Talk:Coheed and Cambria/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Genre Needs Tidy Up

Ignoring the debate on whether they are emo (I refuse to comment on it in this section. Please do the same) the section on their genre needs quite the clean up. It features unnecessary quotes, and too much circling around the genre. That is, it pointless describes the many aspects without actually reaching a clear decision on their genre. Genre should be clear, so as to provide insight to their sound. It's impractical to try and describe the various aspects of a band's sound, as in general, genre conformity isn't easy to find. As such I suggest it be tidied up, made more concise, and given added clarity.--118.92.197.54 (talk) 06:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

"Neverender is coming"

anyone got a clue what this means? as of today its their myspace default picture, and the only thing on their updated website. does ayone know of any press release or anything related to this? --Late Leo (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

At an educated guess, I presume that it'd refer to the character Neverender (or whatever it is) from The Amory Wars. The latest Amory Wars comics have started to be released, and a song from The Second Stage Turbine Blade, which the comics are based on, is called Neverender. ≈ The Haunted Angel 00:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
well, yeah, its pretty easy to figure out waht its named after, but what they're actually talking about and what is "coming" is a bit more secretive.--Late Leo (talk) 03:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
That's what I mean, I presume Neverender will be in the next issue of The Amory Wars. ≈ The Haunted Angel 17:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
It's just been revealed - over the course of four nights in NYC and LA (each), Coheed will be playing their entire discography, one album per night[1] ≈ The Haunted Angel 01:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

also chicago and London —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.31.17.247 (talk) 08:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Huge emo bias

How can this band be labeled as emo by certain sources, when they don't conform to the definition of emo on this very website? That page is constructed using reliable sources, and came out clearer than this. Why isn't the definition of emo as agreed upon on this website considered?--118.92.197.54 (talk) 06:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

There are more sources for emo than any other genre. Look at the members! Do they look emo? Look at the songs! They sing about a science fiction story. Nothing emo about that! --Xasitchaine (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it comes down to what third party sources say what - not personal opinion. Richard BB 08:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

That's what I love about Wikipedia. Anything that is sourced is true. Have you read the sources? They suck! Like one calls songs slices of emo, but doesn't explain why. The lyrics book states below Three Evils that the lyrics are part of a story. What next? Are the Beatles emo because of Yer Blues?--Xasitchaine (talk) 17:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I agree with you - I don't see Coheed being emo - but, various third-party sources have claimed them to be emo, so neither your nor my opinion holds weight. Richard BB 17:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Plain and simple, our verifiability policy is "verifiability, not truth". If some fans of the band deny their emo influences and aspects (which are clearly outlined in multiple reliable sources), then Wikipedia is not the medium in which to push that point of view. I suggest a blog. Moreover, a compromise has been struck by including the reasonably relevant "progressive rock" genre, as well as generalizing the band as "rock" in the lead sentence. For the record, I think they lean more towards alternative/punk with some progressive tendencies in their non-hits, but my opinion — just like yours — is obsolete in the face of reliable sources. — Deckiller 23:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That is a completely retarded policy. Last I checked, encyclopedias were supposed to provide truthful information, and considering Wikipedia is supposed to be an online encyclopedia, well, I don't think I need to spell it out. Then again, maybe that's why most professors consider this site to be a joke. As someone else pointed out, there is only one source that blatantly calls the band emo, while the band, fans, and other sources refer to them as prog. If you actually listen to their music you should be able to clearly tell that they sound nothing like emo bands. I don't know why you had to bring this fight back up again; as The Haunted Angel posted below, the emo tag was removed from the box because it was disputed so heavily and the infobox didn't give enough information to defend it. That sounds like a reasonable argument; the genre was left in the blurb on the page where it could be fleshed out. That seemed to appease everyone involved, and I don't understand why you needed to stroke your e-peen by bringing the argument back up again. Just leave well enough alone and stop being a child. 68.49.219.34 (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)FlameLordPhoenix

