Talk:Evanescence/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Article improvement

I am going to get flamed for this because I am going to be rude now, but I don't care. This was a Good Article once and no active editor here is even trying to improve it, while it has potential of becoming at least good, if not a featured article. This genre section is only one in the sea of reasons why this article fails at the GA criteria. And if someone tells me "why don't you try to improve it?", well, I'm not a Wikipedian even though I was once. I don't have time, I don't want to, it doesn't matter. What matters is that people like Hunster are working very hard around having nice discussions with people, pretty much repeating the rules every time and reverting nonconstructive edits. How about trying to actually do something with this article that is a complete mess? Roxor (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's any reason to get flamed for offering your opinions on the article in order to make it better. I've just started becoming an editor on Wikipedia (has it REALLY been 7 months already?!) and I try to improve anywhere I can. If you have some suggestions as to what specifically to change in this article, we may be able to work on them. I'm unfamiliar with how it looked when it was a "Good Article" so I am interested in your input on how to make it better. Thanks =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] 19:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, actually it looked pretty much like it looks right now. I don't know how it got to be a good article. I was actually one of the people who helped removing the GA status when I was still a member. I thought that it was going to encourage enthusiastic editors to help bring it back. But no constructive edits were made ever since as it seems. There are some new informations, but what needed to be fixed remains as it was. If you are interested, check out the old reassessment page and a review by Gahonzu. For some problems I do understand that they might be unsolvable for the time. But there are always at least some compromises that can be made. Not always can the rules be blindly followed. I've seen some GAs where people actually agreed upon something even though it doesn't completely conform to the rules, just to help make the article better. Check those links and see what are the main things that should be changed and improved. Just don't touch the genre field for now. The genre question is obviously not solvable for now. However, the style section should be drastically changed. --Roxor (talk) 22:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Will "Science"

So, apparently they've gotten a new member (collaborator) for the album, a guy identified as 'Will "Science"'. Obviously Science is not his last name...its almost universally placed in quotes. I've seen an unofficial and unusable mention that he may also be named "Will Hunt" and Science is his nickname to differentiate between the two Hunts (one Hunt is strange enough...I know, as it's my last name; but two in one place is really bizarre). So, please keep your eyes peeled for a proper source for 'Will "Science" Hunt' so the article can show correct information. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

His name is Will Hunt. I remember an article from the start of 2009 saying that he was working with Amy Lee. I'll Try to find it :) 121.72.236.247 (talk) 07:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Good deal. I do hope you can find that article. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems to have disappeared but here is an article from rolling stone which says stuff about both Will Hunts

http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2010/03/02/evanescence-go-electro-as-lee-has-fun-with-music-on-next-lp/

I hope this can help you :) 19:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.236.247 (talk)

Fantastic, that's exactly what I was looking for. Good catch! — Huntster (t @ c) 21:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem :) - Also amy has posted something on evthreads concerning Troy -

http://evthreads.com/showpost.php?p=1315159&postcount=64

Dunno if Evthreads is a source you can use on here but its explains how Troy won't be able to do the next tour!121.72.236.247 (talk) 06:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I prefer to keep EvThread cites to an absolute minimum, with the goal of eliminating them altogether, since they aren't considered reliable sources (even if it is Lee who is writing them). I rather figured that McLawhorn wouldn't return...I imagine being an active core member of Seether is more along the lines of what he wants to be doing. You know, the interesting thing here is that Science has been brought in as lead drummer, with Will Hunt acting as secondary stage performer (two drummers playing at once, whaaa?). But hey 121, I really appreciate you doing this legwork. You might want to consider signing up with an account here and being an active editor, though that is, of course, up to you. The help is always welcome. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I think by drumming she's meaning duel drumming or using two drummers on the next tour. Maybe the drumming is going to be that complicated on the tour. I don't mind helping out here. I'd rather stay anonymous for know. I tend to lurk and revert vandalism but wikipidea is a little to hard for me to get my grip on. I'll feel like i'm consistently editing an essay when that is what I do primarily do as a uni student but I don't mind helping out once in a while :) 121.72.236.247 (talk) 07:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Lol, I understand completely. Well, if you ever have questions about how something works here, just leave a message on my talk page. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

More stuff on the new eavenscence sound and will hunt :)

http://www.spin.com/articles/exclusive-amy-lee-new-evanescence-album

03:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.236.247 (talk)

Boy, if that's not enough proof of the band members' names, I don't know what is. It just says it plain and simple that there are indeed two Will Hunts. lol Great find. There's a lot of good info about the sound of the new album but I'm not really sure where or how to use it, so I added it as a secondary citation to Will "Science" for now so it doesn't get lost. Thanks! ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] 08:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

New Evanescence photo?

I understand the want for a new photo of Evanescence, but is the new photo a valid photo for use for the band? To me, it looks more like an "Amy Lee" photo than an "Evanescence" photo. The previous photo wasn't "current" but it was at least the entire band as a whole at one point. This new photo contains Amy Lee, Tim McCord (is that even him? his BACK is turned!) and a blurry image of possibly Will Hunt (who was only a temporary member of the band at that point)? This photo doesn't even have Terry Balsamo, who is a key member of the band. I've reverted the change temporarily so that it may be discussed prior to change. I invite Huntster (clearly the top contributor to this article) to weigh in with thoughts regarding this change. But personally, I think the hunt for a better image must continue.. this one just doesn't seem cut the mustard quite right. =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 18:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree completely, this is not an appropriate photo for the infobox. At least the original image had Lee, Balsamo and McCord...the new one is just a grainy picture of Lee and *maybe* the two (at the time) touring musicians. Yes, a newer photo with all the current members would be ideal, but we have to work with what we've got, and the original photo accomplishes that job the best. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yup! I agree with you guys. But but BUT! Its a new Evanescence photo from 2009! =D I think we should insert it somewhere in the article! To keep it fresh and new! Maybe we should put it somewhere in the bottom... cause it seems that's where it would only fit. Maybe in the musical style section? Hmmm.. Okay I just added the photo in the musical style section on the right. What do ya'll think? =D --Homezfoo (talk) 08:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that instead of flooding the Evanescence page with images (this isn't a photo gallery), we can make better use of it (if we should include it at all). There is an image of John LeCompt that only seems to fit the portion of the article mentioning his termination. He is directly pictured next to the paragraph that speaks of him, but if you want to "freshen" up, perhaps we should replace this image of a person who is no longer a member with the new one and lower it down to the Third Album section where it speaks of that concert. And please.. when there is a discussion already in progress regarding inclusion of new material, please wait until a consensus has been reached before inserting it without any prior discussion. =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 12:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds pretty good to me. So do you want to replace the John LeCompt picture with the new Evanescence 2009 one too? --Homezfoo (talk) 13:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't really think it's needed at all. There's already 2 "concert" photos on the page, and adding more would just be redundant. I only offered that if we must use the image, we should perhaps replace what isn't current. But I think the article stands well enough on its own as it is now. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 13:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Alrighty then... --Homezfoo (talk) 15:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

