Talk:The Black Parade/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Chart positions table

What happened to the table showing the peak positions of the album and total record sales?--Sadistic monkey 09:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe it was agreed on that we were to delete it. Mcr616 19:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It was agreed upon not on this talk page but I believe on WP:MUSIC or something. They talked about the tables and agreed not to use them.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 21:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Singles

I did see a source for I Don't Love You as the next single, so we should leave it up there. If you want to see the source, look on the I Don't Love You talk page for a link. Mcr616 15:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I placed this comment on the "I Don't Love You" talk page: Even though it is highly speculated and it is most likely "I Don't Love You" is the next single based on some of the sources none of those are reliable sources. Myspace cannot be used and the MTV one has been agreed upon as not reliable. We should wait for word from the band. I am removing the information.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 22:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I see your point. Mcr616 21:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Even though we know they filmed a video for it this weekend, it still doesn't count as a single until we hear a release date for the single itself. They could see the final edit of the video and decide they want to start over with a new song instead. MJB12 00:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

But someone added it anyway without it being discussed first. MJB12 22:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
It keeps happening, I'd revert it until we have a source to create an article.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 22:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I removed the source on "I Don't Love You" for the single. It was a picture saying that Gerard and Marc Webb were on the set for "I Don't Love You", however it does not say that is to be released as a single. I'm not even sure if the source provided was even reliable.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 23:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I just got an email from MCR saying this: 'I DON'T LOVE YOU' - THE NEW SINGLE - COMING APRIL 2ND O7 - I think its safe to say it can be added. ;) Vality 02:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

However there is still no source.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 01:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

...do you want me to forward you the email then? Its official, the email was from MCR. Vality 10:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I have the email as well, however it cannot be sourced since not everyone can access it and you cannot use a Myspace link either.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 21:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

i think we all have the email. i hope it is the next single 203.171.84.140 00:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Well regardless of what you think, even if the email said it, we still have to wait. Mcr616 20:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recording

Just to let everyone know, somehow along the way, the info about The black parade being called the Rise and Fall of My Chemical Romance and all that other stuff got removed. So yea. icelandic hurricane #12 (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

If we find a source we can readd it. I know it was originally called that but at this point in time anything wanting to be added I think should now be added with a source.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 20:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
It was never originally called that, Gerard has stated in several interviews that they called it that as a joke and someone in the record company thought it was real and accidently leaked it. So no, it was never a real title :) --Yunaresuka 01:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I found it mentioned in tbp special edition box set thing and says "the album was co-named The Rise and Fall of My Chemical Romance". It also mentions that one of the earliest titles for the album was The Fall of the Damned", so I think that should definetly be added. icelandic hurricane #12 (talk) 14:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well if you have a source then go ahead and add it in an appropriate section.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 20:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I didn't see it, but if you have the source then definetly add it. Mcr616 15:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

How do u source an unnamed book? icelandic hurricane #12 (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm..Interesting question. I don't know the answer to that one. Mcr616 20:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archive

Anyone think we should archive the talk page again? Mcr616 15:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Probably. icelandic hurricane #12 (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, done.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 21:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I Don't Love You

So it's been confirmed as a single? Mcr616 19:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes it definetly has, though I don't have a source at the current moment.--Sadistic monkey 05:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It has been confirmed but there is no source. It has been confirmed for a little but there is no source that is why I was hesitant to add it.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 01:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
K. I was seeing it everywhere so I figured there must have been a press release or something... Mcr616 15:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


I Don't Love You has been released on My Chemical Romance's Myspace, and thier YouTube site. So It has been confirmed. The set dat for it to be released on Tv is April 2, 2007. But currently the video has been released on the internet.

   -MCRluvr 02:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit

This article, or a portion of it, was copyedited by the League of Copyeditors in March 2007. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
  • Copyeditor(s): Moralis 22:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Proofreader: Galena11 20:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Wewt. I'm going to look over the article a couple more times and may be resubmitting for GA status. --Moralis 22:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see edit history for new ref tags and issues/questions (in hidden comments). Galena11 20:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Confused as to need for a citation in the intro after the sentence on critical performance. This sentence is more or less a summary of the "Reception" section below; perhaps a (see below) would be more appropriate? I dunno. I guess I'll just copy a ref or two from below. --Moralis 20:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I'd say just to remove it. I'd think a (see below) would interupt the flow of the article. Maybe I just can't see what you're talking about though.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 01:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Second Failed GA Attempt

