monkey 09:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was agreed upon not on this talk page but I believe on WP:MUSIC or something. They talked about the tables and agreed not to use them.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 21:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Chart positions table

message: I did see a source for I Don't Love You as the next single, so we should leave it up there. If you want to see the source, look on the I Don't Love You talk page for a link. Mcr616 15:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I placed this comment on the "I Don't Love You" talk page: Even though it is highly speculated and it is most likely "I Don't Love You" is the next single based on some of the sources none of those are reliable sources. Myspace cannot be used and the MTV one has been agreed upon as not reliable. We should wait for word from the band. I am removing the information.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 22:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: But someone added it anyway without it being discussed first. MJB12 22:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It keeps happening, I'd revert it until we have a source to create an article.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 22:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I removed the source on "I Don't Love You" for the single. It was a picture saying that Gerard and Marc Webb were on the set for "I Don't Love You", however it does not say that is to be released as a single. I'm not even sure if the source provided was even reliable.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 23:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: However there is still no source.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 01:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I have the email as well, however it cannot be sourced since not everyone can access it and you cannot use a Myspace link either.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 21:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Singles

message: Just to let everyone know, somehow along the way, the info about The black parade being called the Rise and Fall of My Chemical Romance and all that other stuff got removed. So yea. icelandic hurricane #12 (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we find a source we can readd it. I know it was originally called that but at this point in time anything wanting to be added I think should now be added with a source.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 20:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was never originally called that, Gerard has stated in several interviews that they called it that as a joke and someone in the record company thought it was real and accidently leaked it. So no, it was never a real title :) --Yunaresuka 01:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, well if you have a source then go ahead and add it in an appropriate section.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 20:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I didn't see it, but if you have the source then definetly add it. Mcr616 15:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recording

message: :Anyone think we should archive the talk page again? Mcr616 15:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably. icelandic hurricane #12 (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, done.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 21:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive

message: :So it's been confirmed as a single? Mcr616 19:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been confirmed but there is no source. It has been confirmed for a little but there is no source that is why I was hesitant to add it.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 01:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: K. I was seeing it everywhere so I figured there must have been a press release or something... Mcr616 15:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I Don't Love You

message: Wewt. I'm going to look over the article a couple more times and may be resubmitting for GA status. --Moralis 22:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyedit

message: I've failed this article for GA status.  There is no information about how the album was produced (only a list of groups it sounds like/was influenced by).  The lead does not properly summarize the article; the detailed information about sales, certification, and chart performance belongs in a section in the main article.  The reception section is incredibly choppy, with some paragraphs that are only one sentence long.  ShadowHalo 03:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This reviewer appears to have broader problems with the article than the last one did, despite major changes in the meantime. I'm a little irked, but okay. --Moralis 04:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify a few of my comments, 3(a) of WP:WIAGA says that "it addresses all major aspects of the topic".  There's currently information about who has influenced the band but no information about how it was actually produced, which is a major aspect of the album.  When I say "main article", I mean that the lead is supposed to summarize what comes after the table of contents so that someone can read the lead and have a good idea of the album.  Although it may be good to mention how the album sold overall, details about chart positions and sales belong in a section after the table of contents.  Regarding having separate quotes in separate paragraphs, I don't think that applies here at all.  I've seen that in fiction before (maybe even in non-fiction), but there is nothing in the WP:MOS that recommends that quotations be contained in separate paragraphs.  In fact, it just leads to poorly written prose.  (Also, one of the ref tags is broken and is messing up the references section.  Be sure to fix that.)  ShadowHalo 05:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: For ideas on what to include, you might want to take a look at the FA's Enta Da Stage and Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers).  ShadowHalo 17:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue here isn't really what would hypothetically go under production. So far, I haven't been able to find any real information on the production of the album that could be attributed to a published source. If I can find a transcript of "My Chemical Romance Welcomes You to the Black Parade," I'll be able to improve the situation a bit. Has anyone else found anything? --Moralis 17:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Even though YouTube references are allowed I feel that a YouTube video of "MCR Welcomes You to the Black Parade" would be a copyright violation. It's hard to tell which videos are copyright on YouTube. And if The Black Parade website has a copyright on it then the press conference video may also be a copyright violation.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 20:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Regardless, I don't think citing the videos as a source (without uploading them to Wikipedia) would be a copyright violation- but I don't think they'd be applicable as a source, either. --Moralis 17:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Second Failed GA Attempt

message: On the MCR wikiproject page one of th requierments says "make pages for all MCR songs". I helped out with the project and did that on the black parade page and someone came and deleated all of them !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --Alternativepunk
We took all the individual song articles up on a VfD and the result was delete. Sorry that your hard work was wasted, but don't recreate them unless they are released as singles. Mcr616 22:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WHAT THE HECK???

