Talk:Evanescence/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

EvThreads.com

An anonymous user is claiming that this message board (fairly young, 30k total posts) is their official message board, and keeps making edits to this article that reflect that. Well, here's what my research dug up. EvThreads.com is indeed mentioned on Evanescence.com... HOWEVER, there is no mention at all of it being an official board. Here's what they have to say in their news post:

"EVTHREADS.COM New EvThreads.com forum just launched! Click here to check it out."

That is it. If I were to venture a guess as to what is going on here, I'd say that eager fans contacted the band and the band decided to give their new board some publicity by mentioning it in their news section. No mention of it being their "official" board.

From what I know of their history, they used to frequent a certain board (and perhaps it was their official one) but some people on that board were excessively mean to them and they deserted it. The board reincarnated itself as EvBoard.com and is now tightly moderated, and as a result band members post on there from time to time. This board boasts 560k posts AND has band members posting there... I find it highly unlikely that EvTHREADS is their official board, when EvBoard doesn't even claim that title. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 21:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Roguegeek (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
EvThreads is officially a fan site for Evanescence, even though it was started by Amy Lee herself after EvBoard began charging for membership. However, she is the only band member that posts there, but, it can be reasoned that anything she posts can be considered official. EvThreads.com @ EvanescenceReference.info -- Huntster T • @ • C 01:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I highly doubt the site in question is fully endorsed by both Evanescence, their label, and Sony. Roguegeek (talk) 02:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I...believe that's what I just said. However, It doesn't need to be endorsed by all those entities to be used as a source if the one writing is Amy Lee. You think they endorsed the band when they broke from the Christian music scene several years ago? No, because that means a lost stream of revenue, but they had to follow the band's wishes in that situation. Awkward example, but it makes my point. Just because a site isn't officially affiliated with Evanescence doesn't mean the words of band members can't be cited. It simply means you can't rely on message boards when it comes to non-band members posting news.
Also, I should point out that EvBoard seems to have become a shadow of its former self now that it charges for membership (and even viewing of posts), and as I understand it, band members won't be going back there and will instead use EvThreads if they want to post. And that's a big "if". I don't think anyone but Lee wrote on EvBoard in the recent past. -- Huntster T • @ • C 08:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. The prices they're charging are complete overkill ($20/member for a year subscription) and I'm sure that a strong community like that could have kept the servers running on donations. I have experience in web hosting and web design, hosting a forum with 400k posts myself, and I pay $13/mth out of my own pocket and get 55 GB bandwidth out of the deal. That price is just ridiculous, which leads me to suspect that this move is motivated by:
1) Greed. Somebody's making bank, even with all of the members that surely left after being shafted like that. If 100 people pay $20/yr, that's $2000 right there, which covers hosting expenses for a large forum for a year and leaves a HUGE profit margin.
2) Quality control. That forum has, in my opinion, been extremely strict about who can post and what. New members' posts are subjected to a moderation queue before appearing on the actual forum until they've established themselves as a properly socialized member of the community (of course, with the option of becoming a "paid subscriber" to get out of the queue immediately). Closing off the forum like they have further restricts who can post and, in their opinion, probably ups the quality by making it an exclusive community of devoted fans.
So Amy Lee has officially ditched that forum? —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 18:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

REMOVED - abuse section

I removed the whole section relating to the alleged abuse (see WP:BLP). Having read both sources, there is NOTHING to say that he was physically abusive. While her attorneys have described it as an "abusive relationship", and Lee has said various uncomplimentary things about Moody, there is no way we can definitively state he was physically and emotionally abusive. The most that should be included is a note about the attorney's description of the relationship, and possibly some quotes from Lee. I also removed the sentence regarding Moody's bipolar disorder and drug/alcohol problem as there is no source cited.exolon 05:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Yah, the stuff you removed set up some celebrity gossip alarms for me. Good call. Whether it's true or not, it should definitely be substantiated if it's to be included in an encyclopedia article. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 11:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Another Ev article's pictures have been gutted...

Depressing. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 17:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

This wouldn't be a problem if editors didn't upload failed fair use images. If you plan are uploading fair use images for use in this or any other article on Wikipedia, please make sure it is passes all criteria for a fair use image. Otherwise it will continue to get deleted. If someone is conciously and continually uploading failed fair use images, they may also be putting themselves at risk of being blocked. Read the policy WP:FU and WP:FUC. Roguegeek (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