I've failed this article for GA status. There is no information about how the album was produced (only a list of groups it sounds like/was influenced by). The lead does not properly summarize the article; the detailed information about sales, certification, and chart performance belongs in a section in the main article. The reception section is incredibly choppy, with some paragraphs that are only one sentence long. ShadowHalo 03:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This reviewer appears to have broader problems with the article than the last one did, despite major changes in the meantime. I'm a little irked, but okay. --Moralis 04:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
To clarify a few of my comments, 3(a) of WP:WIAGA says that "it addresses all major aspects of the topic". There's currently information about who has influenced the band but no information about how it was actually produced, which is a major aspect of the album. When I say "main article", I mean that the lead is supposed to summarize what comes after the table of contents so that someone can read the lead and have a good idea of the album. Although it may be good to mention how the album sold overall, details about chart positions and sales belong in a section after the table of contents. Regarding having separate quotes in separate paragraphs, I don't think that applies here at all. I've seen that in fiction before (maybe even in non-fiction), but there is nothing in the WP:MOS that recommends that quotations be contained in separate paragraphs. In fact, it just leads to poorly written prose. (Also, one of the ref tags is broken and is messing up the references section. Be sure to fix that.) ShadowHalo 05:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

A couple of comments. I reviewed this article last time it failed GA. There are still some issues from my original review that have not been addressed. Mainly the citations, and their format. I don't think a huge amount needs to be said about the album's production, GA articles don't need to be as comprehensive as say FA, but certainly it's production, and the major points regarding it, should be mentioned. Once that is done I'd recommend a peer review before submitting for GA. - Shudda talk 05:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright. I've started to address some of the points here, but I'm pretty tired of working on the article for today. I'll do more in the morning. If someone else wants to pick it up here, that'd be great. --Moralis 06:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused as to what we should add in the production. mcr616 20:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

For ideas on what to include, you might want to take a look at the FA's Enta Da Stage and Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers). ShadowHalo 17:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The issue here isn't really what would hypothetically go under production. So far, I haven't been able to find any real information on the production of the album that could be attributed to a published source. If I can find a transcript of "My Chemical Romance Welcomes You to the Black Parade," I'll be able to improve the situation a bit. Has anyone else found anything? --Moralis 17:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I'm not sure if ther's a transcrip of MCR Welcomes You To The Black Parade but you could always check the press conference videos on youtube mcr616 17:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Even though YouTube references are allowed I feel that a YouTube video of "MCR Welcomes You to the Black Parade" would be a copyright violation. It's hard to tell which videos are copyright on YouTube. And if The Black Parade website has a copyright on it then the press conference video may also be a copyright violation.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 20:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a series of videos on YouTube explaining The Black Parade that was put out there by the band. I don't think those are copyrighted since they have an embed link in them. mcr616 01:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, I don't think citing the videos as a source (without uploading them to Wikipedia) would be a copyright violation- but I don't think they'd be applicable as a source, either. --Moralis 17:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I tried to check the guidlines for sources but I couldn't find a reference anywhere to YouTube, so I guess we'll just forget about using the press conference videos. mcr616 23:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WHAT THE HECK???

On the MCR wikiproject page one of th requierments says "make pages for all MCR songs". I helped out with the project and did that on the black parade page and someone came and deleated all of them !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --Alternativepunk

We took all the individual song articles up on a VfD and the result was delete. Sorry that your hard work was wasted, but don't recreate them unless they are released as singles. Mcr616 22:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I Don't Love You -- UK only?

I keep reading that "I Don't Love You" is a UK only single, and that the US will be getting a different single sometime soon. When MCR released the music video on youtube, they wrote that is was a UK single. Also, their myspace blog calls it that. Has anyone heard any other news about this? And should it be put up that its a UK single? --Yunaresuka 05:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't too sure about that. When I first saw "Watch the video for My Chemical Romance's new UK single "I Don't Love You."" I thought it may have meant that there would be a seperate video for the US release. It may also mean that there will be subtle differences between the two (much like the differences between the single and album versions of W2TBP).

