Good articleThe Open Door has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 14, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
January 6, 2016Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
December 9, 2016Good article nomineeListed
February 24, 2017Good topic candidatePromoted
February 8, 2020Good topic removal candidateDemoted
Current status: Good article

Spelling reverts[edit]

Stop changing it to "lacrymosa," look at the Requiem page

Magazine says "lacrymosa," requiem page says "lacrimosa," magazine is foreign

Ive added if it is changed now, warn them with ((test2)) or ((test1)). Also please sign your comments--Childzy talk contribs 21:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a footnote regarding this track. DO NOT REMOVE IT! It speaks truth! If it is removed one more time, I'll get very angry! And you wouldn't like me when I'm angry... U-Mos 17:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will get so angry i will punch the next I.P that reverts it (yes my fist right through the screen)--Childzy talk contribs 17:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

71.19.20.202 (aka guy who keeps removing the footnote), read your user page! If you want to be blocked, you are going the right way about it! U-Mos 12:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already reported him to the admin Pilotguy so he will be banned when he gets online ;-> --Childzy talk contribs 14:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's been blocked! Woo! U-Mos 15:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

to be honest though i can see him coming straight back after the block has expired so if he does it again just report him to Pilotguy and he will get an extended block--Childzy talk contribs 15:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Track list[edit]

A scanned foreign magazine is not a source, leave it as possible track list as personally i wont believe anything till i have the album in my hand. When a more reliable source gives a track list (ie windup website of evanescence website) the article should not be changed, if it is changed it will be considered vandalism. If anyone has a problem please state it here. --Childzy talk contribs 12:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as it's listed as a possible track list, I would say a numbered list is more appropriate. Also, why has the Narnia song been removed from the article completely? I know it wasn't mentioned in the magazine scan, but it should be noted at least in the bulleted list at the top, or next to its most likely title "snow white queen". Also, tracks that have been confirmed (lacrimosa, call me when you're sober, lithium, good enough, weight of the world) should be noted as such. U-Mos 15:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lose Control is actually Love Control in the scan - should be changed. U-Mos 17:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
get over the scan, to be honest i think the entire article should be removed untill october 3rd it is all just speculation, most of the sources link to bullshit and you get crazy people from that evboard thinking they are fuckin god. ahhhh --Childzy talk contribs 17:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not all speculation - release dates, confirmed tracks and what details exist belong here. If you're not going to be constructive I'll just do all that myself, OK? U-Mos 17:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a foreign article is not a source, it may not even be real--Childzy talk contribs 19:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a RELIABLE source, but I'm looking at it and it's not from Wikipedia therefore it is a source of some kind. I'm going to make the changes I listed above, and if it all turns out to be untrue, the track names will be deleted. That's what the EDIT button is for. U-Mos 20:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ok it doesnt matter, i have got some really big problems at the min, look at these Ultra Rare Trax Vol.1 and Ultra Rare Trax Vol.2 thats why i was geeting stressed, trying to sort this mess out. --Childzy talk contribs 20:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Call Me When You're Sober[edit]

The first single is "Call Me When You're Sober". It is scheduled for radio distribution on August 7, 2006.[1] <--- That. Um. My radio sort of played it today. Is there a reason for that? I'm just wondering. I know that mine, Channel 103.1 (or WHRL), always boasts that it plays songs before anyone else but wow. Three days before anyone else is a bit much.-Babylon pride 05:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting; on further review, it seems a large number of stations jumped the gun and began playing it early, possibly due to heavy demand from listeners. I'll modify that particular line. -- Huntster T • @ • C 05:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's very possible that a bunch of stations are just jumping the gun. It's already well-distributed around the Internet and the video has been leaked as well. bob rulz 06:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per a post by Amy on evboard.com, the internet leak caused Wind-Up to authorize radio play early. Hasn't really taken hold, only on a few stations, but next week should see full playtime. -- Huntster T • @ • C 06:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Alright. Thanks for the quick replies. 'cause I was wondering why, but yeah, it's definitely good quality. But they played it late (around one in the morning). Maybe there's a reason for that, or maybe not. It's the first time I've heard it, and I listen to the station religiously, almost any time I'm awake which is from about eleven in the morning until somewhere around two in the morning. First time hearing it, but definitely better quality than some of the songs I've heard on the station that have been released for quite some time.-Babylon pride 17:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Song I'm Wasting On You[edit]

