Talk:Three Cheers for Sweet Revenge/Archive 2

Reception

The reception section reads like it was written in Russian than machine translated through 3 languages before being put back into English. It needs to be either edited to make sense or completely rewritten. It's terrible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.244.185 (talk) 04:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Genre

Just like a few other My Chemical Romance album pages, this has pop / rock in the genre. Right, because My Chemical Romance is just as pop music as rihanna, carley rae jespen and typical mainstream chart music. I would like to clarify that "pop music/rock music" is an entirely different concept to the fusion genre pop rock. Furthermore, Allmusic uses "pop/rock" as a wide music categorisation for their database and purpose. My Chemical Romance's genre would be best defined as a strand of alternative rock; Even "rock" by itself is better than the misleading "pop/rock". It might be of note to mention that there have been many edits in the genre involving the removal of "pop", all of which Friginator has reverted. This should call for a compromise for a new consensus rather than edit warring. Lastly, the policy Wikipedia:Ownership of articles should be noted and understood. Noreplyhaha (talk) 10:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Pop/Rock is sourced. Sourced, relevant material is what the encyclopedia is based on. I don't see what's hard to understand about that. If polka was sourced we could add that. The basis of Wikipedia is not truth. It's verifiability. Simply disagreeing with something on a basis of whether or not it's true is irrelevant. Friginator (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

In the case of Allmusic, it is based on categorisation, not actual genres. Allmusic lists every rock album has "pop/rock" for THEIR categorisation purposes. Even look at Slayer, an American thrash metal band. They are apparently "pop/rock" according to Allmusic http://www.allmusic.com/artist/slayer-mn0000022124, but do you see that on their wikipedia page? Do you hear people refer to them as a pop band? That example and every other rock band should be taken as a precedent. Remove "pop." Noreplyhaha (talk) 04:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Pop punk, post-hardcore, and emo should also be added as they are clearly written under styles which should clearly count as a source for a genre. If your going to stop that as a valid source your no longer halting vandalism and simply preventing the use of valid, sourced information. If you have the right to remove clearly sourced edits you might as well be able to change anything on wikipedia to what you desire. I could go to any rock band page and wikipedia and change its genre to pop/rock and according to you Friginator no one would be able to stop me, even though you are no longer abiding by wikipedias rules, your just exploiting them to make it say what you want, and your harshly overreacting to everyone trying to use valid sources by abusing the ability to call someone a vandal.--Musicstuff0324 (talk) 16:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

and the same genre changes should be done to the Helena and The Ghost of You song pages as well(talk • contribs) 07:51, 8 August 2012

I support Musicstuff0324's rationale. Noreplyhaha (talk) 10:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I've added post-hardcore for now, lets discuss on this page if we agree to add more genres later. Can we agree that this genre citation valid.--Musicstuff0324 (talk) 16:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I did the same thing for the Helena page as well, can we agree that Helena counts as alternative rock and post-hardcore as citations under allmusic styles.--Musicstuff0324 (talk) 16:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Other genre discussion

Friginator and norphelia can you all come here to discuss how e're going to handle these genre classifications, we need to put down set guidelines and rules on how these citations should be, like how we should interpret allmusics classification for wikipedia.

I think it'll be easier for all of us if we just come and discuss it here. --Musicstuff0324 (talk) 04:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It's just that we really need to come to a consensus before we continue with this, we all gotta work togethor on how to fix this. --Musicstuff0324 (talk) 04:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

pop/rock

Our first issue is Friginators controversial statement that because the album says pop/rock under genre means that it is fair to be used as a citation. Now me and several other users have stated that allmusics classification coupled with this frame of thinking means that any rock band such as pop act maroon 5 to extreme grindcore band Carcass can have this genre applied to them and it is perfectly ok, making its citation here redundant and unnecesary since it is clearly not a reflection of my chemical romance's sound and simply there to show that they are a rock band just like every other rock band on allmusic. Now friginator has been adamant that because it says pop/rock we have no reason not to cite it and that it makes no sense not to since it clearly says genre.