Truth is relative to the sources provided. If we simply say that they're not emo because it's our opinion, we could throw in any other genre (or any information anywhere) on any article on this site - we instead base the information we do add on various third-party souces. Richard BB 09:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It's ridiculous that it is unrealized that within these citations of emo classifications are ulterior agendas that journalists hold. What has a bigger following, emo or progressive? sadly, emo. So is it possible that to sell a few extra copies they mislabel a band to feed the larger audience? You honestly think mtv gives a shit about the music? They're there to make money, and i don't blame them for that. I admit that when I first started listening to SSTB back when it came out, i considered it emo, thats why i started listening in the first place! This thought i quickly corrected when i learned about progressive rock, and what made music progressive. Time/tempo changes, instruments outside of the typical guitar/bass/drums, often long songs, varying array of musical sound, and a fucking story behind the music! At the same time i started researching other bands in the progressive genre. This over the years has brought me to some of my favorite bands, Pink Floyd, Jethro Tull, Moody Blues, Yes, Rush, 3, ELP, Alan Parsons Project and so on (and i still do like plenty of emo bands also). So who gives a shit what people say - research facts not opinions, use some logic, and make up your own damn mind instead of being brainwashed by media all the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Candylandisfun (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately genre is always a tough subject on Wikipedia, specially when it comes to what might be considered an undesirable genre like emo and nu metal. I usually stay away and just concentrate on the articles themselves, I file the little "genre" bit in the infobox under "someone elses problem." Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between a fact and an opinion when it's published in a reliable source, but what it boils down to is there is no "right" genre ever. Rehevkor ✉ 16:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Genres in the infobox

I added emo into the infobox because it is one of the most heavily-sourced genres in the article (along with progressive rock, obviously). I don't see any reason to remove it; there are 5 sources calling this band emo, and as much as I (along with many people) disagree with it, Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Similarly, I have removed alternative rock from the infobox because it is completely unsourced. There is nothing in the entire article talking about their alternative influences. If a source could be found for that, feel free to add it back in, but I think new prog sums it up well enough, and it's sourced. — FatalError 22:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe the reason emo was removed was not because certain editors disagreed with them being emo, but because it is disputed - and so as many, many people dispute that they are emo, it was left out of the infobox and instead mentioned in the genre section further down the article. Oh, I haven't been that active lately, but why have the sources for any of the genres been removed from the infobox? ≈ The Haunted Angel 14:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
No idea why the genre sources were removed from the infoboxes; I was wondering that myself when I looked at the article. I noticed that the article was locked because of the "emo" controversy, and after having perused the article and the references, I can not honestly see why there is a controversy. Reference 36 uses the term "emocore", 37 says "sort-of-emo", 38 says "prog-emo", 39 says "emo-prog", and 40 (since removed by me) does not mention the word. Reference 41, from which the "fairly straightforward slices of emo" quote was taken, discounts the emo categorization in its next sentence, but applies it nonetheless. So, that's 1 "emo" reference and 4 sort-of "emo" references out of total 48 on the article. The vast majority of sources support the "progressive rock" genre assertion, and additionally one citation uses "new prog", also in the infobox. The sources back this up, even though consensus the band's fans, critics, or even Wikipedia users seems to disagree. I must support FatalError on this one, even though like him I disagree too; the Emo tag needs to stay in the article and infobox. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 21:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
The Haunted Angel, can you show me a source that shows that there is a dispute about the emo genre? Because without a source specifically saying so, we cannot make the assumption that it is disputed just because some fans disagree with it. If there are several sources that specifically state that Coheed and Cambria is not emo (or confirm that there is a dispute), we can add "(disputed)" to the genre in the infobox, but at the moment, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, there is no dispute, and it shouldn't even be mentioned in the Genre section. There is no hard evidence to support the claim that the genre is disputed. And to answer your question, "why have the sources for any of the genres been removed from the infobox?", I don't know for sure but it looks cleaner when the sources are scattered throughout the article, than when there are 5 sources back-to-back in the infobox. I believe there is something like this in WP:MOS, but I'm not sure. You can add them back in if need be, I don't know the guidelines on this. — FatalError 05:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
i suggest that like the page for the band AFI, the genre emo be labeled as early, because they have evolved their sound and become a lot more progBelieverNotALover (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
That's original research unless you have a source that states that. According to the current sources, Coheed and Cambria was and still is emo. — FatalError 19:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm generally of the opinion that the strong presence of conflicting sources (regardless of whether we have a source directly covering the conflict) is enough to make putting the genre "emo" in the infobox a little counterproductive. I don't think infoboxes are really the place for controversial information, as by their nature they contain no commentary or context. From what I can see, this article would be best suited simply having "progressive rock" as the genre in the infobox, being as that's (a) pretty much undisputed and (b) how the band describe themselves. The genre section does a good job of covering the other genres - there's certainly coverage describing the band as emo, but much of it is fairly ambiguous and it is far from unanimous. ~ mazca t | c 12:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
As someone who works in music (I DJ for a radio station) We actully HAVE to know the genres of music for those companies we sell adds to. Some companies are VERY VERY strict about what kind of music their adds and intern company is associated with. That being said my boss (Owner and Program Manager for the station) who never heard of Choeed and Cambria until I brought it to his attention borrowed my copies of the albums because in the area we live in (The far west part of Virginia) there is a HUGE distaste for Emo bands. And since the ads pay for the station we cant risk anything. He came back at the end of the week and said I was good to go on playing the music because in his exact words "They are very progressive, almost like a 21st century Pink Floyd" and we have yet to have a complaint from a business for playing it. (And incase you are thinking "They probly dont listen anyways" we lost an add for playing Dashboard Confessional when Spiderman 2 came out so they do listen and they do care about the "No Emo" policy the station signed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.207.246 (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
If you simply must put Emo in the info box, then at LEAST put Progressive first, before Alternative. The band describes themselves as progressive, and I'm not saying they aren't other genres as well, but you could at LEAST put Prog before Alternative and make sure Emo stays at the end. 69.144.244.123 (talk) 23:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

