Talk:Evanescence

Edit request from Ajchz, 27 August 2011

Hello I want to keep updated this webpage, I am a webmaster (www.evforo.net and www.evticos.com)

Ajchz (talk) 23:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

There are three ways you can edit this page. 1. Use the Edit Semi Protected template with the exact changes that you would like to see. 2. Request at WP:RFPP that the page become unprotected. or 3. Become WP:Confirmed or WP:Autoconfirmed --Jnorton7558 (talk) 00:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Genre

I'm sure this has been brought up time and time again, and there is apparently a consensus regarding the lack of genre in the infobox, but I wish to suggest this idea to this article's editors under the view that consensus can change. The fact that the consensus has apparently been in place for a long time says to me that perhaps it is time to debate this issue again. I am aware that genres in infoboxes can be a very contentious issue, as barely any musical articles are free from the genre warriors, but there are some solutions to the edit wars. What I wish to propose is my recent edit as a future style for this article. That is, only genres that are sufficiently backed up by several reliable sources (that would also need to be discussed here on the talk page first) should be in the infobox. All of the genres and sources I added at this time are ones that appear later on in the article in the 'musical style' section, and so we already have a nice ten citations for the infobox (which is far better than most band articles on Wikipedia). To further back up this point, I have also added an invisible comment dissuading any would-be genre warriors from trying to insert their own PoV or original research into the box. This way, the article's infobox can be brought up to the same standard (better, in fact, due to the number of citations) as every other musical artist on Wikipedia. To help put in perspective the issue of contentious infoboxes, I wish to present two other articles -- one another musical artist, the other not -- that have controversial edit wars. The first is Cradle of Filth, where they choose to simply have a very broad genre to ensure there is no PoV, and instead describe the issue later in the article (should anyone disagree with my proposal, I would then suggest that we, too, have a broad genre definition, such as "alternative metal," which is the genre for all Evanescence's albums). The second article is British National Party. While not a band, they have a similar issue with their "ideologies" section. The consensus on this article is that any ideology added has to be adequately sourced and discussed beforehand on the talk page, in the same fashion to what I suggested. Thanks, and please do not be afraid to join in and debate this issue. – Richard BB 21:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to start off by saying that HTML comments don't do a single thing to prevent people, even seasoned and experienced editors, from ignoring notation and editing a page any way they want (see Will "Science" Hunt). It is my opinion that having multiple genres in the infobox (especially if sourced) is messy. If an artist cannot be simply described as one or two genres, they shouldn't be described at all. And that's where the problem lies. Because there are so many sources in reference to Evanescence's genre, it's a full time job maintaining the infobox. We've tried in the past to attack this from different angles (leaving it blank, leaving every genre known to man, leaving ONE genre, and having only a link to the "musical style" section). Ultimately, having no genre listed at all prevents the most genre vandalism (out of sight, out of mind). My final point: if all the genres are listed in the musical style section, why do they all need to be listed again in the infobox? These are my thoughts on the topic. =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 21:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we should be put off by the fact that vandalism and frequent maintenance would result from a genre inclusion. It's one of the things we just have to endure as editors (and a stubborn part of me wants to say that if we don't do it just because of vandals, then they win). I can see, however, what you mean by it being a tad messy by having so many sources there. While there are some featured articles that do list multiple genres (such as U2), admittedly not all have the sources right there. Personally, I believe we should adopt a view of practicality over aesthetics and add the sources no matter how messy it may look, but I realise some may disagree with this. So, another solution would be similar to what is done on the Cradle of Filth article, as I mentioned above: have one broad genre there, such as "alternative metal" (again, the genre that is used on album pages), and place the HTML note there warning people not to alter the genre. The HTML may dissuade many from edit warring, while the ones who persist can be given warnings and eventually blocked from editing (I notice that Twinkle now has an option to warn people specifically for changing genres without consensus). Alternative metal (or even heavy metal, if you want to use an even broader term) is a neutral-PoV description that does not require any additional edit warring over: the genre's wikilink itself can even take the user to the 'musical style' section in a similar way to how Cradle of Filth's "extreme metal" genre does. As for your final point: everything listed in the infobox is mentioned elsewhere in the article, but the infobox is there for nice, convenient, and quick access to the significant points about the band. – Richard BB 22:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

