Talk:Evanescence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Evanescence article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Good article Evanescence has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.


Contents

[edit] Archived

Some things to remember from the old discussion pages...

  1. Consensus was reached that the official genre is to remain rock / alternative rock / pop, because this is how Evanescence identifies themselves on their MySpace page. Any attempts to change this that are not supported by a change on their MySpace page will be reverted. There's no more official source than the band itself.
  2. We've had problems on this page before from excessive links and spam in the external links section. It would be a good idea to start a discussion on the addition of new links here before adding them, because only the most official and important links are likely to be retained.

That's all for now! I look forward to collaborating with you all on this article. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 08:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Someone said...

"The band" didn't have much of a hand in writing 'Fallen' either (look at the writing credits and you'll see). It's not like it's any different now. Terry just replaced Ben as the co-writer.

I'm sorry, but that's a complete lie. There were only three members of the band when Fallen was being written, Amy and Ben helped write all the tracks and David co-wrote most. Now Amy writes ALL the tracks, three or four on her own even (which is unforgivable), with (you can see from things the band say) Terry merely adding to what she wants in the tracks he co-writes. Rocky and Will had NO writing input (and very little musical too) in The Open Door, and they were part of the band. Also, Good Enough is literally Amy Lee and Amy Lee alone (Hello and My Immortal weren't, as David played keyboards then). So don't go saying very little has changed since Fallen. Evanescence used to be good. U-Mos 16:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Uh, I didn't write that, some Anon did. They just were never tagged with {{unsigned2}}. Also, please remember that statements such as "Evanescence used to be good." are simply your opinion, and only serve to be inflammatory to others. Others might, and certainly do, disagree. -- Huntster T • @ • C 16:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
For me, Evanescence is much beter now and will continue improving. Just because Ben Moody left, it doesn't mean that Amy owns the band...She has said that she could consider a solo career, but not now when she's so young, (maybe on 15 or 20 years though xD)...Armando (talk|ImgTalk|contribs) 23:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologise for attributing the quote to Hunster and for including my personal opinion. Evanescence just make me really angry these days... Also, saying "Ben was the band" could be argued as true, as they are barely recognisable since he left. U-Mos 11:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Does it really matter? The boys are happy. If they wern't they would have left.


umm i dont know how to do a new topic and im not a member but in the article it says this "Evanescence's tour to promote "The Open Door" began October 5, 2006 in Toronto, and continued to various locations in North America, Europe, Japan and Australia", is this refering to the tour before the end of 2006? because if it is Australia should not be included in that sentence because Evanescence is coming here in the middle of Febuary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.238.78.99 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I thought it was one long tour. Are you saying they are on two tours placed very close together? If so, do you know where this was stated? -- Huntster T • @ • C 10:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"Evanescence's tour to promote "The Open Door" began October 5, 2006 in Toronto, and continued to various locations in North America, Europe, Japan and Australia. **Another world tour began January 5, 2007 in Montreal**. In addition, the Montreal fans were also treated to the live debut of "Cloud Nine" and "Your Star", from the Open Door album. The Canadian portion of the tour features the band Stone Sour" ------- It sounds as if they have 2 tours, but i think it is one, and if it IS 2 then australia should only be said in the second one because they haven't been here yet, they will be here mid Febuary

OK i changed it to make it sound like one big tour because there was never any mention or confirmation on there ever being 2 tours, and i also added australia and asia to the list of places that evanescence is set to be touring (as said on Evanescence.com) i am a new user so i hope it sounds better now Zacanescence 15:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone think that the article should mention that it snows when lithium is played at the concerts? -i saw an interview on youtube where she said it was a secret, but not anymore Zacanescence 08:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Eh, it's not really relevant to the article. I don't think there's a reason to include it...fairly minor. -- Huntster T • @ • C 10:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Genre:

I know this has been one of the most debated subjects ever, but i can honestly say they are definately NOT a pop band. If you have ripped songs off "Fallen" and "The Open Door", you will see that the genres are: "Gothic Metal", "Hard Rock" and "Alternative Metal". I am angry with people calling them a pop band as they clearly arent, just because they are successful with the mainstream doesn't mean they are a pop band! I will continue to change the genres until someone comes to their senses and LEAVES IT!!! James x —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.38.246.254 (talk) 15:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

We work on facts here. I may agree that they are not a pop band, I may personally feel they are gothic or whatever, but their official myspace page states Pop, Rock and Alt, so that is what we use. Until something else official comes along, it will stay that way. End of story. If you do keep changing this, it will be considered intentional vandalism, and you face the potential of being blocked. Just a word of caution. -- Huntster T • @ • C 17:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Emo? elevenzeroonechat / what i've done / email 14:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
You should state somewhere - Huntster - that "their official myspace page states Pop, Rock and Alt". elevenzeroonechat / what i've done / email 14:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
That is one of the reasons for a reference tag, so such explanations don't have to be made in the text. -- Huntster T • @ • C 19:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how to correctly put this into the above context, but here it goes, along with my contact information: Simply going by what a band puts on their "official" page may not be accurate. More than likely, the record company that put together their "official" myspace (record company, not the band themselves) put "pop" as one of their genres in order to widen their search parameters so more people will notice their band on Myspace. Also, bands often put genres that are clearly different from what they truly are, for no particular reason. It's not an accurate piece of information. Evanescence's genre is "Alternative Metal", as referred to by almost every definition of the genre. A band can call themselves whatever they want on an "official" myspace, but that doesn't mean it's what they are. My name of reference is "Progdrummer17", and you can reach me at "progdrummer17@gmail.com". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.82.206.75 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