RE:Emo Genre

You know, I'd like to see the "emo" label completely removed from Coheed's page, but I get the feeling you wiki people aren't going to allow that to happen. So here's my idea for a compromise: clearly, Coheed is not emo; however, it seems a large number of fans do concede some "emo" influences in The Second Stage Turbine Blade (though I personally do not agree with this). So, on the Coheed wiki page, why not just note next to the "emo" label that it only applies to either 2002 (when SSTB was released) or just put the album's name next to it? That way it will at least clarify that the band is not "emo", it will pacify you wiki types who seem determined to have your "emo" label stick, and it will quiet most of us fans down because at least people will understand the "emo" label no longer applies to the band what-so-ever. That's my suggestion. Take it or leave it. But I think it's a fair compromise. For the record, I only posted this up here so that it would be noticed by the larger population, instead of burying it at the end of the "Genre, Again" section. Also, just to avoid confusion, the comment under mine was not made by me; that's been there for a couple days.68.49.219.34 (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC) FlameLordPhoenix


Seriously, has anybody who ever labelled C & C as Emo ever listened to them? My Chemical Romance is an emo band. Bands that Goths and Emos themselves listen to. But come on. Emo? Undoubtedly, A lot of wikipedians must be hell-bent on making Wikipedia suck. For shame! I've been listening to them for ages, and they are definitely not emo!

-Peace Out!-

mÆniac Ask! 20:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Why the hell are you grouping Goth with Emo for no reason? The two have nothing to do with each other! Zazaban (talk) 00:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


he's an idot,and doent realize the difference between bands with emo people in them (fall out boy,panic! at the disco) and bands that are actually in the musical genre of emo (hawthorne heights,eyes set to kill,taking back sunday). my chem have some emo elements,epecially prevelant on their first album,so one could make the argument of them being emo,but its still only slight.coheed have actually alot of their matierial fit the actual emo genre.

Not a single one of you have the slightest clue what emo is. Go listen to some Get Up Kids, Algernon Cadwallader, and Cap'n Jazz, then get back to me. Until then, stop spouting off "knowledge" when you're totally misinformed. Triste Memoire (talk) 13:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Genres: Alternative metal/Progressive metal

