Jump to content

Talk:Going Under

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

CD Cover

[edit]

Ive found a better cover for going under without all the black around it http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/5972/goingunderho0.jpg can we use it instead of the current one? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zacanescence (talk • contribs) 00:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest that it not be replaced, because smaller fair-use images are better than larger ones (says the fair-use guidelines). Now, if you could fine a small size image that looks like your version, that would be fine, just remember that you have to be specific as to where the image comes from (and not just the exact image link). -- Huntster T • @ • C 22:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it comes from EvReference inthe going under (single) section. heres a smaller image : http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/6535/goingunderoj2.jpg Zacanescence 10:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. If it's from EvRef, why did you upload it to Imageshack? In any case, by "smaller fair-use images are better", I'm specifically referring to the size of the image currently used. Really, the other existing CD covers that have high resolution here on Wiki should be replaced by something smaller, but I'm just not caring enough right now to do so. -- Huntster T • @ • C 16:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Going Under Demo Version

[edit]

This song is not copyrighted by the band, and it is not illegal to share. Just wanted to let whoever edited it out know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 189.18.101.34 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

In this situation, you are wrong. As I mentioned in the edit summary, any material created by a band is copyrighted to them, and thus illegal to share, unless it is implicitly released into the public domain by the rights holder. This cannot be legally included here, the same as copyrighted videos on YouTube cannot be linked to. If you maintain that it is not copyrighted, then the proof of burden falls to you to prove that this is the case. It must otherwise be assumed to be protected. -- Huntster T • @ • C 17:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not found in retail, so how can it be acquired 'legally'? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 189.18.101.34 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't matter if it is retail or not, whether it can be acquired legally or not, the artist or label still owns copyright on the work. We are not to propagate such material. -- Huntster T • @ • C 23:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genre

[edit]

Come on guys you put Nu metal to Evanescence all the time...Their only song that has Nu metal elements (and just the vocals) is Bring Me To Life all others is Alt metal (something that you've put right).I think that the "reliable source" thing turns out to be wrong.Sometimes is better to use your brains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.38.180 (talk) 11:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes agree, but we have to maintain some kind of standard, and using reliable sources is the easiest way to ensure that random assertions don't get added. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking about nu-metal, the genre does not feature 'guitar solos'. But this song does have a short guitar solo. This song is nothing but 'rock'. You guys are blinded by genres like alternative rock, alternative meta, nu-metal and all that alternative bulls**t. Evanescence is a perfect example of rock music and they are much better than all those stupid alt. rock/post-grunge bands. Keep alternative rock away from rock. I have removed nu-metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.118.158.107 (talk) 09:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Rock Tracks

[edit]

Why has this chart been removed multiple times (by an IP user who typically has valuable edits--even if that IP has changed recently)? 24.139? The song peaked at #5, as the source shows. I saw it had been removed twice so I researched it and it's clearly sourced now that the link is fixed. Why do you keep removing it? Your edits are typically so helpful to the articles but this one I just can't understand... ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 03:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cuz the modern rock tracks and alternative songs are the same chart, the difference is that billboard changed the name from modern rock to alternative songs, so i keep removing it since technically its the same chart, and the reason its the reference says modern rock tracks is that at the time it peaked at 5 on the chart it was called modern rock tracks, so its the same chart twice with diferent names, get what im sayin? 24.139.117.90 (talk) 21:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To put it simply: I'm a bonehead. lol I swear I checked that there wasn't any Alternative Songs chart listed at all. My eyes apparently aren't attached because it's clearly there a few rows up. I knew it was/is the Alternative chart now, but I couldn't understand omitting it completely. But that's because it wasn't completely omitted, it was there all along! I'm just blind. You can totally ignore this now. lol Sorry, continue on... =) ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 22:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nü Metal?

[edit]

What source said Going Under is Nu Metal? Zhyar Merlin (talk) 11:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Going Under. 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) 21:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Going Under. 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) 19:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Going Under. 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) 01:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Going_Under&oldid=1207635108"