To reinforce what Scott says...Homezfoo, if you really want to find some updated images, start scouting out images of other Evanescence members, new and old, *not* Lee (we have plenty of images of her), and we can determine which of those will best fit the article. — Huntster (t @ c) 16:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

About Ben Moody and We Are The Fallen

Ben Moody is no longer relevant to Evanescence. His new projects doesn't matter to Evanescence. No need to write about the rumors or citations related to his band We Are The Fallen in the "In Other Media". This information should be on We Are The Fallen or Ben Moody's Wikipedia page.

Should only cite the band as a result of the departure of former members.

Arlindo 88 (talk) 06:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

While I think that the rumor of Evanescence breaking up should be kept since that, in fact, does directly involve Evanescence as a result of the forming of We Are the Fallen, I agree that this paragraph elaborates a bit too much. And not only that, it falls into that category described in the previous section (Article improvement). It's just text to make it look bigger. It's just direct quoting from interviews which, in my opinion, should NOT belong in a wikipedia article. Quotes are fine, but extensive quoting with the only non-quoted text being "Moody stated" seems very unprofessional as if just thrown onto the wiki. I think we could probably chop down the entire second half of the section to read as:

...look out for new music [in 2010]." Former band member and co-founder Ben Moody responded, "I don't really think she's at all threatened by us. She said, 'Don't worry, you'll have your music next year.' But people might want something to listen to before then. That's what we're here for."

That sums up the question of Evanescence splitting up while not straying into a long description of WAtF, maintaining neutral language, and removing extensive quoting. The quotes from Ben always seem to "provoke", which is why "Lee has not responded to these comments" has also been removed. This isn't the controversy section or the "Ben smack-talk" section.

I didn't go ahead and make this edit directly just in case someone is opposed to this, given that it is and active discussion. If someone wants to make the change, go ahead. If nobody opposes, I'll just add it myself. =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] 08:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This new section of information added simply drags on this "disagreement" between Moody and Lee. It all seems irrelevant to me. This belongs in tabloids and gossip websites and blogs, but not in an encyclopedia. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] 10:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said, Ben Moody is no longer relevant. Amy said in Spin (http://spin.com/articles/exclusive-amy-lee-new-evanescence-album) that Ben Moody and his new band have nothing to do with Evanescence. What Ben Moody speaks today about Evanescence shouldn't be cited. He left the band for a long time and Evanescence has proven, with the album "The Open Door", he's a very distant past and he is not important to the band's success. I do not understand the insistence on quoting him. Arlindo 88 (talk) 18:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I see nobody disagreeing with you. My proposal was just that--a proposed change. In fact, after looking at it after the change in a sandbox type format, most of it does seem irrelevant. The only thing I'm "insisting" we keep is the reaction of the fans which provoked a response from the band due to the creation of We Are the Fallen since it did start rumors about Evanescence being scrapped with Amy's solo album coming out. Bottom line is that the whole paragraph needs a serious re-write to just get the basics written. This includes removing most of the Ben Moody quotes. And I'm not even sure if this qualifies as "In Other Media". But I agree the section needs a serious overhaul, but not deleted completely. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] 20:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, so can you fix it? I don't speak english, I'm a Portuguese Wikipedia member. Arlindo 88 (talk) 11:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I did a small bit of cleaning while I'm here editing on my lunch break. It looks better already, but I still think a large portion of Amy's quotes can be chunked. I just don't have the time at the moment to re-word the paragraph. I'll see what i can do later. =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 18:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

http://www.billboard.com/news/evanescence-recording-new-album-plots-summer-1004078783.story#/news/evanescence-recording-new-album-plots-summer-1004078783.story Amy Lee has said more stuff about We are the fallen and some more stuff on the album. just thought I would point this out to the editors - 121.72.236.247 (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

@Scott Are you still gonna chunk Amy's quotes? :O --Homezfoo (talk) 08:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm leaning more toward ditching the entire We Are the Fallen paragraph. It does need a serious rewrite if it is kept at all. The paragraph relies on the reader already knowing about WAtF and who they are. In order to keep it, it should read something like "Rumors of the band breaking up surfaced after the creation of a new band by 3 former Evanescence members, We Are the Fallen" or something. But I'm still wondering about its relevance at all. The paragraph only says "WAtF formed, rumors (by blogs.. nothing official) surfaced, Amy debunked, Moody confirmed" thus voiding any meaning to the entire paragraph. Also, I don't really think this fits under a heading "In Other Media". It's a bit of a stretch for "other media" to be considered for studio albums vs. soundtrack albums since they're both albums (not like... books, for example--a different MEDIA), but it's at least a different form of the same media. A discussion about the band possibly breaking up because of another band is not other media at all. The whole paragraph just doesn't seem to fit. There doesn't appear to be any sources that talk specifically about this new band affecting Evanescence, only how it doesn't affect Evanescence. Which makes it irrelevant for an encyclopeida. It's just gossip. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 14:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree completely. Gossip and rumours have no place in the article, even if they are sourced. It is simple irrelevant trivia, which has no bearing on the group. Kill it until it dies. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:LDR - New Referencing system?

There is a "new" method of defining references on Wikipedia that I am very interested to find out if this should be implemented to the Evanescence article(s). I can't describe it quite as well as Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies, so here's a direct quote:

I have converted the referencing system to a system to keep the article edit window free from reference clutter. This is an incredible advantage for those of us who don't use special software. Please see Help:Footnotes#List-defined_references for a very simple explanation of exactly what is happening.

In short:

1. You may now add/edit/remove references by editing the References section
2. Every reference must have a name assigned to it. For example, <ref name="rollingstone">{{cite web |url=...}}</ref>
3. Every citation only requires the <ref name=xxxxxxxx/> segment

This is a new feature implemented in the {{reflist}} template since September 2009. The gist is to keep all references together in a section and to free up space and time while editing.