 ViperBlade Talk!! 09:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
This is only speculation, so it should not be included into the article, however remember how the MTV source listed "Disenchanted" and "I Don't Love You" as a single, perhaps "I Don't Love You" will be released in UK and the US will get "Disenchanted". This is only my two cents and there is no source to back it up.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 18:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I didn't put it in for that reason. I checked their website and they had no news about IDLY as a single, or anything else being a single either. --Yunaresuka 18:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
They have one more single soming out, because this Saturday, they are having a video shoot. I know, I am in it. On thier website it ells you that it is in LA his weekend, and I got chose for it. They havent told me which song it is, but I think it is Disenchanted-MCRluvr 06:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I hope to God it's not Disenchanted just for my own selfish reasons :(. Congrats on being picked, though. I didn't think they had gotten back to people that quickly.--JUDE talk 07:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The shoot is today, and It is either Mama or Disenchanted, I will get back to you once the whole thing has been shot, probabl tomorrow. They got back in about, I would say 8 hours. There was only two days until the shoot at the time, so they needed to pick quickly. But I will get back to y'all --MCRluvr 08:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, but also so you know we won't be able to add it to the article since it's unsourced. But thanks for keeping us up to date and good luck with the shoot. And I'm pretty sure it is "Disenchanted" as most evidence points there, but either way it should be nice.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 19:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
As sort of extra information, it has been confirmed on the MCRmy boards that the movie is for "Teenagers". Of course this isn't really technically sourced and you'd have to log on to view it, so I'd just wait until we see more information and sources.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 19:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I can also confirm that the video shoot was for Teenagers, but like it's always stated. No original research. And as you stated you have to log into the boards, so there's no confirmation until we can get it sourced. I'll be on the hunt for solid sources.--JUDE talk 07:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, the shoot was amazing. But they told me I wasn't allowed to tell anyone :(. Which sucks, because I was planning on going to work and telling people. I will be able to tell you before the video comes out though. Within the next month they said I can, just not now since the video was just shot. But I will be sure to tell y'all. The shoot went GREAT, and the video should turn out amazing! I met Gerard and Frank for they first time :) Sweet, sweet guys they are :) --MCRluvr 07:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
OKay, I got a call today, I am allowed to say what the video is. It is indeed Teenagers. But they told me i was definately not allowed to release any info about the video shoot. Or what it was about. Sorry guys. --MCRluvr 03:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Wait... they contacted you today to let you know that it was okay to say what the video was? That's a little overboard.--JUDE talk 03:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The band itself didn't, I'm not even sure who it was, everyone got a call, it was a recording, so it wasn't a real person. One of my friends was also in the video, and he got a call as well. No big deal --MCRluvr 06:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

There is still no source for Teenagers as a single and it is continued to be added on this page and Template:My Chemical Romance. Are we now going to let it stay or are we still removing it? I've been the only one removing it and I don't want to seem like a jerk or anything and possibly not have a source or something someone else has.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 03:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It is safe to say it is. Because I was at the video shoot. --MCRluvr 06:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not safe to say because there's a "no original resource" policy at wikipedia. Original resource has no verification. We need a media source.--JUDE talk 06:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
It has been confirmed by the guys several times.And the video has been shot for it, it is the next single, trust me.--MCRluvr 06:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
LOL okay, it's not a matter of trust. We all know very well that Teenagers is the next single. We're discussing the possibility of whether or not there is a confirmed source in the media. No one is denying that Teenagers is the next single, I promise you. It's not about trust, we're trying to verify a source so that we don't get hit by the No Original Research policy.--JUDE talk 08:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Very well, then by the no original research policy I suggest it be removed from these places then. Also the B-side on the Teenagers page does not have a source either.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 01:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Single

Since IDLY is apparently UK-only, should we put that in the article? mcr616 19:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

As you said it is apparently UK-only... However, they have also stated in an interview that they may also release it into the US but I'm not sure. Perhaps wait until the single is released in a couple weeks?  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 19:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, Just wondering because of the shoot that was taking place today. mcr616 00:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Teenagers

It's confirmed on the MCRmy boards, should we add it as a single? mcr616 23:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
No, you have to log on to view the information and those sources should be avoided. Please see WP:EL and also, there is a discussion above already on our thoughts on the matter.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 01:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


THE NEXT SINGLE(S) ARE EITHER GOING TO BE TEENAGERS MAMA DISENCHANTED OR DEAD! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iamyoda (talk • contribs).
If no sources are provided then this information cannot be added due to WP:OR.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 20:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Platinum?