Fair use images

Why doesn't the Evanescence article... have a picture of Evanescence? Anywhere? Eh? Because of "excessive use" of fair use images, apparently. Does anybody want to give a shot at explaining why attempts at providing ONE picture of the band TO ILLUSTRATE THE CONTENT IN QUESTION keep getting deleted? —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 08:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Respectfully, I've actually wanting to write extensively about this for a while. I'm sure people are looking at my edits and are thinking what I do is simply wrong. I think a lot of it has to do with the simple fact that it's very hard to use any kind of fair use image on Wikipedia unless it passes all criteria of fair use. WP:FUC I would suggest everyone read Wikipedia's criteria for fair use first and all instructions that go along with what to do when uploading what you think would be a passable fair use image. If anyone still has some concerns, I'd be happy to explain a little more. Roguegeek (talk) 08:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
That's not much of an explanation. You're interpreting Wikipedia policy awfully strictly here. I understand that you're a professional photographer and have an interest in making sure that photographers are credited with their work, but in my opinion you're being a bit excessive here. I think it's just ridiculous that fair use is being interpreted here to mean that the Evanescence page has to sit barren until somebody contributes a free image; that day could be a long time in coming. Because it's definitely open to debate that a fair use image can be easily procured here. I wouldn't be surprised if this article sits devoid of a free image of Evanescence for quite some time... and in the meantime this LOWERS the quality of our encyclopedia. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 08:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
First thing is first. I don't have to explain anything because I point to my reasoning by simply directing people to the policies. If you want the explanation, read the policy because they explain everything. If there is a problem on interpretation, there are places to go to ask admins directly. The more anyone decides to be less civil WP:CIVIL on these matter, the less likely I am to respond. Second, I'm not a professional photographer in any way, shape, or form. Even if I was, though, there's nothing excessive about any of my reasoning because it's not my reasoning. It's Wikipedia's rules and guidelines and, as editors, we agree to abide by them.
Now addressing my last edit, here's what I referenced:
3. The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images (especially images that are so high-resolution that they could be used for piracy). Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately.
I think the only thing that could be debated there is what "little as possible" means and this has been discussed several times also. Everyone is free to look it up, but it very simply means no more than one. Roguegeek (talk) 09:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Your response is disappointing, as is your tongue-in-cheek accusal of incivility on my part (there is nothing ruder than dangling WP:CIVIL in somebody's face during a discussion, in my opinion). I'm sure I'm not the only one here that's upset by your proactive removal of images from the Ev articles, and a more human explanation than "PROBABLE VIOLATION OF CRITERION THREE OF WP:FUC" is called for, in my opinion. However, it's your perrogative.
In addition, I'd like to apologize for offending you with my comment on your profession. The purpose of the comment was to encourage you to clarify why you were interpreting WP:FUC so strictly. I welcome your explanation and interpretation of these policies and would honestly like to understand your views on them. However, you taking offense seems to have precluded that possiblity. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 09:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think the problem isn't so much that images have been removed, but that the only photo you left on the page was an image of the album cover. What is needed is a descriptive image that, as Lantoka mentioned, illustrates the members of the band. Finding a free image is excessively difficult, as a photo taken at a concert is likely not going to be high enough quality to be of use, and rarely would a free photo-op be possible "on the street".
For these reasons, I believe a single, current promo photo would be appropriate for inclusion at the top of the page, and simply remove the album cover if you want to limit to one. They are still available on their respective articles, so the Illustrative ideal is preserved. -- Huntster T • @ • C 18:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Lol, this is ridiculous. Hey Rog, why did u put your eyes on the Evanescence article, why don't you go and check the The Gathering article...look how many images they have use on the discography gallery, and look at the main image, it doesn't pass all the fair use criterons! and go to take a look to the Nightwish article...how many images are in there!!!!! Whoa!! Why can't the Evanescence article have essentials things like a band photo!?..The artcile looks so bored without images that the only thing they do is to ilustrate the subject! Armando (talk|ImgTalk|contribs) 03:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
In Roguegeek's defense, what was done was not wrong, but could have been handled differently. Just because another article doesn't follow guidelines, does not mean this one shouldn't either. Appearance of the article is secondary to legal issues. -- Huntster T • @ • C 04:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Hunster sums the situation up quite well. Let's go ahead and get rid of the album cover in this article and repalce it with a (GOOD!) fair use image of the band for the profile box. And perhaps we should take this opportunity to find a better image of Amy Lee for her article as well (I've seen better). —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 05:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Aye, but lets give Roguegeek time to respond, if he so chooses. Might have a better solution. As for Amy Lee's article, that image should stay until a better free one is available, as it is actually used with permission of the photographer, which is exactly the type of imagry we need to be using, or looking for. -- Huntster T • @ • C 05:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow. You guys had a lot of good discussion over the past day that I've missed. Hunster really hit the nail on the head. Wikipedia policies and legal issues come first before appearance. As much as I'd like to have all of these images I've nominated for deletion stay here, they simply can't due to policies set forth by Wikipedia. Other articles not following these guidelines isn't an excuse for this article not doing it also. We should also keep in mind that only the English Wikipedia even allows the use of fair use images. All other Wikipedias are strictly free use only so we should feel lucky in this aspect. The policy does ask that fair use image, if use, follow all fair use criteria. There are ten points and all need to be followed. Not only that, but any editors providing fair use image must place fair use rationale in the image description with detailed reasons and sources for all ten of the fair use criterion. Again, these aren't my rules. They're Wikipedia's. There hasn't been a single image used here with this rationale placed on the front that addresses all ten. Fair use images that don't conform to these guidelines don't belong here. Now to address the one that is probably most in question:

1. No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. If unfree material can be transformed into free material, it should be done instead of using a "fair use" defense. For example, the information in a newspaper article can easily be used as a basis of an original article and then cited as a reference. Maps and diagrams can often be redrawn from original sources, though simply "tracing" copyrighted material does not make it free. Neither photographs nor sound clips, however, can usually be "transformed" in this way. However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken.
  • Always use a more free alternative if one is available. Such images can often be used more readily outside the U.S. If you see a fair use image and know of an alternative more free equivalent, please replace it, so the Wikipedia can become as free as possible. Eventually we may have a way to identify images as more restricted than GFDL on the article pages, to make the desire for a more free image more obvious.

