Jump to content

Talk:Evanescence/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Guitarist

Troy is the lead guitarist. He plays the solos and lead lines. I have never seen Terry do any evidence of him playing any lead guitar styles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.130.166.48 (talk) 23:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


mr Hunt

"Will Hunt returned as drummer while a second drummer and programmer, Will "Science" Hunt, was brought in to assist in writing but ultimately did not join the band.[45][46] "

...what ??

109.189.7.91 (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You'll have to be more specific in your question. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Japan Tour 2012

I am sorry but I managed to get my information wrong. Evanescence went on a Japan tour with Dazzle Vision in February 2012, nor March. Could someone fix that for me? thanks KaseyVincent (talk) 09:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Next single apparently changed

Per this, the next single will actually be "The Other Side." This would not be the first time for Ev that a single would be announced and then changed. Therefore, I'm removing "Made of Stone" from the list and adding this instead. Calabe1992 02:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm wary. I've seen All Access be wrong before (on a few occasions). But this one listing is more than "Made of Stone" has anywhere outside twitter/blog posts... so I think I'll leave this one alone for now =D. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 03:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I've seen Made of Stone get a few plays on the radio, but AllAccess never listed it and neither did anyone else (other than blogs/Twitter, like you said). It wouldn't surprise me for this to be another switched single case, such as with Imaginary and Everybody's Fool. Calabe1992 14:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not think that the other side is the next single as it would have been said by Evanescence/Amy Lee on social networking sites. The reference to the change, I would say is not notable, it says that it will go to radio stations, NOT that it is the new single for the album so I think that unless a notable reference for this change cab be found, I think it should be changed back to "Made of Stone". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.0.75 (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Take a look around. There also aren't any good sources saying Made of Stone has ever been released. It seemed to just be getting radio play because it was being talked about. No sites ever showed it having a date for release. Calabe1992 23:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The release date of Made of stone has not been released yet but it has been said by Amy Lee/ Evanescence that it is the third single but they have never said that about the other side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.0.75 (talk) 22:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Picture

The main picture of the band is very old and two of those members are no longer in the band so I suggest that the picture could be changed to a more recent picture of the band that includes the newest members, Will Hunt and Troy McLawhorn.

--Alexcatt97 (talk) 23:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

If a freely licensed image of the whole band could be located, then we would change the picture. Unfortunately, no such image has been found yet (and believe me, we've tried looking). — Huntster (t @ c) 00:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

What's with the immense lack of information in the info box?

Where's the associated acts and the genres?Panic Reaper (talk) 04:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Simply put, for genres there is virtually no consensus on what should go in that field, and long-standing and pretty strong consensus against including anything for that reason. The dedicated section spells it out well enough. For associated acts, there's not really any other groups that fit the criteria in the template. Evanescence tends to be a bit on the loner side of things, in my opinion. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Carnival of Madness tour

Evanescence is lined up to appear on the Carnival of Madness tour kicking off July 31, 2012, with Halestorm, Cavo, New Medicine, and Chevelle. Does anyone have a draft about this in progress, or is it open for anyone to contribute? Dishandspoon2008 (talk) 16:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The Musical Style Section

I've tried using the references, from that section in order to verify Evanescence's position in the list of alt metal articles (and a baised user is giving me a hard time) but all those references are bogus, for alt metal, one reference leads to a site that does not look very reliable and doesnt even mention alt metal, just alt rock...that same site also says ev is pop rock which is not, so why use it? the electronica reference and alt rock references are also bogus. There needs to be relable sources. POINT IS: the sources in that section should be verified to make sure they are valid and reliable 24.227.9.114 (talk) 18:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

My only input on the subject is to be BOLD and fix what's wrong if you have the time. But I have one reply to your question "that same site also says ev is pop rock which is not, so why use it?". The answer is that because Wikipedia is not biased. If a reliable source says that Evanescence is Power Pop or Bubblegum Pop, it's still a valid source and Wikipedia should not deny it. The point of this section is to display the wide array of genres that Evanescence has been classified since the band does not have a specific genre (which is the reason for the lack of a genre field in the infobox). Fix up the sources if you want, but make sure to follow Wikipedia's founding policies and assume good faith and not be biased. Thanks! =) ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 22:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok so i did, the AOL reference for chamber pop says nothing, so i found a new reference, the NME reference for electronica says nothing and i couldnt find a reference for electronica so i took it off, the ING reference for alternative rock says absolutely nothing so i found TWO references that clearly called ev alt rock, i also added post grunge with an allmusic ref (from the tags) i added prog metal and symphonic metal both with reliable and clear references, i understand why symphonic metal would be removed since its already mentioned in the section (although not to describe the band itself, but still) and after all i did, i come today and find my changes reverted (except the prog metal part) i truly do not understand why someone would do that! the references for electronica, chamber pop, post grunge and alt rock dont mention absolutely anything! it truuly angers me, ill find time eventually to include them again, however, i think the page should be put under protection or something cuz it seems like some random biased editor thinks he/she owns the page 24.227.9.114 (talk) 22:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I haven't seen any claims of ownership of the page whether it be through persistent editing to one specific style or language used in discussion or edit summaries. But even so, there's a few problems with the idea of protection... a) protection is used to block vandalism, and there's definitely not been enough recent vandalism to warrant a protection b) protection only prohibits anonymous users from editing (you, for example) c) if the user you're referring to Huntster, he's an administrator and has the power to lift the protection anyway.
What ever happens on Wikipedia, don't let any editors discourage you. Everyone is free to edit these articles, and your contributions over the years (?) have definitely helped maintain order and consistency throughout the Ev articles. It might actually benefit you if you sign up for an account. Many times, seeing updates from IP users (especially such frequent edits regarding genres) causes other registered users from thinking there's some POV editing going on. I actually remember of at least 2 incidents where your edits were quickly reverted, but I reverted them back only because I recognized your IP so I looked at the edit more closely than other people might. You're a valued editor and I just don't want to see you become discouraged. :) Keep up the good work! ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 23:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

We are the Fallen

Should be mentioned that three members left and joined WAF. I know some will say that it isnt relevant to the article, but indeed, all someone needs to ask themselves is "what was that band?" and they will come to this article. Sephiroth storm (talk) 10:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

It is very true that Evanescence is relevant to We Are the Fallen, but We Are the Fallen is not relevant to Evanescence. Mentioning that the members left to form a new band (not the reason they left, though) just doesn't fit anywhere in this article or the band members article. There simply is no point. It doesn't add anything to this article, just adds trivial information. To me, it's like dedicating a paragraph to a "where are they now?" type description of all the former members (there are a LOT of former members outside those three--why are they so special?). It simply doesn't work in both directions. WAtF should definitely reference Evanescence (as it does), but WAtF has no real relevance to Evanescence. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 18:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hiatus?