I searched both the RIAA's web site and the BPI's- both of which have searchable awards databases. Neither one indicated that the album had been certified platinum, so I deleted that bit of info from the article. It can be re-added if someone can find a source for it. --Moralis 21:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the way this was found was by adding together the sales which were sourced and then just comparing and drawing conclusions. I am just saying what I think might have happened since RIAA is generally slow in updating their database.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 21:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

link In a few weeks this link will not help you anymore. But now (26/03), TBP is marked with a triangle, that means "1'000'000" copies have been sold. [Please excuse my bad English, I'm swiss] --213.140.22.64 17:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a really good source. Of course as you said it soon will be worthless. I did look for an alternate and was not able to find one. But I think this will be a good one to use at the moment.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 20:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

I properly formatted all of the references in the article. Please check it out and make sure I did it right. I used this to do it so I'd like to know if it's accurate. Thanks!  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 22:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks pretty sweet to me. Good job! Saves us a lot of time fishing through things.--JUDE talk 05:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] MCR VS> BEATLES

Why do the Beatles Get pages for all of thier songs and MCR dosent???????---iamyoda

I haven't researched the issue, but I would presume it is because most, if not all, Beatles songs are inherently notable. If we made an article for every song that's ever appeared on a mainstream recording, we would have a lot of stubs that looked like this:
"Hysteria is the 8th track on the [[Muse]] album [[Absolution (album)|Absolution]]. Its running time is 3:47."
All Wikipedia articles have to follow the same notability policies (WP:N). --Moralis 22:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd also like to add that in the cases of most songs, the information that would go in a stub for each song should be included in the article on the album. It's not like we're not including information on MCR. There just isn't enough content to put in an article for each song, nor is each song notable enough to warrant its own article. --Moralis 22:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Plus, you would have to avoid putting in fancruft and unverifierd information. mcr616 Speak! 14:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality of Article

As this subject has been brought up before and now the template has been placed I believe we should discuss this issue and come up with ways to fix it. The only reason I could see neutrality issues is the excessive amount of positive responses to the album used but the album has been praised heavily and only a few places have criticized it and those are listed. A possible way to fix it is to maybe remove some positive reviews? I'm not quite sure as I am not the one that placed the template, however, I do think that resolving this issue is another step that needs to be taken to help make this article a Good Article and was just providing my thoughts on the matter.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 04:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It would be rather helpful if the person who placed the template upon the article could elaborate their claims. I believe we could get to the bottom of the problem that way. I'm not sure if removing the good reviews would help much, however I suppose we could look for criticisms more often. I'm not entirely sure how to improve it either.--JUDE talk 05:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I asked the person who added it and he hasn't given me a response. I mean, there wasn't that many bad reviews anyways. The template might just be a general dig from someone who doesn't really like MCR. mcr616 Speak! 13:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the article seems very bias, and fan orientated in favour of it. From the article one would think it was viewed as the greatest album of all time or something to that effect, when that isn't the reality of how it is viewed. Even the "criticism" section seems sort of "nudge, nudge wink wink, its good really".

On Rate Your Music's inpartial (ie- not just the opinions of one person or fan, whether it be negative or positive) 2006 list of top albums[1] it doesn't even make it into the top 100 for that year. Its around the #170 mark for all albums released in 2006.

Whereas albums that are actually considered in very high regard, such as The Dark Side of the Moon, A Night At the Opera, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band are on the "all time" list at #13, #168, #27.[2] All of those albums are also viewed in the top 5 for the respective year they were released, unlike MCR who only just made it into the top 200 for their year. - Daddy Kindsoul 16:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You could perhaps add your source to the reviews section, then. Everything "in high regard" is quoted directly from reviews and sourced. I understand your gripe with the article, however I don't think you have provided us with much help in understanding what it is we should do to change it. You provided one source that says that the album did mediocre. A ton of reviews say that. We can't source all of the mediocre reviews, but if you could provide us with some very critical reviews, we would gladly cite them providing they were from a reliable source.--JUDE talk 17:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Meaning no offense to Daddy Kindsoul, I would consider Rate Your Music a very poor source for any Wikipedia article. Rate Your Music was founded in 2000, which means that all of its content is based on the ratings users have provided since. Older, well-known albums will recieve higher ratings within their release year, because they have stood the test of time. There are only a handful of albums from the Beatles era which most Internet users have 1) heard of and 2) know well enough to bother rating. In the cases of your other examples (A Night at the Opera and Dark Side of the Moon, which are newer but still hardly current), you're still dealing with a fairly high proportion of users in my age group or maybe ten years older than me, who were children (or hadn't even been born yet) when these albums came out. Because A Night at the Opera is one of a very few albums from 1975 which have recieved radio play and hype through the late 90s and today, it's one of the very few albums from 1975 that the younger portion (and I daresay majority) of the internet's population will know well. Consequently, it's one of the very few albums from 1975 likely to even be rated, let alone recieve high ratings, at a site like RYM. Now, I'm not saying that a high rating for A Night at the Opera isn't logical- but you're a lot more likely to see accurate results fifteen or twenty years after an album's release, thanks to its having survived this far, than you are two months in.

