Talk:Panic! at the Disco/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Started10/30/2006 Hackajar 02:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Name Taken talk

If their name really is from the Name Taken song, it is simply "Panic" not "Panic at the disco"

reply: er no the song says "panic at the disco" from Saucealexman

Clarify Reading Festival entry

Hi,

Just to clarify that at the Reading Festival, when Brendon was hit in the face with the bottle, the band actually a abandoned their first song and started with a different one (afraid I can't remember which) . However I'm not too sure about the protocol for updating entries so I thought I'd post here...

The article cited also makes this error. I was there - I know!

Wikiwikiwahwah 12:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)wikiwikiwahwah

i can also clarify this, as i was there too; i'll alter the article as appropriate. i can't provide a citation though - how to get around this, if the only source given is incorrect? 84.68.194.216 16:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Use The YouTube citation on Brendon Urie page, as it also shows his bandmates abandoning him on stage as well Hackajar 06:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Why has this been changed back to 'continued with the same song' when it had previously been corrected as above? 86.129.106.202 15:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)wikiwikiwahwah

Don't know, I suggest fixing it and add citation from 2nd source to insure it stays put.Hackajar 15:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I was also there, and no, they didn't start a new song, they did however skip to the brigde.

Band Name

Whoever keeps changing the band name from "a line in a song by NAME TAKEN" to "a line in a song by THE SMITHS" is wrong. The song from The Smiths is the song Panic were DEBATING on using, but they chose the one from Name Taken. Just LISTEN TO THE SONG, it says "Panic At The Disco" in the 2nd verse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RockOutMahn (talk • contribs)

• A Rolling Stone article claims otherwise, though. [1] What's the source provided for the Name Taken version of the story? CrocodileMile 05:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Here's a "2nd source" per WP:CITE that is vaild enough to confirm that's how they got their name. Panic! At the Disco BillBoard profile —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hackajar (talk • contribs)

• Agreed on the validity of that, but they're both reliable sources, aren't they? Is there any official statement from the band on the origin of their name? CrocodileMile 00:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Hello, everyone!

I'm the mediator from the Mediation Cabal who has taken Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-09-03 Panic! at the Disco genre. I've done my best to read through the archived genre debate and the comments on this page, and it seems like you get close to an agreement but then somehow it falls apart. I'd like to help. As an introduction, I live in the United States and I'm an avid fan of rock and alternative rock music and I attend rock concerts all over the country. I've heard P!atD's album; I wouldn't call myself a fan quite yet, but they're young and growing musically, and they definitely have a lot of potential. My point is that I don't have a dog in this fight, so I'm sure I can be objective for you.

The genre is 'alternative rock' right now, so I removed Category:Pop punk groups. All debate about the genre needs to go under this heading now for the mediation. The debate seems to be largely between Hackajar, who asked for MedCab assistance, and HarryCane, who left the text on this page stating the issue is mediation, so I will be talking mainly to them. However, anyone who wants to join the discussion can do so if s/he has something to contribute. Please don't be upset if I missed you – chime in anyway. There are a lot of cooks in this particular kitchen. ;-)

I'd like to establish a policy where everyone agrees to the content here, and I will make the edits myself. This way, no one has to worry about being reverted, changes will only be made after compromise has been reached, and the pressure is taken off everyone. I hope we don't have to take the step of semi-protecting the page, so let's all be respectful and obey the ground rules.

Hackajar asked for MedCab assistance because he wants clarification on "where Wikipedia recommends obtaining genre information from," i.e. the band itself, reviews, etc. Let's tackle that first. I think a reminder about our goals is appropriate at this point, because the standard here is not truth – it's verifiability. My opinion or yours is original research. We are interested in what verifiable, reliable sources say about the subject. As an example, I subscribe to and pore over Rolling Stone and Paste. Both music publications are verifiable, reliable sources. (I have not and will not check them myself to see what they say about this particular issue, but someone else can.)

As a first step, I'd like both Hackajar, HarryCane and others to provide sources they consider verifiable and reliable sources for music of this kind. Don't get into what each source says about the band's "genre" yet – just give the sources, where they can be found, and why you feel they are reliable and verifiable. New editors would benefit by reading this section. Just below, I've set subsections for Hackajar and HarryCane to set out their information; we'll work this into subsequent parts of the discussion. The third subsection is for others to add their own sources. Do not argue about sources and don't get dragged into such an argument – that's for later. Simply give your own answers and rationale, and list as many or as few as you wish.

Sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~) – it's considered common courtesy. It's very annoying and tedious to sift through the edit history to see who left an unsigned comment.

After this first step is finished, we'll move to the next step. There's no deadline, so if it takes someone a while or real life interferes, just leave a note here, and when everyone is back we'll pick up where we left off. See you soon - BaseballBaby 06:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Based on what seems to be an agreement about the genre up above this section, I've asked Hackajar if he still wants to move forward with mediation. I apologize to HarryCane for assuming he had begun the "Currently Being Mediated" section – he did not, and I've tagged it appropriately. It's really, really important that everyone sign their comments, because it can and does lead to confusion about your intention and everyone else's. Thanks. BaseballBaby 02:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Hackajar

I'd like to start by stating that I've provided both my opinion AND sources on this matter. My opinion and source are different from each other. I error on the side of sources (hence why I revert page back to emo, even though I personally don't think they are).

In the Genre debate above, I have sited many sources of information to back the emo/pop punk/alt rock/electronica genre.

I do not have anything personal against HarryCane, I'm just confused where his motives are. Instead of building out name space for P!AtD, he requests portions be delated from Wikipedia. Instead of giving fair debates about genre issue, he decides for everyone and archives conversations about issue. Yet he claims they are a group he enjoys and want to contribute to on wikipedia.

I think in this debate over Genre people have just forgotten about the WP:AGF policy on wikipedia and take things to personally (myself included at times).

Die2k had set up article in a fair and balanced way last week. With a generic genre, and a sentence about musical "fusion". What was wrong with that?

Hackajar 06:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

HarryCane

To be quite frank, I don't even think Hackajar and I have different opinions on this subject (he at least has stated at one point or another that he does not consider the band emo). I must say, I don't get him most of the time anyway, but that's a different issue. However, he seems to have a personal aversion against me, because I told him earlier not to blank his talk page, he took it personally, and ever since out of principle does not comply with any of my edits. Therefore he dragged me into this mediation thing. I stated earlier that I have no intention to be caught up in this kindergarten this article has become anymore.

I neither have the time nor the motivation to search the internet for sources on the genre debate. I know there is an enormous amount of sources stating that Panic! at the Disco is in fact emo, I'm not denying that. My point is that, in recent times, the term emo was applied to any band that emerged from a certain scene, ranging from blink-182 to Something Corporate to Brand New, etc. Originally, emo (or "emotional hardcore") described a subgenre of hardcore punk in the 1980s and '90s. When the genre died down, Jimmy Eat World was the last band with emo influences (on their albums up to Static Prevails), but they got a new singer and changed their musical style. At that time (their album Clarity), original emo notions had almost entirely disappeared from their music, still they were considered an emo band by mainstream media. Every band that sounded similar to their new 'alienated' form of emo (or toured with them, for that matter) was automatically, and most importantly, incorrectly labelled "emo" — a common mistake made by many so-called professional music journalists, who in my opinion should know better. To this day MTV, AMG and other sources tag bands emo – despite obvious affiliations to genres other than hardcore punk – just because it sells. Nowadays, "emo" has become more of an insult (as in "You stupid emo!") and is more often than anything else used with negative connotations. Therefore, most bands (just like Panic! at the Disco) refuse the "emo" label, besides having little to do with the original, musical form of the genre (the basis for the term). Another common misconception is that "emo" does not stand for "emotional hardcore", but for emotional music in general. Concerning this, (actual emo band) Rites of Spring frontman Guy Picciotto said in an interview: "The reason I think it's so stupid is that - what, like the Bad Brains weren't emotional?" (from Emo (music)).

Next time I'm personally addressed, please leave a message on my talk page, as I only saw this by chance. Thank you. --HarryCane 14:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've taken HarryCane's name off the mediation. BaseballBaby 02:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Others

