Talk:Call Me When You're Sober

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Call Me When You're Sober is within the scope of WikiProject Evanescence, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Evanescence's articles and related stuff. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page (Talk).
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-Importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Call Me When You're Sober article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Pop 100 Airplay

I noticed that this hasn't been updated in a few weeks, I've searched google for hours trying to locate the Pop 100 Airplay but Billboard only provide the top 25 unless you subscribe (with money), as im a cheap skate I have no way of confirming the position or if it has moved up/down. Does anybody have a subscription, or know how to confirm the current position? If not I will remove this chart position. 82.30.159.133 15:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Song lyrics and link to full song

I've added them but if you don't want the link up please remove it then.

Offering a helping hand here :) --HuntingUnicorns 16:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

We cannot put all of the lyrics on as it is a copyvio, somebody owns the lyrics remember so we can use maybe two or three lines just as a sort of sample. Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 18:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

but the lyrics are on the official evanescence board. evboard.com --HuntingUnicorns 02:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

its by no means an official site, and it doesnt matter, its a forum. do not add them again --Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 07:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't add them again I only added them 1ce. Check my contributions. The rest have been my talk in here. 16:04, 30 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Call Me When You're Sober <--that was when I added them. It's a forum that the band frequently posts on, and they hold connections to the band. The band even said it is their offical forum since wind up took their own site's down. All Evanescence fans who go on the baord know that if the lyrics are up on Evboard.com it's been approved by the band and their label to be on the internet. --HuntingUnicorns 20:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Actually, that's not true at all. EvBoard is just a message board. People can post whatever they want there whether the band or Wind-Up Records agrees with it or not. The message board is not official and it isn't run by the band members themselves, although they do post there at times.

Dannycastillo 03:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You are actually wrong there. There are criteria that one must follow before posting. Also the creators of the forum are able to remove posts as they please.


"its by no means an official site, and it doesnt matter, its a forum" You know, if a forum is independantly notable, it CAN have a Wikipedia article or be used as a source under special circumstances. Please note that I'm not necessarily arguing in favor of EvBoard being used as a source (I'm not familiar enough with it or the band's online history to say one way or another, really), but saying it doesn't matter "because it's a forum" is silly. That's like saying something "doesn't matter because it's a blog" as a source. Why would that be silly? Because while the vast majority of blogs (and forums, of course) are non-notable, in rare cases they ARE notable for whatever reason, if not worthy of their own article than at least worth using as an occasional source. For instance, it's known that Amy Lee has posted on EvBoard before (even making at least one important announcement on there, as you can see in the article on the band itself), so in SPECIAL circumstances, it can be used as a source, and if the band has adopted it as their main online means of communication to the public as is claimed (which I won't claim to verify ;) ), it's even more so...
...however, unless a member of the band or someone else who has direct permission from the band chooses to release the lyrics to the board themself, I would agree that it probably shouldn't be linked from Wikipedia (especially since it's usually pretty easy to find a site with lyrics for a popular song anyway if you Google it, so it's not entirely necessary). It would be different, of course, if you were linking to a specific page on an official band website that listed the lyrics, since you would be linking to material the band delibrately made publicly-available for free online. This is also even more true of links to the song itself. If it were an older song, there might not be much problem with it because the band is on record as saying they encourage fans to download their earliest material (due to it being pressed in extremely limited quantities), but there's no grey area at all about new material from what I can tell.4.235.60.22 20:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I think you are a little behind the times, as EvBoard has been all but abandoned by the band in favour of Amy Lee's EvThreads. However, both are still considered to be fansites, and should not be added as an external link per WP:EL. Also, it should be noted that lyrics should never be linked to or included in an article due to copyright concerns, unless such a link points to an official website for the band. -- Huntster T • @ • C 00:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] why was the lyrics taken down

they are on the offical evanescence board. www.evboard.com --HuntingUnicorns 14:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It isn't encyclopaedic to put lyrics on the page. They aren't on any other single pages and it's not necessary. It doesn't matter if they're on the official boards or not. Leemorrison 19:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How many albums?

