Talk:Evanescence

Justice

Anyone know anything about the upcoming album Justice? In fact, is this actually an Evanescence album at all? I've seen a ton of torrents for the demos of Justice, and it does sound like the band. However, I can't find anything official that another album is even coming out. Rather than going willy nilly and making changes to the article, I figured I'd post the info here and let the regular contributors make any actual changes. --Brownings 10:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I've had a look and i dont think this is an ev album. it is highly unlikely due to the fact they are on tour plus there are no references for the album --Childzy ¤ Talk 10:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I think its an album like Not for your ears or ultra rare tracks v1. Something like that. Just people wanting to make money. thats all Spooksta 05:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This is most definitely not an actual Evanescence album. Only found on bittorrent networks as far as I can tell, no information from the band itself, simple rehash of previously released or demo songs. Download it if you want, but from what I can tell, there is nothing new here. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 07:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The album can be found on several p2p sites -- F257 14:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Hard Rock

I beleive Evanescence is Hard Rock. The reson why i belive they are this genre is because of the low guitar tunings and their "style" is like a lot of other Hard Rock bands. Nardulli22 02:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you now how many Death Metal bands have low guitar tunings? That does not make them Hard Rcok. Having low tunings does not a Hard Rock band make. Turemetalfan Setp 10th, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.83.180 (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

i didnt say all bands that low tune re hard rock. Its just that if you compare Evanescence with other Hard Rock Genre bands. Im not saying to remove the alternative rock genre, but to add hard rock. Nardulli22 00:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

i dont think we can add that because it dosent say they are in thier official bio's (official myspace, website, wind-up records' site). it can't just be added because you personally think so. it's whatever they class themselves to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.104.1.68 (talk) 17:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

At least they won Best New Artist and Best Hard Rock Performance at the 2004 Grammy Awards. --AI 01:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

They are metal according to iTunes/their bio 75.58.5.198 (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed genres section

I believe that the "genres/styles" section should be applicable to Evanescence as there is great controversy (and not many concrete truths) to their genres. This section should be added in order to provide the suplicable movements and styles of music that Evanescence has taken within their musical career for references. The "main" genre at the top of the page should remain as an umbrella. Added onto, many other mainstream band pages have taken on their own variation of this. Thanks and please don't solicit the page through deletion of material. Jotsko 02:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry mate deleted it, read WP:OR and look at WP:SOURCES. You wrote about these genres without references, it just became your opinion. Also a link to wikipedia does not count as a source. Thanks --Childzy ¤ Talk 21:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I have found a reliable source to Evanescence's genres and subgenres. This is the site in which I have found them. If you disagree, feel free to issue all complaints. The genres I am adding are the following and will be listed as follows:

• Alternative metal
  
• Post-grunge
  
• Goth metal
  

Once again, if you have a problem with the genres I have put out, feel free to let me know! RaikiriChidori (talk) 13:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, even if no one else likes these genres I do. Particularly post-grunge, as I think this generally overlooked but there is definite post-grunge qualtities to their music. 88.110.19.225 (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen them referred to as "goth metal" 75.58.5.198 (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I listen to goth metal, I can see where people woulds say that Evanescense is goth metal, but they really aren't Megatherium135 (talk) 01:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Peak chart positions

I'm going to be bold, as is so often said, and remove the "Peak chart positions" section of the infoboxes on singles articles unless there is a strenuous objection. As it is, each article already has an extensive and far more detailed chart section, replete with citations where possible, making such an infobox addition superfluous and doing nothing but cluttering an already cluttered box. For the most part, these sections began to be populated simply because the option was there, rather than acting as an alternative to a full chart section. So speak up or forever hold your peace :) -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 02:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the charting information should be kept to a minimum in the infobox, however I do think that notable ranks could remain, such:

• Home country
• #1s or countries with highest peak

Also I am curious why there is no longer any reference to metal in this article? I do not believe "Alternative rock" is an appropriate genre for Eveanescence, except in the broadest sense of the term. It's a lot like calling an apple "food". - BalthCat 16:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Genres

