Jump to content

Talk:Evanescence discography

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured listEvanescence discography is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 16, 2016Peer reviewReviewed
September 19, 2016Featured list candidatePromoted
February 24, 2017Good topic candidatePromoted
February 8, 2020Good topic removal candidateDemoted
Current status: Featured list

Not For Your Ears (2003)

[edit]

I wonder why the 'Not For Your Ears' album isn't listed... Tracks on this album:

Track Length Popularity

  • 1 Whisper 2002 05:13 14%
  • 2 Everybody's Fool 03:02 100%
  • 3 Anything for You 03:25 20%
  • 4 Even in Death 04:09 31%
  • 5 Further Away 03:53 15%
  • 6 Imaginary 03:32 88%
  • 7 My Tourniquet 03:49 18%
  • 8 Taking Over Me 03:19 82%
  • 9 Haunted 03:31 90%
  • 10 Before the Dawn 03:17 22%
  • 11 Untitled (I Must Be Dreaming) 04:20 2%
  • 12 Hello 03:34 85%
  • 13 Taking Over Me (long version) 03:42 0%
  • 14 Missing 04:15 27%
  • 15 Surrender 03:37 24%
  • 16 Bring Me to Life (original version) 04:08 0%
  • 17 Breathe No More 03:48 17%
  • 18 Forgive Me 03:02 24%
  • 19 You 04:38 19%

source: http://www.last.fm/music/Evanescence/Not+for+Your+Ears
sorry for the formatting...

It is not listed due to it being a fake Album/Demo CD. It is apparently a compilation of various other demos and Amy Lee's "You" (which isn't even an Evanescence song).[1] This is non-notable and for the reasons above should not go in this article. -- Huntster T • @ • C 21:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notability only applies for existance of articles, not their content. It's a popular album with many sources, so I think it should be included with information about it being a fan compilation. 69.182.106.175 11:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true. Notability applies to articles and content...I cannot begin to describe how much minutiae gets deleted from articles because it is minor. Remember also that just because an item is widespread, as Not For Your Ears is, does not mean it is notable or well sourced. Aside from message boards and fansites, what kind of mainstream coverage has it received? -- Huntster T • @ • C 20:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N explicity states it does not apply to content here. However, I do agree that you need sources, of which I cannot find any. 69.182.106.175 04:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Well, it has to be the best fake/demo CD I've ever heard. It is completely amazing. Callmeback (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Complete"?

[edit]

The "complete" list of recordings seems to be missing a few unreleased items. I've come across the following tracks, downloaded by a friend over a P2P network, which seem genuine to me:

  • "Wash it all away (demo)", 7:23. Production quality isn't great, so probably a very early recording. From the length, there's an outside chance due to the length of the file that this is "Understanding" (which I haven't yet heard) misnamed. Most distinctive aspect is probably the spoken sound samples, which seem to be discussing repressed memories, in case that helps identify it as a misnamed file. Chorus contains lyrics "Can't wash it all away // can't wish it all away." Scratch that: Looks like this is "Understanding". JulesH 21:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Heart-shaped box", 3:56. A recording from a live radio session in which they played said Nirvana song. This is not the recording on Going Under. As its clearly a bootleg, I'm not sure whether or not it should be included.

Hope this is useful to someone. JulesH 20:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Origin

[edit]

Their debut album "Origin" is mentioned in just about every Evanescence article, and even has it's own page. Yet it's not mentioned here at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.105.126.76 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

That is because it is not considered a true album. Origin is a demo CD, released by the band themselves in a very limited distribution back when they were playing in Arkansas. It is mentioned in the article, under "Complete list of band recordings". -- Huntster T • @ • C 20:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Singles UWC points

[edit]

Can anyone please mention from where these UWC points are sources from? User:Luxurious.gaurav