I know someone will chime in and say, "well, if you're arguing that most of the users are in your age group, aren't they by necessity more likely to be My Chemical Romance fans?" The answer is, of course, no. You've got just as many jazz and classic rock fans in my age group than you do alternative fans in the 30-40 age group (for example). Peoples' tastes vary. The reason that the age issue comes into play is simple: if an album is 15-20 years old or older, and the youngest users have heard of it, it's safe to say that there are going to be an unusally high number of fans vs. haters and even fewer neutral votes. If you've got the younger users rating it fairly well, their ratings COUPLED WITH the ratings of the older users of the site, who didn't have the music handed down to them, will produce a very high result for that album. On the other hand, an album like The Black Parade only has the younger users rating it, for the most part. And within that group, of course you don't have the same disproportionate number of fans vs. haters because, once again, the album hasn't been around for decades. It's only been around for a couple of months. On top of this, more established users of the site have their ratings more heavily weighted. If you've written more reviews and rated more albums, then your ratings get more votes than someone who's just made an account. This presents several problems:

  1. There may be a disproportionate number of long-standing Rate Your Music members whose tastes and musical interests fall into certain categories, skewing the ratings of albums which don't fall into those categories.
  2. Newer members who may have joined in order to rate current albums, or even specifically to rate The Black Parade, will have their ratings count for less than a more established user.
  3. Having established users' votes count for more creates the potential for clique voting- a group of established users who all know each other writing concurring opinions for or against something, skewing both its position in the charts and the positions of any other albums which have been affected by the album's movement.

Finally, the users of Rate Your Music are a completely uncontrolled sample. You never know who's going to turn out to rate an album. The 223 people who rate an album may have an opinion entirely contrary to another sample of 223 users who didn't all rate the album. Someone with an axe to grind or a fanboy can seriously skew the results in either direction- and there isn't even a way to control how many fanboys and how many axe-grinders have joined the site. There could be 50 more fanboys than axe-grinders, and someone just happening by a review might think the album contained the key to immortality, when in reality its overall critical performance was poor. Yeah. Rate Your Music probably isn't a good source for a critical opinion. --Moralis 18:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

"There are only a handful of albums from the Beatles era which most Internet users have 1) heard of and 2) know well enough to bother rating."

Sorry but I think that is a very, very nieve comment...

Take 1966 for example, there is a top 1000 albums for that year featured on the website.[3] That is just the best 1000 of one year alone from the 60s... significantly more than "a handful".

"Older, well-known albums will recieve higher ratings within their release year, because they have stood the test of time."

That seems more like you're making excuses for the album's poor reception, rather than making a non-POV defense. How do you explain the albums which are featured in the top 5 for 2006? They're released in the same year as the Black Parade so they don't have a time advantage. So better ratings can't merely be a matter of "standing the test of time".

"Having established users' votes count for more creates the potential for clique voting- a group of established users who all know each other writing concurring opinions for or against something, skewing both its position in the charts and the positions of any other albums which have been affected by the album's movement."

Again, I'm sorry but that seems like a very far fetched attempt to defend the album. Why would MCR some how be special? I dooubt there is a conspiracy, amongst people who have never met before to somehow just give them a lower rating unjustly, but then rate all the other albums highly. Its just the way its actually viewed in a neautral field of play. - Daddy Kindsoul 00:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


WP:NPOVD states:
"Drive-by tagging is not permitted. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Attribution, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort."
With this guideline in mind, I am removing the tag from the article. Daddy Kindsoul, if you can come up with more specific examples of what needs changing (NPOV content in the article, negative press that we haven't given adequate attention to, et cetera), please feel free to let us know here, or, if you're feeling like it, to make some changes of your own to the article. If we fail to address your concerns, then you should feel free to place a tag, as well. However, the way I'm seeing this, it looks like you read the article and something didn't sit right with you, so you slapped a tag on it. You haven't really given us any explanation that we can work with, and a tag is, as the article linked above states, intended to be a last resort, not a first response. --Moralis 22:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The issues are been discussed on the talkpage. I added the tag and I'm here discussing it... from the chat above my first message it would seem that article has had POV problems for a while. You seem very eager to take that tag down, I must say... its probably best to just review the issues, sort them out and then hopefully there won't be future problems with the article. Glossing over it and pretending everything is fine and dandy, when it seems to have long standing issues won't solve anything or improve it. - Daddy Kindsoul 00:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Moralis has removed a very biased portion of the article. I believe measures are being taken despite the lack of examples we're being given. I understand that in your opinion the "general feel" of the article is off, however, we're trying to work toward pinpointing exactly what creates the general feel of it being biased. The tag may stay as long as the article is being disputed. Your concern is a valid concern, and it will be treated as thus. I hope you understand that we need more help with examples. Could you go through the article and let us know which parts strike you as odd? It might help a lot. Thanks!--JUDE talk 01:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