No, you are perfectly accurate in your assessment, but that is a citable official source, so we have to use it until something better (more accurate and citable) comes along, whether we agree or not. -- Huntster T • @ • C 06:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Genre changed to Alt Rock / Hard Rock, with a very accurate and citable source, their offical website bio which is credited to their record company, this has to be more than or at least equal to the "Myspace page ref." and way more acurate than before, please leave it as this as it is alot more acurate, with a very very citable source (their offical site)[1]

Agreed, this describes them much better, then whats cited on MySpace, plus its from their official website Segway

First of all, why are you agreeing with yourself? Second, nowhere on the bio page is Alt Rock mentioned, and Hard Rock used as a genre is only mentioned as not a genre description (at least I don't see it as such), but as a component descriptor. If you want to use that, shouldn't you also use "classical", since it is used right beside "hard rock"? While I'm still tempted to revert, I won't for the time being. -- Huntster T • @ • C 23:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Everyone I know thinks there are some kind of metal.And I agree.Evanescence are Alternative Metal.Xr 1 18:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

yes i agree i'll change it to alternative metal as it is clearly what they are. james

Aren't we using the genres provided on MySpace? If so, it should say Rock, Alternative, and Pop (see here). // PoeticDecay 21:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
We were, but I'd be happy to *keep* it at just Alternative Rock, which seems to be the most agreed upon. Definitely not Alternative metal though...I've never seen that term used anywhere to describe them. -- Huntster T • @ • C 07:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes but the term Aletrnative Metal is the most precise about their style.Just read the article about this genre.They may not say 'We are alternative metal' but that's the truth.Xr 1 13:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That's considered original research. They've actually described themselves as Alt rock. -- Huntster T • @ • C 14:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This is Hunter, from the comment made above earlier. I just want to say to Huntster, I'm sorry you have to put up with people like us saying the same things over and over. We understand that Wikipedia is about using verifiable information, and that's the best we can do, it's just a frustration for those among us who are musicians or devoted fans who know better. Feel free to delete this comment if it's just taking up space, as long as you read it first :-D


Note: Evanescence has never mentioned Wagnerian Rock in their own words, and no official sources have either. Search on google for "evanescence wagnerian rock" and the top links are bebo. They are Alternative Metal as a band, but songs contain aspects of other genres; "pop" simply means popular and Evanescence could be regarded as such. (p.s. Hunter... Evanescence counts as music? :p) Kypzethdurron 13:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been searching around for genres that actually come straight from the band, check out this page: http://lnx.evanescencewebsite.com/PressArchive/news.php?id=139 goth, metal, nu metal. amy has said countless times in interviews that they are more metal now so i think we should change the genre, not to one style, but to 3 or maybe 4.???? exmouthjames14@aol.com

I should point out that the band did not make those descriptions, but the writer of the article. That's definitely not the same thing, and should not be used. -- Huntster T • @ • C 23:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I recommend using a neutral but reliable source: AllMusic. This is a reliable music review website, and an independant but trustworthy source for music information. They list the Genres as Goth Metal, Post-Grunge, and Alternative Metal. I'd recommend using these. Phsource 21:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather recommend against using AllMusic for this purpose. As I recall, Lee herself has rather pointedly stated they are not a goth band, that this was a label applied by others. AllMusic says their base genre is "Rock", which is fine, but I'd imagine most individuals would agree that they are not mainstream rock. Alternative Rock has been used as a descriptor before, and seems to be a nice middle ground in this conflict. -- Huntster T • @ • C 23:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gothic rock

I think we don't need a citation here..

Although usually categorized as rock, Evanescence does not easily fit into any one rock subcategory. The band is sometimes labeled by media sources as, and takes influences from gothic rock[citation needed]

Just listen to most of the songs and you'll see it "takes influences from gothic rock" (but i think it is gothic rock). Armando (talk|ImgTalk|contribs) 00:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I actually think we don't need that entire line and list. I mean, it rather conflicts with the whole MySpace thing, and weakens our position of citing it as a reason to keep the genre's as they are. I'd vote to remove. -- Huntster T • @ • C 00:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Those are factual assertions ("labeled by media sources" and "take influences from") and those require evidence beyond your own personal opinion. --ElKevbo 23:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it should be removed too. Armando (talk|ImgTalk|contribs) 00:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


      • Although usually categorized as rock, Evanescence does not easily fit into any one rock subcategory*** - i like this but i think that it could be better at the beginning of this paragraph it should say something like -Although Evanescence is hard to fit into any one genre it has been recigonised mostly as...Rock or Metal (Something along those lines)Zacanescence 05:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The upside of this line is that it provides Wikipedia links to the various styles of Rock that Evanescence falls into, some of which are lesser-known, and may inspire readers to research these genres. And many Gothic Rock enthusiasts would assert that Evanescence is certainly NOT true Goth Rock. If Evanescence eventually defines or creates a new sub-genre of Rock, I'd be all for labelling them under the New Genre. But for now, I think the line reads nicely and should stay as it is. A citation is not needed, as rock styles are somewhat subjective and no one Rock Critic should be allowed to define a style (and different critics would likely disagree anyway.) Woodson 20:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Evanescence Dictionary @ MusicianDictionary.com

Hi, I added the link to the Evanescence Dictionary. It's on a new site that I love, and am trying to help build up. Please check it out and help contribute. As you can see on the Bad Religion dictionary on Musician Dictionary, this site has the potential to hold a lot more info for us about our favorite bands than wikipedia.