Okay, correct me if I'm wrong, but won't this be the third studio album (Origin, Fallen, Open Door), and third commercial release (Fallen, Anywhere..., Open Door)? -- Huntster T • @ • C 05:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

eveanescence have already said that they do no consider origin their debut studio album, but as a 'dressed up demo' that they took to various record companys before they got a proper record deal, plus only 2500 copies of origin were released so it wasnt a proper release like fallen was, it was more comparable to the 2 eps they done before thet in terms of release
but yes, it is their third release as anywhere but home is counted as a release, but obvously not a studio album :)Snowball1988 01:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
re: Origin: oi, how could I forget that? I wonder if there should be a consensus about what line to use when describing "The Open Door": Second studio album, or Third commercial release. It will be confusing if different terms are used in different locations. Not everyone will know the difference. -- Huntster T • @ • C 01:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I say use second studio album, 'cos that's more important. U-Mos 12:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charts table

I believe the table of peak positions on charts is redundant beacuase we can simply put that info into the infobox. Barring any strenuous dissentions, I will be bold and move them over. Copysan 04:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 4 in the video; 5 in the band

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I only noticed four band members in the video (and indeed the promo picture) for this song. I'm assuming it's Terry Balsamo who's missing due to his health problems, but can someone confirm this so it can be put into the article? U-Mos 12:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

They lost there Bass player before the vide shoot.Remember the one that dressed weird at the grammy's?he's gone. -SOADLuver

Oh yeah... my mistake! U-Mos 09:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

no the one who dressed wierd was Ben Moody, their lead guitarist that they lost much earlier then Will Boyde (former bassist)

[edit] Messed up

someone has totally screwed up the page, cant it be reverted to a better version? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.30.159.133 (talk • contribs) 09:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

In what way has it been screwed up? Tell me what the problem is, and I'll attempt to fix it. Thanks. -- Huntster T • @ • C 14:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
What has happened to the peak chart positions in different countries box, I like to see how well a specific song is doing worldwide. This was here before but has now been removed? 82.30.159.133 15:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Ive also noticed that the singles timeline no longer says 'T.B.A 2006' as the next song in the timeline, this suggests to me that Evanescence won't release any further songs, which I know is not true 82.30.159.133 15:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
About your first item, I think the section "Chart positions" in the right sidebar covers that. As for the TBA thing, I was curious about that myself, but it seems to be the standard format for the album timeline, so I see nothing wrong with it. One (loose) justification could be that as we cannot know for certain whether a band will release another album, we should not assume that they will (based on "WP:NOT A Crystal Ball"). -- Huntster T • @ • C 15:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the "Chart Positions" to the side really does cover it, when the song is released worldwide, the side bar will only incorperate a few of the positions, I believe it to be more informative if the Peak position box is re-introduced to include the majority of charting positions? 82.30.159.133 19:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually the sidebar will incorporate whatever you put in it. The point of the sidebar is to list all the peaks (majority of charts included), which is what it is doing. Putting in another chart is reundandant and a waste of space and bandwidth Copysan 20:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, that's the beauty of sidebars...they'll expand to do whatever you need them to do. Being concise is key to a good article! Btw Copysan, thanks for cleaning up those cites, much nicer now. Never got around to doing that (darnit, kept getting calls I had to dispatch!) :) -- Huntster T • @ • C 20:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Kraft. has changed the page back to how it was originally without an edit summary or explanation. I have requested twice he join our discussion about sidebar vs actual page content. However, I won't revert immediately to avoid starting an edit war. Kraft, if youre reading, please comment here, otherwise, I will revert in about 24 hours. Copysan 23:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

What happened to the iTunes top 100 position? 82.30.159.133 12:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chart Tables