If there's a posibility that a subject could have a free use image, fair use images of this subject will fail. Evanescence is a very public band that has been around for quite some time. They're seen by hundreds and thousands of people at a time. Just because we can't find one, it's very hard for me to believe that not a single free use image could exist. This is why promotional images of almost any kind wont ever pass first fair use criterion. Here's an example of a fair use image that would pass first fair use criterion. A prototype vehicle that has not been publicly shown, either through an auto show or the dealers themselves. The public has not had a chance to view it and, therefore, there has never been a chance to even photograph a free use image. If the manufacturer, though, did published promotional images of the vehicle, these could work as fair use images here. That is until the vehicle was shown publicly. Then the image would need to be removed or replaced. I hope I explained that clearly enough (something I personally have a problem doing). The bottom line is considering all of the criteria set by Wikipedia, it's very hard to get any fair use image published and, as an actively practicing editor, I am working keeping these policies upheld. Roguegeek (talk) 18:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, on the bright side... maybe Evanescence will stop failing Good Article nominations now. =) —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 19:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
There's actually a lot to be said from that statement. Featured articles follow all policies and I would love for this one to be a featured. I'm sure you guys would also love an article you worked on to be featured. Let's follow the policies and keep nominating it as a featured article. In nominating it, we're at least get feedback into how we could make it better. Roguegeek (talk) 01:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Omg, Rog, i wasn't excusing anything, i just told why did u put your eyes on the Evanescence article, it looks like the Evanescence articles are the only ones where you have put your eyes on, like the Amy Lee article...go and check all the articles with images that violate the fair use criteria. I'm not saying that we can use that type of images because other people do, I'm just asking you WHY YOU ARE SO INTERESED ON DELETING EVANESCENCE IMAGES, WHY DON'T YOU CHECK OTHER ARTICLES AND DELETE IMAGES FROM THEM TOO!? Armando (talk|ImgTalk|contribs) 22:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
In no way was I referring to you. I would recommend you read Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks. Roguegeek (talk) 00:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay Armando, please calm down and think rationally. I do not understand why you are taking such offense at this. So what if Roguegeek isn't editing the other band articles? Perhaps he focuses on Evanescence articles, or this particular genre, or whatever? I know I have a narrow slice of articles that I upkeep, including Evanescence, Stargate SG-1 and Charmed. If you don't like that other articles aren't being kept to the same standards as Evanescence, then be bold and fix them yourself. Just remember to follow the guidelines.
Err, who are you referring to in this, me or someone else? If me, I don't know what I said that was a personal attack... Sorry if misconstrued. -- Huntster T • @ • C 02:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry. That was not directed towards you, Huntster. I edited in the wrong place. Fixed now. Roguegeek (talk) 02:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Now, to Roguegeek. While Evanescence may be a massively popular band, would a photo taken at a concert be high enough quality to justify placing on the page? More than likely, the subjects would not be recognizable, thus defeating the purpose of an image (I've seen some, and none are worth the time it took to snap...took dark, too far away, too blurry, etc). As I stated above, outside of a concert, where is an individual with a camera likely able to capture an image of all the band members at once, at a level of quality useful for the site? My understanding of FUC is that if a free image is available then Fair Use imagry must not be used. I don't believe I've ever seen an image of the band that wasn't professionally taken (though there are many images of Amy Lee, this isn't about her, it's about the whole group) or of unusable nature. For this reason, and those listed above, I believe that, as a stopgap nature, a single Fair Use image would be acceptable. Thoughts? -- Huntster T • @ • C 22:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Good compromise. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 23:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Also worth noting that cameras are not allowed into their concerts, limiting any concert snapshots to those taken on cameraphones. Camera ban enforced with pat-down search. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 23:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
My understanding of #1 on WP:FUC is that if it is could exist, there should be no fair use images used for that subject. When I too was trying to understand the policy and had been uploading failed fair use images, this was what was constantly told to me by several different admins. If someone can get official word otherwise, I'd be happy to follow that as well. All I've done was take their direction and apply their thinking to the articles and images I choose to edit. Evanescence and Amy Lee being a couple of those articles. I mean if my understanding isn't the case, though, why are the images being removed? I have no power to delete them. I simply just nominate them. If my reasoning is flawed, them why do that admins delete them. BTW, everyone is more than welcomed to chime in on any image I nominate for deletion. I think everyone should share their thoughts on these and see what the admins decide to do. Only then will we really know how to decipher #1 of WP:FUC.
As for your suggestion to use one fair use image, let's do it. I'm more than willing to do that, especially since policy allows it. It should be just one image, though, as explained in #3 of WP:FUC. Roguegeek (talk) 00:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Lantoka, interesting about cameras at their concerts, I did not know this. Even more ammunition against the FU issue.
Roguegeek, I do understand your motives. However, I feel FUC raises as many issues as it clarifies, and doesn't "lay down the law" as it should, especially for something so significant. In any case, I attempted to get some clarification in the IRC channel, and only a single person indicated that there should be no problem with a single image being used, though it is unknown if that person was in a position to make such a statement. As for the images being deleted, there could be any number of reasons, often due to someone tagging for deletion at a rapid pace and a bot later coming along and automatically deleting. Roguegeek, if you can think of a more appropriate promo photo to use in place of the one now showing on this article, please leave a suggestion or link (I'm not really a fan of this image, but don't want to inflame the situation further by replacing it with on I *like* more, without some agreement). Also, I wouldn't be surprised if it failed no matter what, given that it has no official source. Another, sourceable image should be sought in the interum. -- Huntster T • @ • C 02:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
How bout this? Straight off the Evanescence website, and a really good picture of the band.
—Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 02:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
A concert photo would just look terrible. And about the "personals attacks", you're free to interpret my opninions as you want. Armando (talk|ImgTalk|contribs) 02:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Quality does matter, but not as much as legality. Besides, you're assuming all concert images are going to be of bad quality. I'm sure someone could take a good photo. Doesn't have to just be of a concert. Why doesn't someone ask the author of the free use Amy Lee image if they have an Evanescence image they would like to release to free use also. Roguegeek (talk) 02:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I have just sent them an e-mail asking if they would release any Evanescence image to Wikipedia under a free use license. I await their response. Roguegeek (talk) 02:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Apparently, we both sent emails at the same time. I was in the process of adding a comment here saying just that when I saw your message. Well, at least he'll know we're serious about this :) Well done, and great suggestion! -- Huntster T • @ • C 02:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
That sounds better, because concert photos always look bad, but the actual image is, and will be much better. Armando (talk|ImgTalk|contribs) 21:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I just did some work on the article