Is there any objections to me implementing this system here? The pros are that it will significantly clean up the editing window of coding and make it much easier to edit the references that might have errors (instead of searching through the entire article to find the specific reference). It seems to make more sense editing references in the "References" section anyway. When I first wanted to edit some references, I'd open the section to edit only to find a "reflist" tag and getting confused. Some cons would be having to edit TWICE, if you wish to make an edit within a 'section' and adding a reference (as you would have to add the reference coding into the ref section) and maintaining the new format for users adding references under the previous method.

What do you think? I'm game and willing to do the converstion. But the old system isn't horrible. So if the idea gets shot down, it won't break my heart, it just seems more organized this way. =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 02:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and converted the entire Evanescence article (in a subpage of mine) and you can see by this edit how drastically different each paragraph looks after the references are "removed". They are much smaller and readable--especially the Musical Style paragraph where there are 26 references alone! The change was easy since most of the tags were already named so the full process will be quite simple across all the pages. What's anyone else think? ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 03:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I was going to have Rich Farmbrough do this conversion automatically, but if you've already done it, then by all means, implement it. I'm a huge fan of this new referencing system, as it makes editing tremendously easier, yet still allows new editors to add in-line citations as they used to if they don't understand this new one, or if they simply don't want to make two edits (as pointed out above). — Huntster (t @ c) 04:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

That's excellent! I never knew this existed before I found it on that other article and was amazed at the ease of use. I'm going to add documentation at the top of the article (again, "borrowed" from this other aritlce), but feel free to change any wording and documentation. =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 23:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Tables!

Should we add tables to the Albums of Evanescence? How come its in lists? --Homezfoo (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The reason is because there exists an article that explains the albums in detail--Evanescence discography. This space is only needed to summarize the main albums. Converting them into a table would only entice others to add additional information that would be redundant. A table works for We Are the Fallen (assuming that's where this topic came from) because there is no discography page for that band so the more information the better. =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 23:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Aaaaaaaaaah I see :O --Homezfoo (talk) 06:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Editwar

This is the first time I've encountered what can easily be considered an edit war. How is such a thing handled? There have been 22 edits (including their reverts) since this version of the article which all amount to the article keeping its original version. What is the process here? I have opened a discussion on the user's talk page requesting reasons for this repeated change, but I suppose we can open a discussion about it here, as well. I feel that this paragraph is in its correct location since it directly discusses the new album and should be listed within the third album section. I'd like to know what reasons Stardreamer86 and 66.27.210.46 (if that even is a different person) may have to want this paragraph moved. This has been done (and reverted) FIVE times so far in the past three days. Why? ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 02:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

That paragraph should belong under THE OPEN DOOR 2006 - 2009 section. Third studio album should be labeled 2010. That's why!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stardreamer86 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand that is what you want, but have given no reasons. The third studio album was being formed in 2009 (as this paragraph itself says). Since it discusses the third album, it should be the first paragraph of the third album. And since the third album got its beginnings in 2009, it should be labeled that way. Perhaps if I knew the reasons you want to include it with The Open Door, I might even agree. But until then, it makes the most sense to keep it where it is. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 03:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I suppose so. The part I think should be under THE OPEN DOOR section is the part about the secret show cause it's technically part of THE OPEN DOOR era and not the third album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stardreamer86 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

So that's what's going on... I see your point now. It's as though that show was their last concert of the open door era. It does make sense. The only problem is article chronology. The concert was after the beginnings of their third album (which starts the next 'era') so it's listed in the history in that order. Stepping back and reading the article without any titles at all, it flows in a chronological history. The titles are just added at the starting point of a 'new era'. There doesn't appear to be any rule that topics of a previous section can't be talked about in a later one. For example, if after the start of their third album, Fallen begins to rise in the charts and puts Evanescence in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame (or something), there's nothing saying that information must be included in the "Fallen" section. That's just how I see it. It's better to leave it chronological with the titles placed at the first talks of where that new topic begins. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 14:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. It is the dates that are important in the section titles, not the album names. It is just standard practice amongst the music articles to leave the dates to the end of the title rather than the beginning. However, if it is felt that there should be some division beyond just chronological, I'm sure we can come up with a solution. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Will Hunt

There are two Will Hunts in the band members section. Can one be removed (with dates combined)? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 08:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Um, please click here and read the HTML note immediately below those names. Better yet, please read the prose where the situation is explained. ... — Huntster (t @ c) 10:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay. And hey, I came here first; I mean, I would've seen the note if I was being presumptuous and went into the edit window, but I know a few editors editing here and figured something was up :D Sorry for the hassle. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 10:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha, and sorry for posting on your talk page...wasn't sure if you had this watchlisted. — Huntster (t @ c) 10:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem; actually I was watchlisting the article just to keep an eye on any news on the new album anyway. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 10:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Semi-colons

Although I believe the semi-colon is underused in English writing, in the sentence quoted below, it's entirely unnecessary and is more distracting and confusing than it is helpful. I understand fully what Huntster is saying in the edit summary. Because one thought uses a comma, the rest of the list must be separated by semi-colons. If each listed item or thought had major comma uses, then the semi-colon would help break up the list by separating each item fully. In this case, though, the semi-colon is counterproductive to the reader.

Fallen spent 43 weeks on the Billboard Top 10; was certified 7x Platinum in the United States; and sold more than 15 million copies worldwide, including 7 million in the U.S.

versus

Fallen spent 43 weeks on the Billboard Top 10, was certified 7x Platinum in the United States, and sold more than 15 million copies worldwide, including 7 million in the U.S.

The latter example is just as correct, but it is more intuitive, and the reader is not going to confuse the "including 7 million in the U.S." with any other part of the list. A more appropriate use of the semi-colon would be in the example below (foo example):

Fallen spent 43 weeks on the Billboard Top 10, peaking at #1; was certified gold in only two weeks in the U.S., and ultimately certified 7x platinum; and sold more than 15 million copies worldwide, including 7 million in the U.S.