I really think that Coheed and Cambria can be defined as alt-metal and/or prog metal too, together to the current genres listed on the infobox. Unorthodox musical structures present in that genres are present in the C&C musical pieces too. What would you all say about? Garage kid. (talk) 15:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The rock is sufficient, I think - I wouldn't quite call them metal. Still, find reliable sources attesting to this, and it can be thrown into the genre section. ≈ The Haunted Angel 15:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Though without a doubt Coheed and Cambria take some alternative metal and progressive metal influences, they should absolutely NOT be categorized as a progressive metal band. If you look at their discography, and specifically Allmusic reviews, for instance, only their most recent album No World for Tomorrow is clearly leaning towards the metal-side of the rock spectrum; ALL of their previous releases are more of a distribution of styles, including hardcore punk, post-hardcore and hard rock. The label of progressive rock should suffice, as it is not limited to just one of their albums as progressive metal is. If necessary, progressive metal can be added as a subgenre in the infobox, but then hard rock and post-hardcore should also be added as subgenres. Progressive rock should be made the main genre for Coheed and Cambria again though. LD18 (talk) 03:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I added "Conceptual-Progressive rock" as Coheed and Cambria's genre. In the video I used as a reference, Claudio clearly states that they are a "conceptual-progressive rock band" and this to me is the best evidence of the classification since it came directly from the founder's mouth and it is on video. I'm sure someone here will reverse this edit but it's ridiculous to me that we shouldn't take the lead singer's opinion of his band's genre as fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.193.155 (talk) 08:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

All music is "conceptual" in some way, that's not a real genre. And we don't really use genres the artists describe themselves as, we need reliable 3rd party sources. Rehevkor ✉ 13:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

the emo debate is pointless,but why is metal not here?

coheed and cambria are definantly metal.why is this not on the genre list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.180.30.43 (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC) Coheed and Cambria is emo Seth4000 (talk) 10:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Seth4000

Providing reliable, verifiable sources would help to adding new genres. Richard BB (talk) 15:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a fan site, nothing like a wiki article

Good writing is balanced writing. Thus this is a fan site, not an article. This long piece on an act with it's first breakout sales has a consistent tone: approval- and a sort of endless detail which obsessed fans might collect. I imagine howls of pain if the article were to be made comparable to a real encyclopedia and were immediately reduced by 50%. But less IS more readable, just as the C&C "Talk page" confirms adulation throughout this editorship- perhaps even in the GA reviewers. Everywhere is an emotional pitch, from anxiety over appearance to vitriol over mini-genres and classification. Where is the article's genuine criticism of the band- fair or subjective- the music;s derivation vs. broad derivativness, the act's commercial expansion, its artistic pretensions and vanity- or is this act mature enough to have generated actual criticism? If so, this too needs to be said. To promote this article as "good" arts writing indicates to me either further blatant partisanship, or another hallmark of this act- the concern with styles over substance. Hilarleo (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I'm not sure I understand what exactly you're trying to say here, but I presume the GAR folks will. Either way, if you can see problems with the article would you also be willing to help contribute to rectifying them? Rehevkor ✉ 13:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)



"I'm not sure I understand... but I presume the GAR folks will."
Ew...& mebbe Big Brother will finally just take care of y'all too ;-) So...You wrote summa this page? Maybe moms done helped ya there too. You must know what a fan site is, youre in one- or so I say.
Try re-reading more slowly. Can't think? Maybe turn of the music too, that keeps us from hearing. Maybe you want some help, called a Dictionary? I read more than one.
&Get ofF that glue, kids.

Flash: Wiki is not about pumping up iTunes' band du jour, or even the god's own hammer. This page is about 60% as long as Led Zep's page [no, I dont do them either]- a band with just about 10 times the history, and maybe 100 times the sales or influence of C&C now.

But rilly check it out- there's more than words and numbers and lists of deeds-done to writing. Interesting points are being made about has-beens Zep's total rip on the blues market they grew up around. Does your band sound *just* like anyone you know - maybe anyone mom's heard? Maybe a band just down the street? Tell me, what's the age range at a C&C show, maybe versus Yes or Zep's- vs. Nickelback-- or any show you've ever seen? How well do C&C appeal to "America"? And how do they handle the stage compared to that colored ink they spill? Do they dress as well as their characters? Do these epic shows stand up alone anywhere as well (or better) than the heavy-cardstock coloring books? How is their stage act more with one angle than another- Will they shrimp on the sights or the sound? Will you meet pros or wankers? What makes you care one day to the next?
All are kinds of critical thinking. I wrote a wee bit more at the GAR...