Hey guys,

I just did some work on the article, mainly involving prose and citations, in preparation for re-nominating it for good article status again. Let's make the third time the charm. I'd appreciate any help or contributions you guys could make as well.

The areas that worry me right now are 1) how to incorporate that section on The Open Door preview events into The Open Door section without destroying the prose and flow of text there, and 2) citations for any disputable claim in the article (stuff like their album rankings, other names for the band that were considered, etc.).

Again, any help you guys could offer would be appreciated. I'd really like to see Evanescence make GA. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 23:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the album rankings, I really don't see a need for any but the most major markets to be included, and even those can be significantly pared down. That is what the album articles are for, really. And in those, the charts need to be toned down considerably. After all, Wikipedia is not a list. But that's an argument better suited for their talk pages, I suppose. As for alternate names, I believe I found a source for that...adding now.
Really, the article doesn't look that bad, there is just a lot of fluff and poor structure to clean up. Lets hold on the nomination for a while so everything will be shiny. Perhaps lets start table here in talk where items can be suggested for cleanup, just to organize what needs to be done (and another column for what was done to fix it)? -- Huntster T • @ • C 00:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good to me.
Evanescence Cleanup Board
Task Completed by...
Incorporate The Open Door preview events into main section  ???
Add citations for any disputable claims  ???
—Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 01:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Asking for permission for photos from Wind-Up

I would like to email Wind-Up Records to ask for permission to use their photo of Evanescence, and photos of the individual band members, under the GFDL. Before I do this. I would just like to check that no one has already tried this. Has anyone tried this? —Gary van der Merwe (Talk) 11:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Never mind - Just saw now that Roguegeek and Huntster have emailed allready. —Gary van der Merwe (Talk) 11:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
We've emailed a photographer regarding his work. If you feel you can draft a quality letter to Wind-Up regarding this, explaining our purpose, then by all means go ahead! (They ought to view us as free publicity, really) The more available free-use images at our disposal, the better. -- Huntster T • @ • C 15:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Ahh - I must have been very tired the night I posted the above message. I did not read properly, and I thought the Roguegeek and Huntster had emailed Wind-Up. I re-read and noted that they had emailed Chris Walter of Photofeatures. So I have now sent a mail to Wind-Up. On a side not I found a realy cool photo. Number 0611003008 on this page: [1] Higher res here:[2]. I don't think they will give a GFDLicense, but I'm going to try anyway. —Gary van der Merwe (Talk) 21:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Le Noveau Gothique

I noticed that the songs are in alphabetical order. -Monkey 13!!! 01:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

1) Which songs are you talking about? And 2) How does this comment benefit the article at all? // Sasuke-kun27 01:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
This is referring to a bootleg (unofficial/pirated) album titled Le Nouveau Gothique. It was released with all tracks situated in alphabetical order. However, I don't have a clue what point he is trying to raise. Please clue us in Monkey13? Note that this is *not* a place for general conversation, though. -- Huntster T • @ • C 07:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Music Videos

Okay, I just removed the links on Evanescence videography for YouTube-hosted videos, and in the future will be keeping an eye out for any other such hosted videos, either at that site or other video-hosting sites. Whether it is a music video or a TV interview, linking to a site that hosts them is in violation of WP:EL and specifically copyright violations (see also WP:Copyrights, in that YouTube is violating someone else's copyright). Just keep an eye out for these types of situations, and be ready to remove them. This doesn't mean that video interviews or broadcast news stories can't be used as secondary sources (though really should not be used as primary sources unless there's no available option, and even then perhaps not), just don't post a link to the video, unless it is video hosted by the originating company (aka MTV, CNN or something similar), in which case there's no copyvio (and is different from images because we're not hosting them).