I just noticed now the request not to edit genres, however there is no indication of where to look. I am hereby justifying my edit (once I correct the pipe into a line-break). Allmusic.com lists specifically the term "Alternative metal" as well as "Goth metal" and at least one album is listed on discogs.com as "Nu metal". The term 'metal' has pretty much constantly been associated with this band as far as I can tell. - BalthCat 22:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Really doesn't matter to me what they're listed as. The only thing I care about is that there is an agreement on here BEFORE the change is made. --Brownings 22:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Then I suggest you seek first to foster an attitude in others which promotes the search for consensus rather than labelling justifiable edits vandalism. I sourced my change, I'll find more if i have to. "Alt rock" is a woefully inadequate genre tag for this modern band. - BalthCat 22:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Look through the history, you'll see this is an on going problem. I say talk it out before you change, and you change it anyway. I'm sorry, but is something not clear there? --Brownings 22:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

My point was that perhaps you should try saying that in your rv comments, not "vandalism", and if there's more than one change you want to make, and one is vandalism, mention it. My edit, and the one before are still not vandalism. I'm sure it's an ongoing problem because "Alt rock" is laughably inadequate. I'm going to go spend time now finding sources that aren't "hardcore metalfan" forums calling Evanescence "not metal" or "alt rock" for that matter... - BalthCat 22:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking of changing it to Gothic Rock and Gothic Metal, as most people generally regard them as a goth band, and there are elements of metal in there as well. Who's with me? Titan50 —Preceding comment was added at 20:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you got some reliable sources to back up the change, by any chance? AngelOfSadness talk 21:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

http://www.crazewire.com/features/20030411206.php and http://jam.canoe.ca/Music/Artists/E/Evanescence/2004/07/04/744969.html Is that enough? Better than alt rock, I think Titan50 —Preceding comment was added at 16:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

When the band itself does not consider their music goth rock, I'd suggest that labeling them as such would be inappropriate. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 07:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Motorhead don't like the labels Heavy Metal yet still Wikipedia labels them that! Korn don't like the label Nu Metal, yet still we label them that! Titan50 (talk) 12:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC) They don't sound like Alternative Rock to me. More like Alternative Metal and Nu Metal. - Guest (67.142.130.19) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.19 (talk) 05:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Could it be possible to classify this as Alternative Power Metal? The reason why i suggest this is despite the listing, the musical style and lyrics focus on fantasy metaphors.68.147.223.143 (talk) 07:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

As always, the problem is finding a source which uses this specific terminology. I'd recommend against this as it seems even more focused a genre than the other suggestions here. — Huntster (talk • email • contribs) 05:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Official Links

the link for the official Sony-Australian Evanescence site is gone, someone add it back. http://www.sonybmg.com.au/artist/info.do?artistId=15558 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.212.50 (talk) 06:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

just added it Zacanescence 05:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Weight Of The World

according to http://www.lafm.com.co/noticia.php3?nt=25563 WOTW is going to be released as a radio single in colombia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.212.50 (talk) 05:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

anyone going to add some info about it? it needs some because people in alot of evanescence communities are like 'WTF?' and saying its not true when it really is. i would add stuff but i have no idea how to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.212.50 (talk) 22:05, 22 October 2007

I've added a blurb and the source above to The Open Door. However, it doesn't really have a place in the main Evanescence article. If people say that it isn't true, just give them the above link and say "This says it is; if it isn't, blame the source." Until more information is available, I would advise not creating a new article for the song. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 04:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is a radio single in Colombia only. Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 01:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, and someone went ahead and created an article for it. Still don't know much about it though. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 02:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Discography

I've just visited this page and the Discography and Reference sections are missing. Anyone else experiencing this or is it just me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by F257 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok it was just me. Sorry! —Preceding unsigned comment added by F257 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it wasn't. There was some sort of an error in a recent edit; I just reverted it to restore the missing sections. --SilentAria ^talk 14:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! -- F257 14:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You just can't simply call Evanescence alternative rock!!