Is there a better source that talks about this song? It dosn't show up anywhere else, and I recall hearing in a few places that this song was nothing more than a rumor. The source listed dosn't work for me. I think you have to have to be a member of the site, which makes it pretty silly to list it as a source. The Son Of Nothing 00:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to Evanescence.com, it is the first item on the News list. Everything is in the first paragraph. The current cite #4 really shouldn't be used...I'll fix it in a moment. -- Huntster T • @ • C 01:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...Well duh. How silly of me. Guess I just missed that... The Son Of Nothing 01:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is confirmed on iTunes Music Store (US) that it is an exclusive iTunes track, if you preorder the album before a certain date. - EmeZxX 02:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Song I'm Wasting on You was also released on most Lithium singles. 12.214.76.88 20:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC) Oceanstream 20:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed track listing[edit]

All data points to the bonus track *not* being part of the released album, and won't be found on CDs available in stores; thus, it does not belong on this list. This information must be relegated to the above notes section. It's just as informative there, and doesn't raise any confusion. -- Huntster T • @ • C 02:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed third commercial release to second studio release to avoid confusion as Origin is regarded by the band as a demo and only ever released 2500 copies.

Why does it say released September 25, 2006 that is certainly incorrect.

It goes out to Poland on the 25th, so that's kind of the first release date.

iTunes top 100 Albums[edit]

The album is currently number 5 in the itunes top 100 album sales, I tried to update the page to show this but couldn't do it, maybe somebody else could? 82.30.159.133 11:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your change did take effect. No further edit regarding that section is currently needed. Dane2007 00:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citing the leak..[edit]

guys, is it good to actually put in that there's been a leak? i went to the page which said the open door was leaked, and there was a LINK TO THE DOWNLOAD for it. do you really want evanescence to fail with this album which took 3 years? - EmeZxX 10:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leaks don't make albums fail, on the contrary. But I don't think this is the place where to discuss this. I notice that many other bands' pages cite leaks' dates, and I think it's right to keep track of them, since they're facts. There is no moral approval or condemnation in just citing it. Of course there should be no links pointing to it! Lazarus Long 12:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Wikipedia only cares about citing the source, not the overall content of the linked page. Given that this is a blog, it is the owner/moderator's responsibility to remove comments containing such links. Frankly, it's not our problem. I do, however, hope that those links are removed, even if leaks don't break albums. It's just bad taste. -- Huntster T • @ • C 02:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind..the admin for the site took it off anyways. - EmeZxX 11:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outtakes and B-sides[edit]

Whoever added this section in the article (i couldn't find it in the history..), can someone cite this? I'm not even sure if this is true. ~ EmeZxX 11:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How are the song lengths known if they havent leaked? Jamesinclair 03:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I found another song, apparently by Evanescence, recently called Angel of Mine. It sounds like Amy's voice but is not mentioned in the article. Anyone know anything about it? It's an amazingly beautiful song --Fluffy Kitten 11:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is not an Evanescence song. Apparently sayeth Amy herself: link -- Huntster T • @ • C 15:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who sang it then? --Fluffy Kitten 21:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

im not a user but i know who sang 'angel of mine'... her name is Corinna Fugate and she is always trying to get people to listen to her music through myspace by claiming it is an unreleased amy lee or evanescence song (it also looks like she is trying to look like amy)

Okay, lets not use defamatory language here. Also, from what I've been able to determine, Ms. Fugate's song is not the "Angel of Mine" in question. -- Huntster T • @ • C 20:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

track listing[edit]