The Evanescence Dictionary @ MusicianDictionary.com

Caredemption 18:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but we generally do not link to other unestablished and non-notable wikis outside of the Mediawiki network. This one definitely qualifies as both. -- Huntster T • @ • C 20:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Kaelas 18:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)i dont think that evanescence is goth rock. amy lee has classified it as rick/alternative. :P Kaelas

[edit] Not gothic rock influenced

This band have never cited gothic rock acts as an influence on their music. The media has sometimes compared them to Lacuna Coil who are a gothic METAL act, nothing to do with gothic rock. I'll give it three days for a source to be found before the false claim is removed. - Deathrocker 01:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It's obvious that Evanescence takes influences from gothic rock...just listen to the music! We really don't need to cite every phrase on the article. Armando (talk|ImgTalk|contribs) 05:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

No, its not obvious at all. None of their music has anything in common with the musical characteristics and sound of bands that belong to gothic rock, there isn't a single gothic rock band in which they are similar to and they don't state them as an influence in interviews either.

Name one gothic rock band that sounds anything like Evanescence?... you can't. - Deathrocker 14:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually I remember reading somewhere that they were influenced by Type O Negative, they were a Doom/Goth metal band. james

The primary reason Evanescence is labeled "gothic" anything is likely because of their visual image, as far as I can tell. For example, the way Amy Lee dressed in whatever that music video was that they featured a clip of in the TV ads for the last album; the tone and sometimes content of some of their other videos, the black and white one where Lee was a ghost-type figure for instance, or the one that used imagery taken from Little Red Riding Hood. From what I've seen, many of their younger female fans like to dress in the mainstream goth/punk-derived fashions from places like Hot Topic. It's amusing, because a lot of the ones I've seen will call themselves "goth", but they listen to bands like Evanescence, who while they use some imagery and clothing that shows that kind of visual influence, don't always sound like "goth rock" at all. They're not really members of the Goth subculture (these kids, not the band, is who I'm referring to), but they like to dress up and pretend they are. It's kind of cute, actually (nothing against the styles, here, I think they're fun and I've been wanting to try them more often myself, but today's younger teens really have no idea what "Goth" traditionally means as far as music or subcultures go, I think they honestly think that it's mostly the clothes). I think it's all these kids seeing Amy Lee's clothes and thinking gothy clothes=Goth that end up labeling Evanescence a gothic rock band most of the time. Not to say they aren't occasionally dark and don't seem to show some influence from there, but it's not quite the same as being a "gothic rock" band. 4.235.69.150 17:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About Band history

It should be keeped as it is now. Fallen, The Open Door and Anywhere but Home are inside the history, and not as aparted topics like the Discography and the Band members...It's like you'd put Former members outside the Members section. Armando.O (talk|contribs) 07:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, Alternative rock seems to be the most common consensus around here, but if you can find proof of them being referenced as Alternative Metal, we'll cite that. But for now, we'll let consensus rule. -- Huntster T • @ • C 20:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evanescence new album took 3 years to make

i think amy took so long on writing her songs because she was dealing with her breakup. i dont think it had anything to do with band members leaving.??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.67.132.254 (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

I don't think it was because of a break-up, though I'm sure that didn't help. There were three main reasons it took so long. 1) Fallen touring lasted so long 2) Terry's stoke 3) Amy wanted the creative process to take it's time to make a good album, rather than force something out and risk a crappy album. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.187.46.26 (talk • contribs).

[edit] The article

The article is already in decent shape, so getting it to GA won't be too much of a problem. I'm glad to see everything integrated into the history section, which is the right move; a lot of times, people will create seperate sections for "criticism" and whatnot instead of injecting it into the history. Seperate sections for criticism usually spawn POV, redundant statements (already described in history), and criticism taken out of context (after all, most critics discuss albums, not whole band careers). Glad to see that this article avoids that.

I changed the structure a little but to minimise subsections and maximize chronology. I also started the initial stages of a copyedit. The lead needs to be expanded by about twice its current size (probably to three paragraphs: intro, history, and influence/reception). Additionally, we need to find more citations for the article. I may have some time to help with that. — Deckiller 22:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the recent relocation of the Christian Controversy section. The section discusses the controversy as it appears throughout the band's history (one source was a 2006 interview). Therefore, it's best to place it last (or in its own section) as a way to mark it as being an issue for longer than a couple months between albums. — Deckiller 23:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, and that makes logical sense. I've reverted with reference here. -- Huntster T • @ • C 00:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protect

Should the article be semi-protected (only registered users will be able to edit this article)...???

Well, there have been a lot of vandalism...

[2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] and much more...

 Armando.O  (talk|contribs) 22:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Evanescence Reference Wiki - External Links

I would like to nominate that the fan wiki The Evanescence Reference be added to the External Links section of the page. It is hosted and mantained by DhammaSeeker who is a well known member of the fan community—notably employed by the band as the head moderator of EvThreads. The wiki is very well established, and extensively refered to within the fan community. Gyakusetsu 08:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This would be ill-advised. While it may look nice and complete, virtually nothing there is sourced, it is hardly considered stable and there really aren't that large a number of editors, three prerequisites for any wiki to be useful as an external link (much less a reference source). See WP:EL (Links to be avoided #12) if you haven't already. I find it useful as a jumping off point, to see what may or may not need to be added to Wikipedia, but I'd never consider using it as an actual resource beyond seeing what dirt the fanbase is currently uncovering. -- Huntster T • @ • C 09:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm an editor there, but unfortunetly all the things stated above are true. =S  Armando.O  (talk|contribs) 19:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. I understand Wikipedia's quality standards and would not wish to compromise them. Perhaps time will bring more stability/reliability to the Evanescence Reference Wiki and it can then be added to this article. Gyakusetsu 20:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christian controversy

The Christian controversy should be placed a section called Controversies, because if it's placed on the History section, it implies that this happend at a particular point in history.