Muse, Radiohead, RHCP, Green Day, are all considered alternative rock, yet Evanescence doesn't even sound like any of them. I'm pretty sure they've been labeled as alternative metal and nu metal. Just look over the internet...it's there!!!Maplejet (talk) 02:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Alternative metal, gothic rock, post-grunge, post-rock etc. are all styles Evanescence have been labelled, according to many, many sites on the internet, and all of them are sub genres/fusion genres of alternative rock, if you look at alternative rock article. The Evanescence article says alternative rock, and not a huge list of genres, simply to prevent lame edit wars over genre by covering most of the styles, they are said to have incorperated into their music, in two words. If we were to inlcude every single genre the band has been labled over the years, the list would make the infobox go off the page. The article mentions alternative rock as it covers a vast amount of genres the band have been labled but the band may not agree with. For example it doesn't say gothic rock because Amy Lee has said in a few interviews that she doesn't consider the band's music as gothic and yet gothic rock is a subgenre of alternative rock. Also it's very hard to find suitable sources to back up genres as sources from mechandise websites/fansites aren't considered reliable. Sure even though the bands myspace mentions alternative and rock, it also mentions pop. I'm sure if pop was put into the infobox, chances are many people would disagree with it and remove it from the article even though the official myspace states this. If the band have said they are alternative metal/nu metal in an interview that can be used as a reference, then go ahead and add it to the article but if there aren't any suitable sources, that are reliable and can be used in the article, then the content can't really be added. AngelOfSadness talk 15:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

We know. If you find any official site that says so, cite it. Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 20:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, a band like evanescence shouldn't just be described as alternative rock, post-grunge and alternative metal have to be added and infact if there's going to be one genre it should be alternative metal not rock.--Brickovic (talk) 14:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

But the problem is trying to find an official site that says they are alternative metal that can be used as a reference. I you find a few sources citing alternative metal but are unsure if they are suitable, link them here so the links can be discussed and hopefully they will be suitable to add to the article. AngelOfSadness talk 18:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Christian band?

Their lyrics DO contain Christian values, but let's end this once and for all: Is Evanescence a Christian band or not? They may not be Christian rock, but they can still be Christian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.209.15 (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

No, Evanescence is not a Christian band per the band members' own words. See the numerous citations within the "Labeling controversy" section. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 17:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Just because some lyrics may have Christian values also doesn't necessarily mean it's derived from Christianity. Many Christian values overlap with other religion's values and philosophies.Jackster (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

genre ???

only an idiot would think they were antythin short of some kind of metal. Comeon alt panic at the disco and fallout boy are alt . not evnescence. I'll tell you who made it say alt. somebody who dos'ent even like the band and who could not fro some reason admit they were Goth-Metal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xion infinity (talk • contribs) 17:29, 25 November 2007

First thing, many people have said they are metal yet no-one can come up with a reliable source that states such. Second thing, the band's official MySpace describes their genre as " Alternative, Rock and Pop". Third thing, Amy Lee doesn't think they are gothic at all. - which has been said repeatedly by herself in many interviews. A lot of the times, if reliable sources can't be found about genre, whatever the band thinks which genre they belong to, is what goes in the infobox. AngelOfSadness talk 22:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe metal, but gothic????? I know that Ev sound and look gothic but Amy has that they're not. Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 01:50, 26 November 2007

Why not alt. metal? ''I Am The Master Of All Thunder'' (talk) 09:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Mabey you guys should write a paragraph about the genre confusion. 121.72.236.247 (talk) 05:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)(UTC)

Quite a good idea, 121.72.236.247, what do the rest of you think? Thundermaster^{Thundermaster's Talk} 13:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Allmusic lists alternative metal, and I'm sure I've seen them described as such elsewhere. They're not really an alternative rock band; their musical traits are more in line with alternative/nu metal. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Apology from Evanescence's old webmaster concerning 2003 controversy

I am the webmaster for Evanescence's first site and thought an apology from me was in order regarding the controversy I regret adding to in 2003 when I pulled their page after Amy Lee's comments. I have posted an apology to the band at this link. I don't know if it's possible to add a link to my apology to the body of the main article, but if it seems pertinent enough, please consider including it. - 166.128.184.235 (talk) 12:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Chad Steenerson

Thanks for posting this, hopefully it will get back to the band some way. However, it just isn't within our purview to include links like this; we have to limit the scope of coverage to a certain point, and I think making that be just the band, label and retailer angles is the best option. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 16:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

