Talk:Evanescence

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 It's outdated--from 2006, shows members who aren't even in the band anymore.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 *** pictures on Wikipedia? --Thesadisticcheeseburgerpickle1 (talk) 07:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Go to a concert, take some better pictures, and give them away. Gimmetoo (talk) 08:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

While I wouldn't word it quite like that, I do agree that only the best images should be placed in articles, especially the primary article of a topic. Few, if any, of these new pictures fit that bill, and therefore have no place here. — Huntster (t @ c) 09:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Why is is that there's only one freaking picture of John Lecompt on here? What makes him so special for him to qualify to have his own picture in this article? He's no longer in the band. The only picture he should be appearing in, due to circumstances of limited new Evanescence pictures available for use on Wiki, is the default pic because that was Evanescence in 2006. Shit, if John has a picture, why shouldn't Amy Lee of all people? Or Terry? Or Tim? At least THEY are STILL in Evanescence and didn't get their ass handed to them. This article should include pictures of the band together. Not just one single person, even Amy. That's why I feel the new pictures I added DID FIT the bill cause it talks about EVANESCENCE, not John Lecompt. He can have his picture on his own article. And who made you guys the kings or queens of this article? Seriously, why must we ask YOU for permission to make changes. Anybody can make changes, not just according to your rule. The fuck is this. --Thesadisticcheeseburgerpickle1 (talk) 04:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm only going to comment on the fact that John LeCompt shouldn't be completely stripped of the article just because he's no longer a member. He's still relevant to Evanescence's past, which is where the picture is located--among former members. The goal for images on an article are CLEAR pictures that have contextual significance to the location in the prose article in which they appear, not an image gallery of the subject of the article. Just remember your wiki policies. You were bold, you were reverted, and now it's your turn to make valid points on why your images should be included. What are your main selling points other than "this is bullshit". Didn't you used to be a very valuable contributor, Homezfoo? ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 14:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Genre Talk

I do not consider Evanescence goth metal. Real goth is bands like type o negative, the cure, bauhaus and paradise lost. I consider them alternative metal, nu metal, hard rock and alternative rock.

-TheMetallican — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMetallican (talk • contribs) 12:03, November 11, 2011‎

Well you said it youself, YOU do not consider them, however i do, does that mean im wrong and your right, or vice versa? no, there are thousands of people out there who say evanescence is goth metal just as there are thousands of people who dont consider them goth metal, or even metal in general for that matter, but there are lots of reliable sources that state that evanescence is goth metal such as rolling stones, the av club, allmusic, etc. i listen to mainstream goth metal (lacuna coil, nightwish -if you will-, within temptation, epica) and to be quite honest, ev has songs just as heavy as some songs(listen to never go back, haunted, or lose control), evanescence is not 100% goth metal, (or even heavy metal) but its the wide mixture of genres and influences that makes evanescence such a widly debated band when it comes to genres, in my opinion evanescence is every single genre described in the musical style section,

SHORT ANSWER: you consider them not goth, just because YOU think so, doesnt mean YOU are right, get the point? 24.139.117.90 (talk) 23:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Goth Metal doesn't equal to Gothic Rock. Ev sounds more Nu-Metal and even they have stated that they would be classified as Rock. Gothic Rock is Siouxsie and the Banshees, Sisters of Mercy etc, Gothic Rock is an established genre over 30 years old. It doesn't go by what people FEEL should be Goth but by the sound of the genre, and Evanescence doesn't fit that bill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.28.74 (talk) 08:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Remember, we don't go with what we feel it should be, but by what the sources tell us. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you on that. Either way, Gothic Rock is established based on the music, and Evanescence doesn't sound anything like the first or second waves of Goth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.28.74 (talk) 08:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Loudwire Awards

Evanescence won 2 loudwire music awards, i think it should be included in the awards section, and ev was also nominated for a few other awards, i would do it but i have no idea how to work the tables and all, so if someone could do that for me i would be really grateful, thank you! 24.139.117.90 (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, this brings up a good point. Personally, I think there are far too many awards listed here to begin with since there exists an entire article dedicated to the awards won by Evanescence. I was thinking that this entire section should perhaps be replaced with prose describing some of the major awards they've won--perhaps something that would be a nice lead to the awards article. Checking the awards article, there is no such nicely written prose to sum up the article but only a weirdly summed up couple of sentences. If you can write up a nice paragraph of prose to replace the table, I'll absolutely endorse such a change... But being that it's such a major change and it's only one opinion, I'm not even sure this is the best option--only what I think of the situation. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 01:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed. I wouldn't mind seeing just a {{Main}} template linking to the awards article, with all the prose in the award article itself. Perhaps a brief summary here, but nothing major. My other concern is, how minor is too minor for inclusion in this article? — Huntster (t @ c) 02:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, however, writing a nice paragraph of the awards and nominations without making it sound like weirdly summed up sentences would be tricky, or at least i think it would, ive tried but i still havent succeded 24.139.117.90 (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)