Talk:Panic! at the Disco

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.

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)

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!

• the shaggy ,mod , punk hair cut NOT emo

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

I agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iloveryanross99 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

-I really think the listing of the type of music should be known along the lines of the following: Rock, Alternative, Indie, Pop Rock, Dance Rock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhoCouldLoveMe (talk • contribs) 04:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright guys, being a teenager also, I have to say that I know what the "emo" stereotype is and some bands fit under it. However Panic At The Disco does not and never did. Here is a source that will show you Brendon Urie himself saying that they are not "emo" ---> http://www.tv.com/brendon-urie/person/465278/trivia.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Footballfan7122 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay guys, wikipedia goes by sources. How do you know that Brendon didn't mean just the Pretty.Odd. stuff (i just can't call it music) wasn't emo. Check out the first cd, AND more importantly the 90% of reviews that say that it and they are emo. Terminus777 (talk) 06:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

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.

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

-I really don't think that it's fair to have posted about Ryan's cheating incident on his girlfriend of 3 years. It's a tender topic and I really think that it's hurtful to out this on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhoCouldLoveMe (talk • contribs) 04:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC) -the fact that ryan ross is a manwhore is not a secret... Rumors have always been around that he frequently cheated on Keltie.. and They were only dating for 2 1/2yrs when he cheated on her. Sucks to be her, to discover a text from another women on his phone... and i'm like 95% sure they were engaged. Because her twitter today says "giving my diamonds over to my hard working bestie's man so she can get engaged shhhhh" So that kinda makes it worse..

What is this?

"Ryan is also currently in a secret relationship with Criss Angel." Look under Current Members - this seems like a pretty big statement to make. Maybe it should be sourced? And if it were sourced, how would the relationship still be a secret? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.238.152.3 (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

-This is untrue. He went to see his Mindfreak show once and said it sucked. He also said that he was "Pretty. Odd." in an NME Interview. A responce to the criticism was posted on a fake twitter page for Criss. Nothing else has ever happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhoCouldLoveMe (talk • contribs) 04:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The Paul Revere Jumpsuit Apparatus

What do you know about The Paul Revere Jumpsuit Apparatus? Is it a side project or something different?--DanSlovakia (talk) 12:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Brendon Urie, the lead singer, is vegetairian. =D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.208.95 (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

emo???

What have do to do Panic at the disco whit emo bands like Rites of springs or Circles Takes the Square???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.137.64.159 (talk) 11:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Emo Classification Removed

Panic At The Disco has spoken out against the "emo" subculture, and have said that they did not intend their music to be classified as such. Please see cited parts of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emo#Criticism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.12.172.118 (talk) 22:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Whether they like it or not they are classified as emo and it's sourced. If you want to add something about them not liking that, as long as it's sourced, that's fine. But just because they don't like being called emo, doesn't make it untrue. TheJazzDalek (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

No, but them not fitting the accepted definition of emo does make it untrue. But it's pointless to argue this point anymore people, as someone else said below, Wikipedia runs on verifiability, not truth. (READ: Wikipedia is retarded).--69.128.170.19 (talk) 23:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

that's stupid, if the band says they're not emo, then they're not. bands pick their own genres, not websites. you can put that they used to be emo if it makes you feel better. Also, how come the band members don't have their own pages? I wasn't sure when exactly Brendon's birthday was and I was gonna look it up... but they don't have their own pages.. that's weird. ~Zac —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.236.252 (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Bands don't pick their own genres on Wikipedia, reliable sources do. I suggest you read up on how Wikipedia works before removing genres you simply don't agree with. Timmeh! 20:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe when they filled in the band form they ticked the wrong genre box? ;) --neon white talk 17:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a manual for Wikipedia? I just thought people did whatever they wanted.. or at least it seems like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.157.190.2 (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

"Not emo"? Well they sure as hell have a lot of emo followers... --Ragemanchoo82 (talk) 01:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

"Emo" as a musical genre and "emo" as a culture are two entirely different things. Just because emo kids listen to a band doesn't make that band emo. I consider myself emo but I don't listen to that many true emo bands; I prefer the punk pop that many people mistakenly referr to as emo because they're popular among emo people, but that doesn't mean those bands are emo.--69.128.170.19 (talk) 23:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Most of their "emo followers" (you make it sound like a cult) aren't fans anymore because of "Pretty. Odd." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.76.164 (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

http://www.nme.com/news/nme/24758 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.76.164 (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

