Jump to content

Talk:Panic! at the Disco: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Neon white (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Individual Pages: new section
Line 84: Line 84:


I think this section needs clean up, it seems to largely consist of self-congratulatory quotes by the band and not enough second and third party opinions. --<span style="font-size: 10pt; text-decoration: underline; color:black; border: 1pt solid white; padding: 0pt 4pt; background-color: white;">neon white</span><small> [[User_talk:Neon white|talk]]</small> 05:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I think this section needs clean up, it seems to largely consist of self-congratulatory quotes by the band and not enough second and third party opinions. --<span style="font-size: 10pt; text-decoration: underline; color:black; border: 1pt solid white; padding: 0pt 4pt; background-color: white;">neon white</span><small> [[User_talk:Neon white|talk]]</small> 05:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

== Individual Pages ==

I know the band used to have individual pages, and I'm wondering why they're gone. Because really, there's enough information about them all through interviews and their websites/blogs that we could have large pages for them all. And if we put it all in the little paragraphs on the page, it'd be huge. People like Pete Wentz have their own pages. I don't get why the band doesn't have theirs anymore, unless someone who thought they weren't important just decided to put them up for deletion. - <small>[[User:Babylon pride|Babylon pride]] ([[User talk:Babylon pride|talk]]) 04:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)</small>

Revision as of 04:20, 28 January 2009

This article was nominated for deletion on 12 October 2005. The result of the discussion was keep and move here. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.
WikiProject iconBiography: Musicians B‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Mid-importance).

Template:WPPATD

Subliminal messages

on many sites, i found that patd used subliminal messages. does anyone know what they may be. because i am not registered, i can not add the secion. please help me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.147.133 (talk) 07:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They looks like a THE BEATLES,and the beatles NOT emo!

emo not is a genre of music,emo not is culture,is a simple bad idea of Teens Ignorants AMERICANS!

  • emo NOT have style,noT have music,not! have culture

I agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iloveryanross99 (talkcontribs) 22:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the emo label is nonsensical. Radiohead would better qualify as emo. Zazaban (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a matter of sourcing. A source says they are emo, so as far as wikipedia is concerened they are.96.244.79.191 (talk) 17:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that the source is wrong. Rolling Stone and Allmusic really have no clue what "Emo" is, in my (and many other people's) opinion. Emo sound is personified by Sunny Day Real Estate, and comparing music to music, Panic! is nothing like it, not even remotely similar, same goes for Paramore, or Fall Out Boy, who are also categorized as "Emo".--Samushi101 (talk) 06:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IF anyone knows it's allmusic and rolling stone. Your opinion is not important, sources are importnat whether you agree with them or not. --neon white talk 11:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Samushi. Sources are not all-knowing gods, sometimes they just associate music with other music because they came from similar backgrounds. "Emotional-hardcore" is nothing like Panic At The Disco so claiming they are emo is illogical. I've said this on FOB's page and TH's page too, just because a band looks like they fit in with emo bands does not make them emo. This is like claiming that because a whale is in the ocean it is a fish, by definition it is incorrect and cannot be identified as such. PATD may have come from the same "ocean" as bands like Sunny Day Real Estate but that doesn't make them emo. Gellister (talk) 23:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not our job to evaluate how music journalists come to a conclusion, we just follow policy on reliablity and verifiablity. Nobody within the wikipedia project has made that conclusion, if you have an issue with the sources take it up with Rolling Stone or allmusic. False analogies dont help arguments and wikipedia is not the place to launch personal quests to change definitions based on personal feelings. It's an encyclopedia of knowledge not a place for publishing of original thoughts on a subject. --neon white talk 03:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that they are not emo, but you have to find reference that says so. Also, emo does not mean "emotional hardcore." It used to simply mean "emotional." Emocore is the genre that exemplifies "emotional hardcore." —ŁittleÄlien¹8² 00:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody whos ever listened to either albums and actually knows what emo is (this is coming from a teenager and we are the authority on the cliques are) knows that Panic At the Disco aren't emo and never have been. Anyway when Panic third album comes out next year we'll finally be rid of this atrocity. As this article says The Beatles aren't emo and neither is Elton John, and he's going to influence Panic's third album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.166.176 (talk) 23:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

I just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brendon Urie (2nd nomination) with the suggestion that all the articles involved be merged here. The articles are:

Brendon Urie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ryan Ross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Spencer Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jon Walker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Brent Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
{{la/Erica and tylerr were here betchesss!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.254.235 (talk) 22:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC) How nice. Now the article with information that people actually used are gone and none of the information made it's way over here. They are popular enough for individual Wiki pages.[reply]

No Wave

Not to be a troll, but I honestly think that there should be some kind of source for the claim that this band is No Wave. Does anybody know if there's a reason that it's listed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.220.103 (talk) 19:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NO WAVE????

I have no idea how to change this, but for God's sake, someone do it.

First off, NO WAVE is a form of extremely noisy and cacophonous art-punk, a genre which Panic at the Disco have no ties to. Secondly, what the clever gentleman meant was NEW WAVE. Which may vagualy bear resemblance to Panic at the Disco's sound, but is really pushing the definition of the genre. Third, Since there is no source, whether you're citing them as New Wave, No Wave, or Surf Rock is entirely irrelevant. Will someone please change this before a 12-year-old goes bragging to his/her friends that he/she listens to No Wave punk rock? Toyboxmonster (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)toyboxmonster[reply]

Yeah, there is clearly no way they're no wave. What a sad coincidence. I also suggest that there be ZERO ties to New Wave, unless whoever puts it lists some amazing and unexpected reasons. 71.180.220.103 (talk) 01:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here we go again with the weird genre additions. Baroque pop is even more unlikely than new wave. Definately needs a citation. 71.180.220.103 (talk) 01:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Typo

There seems to be a typo under the Jon Walker bio where the is a "v" replacing the "c" in the word became. I tried editing but it wouldn't let me since I do not have an account and don't really plan on making one any time soon. Would appreciate it if someone could fix it for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.222.131 (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Fixed it. Thanks for spotting that. —ŁittleÄlien¹8² 19:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grammys

Pretty. Odd. was nominated for the box set album category, the same one as A Fever You Can't Sweat Out was nominated for last year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.176.218.1 (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC) Cool, that is done. I fixed it, call me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panicatthedisco99 (talkcontribs) 21:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Style Section: Work needed

I think this section needs clean up, it seems to largely consist of self-congratulatory quotes by the band and not enough second and third party opinions. --neon white talk 05:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Individual Pages

I know the band used to have individual pages, and I'm wondering why they're gone. Because really, there's enough information about them all through interviews and their websites/blogs that we could have large pages for them all. And if we put it all in the little paragraphs on the page, it'd be huge. People like Pete Wentz have their own pages. I don't get why the band doesn't have theirs anymore, unless someone who thought they weren't important just decided to put them up for deletion. - Babylon pride (talk) 04:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]