2008 Grammy Nomination

Just nominated for "Best Hard Rock Performance" for Sweet Sacrifice. Should it be mentioned in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.173.79 (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Evanescent wave

I originally came to this page looking for information about the optical phenomenon, but expecting to see the band and hoping that there'd at least be a disambiguation page or a link at the top like I provided. I was wrong, and a search of the term evanescence does not turn up the Evanescent wave page. So I wrongly assumed that one didn't exist, and figured that since this was a fairly common phenomenon, observed in fiberoptic cables, there should probably be some sort of article so I made my first edit in the hopes that someone with more knowledge with me would see the red link and make the page. That was deleted by Huntster and I later discovered that there actually was a page on the optical phenomenon, at Evanescent wave and added the redirect there for people like me who came here looking for it and could not find it by the search feature. This link should be on this page because quite clearly some people don't know where to find that page. No I was not experimenting or vandalising, my edit was genuine and needed. The link does not detract from the article in any way and it serves to redirect people like me who could care less about the band. Uniqueuponhim (talk) 13:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The first time the link was removed was because it was a red link. Thus I assumed it was a test edit or vandalism. I still don't believe it is necessary for this page as they are completely different spellings. In my experience it is quite rare for articles to contain header links to articles with completely different spellings. Else we'd have articles with header links that are layers thick; not only links to articles with the same spelling but different meanings, but all the various similar spellings that readers might search for...basically, where would it end? This would very quickly become an unworkable problem. For now, I'll leave this alone and see what other editors think, but I hope you can see why this is not something to be encouraged. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 18:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

First, I'd like to apologize for my hostility, there was no need for it. In response to your argument, the reason I posted the link was because of the fact that in this specific case, the word "evanescence" is just as likely to be searched for by someone trying to learn about this particular field of optics as the term "evanescent wave" is, and if one searches for the former, he will quickly hit a dead end without a link like that, and many people might not think to search for "evanescent wave" because it isn't obvious that it would be called that rather than "evanescence" to a neophyte in the field.

I do see the point of the argument you make about the possibility of mile-long headers and I appreciate that they should be limited as much as possible but I believe that in this case the likelihood of someone searching for information about evanescent waves running into a dead end is too high to not have the link. Uniqueuponhim (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Uni. That things have happened to me too. Anyway, the evanescent wave is related to the term 'evanescence', since it's called that way because of it 'evanescence'. Maybe some people want to know about the 'evanescence' phenomenon (like effervescence or other things) instead of the band. Armando.O^{talk · Ev · 3K} 04:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Template

where is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.236.247 (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? If you are referring to the footer template, it was deleted today by another editor (along with numerous sections) for unknown reasons. I've since restored it. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 21:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yea that one! Thamkyou! 121.72.236.247 (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Genres

Okay, someone keeps changing their genre to Alternative Rock. They are not Alternative Rock at all! More like Alternative Metal and Hard Rock. To say that Evanescence is an Alternative Rock is misleading. I've checked a lot of sites about the bands genre and none of them mention Alternative Rock. Alternative Metal and even Gothic Rock, Gothic Metal and Nu Metal has been mentioned. And they sound like Hard Rock. Therefor, this is pretty absurd, so I changed the genres whether you like it or not! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.171.0.147 (talk) 15 December 2007

The guest who made this topic was actually me. I had problems staying logged in, but I got it figured out now. Sorry if I sounded a bit angry. Anyway, I would like a reply. How about we just add a "Debate Genre" section then?--RikkuLover (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

FAC

So has there been any interest in trying to get this through FAC since the last try? Gimmetrow 07:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I've improved the lead. I think that was the 'bigggest' problem pointed in that FAC discussion. I think there are not other problems, so maybe she should nominate it again. Armando.O^{talk · Ev · 3K} 03:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd support the article for another run at FAC. I think it's in pretty good shape, and better than 60% of the ones that make FA status. Is there anything we need to tighten up before nomination? --Brownings (talk) 01:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Check this review. Armando.O^{talk · Ev · 3K} 14:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Links in references #4 and #10 are broken. Lead is still a bit "short", and the paragraphs in lineup change should vary structure. If you want a copy-check before FAC drop me a note. Gimmetrow 07:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The article could benefit from some discussion of recurring themes. This was mentioned in the old FAC and again in the Bio PR. Gimmetrow 21:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Le Nouveau Gothique?