Hi. I've been working on this page for quite some time now, and have tried to work with the genre as much as possible to classify the band. To begin with, I believe the genre that I tried to stick with was pop punk/electronica/emo. I then changed it to Pop punk with electronica/emo influences. I believe the way I have it stated now fits the requirements. Alternative rock is definately the genre that Panic! and many other bands fit into, because it's not straight forward rock and roll. The influences category is derived from many veritable, and cited sources that I have come up with. I've seen many a times Panic! and Panic! critics cite them as an emo band. The closest I can come to, is the cover of a recent Blender magazine. [2] The quote from the Panic! interview says that "We've surpassed emo." Basically meaning that they have taken emo to a new level, if you read the interview itself. Pop punk is another closesly recognized term for the band, taken from there influences such as blink-182, and Fall Out Boy, among others. Electronica and Indie Rock come from the types of music influences that they have brought to the table with there recent album. I hope this has helped in the discussion, and I hope that the edits that I have made are appreciated. Thanks! --DieHard2k5 21:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Mediation status

Based on the agreement up above to put the genre at 'power pop' with the description of indie rock, alt rock, emo, etc. as influences, I'm going to step back now to see if it holds. I've exchanged messages with Hackajar and he feels that mediation is unnecessary at this point. Power pop with indie/emo/electronic/alt rock influences is a nice compromise; it makes everybody satisfied but also leaves everybody a little dissatisfied too, which is the way it's intended to be.

In case anyone is unhappy and feels mediation is indeed necessary, I'll leave the case open for a few days. Honestly, however, I think you're in the right place and have solved 95% of the problem yourselves.

Hackajar asked in his request what Wikipedia considers to be the sources for genre and music issues. As I said to him, It wouldn't be a collaborative encyclopedia if an admin or bureaucrat decreed one day that this site is The Source for music info and That Source is not. The discussion is what's important. There's been a lively one here, and that is supposed to happen. Despite its length, this really has been a one of the more pleasant debates I've seen, so I think this article is in good hands and I will leave it that way. :-)

I changed the genre to 'power pop' in the infobox and the text, removed the 'consensus' tag from the lead section of the article, and inserted comment that the genre was decided on the talk page and it shouldn't be changed. If any of you need help or have questions about this issue (or anything else I can do for you), please feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Happy editing - BaseballBaby 08:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Who came up with Power pop? I'm pretty sure that everyone agreed with Alt-rock. I'm going to go ahead and change the genre back to Alt rock, because I have yet to find one veritable source that labels the band as powerpop, and whoever came up with that has OR'ed it. --DieHard2k5 21:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Good call. I think that was in talk above somewhere. Alt rock seems fine enough. Also, people are now splitting hairs with the removal of "successful" from fusion statement. Suppose "Successful" is an option and might drift from WP:NPOV.Hackajar 08:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. You want Alt Rock, listen to Project 86's last 3 albums. This is Indie Rock. I would know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.64.223.203 (talk • contribs)

Again, with the OR, we go by facts here, not opinions. And alternative is simply meant in this way that it is not straight forward rock and roll, as in Chuck Berry, or Little Richard. --DieHard2k5 02:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think a band would lose any indie status it had after appearing all over MTv, Rolling Stone, walmart and the radio.--Terronez 21:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

That means absolutely nothing in the real world. As long as they're on an indie label, they're going to be an indie band. ---CJ Marsicano 04:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Well the whole part of indie status is being on a indie label. The only reason they are all over the place is because they are good. A lot of people on major labels don't get as much recognition as them. --DieHard2k5 22:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. That is like saying "there not punk, cause they are popular". Indie labels are not here to make 100,000 print of artist and keep them "Indie" they are there to get royalties when band get's "bought out" by major record labels when they are good. They assume less risk they major labels, and thus put less marketing efforts (due to cost). Even with these working against indie artists, if they are 'good' then both band and label make gobs of money. Don't forget "Indie" stands for "Independent" as in NOT major label. So long as they stay on Fueled by Ramen/Dycadance they are "Indie" band on "Indie" label. Hackajar 16:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, someone keeps changing this to an emo band, not alternative rock band, as we have decided. Can somebody change this, I cannot because I'm at school and it's protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diehard2k5 (talk • contribs)

I just reverted it. mnewmanqc 17:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Infobox musical artist

I've changed the infobox back to the more current Template:Infobox musical artist, since there's an ongoing process to convert most band/artist pages to this infobox. Besides, it's a whole hell of a lot better looking and not as bland as the old one. ;) --CJ Marsicano 02:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Band-Bashing / Gay comments

I think this article could go without the negative commentary and homosexual innuendo. i don't believe that the band is sexually involved amongst themselves as stated in the current revision. I believe the revision to Urie to Urine is a bit childish as well.

Vandalism

Someone at my school keeps vandalising the article. Please stop this.

No. 74.130.206.2 22:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)