Talk:Evanescence (Evanescence album)

Other songs

Shouldn't the other songs that have been released be included in the article? "Made of Stone" and "The Other Side" can be listened to through certain pages the band added on their website.The Catalyst (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Recording sessions

Amy Lee twitted that the album will be finished on July, 11.77.29.82.96 (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Track Listing

Should we start building a track listing? We already know two of the songs - What You Want and The Other Side, and there's going to be another sneak peek released this week, as well as the other song titles mentioned, "Made of Stone" and "Lost in Paradise"

Wait until a track listing actually comes out; otherwise, it's just a random collection of info. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that the 17th song on the Deluxe tracklisting is true : "All this Years". Amy said there are 16 songs. also on iTunes in pre-order there are 16 songs. Source, anybody? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dean64 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Steve Lillywhite category

What do folks think about this category in the article? How much of the current album can be credited to Lillywhite? My impression was that when they went back into the studio with Raskulinecz, they were doing so from scratch (remember, we're not talking about the songwriting, but the recording aspect). In this case, the category is inappropriate. Opinions? — Huntster (t @ c) 01:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

That was my thoughts exactly. I don't think Lillywhite really had much to do at all with this album. But I never removed anything in case my "understanding" was wrong. All current sources point only to the new guy as a producer.. but none really completely discredit Steve, I guess (but why would they?). I agree to the category being inappropriate. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 01:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Evanescence (Evanescence album) → Evanescence (album) – Other two albums of the same name appear far less notable than this one. Evanescence (album) currently redirects here anyway. U-Mos (talk) 22:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Support - Originally opposed to this idea, I found that I could come up with no good excuse why this article couldn't simply be named "Evanescence (album)". My argument was that there are three (vs 2) total albums with the same name and that makes determining the album with the most notability somewhat more difficult. But this album clearly is (already) more notable, and will very likely become even more notable in the future. A hatnote should of course be included to point to "Evanescent" (as is already placed on the article). ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 23:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support: unnecessarily specific parenthetical disambiguation; already redirects. –CWenger (^ • @) 06:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose both titles are disambiguated, but the current title is unambiguous, whereas the suggested title is not. As we are not moving it to the prime location ("Evanescence"), then the article should have an unambiguous name. 70.24.248.237 (talk) 08:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article is either the primary topic, or it needs a unique disambiguation. It can't be the primary topic of Evanescence (album), which should currently be redirected to the dab page, as it's ambiguous. Jenks24 (talk) 09:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reviews

Could someone kindly explain the selection criteria for reviews? Why are some reviews included in "Critical reviews" while others from seemingly "comparable" music media sites or magazines are excluded? Gimmetoo (talk) 22:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked at what the article has, but here's a list of approved sites: WP:ALBUM/REVSITE ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 02:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

My immediate concern was the exclusion of Spin while including reviews like "M is for Music" (which is gone at least for now). Gimmetoo (talk) 03:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The "Rolling Stones" review in the reviews section is a review of "What You Want" (the single), not the whole album. ErickAutumn (talk) 22:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

More

• http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/music/amy-lee-brings-life-back-to-evanescence/story-e6frfn09-1226305484133 My love is love (talk) 21:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Charts

I keep adding the charts 2012 with references but it keeps being deleted for no reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.0.75 (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

User My love is love has been deleting the charts. Although I cannot speak for this user, I assume the reasons are that these new chart positions are not notable. If the album reaches number 1 (which is at or exceeding the previous year), it may be notable; or if the album leaves the charts for a significant amount of time and then re-enters, it may become notable, but a change in calendar year does not necessarily need a separate chart, in my opinion.

However, with that said, I choose not to edit charts, certifications, or genres as there is a large amount of bias and opinion in these categories so I am not familiar with the exact policies Wikipedia has in place for these so I may be wrong. IP, I'm glad you started a discussion on the subject, that shows great willingness to discuss rather than edit-war. I invite My love is love to comment here or perhaps, IP, you may want to leave a comment on that user's talk page as this may be a better way to keep in contact. My thoughts. Happy editing! =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 22:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly the reason why I reverted the IP. I mean, there are albums that chart every year. And those peaks are not notable enough for mentioning in the article. My love is love (talk) 10:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