Is there a good reason to have the song list in a table like this? I must say, it's ridiculously ugly, and very unnecessary. The Son Of Nothing 23:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I agree..normally on other albums, they just have the people credits in brackets. ~ EmeZxX 12:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking back, though, the same format is used on Fallen, so I'm sure there's a good reason for it. Ugly as it is, it's probably too much effort to change it back anyways. The Son Of Nothing 13:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. I'd do it :P. ~ EmeZxX 03:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like You[edit]

Is Like You about Amy Lee's sister, in the same vein as Hello? Many people seem to think this, but I haven't seen any confirmation and personally I think the lyrics are far too adult to be thought by a child. But obviously, if Amy has mentioned it being about her sister previously then it is true, and should go in the article. U-Mos 20:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of Evanescence's songs are not based on true events in Amy Lee's life, meaning this might not be about her sister.UnDeRsCoRe 21:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I heard her say so on the radio -The King of Wikipedia but besides that I'm a regular user 22:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UnDeRsCoRe, that's what I mean. Monkey13, can any online citation be found? U-Mos 12:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have one question, does she even have a sister? If so, is she deceased? UnDeRsCoRe 13:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's about her sister (just like Hello). Here's an interview where she discusses her inspiration for all the songs on the album: http://www.vh1.com/news/articles/1540914/story.jhtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.194.251.111 (talk • contribs)

I guess it is, she lost her sister when she was young. UnDeRsCoRe 20:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there you go then. Also, her two other sisters sing backing vocals on CMWYS! Off I go, adding these things to the article. U-Mos 10:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just realised how stupid I was, as the last chrous clearly goes "I long to be like you, sis". Which translates to "look at me, I'm singing about my sister again, aren't I special?" U-Mos 17:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

charts[edit]

Hi everyone, I'd just like if the chart trajectories/sales for the album are really necessary (ie, ARIA Top 50, UK Top 75 albums etc), as there already are a massive number of charts on the page as it is. ~ EmeZxX 03:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


also can someone change the chart position for Sweet Sacrifice? its currently #35 on Billboard mainstream rock Zacanescence 09:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B- Sides[edit]

I assume it means that they are songs that didn't make it onto the album and could/will be used as B-sides for any future singles. U-Mos 15:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See A-side and B-side :) -- Huntster T • @ • C 19:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mozart credited for Lacrymosa[edit]

I didn't change this outright as there is a note there, but I really don't think that Mozart should be displayed as a writer of Lacrymosa. Yes, it samples his Requiem, but he did not write it (and he is not credited on the album either). U-Mos 15:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm..I don't know about this either..because in some songs which are sampled, the artists' song which is being sampled is credited. ~ EmeZxX` 12:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is against me changing this, speak now before I make the change. U-Mos 20:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time up! U-Mos 10:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This may be kinda late, but I actually think Mozart's name should go back in. He's directly credited in the booklet that comes with the CD, so... shouldn't that count for something? MasterXiam 02:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say his name in it I didn't see it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rudyevanescence (talk • contribs) 05:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Instead of adding it to the track listing, consider just adding a small mention to the credits section. Personally, I have a problem crediting someone who is this far removed chronologically. -- Huntster T • @ • C 05:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Top 50 Albums[edit]

Is it really necessary to have two World chart listings, especially since this one seems...suspect (being run on geocities using a cjb.net address??), given that we already have a more official site in mediatraffic.de. Thoughts? -- Huntster T • @ • C 22:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lists and lists and....[edit]

I see we've gotten tagged for restructuring regarding the charts. I wonder if it would not be more appropriate to create a dedicated article just for chart information, so that the album articles themselves remain less...cluttered. We have the discography article, which is suffering much the same problem, so what about Evanescence music charts or somesuch? A single place to collect all this (fairly useless) material from the various albums. Even beyond that, how much of the existing material can be condensed? Is it really necessary to have week by week sales charts for anything but worldwide sales, for example? Could the discography article itself be better organized to handle both charts and track data? -- Huntster T • @ • C 11:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Credits[edit]