The reference only states that they are on a break, not a hiatus or a temporary break up, in fact Amy Lee herself is still active, she has performed an acoustic set with Paula Cole for Wellspring House, bu nothing has been stated that they are in a hiatus, so why does it state that they are? - SilentDan297 talk 16:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Lee ≠ Evanescence, so her solo activity does not mean Ev is active. The source does say hiatus in its own title, in addition to saying "extended break", so it seems reasonable to me. This is certainly worthy of a discussion, if others believe the wording should be different. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Promotional singles

It's important to create pages for these promotional singles and mention them in the template box of the band:

"Imaginary" (2003) - Font: http://www.discogs.com/Evanescence-Imaginary/release/2106706
"Missing" (2004) - Font: http://www.discogs.com/Evanescence-Missing/master/478364
"Weight of the World" (2007)
"Together Again" (2010) - Font: http://www.discogs.com/Evanescence-Together-Again/release/2617320
"Made of Stone" (2012) - Font: http://www.discogs.com/Evanescence-Made-Of-Stone/release/3832162
"The Other Side" (2012) - Font: http://www.discogs.com/Evanescence-The-Other-Side/release/3856562

187.60.66.59 (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

recent edits

What I see in this edit is fairly uncontroversial, they left WindUp, and are suing, that gives credence to the statement "her band would end their contract with Wind Up Records", the only part I can't confirm is the independent label part. Whats the big deal? the Website appears to be managed by windup so I don't expect to see such a statement posted there, which leaves their official Twitter and FB as references. The RS guide indicates that the same policy applies to FB and twitter as with other sources, it can be used. Sephiroth storm (talk) 05:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

If you'll notice, I restored the material given that Loudwire published an article. First party sources should not be used, but since Loudwire covered it, this is the third-party reporting that is needed. Also, it isn't "independent label", just that they are now independent as artists (aka, without a label). — Huntster (t @ c) 05:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Genres

Considering that most of the band's songs/albums are comprised of alternative metal, nu-metal and gothic rock, wouldn't it only make sense to add those to the genres...? Whatever318 (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

On this article, adding any genre to the infobox (even being the consensus of Evanescence-wide Alternative metal), has led to nothing but editwarring. Adding "see below" did not help much either.
The consensus here is to simply leave the genre field completely blank since there is a considerable amount of varied genres sourced below within the prose. If reliable sources don't classify Evanescence as 1 or 2 specific genres, why would Wikipedia? ;) ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 20:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
If a reliable source can be found, then I think the genre should be stated.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 22:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Allmusic says they are pop/rock, and play in the styles of goth metal, heavy metal, post-grunge and alternative metal.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 23:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
We have a large section on the various genres attributed to the band. As Scott said, we've had tremendous edit wars in the past over folks trying to insert their favourite or preferred genres into the infobox, so consensus found that simply excluding it was the best available option. Quite frankly, if we listed all the sourced genres in the infobox, it would be enormous in size. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I highly disagree with this. I completely understand the fact that people add in their own genres, of which will cause edit wars, however I don't think that's a good enough excuse as nearly every musical artist article will go though that, you simply have to protect the page and revert on those incident, in fact people add genres anyway to the infobox so what's the point? You may as well revert to the genres using that logic instead of nothing as it does the same job as having nothing. If you think people argue over the genre of this band, think about Linkin Park, the list of genres associated with them is insane! A hell of a lot more than Evanescence does, yet despite this, they stick to three generalised genres, and when someone edits that without consensus, it is reverted, the exact same thing you do only the difference is they revert to the same three genres, they don't revert to nothing because they can't be bothered to do so, this in my eyes is just plane laziness, and I agree with Whatever318 by using the genres alternative metal, nu-metal and gothic rock as they are three generalised genres used to describe the band. SilentDan297 talk 15:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Protecting an article is a last ditch measure, and one to be avoided. If another solution can be found (as it was, by consensus, removing the genre field), then that will always be preferred. Just because another article does it one way, that does not mean it is the correct or best way. I would also suggest that simply choosing three genres as representative and sticking them in the infobox runs far too close to original research, at least for my taste. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
That's not very informative of the article though, I may have listed one example but I think you'll find that every good and featured musical article (or it least the absolute vast majority) will have the genre filled in, and it isn't original research, it tends to be the most referenced genres mentioned in the musical style or the genres that carry out from album to album, release to release, and you simply use that. It informs a new reader the basic characteristics the artist has and what style they are, so far if I just read the top of the article, all I know is that its a rock band... what kind of rock band? Gothic? Indie? Rock n Roll? What? That's what the infobox is for, to give us a general idea of the artist or subject we are about to reading into, name another artist article that doesn't use this feature, I can name countless more that do, there's a reason the feature exists. SilentDan297 talk 23:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't seem to be hearing any objections so is it ok for me to add the genres to the infobox or is someone going to reply to my last comment? I don't feel like this discussion has reached a conclusion yet. SilentDan297 talk 16:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Consider this an objection. Consensus does not mean a lack of disagreement. Adding genres to the infobox has historically been proven to be highly disruptive to the article overall. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Evanescence added to Ozzfest Japan 2015

According to Natalie.mu (Link) and Ozzy Osbourne's facebook page (Link) Evanescence will be performing at Ozzfest 2015 in Japan, marking this as the bands first performance since 2012. I'm not sure if Natalie.mu is considered reliable or not or if it is a good idea to add a primary source to back this info up but if Natalie.mu is reliable may I put this info onto the article? SilentDan (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say that Natalie.mu source is perfectly fine. --Markhoris (talk) 18:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

GA Delisting

It is not clear to me in the archives why this was delisted. I would like to know why. DannyMusicEditor (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Band picture

Any plans on changing the band picture? I don't know what the deal is with this page that has a picture that is so irrelevant as the main one. Either use one from when they were the most famous (with Ben Moody), use one that's recent or remove it completely and just use the logo. It's been almost a decade since that picture, it has no place there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.53.6.92 (talk) 10:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Find us a freely licensed image of the band, and we'll use it. I just checked Flickr again, and there are none (that aren't copyright violations). — Huntster (t @ c) 07:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

There HAS to be an indication they're metal in the beginning paragraph.

With no genre field whatsoever and the genre being left as "rock," it said come here to talk about it, and yes, you guessed it, I'm here to object to it being alone. Their music (minus the vocal style) used to be verrryy heavy metal, and we need to indicate it somehow. No specific type or anything necessary, but we need simply put a "metal" tag next to the rock tag at the beginning. There are many sources that call it some type of metal, whether it be alternative, gothic, nu, or sometimes just plain heavy metal, and this is why we don't have it in a field. So we need something, can't we just do that? DannyMusicEditor (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

There has? Why? I disagree completely. It's totally unnecessary, because metal is a form of rock music. Please stay objective; there is no such pressing need at all. Anything that could attract genre warriors should be avoided. Many people, especially Americans, tend to class any music with distorted guitar riffing as "metal", but metal fans are often annoyed by this, pointing out that "heavy" music is not necessarily metal (just consider punk rock). As countless debates in the past attest, Evanescence are all but a clear-cut case, contrary to your insistence, so it's better to tread lightly here. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
An even bigger problem is that their style is far from consistent; they're not like AC/DC or Slayer who never really change their style. Even you admit that their music used to be "heavy metal", but that implies that their style has shifted away from this "heavy" music. That makes "metal" an even less suitable general description for the intro and the umbrella term "rock" covers their shifting styles much better. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


- Evanescence style page, May 22, 2015.