In the latter example, each idea is separated by a semi-colon because each listed item has its own comma usage. Semi-colons as they are currently used is complete overkill. I changed them originally because I was reading the article as a lay-person, not as an editor, and the semi-colons actually stopped me from reading because I was expecting an entirely new sentence that was directly linked to the original phrase. That there was a list of ideas following the semi-colon was not at all clear in the initial read. It's merely confusing to the reader and, like I've said above, entirely unnecessary and counter-productive. I'm hoping we can remove the semi-colons. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Despite my efforts to explain myself, I'm being ignored. I have looked at all the semi-colon uses in this article, and the only ones I ever wished to change were the ones reverted previously. All others seem legitimate and comprehensible. Do I really need to ask for permission to change three semi-colons into commas, despite my intent to improve this article, if only minutely? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the subject except that I agree the semi-colons are a bit distracting. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 15:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

So, that is your opinion :/ You can't say that you don't have one, then give one anyway! magnius (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

lol OK, let's say I have no opinion on how to REMEDY the distracting semi-colons. =P Specifics, specifics. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 15:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Template:R

I've been repairing references lately and on some articles I've noticed that instead of using the <ref name="reference" /> reference calls, it will use a {{r|reference}} call. This seems to clear up the editing space of the article even more in addition to using WP:LDR, especially where listing multiple references. Without going into too much detail, this means that:

<ref name="Reference 1" /><ref name="Reference 2" /><ref name="Reference 3" />

can simply become:

{{r|Reference 1|Reference 2|Reference 3}}

This isn't significantly less space, but it leaves MUCH less room for coding errors (quotations, end tags, etc).

Any objections to me taking the time to implement this on (all?) the Evanescence articles? It's a bit of a major change, so I figured I'd ask some opinion first. I tested it out on the We Are the Fallen articles and it seems to work well. Thoughts? ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 10:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Honestly, I've never seen that template in use before, and while it does seem fairly simple, I think the "ref" tags are a bit easier to deal with visually. By that I mean, various templates can be strewn all throughout an article, but the ref tags are fairly unique and when you see them, you immediately know what they are. But, you are right about error prevention. However, since we tend to keep a fairly close eye on these articles, at the same time, I don't see much worry about such errors popping up. For articles that are little watched, this would probably be a great system. Still, I'll leave it to your judgement here. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Genre

Don't you think that it would be ok if we put Alternative Metal in the infobox?It's long ago when was decided that Alternative Metal is the best to describe Evanescence and I think that the "musical style" paragraph is not very sensible.But we can keep it and just erase the "see below" in the infobox as long as we can put something less confusing.87.202.35.2 (talk) 01:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.35.2 (talk) 00:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's been the general consensus, but there have been such problems with putting *anything* in the infobox, I really feel it best to just keep the "See below" link and let the section explain the diversity problem. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

YOO!!! if i find like 2 reasonable references for chamber pop, can i put it in the musical style section<not the infobox, the musical style section>

because, while ive been looking for evanescence references i always stumble upon sites tagging evanescence as chamber pop, sooo can i? 24.139.117.90 (talk) 03:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Articles do not belong to anyone, so you do not need permission to make any edit here on Wikipedia. However, since you're asking.. would you provide the references so it can be determined if they are in fact reliable? ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 03:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

http://www.musicnotes.com/sheetmusic/book.asp?ppn=BKWBPGM0314, http://www.amazon.com/Fallen-Evanescence/dp/B000089RVX

as much as ive seen the band being classified as chmaber pop, this is the best i could do, and i must admit it isnt so good, i mean its reliable, but idk...anywho, both the sources are for fallen, and these sources are way better than the elecctronica reference, and yet electronica is still in the section, so what u think? 24.139.117.90 (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Columns?

I've never really seen the fascination with columns for references. I like a nice neat list. Columns don't really save much space, because it divides the amount of room for each reference in half so any extra text gets wrapped, forcing a reference to use 2 lines instead of 1, so you're still taking up the same amount of total rows on page. So the only thing that happens when multiple columns are used, in my opinion, is creating a massive pocket of solid brick text isntead of a nice list of references... Is there some guideline somewhere that says it's a requirement? In my opinion, this should be something that should be set in Wikipedia preferences for each user's preferred view, not dictated on the articles themselves. Thoughts? ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 22:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly my argument. I strongly dislike columns, and dislike even more the drive-by columners. It is by no means a requirement, so feel free to revert. It does seem like this could be made into a preference, and sometimes the two-column approach works well for articles...just not for this one (or most, for that matter). — Huntster (t @ c) 22:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Awards and Nominations

Is it necessarily required to have a separate table for every awards ceremony? I was thinking we could combine all awards and nominations into one table like this: That's a simplistic combination, but I think it might look better sorted by year? Anyway.. any thoughts? It just looks weird having multiple tables, when some only contain 1 or 2 awards. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 20:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I like the table shown here, since it keeps everything relevant in 1 neat package. It should be used96.238.138.247 (talk) 10:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Scott, I see no reason to not go ahead with implementing this. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with this, too, although there seems to be a trend to remove rowspans from comparable tables, so each row can be independent and each column sortable. Example. Might be worth considering. Gimmetoo (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the input. It does look much better with independent rows, and I like the wording of "Award/Category" much better. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 23:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Members Timeline

I created a timeline. I'm not sure about all the dates. See where is the correct place to use it. (Sorry my bad English)

Arlindo 88 (talk) 11:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, for some reason your code isn't working. Either way, we've pretty much decided consensus favours the current timeline format. — Huntster (t @ c) 11:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• this timeline is very good!.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.64.39.114 (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Mystary EP

In the text Formation and early years: 1995–2001 you didn't mentioned the album Mystary EP (January 2003) and you mentioned it in Evanescence discography. 46.217.62.204 (talk) 13:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess it's because this album isn't very notable. I had been an Evanescence fan obsessed over Evanescence since Fallen, and I only found out this EP even existed a couple years after The Open Door. There aren't really any reliable sources which talk about the EP, so there's not really any information we can include in the article. But we know the album at least EXISTS, so I suppose it's in the discography just to keep a complete record of all albums. That's how I see it, at least. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 14:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Rolling Stone's references are dead

The Rolling Stone's links are dead. I found Wayback Machine archives only for these three:

• Sheffield, Rob (October 5, 2006). "Evanescence: The Open Door". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 2008-08-20.
  • January 15th, 2009
  • June 27th, 2009
• Miller, Kirk (March 25, 2003). "Evanescence: Fallen". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 2008-08-20.
  • February 27th, 2009
  • June 17th, 2009
• Kaufman, Gil (April 15, 2003). "Evanescence Fall From Grace". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 2008-08-20.
  • February 24th, 2009
  • March 29th, 2009
  • April 29th, 2009