Secondly, as I've removed the video links on Evanescence videography, is there really a point in even keeping it around, as it basically reproduces information that should already be in the single's main article (and is rather stubby to boot)? I'll AfD if there's any concensus. -- Huntster T • @ • C 08:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Album images

Why are the album images getting deleted? Armando (talk|ImgTalk|contribs) 18:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

If you are referring to the Lithium covers, it is because the uploaders are not providing any fair use rationale or (most importantly to me) any image source. Given that I've seen at least three variations posted on the article so far, that means at least two of them are home-brew images. Technically speaking, every album cover we have for Evanescence should be nominated for speedy deletion due to no rationale or source, but given that these are established covers, I'm not so concerned for them. Still, it is a problem that needs to be rectified soon. To that end, does anyone have a high quality scanner which they can use to scan in their copies of the CD covers? -- Huntster T • @ • C 21:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, just looked in the history, and saw you added them back to the article. Because the images on this article fall under fair-use, only one FU image can be used per article, especially given that the cover images are already in use on their respective articles. For that same reason, they do not significantly contribute to the quality of the article, and thus do not belong. -- Huntster T • @ • C 22:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I' ve put scanned images of the covers? Will you delete it? Armando (talk|ImgTalk|contribs) 22:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
No, because those are scans made by yourself and not released by the company. Completely valid and exactly what we're aiming for. See my note below. Thanks! -- Huntster T • @ • C 07:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the original scans are better, becuase the TOP and ANB are blurred...Fallen is the only good image...Armando (talk|ImgTalk|contribs) 23:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean, they're blurred? The ones I cleaned up are much clearer and less blurry than the original scans. I suppose you can do what you want until we can get some higher-quality scans, but I really don't understand your reasoning. -- Huntster T • @ • C 00:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, the modification you made to the Fallen cover was great, but the The Open Dorr one wasn't as good as the other was. That's why I haven't changed the Fallen image. Armando (talk|ImgTalk|contribs) 00:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Album covers are being deleted because, if you must have a fair use image in an article, you should only have one. Pick one fair use image for the article and use it. Keep in mind the logo image at the top is considered fair use and I'm assuming that is the one fair use image you guys would like to use. Read #3 of WP:FUC. Also keep in mind that there's a completely separate article for their discography. Roguegeek (talk) 16:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no rule about only having one fair use image, and this is the first such assertion of this opinion that I've seen. Within this article, each of the albums is discussed at length, and each cover scan is used for a separate album so there is no redundancy. Postdlf 19:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Band images

If I may direct your attention to Image talk:Evanescence 1.jpg, you'll notice that Robth has deleted the main image for this article. While I don't necessarily agree with his reasoning, his additional explanation on his talk page makes sense, and we should do everything in our power to comply. This means we avoid using promo images on Evanescence-related content, as they are still living. Beyond that, we should also try to replace promotionally released images of CD/DVD covers with pictures we can either scan or digitally photograph (by my understanding). Cheers, and good luck. -- Huntster T • @ • C 21:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it just so happens that I have Fallen and The Open Door (although I lent it to my friend for the weekend). If it'll help, I could go over to my grandparents house either tonight or tomorrow and scan Fallen. // Sasuke-kun27 22:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
That'd be great; make the scan as high a resolution as you can, and if you wish, you can email to me and I'll clean them up for posting. Just let me know what you want (and I'll send you my email address for attachments). Also, time isn't a huge issue, so don't inconvenience yourself for this. Thanks! -- Huntster T • @ • C 22:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Eacz12 for getting those basic scans up there. Just remember that if higher-quality scans can be obtained, these images may be overwritten; however, this is a fantastic first step. As time allows, I'll be replacing images in existing articles with these new ones. -- Huntster T • @ • C 07:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

This getting really annoying, i havent been on for a while and i dont care about the back story to this but we are allowed to use fair use images so why the hell has the main picture gone? --Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 10:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

That was my original thought as well, and one I held until now. Those images were tagged as promo pics, but when you think about it, promo material really should only include those items which could not be photographed in public; items such as unreleased merchandise, dead people, and things which a common person could not photograph or otherwise accurately render for whatever reason. As I said above, I don't like it, but the reasoning as explained by Robth makes sense. -- Huntster T • @ • C 10:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The original scanned images are 2000x2000 (aprox.) pixels..but I reduced the size...Do you mean that I must upload the original scans or it's OK? Armando (talk|ImgTalk|contribs) 16:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
No, they're fine! Actually though, if you would send me a copy of the originals, I'd like to play around with them and see what I can do with display quality. huntster74205-wiki at yahoo dot com. -- Huntster T • @ • C 16:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I've uploaded a new Evanescence image for the article. It's a scan from the The Open Door booklet. Armando (talk|ImgTalk|contribs) 15:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

A derivative of copyrighted work is still copyrighted. I have removed it until a proper license could be added to it. Keep in mind that if the work does pass fair use criteria, you can only use one fair use image in an article. The logo image is considered a fair use image and, therefore, you will have to choose what image to use. Roguegeek (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh no...no!!!!! Why! Just go and check the Lacuna Coil, or the Nightwish articles...why don't you delete every image on their articles? It's Ok that you respect the Fair Use criteria but just on the Evanescence article?...Well a question...Do you like Evanescence? I think u hate it. This reply is for you Roguegeek, and don't considerate it like a personal attack, like you said on a past discussion...these are just questions...Armando (talk|ImgTalk|contribs) 17:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree. There are plenty of band articles that use more than one fair use image, like My Chemical Romance and Pink Floyd, but their pages haven't been touched once. I'm just curious as to why Evanescence is the only article having this "problem". // Sasuke-kun27 18:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
This article isn't the only one with this problem, but it is the one that I'm continuing to edit. Those articles should be dealt with also, but I don't care to edit them. If you want to, go for it. Roguegeek (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