Just look at this. True, there are five citations for gothic rock, but look at all those metal citations that outnumber simply "rock."

Metal

Nu metal: Technically, 4.
Gothic metal: 5.
Others: 4. (Symphonic metal, alternative metal, progressive metal, standard-formula heavy metal.)
Industrial music could probably be seen from both sides (rock/metal), but for that reason, I won't count it.
Total: 13.

Rock

Gothic rock: 5.
Rock: 1
Others: 2 (Alternative rock, hard rock. I don't know if post-grunge should be counted because it's a subgenre of alt. rock. Either way, rock loses.)
Total: 8

Note: Even if they did move away from a metal style later, their earlier metal style is obviously more successful and therefore more notable. Compare the 7.8 million sales of Fallen to the 400,000 of their self-titled album. That might not be current, but it's close.

Thank you for considering my discussion. DannyMusicEditor (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

None of these descriptions are necessarily particularly informative in that they allow the reader to gain a quick impression of what the music is like. Nor is "rock/metal" considerably more informative than plain "rock"; I'd argue it's virtually equally generic and uninformative, so no substantial improvement. I think if you made a survey it would turn out Amy Lee's voice is the single most characteristic element of the band's music for listeners; and the fact that she is the only constant member supports this. What this boils down to is that the music of Evanescence is, in a nutshell, some form of rock music featuring Amy Lee's voice (the only instrumental they have, "Eternal", is really obscure). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Berelian2005 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference nytimes080208 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference rstone061005 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference blender030807 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference spin100305 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference NME was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference Musicmight was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Thompson, Ed was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference PopFallen was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ Cite error: The named reference rstone030325 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  11. ^ Cite error: The named reference allmusicNuMetal was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  12. ^ Cite error: The named reference PopLacuna was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  13. ^ Cite error: The named reference PopNightwish was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  14. ^ Cite error: The named reference blender2006 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  15. ^ Cite error: The named reference decibelmag was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  16. ^ Cite error: The named reference ewe was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  17. ^ Cite error: The named reference billboarddd was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  18. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference allmusicAltMet was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  19. ^ Cite error: The named reference independentuk was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  20. ^ Cite error: The named reference hardrockmaestros was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  21. ^ Cite error: The named reference aolmusic was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  22. ^ Cite error: The named reference philstar20120217 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  23. ^ Cite error: The named reference YM was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  24. ^ Cite error: The named reference RollingStone1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  25. ^ Cite error: The named reference BillboardPull was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  26. ^ Cite error: The named reference Leeunlocksdoor was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

All of their albums have links to them except Origin. I want to put a link to it in the first paragraph where it says, "three EPs, a two-track tape, and a demo album called Origin". How do I do that?67.234.150.114 (talk) 19:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Origin is linked in the "1995–2001" section. It isn't linked in the lead because it isn't a studio album, and thus has lower priority. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for explaining that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.234.150.114 (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Evanescence. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

semi-protected

I think this page should be semi-protected just like the article Korn. User:Zhyar Merlin (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

For what reason do you think so? dannymusiceditor what'd I do now? 00:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
To prevent edits from unregistered users, It would be better than cancelling edits too much. Evanescence is known world wide (and has a lot of haters) so I thought that it is a good option to protect the article from vandalism. It's not a really super important thing to do, but the article is better that way in my opinion. User:Zhyar Merlin (talk) 15:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

And by the way, the symphonic metal should be removed from Evanescence's main genre, because they are NOT even close to a symphonic metal band and I believe that adding this type of genre to replace the Rock will confuse the fans. Amy Lee said countless times that they are a rock band, and in some other interviews that "there is no specific genre for Evanescence, it has it's own music style." And they also refer to their genre just as "Rock" on their websites. I believe that Amy knows better about the band's genre than me and you would ever know, and replacing Rock with Symphonic Metal is a huge mistake! (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Symphonic metal is fringe theory, they are symphonic metal, rarely. Very rarely. I have removed it. Someone by the name of Secret Door seems to be very opposed to Evanescence's involvement in gothic metal, but it's not their place to say. Alternative metal, nu metal, and gothic metal are the most important ones. As nobody's fighting as bad as I've seen for many other articles, I'm willing to be vigilant as really these are the only genres that have been described in detail by a majority of sources. dannymusiceditor what'd I do now? 15:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Genres

Someone added them and I see it wasn't immediately taken down. Well, I propose we leave them up there for one week and see just how many people war over them. If we get too many, we'll go back to the old way. dannymusiceditor what'd I do now? 16:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The edit-warring to remove "gothic rock" is unreasonable, as it ignores the NME, MusicMight, IGN, PopMatters and Spin sources. These are not minor sources! Rather than hosting a version of the genres that is incomplete, I have reverted to the version which forces the reader to look further into the article to see genres.
By the way, the infobox instructions tell us to avoid putting something in the infobox that links to an article section. The index performs that function. Binksternet (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

"These are not minor sources!" Fine, I'll add both in there and see if that solves the problem. "By the way, the infobox instructions tell us to avoid putting something in the infobox that links to an article section." I'd kindly like to ask you to prove that. It was a tried-and-true solution. WP:OR says we shouldn't automatically label all their albums/songs alt metal, but we do anyway because of some huge consensus spanning several archives. A special case. Nothing certainly attracts more attention than what was there before, so it seems to be a special case here too. Genre warriors do not tend to pay any attention to the index, just the infobox. What'll it be? dannymusiceditor what'd I do now? 02:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the infobox instructions, they say don't do this, don't put a link to an article section in the infobox. See WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE which says "Do not include links to sections within the article; the table of contents provides that function." I removed the section link along with my other genre edits. Binksternet (talk) 03:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

No good has ever come from including genres in this article. It is the source for near constant conflict when they are included. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


