Talk:Emarosa

Vandalism

IP Address 68.90.43.191 and 68.92.36.4 (dynamic IP)....keeps vandalising the article. its been 3 days since the last time he/she has done this, but yet when i do a google search and look at emarosa's wikipedia link, this keeps coming up in the description:

Emarosa is a six-member post-hardcore band from Lexington, Kentucky, formed in 2006. Emarosa was originally known as Jonny C likes his Boys under The AGE of ...

is there any way to fix this? --INsommnia (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Genre

Does anyone else agree that Emarosa's main genre for the wikipedia page should be Rock? or Experimental rock? They changed their genre preference when Jonny Craig joined the band as we all know (myspace headline!!).

Myspace headlines don't mean anything. Evaunit♥666♥ 04:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't Emarosa deserve the right to describe their own music? If you got the cd and look at the back, it shows the only 2 sources for emarosa are riserecords.com and myspace.com/emarosa...I mean come on. As a musician you call the shots for your OWN music, not random people on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgiamode01 (talk • contribs) 07:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

We use references on Wikipedia from reliable sources that get to define music. Emarosa could call themselves opera or hip hop on their myspace, but that wouldn't make them opera or hip hop, would it? Evaunit♥666♥ 01:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

There was a comment here a moment ago...? It's not typical to delete things from talk pages even if a user thinks the post was useless. Anyway, after a quick google search, i found many places where Relativity was called post hardcore. Though, arguing about genres of music is sort of pointless...link, link, link, link, linkEvaunit♥666♥ 01:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I uploaded 3 of those 4 links on the Relativity wikipedia forum. I am talking about the band's genre and not just opinionated reviews. I also believe those are only album reviews from people and don't officially categorize the band as I have sourced below me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisisyourwayout (talk • contribs) 01:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I just saw the other 2 links you posted, again I say, those are more of opinionated reviews/blogs. My source is an official metadata which plain and simple places bands in their proper genre's from the website's professional workers. No opinions whatsoever. They are not a post-hardcore band as of the day Jonny Craig joined the band. Emarosa publicly changed their genre and the website has recognized it also. It's misleading to say they are post-hardcore, try hearing the songs a little bit. I know what I'm talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisisyourwayout (talk • contribs) 01:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Take note they "RECENTLY" changed their genre preference. There are no "updated" reliable sources to backup post-hardcore. I just found the genre "Rock" to describe Emarosa as of July, 2008 and is the most recently updated reliable source I could find. It will be changed as of right now. Here is the source - http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:ajfrxzqjldte —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisisyourwayout (talk • contribs) 01:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why you would want to make the article less comprehendable. People will understand better if you say post hardcore than just rock. Rock can be anything and the fact that there is a better term which can be cited better than the vague term just makes it less sensible to just say rock. I don't even really listen to this band, so I have nothing invested in this, unlike you. I'm just trying to better the article. Evaunit♥666♥ 01:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't care anymore. Do whatever you want. No one owns the article. Evaunit♥666♥ 01:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty that the user 'thisisyourwayout' edited most/all of this page. I'm just going to point out that you either have a short attention span or are intentionally continuously going off topic on this page. How has no one else noticed? Also, I think the picture should be removed. This is not 'JonnyMarosa' it is 'Emarosa' and every band member plays an equal role in the band, it shouldn't be centered around Jonny. Erasethepast (talk) 02:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a new picture would be better. Evaunit♥666♥ 03:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Short attention span?? I sourced why Emarosa will be getting their genre changed to Rock as soon as I call out the violations being made. Considering other bands have their lead singer's main picture on their websites also (DDG was one). It's no big deal really and its a nice picture (Emarosa paid to get it also). I'm sure they would appreciate it having it on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisisyourwayout (talk • contribs) 16:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, I don't really want to get into this, but are you very familiar with Wikipedia's policies? It seems like you don't understand what the purpose of having a Wikipedia article is for. And I don't think there have been any violations made, as far as my knowledge. Evaunit♥666♥ 00:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Pop rock is a terrible genre for this band to be described as, and the reference for it is dumb. It's not even a review; it's a site selling their album, and they are under Pop/Rock because thats the easiest way to group the genres. It is not saying they are pop rock, it is saying they are either pop or rock. I'm removing the genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.219.223 (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please change the genre from "alternacore" and "post-popcore". Those are not genres people use to describe music like this, let alone any music. And to whoever said they aren't post-hardcore, just because Jonny doesn't scream doesn't mean they aren't post-hardcore. Their music is still post-hardcore (although very sub-par).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Emarosa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120408221447/http://emarosaband.com:80/post/20601087697/462012 to http://emarosaband.com/post/20601087697/462012

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Emarosa. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081202051515/http://www.clevelandleader.com:80/node/5850 to http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/5850
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090118234841/http://indiestar.tv:80/ to http://www.indiestar.tv
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090118234841/http://indiestar.tv:80/ to http://www.indiestar.tv/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Article Critique

Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? The page is very good at using citations. Almost everything is cited, and there are very few [citation needed] templates throughout the article. Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? The article was able to keep the focus on the band and its history. Most of the time is spent on the history of the band, but for much the band has gone through, it would make sense. Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Yes the article is neutral. It does a great job at avoiding bias. When talking about the various eras of the band, there is no language that indicates preference to any of the formations. Where does the information come from? Are there enough and a variety of sources? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? The information of the article comes from a variety of sources. There are references to biographies, interviews, and articles. One type of source that could be biased is reviews. These might promoted certain eras of the career more than others and might need to be checked. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The article does a good job at staying neutral, so it appears that there is a solid representation of voices throughout the entire article. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article? The links do work; but, links leading to AbsolutePunk are lost because the website has been changed. I am not sure where the original sources can be found now, but the link that is currently in place is not sufficient. Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? The article is up to date with the current state of the band. Nothing major enough has happened since the last edit to warrant going in and adding anything huge.

JSpanbur (talk) 03:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emarosa. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160410054155/http://www.somethingpunk.com/interviews.php?iID=61 to http://www.somethingpunk.com/interviews.php?iID=61

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 03:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)