It is my intention shortly to expand the Credits (as others have done in the past) so that it is in fact a list of credits from the album sleeve covers rather than just a list of current 'band members' (I will however clearly list the band and guests separately). This is an entry on a particular album rather than on the band. The music could only be what it is as a result of the contribution of all those musicians both band and guest. Can anyone tell me why there is a problem with and accurate and sourced credits listing here? I will consider any objections in making the reversion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Objective Hack (talk • contribs) 00:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I can't imagine that there would be a problem with you creating those credits. Just don't mind if someone comes along behind you and does some formatting or cleaning. -- Huntster T • @ • C 01:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Formatting improvements are fine with me. Sorry for making an 'unsigned' comment - I had assumed that all one had to do was be logged in to be recognised. Objective Hack T • @ • C 01:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once more I have had to add info on supporting musicians and it was almost instantly removed. I have to ask why. I understand that there is a distinction between formal band members and additional contributions to an album, and reflecting that, I re-inserted the info under a new sub-heading. Why is information that is accurate and taken from the same source as the band members (the album booklet) removed with such zeal by (most recently) DigitalNinja? Are we pretending that Evanenscence is some old-fashioned guitar-and-drums only band? I will add info soon once DigitalNinja has had a chance to address my questions. Objective Hack T • @ • C 01:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please relax, I corrected the issue with my popups program and it no longer recognizes your changes as vandalism. Thank you. DigitalNinja 03:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Sorry for the terseness of my comment - it seems that a person or persons in the past have been dogged in this matter. I will get onto it soon and try to replicate standard formats (and remember to log in to make changes).Objective Hack T • @ • C 02:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As time has progressed, it has made more and more sense to limit these Personnel sections to people or groups actually performing on the album that can be recognised, such as the band and choir, rather than adding programmers and arrangements. In my mind, and I discussed with another editor or two, these simply aren't notable in the wide scheme of things, and face it, we aren't out to credit everyone on the album, just to present major components. -- Huntster T • @ • C 06:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly complete credits sourced from sleeve notes are now an established part of this page and yet somebody keep removing references (from same sleeve notes) to DJ Lethal. One can only imagine that it has something to do with the silly conflict on this page regarding genre (since DJ Lethel complicates that a bit) but it is a pity that an argument of cultural interpretations is getting in the way of the listing of documented facts. This talk page comment will have to suffice for the sake of recording accurate information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.140.102 (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Facts[edit]

Amy Lee herself announced in the concert in Ottawa, Ontario that the third single from the album will be "All That I'm Living For". -i took this down because you cant use that as a source, unless its from EvThreads.com or Evanescence.com, ok? - maybe it could be up if it said "All that im living for is RUMOURED to be the next single"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zacanescence (talk • contribs) 22:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

As I believe I said elsewhere, Evanescence.com is good, as is a news article or other citable, official source. EvThreads is not okay, unless it is specifically posted by Amy Lee or another band member. Usually she's pretty good about these big anoucements, but only time will tell. Also, we aren't supposed to be dealing in rumours...would you find rumours in a traditional encyclopaedia? So leave them out. -- Huntster T • @ • C 07:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok, good point (and yes i meant the EvThreads posts that are ONLY BY Amy Lee) thanks

Album sales[edit]

the link to the united world chart doesn't really give any indications to how many units were sold, so I don't see how its really credible. unless I'm just navigating the page incorrectly, its not there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The no erz (talk • contribs) 08:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC).[[[User:The no erz|The no erz]] 08:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)][reply]

