Template talk:Evanescence

	This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Evanescence (inactive) This template is within the scope of WikiProject Evanescence, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.EvanescenceWikipedia:WikiProject EvanescenceTemplate:WikiProject EvanescenceEvanescence articles

Should Lithium even be listed in this box? Not only does it redirect to the main Ev article, but I can find no news to support it being the second single (or at least, I've not read anything other than speculation). -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 08:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lithium has GOT 2 b the best song OF ALL TIME!!! I luv it 2 bits, I can't stop listening to it. :D Yeh, I know it's supposed to be the next single but it hasn't actually been released yet. At least not in Australia, anyway.

--NatalieZ 07:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fallen is an album as well as Anywhere but Home and Origin (even though it's a demo), so we must put them on the same line (Albums and EPs). Armando.O ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. It is important to differentiate between those albums you can buy in a regular store or on Amazon (etc), and those that are private releases, and I have modified to reflect this (as well as change the single songs to quotes rather than italics). -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 18:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, PRIVATE releases?? I really don't think we have to call it like that...Evanescence EP wasn't just for Amy and her family..100 copies were released so I really don't think it could be private. It would be better if we separate these like this:

• Studio albums: Fallen - The Open Door
• Live albums: Anywhere but Home
• EPs and other: Evanescence EP - Sound Asleep - Origin - Mystary EP

 Armando.O  ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Private simply means that it was not released under a record label in stores. Because those EPs were released at concerts, etc, they were "private releases". Also, for the time being, lets keep it as-is...if in the future they release other live albums, then we can more carefully define. There isn't really a need to have a single item in a category. Eh? -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 01:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I agree.  Armando.O  ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait... Origin is a Studio Album, not a Demo, So i think it must be in Albums and not in Demos.... Gerard Armando 07:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A stupid question....Why almost all the band templates have the same color?? Can we change it?  Armando.O  ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, though I imagine that it would be useful to have something like colour that links all of the band footers together. What colour did you want to change it to? Oh, and why change back to the pipes as separators? I thought the bullets looked rather nice. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 03:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The color should be the same of the Infobox musical artist for bands...

this.

And...yeah the bullets look better xD Armando.O  ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed and agreed :) -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 02:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I'm changing it.  Armando.O  ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the members... I added the section "Guest members" beause actually they're not band members, they're just guest... I think that's the correct way they must be called.. What do u guys think?.. Gerard Armando 07:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That looks fine, though I'm not sure it is necessary to make the distinction. I say leave it. Also, replying to your bit about regarding Origin, it appears someone changed it from the previous form, which specified "Commercial release" and "Private release". I'm going to change it back to this form, as it is far more descriptive and technically accurate than the current form. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 07:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it should be:

Members: Terry Balsamo, Amy Lee, Tim McCord

Guest member (or current collaborator): Will Hunt

Collaborators: Will "Science" Hunt, Questlove

Ex members: Will Boyd, David Hodges, Rocky Gray, John LeCompt, Ben Moody

Ex guest members: James Black, Troy McLawhorn

Past collaborators: Francesco DiCosmo, Josh Fresse, Carrie Lee, Lori Lee, Paul McCoy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sexicarawa (talk • contribs) 21:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the template is fine the way it is (regarding Members). No reason to clutter it up with different classifications of members. Just current / former is sufficient. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 22:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've "standardised" the template, as per Template:Navbox Musical artist, or Wikipedia:Navigational boxes, whatever. This design was also collaborated on by community members, and finally a consensus was reached, and all band navigational boxes, and pretty much all navigational boxes on Wikipedia are to use the {{Navbox}} style. This design is the same as other band templates, and I see no justification for this one to differ apart, and I fail to see how a little discussion about how this template should look should override the design. If you have any other reasons as to why this template should use your WikiProject-approved design, I'd like to hear them. Spebi 09:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who is to say what can and cannot be used on articles navboxes? Standardisation templates are simply that: templates which established a general appearance. Nothing I've read has stated that {{Navbox}} must be used for them, aside from Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Navbox#Create a navbox, which does not have any real power. As for a lot of other people having agreed to Navbox, those people were not attached to this project, and should not, in general, have such a say here. If a project or an article's editors wish to adopt a standard, so be it, but such minor standards should not be forced. If there is some new policy or guideline which I've not heard of, that's fine, but otherwise, I'd appreciate the formatting to be left to those that work with this topic. To me, it comes down to this: having rules is fine, but having them just for the sake of having them is going too far. Sorry if this comes off as too strong. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 13:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Standardisation is nice, but I didn't see the old form as outside the norm, unlike, say Bee Gees, which does look outside the norm to me. So I don't see any strong need to change this, although it might be nice to incorporate some options into the navbox template so the preferred format here could be emulated by the "standard". It appears to have been a fairly small discussion which determined the music navbox details. Finally, the new template doesn't distinguish former members, and it doesn't seem useful to include categories in this template, since the template lists pretty much everything. Gimmetrow 20:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, standardisation isn't a must, but yet I see no reason for this template to differ from all the other band templates and almost all other navigational templates on Wikipedia. Spebi 10:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is that the editors here decided on this format. If in the future it is decided to use the Navbox format, then we'll use it. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 10:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're misunderstanding again. It is decided that all navigational boxes on Wikipedia should use the Navbox design, but there isn't any policy strictly stating that it must be used. You'll probably end up reverting my edit because "there's no policy enforcing this design". The band design was agreed on by a smaller group, however, I'm sure that the navbox design was agreed on by quite a large group of editors who agreed that the design is standard. Your reasoning for the design to stay the same is simply the fact that WikiProject members thought it was a good idea; yet the whole point of these navigational templates is to allow readers to easily access our content on a subject, and making them all look the same, while omitting this template from the "all" that look the same, is not helping readers. This isn't the first time I've been dealing with editors who take care of a band template and claim that standardisation isn't necessary. It is necessary (albeit, not written down anywhere, doesn't have to be), and making this template differ from the rest for absolutely no reason at all apart from the fact that the old design was a design agreed upon by WikiProject members seems absolutely ridiculous to me. Please stop reverting and start listening to what I'm writing. Spebi 21:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've still not matched the content of the other "non-standard" version. Gimmetrow 23:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spebi, I'm sorry, but what right have you to walk over and claim that it is your way or the highway, to turn a phrase? You cannot have it both ways: if it is not required that all navboxes use this particular format, then it is not decided. I like having a bit of individuality rear its head around Wikipedia...removes some of the blandness that tries to creep when folks shout "uniformity!" To be honest, I don't care what the bloody thing looks like; it does a job. What I do care about is someone saying it must be done a certain way simply because they think it is the right way. That is not always the case. It would be one thing if the template were grotesque and instantly caused paralysis to those who viewed it (I've seen a few...still trying to shake off the paralysis!), but that just isn't happening here. I am listening to what you are saying, and I've yet to hear a valid argument based on the matter at hand. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 02:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the Navbox design isn't a required format, or perhaps it is. What I don't see is a valid argument for keeping the template the way it was before I found it. All I see is that the template should be left un-standardised simply because a group of editors had agreed on the design, when the template could use the Navbox design which is the design that most other band templates use. Maybe my argument about how the Navbox design is the way it was decided but it's not required doesn't really hold any water anymore. Gimmetrow: I make mistakes as well, too, I don't have a full knowledge of Evanescence and their works, but I know enough to make the template display properly in the right format (the "right format" being Albums under Albums, etc). Spebi 02:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's work on a version then. How about this? (Yes, some issues to work out, but it's a start.) Gimmetrow 02:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template code removed