If you can edit the article, please add the archives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.92.154.121 (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'll add the archives when I have a moment, thanks for finding these. Remember, though, that just because a link has gone dead, the reference has not been rendered invalid. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

New Album

There's an article from Amy Lee posted on spin.com regarding the new album: http://www.spin.com/articles/amy-lee-talks-evanescences-comeback-lp I sortof glanced over it, but I figured I'd post it here in case there's something worth putting in the article. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 23:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The Golden Light

I found a cover of an album called The Golden Light and it writtes Evanescence on it. So is this a real cover. If it is you should put it in the Evanescence article. I also don't understand why this isn't a good article when it should be —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.29.81.121 (talk) 11:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

That rumour dates back to at least April 2010. It is not a real album, and is fan-made. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Genre

Could someone just put it to Alternative Metal, or something that has to do with metal. I think that just putting a "See Below" is a stupid idea. I don't really like this band anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narisguy (talk • contribs) 22:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I suppose we can put "See 'Musical style' below"... but not listing ANY genre seems to be the best since there is no consensus on what belongs there. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 23:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Well most of all of there music is Alternative Metal, being that looking at the Discography, that most of the songs are that genre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narisguy (talk • contribs) 22:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The genre should be 'rock' if their site calls them that way, and you can even put 'alternative metal' or so too if you can source that. Very few bands exactly fit one style, and we fix that by putting the closest style or a list of close styles (just check any other band). There's no need for this one to be the only one having 'see below' in its box, or we could do it for 3/4 of the bands out there. You can leave the paragraph if you think that's important, so the information will still be there. Syntoxic (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, time for this problem to end. I propose removing the genre line from the infobox altogether, as it causes far more problems and wastes more time than is remotely appropriate. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm OK with trying that for a month or two. I suspect there will still be editors who add it back "to fill the void", but perhaps that will be lower maintenance. Gimmetoo (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with this. This isn't the only article I've seen such persistent genre wars with. I vote to change the coding to something like:

<!-- |genre = (No consensus: Do not fill-in here. Add sourced genres to the "Musical styles" section instead.) -->

This will ensure an HTML comment is present to alert editors why there is no genre on the page and offers an alternative. It will also prevent any genre additions to show up at all if they are simply added after the = sign within the table (if the HTML comments aren't removed). ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 00:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Seeing no dissention, I'm enacting this change. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

"Interview with DC101 radio on February 24, 2003"

Hi I can't find the link for "Interview with DC101 radio on February 24, 2003" because is dead, but i found the interview here:[1]. Should i replace it?My love is love (talk) 06:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm working on cleaning up all the citations and making a clean sweep through the article fixing other issues. It's slow going, but I'll take care of this (though, evanescencereference.info is using some odd coding which half-way prohibits direct linking, so the alternate link may be required). — Huntster (t @ c) 09:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Third album - Evanescence

The third album is called Evanescence. Source:[2] 77.29.82.29 (talk) 16:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Although this information may be true, the image is found on a fansite and no other reliable sources appear to exist (yet). Also, the image, the article, nor the magazine are dated. Even if not likely, how can it be proven that this is not some hoax? An image created by a fan... Until verifiable sources can be found, it's best to not add this information yet. Remember what they say: Wikipedia isn't going anywhere, there's no reason why you can't wait. =) Leave the gossip and rumors for the fansites. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 18:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Article is not yet available on the Kerrang site, but all evidence points to the scan being from the June 25 issue, mentioned here. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

A new reliable source (MTV) was just released which confirms everything from the magazine. This will open the door (haha @ unintentional pun) for more sources flying from many other sources. Since My love is love has been creating an amazing article on the new album, I have already moved it from userspace into article space. I did a minor check, and there appears to be no evidence of copy/pasting to create the article, so no attribution notices seem necessary). The new album article can be found here: Evanescence (Evanescence album). This seems too redundant, but there are already two other albums with the title "Evanescence" that have articles. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 03:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Bxwxr14, 27 June 2011

To add their third album Information to the wikipedia

In a news posting to the Evanescence website during June 2009, Amy Lee wrote that the band was in the process of writing new material for a new album proposed for release in 2010. She stated that the music would be an evolution of previous works and be "better, stronger, and more interesting". Evanescence entered the studio on February 22 to begin recording. Will "Science" Hunt joined the band as primary drummer and programmer, while Will Hunt returned as secondary drummer. David Campbell, who previously worked on The Open Door, was brought back to handle string arrangements, and the album was scheduled for release by the producer Steve Lillywhite. Lee later said that "Steve wasn't the right fit".

In an interview with Billboard Lee said, "After finishing touring [behind 2006 album The Open Door], I just sort of took off and didn't know what I was going to do next and wasn't sure if the Evanescence thing would happen again or when it would." She was taking break from music 18 months and in the end she "wanted to work with the guys, and it became more of a group project". She added that in the new album everyone had some part, "Usually it's me and one main co-writer... This time everybody had something to do with it from the ground up."

At the time the band began recording, the album was intended for an August or September 2010 release. However, on June 21, 2010, Lee announced on EvThreads.com that Evanescence had temporarily left the studio to work further on the album and "get our heads into the right creative space". Lee also indicated that record label Wind-Up Records was going through "uncertain times", which will further delay the release of the album. Wind-up Records president Ed Vetri supported Lee's decision to start recording all over again. "One thing we do at Wind-up is, we're patient. It it's not right, it's not coming out. If it takes a year or four years, [we're] going to take the time it needs to write the right record." He added that he's been to the studio several times to hear how the album is progressing, noting, "I think her core fans will be really happy."

File:Raskulinecz.jpg

The producer of the first sessions for Evanescence was Steve Lillywhite (left) and the producer for the second sessions was Nick Raskulinecz (right).

Later, the band reentered the studio in early April with producer Nick Raskulinecz, who has produced music for Alice in Chains and Foo Fighters, to continue work on their third album. Troy McLawhorn was reported to have rejoined the band as a primary guitarist after leaving post-grunge band Seether, but Evanescence's management later stated that he had not rejoined the band. On June 12, 2011, Amy Lee announced through her Twitter account that Troy McLawhorn was officially back with Evanescence and that the release date for the new album would be October 4, 2011. The band recorded the album in Blackbird Studio in Nashville.