we need to reach a clear consensus very soon or we won't be able to edit this page at all without any such side taking swipes at each other, so we should all present our debates and ideas here to see which interpretation of allmusic is indeed the correct one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicstuff0324 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

RFC on Allmusic

How should Allmusic's album genre classification be interpreted? There is the broad "pop/rock" "genre" classification as well as more specific genre "Styles." Noreplyhaha (talk) 04:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I normally only use genres from Allmusic if they are mentioned in band histories or album reviews. The genres listed in the side bar can be both incredibly vague and sometimes wildly inappropriate. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Removal of genre parameter

After the discussion on the WP:ANI board, it seems clear to me that the only way to keep the genre-warring on these particular pages from taking place is to remove the parameter altogether and let the genres be stated, if necessary, in the article body instead. Over the past week alone, literally dozens of users have all added unsourced genres to the infoboxes, or removed sourced ones. There have also been multiple editors who seem to disagree with the reliability of the sources cited. I've seen at least three editors that, when discussing the issue, have stated that Allmusic cannot be relied on as a source. Obviously, not all articles seem to need this treatment, so I propose we simply remove the parameter if there is already considerable controversy over a page. This is why I've only removed the genre parameter from pages that have recently seen extensive edit warring.

And in all honesty, listing highly-arbitrary and controversial genres in the infobox doesn't seem to improve the quality of the articles at all. Having watched and edited these pages as long as I have, I can sincerely tell you that no genre is going to please everyone all of the time. Neither is any combination of genres. People will always fight over it. However, the one page that I have, in the past, removed the genre parameter from, saw almost no edit warring afterwords. All of these reasons seem to point towards just removing the infobox parameter and focusing on improving the quality of the article body instead. Friginator (talk) 22:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

That could be a possible resort. What do you think about leaving it simply as "rock"? Though that would be met with edit warring too. Noreplyhaha (talk) 06:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I do agree that, at first, that sounds like a good idea. I had suggested the very same thing over and over, and eventually tried it. But it didn't stop anything. The rationale given was, quote, "Not rock. Doesn't sound like Beatles, Rolling Stones, etc." As long as everyone can glance over to the right side of the page and see a place to start adding whatever genre they want, they'll try to do that. People seem unable to help themselves whenever it comes to the temptation to list whatever they see fit. The way the infobox is set up now is much more enforceable, not to mention that it doesn't keep anyone from adding genres. They simply have to list them in the article body, which is, in all honesty, the way genres should work, if Wikipedia is going to continue to allow them. Friginator (talk) 22:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The best course of action would to remove the genres then. We already have "by American rock band My Chemical Romance" in the intro and many mentions of "rock opera" and "classic rock" throughout the article so that should suffice. Or we could put "rock opera" in the genre box and then semi-lock the page. Noreplyhaha (talk) 06:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

It could be disputed whether "Rock Opera" is actually a genre. I'm perfectly fine with any sourced genre mentions being put in the article body, so I just want to make it clear that I'm not opposed to any sort of genre-related content whatsoever. I don't think anyone has ever disputed "by American rock band My Chemical Romance", other than a few times when people have changed it to "by American emo band My Chemical Romance" as an attempt to stir up controversy. I maintain that the infobox parameter is, and always has been the problem. Describing the styles and influences of a band in their own article is perfectly constructive and hopefully without having to worry about what gets crammed into the infobox that can be focused on better. And while semi-protecting the pages would be ideal in my opinion, I doubt any administrator is going to do that. Friginator (talk) 02:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Reception

The reception section reads like it was written in Russian than machine translated through 3 languages before being put back into English. It needs to be either edited to make sense or completely rewritten. It's terrible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.244.185 (talk) 04:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, first off, please sign you posts. Second, please put new sections at the bottom of the page. But I see what you mean. All of the poorly-written sentences were added by Jjaguilar1994, so I've reverted all of those ones. Friginator (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)