Talk:The Panic Channel
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Untitled[edit]
chris chaney on probation? wtf is up with this. is it true/what went down/where did you hear this?
Should we mention Steve Isaacs's involvement in Skycycle? I know it was short-lived, but when Hanna-Barbera picks you to do a soundtrack for a movie starring one of its best-loved characters (Scooby-Doo on Zombie Island), that's hardly "unnoticed."
Having said that, what's the verdict on including some of their early lyrics, considering their site has been down and unmaintained for some time, and a number of the lyrics can't be found anywhere else (E-mail Girl comes to mind)? Would linking to the WebArchive cache of the official site be acceptable (admitting that this should probably go in a Skycycle article if formed)? Orethrius 01:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Someone needs to make a page for their first album. It's not released for another 5 days but the hype surrounding it means its very likely to be a commercial and critical success.
Emo[edit]
As stated on the page of a vandalizer:
- Please read the supergroup page for the Wikipedian definition of supergroup. It is not your definition that matters, it is that of Wikipedia that matters. Please read the second paragraph of the article (supergroup) for further clarification. This has already been addressed in the history of The Panic Channel article. Please read it.
- Secondly, please do not try to psychoanalyze me and tell me what I may or may not regard to be a negative term. I have absolutely no problem with emo bands, but the band is absolutely and 100% not emo. Can you tell me in any way, shape, or form that The Panic Channel fits the definition of emo as defined by the Wikipedia article on it? The band doesn't even remotely resemble the definition there. It does, however, fit the definitions as listed on the page.
- Your examples of how the band is emo are not only inaccurate, but highly questionable. The name makes them emo? Since when did the name of a band have anything to do with the music itself? It never did. And your reasoning of why they are emo because of the song "Why Cry" doesn't even answer the question of why they are emo. Because they tried to write a mainstream song and failed? That makes them emo how exactly again?
- The emo genre does exist. But The Panic Channel is not emo. Please do not tell me why I connotate emo as a negative term when it is clearly you judging from your statement on why the band is emo: "The first single, why cry, is further evidence that they are Emo, because the depth of the music is completely lacking and they have clearly just tried to write a radio friendly single. They failed." Clearly you are not a fan of "Why Cry" (and possibly the band). That doesn't make them emo, though.
- Please do not continue to vandalize the page. Thank you.
- Enfestid 03:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
To expound upon this, Wikipedia is NOT (repeat: NOT) the place for your personal vendettas against a particular genre of music, a particular band, etc. The entire rationale behind the vandalizer's changing the genre to emo is best summarized in his own words: Take a look around the other pages of bands that are at the forefront of the Emo movement and even they don't say that they are Emo, why not? because they are ashamed. This does not make it correct to stop calling these bands that are Emo just that because they don't want to admit that they have no credibility, it defeats the entire point of an impartial website.
Wikipedia is an impartial site. Which is exactly why you personal definitions of things are not allowed here. Clearly this person has a distaste for the band. Please read the pages before you change something. Enfestid 03:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Supergroup[edit]
I question the status of this band as a supergroup, and it is a question that is supported by the discussion page on supergroups. While the definition of a supergroup on wikipedia states that one is comprised of band members who have made an impression already (which three of the four band members most certainly have) it is unclear in the definition whether all members of the band need to have done so. This debate continues on the supergroup discussion page and it seems that a consensus has been reached that bands that replace a member with an unknown or relatively unknown and change the name of the band should not qualify. I think this gives reasonable grounds to reconsider the notion of the panic channel being a supergroup. Any thoughts? 132.181.7.1 22:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- If there is a consesus reached, then by all means change it. But the definition as given on the supergroup page, as it stands now, is sort of fuzzy on the issue and makes it seem as though this band meets the definition.
- Enfestid 03:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Reviews[edit]
To the person that keeps editing the page to say it is getting negative reviews: I appreciate your attempt at trying to help maintain the article, but that's not the case. The album has gotten mixed reviews thus far, it's just that there are a few negative outliers in the reviews that are weighing the overall score down. So far there has been a couple of positive reviews, a few negative ones, and mostly ones in the middle. Even the Metacritic link essentially showed that. Enfestid 17:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)