Bxwxr14 (talk) 13:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

 Denied - This would be considered a cut-and-paste move of information from one article to another without attribution. Moreover, this article is meant only to summarize Evanescence information, not have entire articles inside it. The article has a third section for the Evanescence article already anyway. I am unsure of exactly what you would like to accomplish here. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 15:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

2009

I've seen that you don't have a ref about the concert in Sao Paolo, Brazil so here;s one:http://www.noisecreep.com/2010/03/02/evanescence-studio-new-album/. It's written at the bottom of the page. 46.217.62.116 (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

There were already 2 references present (rolling stone and blabbermouth), but I've added this reference as well. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 18:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

What you Want

Can we put something on here about Evanescence's lead single from the album being 'What you Want' and a clip of it being posted on MTV? The release date is early August? Here's a source: http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1667020/evanescence-what-you-want.jhtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.70.47 (talk) 07:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The Other Side

Evanescence released a sneak peek of another song to MTV today, called 'The Other Side.' Here's a link: http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1667172/evanescence-the-other-side-album-preview.jhtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by FallenSilver (talk • contribs) 15:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request xxcrypticxdv

The names of the band members where the new picture is posted of the new evanescence band has the names of previous band members so I request permission to change it to the correct and current members of evanescence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxcrypticxdv (talk • contribs) 04:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Since the image that was uploaded was a copyright violation, it has been deleted. Images not freely licensed (and that does not mean "somewhere on the internet" or "on Evanescence's website") cannot be uploaded to Commons, and cannot be used in this article, since free alternatives are available. The fact that the images may be out of date is irrelevant, sadly. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Evanescence Oct 24, 2006.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Evanescence Oct 24, 2006.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I am assuming that this issue has been taken care of since any mention of removal from commons has been removed. So, future readers, please disregard the above message. =) ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 17:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Will Science Hunt membership

[3] Do we have any usable source saying that he is no longer a member of the band? Gimmetoo (talk) 22:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u799X7BOhxs&list=FLSZDc9cSyXmU&index=1 Listen to that interview that Amy did on the 5th, and she says that It didnt work out. User:Mattyb97

I can't get that video to work. If someone else can and it says what it claims, then maybe we can find a more broadly usable source? Gimmetoo (talk) 14:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I listened to the whole thing (bummed about the part where she's not doing the corsets anymore), and here's a transcript of the relevent part:

“ Interviewer (Greg Hill?): Do you have two guys in the band, same name?

Amy Lee: No. Nope, that didn't happen.

I: Did you used to, didn't you have, like, Will Hunt and...?

AL: Right, right. There was a minute, I worked and wrote with this other guy named, who is also named Will Hunt, not my drummer. So that got a little confusing. He's awesome. But, um, he's not in the band.

I: I didn't know if you had a thing, where, like, you only worked with people named Will Hunt or something...

AL: (laughter) Yeah, that was really confusing for a minute. Yes, I know.

” — The Hill-Man Morning Show, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u799X7BOhxs&t=5m59s, 5:59

I've updated all the articles accordingly, using this youtube video as a source until something in print can be used (if ever possible). ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 16:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's more than a little bizarre, considering he was unambiguously announced as joining the band, and member changes have typically been rather transparent. Scratching my head confused, here. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

What to do about [4]: and the band's newest member, producer, songwriter, and studio whiz Will "Science" Hunt (that's right -- the band has two guys named "Will Hunt"). Gimmetoo (talk) 22:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

That's the exact quote I keep remembering whenever someone talks about Will "Science" Hunt. But it looks like it might have just been a leap by the magazine and a misinterpretation (hence the confusion Amy Lee talks about in the most recent interview). Amy only mentions that he exists and talks only about his involvement in "Sally's Song". I have to assume that Will "Science" Hunt is involved in the same way Steve Lillywhite is--not at all (now). The two were brought in to produce an album, but Evanescence scrapped that version of the album and thus scrapped both of them. I assume it was just a leap [by ''everyone''] that he was actually a member of the band. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 22:43, August 7, 2011 (UTC)

lmao, I was about to fix that, then all hell broke loose at work. literally...there were knives involved. — Huntster (t @ c) 09:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

New Evanescence Group/Member Photo

I am requesting that we change the Evanescence photo used in the current article. We should replace the 2006 photo of Evanescence for a more recent photo of them? The article needs a photo of the NEW Evanescence, not the old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.88.164.210 (talk) 20:13, 8 August 2011

If we had a recent image that had no incompatible licensing restrictions, it would probably end up as the lead image, and the older image put somewhere in the History section. But we don't. However, the band is doing a tour soon, so perhaps a wiki-editing fan will see the group backstage at some point and ask for a group picture. Gimmetoo (talk) 20:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to the Nashville show in a few days, so I might get lucky, but the odds are against it. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Ajchz, 27 August 2011

Hello I want to keep updated this webpage, I am a webmaster (www.evforo.net and www.evticos.com)

Ajchz (talk) 23:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

There are three ways you can edit this page. 1. Use the Edit Semi Protected template with the exact changes that you would like to see. 2. Request at WP:RFPP that the page become unprotected. or 3. Become WP:Confirmed or WP:Autoconfirmed --Jnorton7558 (talk) 00:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Genre