Okay, the mediatraffic.de archives — the 2006 bestsellers list, plus the figures for weeks two to twelve of 2007 (the figure for week one is, for some reason, included in the 2006 total) — indicate that the album had sold around 3.63 million copies worldwide by March 24 (this is during its time on the United World Chart - apparently for one week during that period it was absent from the chart). I gather from reading various internet forums that, once an album drops off the chart, the only places where up-to-date, weekly sales figures can be accessed are unreliable sources such as .tk websites and message board posts. Further, there seems to be some widely held belief among users of these message boards that mediatraffic.de only compiles sales figures from 92.5% of music markets, so the extra 7.5% has to be added on as an approximation, but the mediatraffic.de website says nothing about this.
Even if we were to believe such sources, however, they report that The Open Door has sold about 4.39 million copies at most - not exactly "[a]lmost 5 million", as the article previously stated, and nowhere near six million, which is what some editors seem to believe. Extraordinary Machine 12:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given that you can at least verify greater than four million sold worldwide, I'm adding to the opening paragraph to reflect this (in place of the five million you removed). -- Huntster T • @ • C 18:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone that will edit the article: The Open Door has only sell around of 4.1 millions copies. No more, no less. No public fake information. If you have dude about the numbers go to EvThreads.com, Press Room, to the threads of the sales of Evanescence. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.55.136.163 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 8 September 2007

If you can provide a valid citation (news, press release, etc), that will be appreciated and will back up the statement even more. As it stands, it is difficult to argue one side or another, because everything is based on conjecture and estimates. -- Huntster T • @ • C 04:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acording to worldwidealbums.net Evanescence sold more than 4.600.000 copies ImaginaryVoncroy (talk) 04:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The site also says that their data are simply estimates based on data from Mediatraffic.de with some additional figures factored in. Basically, it is original research on their side, which makes it doubly less acceptable for Wikipedia. Also, that 4.6 mil figure is a "fudge factor", meaning it represents a theoretical maximum number of units sold, not the actual number (simply the minimum + 7.5%). — Huntster (t • @ • c) 16:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, but even the Mediatraffic.de give us only an estimate, not the real number - it's impossible to get the concrete number of sales, so in that terms not even the "united world chart" is a real number... ImaginaryVoncroy (talk) 02:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Verification of Tracks.[edit]

As I noted on the page, According to Gracenote in Winamp 5.5, there is a song called Liquid Blue, listed as Track 17. Can someone confirm or deny this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TSDZoomerX (talk • contribs) 23:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no veracity in this claim. As I recall, Gracenotes can be added to by anyone through WinAmp interface, so this cannot be treated as anything approaching truth. -- Huntster T • @ • C 08:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid blue is NOT an Evanescence song. Some girl on MySpace recorded that and said it was by evanescence to get people to listen to her music. Liquid Blue was released a long time ago and this fight has been faught before. It's not an Evanescence song. Believe me, I know everything about them, so get that through your head its not an evanescence song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.208.75.156 (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly no need to get angry and attack someone for asking an honest question... -- Huntster T • @ • C 23:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Troll[edit]

24.139.100.151, despite all the warnings, keeps adding Nu metal to the genres infobox. Can someone with permission do something to block his IP? I am really tired of reverting his s**t. Roxor - 195.29.96.224 C 00:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, i'm not the one who's adding nu metal but amy said herself that evanescence actually plays nu metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.51.52.78 (talk) 03:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, no... definitely. - 89.164.28.30 (talk) 08:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nu metal?[edit]