I say this C&C site lacks much of the GA balance and impartiality basically b/c it is not broad: It reads as strict sunny PR, which may be all you know and ever will if you are an American. b/c of this, your article fails to be neutral- so it's dull as DOA. Do you have the imagination left to consider: What might YOU write if you became disenchanted with C&C? Do they have an identifiable, or god forbid, an unique style? Where are the musical influences, more than just the co-incidences in their lives? Are they personalities from the American-white bread minority, or international b-boys? Make it relevant though, not another trivia list. Make it sell their story to someone who aint got time.

Or maybe: Compare character-choked, violence-dependent C&C storyline to another, simpler kind of story, maybe a tight movie... &not just the flash parts, but the wack- What's the high? what's the low for you? & when do you go out for a pepsi or a toke? Why? Is this a story you would wanna tell to a family member, or an outsder- or is it so inside? Really- Does the C&C story make sense to you? & where _is_ the FAIL? Because when you find it, that's where C&C stops and you can begin.

Will I help? Here it is:

=Criticism=
The band's commercial breakout status has apparently yet to attract much serious criticism among fans beyond what have become near-unanimous references to Geddy Lee's American Bicentennial-era Rush, an era in sound which C&C's vocals could be said to capture quite accurately. C&C attempt to stand apart from the arena packs with cross-market appeals to a growing sector in comics and characters; but the band's extra-musical efforts may be expected to continue to receive criticism such as 'aimless' and 'bloated'. These story-line librettos now published in high-end graphic novel form ([but *not* in any larger form. these books MIGHT become 4-D smell-o-vision hologram movies some day, but that speculation now in yer WikiPD C&C series is irrelevant, except for fanboy pages])have left even fans of this head-banger literature merely shaking their heads.[1]



Of course all of my suggestions could be way innappropriate for WikiPD if they simply represent personal opinion. But your editors know how to source objective facts and refer to their sources. Criticism is objective in such a context. I just want to feel more than what some band's record companies does [or did]. If you get 2ndary sources to tell a more personal human story we all win. Remember: Boring lasts 4-ever. Hilarleo (talk) 20:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


Erm. I'm still not sure what you're on about. You talk about good writing but you're not very coherent even on talk pages. If you want to contribute then then do so, I personally don't have much time to do much myself (which is why I asked.) Good luck! Rehevkor ✉ 19:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you could just slow down and read? But you say you dont have time, so... no, you wont write a good article. Go for the tools. Hilarleo (talk)

Slowing down didn't help much. Most of what you said seemed irrelivent to this article, not to mention insulting. So, I'll leave you to it. *waves* Rehevkor ✉ 20:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Ouch!:-sorry if y'all can read some "not very coherent" insults where I try to help. I even started y'all off with a section on crit when you asked for input. Well when my head hurts with people- and critical theory- I try not to project. &I like to say: Try, try until at last we do succeed; come again, another day. Hilarleo (talk) 20:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for consensus re: archive page of older posts

I ask for a consensus: I'd like to see older posts flaming about "what is Emo/metal" etc. archived so a discussion of *all* the good article criteria can become plain.
Of course those comfortable with "the GAR people" making the decision ... you're OK. ;-) Hilarleo (talk)

Anyone is welcome to archive old discussions in talk pages themselves. Rehevkor ✉ 21:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
what does this mean: Automated archive: "Make sure to establish consensus before" setting up MiszaBot or ClueBot III processes prior to Automated archival of the talk page. Hilarleo (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC).
It means you need to establish consensus before setting up a MiszaBot or ClueBot III processes to automate archival of the talk page. You're free to do it manually yourself. I'll do it later when I get the chance if you want. Rehevkor ✉ 22:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Contributors to articles are expressly invited to join good article reviews - with the right spirit, it can become something of a collaborative effort. -Malkinann (talk) 21:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually just going to archive everything over than a few months. The previous GAN nominations are mostly irrelevant to any GAR proceedings. If anyone wants to read then they can look for themselves in the archive, separating them would disrupt the archive. You could put them in a separate archive, such as Talk:Coheed and Cambria/GA but I'll leave that to you. Rehevkor ✉ 00:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