THEY'RE NOT EMO, PLEASE DON'T ADD EMO LIKE A MUSIC GENRE, EMO ISN'T A MUSIC GENRE. THANKS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.142.18.211 (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok... go ahead and keep Emo as one of their labels.. cuz they're going back to their AFYCSO sound... ~Zac

Emo

Emo is musical genre it was a genre before it was anything else and panic at the disco is emo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.219.80.250 (talk) 17:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Is Panic! like the emo bands like Jimmy Eat World and My Chemical Romance? No. They aren't Panic At The Disco Isn't Emo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.142.6.104 (talk) 00:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Since when do Jimmy Eat World and My Chemical Romance sound alike?--69.128.170.19 (talk) 23:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No Number Ones?

I remember everyone being immensely in love with the first album A Fever you can't sweat out Are you sure there were no number ones? Doesn't Panic deserve one of those chart boxes most wiki bands have so we can find out easier? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.178.1 (talk) 22:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Band Picture

Can someone put a picture of a live performance of the band at the beginning of the page. A picture taken by yourself. Because first wikipedia don't allow pictures that are copyrighted and second i don't have one. And it sucks when your wikipedia page don't have your picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D10P3T (talk • contribs) 06:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yea I posted a picture a few weeks ago.

--Kypie55 (talk) 07:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Loss of Band Members

Hey, I know I'm not registered, but I have added the fact that Ryan Ross and Jon Walker left in the Third Studio album section. I also moved them from current members to former members. If you have any questions or anything, email me at IamMisplaced@rocketmail.com or just comment again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.137.160 (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I just need a confirmation from someone: Did Ryan really use coke? I am really emotionally distraught about the breakup, and I just need an extremely honest confirmation. Also, were the photos doctored? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.160.6.6 (talk) 22:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Sadly... it might be true. At first, i was devistated that ryan and jon split up. I then realised this could be an opportunity to see what awesometastic project they could come up with together. then, images of him and coke spread out. Now, i never wanna see ryans face EVER AGAIN! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.97.226 (talk) 12:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Dang it! Thank you for the answer though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.160.96.169 (talk) 16:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

He said he was at a party and one of the girls from the band "The Like" said "let's take a picture" and he wasn't aware that the coke was there. He may be lieing, but he says he didn't use it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.236.252 (talk) 23:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested Temporary Semi-Protection for this article

I put in a request for temporary semi-protection for this article due to the recent announcement of the lineup change for the band, and vandalism I've seen on this page today.

To the sane but unregistered people who have been editing this page in good faith - please just register. It's easy to do. JenR (talk) 22:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Band Name

I don't have an account but they just put the exclamation point back in the name, it even says so in the article, so should the article title be changed to Panic! at the Disco? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.47.24 (talk) 22:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Unless third party reliable sources say the name is changed or the band itself says so, the information does not belong in the article. We rely on verifiability, not truth. Timmeh 22:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Even if they do add the exclamation point, our manual of style tends to recommend against decorative punctuation and other such styles. Pink (singer) over P!nk, and so forth. The exclamation point could certainly be mentioned if the band decides they want to use it again, but it shouldn't be used throughout the article under any circumstances. Croctotheface (talk) 00:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Our naming conventions policy also says: "Non-alphanumeric characters may still be appropriate if a common term for the article is generally expressed as a non-alphanumeric phrase." Timmeh 00:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

That quote from the guideline is from a section dealing with avoiding unnecessarily BEGINNING article names with special characters because it creates problems for alphabetical indexing. The exception you quote basically says that it's still appropriate to begin the article name with such a special character if the article subject is commonly referred to by such a name. That's nowhere close to this case. The "band names" section and its reference to avoiding stylized typography is more salient. WP:MOSTM is also relevant. Additionally, the fact that the band used a name with standard formatting for so long makes me rather disinclined to believe that reliable sources will follow them if they decide they like the exclamation point again. Croctotheface (talk) 02:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I did later have a feeling that was the case. Thanks for bringing that guideline to my attention. Actually, the band only got rid of the exclamation point a year and a half ago, so for most of their career the name had the character in it. Timmeh 03:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Timmeh. http://www.panicatthedisco.com/ If you follow that link the page title is Panic! At The Disco and the blog is signed by Spencer of Panic! At The Disco. Surely this would be a suitable reference? You don't make the same mistake twice, it seems quite deliberate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.214.37.31 (talk) 01:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't matter. They haven't announced a name change, and unless reliable sources say they changed their name, it shouldn't be shown here. Timmeh 03:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