message: I keep reading that "I Don't Love You" is a UK only single, and that the US will be getting a different single sometime soon. When MCR released the music video on youtube, they wrote that is was a UK single. Also, their myspace blog calls it that. Has anyone heard any other news about this? And should it be put up that its a UK single? --Yunaresuka 05:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ViperBlade Talk!! 09:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This is only speculation, so it should not be included into the article, however remember how the MTV source listed "Disenchanted" and "I Don't Love You" as a single, perhaps "I Don't Love You" will be released in UK and the US will get "Disenchanted". This is only my two cents and there is no source to back it up.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 18:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I didn't put it in for that reason. I checked their website and they had no news about IDLY as a single, or anything else being a single either. --Yunaresuka 18:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: They have one more single soming out, because this Saturday, they are having a video shoot. I know, I am in it. On thier website it ells you that it is in LA his weekend, and I got chose for it. They havent told me which song it is, but I think it is Disenchanted-MCRluvr 06:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope to God it's not Disenchanted just for my own selfish reasons :(.  Congrats on being picked, though.  I didn't think they had gotten back to people that quickly.--JUDE talk 07:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The shoot is today, and It is either Mama or Disenchanted, I will get back to you once the whole thing has been shot, probabl tomorrow. They got back in about, I would say 8 hours. There was only two days until the shoot at the time, so they needed to pick quickly. But I will get back to y'all --MCRluvr 08:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks, but also so you know we won't be able to add it to the article since it's unsourced. But thanks for keeping us up to date and good luck with the shoot. And I'm pretty sure it is "Disenchanted" as most evidence points there, but either way it should be nice.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 19:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As sort of extra information, it has been confirmed on the MCRmy boards that the movie is for "Teenagers". Of course this isn't really technically sourced and you'd have to log on to view it, so I'd just wait until we see more information and sources.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 19:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can also confirm that the video shoot was for Teenagers, but like it's always stated.  No original research. And as you stated you have to log into the boards, so there's no confirmation until we can get it sourced.  I'll be on the hunt for solid sources.--JUDE talk 07:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, the shoot was amazing. But they told me I wasn't allowed to tell anyone :(. Which sucks, because I was planning on going to work and telling people. I will be able to tell you before the video comes out though. Within the next month they said I can, just not now since the video was just shot. But I will be sure to tell y'all. The shoot went GREAT, and the video should turn out amazing! I met Gerard and Frank for they first time :) Sweet, sweet guys they are :) --MCRluvr 07:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OKay, I got a call today, I am allowed to say what the video is. It is indeed Teenagers. But they told me i was definately not allowed to release any info about the video shoot. Or what it was about. Sorry guys. --MCRluvr 03:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait... they contacted you today to let you know that it was okay to say what the video was?  That's a little overboard.--JUDE talk 03:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It is safe to say it is. Because I was at the video shoot. --MCRluvr 06:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not safe to say because there's a "no original resource" policy at wikipedia.  Original resource has no verification.  We need a media source.--JUDE talk 06:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been confirmed by the guys several times.And the video has been shot for it, it is the next single, trust me.--MCRluvr 06:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL okay, it's not a matter of trust.  We all know very well that Teenagers is the next single. We're discussing the possibility of whether or not there is a confirmed source in the media.  No one is denying that Teenagers is the next single, I promise you.  It's not about trust, we're trying to verify a source so that we don't get hit by the No Original Research policy.--JUDE talk 08:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well, then by the no original research policy I suggest it be removed from these places then. Also the B-side on the Teenagers page does not have a source either.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 01:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I Don't Love You -- UK only?

message: Since IDLY is apparently UK-only, should we put that in the article? mcr616 19:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you said it is apparently UK-only... However, they have also stated in an interview that they may also release it into the US but I'm not sure. Perhaps wait until the single is released in a couple weeks?  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 19:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, Just wondering because of the shoot that was taking place today. mcr616 00:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Single

message: I searched both the RIAA's web site and the BPI's- both of which have searchable awards databases. Neither one indicated that the album had been certified platinum, so I deleted that bit of info from the article. It can be re-added if someone can find a source for it. --Moralis 21:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the way this was found was by adding together the sales which were sourced and then just comparing and drawing conclusions. I am just saying what I think might have happened since RIAA is generally slow in updating their database.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 21:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks, that's a really good source. Of course as you said it soon will be worthless. I did look for an alternate and was not able to find one. But I think this will be a good one to use at the moment.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 20:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Platinum?

message: I properly formatted all of the references in the article. Please check it out and make sure I did it right. I used this to do it so I'd like to know if it's accurate. Thanks!  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 22:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks pretty sweet to me.  Good job!  Saves us a lot of time fishing through things.--JUDE talk 05:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Why do the Beatles Get pages for all of thier songs and MCR dosent???????---iamyoda
:I haven't researched the issue, but I would presume it is because most, if not all, Beatles songs are inherently notable. If we made an article for every song that's ever appeared on a mainstream recording, we would have a lot of stubs that looked like this:
::"Hysteria is the 8th track on the Muse album Absolution. Its running time is 3:47."
:All Wikipedia articles have to follow the same notability policies (WP:N). --Moralis 22:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd also like to add that in the cases of most songs, the information that would go in a stub for each song should be included in the article on the album. It's not like we're not including information on MCR. There just isn't enough content to put in an article for each song, nor is each song notable enough to warrant its own article. --Moralis 22:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus, you would have to avoid putting in fancruft and unverifierd information. mcr616 Speak! 14:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: MCR VS> BEATLES