Have we ever tried sourcing them in the lead? For a while, Mudvayne did that because the problem got so bad. But after a few years they were removed. dannymusiceditor what'd I do now? 01:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
As I recall, the list just got absurd in the lead, and there was a decision to just limit it to the dedicated section? Yes, it's really been a mess. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Well what I was saying was like if we had something like three refs for the most controversial ones, like gothic metal/rock, which they're obviously a hugely important part of (see gothic metal and its coverage on Evanescence). And we could limit it to only one for others (the strongest 1 of several on alt metal or nu metal, for example, while there are more later in the article). dannymusiceditor what'd I do now? 14:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't think it would really help. Folks will dredge up sources to support whatever they want to support, and it will yet again spiral into cruftiness. Even then, as edits over the past week have shown, people will ignore anything to support their favoured position. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Just a note to voice my opinion against inserting the note "See musical style" to replace a list of genres. Either we list a few genres or we keep the parameter empty. This is in accordance with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE which says "Do not include links to sections within the article; the table of contents provides that function.". Thanks. Binksternet (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree, and support the lack of anything in the infobox save for the comment explaining what's going on. Based on recent edits, I'm considering fairly long-term semi-protection to tamp down on the on-going silliness by hit-and-run editors. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
My strategy for thorny genre problems, when looking at an eclectic artist, is to leave the infobox blank. The contradictions and nuances can be discussed in the article body. Binksternet (talk) 04:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
You mean remove the genre parameter altogether? Yep, been a while but I believe activity increased compared to just having the hidden comment. It's...irritating. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
By "blank" I meant that no genre is displayed to the reader. I don't mind a hidden comment telling the potential editor that a consensus exists to refrain from listing genres in the infobox. Binksternet (talk) 12:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
"Long-standing consensus" my ass. We need to change this in a way that won't bother the stability of the article. If we can get this to GA and then WP:Semi or WP:WHITELOCK this page, we'd be fine and the ones with the most relevance pertaining to Evanescence would survive. The logic behind the fact that their recordings are all alt metal but nothing on this page is literally effed up. I'd be willing to be vigilant, I don't know what all your problems with it are. You give up too easily. Protection should be for defending good content, not blocking it from coming back up because they argue over it. I will attempt GA on this someday, but I don't know what it needs. I'm digressing now, but just get the genre point. dannymusiceditor what'd I do now? 22:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Evanescence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Moody's departure

Do you guys think we should perhaps mention Ben Moody's letter which he wrote about his departure? it's on Evboard. Zhyar Merlin talk 18:07, 12 July 2016

I do not see what that would accomplish, not to mention that its origin is not verifiable. If something were to be written, I'd urge that it be supported by third-party material rather than this. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Amy Lee confirmed that it was his and said this on spin.com: “(Sighs) I don’t want to say why, but no, I didn’t respond. I think we’re probably both better off not being in each others’ lives”. I strongly suggest mentioning the letter in the article. Mainly because there is a lot of things that that letter cleared up. Zhyar Merlin (talk) 20:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
What would you write in the article? Just mention that he wrote something? That's not appropriate. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
No, something like "A few years later Ben Moody wrote a letter himself to clear the confusion that his departure made" or something better you can makeup yourself probably. And we can use a certification to Evboard or Spin obviously, and provide them a link to the original letter on Evboard since it's a long one. I don't see how mentioning the letter is inappropriate. Zhyar Merlin (talk) 15:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I still don't see how that would add anything to what the article already says. That said, I'd like to see some discussion by other editors on this matter. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I still think that it should be added though. That's only my opinion. It improves and makes the article so much richer. I also think that the readers should definitely know about the letter. We can also add it to the article Amy Lee but since the letter is about the band it is best if we add it here. Zhyar Merlin (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree with him. It should be mentioned because there are still people who fight over this whole thing. Sakar Muhammad (talk) 22:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for siding with me. Zhyar Merlin (talk) 18:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

IPA

Can someone please add an IPA near the name? I think it's good if it's there, there is one here too.Zhyar Merlin (talk) 09:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Added to the best of my ability. Refinements welcome. — Huntster (t @ c) 13:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the help Zhyar Merlin (talk) 04:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Evanescence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Evanescence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Amy Lee

Isn't Amy also a songwriter? If so, should the article mention that as well since it is a part of her profession? Alanna.davis (talk) 16:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I mean, sure she is, but I think that's different from being a singer-songwriter. Note that this is according to Wikipedia, but I nevertheless believe it is probably true: "Singer-songwriters often provide the sole accompaniment to an entire composition or song, typically using a guitar or piano." This is rarely true about the music she makes - while common with her solo work, it generally isn't the case with Evanescence, her more-known work. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 02:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Genre

I need a history lesson before I make any other proposals about the genre. Has this "edit-warring" been mostly IPs and newly created users who claim to know everything and know actually nothing? Or are there often experienced users calling sources into question and taking real initiative in their arguments?

  • If the former is the case, I don't know why we can't just simply semi-protect (silverlock), or especially pending-change protect (whitelock) or extended-confirmed protect (bluelock) these articles. I honestly feel like that's a better move. I have a few high-profile articles to consider that actually work with these implements.
  • System of a Down is whitelocked, because genres, among other things such as general vandalism and unsourced content, have been consistent issues with the article. Genres have even legitimately come to question and sent to the talk page for successful evaluation.
  • Fall Out Boy, a GA of mine, was silverlocked at the time of its promotion IIRC, and is now bluelocked due to constant genre warring and vandalism. Genres still fine.

I am aware that a lot of the involved editors have concerns about its stability if we add anything. But if this is a GA (which I hope I can get now that I fixed spots missing cites), I believe it would be awkward to leave it simply blank and expect them to read a whole section. We can just make it so messing with that is impossible (this is, of course, only if the warring gets out of hand after we implement this in the first place). Outside of that, vigilance will be key, but hopefully we won't need it much. This will preserve stability. If anyone provided me counter-examples, I'd be inclined to argue the same case on said example.

