Jump to content

Talk:Evanescence: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
GA
Legobot (talk | contribs)
m BOT: Adding |oldid=829928292 to {{GA}}
Line 32: Line 32:
|currentstatus=DGA
|currentstatus=DGA
}}
}}
{{GA|17:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC)|topic=Music|page=1}}
{{GA|17:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC)|topic=Music|page=1|oldid=829928292}}
{{Old peer review|archive=2}}
{{Old peer review|archive=2}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config

Revision as of 18:04, 11 March 2018

Former good articleEvanescence was one of the Music good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 22, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
February 22, 2007Good article nomineeListed
April 21, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 31, 2007WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
December 4, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Page views for article over the last 365 days

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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 (talkcontribs)
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Genre

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
 Done--◂ ‎épine talk 18:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
*facepalm* Huntster (t @ c) 18:36, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]