THIRD SINGLE

Let me be clear here, there is NO third OFFICIAL single chosen or released, in an interview with fuse, lee and the band clarified that made of stone DID get released to rock radio, but it is NOT the third official single, and she also stated that the record company is thinking about releasing the other side, and amy lee said that there is a pretty good chance that lost in paradise will be the third official single with a video, BUT there is nothing concrete, there is no official release of anything except made of stone to rock radio. 24.227.9.114 (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The Other Side

Made of Stone did not officially impact rock radio....so, it's just a promo single.....The Other Side on the other hand had an official radio impact date and officially impacted U.S. rock/alternative radio on June 11, 2012. Lost in Paradise was released internationally on May 25, 2012. 142.196.99.43 (talk) 04:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Please see BOLD, revert, discuss. You were bold by changing "The Other Side" to a single, but you were reverted. The next step to properly edit an article is to discuss the issue making points why you think your edit should remain rather than conduct an edit war with at least 4 different users who have reverted you.

A single release as I see it, and has always seemed to be the definition in articles I watch and edit, is a sale date. A song with a separate cover art, track list, music video, and sale date separate from the original album is what's typically required before you can call it an "official single". As with "Imaginary", "Missing", and "Weight of the World", they were released to radio but there was (at least so far) no effort made to make sales on these radio singles, just as there is none for "The Other Side". Thus, it is not an officially released music single in my eyes (and likely the eyes of those others that are also reverting your addition). Please stop adding this information into the articles and discuss first. You may have perfectly valid points that we can all agree on that might result in a consensus to have it added. But until then, you're only editwarring and disrupting. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 12:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

But for the U.S. specifically, that's how it is.....being released to U.S. radio means that it's a single....... see Gotta Have It (song), Niggas in Paris, Why I Love You (Jay-Z and Kanye West song), All of the Lights, HYFR (Hell Ya Fucking Right), Cheers (Drink to That), Fancy (Drake song), Birthday Cake (song), Rumor Has It (Adele song), Love Faces, Can't Be Friends, Unusual (song), Love All Over Me, Without You (Monica song), We Got Hood Love, Right By My Side, Beez in the Trap, Moment 4 Life, Raining Men (song)......and many many many more........

So, please, you stop it, it is a single and your are just gonna have to deal with it.........you are removing correct sourced information.....you are vandalizing.....i showed you examples, and my info is sourced....so, please, stop it...

142.196.99.43 (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Do not ever accuse someone of vandalising when they are in good faith discussing the problem. You are the only one arguing in favour of this being called a single here, so no, he's not "just gonna have to deal with it". There's a tenant on Wiki, which is that just because it is done in another article, does not mean mean it is correct or that other articles must follow suit.

Also, you say you've provided a source which states this is a single and not just a radio release? Forgive me, but I'm just not seeing it. Mind copying it to here? — Huntster (t @ c) 22:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The only difference between a "song" and "single" in a handful of the articles listed above is the one word in the infobox. The template used is {{Infobox single}} instead of {{Infobox song}} and the articles themselves do not even refer to the songs as singles, but just songs. But even so, as Huntster said, other articles should not be used as examples as to correct format. I'm not saying it is, but who is to say that those articles got it wrong? The bottom line as I see it is that since there is no specific Wikipedia Guideline (in any of the Music WikiProjects I've checked), it's a per-article definition per consensus. And since consensus of these articles seems to favor "song" vs" single" in this case, that is how it should remain unless you can provide some sort of proof that it is more than a radio release or that there's a Wikipedia definition that dictates "single" vs "song" and sway the consensus in the opposite direction. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 23:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

First of all, all of the articles i mentioned above do mention that they are singles................and second of all, it even came from Amy Lee's mouth: "Next i believe, is what i'm hearing, is that they want to go with "The Other Side" as another active rock SINGLE"........

Source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.196.99.43 (talk) 00:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you're saying here. What I'm seeing is that Lee is speculating about how it will be released. I'm guessing there was/is some debate about which songs will actually be released as singles. I would not consider that interview as a good source for the status of the song. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

For the U.S., CD Singles are not released anymore, and since people can already buy the song separately on iTunes, a radio release is all what is needed to be considered a single..............so, anyway...what more proof do you want.........?

There isn't going to be a full blown press release everytime a single is released you know........

