Jump to content

Talk:My Immortal (song)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleMy Immortal (song) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 29, 2011Peer reviewNot reviewed
September 2, 2011Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Morse Code in the background?

[edit]

Near the end, a Morse code sequence may be heard faintly in the background. Any idea what might be there? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.10.20.238 (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Original info. 75.26.194.171 03:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite :) -- Huntster T • @ • C 08:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the old Ev website, she said that they were messing around with something and she liked how it sounded -like- morse code so they put it in. It means absolutely nothing.

Well I'm glad somebody covered this, I thought I was going crazy as I was listening to it just now. Ebrockway (talk) 02:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charts

[edit]

It topped the adult pop chart from billboard http://www.billboard.com/#/artist/evanescence/chart-history/510526?f=343&g=Singles 24.139.117.90 (talk) 04:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And it was also #19 on the billboard Hot 100 year end chart of 2004, id add it myself, but i have no idea how to 24.139.117.90 (talk) 21:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find that chart on Billboard...if you can find a source, I'll add the information. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
i cant find any previous year end chart anywhere, but it is in Billboard Year-End Hot 100 singles of 2004 i know its not a good source cuz its ibviusly wikipedia itself, but its as good as i could do :/ maybe you could add it without a reference 24.139.117.90 (talk) 22:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
meh go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billboard_Year-End_Hot_100_singles_of_200424.139.117.90 (talk) 22:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking around, but as you thought, we can't use another Wiki article as a source. Sorry. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

alt. rock?

[edit]

no! band version should be piano rock and original version should be a ballad! no alt. rock here whatsoever.99.224.130.20 (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok, so im just some anonymus user, and ive gotten in trouble by editing stuff i shouldnt, but i am 100% sure that this song is NOT METAL, it should be classified as rock or alt-rock, or piano rock, but this song is NOT METAL, and everytime i change it to alt-rock, it gets changed back to metal! can someone help me out here, if the users agreed to keep it metal for whatever weird reason then fine, but if not, then help me out here!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.139.117.90 (talk) 21:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is proper sources. There has to be a reliable and verifiable source to add (really ANY) content to Wikipedia. Simply changing the genres based on one's opinion goes strictly against Wikipedia's policies against original research. Granted, this song isn't really alternative metal (at least not the band version-which is an example of how some people could disagree), but since there are no reliable sources that define the song otherwise, it should default to the genre that the band is classified as-alternative metal. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 23:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
hhmmm, you've got a good point there :\, and i have a reference for alt-rock, it doesnt explain why the song is alt-rock, it only states that it is, its the best one i could find, and the last time i changed the genre with a reference, someone erased it, im gona edit the page and put in alt-rock with a reference, if someone erases my changes and that person has an account, plz tell me here :) oh and if the site i referenced is not relaible then plz say that here, that way i wont reference it anywere else :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.139.117.90 (talk) 03:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your edit. Then realized I looked at it wrong and put it back. =D That site looks good enough (pun intended) for me as far as genres are concerned. I normally stay away from genre edits but in most cases I'll try to preserve a consensus or monitor references for verifiability. This one seems fine. It appears to be a user-editable site, but possibly not the genre so I don't have any complaints--but I, of course, can't speak for everybody. Happy editing! ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 07:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I removed it again. Yeah, Rateyourmusic is an entirely user-generated site. Another wiki, in a manner of speaking. Per our house rules, those types of sites are never considered valid sources. It would be like using another Wikipedia article as a source here...kind of defeating the purpose of sourcing. — Huntster (t @ c) 09:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ok, im gona risk myself here again, im gona change it to alternative rock, i know that there will probably be someone who reverts it and gets angry with me or wtv, and i only change genres without references on the songs good enough and my immortal, because everyone would agree that it isnt metal, BUT dont worry about the other songs, if i list a genre on any other ev song, it will be w a reference, PLEEEAAASE dont revert it! the rest of the songs should totaly be classified alt-metal, if anyone reverts this song to alt-metal again, then fine ill leave it alone, but on the good enough single ill keep fightin on the discuss page, if its put as metal.<just sayin, didnt mean to get anyone angry> 24.139.117.90 (talk) 03:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it's not a matter of making anyone angry, but a matter of using original research and opinion in a Wikipedia article. The consensus has been that all Evanescence articles be listed as "alternative metal" as it results in the least amount controversy. If a reliable source can be found which cites these songs otherwise, there should be no problems adding it. But for all the reasons listed above, the genre should stay as it is for now. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 03:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
fine i'll stop, got carried away there for a sec. 24.139.117.90 (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Worst fanfiction in the world"

[edit]

There is a piece of fanfiction by the same name, widely considered to be the worst fanfiction in the world- if we can find some quotes from a "reliable source" about it, then should we mention it? Another possibility is a separate page, but maybe that's too much. I'm just putting the idea out there. Joey12345345 (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering this is an article about the song, something about fanfiction certainly doesn't belong here. Further, I'd really like to see some sources calling it the worst in the world, considering that is entirely a subjective point of view, and something always in flux, given that new works are continuously produced and it is pretty darn easy to write really, really horrible fanfic. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 04:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the internet, it is almost universally considered the worst fanfiction in the world. You can ask almost anyone who knows about fanfiction about it and they will agree. However, since there are no credible, official sources regarding fanfiction, it would be inappropriate to put it here.