You don't think that them saying that they were considering putting the ! back in followed by the drummer using it on their website to be a reliable enough source?--24.56.57.138 (talk) 03:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Unless they explicitly stated the "!" is back in the name, the addition of it here is not verifiable. Timmeh 15:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It should be great if the article says in the intro information: Panic at the Disco (also known as/better known as Panic! at the Disco). I have a reliable source:

http://newsroom.mtv.com/2009/07/10/panic-at-the-disco-premiere-demo-bring-back-the-exclamation-point/. User:Giusex27sc (User talk:Giusex27sc) 02:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The article name is still Panic at the Disco. Instead of just changing the intro can we not rename the page? Just like the Pretty. Odd. article uses the periods the Panic! At The Disco wikipedia page should also use the exclamation with a redirection for anyone that searches the current article name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.110.245 (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see Croctotheface's comments about stylizing titles. Also, your argument really doesn't hold up, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Timmeh 23:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the name of the article should use the exclamation point. Their MySpace, their new logo, even the record label [1] are using the exclamation point. If this isn't explicit enough, then I really don't know what would satisfy you aside from an interview with them saying they're bringing it back but that almost seems like wanting evidence already given. Thedarkchao93 (talk) 02:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Non-alphanumeric or stylized characters generally aren't used in article titles on Wikipedia. See WP:MOSTM. Timmeh 03:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Surely that means the Wham! page should be retitled Wham? It can't be one rule for Panic! and one rule for others. Not much of an encyclopedia without consistancy. --90.220.165.240 (talk) 23:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

On Pete Wentz's blog he wrote "It's Back" and next to this there was a picture of a "!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.236.252 (talk) 03:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I think accuracy is a tad more important than consistency in this case. Generally speaking, it wouldn't be done but it was done before they took the punctuation away and should be back with it's revival. Thedarkchao93 (talk) 23:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Assuming it is no longer ambiguous that the band has decided to again use the exclamation point, there's certainly nothing wrong with making reference to it somewhere, even in the first few words of the article. In that respect, I hope it's clear that we are not somehow trying to deny that they choose to add a decorative exclamation point to their name. Acknowledging that style but then using another should really get rid of any "accuracy" complaint, since referring to the band as, say, "Panic" or referring to, say, Rage Against the Machine as "Rage" are not "accurate" in the strictest sense either, since nobody would agree that Panic or Rage are the names of those bands. But just like readers are better served by the way that using "Rage" can improve the writing, so too are they served by our not using wacky stuff like exclamation points in the middle of sentences. Plus, I think you'll find that many sources will continue to omit the exclamation point just like we do, on a similar theory to the one I'm espousing here. Croctotheface (talk) 05:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a section, or paragraph at least, on the name change itself, i.e. the removal and reinsertion of the "!"? I don't know, maybe at the beginning or in the third studio album section. Adam2201 (talk)

Personally if you ask me I do think that the page title should have the ! in it but not the url address. But maybe it should be in the url for offical sake. Just have whatever redirect to the correct page. They name change has been verified on a number of occasions. Almost all offical pages that have to do with the band has the ! back in the name. Also the cover for the single "New Perspective" Have the ! in their name. You can't get any more explicit than that. (Kypie55 (talk) 07:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC))

Here is an official announcement - Spencer talks to MTV about the return of the !. http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1617313/20090730/panic_at_the_disco.jhtml MJB12 (talk) 02:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I want to reiterate something I mention in the below section so that it can be considered outside the context of a move request. Though I'd prefer to keep the article where it is, I wouldn't go nuts over a move. However, I do strongly dislike the use of the exclamation point throughout the article. It's jarring to see end punctuation that doesn't actually end a sentence. While there are some sources that use it, there are plenty that do not. It's certainly fine to use the exclamation point early on in the article, but there's no need to use it throughout. Croctotheface (talk) 01:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I think we should remove any instances of the exclamation point after the first sentence to keep the most readability. However, there will undoubtedly be many re-additions of it by IPs, regardless of an edit note. Timmeh 15:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Move Request