The genre problem in the infobox dates back a long time. Before the current no-genre solution, the warring was intense amongst anons and newly registered users trying to implement their preferences. Originally, we tried to make it simply a generic "Alternate rock" or "Alternate metal" with comment solution (been a long while, can't remember which we did first), but that just didn't work. Since making it a no-genre infobox, the warring has dropped off to a fraction of what it once was.
Forced protection is a last ditch solution when the warring is seriously disruptive to the stability of the article. As it is now, the occasional changes can easily be dealt with by the folks regularly watching the article, so protection is not warranted. At least, that's my opinion. I'm old school and remember when the by-line of Wikipedia was that it was the "encyclopedia anyone can edit", and I still feel that should be the ideal.
Thirdly, I feel we must remember that infoboxes, while they have become a common sight in articles, are not and were never intended to be a standard feature. They are a convenience addition and no field or feature is a required component. They don't have to be completely filled out, and if one particular component causes consternation then it can and should simply be omitted.
I come at this with the Evanescence series of articles being the only ones I have experience in because I don't monitor any others, so I cannot offer any comparative examples. Spaceflight is my forte! — Huntster (t @ c) 00:36, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Do you have any differing opinion about a whitelock if necessary? Surely that would make a good compromise. Even HIM, which once came to this solution and is the only other one I ever knew of, has now settled down...and from the looks of its talk page, it was worse, and I've seen only two anons change it arbitrarily this whole year (it's on my watchlist). I think it is not good to give in to anons who keep pushing personal analysis over general consensus, and in a way that's what I feel we're acquiescing to. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 00:50, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I actually had to look up what "whitelock" meant. I've never followed pending protection much, and to be honest thought that pending protection was still an under review and not-yet-implemented solution. I have no data as to its effectiveness.
As to "giving in", I don't view it that way. I see it as slapping their hand and saying "No!" I never block anyone after such reversion, so I'm not preventing them from editing, just making them aware this is not accepted editing behaviour.
Also, if such protection was put in place, what kind of genre field data are you wanting to include? I continue to feel that inclusion of anything in the infobox is a bad idea...honestly, I think the parameter should be removed from the Infobox musician template entirely. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
You have an interesting viewpoint. My vision would be to make a few modifications to strengthen the musical style section first, but my first idea will be that it should include gothic rock and metal, nu metal, and alternative metal. This is not necessarily the planned order.
  • There's critical consensus that they're mostly a gothic band these days. Gothic genres have been cited on at least two albums.
  • Likewise with nu metal.
  • Alternative metal has reached consensus with albums, and is cited on Fallen anyway. It's not among the disputed ones either, it doesn't seem. We tried this for a few weeks last August I believe and of the people who toyed with it, not one changed alternative metal.
I plan to add mentions of album descriptions to the style section for extra strength. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 02:40, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Please don't take this as disrespect, but I cannot support adding genres to the infobox. History has taught me that this is a very bad thing. That said, I will not interfere in your efforts, especially with regard to bringing the article up to GA status. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I think an empty genre parameter is perfectly fine in the infobox.
It looks like you think that a band's genre is a collection of the genres taken from their songs and albums. But for Wikipedia, the band's genre must be taken from reliable sources talking about the band itself. Genres of songs or albums aren't transferable to the artist, unless the reliable source makes the connection.
Regarding genre, I've seen the band described as a combination of metal and goth, or alternative rock, or hard rock (contrasted here against alt-rock), or goth-metal, or progressive goth rock, and so on. Liisa Ladouceur writes that goths generally don't listen to goth metal bands, and neither of them listens to Evanescence. Ladouceur calls the band hard rock, and asserts that they are not goth. With all that disagreement in the sources, the infobox is not the place to tell the reader how this band is classified. Binksternet (talk) 06:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Your point is stronger. If I find anything to say in regards to this, I'll let ya know. Question: if there were citations for all albums sharing one genre, would that be enough for any given group if noted later that "all their studio albums have been called (blank) by critics"? If this ultimately comes up opposed, I have yet another idea that I will share when it's finished being drafted. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 16:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
This "what if" scenario is workable – you could write, Band X has been called a pirate metal band, but all their albums have been classified as math rock. Strange proposal, but perhaps possible. Binksternet (talk) 06:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
A very extreme example, but yes, I suppose that's somewhat similar to what I wanted. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 11:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Picture

None of their faces are shown clearly in the current picture. I suggest to use the older one and wait until someone takes an appropriate picture of the band.—‎Lost Whispers talk 13:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, this was a bit untimely

I am thinking about retracting the GA nomination because the page is somewhat likely to be a bit unstable when the review comes. What do you guys think? dannymusiceditor Speak up! 22:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

support: I think that's a great idea.—‎Lost Whispers talk 13:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Evanescence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Evanescence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Evanescence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Officcial RfC on the band's genre

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is no consensus for including the genre parameter in the infobox. Opinions are split roughly equally on a pure nose-counting basis and neither the for nor the against !votes are against policy. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Genre warring has been a problem here, so until now they've been removed - but I am here to promote a push for resistance because I personally believe the current consensus is a poor decision. What genres fit the page best based on reliable sources that are either here already or are available for inclusion? To understand completely, I recommend you read all this. 16:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

I'll begin. This article used to have incessant genre wars that were incredibly disruptive to the project. To a degree, the page still sees a fair amount of it. However, genre warriors are no reason to capitulate having the genres there. There is rarely any activity that calls for expansion on the article to be disrupted, and it's now a quality article. I made sure to get this done first so I could avoid stability issues. So no matter how otherwise disruptive they may be, I have seen much worse come to reasonable resolution; System of a Down is whitelocked with "pending changes" (which a standard semi should be the worst it'll get); Mudvayne's nu metal dispute has settled down, and HIM (GA) has become so saturated with sources for goth that fans seem to believe it and their "Love Metal" argument is completely dead.

In Evanescence's case, I believe the vandalism will continue at the same rate whether we have them or not. We have them consistently ignoring the notice as if they don't know how to read and adding/changing genres to their own personal preference. It definitely is not as bad as some others as I've seen. I believe that withholding this from the infobox is withholding valuable information that you should be able to get quickly. If things get out of hand, we have protections available to intervene and we can answer requests here or just use pending changes. A genre war between anons and the main contributors is not a stability concern. We must not give in to the vandals. The other people who contribute to Evanescence's WikiProject remain resistant to that statement.

Now, we just need to agree on a position in which the most important, most-cited information from critics is represented. Nu metal and gothic rock and/orgothic metal have consistently been attributed to the band in recordings and as a whole. There was allegedly consensus for a long time to list all recordings except a select few as at least alternative metal (recently unofficially transitioned to if nu metal, its subgenre, is cited it's listed instead). While alt metal is attributed to the group itself, only one recording has been listed as such (See Fallen, 2003). But that never happened on the main page - they say because it's inaccurate. Sure, it's not completely just alt metal, but it's a general overview of the rest of the ways they've been described; I'd even be okay with that. I personally think a combined solution of their albums and overall style, with more weight on their individual style, would be best to implement. Looking forward to feedback. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 16:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Gothic rock/metal and alternative metal is what most sources define Evanescence's music as, and I believe putting those in the infobox is appropriate.--◂ ‎épine Ⓥ 18:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Summoned by bot. I support including Nu metal and gothic rock as supported in multiple reliable sources. Meatsgains(talk) 21:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Based on my own experience with the article, I can't support anything more than the basic "Alternative metal" if anything were to be included at all (which, tbh, I don't support). Evanescence simply covers far too broad a range of genres to pigeonhole them into a select few. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:01, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Based on my reading of the lead's of the suggested categories, EV fits best under the gothic metal category. Its perfectly fine IMO to add some sort of tag to that and allow users to determine for themselves based on the relevant section of the article. Sephiroth storm (talk) 08:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • You guys aren't giving much of a reason as to why you chose those ones...is there any specifics as to why you chose these? I mean, Huntster, I know yours, but you guys aren't offering any depth here. I was hoping for stronger reasoning. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 14:16, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • No genre in infobox. As I've said before, the infobox is for simple answers. The band's genre is not simple, in fact it is contradictory, with some reviewers denying the genres espoused by other reviewers. Instead of putting the genres in the infobox, let's allow the reader to be exposed to the full complexity in the body of the article, with genres described in prose. Binksternet (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
I imagine the situation you speak of is plausible, but I haven't seen it yet. Which you saw ones deny others? System of a Down has that problem yet it still lists them. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 21:54, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
You already commented on this "plausible" situation during our discussion at Talk:Evanescence/Archive_9#Genre, eleven months ago. Binksternet (talk) 18:56, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm generally comfortable with infoboxes, but they're meant to summarize information without significant loss in information quality. Therefore, whatever the genre(s) that contributors decide fit best the music of this band, I strongly believe said genre(s) should be kept out of the infobox. It's already a controversial issue, as this RfC shows. "Everything must be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." -The Gnome (talk) 09:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support genres in the infobox: Yeah, I never really edit here, but I've known that genres have been in issue here for a long time. Now, looking at the most cited genres, I don't see the problem with including them in the infobox. I don't get this "contradictory" argument, as many bands do change overtime, leading them to being tagged as multiple genres at different places. Some of the cited genres are similar to each other too, like gothic rock and gothic metal, so it's very possible for them to cross into them both throughout their career. The same goes for alternative metal and nu metal. The only problem I could see is the odd genre warrior coming by to mess with the genres, but those can always be reverted, and have the article semi-protected if the problem persists over a short time.
I would have alternative metal, gothic rock and gothic metal in the infobox. If we must, then nu metal as well. I would rather have them listed as alternative metal over nu metal, as it's a more broad term, and less controversial than nu metal. Hard rock has some sources too, but I'm not sure if including that would be neccesary, as alternative metal already includes hard rock elements, and is a little more specific than a simple hard rock tag. What order they are listed in, doesn't matter to me. Genres are already enough of a problem here, we don't need to be arguing over what order to list them in too. Kokoro20 (talk) 10:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Alright. I concede. I have taken the argument to its limit. I wanted to try this as it had never been done before. No consensus it is. dannymusiceditor oops 17:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for advice, stick to the Simple English page for genres, everyone! 👍🏽 MarilynMansonFan96 (talk) 06:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Prior 2018 genre debates