These are not my policies. They're Wikipedia's. Go read WP:FUC. I thought we're already been through this before. I know this has already been explained to you a number of times Eacz12, which is why I'm not going to waste time explaining it again and just go straight to submitting you to the admins to be blocked if you continue to do it. Roguegeek (talk) 18:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You mean the first criterion...omg..well! If u haven't realised any free image has been found or taken, did u know?? Well, then go and take them a photo, or ask Wind-Up for a photo.
No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. No! There isn't any free image avalaible, that's why we are using a fair use image.Armando (talk|ImgTalk|contribs) 19:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Well that's nice that he did, but go and read #3 of WP:FUC because that has more weight than anyone's word here. Hunter seems like an editor who also wanted to uphold the values of Wikipedia and I'm pretty sure he'll agree with this edit also. If you really have a problem with it, go grab another admin to come help this problem. They can clear this up for you also Eacz12. Roguegeek (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images (especially images that are so high-resolution that they could be used for piracy). Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately. It's a low resolution image..what's the problem with the image? And why don't you reply to this? > Just go and check the Lacuna Coil, or the Nightwish articles...why don't you delete every image on their articles? It's Ok that you respect the Fair Use criteria but just on the Evanescence article? Sasuke agreed with me. Armando (talk|ImgTalk|contribs) 19:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
There is no "one fair use image per article" rule (something I have only seen asserted on this talk page, and by just one contributor—anywhere else?), so the only issue with the band photo is whether it's reasonable for someone to find or create a free, contemporary image of the band. People have differed on this, primarily on whether it's relevant for all of the band to be in a single image, and on how possible it is to capture a free image of the entire band. I'm skeptical that it is irreplaceable, but openminded. Postdlf 16:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
And that is the crux of the problem. I would consider a single fair-use image to be acceptable as an illustrative point, because it would be very difficult to obtain a decent image of the band members anywhere else; this point has been argued previously on this page. Personally, I wouldn't want an image of just Amy Lee to represent the entire band (aka, it's not 'Amy Lee and the Evanescence band'), and promo images are just about the only resource that would have all members in one place. -- Huntster T • @ • C 18:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems clear to me that the use of fair use images on Wikipedia is often disputed and that there is not wide consensus on the open-ended criterion such as "easily replacable with a free use image". For example, the admin that deleted a previous fair use image on the grounds that it did not meet this criterion made a very good argument for its deletion, while the admin who re-added the album covers above seems to support the inclusion of a reasonable number of well-justified fair use images in an article.

With that said, I have boldly (re)added a fair use image of the band to the infobox. I believe that its inclusion in this article is well-justified and that it meets all stipulated criteria. If you disagree, feel free to discuss it here. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 22:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

(Oh, and my apologies to Huntster to adding this right after you reverted an edit by Armando asking people not to re-add an image. In all honesty I did not see this, and I hope you'll be okay with it anyway because I'm adding a less controversial image, i.e. one that is properly tagged and justified with a fair use rationale.) —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 22:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

While a good job has been done by Lantoka in rationalizing the image, it would have been better (in my opinion of course) to come to some clear consensus between editors and admins as to what is allowable and what isn't. Beyond that, I'm sorry, but the Fair use criteria are woefully inadequate for defining what is acceptable and what isn't. I'm not a lawyer, and simply don't have enough experience here to create such definitions (I'll stick with vandal fighting/editor proofing and building citations, thank you), but the FUC needs an overhaul and serious clarification. I'll say this: I'm neutral in the image debate. I'd love to see grand pictures, diagrams, photo, etc on every page, but not if it create potential legal problems for the encyclopedia. I'll probably step back from this now. -- Huntster T • @ • C 23:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

 ??