See here.  Armando.O  (talk|contribs) 21:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

No respondes, I'm proceeding.  Armando.O  (talk|contribs) 00:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA nomination status: On hold

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is well written.
    a (prose): b (structure): c (MoS): d (jargon):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (inline citations): c (reliable): d (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:


This article is not failing outright because it is a good article, but it is not passing at this time due to the following image problems:

  1. Image:Evanescence_early.png - no detailed fair use rationale
  2. Image:EvFallencover01.jpg - Improper license, album covers are copyrighted, therefore ineligible for licensing under a CC-BY-SA license, use {{albumcover}} and a fair use rationale instead
  3. Image:Ev anb scan1.jpg - Improper license, album covers are copyrighted and therefore ineligible for licensing under a CC-BY-SA license, use {{albumcover}} and a fair use rationale instead

The rest of the article is exceptionally well sourced, as well as well written. If these image issues are resolved, this article will pass. Kyra~(talk) 03:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Lead also needs to be two paragraphs and style needs references. M3tal H3ad 12:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Done.  Armando.O  (talk|contribs) 04:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The lead still needs to be expanded. If I have time later today, I'll give it a treatment. — Deckiller 04:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Definitely does need expansion, but I cannot think of what can be included here that wouldn't simply be a rehash of material already presented in the article. Personally, I hate summaries...that's what the table of contents is for.... -- Huntster T • @ • C 04:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
You could say they've had two #1 records in the US and the total album sales instead of just for one album, Fallen. Also maybe X number of top 10 singles in the US. The lead isn't meant to introduce new stuff, its just a very brief overview of the article. Their grammy wins could also possibly be added to the lead.M3tal H3ad 10:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
See WP:LEAD, in particular: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article" --Ideogram 08:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I will attempt to create something this afternoon/evening when I get out of lecture. As an aside, after working on another band article-group, I wonder if it might not be better to place the membership changes completely under "Band members" section rather than mixing with album info. Anyone have thoughts on this? -- Huntster T • @ • C 17:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. You will need to replace the title "History" with two sections "Albums" and "Band members". --Ideogram 21:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
What?????? No!!! If we change that..the section Lineup changes and ANB...would be separated, and you can't change that, because the history must be written in chronological order...
The changes in the band are a part of the history....and the band members section is for that...for the band members...not for their history... Armando.O  (talk|contribs) 17:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Well I'm really just an observer here, your opinion carries more weight than mine. --Ideogram 17:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Where is it said that things must be chronological? I mean, if there is some policy I've never heard of that says so, then so be it, but there are plenty of good articles that don't necessarily present everything in chrono. I'll hold off on any changes till this is sorted out. -- Huntster T • @ • C 23:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I actually agree that the two subjects should probably stay together. I have come across quite a few band articles on this site and all of them tend to have the history secion split up into eras that include lineup changes. I'm almost thinking that there should be a bit less album info; you might want to consder keeping the really specific album details in their respective pages. I mean, most of the 2nd paragraph in the section Lineup changes and Anywhere but Home could easily be omitted and moved to the Anywhere but Home article to make for a smoother flow. Gyakusetsu 00:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
About the chronological, I think that's logical and about the comment of Gya, in the ANB section are mentioned a many things that happened around the ANB era (like the other sections), and that's considered history (isn't it?). Now, the album articles are for the albums (album facts, charts, sales and maybe tour, see The Open Door) and not for the things that happened around the ANB era, sooooo, i think that shouldn't be written there..If I'm wrong just tell me!
And, about Ideogram comment: Well I'm really just an observer here, your opinion carries more weight than mine...you're wrong! Everyone's opinions are equal!! Even if someone has made 1000 edits on an article and other has made 1 edit :)  Armando.O  (talk|contribs) 01:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I've (problably xD) improved the lead, but I dunno if it's ok... Armando.O  (talk|contribs) 01:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The lead seems fine to me. As the article is under 15,000 characters (text only, no references), one paragraph suffices for the lead section according to WP:LEAD. Kyra~(talk) 03:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coincidentally...

Good work guys!!!
Good work guys!!!

Upon reviewing the article again, I have found that all my concerns that caused me to place the article on hold have been rectified, as well as the expansion of the lead paragraph as recommended by M3tal H3ad. As these concerns have been addressed within the time period specified when an article is put on hold, I am now passing this article into the realm of Good Article status. Excellent work. Kyra~(talk) 03:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah! Now let's go for Amy Lee article xD  Armando.O  (talk|contribs) 04:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
AWESOME!!! It's been a long time in coming. *breaks out champagne* Fantastic work everybody! – Lantoka (talk) 05:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this is a good day :) Actually, the Amy Lee article isn't so bad right now. I'd be interested in getting some "professional" opinions on it. -- Huntster T • @ • C 06:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much; I'm glad to have helped out with this article. — Deckiller 12:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Great work everyone. --Ideogram 23:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Remember...one of the first people that contributed and did a great job in this article was Childzy. Armando.Otalk • Ev 17:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys well done on getting this article to GA, god knows i tried but you know how it is, theres always a few people that like to spoil things. I see all the images were removed... its things like that which made me leave, sometimes its just not worth the stress, anyway good work =] --Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 20:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wiktionary tag