Genre

I think it is wrong for the genre field to be left blank. I think it is best to keep it simple. Such as having Heavy metal, Hard rock, Alternative rock, and Gothic rock being the genres in the info box. Just a thought. Dekai Averett (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dekai Averett: I agree, readers should not have to go to the musical style section to see what genre they are. It should be in the infobox, and not having it in the infobox takes away from the article. The infobox is suppose to summarize what's in the article. As long as the genres are sourced they should be added to the infobox as soon as a consensus is made. Also the genres that are most sourced are alt-metal, gothic metal, hard rock, nu metal, and symphonic metal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowling is life (talk • contribs)
The infobox is for simple answers to simple questions. The Evanescence genre answer, however, is very complicated, and even contradictory, with some sources denying the conclusions made by other sources, which is why the genre parameter is empty here. A full description is best delivered to the reader in prose. Let's not give the reader the false sense that the band's genre is widely agreed-upon. Binksternet (talk) 03:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I still hate the idea of an empty infobox. I have a partial solution in mind but have yet to complete it. And really, if this persists, I'm opening an RfC on it. I'm not going to let that stand forever either. But this will happen another day. I'm mentioning something about how people disagree on their genre in the lead at some point, because it's probably one of the things that keep the band relevant, to be honest. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 04:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Genre

@Huntster: then why not delete the genre parameter in the first place?--◂ ‎épine talk♬ 15:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

That's not a terrible idea, for now, in my opinion. Note I say that because I hope that changes. I have a plan, but that'll come after GAN. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 15:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
It actually is a bad idea. Historically speaking, leaving the commented parameter in the infobox causes less disruption than removing the parameter; when that happens, new editors and readers think that the genre field was simply omitted and take it upon themselves to right the wrong. — Huntster (t @ c) 16:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Keep the note, obviously, but the parameter can be removed, is what they're saying. How can they think that when they see it's been omitted for a reason? dannymusiceditor Speak up! 16:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
If that is what épine was referring to, then I have no issue with it. I thought he was suggesting removing the entire thing. May I suggest wording it as "Please leave the genre field out: There is currently consensus against having a real genre field in the infobox, as there are too many sourced genres and this has led to edit warring." — Huntster (t @ c) 17:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 Done--◂ ‎épine talk♬ 18:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Infobox genres

I think their should be infobox genres present but try to aim for generality. Something like this:

Dekai Averett (talk) 02:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

These observations violate WP:NOR and WP:NPOV; you are not the one who gets to choose arbitrary genres based on what you think they sound like. They aren't remotely close to the most cited genres in the "Musical style" section. Since this causes stability issues, we are not addressing this until the result of the good article nomination. There'll be something there eventually, but not this. Gothic rock will likely be part of it, but the rest have little chance. Alt rock and heavy metal aren't even cited if I recall correctly. Edit: You don't listen. You're the same one who asked before and the answer hasn't changed. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 05:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
*facepalm* — Huntster (t @ c) 18:36, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, now that it's a GA, what was the plan for the genres?--◂ ‎épine talk♬ 03:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
@Épine: Opening an RfC and getting wider comment. I have not gotten around to doing so yet, but I'd like to be the one who starts it when I can. There'll be one there eventually, but we need an established, clear consensus on them. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 02:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
DannyMusicEditor, sad that the issue about the genres never get anywhere. ▸ ‎épine talk♬ 12:01, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

My 2 cents on the genre war

On IMDB site, under personal quotes from Amy Lee. https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1341624/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm

"We're definitely a rock band, but the twist is that the band's music is epic, dramatic, dark rock." - on Evanescence.

If the lead singer of the band can't be a trusted source as to what genre they are, then who else could be? 32.212.102.239 (talk) 01:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Infobox image

I am starting a discussion on the infobox image because this edit war needs to stop, and I would like input from other editors. The addition of the new image keeps getting reverted by @151.43.14.167: and @195.32.87.171: without explanation and I would like to know why. Instead of edit warring without explaining, tell me why we should have the old photo instead of the new one. They are on par with each other quality wise so we might as well use the new one. What is wrong with the new image. Bowling is life (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

John LeCompt

John LeCompt was the lead guitarist for evanescence but he also was the rhythm guitarist for evanescence when Ben moody was the lead guitarist for evanescence when Ben moody left the band in 2003 John LeCompt switch from rhythm guitar to lead guitar and Terry balsamo took the rhythm guitar spot 31.94.20.60 (talk) 14:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Genre consensus

Original 2021 discussion

I think it's time that we reach a consensus on the genres. This is a Good Article and I feel the genres should have been settled before it reached that status. Here are some suggestions for inclusion in the infobox: gothic metal, alternative metal, nu metal, hard rock, alternative rock, gothic rock, post-grunge, and symphonic metal.