Are you kidding me???Nu metal?????Are you still think that Allmusic is a reliable source?.... Just learn about the characteristics of Nu metal and listen to The Open door's songs.This is the most safe way.You've putted gothic rock by Allmusic now it's gone it was wrong too yeah but come on!You always edit silly things...It's supposed that Wikipedia must be an encyclopedia but no one can learn something from Wikipedia if everyone does whatever he likes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dionusis (talk • contribs) 15:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, but it's an Encycolpedia which ideally only holds previously published information from other sources. And yes, it can be edited by anyone, as is the nature of a Wiki. If a published source says that this album is classified as Nu Metal (as the review of Stephen Thomas Erlewine says) then we can't argue because that is what a published source said and that's what Wikipedia itself publishes. We can, however, choose whether it or something better deserves to be included. If we find a better source (perhaps the one you mentioned which once said Gothic Metal) and consensus results in a change then that genre will be published here. The bottom line is that opinion is (or should be) non-existent on Wikipedia, but you can be bold yourself and find another source for a different genre you wish to add here. That will certainly help the article, as I assume is your cause. Good luck, and happy editing. =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 17:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen how many genres that album has changed.At the beggining I was trying to understand better the genre of this album but I realized that this is rediculus...All the genres posted here were by a "reliable" source and all were erased so I think that the "reliable" sources must be characterized more carefully. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.2.244 (talk) 22:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok look,it's easy to understand the genre if you know something about music and The Open Door is definitely not Nu Metal it is just Alternative Metal.But anyway an Encyclopedia can't work like that so I will recommend to mark the reliable sources more carefully. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Usernit (talk • contribs) 01:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

first of all, the cd can so be classified as nu metal, but i read the allmusic review and it doesnt say that the album is nu metal, it says that amy lee sings nu metal, more specifically, it says that amy lee is the thinking mans nu metal chick, bu anywho, the review states that the album is goth rock, so im gona change the genre, if anyone disagrees, then tell me without insulting me please -_- thx ;D 24.139.117.90 (talk) 00:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the review says that Amy Lee is Nu-Metal and not Going Under. However, the review says that it is "epic gothic rock", a genre that's simply made up by the review. He goes on to say that is not the same as "goth rock". Since the source specifically rules out "goth rock" and "nu-metal" only refers to the singer and not the album, the entire reference should therefore be scrapped. And no need for insults on Wikipedia. Your help is definitely appreciated! =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 01:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
dammit you got a point there :/, but yea i totally agree, its just that i hate to see the album classified as just alternative metal, and the goth element in evanescence's albums could never be ruled out, but its just so hard to find a good source >:/ oh well, guess ill have to try harder finding good sources 24.139.117.90 (talk) 18:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
hey, i just noticed that well obviusly "epic gothic rock" is not a genre itself, but epic serves as an adjctive, its like calling the album epic alternative metal, its not a genre but the"epic" works as an adjective, and while the reviewer says that gothic and goth rock arent the same, in the eyes of wikipedia, gothic ans goth rock are the same, and gothic rock redirects to the goth rock page, or backwards, but anywho, i think that if you look at it that way you'll see that amg would be a good reference for the gothic rock tag on wikipedia, know, im not gona list it until i get permision or until im proven wrong. 24.139.117.90 (talk) 02:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"goth rock" is the same as "gothic rock". And since allmusic specifically says that "epic gothic rock" is not "goth rock", this means they are considering "epic gothic rock" as its own genre, not "gothic rock" with an adjective. I still see that source as being completely useless except for "pop/rock" listed at the left as the genre--which is too generic. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 03:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
i still think its a good source, but wtv, alt-metal is good, i must admit that it doesnt describe every single song onn the album, but its good enough. 24.139.117.90 (talk) 21:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I told you allmusic is not a good source,they write whatever they want...:D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.39.20 (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Album charts possisions that arent listed[edit]

frankly id add these but im not familiar with editing the chart sections without screwing it, so here are the chart possisions and theyre referenced in the evanescence profile page in billboard in the chart history section: tastemaker albums -> 3, rock albums -->1, digital albums -->1...and well thats it,this is the references

http://www.billboard.com/#/artist/evanescence/chart-history/510526?f=408&g=Albums, http://www.billboard.com/#/artist/evanescence/chart-history/510526?f=400&g=Albums, http://www.billboard.com/#/artist/evanescence/chart-history/510526?f=407&g=Albums, http://www.billboard.com/#/artist/evanescence/chart-history/510526?f=332&g=Albums <-36 catalog albums please add these to the article, im pretty sure its relevant 24.139.117.90 (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added Rock Albums and Digital Albums. Catalog Albums is redundant to Billboard 200, and the Tastemaker Albums chart is extremely subjective and really shouldn't be included here. Thanks for pointing these out! — Huntster (t @ c) 02:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GOTHIC Rock?[edit]