Does anyone know 1) what exactly Le Nouveau Gothique is and 2) why it's not listed? I've seen it many places online, but nowhere official -is it just an album put together by fans or what? If so it does seem that Evanescence has an awful lot of fan-made mixes online - would that fact in itself deserve a mention? StarManta (talk) 19:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Le Nouveau Gothique is a fan compilation that received wide circulation on filesharing networks and has been sold in less-than-reputable venues as an official album. It is not official nor authorized in any way by the band or label. While there are several compilations circulating (Le Nouveau Gothique, Not For Your Ears, and Ultra Rare Trax are by far the most widespread), this is not that significant a thing...most popular bands have this type of occurrence. Not to mention, while we know that they exist, there are no reliable publications that have published anything against them. Non-notable, technically unverifiable through acceptable means, thus no inclusion here. Anyway, these things are like viruses and really shouldn't receive any sort of attention, certainly not what Wikipedia might bring them. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 21:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

That's it, Le Nouveau Gothique is just a well-known fake album. Armando.O^{talk · Ev · 3K} 01:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Gothic Rock/Gothic Metal

i've been listening to evanescence a lot lately. i think they are gothic rock and gothic metal. any one agree or disagree? Lpfan4eva1990 (talk) 01:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh man, are you ever beating a dead horse. This place sees more reverts than you can shake a stick at, and 99.99% of them are because of changes to the genre listing. Evanescence is just one of those bands that this debate will never be dead. --Brownings (talk) 02:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Some articles for bands have a "Debated Genre" section. How about we just add that for this article too? --RikkuLover (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you find sources detailing any such debate? If not, then it becomes original research. The basic problem here is that Evanescence has so many different styles of music that it becomes extremely cumbersome trying to list them all, not to mention breaks policy since we don't have sources for which songs are considered to be in what genre, etc. So we compromise by going back to a basic, generic genre, "alt. rock". No one really likes it, but it is more appropriate than the alternatives...unless you'd rather see the even more vague "rock" in its place! — Huntster (talk • email • contribs) 15:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, but I think Hard Rock would be a better generic genre to list this band as than Alternative Rock. Can't we just list genres as long as we find sources though? --RikkuLover (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

What is the even more vague "rock"?Lpfan4eva1990 (talk) 20:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you are asking, but I was alluding to the genre "rock" being even less specific than "alt. rock". — Huntster (talk • email • contribs) 20:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Well we all believe what we believe, i believe they're gothic rock and gothic metal. Lpfan4eva1990 (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright Lpfan4eva1990 (talk) 20:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying that everyone has a different opinion on Evanescence's genre of music? Lpfan4eva1990 (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Gothic Metal? Please, go listen to Lacuna Coil or Cradle of Filth, and tell me if you still think their Gothic Metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.142.218 (talk) 06:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, Amy has said their not gothic. So...if they are not alt rock..maybe alt metal....i dunno... Armando.O^{talk · Ev · 3K} 20:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Female singer in front of a heavy metal band is 90 percent of the ingredients for gothic metal right there. Some of their stuff clearly sounds (and looks) gothic too. Of course a lot more stuff sounds like Nu metal, and yet other stuff sounds like pure pop, so its easy to see why there's disagreement. 71.128.205.128 (talk) 12:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Evanescence seems to encompass a lot of genres, and I'm probably one of those annoying metalhead who don't want to accept that Evanescence is metal, but I really truly don't think they are. Gothic metal bands are bands like Elis, Forever Slave, Sirenia, Silentium, Trail of Tears and Draconian, which if you listen to them, sound very different from Evanescence. Most of them use 'death grunt' which Evanescence doesn't. Evanescece certainly has the 'goth' part down but gothic metal is a genre, not a style. I think that some of their songs are gothic metal, but I think the majority of them are gothic rock, or some other genre. Megatherium135 (talk) 01:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Mistakes