Obviously, not all of these genres will be included. We can narrow it down to four or five from here. These are all the genres that are sourced in the article. Bowling is life (talk) 03:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybe gothic metal, alternative metal, nu metal, hard rock and alternative rock? All five and or four of them exactly prevail. Joey Camelaroche (talk) 12:49, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Or you can add more to them just rock. Joey Camelaroche (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree. I'll tag @DannyMusicEditor: and @Dekai Averett: since they both have participated in discussions regarding the genres on this article in the past. Bowling is life (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
If I legit went through an RfC and came to absolutely nothing, I'm not optimistic things are going to change. I do have one pitch, though. The only compromise I can see making any sense would be: genres that are cited at least twice in the band article AND at least once on at least one album, excluding the re-recording that is Synthesis. dannymusiceditor oops 02:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Namely, those genres would be: Nu metal, alt metal, goth metal, goth rock, hard rock. How we order those I'm not sure yet, but these are the ones I would propose adding some or all of, at most. dannymusiceditor oops 02:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
@DannyMusicEditor: I agree with that. It's at least better than having nothing listed at all. Bowling is life (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
@DannyMusicEditor: Should I add the genres and include a hidden note about the consensus or should I wait to see if more people join the discussion. It's been almost a week since I stated this discussion and I like your idea of only including genres that are cited atleat twice. Bowling is life (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
At this point, I would welcome a trial run, but put alternative metal first. This is probably the most balanced of the five which can apply to most of their work. Let's see what happens. dannymusiceditor oops 22:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
@DannyMusicEditor: I'm not sure if that is a good idea. I feel people are going to just add the other genres such as nu metal, goth metal, goth rock, hard rock anyway. I think we should just add the other genres and put a note next to the genres. I think if we add all the 5 genres that we mentioned, most people will leave them alone. What do you think?Bowling is life (talk) 04:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Bowling is life, you misunderstand. I was simply suggesting we put that one in front of the other four. dannymusiceditor oops 02:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Oh ok. I'll do that now. Bowling is life (talk) 02:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

2023 discussion

There is no consensus. Genres are based on characteristics. There are books for Metal. There are books for Goth. And this is NOT Goth and never was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.70.206.102 (talk) 19:52, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

@217.70.206.102: There is a consensus, look at the discussion in the section. Genres are based on sources, not editor opinion. Do not remove sourced genres just because you disagree with them being listed. Bowling is life (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

No, there is not. Wikipedia is not a democracy. It's not about any consensus. Enyclopedias are based on facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.70.206.102 (talk) 11:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Read some books about genre characteristics. Gothic rock is based on completely different sound components. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.70.206.102 (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Genres are entirely critical opinions. I'd have said, "mind sharing said books?" but I see you're blocked now. Nice to see it took two years before the dreaded wars were stirred up again. dannymusiceditor oops 04:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The most highly-referenced genres for the band and their discography - not just one album or a few songs - are the four currently present: Alternative metal, gothic rock, gothic metal, hard rock. Industrial rock would likely be the next most cited by RS's for the discography. I support the inclusion of Industrial rock in the infobox as, per reliable sources, industrial and electronic music are significant components in the band's overall sound, with every album incorporating industrial/electronic elements. Per RS's, classical/symphonic music is also integral to the band's overall sound; apart from an album (Synthesis) being fully symphonic, RS's have noted orchestral/symphonic components in every album, however I don't believe this can be present in the infobox. Lapadite (talk) 12:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

And I oppose industrial rock being in the infobox, primarily on the grounds that last I checked, none of their individual albums have been specifically, straightforwardly described by any source that I know of as an industrial work. (Beyond bearing trace bits of it, anyway.) I recognize that its influence is spread around frequently, but always in small doses. That's not adequate to mark an overview of a band. Evanescence is far too diverse a band for us to be trying to squeeze everything in there. You noted pretty much the same reason for symphonic metal that I'd pitch for industrial, too. dannymusiceditor oops 12:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
In my research, I've encountered RS's noting industrial and electronic components for every album, apart from the three sources already cited that call the band's music industrial ([1], [2], [3]). If there were an RfC, which I'm not fussed to make, I'd support the inclusion of industrial rock as the fifth and final genre. But I don't disagree with your assessment here. I'm fine with the infobox remaining as is, with the aforementioned four. The lead sentence and the musical style section gives readers a broader context to the band's wider sonic palette. 13:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC) Lapadite (talk) 13:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

As for nu metal, which is largely attributed to the debut by majority of RS's (a number of which have written that the band evolved from that genre thereafter and "survived" debuting in that nu metal era), I'd only support its inclusion in the infobox if it's qualified with "(early)" beside it, as per majority of RS's. Lapadite (talk) 14:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

@Lapadite: I suggest keeping nu metal (early) in the infobox, adding symphonic metal and industrial rock, and removing either gothic rock or gothic metal. Listing both seems kind of redundant. Bowling is life (talk) 15:15, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
That is not my first choice, but it is something I am willing to compromise on. It really ought to be included in some capacity, and if this is what we can agree on I will accept it. dannymusiceditor oops 15:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
I would agree with that compromise, Bowling is life. In that case, I'd keep gothic rock over gothic metal, as it appears to be more frequently cited by sources over the years than gothic metal, but say if you think otherwise. As all three of us have so far agreed on this compromise, I'll make the edit now. If other editors comment in good faith or an RfC is made, this is subject to change. Lapadite (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Alright, sounds good. Glad we could reach a consensus. Bowling is life (talk)

Nu metal (early) in infobox

Bowling is life, you've removed the "(early)" note next to nu metal several times ([4], [5], [6], [7]), merely repeating the same edit summary, and ignoring that cited sources in the Musical style section refer to this genre as being largely exclusive to the first album and describe the rest of the discography under different genres. Therefore, the inclusion of this genre in the infobox should reflect that, otherwise it can imply that it's significantly present across the band's discography. Repeatedly removing this without an explanation to support your removal is considered disruptive. Surely you know this kind of genre note is used in many articles on WP, specifically for artists who, per sources, have not significantly incorporated an early album genre into the rest of the discography. Lapadite (talk) 06:14, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

It does not exclusively refer to Fallen. Just because it lacks "early" does not necessarily mean it is "significantly present" (perhaps a better word would be "consistently") across the band's discography. The self-titled album was described as nu metal per this source: [8] dannymusiceditor oops 04:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Many reliable sources, including the cited sources, only refer to the early work as primarily nu metal. From my research, most high quality sources do not refer to the band after the early years as a nu metal band, nor do the majority today categorize their discography as nu metal. An outlier source such as the one you linked, which isn't a major source, doesn't change that, just like any other source applying other genres like progressive rock, r&b and soul to an album or certain songs doesn't make those genres a significant part of the band's music to note it in the infobox. Some of the cited sources classifying their discography:
  • Metal Injection: "gothic-tinged alternative metal mainstays"
  • AllMusic: "alt-metal that layers orchestral and electronic touches atop brooding goth rock". [...] "Over the years and through multiple lineup shifts, the band persevered under Lee's helm, eventually shifting from the radio-friendly anthems of their early days into a shimmering, classically inspired symphonic alternative outfit in the 2010s."
  • Loudwire, on why the band was lumped in with nu metal during Fallen: "Evanescence's debut album Fallen came out in 2003, when nu-metal was essentially at its peak. They were one of the only bands fronted by a woman that was headlining massive rock and metal festivals with Korn and the like, so putting them in the same category was likely appropriate. Plus, their music did have nu-metal elements in addition to gothic metal."
  • The Walt Street Journal, as quoted on this article: Evanescence "has long had dual personalities, mixing alt-metal and symphonic rock on its three studio albums", while their fourth, Synthesis, focuses on "orchestral grandeur" with electronic percussion.
Bring Me the Horizon is another example of a band that, per majority of reliable sources, moved away from a specific genre or style that has since been considered only a defining genre of their early work, even if they've reportedly incorporated elements of such genre a couple times in later songs. Lapadite (talk) 09:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Noting that this was resolved in the above Genre consensus discussion. Lapadite (talk) 04:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