What I intended was an automatic archive so a current discussion of *all* the good article criteria could become plain. But so far it's just you and me. And removing attempts to describe the plot of The Armory Wars automatically eliminates the messiest writing.
Now (to repeat) I see that in attempting to be GA Neutral the article fails tests of Broadness- ie., range of viewpoint from good to bad... to moot (what is not expressed, or who can't/won't listen/care- these can be as important as their opposites). Also "notability" (influence as opposed to 'influences', etc.) and context are not well-established. C&C's gold records should be included; but there's a problem there. It already reads like an exhaustive list of facts.
Besides critical-thinking, Broadness requires criticism. Criticism of C&C extends from the Rush thing to the C&C live act to their relationship to AW & graphic arts, the graphic novel community, writing, etc. 1 F'rinstance: How does their stage act present or extend the AW concept with references to these?
There's also a surplus of other band mentions. Coincidences are by definition not notable in themselves. The article well-defines C&C with music labels. Mention of other acts should be specifically justified. For instance the relationship to Rush's sound has to do with more than just the now-implied "high range" of the voice. It involves their instrumentation, styles, ensemble/solo approach- and certainly strikingly similar vocal timbres. Hilarleo (talk) 07:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I've been unable to find reliable sources for most of the things you mentioned (what there is is mostly already in the article). And of course without sources we're in the realm of original research. Could you point me in the direction of any sources or are these issues you see yourself? Rehevkor ✉ 19:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

use common sense

to know rather emo should be in the genre box know this. a band being emo has nothing to do with emo people listening to it.emo is a real subgenre of punk that developed in the late 80's.taking this into account,coheed and cambria have had some emo songs.its made up a small percentage of their work,but is still notable.so it should be in the genre box.period.those who contest probably: a:dont know anything about the original genre of music that is emo. b:think a band is emo if emos listen to it,hate emos,and are pissed that a band they like is being called emo. its only reasonability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.233.158.141 (talk) 03:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Cobalt and Calcium

I believe that Cobalt and Calcium should be listed in the links, because it is the official forum for Coheed and Cambria. The leaders of the Cobalt are working with the members of coheed to create a Premium fansite, How much more official could you get?

http://cobaltandcalcium.com/2008/05/24/cobalt-calcium-premium-fansite/ - Premium fansite information can be found here, looks to be something they are connecting with the band on, why not list them?'' --68.144.187.190 (talk) 08:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Coheed already have an official site, that's about as official as you can get. If we allow one fansite, others will want links too. Rehevkor ✉ 21:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I can see your point, but their official website links to it (when you click forum), and what are the other fansites for this band? There is only one active one (Cobalt) at the current time. --68.144.187.190 (talk) 08:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Cobalt and Calcium is a fansite. It is listed as a fansite on http://www.coheedandcambria.com/home-links.html . It does not get added. - StarIV (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That maybe true, but it is the only fansite at current time..not to mention it holds a place in the heart of many Coheed fans ( I mean who hasn't heard of it?) and the band often coordinates news, information, interviews and promotion thru their site. (on countless occasions, IE: Neverender, NWFT updates, interviews with staff etc.) It could be a helpful addition to the links section for people who are looking for further information on this band. Much more helpful then the other links provided currently. I suggest that we Ignore All Rules here (this has been brought up more then once in the archived talk page with no final decision) and list it. It is a huge part of what the band does/their history and to not list it would be doing a dis-service to people looking for information Thoughts, anyone?''--68.144.187.190 (talk) 08:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both sides. So obviously the forum is the official forum for coheed. So why not link just the forum? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.31.17.247 (talk) 06:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The forum is already linked clearly on the official site. Rehevkor ✉ 16:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

:Any comments then from anybody else on this, everyone always seems to ask for it/want it linked on these talk pages and nothing ever comes of it. Can't a final decision be made considering everything that has been mentioned before on the matter? What of ignoring all rules like The Haunted Angel had mentioned before?--68.144.187.190 (talk) 08:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


If it helps with the matter, I am one of the administrators from the "other" Coheed and Cambria fansite and I will make sure we don't start a link war if Cobalt was linked in the article. Sunshine748 (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The forums @ cobalt and calcium are horribly run, full of trolls and assholes, and i dont think it should be linked here until they learn how to run a website fairly.