United World Chart data comes from http://www.mediatraffic.de , which is a conglomerate chart that tracks numerous localised charts worldwide. -- Huntster T • @ • C 13:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But may i know where are these points on the site?i could not find them anywhere.These statistics are unscourced.For example, the song "The Sweet Escape" by Gwen Stefani in currently on the chart along with a red triangle followed by 2.This means that it has sales of 2x 2 million=4.000.000 UWC points.But,the moment the song will be out of the chart,there will be nothing to prove that the song had 4 milion plus points.Only "bring me to life" has a scource on the site.The other singles dont have any source.A source should be permanent.Pleas make a note of it and do the necessary changes.Thank you! User: Luxurious.gaurav
Typically, the only stats that are shown for albums reflect its time on the visible chart, because one can easily look through the chart history and check week to week progress. However, I don't know of anything outside of this. I do not like charting information on wikipedia and wish it would all go away (save for the official sales statements by RIAA or the label), so I'll be of no further help here. -- Huntster T • @ • C 11:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But the final thing is that the numbers are unscourced and should be removed.I hope they are.Because there are very rare articles where the UWC points are mentioned.They were mentioned on Gwen Stefani's discography too.But it caused a lot of problems and questions and ended with removal of the points. User: Luxurious.gaurav

Certifications

[edit]

There is something going on with certifications here. Obviously it would be preferable to have a source for all of these, but I am aware that, with so many, it is hard, if not impossible, to get a source for every one. It would be nice though, if the accuracy was checked.

Here are some things I just found merely while browsing through:

Anywhere But Home

Canada - Sales: 100,000 (enough for platinum) but somehow ranked Diamond for 1,000,000 sales

Australia - Sales: 30,000 (not even enough for gold) but somehow 2x Platinum

Bring Me to Life

New Zealand - 5,000 but still ranked Platinum

Am I missing something? Or do these need to be fixed. NRS11 03:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These can be hard to deal with, however, let's see what we can come up with. Canada's Diamond is at least cited, because it refers strictly to the DVD sales (music video). The same goes with Australia's x2 Plat, as it too is referring to the DVD certification criteria. New Zealand is a little harder to figure out, but I'm thinking it too may refer to the video rather than the single (though I'm not sure how that is possible). The numbers at least work out for it. See Music recording sales certification for an up-to-date list of certs, if you've not already found it. It is also possible that these certs refer to older versions of the countries' sales certs, but that is only a guess. Of any of them, New Zealand is the only one I'd have concerns about. -- Huntster T • @ • C 04:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Missing" music video

[edit]

I have a video of Missing, broadcasted in "Los 40 Principales" (a tv channel from Spain). I was wondering if it was official or not. It seems weird that a music tv broadcasted a non official video. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.102 (talk) 12:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe that they'd go through the trouble of making a music video and then release it only in Spain. I've certainly not heard of any video for "Missing". Is the video present somewhere here? — Huntster (t @ c) 13:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The video is not on youtube, maybe because of copyright and that stuff. I'll upload it to megavideo in a few days' time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.102 (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MegaVideo has the same copyright policies as Youtube. Uploading the video there is still copyright infringement and could likely be removed there as well. I'm willing to bet that the video you've seen is not an official release since I have never seen any mention of a video for "Missing". (Even the "Evanescence Webiste" (lnx.evanescencewebsite.com) doesn't have it, and they seem to have EVERYTHING. It's likely a well produced fan video using other (copyrighted) footage. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 23:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Together Again

[edit]

Together Again is an official single, it should be listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.149.146 (talk) 01:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Together Again is simply a "song made available for download". If that's a single then, by definition, every song on nearly every album is a single since they're available on amazon and itunes. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 03:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The song is on their discography as single, so it's official.--Gbuvn (talk) 20:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Link: http://www.evanescence.com/music.aspx --Gbuvn (talk) 20:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Together Again" was a digital single, with cover artwork and everything. It also made an appearance on the Canadian Hot 100 at number eighty-six, but for some reason the chart position isn't available on Billboard.

Orphaned references in Evanescence discography

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Evanescence discography's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "aria":

  • From Going Under: "ARIA Charts - Accreditations - 2003 Singles". ARIA.com.au. 2003. Retrieved 2009-05-06.
  • From My Immortal: "ARIA Charts - Accreditations - 2004 Singles". ARIA.com.au. 2004. Retrieved May 6, 2009.
  • From Korn: "ARIA certifications". Australian Recording Industry Association. Retrieved 2008-03-21.
  • From Call Me When You're Sober: "ARIA Charts - Accreditations - 2006 Singles". ARIA.com.au. 2006. Retrieved 2009-05-05.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 06:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about these songs?