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page moved. —harej (talk) (cool!) 19:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Panic at the Disco → Panic! at the Disco — The band re-adopted the "!" when two members left the band. Since their current name includes the !, the articles title should also include it. Keytar Shredder (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Corrected Keytar Shredder move request. 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』^¤ 00:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I invite you to take a look at the section above this one, Keytar. There, it is explained why the title shouldn't have the "!" in it. Timmeh 00:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm opposed to any move. I also think that after the first reference in the first line, we should omit the exclamation point in the prose. In all honesty, I'd prefer using it in the article name but not throughout the article to this. See the above section for more. Croctotheface (talk) 04:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support. The exact name of any band should be the title of their article. Since they've reincorporated the exclamation mark, we should move it back. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 05:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• What? I was starting to forget about their existence. Damn it. —harej (talk) (cool!) 1:30 am, Today (UTC−4)
• Support. Their name is Panic! at the Disco and not Panic at the Disco. Therefore it should be moved to use the exact name. Adam2201 (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support per strong case to reanme. My only concern is that whoever does the move leaves the former members linked to Panic at the Disco which redirects to Panic! at the Disco. When a change like this happens, care needs to be exercised in fixing the redirect links. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Emo

Ok, emo can stay here, but, why is emo as the fist genre if is a disputed genre? emo should be the last genre Wikipedia = Fascism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.229.176.131 (talk) 02:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Shadow talk page

Back when this talk page was at "Talk:Panic at the Disco" there was a "Talk:Panic! at the Disco" which was totally different. I have now moved that latter page to Talk:Panic! at the Disco/old talk page. —harej (talk) (cool!) 19:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Where'd the section on The Musical Excursion go?

There is no section after it mentions "Live in Chicago", what happened? Someone needs to put it back...

Protection/vandalism

This page has received immense amounts of vandalism recently from anon IP's; should it be semi-protected? Angryapathy (talk) 02:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It's always bouncing around my watchlist like a cricket on meth. Crafty (talk) 02:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Electric-Heavy Dreams

can we have some proof that this is what it will be called? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.131.80 (talk) 11:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Associated Acts

There has been a great deal of activity in adding associated acts to this page, many with questionable associations (and some only to Fall Out Boy). I found where there is guidance on what constitutes an Associated Act according to WP: Template:Infobox_musical_artist#Parameters under associated acts. According to this, only The Young Veins and Fall Out Boy qualify, not bands that have toured with Panic! at the Disco or were discovered by them. I'll include the whole section here for future reference:

Associated Acts

This field is for professional relationships with other musicians or bands that are significant and notable to this artist's career. This field can include, for example, any of the following:

• For individuals: groups of which he or she has been a member
• Other acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album, or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together
• Groups which have spun off from this group
• A group from which this group has spun off

The following uses of this field should be avoided:

• Association of groups with members' solo careers
• Groups with only one member in common
• Association of producers, managers, etc. (who are themselves acts) with other acts (unless the act essentially belongs to the producer, as in the case of a studio orchestra formed by and working exclusively with a producer)
• One-time collaboration for a single, or on a single song
• Groups that are merely similar

Hope this clarifies anything when random bands are added then removed. Angryapathy (talk) 15:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Seriously?

I'm removing the Victorian oil painting of circus performers someone claimed to be from a P!@TD conert. 76.1.48.210 (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that it's a painting? Timmeh 01:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This thread has popped up on AN/I.raseaC^{talk to me} 13:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a photo. It has encyclopaedic merit. It's license is fine. It's relevant to the article. The only justification I can see for removal would be if a better quality image can be found, otherwise it's fine. raseaC^{talk to me} 13:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Definitely a photo. (There's a painting in the background.) Assuming that it's truly a photo taken at one of this group's performances, and assuming the act of posting the photo doesn't violate the group's copyright in some way, I don't see what the issue is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

My sincere apologies. I honestly believed it to be a painting. I guess that's really a compliment to the photographer, though - it captured it so well! 76.1.48.210 (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)