On 'The Open Door' article its says thier tour finished on the 8th and on the Evanescence main it says they finished on the 9th, which one is it??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.18.233 (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I've modified The Open Door article to read the 9th; the source article was written by Amy herself on the 9th, and she mentions "This last day of tour is of course a happy day...." Perhaps the last concert was on the 8th, but the 9th was for wrapping up? I don't know, but that's the source we have at hand. — Huntster (talk • email • contribs) 02:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Semi-Protect

With the number of vandal attacks on this article, I feel it's time to request a semi-protect status for the page. Evanesence gets a good half a dozen reverts per day for randomly added information. Anyone feel it's time to put at least the non-reg vandals to bed for awhile? --Brownings (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I felt that long time ago, but no one gave a .... about what I said. Yeah, it must annoying to users like Huntster to be reverting a lot of dumb edits by unreg users. This article MUST be semi-protected. Armando.O^{talk · Ev · 3K} 03:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm with you, and I'm sure Hunster would definitely support it. Any idea on how we go about requesting the protection? --Brownings (talk) 03:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

While I would indeed support semi-protection, there is little chance that the article would be protected. Typically, protection is only afforded when there is wholesale vandalism being performed. In this case, there is little vandalism, just people who don't take the time to read inline notes and the talk page (genre changes) and people who insert personal notes (EVANESCENCE ROCKS!!!11one1!). However, if you wish to file a request for protection, just head over to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and follow the instructions. Just remember that you'll have to make a convincing case, since page protection is considered the last available option. — Huntster (talk • email • contribs) 19:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Huntster's right, this article usually doesn't get enough vandalism to justify semi-protection. Gimmetrow 21:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Lineup Changes section

The history part, which includes the various releases under their own heading, proceeds along chronologically. Let's place the "Lineup Changes" section into the fold between "Fallen" and the following section because that next section starts "After they changed personnel . . . " (not verbatim) I think we could strengthen the article by cutting that section up and placing certain parts into what's already been written. Gimme your thoughts. Thanks Fdssdf (talk) 05:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I should all be one history, and not the history of the albums/tours apart of the lineup changes. Armando.O^{talk · Ev · 3K} 17:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

If you merge the lineup changes with the other text, you're welcome to reverse whatever changes I made to the text in that section. I think the prose here is crisp, and I only edited it to vary the phrasing a little. Gimmetrow 08:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Logo removal

The logo is currently being used purely for decoration. As such, I have removed it. If you believe that it should be kept, add some sourced commentary about it, and place the logo in the relevent section. If no reliable sources can be found discussing the logo, it is obviously trivial information, and has no place in an encyclopedia anyway. I am not watching this page, so if you reply here, please drop me a bell on my talk page telling me that you have left a message here- don't just out-and-out reply on my talk page, as that would alienate others from the potential discussion. J Milburn (talk) 11:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Do not remove the logo; that orphans it, leading to its deletion. I am restoring the logo. Discussion may continue while is in the article. Gimmetrow 18:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

So what? If the image isn't being used properly, then it fails WP:N and WP:NONFREE and should be deleted. It adds no meaningful content to the article in its current state. It's not like it could never be re-uploaded. It takes approximately 5 seconds to upload an image to Wikipedia. If you're so worried that it will disappear forever and be irretrievable, I suggest you right-click on it and "save as." --IllaZilla (talk) 19:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Since you have failed to provide any reason why this does not satisfy WP:NONFREE, your edits are the functional equivalent of vandalism. Further removal without a detailed, explicit description of the precise points where this allegedly fails WP:NONFREE, and without allowing time for response, will be treated as vandalism. Gimmetrow 20:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, while I too would like to see the image stay, I don't think that there is much that can be discussed without going into original research...simply comparing the old and new logos is stretching credibility to the breaking point, especially if both old and new logos are used. Orphaning of an image is absolutely not a valid reason to keep, and Milburn & IllaZilla make valid points. The presence of the fair-use logo has been challenged, thus the burden is on those who wish to keep to validate its existence (beyond mere prettiness). Given this, I see no real reason for it to stay.