I'm sure this has been brought up time and time again, and there is apparently a consensus regarding the lack of genre in the infobox, but I wish to suggest this idea to this article's editors under the view that consensus can change. The fact that the consensus has apparently been in place for a long time says to me that perhaps it is time to debate this issue again. I am aware that genres in infoboxes can be a very contentious issue, as barely any musical articles are free from the genre warriors, but there are some solutions to the edit wars. What I wish to propose is my recent edit as a future style for this article. That is, only genres that are sufficiently backed up by several reliable sources (that would also need to be discussed here on the talk page first) should be in the infobox. All of the genres and sources I added at this time are ones that appear later on in the article in the 'musical style' section, and so we already have a nice ten citations for the infobox (which is far better than most band articles on Wikipedia). To further back up this point, I have also added an invisible comment dissuading any would-be genre warriors from trying to insert their own PoV or original research into the box. This way, the article's infobox can be brought up to the same standard (better, in fact, due to the number of citations) as every other musical artist on Wikipedia. To help put in perspective the issue of contentious infoboxes, I wish to present two other articles -- one another musical artist, the other not -- that have controversial edit wars. The first is Cradle of Filth, where they choose to simply have a very broad genre to ensure there is no PoV, and instead describe the issue later in the article (should anyone disagree with my proposal, I would then suggest that we, too, have a broad genre definition, such as "alternative metal," which is the genre for all Evanescence's albums). The second article is British National Party. While not a band, they have a similar issue with their "ideologies" section. The consensus on this article is that any ideology added has to be adequately sourced and discussed beforehand on the talk page, in the same fashion to what I suggested. Thanks, and please do not be afraid to join in and debate this issue. – Richard BB 21:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to start off by saying that HTML comments don't do a single thing to prevent people, even seasoned and experienced editors, from ignoring notation and editing a page any way they want (see Will "Science" Hunt). It is my opinion that having multiple genres in the infobox (especially if sourced) is messy. If an artist cannot be simply described as one or two genres, they shouldn't be described at all. And that's where the problem lies. Because there are so many sources in reference to Evanescence's genre, it's a full time job maintaining the infobox. We've tried in the past to attack this from different angles (leaving it blank, leaving every genre known to man, leaving ONE genre, and having only a link to the "musical style" section). Ultimately, having no genre listed at all prevents the most genre vandalism (out of sight, out of mind). My final point: if all the genres are listed in the musical style section, why do they all need to be listed again in the infobox? These are my thoughts on the topic. =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 21:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we should be put off by the fact that vandalism and frequent maintenance would result from a genre inclusion. It's one of the things we just have to endure as editors (and a stubborn part of me wants to say that if we don't do it just because of vandals, then they win). I can see, however, what you mean by it being a tad messy by having so many sources there. While there are some featured articles that do list multiple genres (such as U2), admittedly not all have the sources right there. Personally, I believe we should adopt a view of practicality over aesthetics and add the sources no matter how messy it may look, but I realise some may disagree with this. So, another solution would be similar to what is done on the Cradle of Filth article, as I mentioned above: have one broad genre there, such as "alternative metal" (again, the genre that is used on album pages), and place the HTML note there warning people not to alter the genre. The HTML may dissuade many from edit warring, while the ones who persist can be given warnings and eventually blocked from editing (I notice that Twinkle now has an option to warn people specifically for changing genres without consensus). Alternative metal (or even heavy metal, if you want to use an even broader term) is a neutral-PoV description that does not require any additional edit warring over: the genre's wikilink itself can even take the user to the 'musical style' section in a similar way to how Cradle of Filth's "extreme metal" genre does. As for your final point: everything listed in the infobox is mentioned elsewhere in the article, but the infobox is there for nice, convenient, and quick access to the significant points about the band. – Richard BB 22:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

All I'm really saying is that we've all been through this before. The broad amount of Evanescence fans/editors/etc that visit this wiki could not agree on one genre to list there, numerous genres don't make sense because they're listed in the prose, having a link to the section only invites someone to add something, and leaving blank has had the most success because it doesn't open the door for disagreement and thus editwarring. This isn't an argument, it's only stating my opinion. More input is welcome from other users. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 01:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Scott here has a point, i used to be one of those editors that wrote from my pov, and i think that its best if you leave it blank, but if your gona add ANY genre it should be alternative metal, gothic metal, and nu metal, evanescence is listed as american gothic metal, alt metal, and nu metal categories, and its also listed in the respective "list of" pages...if people add evanescence on the alternative rock page, it usually gets deleted, and the same applies to the post-grunge page, and the gothic rock page, but evanescence is already listed on alternative metal, nu metal, and especially gothic metal. the gothic metal page even has its own section on evanescence, and if you read most of the album reviews, those are the genres that are used to describe evanescence the most . im just giving my opinion that those three genres should be the ones in the infobox, IF ANY should be at all, but i would prefer it stayed blank, and the page protected 24.139.117.90 (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 13 October 2011

Evanescence released their forth Album entitled "Evanescence" on October 11, 2011 cite: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/evanescence-20111011

with a live performance the following evening at the Paladium in Los Angeles, California. cite: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/evanescence-taylor-momsen-concert-review-247487

Erolfox (talk) 20:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what your request really is here. The information saying the album was released is already in the article (in a few places). Is there a specific place it's mentioned that isn't clear on the release date? Please let us know here.

Also, I'm not sure what the significance of that performance is. I'm not really denying this edit request, but I'm just not sure what your intent is with this information or where to put it. Perhaps another editor may have other ideas or if you could be more specific as to what your edit idea was, we can be of more help. =) ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 23:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request, 10.19.11

The sentence about the third album debuting at #4 on the Billboard Hot 100 is incorrect, even with the citation. The citation goes to a news piece about the UK album charts (run by The Official Charts Company, a UK company entirely separate from Billboard), not the Billboard Hot 100, which, additionally, keeps track of singles, not albums. It is projected (according to Billboard) to chart at #1 on Billboard's actual US Albums Chart, the Billboard 200, when the first list the album is eligible for comes out later this week.

Since the page is locked, I cannot make the edit myself. Can someone who can please delete that sentence/citation or, alternately, edit it to make it correct (and subsequently add the accurate information once the Billboard 200 is released)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.210.115.19 (talk) 10:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. I think this is the one article I didn't check when I noticed all the chart information being added all over. =) Waiting for it to actually chart is best before announcing projections. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 21:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request: Main Image

Somebody should update the main image on the Evanescence article. It's outdated--from 2006, shows members who aren't even in the band anymore. Can't somebody put an official band picture up? Would be a lot clearer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.226.197 (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Evanescence/Archive_8#New_Evanescence_Group.2FMember_Photo. Gimmetoo (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

To reiterate: If we had a recent image that 1) had no incompatible licensing restrictions, and 2) reasonably illustrated the band, it would probably be used as the lead image, and the older image put somewhere in the History section. But we don't have one. Images marked "all rights reserved" on flickr are not going to be allowed in this case. If you want to change the current lead image, DON'T try just replacing it with some copyrighted image that will be removed from WP in a couple days. That doesn't help. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

New Photos?