why there isn't Not For Your Ears? in italian version of wikipedia, we have put it.. Donbu 19:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Not For Your Ears is an unofficial bootleg album that was not released or authorized by either Evanescence or Wind-Up. It really does not belong anywhere on Wikipedia. It consists of demos and such, and a completionist such as myself might seek out a copy online, but it is not anything that's actually legitimate. -- Huntster T • @ • C 23:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
But it still exists. Surely wikipedia's purpose is to give information about this band, including non-legitimate bootlegs if they're well known enough. The details of it can be mentioned in a note beside it or in it's own article if it gets one. But wikipedia isn't just a music site for listing the official albums/releases, it's an encyclopedia designed to give all relevant information. I'd argue that this is still relevant. Prophaniti 20:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't be opposed to a mention of it in the Evanescence Discography article, but I don't think it belongs in the main article, and I also don't think that it's notable enough to get its own article. My two cents. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 21:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
This album isn't notable at all. It isn't official, it only exists illegally on the internet. It's a question of how far will you go? If you put in "Not For Your Ears", will you include "Le Nouveau Gothique", "2004 Special", and any/every other fan-made compilation/bootlegs? What do you include and what don't you? Notability doesn't really count here, because some of them are very widely known, some aren't, some only in certain areas of the world, etc etc. By far, the simplest and best solution is to discount these unofficial albums, and stick with those that were actually *released* by Evanescence. Eh? -- Huntster T • @ • C 22:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Alas, simplest isn't always best unfortunately. I can't say overall how notable it is or not, all I know is myself and the other main Evanescence fan I know have heard of it. Really, the notability is what it comes down to. Not enough to get it's own page, I grant you, but perhaps enough to be mentioned on the discography page, or trivia part. It all hinges on just how well-known it is. The origins of it, being illegal or fan-made or whatever, don't really matter. Individual people get pages on wikipedia by being well-known, even if they haven't done what most would say is anything remarkable, such as several myspace or youtube users. Those get pages simply because they're well-known and people are likely to look into them on wikipedia. The same thing applies here. I'm not trying to push "Not For Your Ears" massively, I just feel if it is known enough it deserves a mention. Prophaniti 09:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Your argument is sound. I recommend you mention it on the Evanescence discography page, in a manner/format consistent with what we already have there. Perhaps grouped with the EP's, or even a brand new category "bootleg albums"? Use your discretion. Be bold! —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 09:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I fail to understand how this information can be considered even remotely encyclopedia. The only thing that can come from inclusion of this is that users will go out and find copies of these albums themselves. It's something I feel strongly about, that we should not be passively promoting illegal activity, which is what this amounts to (again, passively). Also of primary concern, what information can be provided, beyond that they simply exist? I've tried learning more about them since they were released, and have walked away with very little.
If you are adamant about trying to get this included, I would suggest going to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums and speak to them about the validity of such material (ask for precedent or somesuch) and what should be required for inclusion. -- Huntster T • @ • C 18:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, mentioning that it exists isn't really promoting illegal activity. However, I have never even heard of this album nor am I sure what a "bootleg" album even is, so I'm going to recommend that Donbu follow Huntster's advice, him being more knowledgable on this particular issue. Hope that helps! —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 22:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
WP:NOTE. If it meets that, then it goes on. If it doesnt, it goes off. When holding discussion use the policys, dont try to make up your own. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.153.143.33 (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
If you wish to doggedly adhere to that, then...it still would not meet notability standards. Nothing has ever been published about "Not For Your Ears", that I know of, outside of comments on message boards by band members regarding the validity of it and the inclusion of a certain not-to-be-named track. Thanks Mr. Anon, case solved. </sarcasm> -- Huntster T • @ • C 16:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, THAT album. In that case I'd strongly recommend against its inclusion in the Wikipedia article because Amy Lee has expressed strong wishes that the aforementioned song not be distributed. I seem to remember edit wars in the early days of this article over that issue. (see archive 1) —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 21:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

FAC?

I discovered this article on recent changes. This is a pretty nice article. I can't say whether the article is comprehensive, but it seems close to FA quality. Have the regular editors considered submitting this to WP:FAC? Gimmetrow 22:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but we've had trouble even getting it certified for GA. We'll resubmit soon though. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 22:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
When you do, submit it for FA and a lot more people will review it and give suggestions. Gimmetrow 23:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
The problem with it getting to FA or even GA status is the constant flux that it is in. We attempt to keep it steady, but it doesn't always work, and lots of fancruft tends to leak in from fansites and boards, and isn't always caught immediately. I'm hopeful, but there's still a great deal of work to be done. -- Huntster T • @ • C 01:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Definition of band name

It doesn't mean to "disappear." Go look it up. -Jackmont, Dec 3, 06

Actually it does. The definition in the article looks fine. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 10:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

To 'evanesce' is to disappear into vapour. -Jackmont, Dec 12, 06

That doesn't change the definition of evanescence bro. If I were to venture a guess as to why that definition is slightly different than that of its predecessor evanesce, I'd say it's because evanescence is used more metaphorically. But I'm no linguist. In the article, we're just going by what's in the dictionary for evanescence. Again, please see wikt:Evanescence. – Lantoka (talk) 09:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

New Band Image

While I really like the new photo of the band added by User:EvMark (it includes all 5 members and it goes with the infobox color scheme), there's a couple of reasons why I think the other photo was better:

  1. The new photo provides no Fair Use Rationale, which I painstakingly hammered out in the other photo so that if somebody objected to it and tagged it for deletion for not meeting FUC#1, it'd have a fighting chance at surviving.
  2. Shrunk to infobox size, the faces of band members in the new photo (particularly Amy Lee) are really small.

Would anybody object to restoring the old photo? (I'll notivy EvMark of this discussion on his talk page before proceeding) —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 23:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

See Huntster's comment below. Let's do that. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 07:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Decision

Well, the Band image discussion is getting a little confusing...Let's decide now... Wich image we're going to use?