Excuse me Huntster, I didn't notice that there was already a Wiktionary tag at the end of the article. So the first time I didn't understand your revert and that's why I replace it after. Actually, it's better to place the inline template at the top rather than the usual interwiki at the end since the evanescence is firstly a notion before being the name of the famous band. Typically, a person wanting to know what is the evanescence may conclude just by giving a glance to the article that there is no information about the evanescence on Wikipedia (well, that's the disambiguation principle of Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Top links). So if you don't mind, I will remove the Wiktionary interwiki at the end of the article and replace the one at the top. Ok? 16@r 10:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are wrong. Actually evanescence (not the band) is a word and that's why Wiktionary exists, doesn't it? ...For example, the word .mm....Early...there's no article in Wikipedia because it's a word, not a topic wich written like the Water article, or the glass article...Armando.Otalk • Ev 16:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Again, I strongly disagree. Not only is the wikitionary link mentioned fairly prominently in the body of the article, but if a person is looking for additional related information, they look in the References, See Also, and External links sections of the article, which is where the Wiktionary link is located. Disambig isn't an issue, as there is no other article that I'm aware of using the term Evanescence, and the actual word is not very prominent. I continue to recommend leaving as-is. -- Huntster T • @ • C 19:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Huntster and Armando. The current setup is fine. – Lantoka (talk) 01:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image sizes

I prefer not to specify explicit image sizes because that allows readers to use the thumbnail size they set in their preferences. I will make the change so you can see it; if you don't like it feel free to revert. --Ideogram 23:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

yeah that's reasonable..Armando.Otalk • Ev 17:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Navigation template

According to WP:FU, fair use images are only supposed to be used in articles. As a trial, I've been experimenting with the logo in the Evanescence navigation template to limit it to display only in articles. Also licensing should be available, so rather than using {{click}}, a link to licensing can be provided with mw:Extension:ImageMap. Just letting you know -- seemed like this page would get more traffic than the wikiproject talk page, which doesn't even exist yet! So, when is this article going to appear at WP:FAC? Gimmetrow 02:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Np! Armando.Otalk • Ev 02:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

I've added the *EvClub. It's the official fanclub, so I think it should be added (it's also linked in the Amy Lee article.) Armando.Otalk • Ev 03:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images deleted

Why the album covers are being deleted? This looks more like vandalism than a good edit. There's no policy than indicates than album covers should not be used. Many featured articles like Nirvana (band), Nightwish, Genesis (band) have album covers images. I really don't know why, the user Ed g2s has selected the Evanescence article to try to destroy a lot of work made by many contributors, including me. First, you try to delete the main image of the WikiProject Evanescence, and now this? Don't take offense, but it's really what this looks like. Armando.Otalk • Ev 22:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, please don't accuse other editors of vandalism just because you disagree with them. If you care to read my edit summaries you will see my justification. "Many featured articles like ... have album covers" - two wrongs don't make a right. "I really don't know why, the [ed] has selected [this article]" - if you really must know it was because discussion about the template at the footer was mentioned on a page I watch, you really ought to assume good faith. "destroy a lot of work " - in-lining four images is hardly a lot of work. "try to delete the main image of the WikiProject Evanescence" - as you well know the image was suspected of being a derivative work. ed g2s • talk 23:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Suspected? You were the only one that though that. Armando.Otalk • Ev 22:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Omg, again with that. And you say i don't read your summaries. You haven't even read the info of the image nor the discussion of the IFD. I've said like 1000 times that it's not a derivated work. Why you considerate it a derivated logo? Cuz it has a similar E? It would be a derivated work if I had copied the logo and added a little line or what I know. And you know what, stop that thing of good faith, because really your actions are not of good faith. Armando.Otalk • Ev 23:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I've realized of ANOTHER thing. You are contradicting youself. You have also removed the Evanescence early logo, and it's not an album cover. Armando.Otalk • Ev 00:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Wo...you haven't read this in the Evlithium1.jpg ...(post by Lantoka)
"Before Tagging for deletion - Please note that there has been considerable debate on everything from what image to use in the Evanescence article to proper interpretation and implementation of Wikipedia's fair use policy, and that this is the image chosen by the regular editors of the Evanescence article for the infobox. Please assume good faith and leave a message on the Talk:Evanescence page before tagging for deletion for whatever reason. Thank you. " Armando.Otalk • Ev 00:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I did, I left a message here per his request. Just because the editors of this article think it complies with policy, doesn't mean they are right. Our policy is frequently misinterpreted by a vast majority of our users. ed g2s • talk 19:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

More reasons!!!!! The article reached the GA status with this version Revision as of 21:43, February 21, 2007 by KyraVixen and the article inclued all the images. Why do you think the article passed? If there would have been a problem with the images it wouldn't have passed don't you think? Armando.Otalk • Ev 02:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it happens all the time. People voting on GA and FA are not all experts on our Fair Use policy. That it reached GA status tells me what I already knew, that abuse of our policy is widespread and often goes unnoticed. At least 100 images are marked for deletion every day for violating this policy, mostly correctly. ed g2s • talk 19:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Band photo

Image:Evlithium1.jpg has been marked for deletion, and images of celebrities used to show what they look like are considered replaceable (WP:FUC#1), regardless of the claim in the rationale that a user generated photo probably wouldn't be as good. ed g2s • talk 23:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

W-h-a-t t-h-e f-k? Read, please read.
# No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. While Evanescence is a very popular band and would probably be easier to get user-created pictures of than most, the fact remains that in general it's incredibly difficult to get good free use images of bands. The reasons are two-fold: the majority of user-contributed images are going to be from 1) dark concerts with bad lighting, where the band is spread across the stage and difficult to see, or 2) individual members posing with a fan. Highly unlikely that a decent picture of just the band outside of a concert setting could be found.Armando.Otalk • Ev 23:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Check this archive. We reached a consensus. And also check the fair use rationable. Armando.Otalk • Ev 23:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
All I see there is a complete lack of understanding of our policies. That the editors of this page reached a "consensus" to allow a promo picture of the band does not override our project wide policy of not using such images. ed g2s • talk 00:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I did read the rationale. It acknowledges that it would possible to create a free image of the band. It claims that the "majority" of user generated content would not be good enough quality - although how once can judge content that does not yet exist is beyond me. Images of living celebrities which are used to show what they look like are considered replaceable and are routinely deleted. ed g2s • talk 00:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