timeline

the time line needs to change to:

the changes conform to how timelines are made in other pages. Also as Lee is the lead singer and also keyboardist and is credited as so on album liner notes, vocals should be before keyboards, I can see why there is protest to this as lead vocals and harp are the same colour. if editors have issues with this proposal then can it be addressed. 80s Sam (talk) 11:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

There is no rule for timelines, images or text, they're presented on a case by case basis, according to what's best for each article's context. Per reliable sources, credits and interviews across the years, Lee has been singer and keyboardist since Evanescence's start in 1994/1995, and the roles are intertwined and of equal importance as, per sources, Lee primarily writes on keyboards, is the primary songwriter, plus she is notable in WP terminology as the singer-pianist (albums and live performance). The timeline in this article is presented accurately per information gathered from reliable sources, and the image is in chronological order - members in the order in which they were hired from 1995-today, which is best for this article. Lapadite (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
No-one is disputing Lee's role as keyboardist, the argument is that she is the lead vocalist and that should be reflected as the primary colour. Every instrumentalist should be listed chronologically per their roles as listed in the timeline legend, ie. guitarists first, then bassists etc. The way the current timeline looks is very messy and not reflective of band timelines on Wiki pages that are starred: See Pearl Jam, Pixies and Alice in Chains. David James Young || davidjamesyoungwrites@gmail.com (talk) 05:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
The roles of vocals and keyboards are clearly reflected with both colors, and one is not inherently more important than the other, which is a trivial thing to argue about for a timeline. The member timeline is in chronological order: the order in which they were hired, which is also the order of the written list above the image. The image is a visual representation of the list; it only supplements the list, it's not actually required. As it is in chronological order, it's a clean, easily understood, and neutral presentation of a members timeline, which is best for this article. I already noted above that other stuff does not determine any article's timeline presentation. What's messy is trying to shoehorn an arbitrary, subjective presentation based on some subjective criteria you're applying of a relative importance of instruments. Such a subjectively-guided change, when a logical, neutral and accurate timeline is feasible and present, is not supported by WP's policies and guidelines. Lapadite (talk) 07:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
No, they're absolutely right; lead vocals are inherently more important than the other because that's what she's most known for. You'll never see keyboards alone from sources when referencing her role; you'll see it an innumerable number of times as lead vocalist. That's just common sense to someone even vaguely aware of the band. Just because there's no rule page for it does not mean there is no accepted standard. dannymusiceditor oops 19:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
You're talking about notability. Notability is for article topics and lead intros. No instrument is inherently more important than another, and that could not determine some subjective and arbitrary order of a timeline - they are absolutely incorrect on that matter. What's your point with respect to the image? Change the color of vocals? Lapadite (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Notability is about so much more than that, but it's not relevant to the conversation. What I'm asking is that we list her primarily known role as a larger bar over the purple keyboard role. Simply layer the red, like this image is, over the purple, as opposed to the thicker purple over the thinner red like the article (wrongly) does now. The way it currently is does, to the contrary, suggest that vocals are not her primary function in the band. This is the way it was when it passed its GA nomination (which I made, including the timeline which was set to the generally accepted standard); just because it lapsed past any established music editor's notice at some point doesn't make it right. dannymusiceditor oops 22:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Notability is exactly what the policy says it is. There is no "generally accepted standard" for the presentation of a members timeline on WP. Picking and choosing random articles does not make a standard. An accepted standard means a guideline, a WP-community established, written consensus, which there isn't. WP:OTHERCONTENT by itself does not determine the content of any particular article. And your nomination to GA is irrelevant to this. As you choose to mention that, there were plenty of WP policies and guidelines-violating problems in such previous versions of the article, and the article, as most articles on WP, is still in the process of major development and improvement. Your italicization of "I" ("which I made") may indicate to editors you believe yourself to be more important than other editors, which may I advise you is not how WP works.
No problem with either color showing above the other, but there is no need to make one color "bigger" than the other. Per a plethora of interviews and articles over the years, Lee's main function in the band is bandleader, primary songwriter, vocals and keyboards; she writes on keyboards and primarily performs on keyboards instrumentally, making keyboards an equal role to vocals in practice. If a musician writes songs on an instrument they are widely known to perform and be classically-trained on, such instrument is of primary importance to the musician's role, whether or not they also sing the songs they write on such instrument. That is common sense. As such, the thickness of both colors should be the same, regardless of which is placed above. Lapadite (talk) 23:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
I just realised that you started this Wiki page and that's why you're being overly protective of it for no real reason. Y'know what? You can have your weird messy timeline. As a little gift to you. No point trying to convince you otherwise. I get it, I'm Autistic too, so I'm gonna drop it so as to not cause you any more mental anguish. xo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jane, His Wife (talk • contribs) 01:50, June 12, 2023 (UTC)
I didn't start this article, it was started in 2003. I began researching the topic of this article and contributing to its improvement 9-10 months ago. I recommend familiarizing with WP's policies and guidelines, which includes both content and behavioral guidelines, as everyone who wants to learn constructive editing and discussing on WP does. Remember to sign your comments; I added an unsigned template. Lapadite (talk) 04:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm telling you, you're mistaken, but you won't take my word for it. There is a standard that is supposed to be consistent across every article, and deviation from it is supposed to be the point of discussion. Ask anyone at the WikiProjects about how timeline colors are chosen for bands, and they will all tell you the exact same thing. Some things aren't written out because it's just generally accepted and consistent across an entire group of articles.
But I have a different question now, actually, that I'd like to discuss first. This above timeline for Amy Lee is the way it previously was. I don't know if you were the one who changed it, necessarily, but (especially if you were) why defend the current version over the one that existed when the article originally passed GA testing? If it wasn't broken or wrong, it doesn't need fixed, right? (I get that it was on a separate page at the time and has since been imported here, but that doesn't make a whole lot of difference besides a location difference for context.) I really do feel quite strongly on this issue, and will pursue wider discussion if I must. dannymusiceditor oops 23:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

ben should be listed first

then amy then david 72.234.109.219 (talk) 21:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Why? That's not what the instructions for the infobox say to do. dannymusiceditor oops 01:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evanescence/Archive_9&oldid=1239120708"