On the issue of Rate Your Music, I was using MCR as an example to explain why it is a VERY poor source for a Wikipedia article. I am not making excuses for the album's performance on that site- I'm simply explaining why I don't think that site is a good source. I don't think there's a "conspiracy" or that MCR is special- I think that because of the way the site is set up it's just not an accurate representation of public opinion, and it doesn't have any particular validity as a Wikipedia source. I don't care how The Black Parade's been doing there. Not everyone likes the album. This article doesn't claim that they do and I'm not asking anyone to. You seem far more interested in defending Rate Your Music as a source than in helping to resolve this "dispute." See, so far, you haven't offered a dispute.

My beef is this: you added a tag, and said nothing here on the talk page about it. It took one of the article's contributors contacting you to get you to discuss the issue here, and all you offered was that the general feel of the article doesn't sit right with you. Okay. That's a valid issue. What about it doesn't sit right? You still haven't given any examples. You say that the negative reviews we list are only semi-critical ("wink wink nudge nudge it's really good" was the way you put it, I believe). Well, I just reviewed the "reception" section, and as far as I can tell, the criticisms listed are VERY critical ("bubblegum punk" "reeks") and well-sourced to boot. You claim that we make the album sound like the best thing on the planet, but you don't say what about the article gives you that vibe, and frankly, I don't get it myself, so I can't just go and fix it. So yeah. I'm eager to remove the tag.

If you can find a way to make this article less "bias" and "fan orientated," we'd be more than happy to oblige. We've been trying for a while to get this article to GA status. Unfortunately, all you've offered so far is a very general statement. You base your assertion that the album was not well recieved on its performance at RYM. Meanwhile, EVERYTHING in the article is very well sourced. We've provided its top chart positions and examples of both good and bad reviews, as well as a fairly neutral reaction. Explain what your problem is. --Moralis 02:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

About the Rate Your Music source. I do not see how that is a reliable source. It is not written by reliable people it can be written by anyone like Wikipedia. While the ratings may be rated just because people write a lot of reviews this does not make them reliable. I do not see how there is a bias then based on that source. The only possible way I could see NPOV issues is if we have undue weight within the article. There were not many places that reviewed The Black Parade bad or in the middle. Of course if these things can be found at reliable places then they can be added but as a lot of places already praised the album I don't see how that is a bias. I like tha album, I admit it. But I do not let that get in the way of my edits of the article. If there is a bad review of the album then I say add it to get all sides. The album was overall praised and that is the truth, if there were more bad reviews I could see an issue but there is not. While I can possibly see NPOV problems I do not see them from the way you are coming from Daddy Kindsoul.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 20:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Also please see WP:RS for Rate Your Music source, which I believe it fails.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 20:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Daddykindsoul is just being ridiculous. He keeps re-adding the POV tag. If he can't give us a valid reason for adding the tag, then he shouldn't. mcr616 Speak! 20:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I've requested mediation from the Mediation Cabal. There's a link at the top of this page. I realize that at the time of this writing the tag is gone, but I think a more productive solution can be reached than edit warring with Kindsoul over the tag. --Moralis 07:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the NME quote from "dubbing My Chemical Romance 'new kings of the world'" to something I consider a little more neutral, in the interests of toning down the reception section. I hadn't noticed the NME quote before or I probably would've changed it already. I don't see that we could do much more for it- but then, I don't see anything else wrong with it. --Moralis 18:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You've done an awful lot of work. I don't think anyone is going to say that no one tried to change the article. I think everyone put forth an effort to change it even though we never got any answers about pinpointing what made it so "biased". Thank you by the way!--JUDE talk 18:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I second that. Thanks, Moralis! mcr616 Speak! 20:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
You guys have done as much as I have, but thanks for the recognition! I think we've all done a pretty good job thus far. I hope we can see it through to GA, and eventually to FA. --Moralis (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)