See also the precedent for images of this band: Image talk:Evanescence 1.jpg. ed g2s • talk 00:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hahahahaha! Lol! rofl...the actual consensus was reached after that image!! hahahahaha! Now, about the band...I know they are living persons. Look the Amy lee photos for examples. That's ok, but Evanescence is not Amy Lee, it's Amy, John, Rocky, Tim and Terry..5 persons! that's why a free-image don't exist by now...!Armando.Otalk • Ev 01:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why you find that so amusing. I am aware your discussion was had after the deletion, but I also fail to see a consensus being reached - the people who voiced concerns in that discussion at no point chagned their minds. Any "consensus" you may have amongst editors of this page is overruled by our policy which, as I have demonstrated, is to delete such images. The photo in it's context is being used to illustrate the members of the band. This doesn't necessarily have to be done with one photo. Photos of each member would perform that task adequately (WP:FUC#1), not to mention the fact they appear in public together so it is probably possible to create a group photo of adequate quality. ed g2s • talk 11:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Im sorry but it seems that you have a genuine problem with this article and the people that have contributed towards it. You appear to be reading the Fair image use rationales in a way which suits your purpose and you having been deleting the images on this page. I ask you to please first get the opinion of other administrators on this matter and to hold a well rounded debate. There is perfect reason to use the fair use tag for these pictures, the band do not always appear in public together and are not exactly gonna line up for you. That is why there is no free alternative. To be quite honest you are being harsh and reading the rules to suit this stance you appear to have against fair use images. A lot of people have put alot of work into the article and what is the problem with having a few fair use images on the site. Has wikipedia recieved any offical complaints from the copyright owners of the images? i think not... let it go mate --Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 21:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that your simplistic view of our copyright policy is "will Wikipedia get sued by using these images?", but we have other motives for implementing such a tight policy. Part of our founding principles is to provide free content. What may be Fair Use on the Wikipedia website may not be Fair Use in a downstream use of our content such as a commercial venture. You may not think we should care about others profiting from our hard work, but providing free content is very important to the project. ed g2s • talk 01:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Ed g2s, really you have a problem with this article. If you are not against this article, why you don't delete the images from Nirvana, Nightwish, Genesis and many other articles that are featured, and if they are featured "there must not be copyright violation"! and according to you, the use of album cover images in the articles are copyright violations...isn't that right? isn't that the way you think? Now, if they were copyright violation, those article wouldn't have passed FA...don't you think? but you said...People voting on GA and FA are not all experts on our Fair Use policy....you mean you are pro on your policy? what's all that about??
Please, please answer the question that I once asked to Rogue...Why are u so interested in deleting images of this article when you have FAs with, according to you, copyright violations. Why? If featured articles are the face of Wikipedia, why you want to "help" a "RANDOM" article like this, when you can change the (according to you, again) copyright-violated face of Wikipedia???? Why! Armando.Otalk • Ev 22:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I really don't know why you insist that I have some sinister motive. As I said before - I know hardly anything about Evanescence and have no opinion on them whatsoever. I'm sure there are hundreds of articles like this that use album covers that need to be addressed, I just so happened to be drawn to this one from another discussion, but I don't have the time to sort them all out. I can only participate in so many debates at once. I suggest you drop these accusations and focus on the dispute at hand. ed g2s • talk 01:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sure...Them if you're not interested, why are you still here? Why don't you go and check other articles, featured articles that are the face of Wikipedia. Well, you haven't answered my question at all.
  • Why do you still deleting image if this is a just a random article (according to you)?
    Because I don't walk away from debates half way through... do you? ed g2s • talk 02:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Why do you give excuses (like, "fails criterions...") to support you deletions when they are totally fake? That criterions have nothing to do with images.
    How are they fake, have you read WP:FUC - I'm not making that page up. ed g2s • talk 02:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Why do you consider yours the fair-use policy?
    I don't remember referring to "my Fair Use policy". ed g2s • talk 02:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Why you contradicte youself and change versions a lot of times? Look, you first excuse: Album covers must not be used on articles cuz it's a violation of copyright. Wrong! It's not a copyight violation. I know well what is a copyright violation and what's not. If that'd be a copyright violation, then almost every FA would be copyright violations. Also, you contradicted youself, because you deleted the Evanescence first logo also! But it's not an album cover! Second, you say it fails the fair-use criteria. Then, you told me it fails criterion 7, then 9 and then 1? What do you think I can believe?
Now, about the EV-In.svg...if you considerate that it's an unenclycopedic and irrelevent image (it's not, it's used to illustrate the WikiProject Evanescence), why don't you propose you photo (in you userpage) for deletion. Does that image illustrate an article? Or even a WikiProject? No!
No! It doesn't! But it's FREE. The Fair Use policy doesn't apply. If you're having problems with such simple concepts as these it's no wonder you don't understand my arguments. While you get your head around what's going on here, please relax, have a cup of tea, and stop putting the images back. ed g2s • talk 02:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
If you get to answer all of these question, then I'll say, "you were right", if you don't, i won't sit down and see how you and any other user delete, do and undo everytime you want. Armando.Otalk • Ev 02:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
hahahaha.,....hahahahahahaha...it's free!?!?!?!?!? I KNOW!!! MINE WAS FREE TOO!!!!!! Omg...omg....Why don't you answer my questions!? Why? Why? why?...hahahahah this has already happened with rogue..he never answered my questions...he was also deleting images like you do...i don't know his reasons..even now..i didn't get to know...i hope I get to know your reasons when you answers that insignificant questions! everything has a WHY! but it looks like you delete, do and undo without a WHY!Armando.Otalk • Ev 02:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Right, I thought you were referring to the other logo. As for the user-created one, I only suggested the image be deleted if it was determined to be unfree. If it is determined to be free, use it as you want. Being unencyclopaedic, it probably should be used in the article namespace, the same applies to my profile pic. ed g2s • talk 02:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Entrenching yourself as the gatekeeper of this article is not a good idea. I have explained the inadequacy of the Fair Use claims several times. It is now up to you to demonstrate they are usable before re-adding them. ed g2s • talk 02:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Wth! You are telling that i'm entrenching myself as a gatekeeper? Where have I mentioned it? Just cuz I want the best for this article you are telling me this? Look, I don't want to continue like this. This discussion is going anywhere, but I think you've just said something *great*."It is now up to you to demonstrate they are usable before re-adding them." Well...we use that 4 images (the erly logo, fallen cover, Anb cover and Top logo) because that's the only way that each topic (Early history, Fallen, Lineup changes and Anywhere but Home, The Open Door) can be illustrated. Early history - We had a image of the Evanescence early line-up (Amy Lee, Ben Moody and David Hodges), but it was deleted because some reason (I really don't know why). And, the only thing that can illustrate that era is the first Evanescence logo. Fallen - There are a lot of images that can be used to illustrate this (concerts, interviews ,red carpet), but the only problem is that the most probably thing that could happen is that someone comes and delete it. And, the only image that can illustrate is the Fallen cover.