Removed Prog Rock label

I removed the Progressive Rock listing under the genres, but I kept New prog: I think the latter is a compromise between those who feel there is a prog side and those who see it simply as glorified emo. Plus, "new prog" is a subgenre of Progressive Rock; the inclusion of such a parent genre is redundant in the first place. — Deckiller 04:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I also switched the "progressive rock" label to "alternative rock" in the lead. While they incorporate progressive elements, the preponderance of sources (allmusic, MTV, etc.) seem to label their primary genre as emo/indie/punk. Once again, to be fair, I think the blanket term "alternative rock" softens the blow and strikes a compromise. The "genre" section delves into their prog and emo aspects. — Deckiller 04:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Why in the hell did you label them by what other people say they are? LABEL THEM WHAT THE BAND SAYS THEY ARE!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.31.17.247 (talk) 23:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia places emphasis on reliable secondary sources, not primary sources. Certainly, what the band thinks they are is a notable inclusion -- if a reliable source of such an admission can be found (interview, website, etc). — Deckiller 01:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I opted to change "New prog" back to regular "progressive rock", as the bulk of the sources don't include such a term. — Deckiller 05:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

What is your issue? Do you just have something against Coheed? Seriously, this argument was settled last year and it was decided to remove the emo label because there was really only one source that seemed to outright call them emo, not to mention the fans, band, and sound of the music all argue against the emo label. Really the only album to ever be called emo was The Second Stage Turbine Blade, so to continue to insist on the label being added is ignorant. If the label no longer fits (I don't think it ever did) then it doesn't belong being there. I don't know what made you feel like you had to start this war again when a reasonable agreement was found a while ago; maybe you just needed to feel like a big man and throw your weight around, or maybe you just don't like the band and wanted to start shit. Whatever it is, it's pretty freakin ignorant and you need to leave their page alone and change it back.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.219.34 (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately, reading the bulk of the sources suggests the contrary: almost all sources label them as "emo" or an "emo-prog" fusion. It's not a matter of having "something against" a band (especially when I only consider a few of their songs "emo"); it's a matter of compromising by including all major genres described by the sources. Emo, along with prog, is one such genre. Feel free to find more sources to shore up the prog/alternative genre labels, but that wouldn't justify the removal of the "emo" label. Our policy, simply put, is verifiability, not truth. Also, even if the genre is "out of date", it doesn't change the fact that they have been associated with that genre. Just like Rush, The Who, Aerosmith, Genesis, and other bands with drastically changing styles are not known only by their most recent style. An encyclopedia article covers the history as a whole, not the most recent incarnation of the topic. The fact of the matter is that professional critics and columns have considered them emo, and even if another camp disagrees with that statement, it doesn't justify removal from the box. Instead, such debate should be further detailed in the "genre" section. — Deckiller 00:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

That is a completely retarded policy. Last I checked, encyclopedias were supposed to provide truthful information, and considering Wikipedia is supposed to be an online encyclopedia, well, I don't think I need to spell it out. Then again, maybe that's why most professors consider this site to be a joke. As someone else pointed out, there is only one source that blatantly calls the band emo, while the band, fans, and other sources refer to them as prog. If you actually listen to their music you should be able to clearly tell that they sound nothing like emo bands. I don't know why you had to bring this fight back up again; as The Haunted Angel posted below, the emo tag was removed from the box because it was disputed so heavily and the infobox didn't give enough information to defend it. That sounds like a reasonable argument; the genre was left in the blurb on the page where it could be fleshed out. That seemed to appease everyone involved, and I don't understand why you needed to stroke your e-peen by bringing the argument back up again. Just leave well enough alone and stop being a child. 68.49.219.34 (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)FlameLordPhoenix

The following reliable sources cite the band as having emo aspects: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], and so on. The consensus among reliable sources is that they contain elements of both emo and prog (an "emo-prog fusion"); if you feel this page's "genre" section does not do a good enough job of describing the genre debate from all sides, then feel free to expand it. But the infobox must include the most relevant genres according to reliable sources (in this case, both prog and emo). I encourage you to find additional reliable sources of large groups of fans or the band itself denying the emo genre — if you feel a further expansion of the genre section is necessary. — Deckiller 00:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I find it amusing that you all prefer secondary sources over primary sources, when any reporting course I've ever taken says primary sources are more important. Also, containing elements of something is not enough to be considered that. I'm part Italian, but people don't identify me as an Italian-American because I also have other heritages. If Coheed only contains elements of emo, and are not blatantly emo, then how can you label them as an emo band? You can't. I find it amusing that you Wiki types feel it necessary to continue brining this argument up. You must have a penchant for pain, or you must like seeing people get pissed off, because I can't think of any other reason to continuously raise the same argument over one page out of the millions on this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.219.34 (talk) 00:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