24.131.120.147 (talk) 16:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought that this was kind of like meme, like the story isn't actually that bad but because people you know say it is you end up thinking so, and then you pass it on and so on and so forth. 203.59.13.234 (talk) 07:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The story isn't that bad"?!?! Have you read it? This isn't the place for hilarious quotage, but it is absolutely horrific. Also, typing in "worst fanfiction ever" (not in quotes) on google yields this story as the top result, which is probably merit-worthy by that fact alone, seeing as all the other results below it are about said story. Still, I wouldn't put in something about this fanfic on this page unless there are other instances of this song in Pop Culture, because creating a Pop Culture section just for one fanfiction doesn't seem very encyclopedia-worthy. Zivlok (talk) 00:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a Wikipedia entry for "The Eye of Argon", widely and famously regarded as the "Worst Science-Fiction Story Ever". Surely "My Immortal" is merely a new generation's "TEoA", and deserves to be included. In my opinion, it SO bad, on SO many levels, that it should be taught in English Lit. courses. But that's just me.

Um, The Eye of Argon is an actual published book. My Immortal is, well, just crappy fan-fic. Two totally, totally different beasts. And God help us all if it were ever actually published. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 09:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no - Argon was published in a 'zine back in 1970, and began circulating as an in-joke among fantasy & sci-fi writers shortly afterwards, gaining increasing notoriety before finally being actually published as a book in 2006. In fact, it's almost the exact equivalent of My Immortal being published on a fan-fiction website and becoming an internet meme. It must be said, *I* landed on this page looking for information on the fanfic (particularly current thinking on the "Is it a parody or not?" question). I'd suggest the fanfic probably deserves at least a small stub page. Brickie (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to create such a stub, try and find enough reliable and valid sources so it isn't deleted outright. Otherwise, it's anyone's guess whether such an article would survive. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 18:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While on the topic of other fan fiction stories that are worthy of Wikipedia articles, The Draco Trilogy by Cassandra Clare has an article on here, when its two references all seem to come from a blog, which may not constitute a reliable source. However, TDT may seem more notable since the author is notable for going on to write a series that has made the New York Times Bestsellers list. Even though My Immortal may not have reliable sources to verify its content, I would like to confidently insist that it is in fact the most popular web-based fan fiction to ever exist. I clearly remember it having gathered over 13,000 reviews before FanFiction.Net deleted it in October 2008. It has since been rehosted on a Freewebs site run by an anonymous individual. Its lengthy, comprehensive article on Encyclopedia Dramatica has been voted as one of the top 16 best articles on the site. It has also been disected vigorously on TV Tropes and a LiveJournal community. One of its Facebook fan clubs has almost 2,800 members as of this writing. There are thousands of tributes on Youtube and DeviantArt. Many more mentions are highlighted in this Google search. I find it peculiar that My Immortal apparently does not fit the criteria to have a Wikipedia article at this point. Enooby (talk) 03:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this topic should be moved here? I'm not sure what the rules are about starting a discussion page for an article that has been previously deleted, but this appears to have nothing to do with the Evanescence song. Perhaps someone can even be bold and attempt to recreate the article and see if it survives. Just a few thoughts. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 03:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Scott: No, please don't create a talk page to an article that doesn't exist. That may result in speedy deletion of that talk page.
To Enooby: Again, I insist that you provide reliable sources to back up any such claims of that fan fiction being most popular. Just because those other fan fiction related articles exist, doesn't mean they should. You are welcome to take them to WP:AfD if they are not well sourced, especially if they are of questionable notability. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fanfiction My Immortal was treated extensively by a serious Icelandic radio show about literature in Iceland, Skorningar in an episode about the history of copyright, the birth and development of slash fiction in modern times, and slash fiction's problematic status in copyright law. My Immortal was used as a notable example of how far slash fiction can go in changing the original text and how extratextual matters, such as comments about My Immortal and diaristic updates by the fanfiction author about her life and how that is reflected in the text, color how readers view the text. Excerpts from My Immortal translated into Icelandic were also read in the episode. The radio station that the episode appeared on, RÚV, is a high-cultural broadcaster, comparable to BBC in terms of its status in Icelandic culture, and Skorningar is on RÚV's Channel 1, which is its serious channel (Channel 2 being more concerned with pop culture). — Kattullus (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We really need a My Immortal - the fanfiction - page! I love that story! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dosyenka (talk • contribs) 23:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My Immortal fan fiction and song are very loosely related: in the first chapter Ebony Dark'ness claims people claim she looks a lot like Amy Lee. 78.62.184.165 (talk) 13:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