Anywhere but Home and The Open Door - The same reasons of Fallen. In Anywhere but Home, I have hundreds and hundreds of screenshoot of the DVD, but I'm not really sure about uploading one of those, because someone can make a huge problem because of one picture. Armando.Otalk • Ev 03:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

"that's the only way that each topic can be illustrated" - except you haven't shown why each topic needs to be illustrated. The cover art illustrates how the album was marketed and perhaps says something about the artistic decisions or politics of the band at the time. Such points are not even mentioned in the article. ed g2s • talk 09:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Re: the band photo: The photo in it's context is being used to illustrate the members of the band. This doesn't necessarily have to be done with one photo. Photos of each member would perform that task adequately (WP:FUC#1). Compare this to the cast photo recently discussed. There are certainly differences of degree, more or fewer members in the cast or lineup, more or less "in character" or irreplaceable, but what is your view on that fair use claim? As for the cover art, the notion is that no summary of a band is comprehensive without it, and there generally is no equivalent to cover art which isn't the cover art or a near derivative (WP:FUC#1). If it's said the cover art is allowed only in an article on the album, then how is fair use justified for uniform variants in the article on the sports team, and also individual season articles? Just wondering. Gimmetrow 07:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the uniforms are justified at all. As for the covers "the notion is that no summary of a band is comprehensive without it" - well what are you saying about the band with the covers? If whatever the covers say about the band is not significant enough for you to write about then it is hardly significant enough to require an unfree illustration. ed g2s • talk 09:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
If you think the text needs expanding, you're welcome to write something. Gimmetrow 10:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
That's not the way it works. We add the images we need, not the images we might need in the future if we had a fuller article. ed g2s • talk 10:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the editors added them because they did think they were needed, given the current text of the article. Gimmetrow 10:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Then they need to explain the connection between what we learn from the cover art and what we have written. ed g2s • talk 11:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Ed g2s, you know why each topic needs to be illustrated? Because the illustration is a part of the GA criteria!!! What type of question is that!? Armando.Otalk • Ev 23:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Unless I'm mistaken, GA criteria doesn't specify we should ignore FA policy Nil Einne 09:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The GA criteria #6: "It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic" (emphasis mine) and "a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status". ed g2s • talk 11:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I think overall everyone has made fair points but the rules are on ed_g2s side. As much as i dont agree with his over implemented ideas of the fair use policy i think we should stop arguing, its only getting people stressed out. Has antone tried getting a press pack off the Ev site (if there is one available) well if not im gonna e-mail someone from ev and get them to give us explicit permission to use the images on their site on this site --Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 12:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify - you need to get any image freely licensed. Wikipedia-only permission is not allowed. ed g2s • talk 13:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Er.. what? seriously thats a fair dumb rule but meh fine. thanks for mentioning it Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 17:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Not really. The "Free" in "Free encyclopedia" means libre. Images with a license to use on Wikipedia only are no more useful to down stream users than images for which we have no permission to use. That's not to say you can't claim Fair Use on such images, but they get no special treatment. ed g2s • talk 18:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Omg...then, why do you think Wikipedia allows the use of fair-use images??? Don't be ...! If we are allowed to use fair-use images, then we can use them!!!!!! Just because you say that we can't use fair-use images, it doesn't means that we must agree with you and stop using fair-use images. If you are against that (the use of fair-use imgs), then you should be against Wikipedia. Armando.Otalk • Ev 16:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair use images can be used as long as they meet the fair use criteria and are given justice in the text. Images of bands like Nirvana are required because the band has broken up, and the Nightwish picture is licensed under the Creative Commons license - which means its free. The infobox image fails the fair use criteria because a free alternative can be created - the band still tours and is active. In this section of the Matrix there is a fair use image of the fight, which the text makes a direct reference so is allowed. That's what fair use images are for, but this one fails FUC#1 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by M3tal H3ad (talk • contribs) 10:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC).
We're not talking about the main image. We're talking about the album covers and the early logo ¬¬. Armando.Otalk • Ev 21:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand why the album covers can be used on their respective articles and not on the band's main article. The images have already been uploaded to the database and rationalized, so why is it a problem if said images are also displayed in another logical place to more clearly depict the subject matter? somebody please explain this to me. Gyakusetsu 05:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Each use requires its own rationale as Fair Use is dependent on context. We need only use unfree image when they are the subject the discussion. While the cover art may be relevant to the band, no such point is made in the article, so there is no need to show the cover art, beyond saying "look - this is what the cover looked like" and making the article pretty. Wikipedia is not a gallery for unfree media, we use it as a last resort for critical commentary. ed g2s • talk 02:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, thank you for explaining. —Gyakusetsu 07:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have scraped and pilaged for hours looking through my personal databases and have found a photo I took of the band, that is 100% free to use. I don't know though... it looks sorta odd because it was taken in a dark theater with the flash... I still think a professional promotional photo would be better, but apparently that isn't possible. Anyway, here it is: Submitted For Everyone's Approval. Again, I personally took the photo and, if people approve of putting it in the article, I will licence this photo for use on Wikipedia. —Gyakusetsu 08:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That is more than adequate - go upload it to commons. ed g2s • talk 14:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, quite adequate. I would probably do some cropping to the photo to remove excess background, primarily along the top, but also perhaps along the left side. -- Huntster T • @ • C 16:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Done and done! —Gyakusetsu 22:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Each use requires its own rationale as Fair Use is dependent on context. We need only use unfree image when they are the subject the discussion. While the cover art may be relevant to the band, no such point is made in the article, so there is no need to show the cover art, beyond saying "look - this is what the cover looked like" and making the article pretty. ed g2s...omg you are totally ...how can i call you without offense...brain-damaged??...and if that's the case...all the covers have the rationables! did you think I give up? Did you think you can do everything you want just because you don't a like a band! How many times I'll have to say the same thing!!!!!!! Why!!!!!!!!!! Why God!! oh God..i fell I've been lied to lost all faith in the things I have achieved...Armando.Otalk • Ev 03:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too Many Samples