In the interview, she said that the lable wants "The Other Side" for rock formats and on June 11, it was officially serviced to rock and alternative formats......

The Other Side CONFIRMED as a single

Ok, so happy right now, look at what Amy Lee said on Twitter: "Our new single, The Other Side, came in at #2 most added at active rock radio- awesome!". - Source.

So, im adding it right now....it came from her directly....

142.196.99.43 (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

What part of "discuss first" do you not understand. We're trying to have a discussion about whether this should be changed or not. Not only is that twitter update a WP:PRIMARY source, and from SOCIAL MEDIA, but it's from MAY 12th. A full month before the supposed add date. The only reason I'm not reverting is because of the mess it's making in all the articles. Seriously, whether you're right or wrong, what is the harm in WAITING to DISCUSS the matter first? The world is not going to end if this song isn't listed as a single this very second. I'm tired of the edit warring. Please, discuss this like any other regular Wikipedian first before jumping to these edits! ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 18:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Scott, he's an anon, and doesn't care about discussing. It's either his way or no way, and I'm fresh out of good faith. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

First of all, click on the link again, it's from May 25.....not May 12......it says: "25 May 12" short for "May 25, 2012"..........the 12 is short for 2012.........

Second of all, there is no need for all this drama, there is nothing to discuss.........Lee confirmed it as a single on May 25 and then it officially impacted Modern Rock and Alternative radio on June 11 as the third U.S. single....so, please, enough is enough.........

142.196.99.43 (talk) 18:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Amy Lee could call it a butterfly, but that doesn't mean it is one. As far as I'm concerned, it's still just a promotional single. If you're relying on that interview so closely, then why would they release another single before the official video to Lost in Paradise is completed? Two singles at once? It sounds to me like Wind-Up and Evanescence got their signals crossed or someone changed their mind and among all the confusion were all these SOCIAL MEDIA posts. Clearly the interview isn't reliable as other things mentioned within it turned out not to be true, so Lee is only speculating during the interview. There's no cover art, no tracklist, no clear release date (May 25th is not June 11th). It's just a song they sent to radio stations for promotion just as they've done countless times before with other non-singles. It's clear you don't want to discuss the matter (drama?) but only force your opinion and call it fact so I'm pretty much out of patience. I need a drink--and Wikipedia shouldn't be a place to cause that. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 03:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

First of all, why are you making it confusing?.....Lost in Paradise was released internationally and still does not have a U.S. release date yet, and when it does have a US release, it will only be sent to radio just like The Other Side. Anyway, haven't you heard of multi-format singles. "Lost in Paradise" will be for pop and hot/mod/ac formats while "The Other Side" is only for rock/alternative formats......Just like the lead single "What You Want", it was only sent to rock/alternative formats, and was not sent to pop, theyre doing the same thing with The Other Side. They can't send "Lost in Paradise" to rock radio cause it's not rock and it's a ballad......Anyway, i think that you need to educate yourself on U.S. radio releases. And i bet if you call other users to weigh in on the matter, they will agree with me....You said you want to discuss this, but its only you and another user.....can you bring in other users?.......oh, and about the May 25 / June 11 thing....radio stations can add songs to their stations anytime they want, but that is different from an official radio impact date, which is specifically set by the label....in this case, it was June 11..............

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) 16:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is always open for contribution from anybody. If you'd like to add this information, be my guest. =) ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 22:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

What is this dude talking about?

Dane Prokofiev said "that it [the album] was a step for a newly created band". Excuse me? Newly created band? By the time this album was released, Evanescence had already been around for sixteen years. Should this be removed because it makes it sound as if Evanescence was a new band then, or am I missing something here?67.234.150.114 (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

That was criticism, saying that self-titling it as Evanescence is typically only done by new bands, rather than established ones like Evanescence. It's kind of odd criticism, but I understand what he's talking about. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Should I remove it because it is rather misleading?67.234.150.114 (talk) 17:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

It isn't misleading...it's an opinion expressed by a writer. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

It's kinda confusing to somebody who doesn't really know Evanescence's history. But okay. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.234.150.114 (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

If anyone should EVER question this article's GA eligibility due to length...

This edit is what caused it to jump over 20,000 bytes to a total of 117,000 bytes. There are 191 refs in the article, and all of them will now permanently work. I was advised to do this by my original reviewer. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 02:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)