[edit]

I wanted to ask, can someone upload this picture of Amy Lee singing the song at the Billboard Music Awards: It's from Flickr:[1]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by My love is love (talk • contribs) 14:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that picture cannot be used on Wikipedia because it's license is not appropriate. "All rights reserved" means it is a copyrighted image and thus would be infringing on the owners rights to use here. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 14:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this pictures could be used, it says "Some rights reserved". [2], [3], [4] My love is love (talk) 10:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
it took me a while to find it, but there's a VERY nice chart at Wikipedia:Upload/Flickr showing what icons on a flickr upload is OK and not OK for use on Wikipedia. the three images listed above all have the "noncommercial" and thus aren't valid for use on Wikipedia. However, you may be able to contact the copyright holder for any image you find and see if they will reupload (or change) the copyright status of their image using a license that is suitable for WP. hope this info helps. Good luck. =) ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 23:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please be aware that even if you got permission to use those images, the middle one could not be used because it primarily features that bigscreen display, and the copyright holder of that image would be the production company and/or videographer at the concert. Copyright law is very tricky, but if you have questions on specific images, let me know. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:My Immortal/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ruby2010 (talk • message • contribs • count • logs • email) 02:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over this discussion really got me thinking about my typical subject matter for GA reviews. Note that I've never reviewed a music article before, but I like this song so I'll give it a shot. I'll probably review it in the next day or two. Ruby2010 comment! 02:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Sentences with quotes need citations directly at end of sentence (i.e. that one in the lead, ""a spirit staying with you after its death and haunting you until you actually wish that the spirit were gone because it won't leave you alone." and others)
Too many "It"s in second paragraph of Background section. When starting a new paragraph, re-identify the subject (i.e. "My Immortal" or something similar)
"My Immortal" is a song of pain and despair caused by the loss of a family member or very close friend and how it drove her to the edge of insanity.[13]" Drove who over the edge of insanity? Clarify. Plus clarify this is IGN's opinion (unless you have info or a direct quote from the song writer).
I think the "Alex Nunn of musicOMH" review should be put in chronological order. In fact, I think all of the song comparison reviews should be placed at end of paragraph. Just a personal preference thing though.
Too many "____ called it" in reception section. Change it up.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
"The song is heavily praised by fans, and is included within most of the band's live performances due to its success." Source?
Ref 50: retrieval date?
  2. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  4. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  6. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Interesting article. I'll place the article on hold for seven days while the above issues get looked at. Please respond here when you have finished. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 03:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Style

[edit]

Hmm, AllMusic.com lists two "My Immortal" albums by the band: "Canada CD" which only lists post-grunge, and "CD #1, which lists several styles (including post-grunge). Should we only list post-grunge, or also the others? - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the problem here is that style is not genre, which is what is used on wikipedia. So I'd say none of the "styles" should be listed at all. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 18:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in My Immortal

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of My Immortal's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "BPI":

  • From List of music recording certifications: "The BPI". British Phonographic Industry. Retrieved 2008-06-02.
  • From British Phonographic Industry: Gallup (4 February 1989). "The Top of the Pops Chart" (PDF). Record Mirror: 4. Retrieved 16 July 2010.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Lee and David Hodges on piano

[edit]

The band lineup lists both Amy Lee and David Hodges on piano but it can't be both. While I understand that Amy Lee does play piano, in the video there is a male pianist (probably David Hodges) and seeing both musicians credited as having played the same instrument is ambiguous. I see that this is a good article, but I don't see how it could possibly be both.--Kevjgav (talk) 21:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just read the "music video" section and it says that it is actually Ben Moody playing piano in the video, causing further ambiguity.--Kevjgav (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on My Immortal. 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) 00:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on My Immortal. 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) 22:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on My Immortal. 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) 02:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

If at the beginning of the article it is stated the song is a power ballad, why does the following paragraph mention it won the Grammy Award as a pop song:"In 2005 the band was nominated in the category for Best Pop Performance by a Duo or Group with Vocals at the 47th Grammy Awards for the song"? See? The category clearly says "Best Pop Performance by a Duo or Group with Vocals", yet at the beginning it is mentioned the song is a power ballad--Fandelasketchup (talk) 14:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:My Immortal (fan fiction) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The move discussion was closed. The result leaves this page where it is, no moving. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 03:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 August 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 04:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My Immortal → My Immortal (song) – Last discussed five years ago, and had considerable support then. Today in 2023, My Immortal (fan fiction) still gets the vast majority of the pageviews, which suggests a WP:NOPRIMARY situation. 162 etc. (talk) 01:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

It’s not emo.

[edit]

It’s not emo. It’s a Goth metal power ballad . 208.118.203.148 (talk) 20:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want some ooomph behind your argument you will find a published source saying "goth metal" or "power ballad", and provide a link here. Otherwise you are simply contradicting this source. Binksternet (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:My_Immortal_(song)&oldid=1209284628"