I went to the Worcester, MA show over the weekend and got two decent pictures of the band and one of Amy Lee. Is it sad that I was actually trying to take pictures with the sole intention of including them in Wikipedia? Anyway, I know they're not the greatest... The best shots were with a flash, but I must have had some weird glare / spotty lens, and they yelled at me twice for using a flash, so these 3 are the best I've got. Think they'll be useful anywhere if I make them copyright-free? ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 03:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the first one? I dunno. Trust me, I know how you feel...I went to the Nashville show and tried so hard to get a good photo, but it just wasn't happening. Very dark in War Memorial, and a girl in front of me kept standing up during the songs and blocking the view. All of my pics turned out horrible. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I took over 200 photos of the entire trip (180+ miles away) and concert and those 3 are the best candidates for anything even though none of them are fully clear. I didn't have a seating problem though, thankfully. It was General Admission so everyone was standing already. So I was standing at the front of the first level, and being over six feet tall, I had an easy view over everybody. Sucks I didn't get anything good though... And now they're off to Europe! ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 04:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully they'll come back to Nashville. I'm trying to think of ways to get a press pass and bring in a high quality camera, again, strictly for Wikipedia and Commons, lol. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

So what does one have to do to change some *** pictures on Wikipedia? --Thesadisticcheeseburgerpickle1 (talk) 07:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Go to a concert, take some better pictures, and give them away. Gimmetoo (talk) 08:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

While I wouldn't word it quite like that, I do agree that only the best images should be placed in articles, especially the primary article of a topic. Few, if any, of these new pictures fit that bill, and therefore have no place here. — Huntster (t @ c) 09:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Why is is that there's only one freaking picture of John Lecompt on here? What makes him so special for him to qualify to have his own picture in this article? He's no longer in the band. The only picture he should be appearing in, due to circumstances of limited new Evanescence pictures available for use on Wiki, is the default pic because that was Evanescence in 2006. Shit, if John has a picture, why shouldn't Amy Lee of all people? Or Terry? Or Tim? At least THEY are STILL in Evanescence and didn't get their ass handed to them. This article should include pictures of the band together. Not just one single person, even Amy. That's why I feel the new pictures I added DID FIT the bill cause it talks about EVANESCENCE, not John Lecompt. He can have his picture on his own article. And who made you guys the kings or queens of this article? Seriously, why must we ask YOU for permission to make changes. Anybody can make changes, not just according to your rule. The fuck is this. --Thesadisticcheeseburgerpickle1 (talk) 04:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm only going to comment on the fact that John LeCompt shouldn't be completely stripped of the article just because he's no longer a member. He's still relevant to Evanescence's past, which is where the picture is located--among former members. The goal for images on an article are CLEAR pictures that have contextual significance to the location in the prose article in which they appear, not an image gallery of the subject of the article. Just remember your wiki policies. You were bold, you were reverted, and now it's your turn to make valid points on why your images should be included. What are your main selling points other than "this is bullshit". Didn't you used to be a very valuable contributor, Homezfoo? ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 14:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Genre Talk

I do not consider Evanescence goth metal. Real goth is bands like type o negative, the cure, bauhaus and paradise lost. I consider them alternative metal, nu metal, hard rock and alternative rock.

-TheMetallican — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMetallican (talk • contribs) 12:03, November 11, 2011‎

Well you said it youself, YOU do not consider them, however i do, does that mean im wrong and your right, or vice versa? no, there are thousands of people out there who say evanescence is goth metal just as there are thousands of people who dont consider them goth metal, or even metal in general for that matter, but there are lots of reliable sources that state that evanescence is goth metal such as rolling stones, the av club, allmusic, etc. i listen to mainstream goth metal (lacuna coil, nightwish -if you will-, within temptation, epica) and to be quite honest, ev has songs just as heavy as some songs(listen to never go back, haunted, or lose control), evanescence is not 100% goth metal, (or even heavy metal) but its the wide mixture of genres and influences that makes evanescence such a widly debated band when it comes to genres, in my opinion evanescence is every single genre described in the musical style section,

SHORT ANSWER: you consider them not goth, just because YOU think so, doesnt mean YOU are right, get the point? 24.139.117.90 (talk) 23:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Goth Metal doesn't equal to Gothic Rock. Ev sounds more Nu-Metal and even they have stated that they would be classified as Rock. Gothic Rock is Siouxsie and the Banshees, Sisters of Mercy etc, Gothic Rock is an established genre over 30 years old. It doesn't go by what people FEEL should be Goth but by the sound of the genre, and Evanescence doesn't fit that bill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.28.74 (talk) 08:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Remember, we don't go with what we feel it should be, but by what the sources tell us. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you on that. Either way, Gothic Rock is established based on the music, and Evanescence doesn't sound anything like the first or second waves of Goth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.28.74 (talk) 08:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Loudwire Awards

Evanescence won 2 loudwire music awards, i think it should be included in the awards section, and ev was also nominated for a few other awards, i would do it but i have no idea how to work the tables and all, so if someone could do that for me i would be really grateful, thank you! 24.139.117.90 (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, this brings up a good point. Personally, I think there are far too many awards listed here to begin with since there exists an entire article dedicated to the awards won by Evanescence. I was thinking that this entire section should perhaps be replaced with prose describing some of the major awards they've won--perhaps something that would be a nice lead to the awards article. Checking the awards article, there is no such nicely written prose to sum up the article but only a weirdly summed up couple of sentences. If you can write up a nice paragraph of prose to replace the table, I'll absolutely endorse such a change... But being that it's such a major change and it's only one opinion, I'm not even sure this is the best option--only what I think of the situation. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 01:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed. I wouldn't mind seeing just a {{Main}} template linking to the awards article, with all the prose in the award article itself. Perhaps a brief summary here, but nothing major. My other concern is, how minor is too minor for inclusion in this article? — Huntster (t @ c) 02:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, however, writing a nice paragraph of the awards and nominations without making it sound like weirdly summed up sentences would be tricky, or at least i think it would, ive tried but i still havent succeded 24.139.117.90 (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request 1-17-2012

Edit to "Formation and early years: 1995–2001"

"The two met in 1994 at a [day care called Camp Grundy] in Little Rock, where Moody heard Lee playing "I'd Do Anything for Love (But I Won't Do That)" by Meat Loaf on the piano.[7]"DannyBaker (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)DannyBaker

Not done. No sources. The geody.com link provided neither supports what sort of place it is, nor even that they met at that particular place. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The name off the "youth camp" is Camp Grundy, an outdoor kid care facility. It's near Amy and Ben's old trailer where they used to live. There's no source cause nobody will print it. damn dude. DannyBaker (talk) 03:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)DannyBaker

I can find no source which links Lee or Moody to Camp Grundy. Without a source, it doesn't go in the article. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

OK sounds fair enough, but who stated it was a "youth camp" in the first place? DannyBaker (talk) 15:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)DannyBaker

The source in the article says "summer camp". Gimmetoo (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)