Also, calling IllaZilla's removal of the image "vandalism" is incredulous, to be frank. As mentioned above, valid concerns have been raised, and the typical method of progression is to leave the contested material off the page until discussion is finalised. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 21:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I said it was the functional equivalent of vandalism. Uploading from a saved copy has other policy problems. (Armando could reupload in this case, since he can attest to its history.) We could, in fact, write stuff about the logo that wouldn't be OR, but it's not clear that this is required (it's apparently not for team and company logos), and neither IllaZilla nor Milburn have explained why it required. Gimmetrow 21:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I will pose a simple question: What informational value does the image add to the article? The answer is pretty clearly none. Does it identify the band? Maybe, but not in any way that their name and picture and the opening paragraph of the article do not, therefore it is unnecessary. As such, and since the logo is assumed to be copyrighed, it fails the following criteria of WP:NONFREE:

"1. No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, ask yourself: "Can this image be replaced by a different one that has the same effect, or adequately conveyed by text without using a picture at all?" If the answer is yes, the image probably does not meet this criterion.)" -Since we already have the band's name in plain text, the logo fails this criteria.

"5. Content. Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content requirements and is encyclopedic." -Of what encyclopedic value is the logo? As I've said before, it adds no information to the article at all. There is no text accompanying it saying what it is or why it is significant. Without any discussion of its importance, with references, it also fails WP:N and probably also WP:V.

"8. Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." -I think my comments above clearly show how the logo is not meeting this criteria. Its presence does not increase understanding, since we already have the name and picture of the band. Its omission is not detrimental to an understanding of the topic, as without the logo one still clearly can see/read that this is Evanescence.

I know you've been part of the discussion about logos at Template talk:Infobox Musical artist and you've made your views known there. However I think if you look back over that discussion the consensus is pretty clear: For a logo to have any value to an article about a musical act, then the logo itself must be notable in some way and be accompanied by some kind of referenced discussion of its significance. Without these criteria then it is clearly just cruft and only serving the purpose of decoration, and that is not allowed for non-free content under Wikipedia's fair-use policies. As to your comment about team and corporate logos, those have different guidelines unto themselves (WP:LOGOS) and it is not accurate to apply those guidelines to band logos. The reason that band logos are not included in those guidelines is because they are generally not the primary means of identifying the subject.

And I'll thank you not to compare my enforcement of policies to vandalism, especially when I provide a detailed and clear edit summary with a link to the relevant policies in it. It's up to you to read and follow those polices, not to me to spell them out for you. In the case of any dispute concerning non-free content, the burden of proof is on the person who wishes to include the content, not the person who believes it should be removed. And as Huntster points out, orphaning of an image is absolutely not a valid reason to keep it in an article. Unless you can provide a compelling reason to include the logo in the article, then it should stay out and be deleted. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing in WP:LOGOS which says it applies only to corporate and team logos to the exclusion of other organisation logos, or that WP:NONFREE does not apply to corporate and team logos. As to your explanations: 1) The band name is not the logo and does not adequately illustrate the logo. There is no free equivalent for a copyrighted logo which adequately illustrates the logo. 5) Having the logo therefore adds information about what the logo looks like. 8) not having the logo is detrimental to a complete understanding of the band, which includes the logo.

So you have explained your reasoning as to why this logo allegedly violates WP:NONFREE, and your reasoning is lacking. Furthermore, corporate and team logos would fail 1, 5, and 8 by your arguments above, if they were correct. Gimmetrow 05:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