Evanescence is NOT a gothic rock band. They are simply and alt. rock/metal. For a list of REAL Gothic bands go here: http://www.ultimategothguide.blogspot.com/p/great-big-list-of-goth-bands.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.244.232 (talk) 23:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review[edit]

As soon as I get something on the self-titled album, I'm going to get this reviewed to see what needs done on it. Looks pretty solid at the moment, but I'll check back in the future. DannyMusicEditor (talk) 22:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Open Door. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA nomination[edit]

After a considerable amount of work I've put into it, I am nominating this article for good article status. I predict that by the time this gets reviewed, I will be done with my school's track season, and I will have much more time to handle this type of thing outside of weekends. I changed my mind about the peer review thing. I think everything has been covered that could possibly be done. dannymusiceditor what'd I do now? 16:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Open Door/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cartoon network freak (talk · contribs) 19:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coming soon... Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

Infobox[edit]

Background, titling and artwork[edit]

Writing and recording[edit]

Music[edit]

Musical style[edit]

Songs and lyrics[edit]

What matters here is that they weren't married yet, and I was referring to what their status was at the time of the album's production and release. They got married after the album came out. I feel it's more appropriate to list the status as it was during the album's prime. I have delinked him though.

Release and promotion[edit]

Singles[edit]

I felt like this suggestion was missing something, do you like how I wrote this one? dannymusiceditor Speak up! 16:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the reference for Turkey, and I'm guessing the person who wrote the majority of this didn't originally have it either, otherwise I think it'd have been there. There is nothing I can do about this except update Germany's and America's, and I would find it inconsistent and strange to have these two but not the third. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 16:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other notable songs[edit]

I'd include it in its own article, but it doesn't have one. Thus I've decided to keep it, but it I have made it so it does not confuse the reader. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 21:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If I keep the prior sentence, this should not be a problem. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 21:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tour[edit]

I can do even better than that... dannymusiceditor Speak up! 21:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since we make reference to South America here, shouldn't we either write out United States or put North America? dannymusiceditor Speak up! 21:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception[edit]

Commercial performance[edit]

Track listing[edit]

Credits and personnel[edit]

Charts[edit]

Certifications[edit]

Release history[edit]

Other stuff[edit]

Copy-violation[edit]

What would be an ideal value? dannymusiceditor Speak up! 20:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@DannyMusicEditor: It must be below 30%. Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

Links[edit]

Another bad link? dannymusiceditor Speak up! 23:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

I'm sorry, I really have tried to fix these but there's no archive available on WebCite or Wayback, I get 301's on all available attempts. I was going to ask you for what I should do here as it is some relatively necessary information. This can happen easily after six months' waiting for review, and I repaired like six others that died in October before you took this. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 20:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@DannyMusicEditor: Here some clarification:

Comments concerning GA process[edit]

@DannyMusicEditor: Are you ready with my comments. Btw, the link I have provided you for the copyviolation was wrong, so I changed it with the right one. Please solve that point. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I've been a bit busy. I am still working on it and will get more done today, though I can't promise I'll get all of it. I have an exam in Spanish tomorrow so I'll need time to study for that, but other than that I think I'll be okay. I have a viola gig tonight too so that'll take some time. But I'll be fine. I have completed the whole Music section now. All I have to do is finish Release and promotion and I think we will have a GA. Maybe I'll need some copyvio-related paraphrasing as well there. I really did try to reduce it, the one bad source at the top of the list has been reduced significantly; at least full quotes, anyway. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 20:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cartoon network freak: All concerns are addressed, I think. Except the charts, which I still haven't completely figured out. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 20:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyMusicEditor: Gladly passing this! I will do some remaining fine-tuning comments to the article before passing. Best regards and congrats, Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Open Door. 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).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:20, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Open Door. 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).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Categories