I've noticed that the Samples section, though pleasantly extensive, contains fifteen audio samples... For a band that has only released the equivalant of 4 albums, I find this a bit excessive. I have no idea if there is an unspoken limit, but I've not come across a band artile yet with so many... 4-5 samples seems more than adequate. Gyakusetsu 05:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The Pink Floyd article has samples for almost every song mentioned...I really don't think it's something wrong...Armando.Otalk • Ev 21:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
How's that? I only count six on their main article... I kind of agree that the list needs to be trimmed down...perhaps only the first two singles from each album? -- Huntster T • @ • C 22:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

As with the images, audio clips should only be used to complement discussion in the article. If you are going to discuss a particular track and need to provide a sample, then by all means do so, but sticking up a "gallery" of samples is not what we should be using Fair Use for. ed g2s • talk 14:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

well, I didn't mean remove all the samples.... That's just silly/anal. I've put 5 important ones back in the article. —Gyakusetsu 06:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Huntster, actually there are like 30 samples (most of them are inline samples)...check it. Armando.Otalk • Ev 20:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are they devil worshipers

If you notice on the front of the cover of open door and look closely at the picture you will see a pentagram on the left on the door. Open up the cover and read the sponser part or whatever and you'll see the 666 Studioes. 666 Studioes sounds devilish to me. In the song Bring me to life at the first part she sings "without a soul", sounds like to me she sold her soul. There are a lot of signs saying she is a devil worshiper.User:Winter 01:15, 24 March 2007

Erm, I don't think there is any way to confirm that information... But I'm almost certain that most of the band is Christian in some way or another. The pentagrm isn't necissarily a symbol of "devil worship" either. And 666 Studios is simply a name, and not a front for a satanic regime of backwards children's music. In other words, don't delve too deeply into it because A) there is no way to prove it either way and B)Nobody cares.Gyakusetsu 22:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evanescence: Live from Las Vegas, Exclusive to iTunes

should we include this in the article? or even the albums list, it was recorded at the Palms Casino Resort on March 17th, will include behind the scenes footage, and video/audio of the event and is available on iTunes for download in the coming weeks

more info here.... http://www.evthreads.com/announcement.php?f=5 .Zacanescence 12:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend not including this, at least, not in the discography or in any significant way. Perhaps some one-liner could be written, but it seems rather superfluous. There are probably multiple concert recordings out there. Also, please add new discussions to the bottom of the page, rather than the top. Thanks. -- Huntster T • @ • C 12:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
theres not multiples of this kind of concert, Evanescence is the FIRST band to perform live from the Palms for iTunes' music store. but yes i agree it should be written in and add that they are the first to perform for this event aswell. Zacanescence 09:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll take your word for it, as I don't use iTunes. However, are you saying that Evanescence is the first live performance being carried on iTunes, or just the first from Palms? If it is the latter, that hardly seems notable. In other words, it's just another performance. -- Huntster T • @ • C 18:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evanescence output beyond "The Open Door"?

The time lapse between Fallen and TOD announcements/rumors were, iirc, pretty substantial. Does anyone have a more accurate, or at least roundabout, number to put on this and maybe speculate a bit on when we might be seeing a third studio release from Amy & Co.? All guesswork at this point, of course, but it may be interesting to see how things pan out as their touring slows down. Exigence 03:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Anything said would be pure speculation, as they have not given any indication as to their future plans. -- Huntster T • @ • C 04:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/v/a/Talk%7EEvanescence_94af.html"