THose tables are empty and unfilled. Unless somebody strenuously objects in about 12 hours, I will comment out that section until this single actually gets in a chart, at which point, you can add that table back in. Right now it is a waste of bandwidth and space, and violates WP:NOT a crystal ball. (Because we are predicting that this single will chart.) Copysan 20:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the American Billboard one should be left on there because it is highly likely the single will chart in the near future (as it is now available for download) - if the single fails to chart then I see it as fair to remove the table. It is fair to remove other tables until a week before they chart. Mtowers 22:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Highly likely is not Wikipedia's place to project. WP:NOT a crystal ball. We report on events that happened in the past, not events that are likely to happen in the future Copysan 01:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think trajectories should be included after the song charts either, because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Also, they're extremely hard to verify afterwards. Extraordinary Machine 00:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
(Sorry if I have some grammar mistakes I'm not a native English-speaker) I just think the biggest music markets should be in 'the single infobox' like U.S. Billboard Hot 100, UK Singles Chart, ARIA Charts, Canadian Singles Chart, German Singles Chart, French Singles Chart, Eurochart Hot 100 Singles and United World Chart. MuchMusic Countdown, iTunes and other Billboard Charts (because they're 'less' important than Billboard Hot 100) should be stay in the chart positions box (out of the 'single infobox'). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kraft. (talk • contribs).
I think it should go in the info box since there is a specific space for them there. Copysan 20:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree because later there will be more charts listed and they will be too many to include them in the single infobox. Kraft. 18:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Charts that dont meet notability standards arent supposed to go into the listing or be mentioned anyways. WP should not be listing every chart made by some random website. Copysan 20:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, are you going to change all the singles articles? because if you're going to do that with this article, you must do it with the rest of the articles wich talk about singles... I don't think you want to... Kraft. 16:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Most singles articles ive seen use the sidebar exclusively. Copysan 17:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Really? like what? because I've not seen anything Kraft. 20:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Intresting opinion. Personally, I dont like WP NOT indiscriminate, but its a policy nonetheless. Anybody else have any opinions? Copysan 23:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
You can see chart trajectories in this web site (since 2003) Kraft. 03:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pics of Amy Lee

Do we really need so many shots of Amy Lee? (Might I add that both shots look nearly the same) Copysan 20:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd recommend reverting that last image edit, keeping the original in favour of the new one. -- Huntster T • @ • C 21:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the current screencaps are too extreme closeups of Lee to give an accurate representation of the video. How about taking one from another scene, such as the one in which she and those dancers are floating in mid-air? Extraordinary Machine 00:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Good idea, or how about one of the full-length dinner table shots? I only wish I had a copy, and I'd take some caps. -- Huntster T • @ • C 00:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I was able to get screenshots of the 320x240 version on Evanescene's website. You can see some of the thumbnails I took here: rapidshare If you dont like rapidshare, email me (Through email user) your email address, and Ill send it along. I also have the full wmv file, if you want to take the shots yourself. If somebody can point me to a higher resolution shot of the video, please leave a link here, and I can probably snag it down. I use the rapidshare killcode in 24 hours, so grab it quickly. Copysan 02:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Hell yes. More, if possible. She's hot. 18:31, 09 September 2006 (UTC)

Literally every shot in the video is screencapped here Ketan Kapoor 16:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cover...

Wich image will be used on the article? This [1] or this [2]?? Armando (talk|contribs) 02:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why has been changed it! resolution is not so good, mmmh the single also hasn't been released yet sorry as a physical single (I wonder how the image can be here now) Kraft. 03:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
so...must I revert it to the Radio promo version? Armando (talk|contribs) 03:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you must

Why can't anyone upload the real cover, not that stupid promo shot? U-Mos 17:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Well done, Mahogany h00r. And not before time either! U-Mos 15:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/a/l/Talk%7ECall_Me_When_You%27re_Sober_be23.html"