[edit]

Why the songs like: October, Anything for You, Before the Dawn, Surrender, You aren't mentioned here? 77.29.80.39 (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of "October", all of these songs are unreleased, so there's literally no place for them to go in the article, and we do not need to create a section for these. "October", while not technically released, did make it out of the studio, albeit unofficially. Again, though, it is "unreleased", and has no place in this article. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Column Width

[edit]

Please show me where in Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style it specifically states that these columns must be a specific size. The only thing on the entire page regarding page width is "Similar columns between sections and tables should ideally be kept at a consistent width." This does not make it mandatory, nor does it specifically say what width you must make them. Having all that "padding" space around the text makes the tables incredibly bulky for most normal screens. Not to mention that even with the column width settings, all the tables are NOT the same width on the article. What is the reasoning for such a change other than blindly saying "this is what it says should be done"? ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 17:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The last time I nominated a discography page for a featured status, NO ONE ever pointed out on the width. Check out Lady Gaga discography which is featured. There are samples for tables in WP:DISCOGSTYLE where you can see width is also specific. And by the way, what do you define "normal screen"? — Cannot (talk) 20:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I didn't see the note to "click [edit] to view wikicode", I just searched the page for "width" and came up with only the one hit. I define a "normal screen" as 1024x768, but that's probably becoming obsolete (remember when 640x480 was the "new" resolution to 320x240?--I'm old lol). Anyway, I just dislike any "padding" in general, but if I were to vote for a compromise on this article, I'd say at least just make the column width settings independent from each table so there aren't such huge gaps (in the Title [Fallen vs. Anywhere but Home] and Sales columns, to be specific). Finally, my apologies for coming across a bit passive-aggressive.. it was a LONG day yesterday at work. lol ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 00:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The general style guide for the site is that tables should not have any padding, and should be allowed to default to whatever width is natural for them. I'm not familiar with whatever rules that the music and discog project folks have dreamed up, but that is non-standard. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bubbling Under Positions

[edit]

Why aren't the Bubbling Under Hot 100 positions shown under the singles section? If you must, you can put a note by each bubbling under position stated it charted outside the Top 100 and whatnot. I think these should be shown.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Crocodileman (talk • contribs) 22:22, August 23, 2011

I see no reason to include the Bubbling Under chart positions because the Hot 100 is the Hot 100 not the Hot 200. A chart that is specifically there to say that a song almost made a notable chart is not notable, in my opinion. Additionally, the Bubbling Under chart is a completely different chart than the Hot 100, so it would be misleading to include chart positions under the Hot 100 when it, in fact, did not chart under that category. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 22:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Bubbling Under Charts just aren't official.--Gbuvn (talk) 12:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that they aren't important enough to include, they are certainly as "official" as the Hot 100.—Kww(talk) 23:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anywhere but Home

[edit]

...Should this album be listed under Live Albums and Video Albums? I realize it's a CD and DVD combination, technically making it BOTH. But should it be listed as such? Shouldn't we find some consensus to categorize it (the article itself mainly calls it a live album) instead of placing it in multiple locations on the same article? ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 23:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, it is a live album with a packaged DVD. I see no reason to double-categorise it. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the "video album" portion of the article since DVD is clearly mentioned in the "live album" section. We'll see it this floats. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 03:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lost In Paradise and Made of Stone

[edit]

Amy Lee confirmed that Made of Stone and The other side are going to be singles but there won't be music vide for them. Lost in Paradise is going to be the following single and there will made a music video for the song. I think LIP should be put in the singles chart with its charts positions already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.52.218.150 (talk) 06:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Made of Stone Single

[edit]

Made of Stone is a Single. See the second video: http://www.fuse.tv/2012/05/evanescence-talk...

Other official references:

--95.246.95.253 (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are all first-party sources through social media or fan pages (see wikipedia's pillars). Any real reference to this being a single (like the jewel case) would be considered a PROMOTIONAL single and not an officially released single. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 20:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It WAS listed as a promotional single before you removed it.--Gbuvn (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was that it's a promotional single for the Underworld movie, which is still seems to have no useable sources and is already listed on the discography anyway. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 21:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Together Again" removed from Canadian Hot 100

[edit]

"Together Again" used to be listed here but it was removed. Does anyone know what's up with this? Markhoris (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Evanescence discography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Evanescence discography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Content Dispute

[edit]

@195.32.87.171: Please discuss content here instead of continually reverting edits. @Ss112: I'm bringing you here to make you aware of the discussion. -INeedSupport- :3 17:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Chain

[edit]

Evanesence never said that The Chain was a single, so I think it shouldn’t be on the table Gvr1995 (talk) 19:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evanescence_discography&oldid=1207342233"