  1. Image:Ev band.jpg
  2. Image:Evanescence promo photo.jpg
  3. Evlithium1.jpg

Armando (talk|ImgTalk|contribs) 18:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  • In all honesty I think the first one most clearly portrays their faces. That's my !vote. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 21:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, I prefer the third image as it shows all members of the band and is a good-enough resolution when opened to clearly make everyone out. This is, after all, why thumbnails are clickable on articles, to access a better image ;) Any image can be used, and any editor can add or modify fair use rationales (and etc) on an image even if they did not upload it. Let's choose an image based on clarity and composition, then work on the rationale and other details. -- Huntster T • @ • C 04:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I say that we go with the third one per reasons stated by Huntster. It shows all the band members and, as Huntster said, "is a good-enough resolution when opened to clearly make everyone out." // Sasuke-kun27 19:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I've left some talk page messages asking some more people to chime in. The sooner we get a solid consensus, the sooner we can add a fair use rationale to the image that ends up staying, and delete the remaining extraneous photos. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 23:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright, the consensus is pretty solid at this point. I'll go ahead and take care of the cleanup work needed to implement the change. – Lantoka (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
So the final decision is the Lithium promo photo right? . Armando (talk|ImgTalk|contribs) 16:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Sí señor. – Lantoka (talk) 22:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible source of Free image

Why doesn't someone go to an awards ceremony, or a press conference and take a picture of Evanescence. I would do it my self, but I live in South Africa. We just missed Billboards, but Grammy's will be soon (February.) --Gary van der Merwe (Talk) 20:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you think a normal person could have acess to the red carpet of the Grammy's and take an acceptable photo to the entire band? I really don't think so, at least the have a paparazzi or something like this between us. Armando (talk|ImgTalk|contribs) 00:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Heheh, unfortunately Armando is absolutely correct in this. It is virtually impossible these days for a member of the general public to attend one of these events at-will, much less get close enough to a celebrity to take a photo of any quality. -- Huntster T • @ • C 04:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Pop What!!?

Rock??? Rock and Roll??? Punk Rock? Country Rock? Pop??? Poupular music?? I want to know the genre!!!! They are Nu- Metal... why you not put Nu metal??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Josboroliv (talk • contribs) 02:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

If you care to check the citation beside those genres, you'll find a link to the band's official MySpace page, which has the only known official and citable list of genres. If that's the ones *the band* has chosen, then who are we to argue? -- Huntster T • @ • C 02:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
They're not Nü Metal!!! They're rock, gothic rock and alternative rock...i dunno why it says POP on the mySpace page. But, whatever. Armando (talk|ImgTalk|contribs) 18:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
That's kind of bugging me too. I'll bet you could pick 100 Evanescence fans off the street and ask them to define the genre, and you'd get everything from Goth rock to nu metal... but not one person would say pop. Them defining themselves as such has got to be a publicity stunt... maybe to get more exposure from inclusion into the pop category on MySpace?
I'm at a loss at what to do here. What do you do when a band defines their own genre incorrectly? =P —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 18:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I'm one of the primary enforcers of this genre thing, and I hate it too. I really wish someone could find an alternative to this MySpace genre list...I'd gladly see it supplanted. I agree completely with Lantoka...this is probably just some way to gather users who are searching in the Pop category. Unfortunately, for the time being, that is the only source available that I'm aware of, and I don't see a choice besides adhering to it :/ -- Huntster T • @ • C 20:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Let's stage a mutiny. Muahahahaha! ;) —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 23:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

All of us know that Evanescence, or Amy or Tery or any other of the members hadn't created their MySpace profile. Maybe Wind-Up has created it...but I don't know why it says POP!? Armando (talk|ImgTalk|contribs) 18:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I have no doubt that a band member didn't create their profile, just like a band member probably/certainly didn't create their website. That doesn't, however, make it any less official. It's just one of the vast mysteries of the universe. -- Huntster T • @ • C 21:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Extraneous charts

Just FYI, I've removed the Trajectory Charts and other miscellaneous charts from the album articles per WP:MUSIC/TABLE, and will continue to refine them to better meet the guidelines at time permits. I hope to begin major renovations to the Evanescence-related articles over the holidays to bring up their standard of quality. Any thoughts or suggestions would be most appreciated! -- Huntster T • @ • C 11:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Not For Your Ears

..sorry if I'm speaking again of this record, but I wish tell that when I've proposed to integrate "Mystery EP" into Italian version of wikipedia, my application was rejected, so even "Mystery EP" is uncertain.. however there isn't a way to ask this things to self-Evanescence?? maybe through a letter..? please answere.. --Donbu 18:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not know why Mystary EP was rejected, perhaps it is some Italian policy that we don't have. It is two different projects...not everything works the same way. BTW, it is "Mystary", not "Mystery". It is an intentional misspelling. Also, the band has been asked, and they have responded that Not For Your Ears is entirely unofficial. There just isn't anything quotable available. If you want to email them or their record company, Wind-Up, you are more than welcome to do so! It'd be nice to have some kind of official statement to quote (though at this point it really is a matter of record). -- Huntster T • @ • C 19:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
ok, sorry for "E" XD.. however, it isn't that the reason why Not for Your Ears isn't official .. : ) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Donbu (talk • contribs) 19:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC).
Um, I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean... Not For Your Ears is unofficial because it wasn't released by either Evanescence or Wind-Up. -- Huntster T • @ • C 19:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 : ) I've done that thing!! I've envoy a e-mail to wind-up with our question about not for your ears and mystAry, soon they will answere to me..--Donbu 19:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

- Don´t ask to Wind-up about Not For Your Ears, is an unofficial CD, not edit by the band or Wind-Up. Mystary, that was released before the Fallen, I think it was a independent production by Ben Moody and Amy Lee, as Evanescence EP, Sound Asleep EP or Origin. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.220.222.140 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know exactly, but is better know, maybe they know something abuot our perplexity..--Donbu 13:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)[3]

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)