As much as I hate to see it go, I think Illa has valid points. Honestly, the logo inside of the band's infobox looked great, and gave a rather drab box a huge improvement. However, since the image isn't been released as Free, it busts the policy on non-free content. While I by no means can preach on following policies, we can't fight the vandals in the name of Wiki Policy, and then turn around and ignore those same policies when it doesn't suit us. I did some browsing this afternoon, and I couldn't find a single big name band on Wikipedia that had their logo in the article. Sad really, I'll miss that logo.  :( --Brownings (talk) 05:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps that's because a set of WPians have taken it upon themselves to remove logos from a bunch of articles? No, he does not have valid points, as I explain above. Logos are the classic case of fair use - there is simply no way to illustrate a logo except by... illustrating the logo. Gimmetrow 05:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I see Illa hasn't reponded yet. If I see no response soon, I will have to assume the logo was invalidly removed. Gimmetrow 08:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding. I feel I've made my points crystal clear. WP:LOGOS is a set of guidlines that is a subset of official policy on WP:NONFREE. WP:NONFREE says very clearly here that Team and corporate logos may be used for identification. It says nothing about bands. WP:LOGOS further clarifies: "The encyclopedic rationale for including a logo is similar to the rationale for including portraits of a famous actor, for example. It is difficult to explain in words what information is conveyed by such a portrait, yet most users feel that they provide something valuable. The logo should be regarded as a portrait." In the case of an article about a musicial artist, we have a portrait of the artist in the infobox. It's a visual identification of what the subject of the article looks like. Ideally this is a free image, though if one cannot be obtained then it might be substitued with a fair-use image. Why the distinction between bands and other entities like corporations and teams? Because in a vast majority of cases it's impossible to get a picture of an entire team or the entire personnel of a corporation. Also, a team/company is a non-corporeal entity: it exists independent of any individual member. A band, on the other hand, is a corporeal entity: it's a group of (usually) 3-6 people. And in a vast majority of cases it's easy to get a free picture of the entire band.

I disagree with you that "not having the logo is detrimental to a complete understanding of the band, which includes the logo." You can get a perfectly complete understanding of this band through a well-written and well-referenced article sans logo. If the logo were essential to understanding what Evanescence is, it would be in the article body somewhere alongside a discussion of its significance. Who created it? In what context is it used? Does it have some special meaning or symbolism? As far as I can tell it's just the band's name in pretty lettering, and the fact that so far it's just been plastered at the top of the article with absolutely no accompanying discussion of its significance attests to the fact that it's not really notable. As you've said, "having the logo adds information about what the logo looks like." If the only value in having the logo is to show what the logo itself looks like, then that use clearly fails WP:N and WP:NONFREE.

Please note, I'm not against having logos included in articles across the board. I just think (and I'm not alone in this belief) that in order to add any informational value to an article about a musical act, the logo itself must be notable in some way and it must be placed in the body of the article alongside a referenced discussion of its significance. You can see several examples of articles which do this very well here. If you can't tell the difference in quality and encyclopedic value between any of those examples and this then you need to reconsider your definition of an encyclopedia. Almost all of those examples also meet WP:NONFREE's criteria of being "Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary." What I (and others) oppose and are seeking to weed out is the carte blanche use of logos across Wikipedia in music-related articles strictly as decoration. In most cases, like Evanescence, these are non-notable images that have no significance outside of the fact that "this is the way the band stylizes their name on their album covers." In what way does that provide meaningful and informative content to a free encyclopedia? It doesn't, and these are the types of uses we must avoid if we are to continue improving WP's content. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Generally, logos should be used only when the logo is reasonably familiar (or when the logo itself is of interest for design or artistic reasons). Armando.O^{talk · Ev · 3K} 16:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I see the logo has been moved and has a bit of commentary attached to it. I don't believe that this completely satifies the criteria above (in that it doesn't say why the logo is of interest or why it is notable), but I'm leaving it for now. One glaring problem though: the caption reads "The band's logo and signature font was created by Aeryn when Fallen was in development." Who is Aeryn? That name does not appear anywhere else in the article. That definitely needs to be addressed. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You guys should settle this and stop dicking with the page. I don't know anything about any wikipedia guidelines all I know is it does look nice with the logo i even uploaded an SVG version which was very nice ;-) but there was an argument that it was somehow not fair use when the PNG was which got me annoyed! I know wikipedia is an Encyclopedia and is only here to provide certain things but i think a nice SVG or at least PNG logo is important information, if it wasn't the band would of not created it!!! The most important thing though is whether or not it is illegal to display it. As far as being free content it is free in that you can go onto the evanescence webpage and download it for free and Wikipedia would be using it in a non profitable way so i really can't see the harm. What we need is some citied reasons as to why we can/cannot display the logo and until it is agreed it can be displayed it should be removed from the page.