All I'm really saying is that we've all been through this before. The broad amount of Evanescence fans/editors/etc that visit this wiki could not agree on one genre to list there, numerous genres don't make sense because they're listed in the prose, having a link to the section only invites someone to add something, and leaving blank has had the most success because it doesn't open the door for disagreement and thus editwarring. This isn't an argument, it's only stating my opinion. More input is welcome from other users. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 01:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Scott here has a point, i used to be one of those editors that wrote from my pov, and i think that its best if you leave it blank, but if your gona add ANY genre it should be alternative metal, gothic metal, and nu metal, evanescence is listed as american gothic metal, alt metal, and nu metal categories, and its also listed in the respective "list of" pages...if people add evanescence on the alternative rock page, it usually gets deleted, and the same applies to the post-grunge page, and the gothic rock page, but evanescence is already listed on alternative metal, nu metal, and especially gothic metal. the gothic metal page even has its own section on evanescence, and if you read most of the album reviews, those are the genres that are used to describe evanescence the most . im just giving my opinion that those three genres should be the ones in the infobox, IF ANY should be at all, but i would prefer it stayed blank, and the page protected 24.139.117.90 (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 13 October 2011

Evanescence released their forth Album entitled "Evanescence" on October 11, 2011 cite: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/evanescence-20111011

with a live performance the following evening at the Paladium in Los Angeles, California. cite: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/evanescence-taylor-momsen-concert-review-247487

Erolfox (talk) 20:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what your request really is here. The information saying the album was released is already in the article (in a few places). Is there a specific place it's mentioned that isn't clear on the release date? Please let us know here.

Also, I'm not sure what the significance of that performance is. I'm not really denying this edit request, but I'm just not sure what your intent is with this information or where to put it. Perhaps another editor may have other ideas or if you could be more specific as to what your edit idea was, we can be of more help. =) ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 23:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request, 10.19.11

The sentence about the third album debuting at #4 on the Billboard Hot 100 is incorrect, even with the citation. The citation goes to a news piece about the UK album charts (run by The Official Charts Company, a UK company entirely separate from Billboard), not the Billboard Hot 100, which, additionally, keeps track of singles, not albums. It is projected (according to Billboard) to chart at #1 on Billboard's actual US Albums Chart, the Billboard 200, when the first list the album is eligible for comes out later this week.

Since the page is locked, I cannot make the edit myself. Can someone who can please delete that sentence/citation or, alternately, edit it to make it correct (and subsequently add the accurate information once the Billboard 200 is released)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.210.115.19 (talk) 10:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. I think this is the one article I didn't check when I noticed all the chart information being added all over. =) Waiting for it to actually chart is best before announcing projections. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 21:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request: Main Image

Somebody should update the main image on the Evanescence article. It's outdated--from 2006, shows members who aren't even in the band anymore. Can't somebody put an official band picture up? Would be a lot clearer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.226.197 (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Evanescence/Archive_8#New_Evanescence_Group.2FMember_Photo. Gimmetoo (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

To reiterate: If we had a recent image that 1) had no incompatible licensing restrictions, and 2) reasonably illustrated the band, it would probably be used as the lead image, and the older image put somewhere in the History section. But we don't have one. Images marked "all rights reserved" on flickr are not going to be allowed in this case. If you want to change the current lead image, DON'T try just replacing it with some copyrighted image that will be removed from WP in a couple days. That doesn't help. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

New Photos?

I went to the Worcester, MA show over the weekend and got two decent pictures of the band and one of Amy Lee. Is it sad that I was actually trying to take pictures with the sole intention of including them in Wikipedia? Anyway, I know they're not the greatest... The best shots were with a flash, but I must have had some weird glare / spotty lens, and they yelled at me twice for using a flash, so these 3 are the best I've got. Think they'll be useful anywhere if I make them copyright-free? ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 03:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the first one? I dunno. Trust me, I know how you feel...I went to the Nashville show and tried so hard to get a good photo, but it just wasn't happening. Very dark in War Memorial, and a girl in front of me kept standing up during the songs and blocking the view. All of my pics turned out horrible. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I took over 200 photos of the entire trip (180+ miles away) and concert and those 3 are the best candidates for anything even though none of them are fully clear. I didn't have a seating problem though, thankfully. It was General Admission so everyone was standing already. So I was standing at the front of the first level, and being over six feet tall, I had an easy view over everybody. Sucks I didn't get anything good though... And now they're off to Europe! ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 04:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully they'll come back to Nashville. I'm trying to think of ways to get a press pass and bring in a high quality camera, again, strictly for Wikipedia and Commons, lol. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

So what does one have to do to change some fucking pictures on Wikipedia? --Thesadisticcheeseburgerpickle1 (talk) 07:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)