I removed the links in Albums and Singles, as it is better in these sorts of templates to ensure what is being linked to is labelled as such (e.g. if there was an article titled "Evanescence albums" [unnecessary article, anyway], Albums could link to it, but as there isn't, it's probably best not to link to the discography), so it's easier to find a specific article. I also added the Related articles section, which contains a link to their discography (earlier removed) and to the list of band members (as this isn't explicitly linked earlier). Spebi 03:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly I just think the former members need to be identified more clearly than a difference between bold and plain as the current version does. But in general, the only discussion I can find about the musician navbox did not involve a lot of participants. If WP:EV objects to using navbox, I don't see why it needs to be changed, or at least why it needs to be done now. Gimmetrow 07:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for having a separate row for Former members, if it really is necessary, which it appears to be to avoid confusion between the three types of members. Spebi 04:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A recent software change modified how WP: prefixes are interpreted. As a side effect, templates starting with WP: need to be invoked as Template:WP: to work properly. Therefore, the project template redirect formerly at {{WP:EV}} has been moved to {{WPEV}}. Gimmetrow 20:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted a recent change made by IP users which made the template have a 3× nested list. I have reverted this change for 2 reasons. 1) Navigation templates are meant to be simple. Having groups of lists within groups of lists could make it confusing to the average user, not to mention the coding mess it makes. 2) Having a separate row for each album and its singles will unnecessarily elongate the template. The list of singles now becomes 3 rows vs. just 1 (or 2 if you count the row for Studio Albums). Following this pattern, the template could potentially be much longer vertically than it needs to be as Evanescence releases more albums and will add a lot of "void" space (ie. rows which only have 4 items listed and the rest is blank). ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 02:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you and the IP user has a valid point. Allowing users to see the singles that were released from an album seems logical, however the nested layout is too complex. Therefore, I have used a method widely used on Wikipedia and moved the singles to a separate template. Kalen 10:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The way the template appears now, by listing albums on one line and singles on another line is the standard format. Including two navboxes in one Template is no appropriate here. Perhaps once Evanescence has more than just 10 singles under their belt, the singles would be deserving of their own separate template (Evanescence singles) which would only be used on singles articles. Forcing every Evanescence article to contain the main template along with the singles template defeats the entire purpose and creates even more clutter than the IP's version. If any further change should be made (at least for accessibility reasons), albums shouldn't be nested into further categories and just have "Studio albums" and "Other albums and EPs". But that's only a suggestion as the Studio/Live/Demo seems to work for now. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 18:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 21:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Balsamo is officially out of the band, replaced by Jen Majura.

Font: https://www.facebook.com/Evanescence/photos/a.10150242660001786.318681.7091561785/10152915057246786/

187.60.76.27 (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please can someone fix the links to the songs without articles: "Imperfection" and "Hi-Lo"? They cause 53 articles to link incorrectly to the disambiguation pages Imperfect (disambiguation) and Hi-Lo. I've already tried several times, and further repetitions might be construed as an edit war. Thanks, Certes (talk) 01:04, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the list of all Evanescence promotional singles:

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

179.191.71.66 (talk) 14:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]