By that argument, how can we label the as progressive? We aren't calling them an "emo band"; we're saying that "emo" is one of their genres/styles, as outlined by reliable secondary sources. We compromise by including all major elements of style according to sources: in this case, prog and emo. A high school report (which encourages original thought) is different from an encyclopedia (which discourages original thought; encyclopedias combine both primary and secondary sources to form a tertiary source, focusing on secondary sources to avoid excessive original research and undue weight.
Also, I was not involved in the argument several months before, so I was not apart of that consensus. I am merely being bold, and editors with relevant issues rooted in policies and guidelines are more than welcome to initiate the bold, revert, and discuss cycle. The more time one spends working on an encyclopedia, the more time one begins to understand how and why things must work the way they do. It's difficult to explain unless you've been involved in the project for a long time.
PS: the reason why some professors dislike Wikipedia is for exactly the opposite reason you mention: passers-by incorporating their own points of view without including reliable secondary sources. — Deckiller 00:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh really? Well can you provide me with a SOURCE that say that's why professors dislike Wikipedia, since you seem to be such a fan of sources? Because I've had professors outright tell me they think this site is a joke, but I know that means nothing to you since that's *gasp* a primary source. So the policy around here is that, at any time, an editor can raise shit again about any issue, even if a reasonable agreement has been reached at some point and time? Sounds like a pretty piss-poor way to run a business (or website, in this case). Also, I love how you don't actually refute the claim that you have something against the band, which suggests that you do (or at least that you don't like them), which then suggests bias. Someone with bias should not be given authority over that which they are biased towards.

I've already said several times at various points that I don't have something against the band. Also, check out our Criticism of Wikipedia article. And, yes, consensus changes over time, which often leads to discussions being revisited via Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss. — Deckiller 01:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You know what dude, it's cool. I'm not arguing with you anymore. I've been informed that Coheed's page has assigned keepers who will eventually take care of this matter. Enjoy flaunting your power while you can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.219.34 (talk) 01:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Pages do not have assigned keepers, though any of the volunteer users who often edit this page are more than welcome to help build consensus rooted within Wikipedia policy. — Deckiller 01:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not arguing with you anymore. I've been informed by a reliable source who I will not disclose for the sake of my source that you are in the wrong, and it will be reversed in due time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.219.34 (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Section break

As we wait for the remaining participants in this discussion to arrive, I'll start a new subheader to keep the next phase of the inevitable discussion neat. — Deckiller 02:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You know, I was thinking about your arguments, and I found several holes in them that I was going to rip in to, but in the end I decided that would be pointless. Continued arguing isn't going to solve anything, so there's no point in me adding fuel to the fire. So instead, I put those thoughts aside and started thinking of reasonable compromises, and I came up with this: put the emo tag in the infobox, but put (disputed) next to it. That way people coming to the page will see that "oh, some people consider them emo and some don't, perhaps the Genre section will clarify", or something to that effect anyway. Personally, I'd rather see the emo tag completely removed, but obviously that could lead to a long term battle. I think adding the disputed tag is a more than reasonable compromise that will allow you to uphold your end of things, but it will give us fans some satisfaction because people will know that not everyone considers the band emo. Anyway, that's my proposal. 68.49.219.34 (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)FlameLordPhoenix

I'm willing to take it a step further. "Hardcore punk" and "emo" both fall under "Alternative rock", so there is no need to include a subgenre such as "Emo" in the infobox. — Deckiller 00:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
The only significant hole in my argument is that newcomers or readers unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy would constantly remove the tag despite the sources. Either way, I've restructured the lead and the infobox to compensate, as the only other option would be to keep the "Emo" tag. — Deckiller 00:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually there were several. The two biggest being 1) you claim consensus changes over time; however, in the desicion to re-instate the emo tag, you were the only one who felt it necessary. You made the call on your own, at least as far as I can tell. Consensus, by definition, is majority of opinion. So consensus had not changed, at least judging by the reaction on the talk page. 2) You were arguing how the encyclopedia was different from a high school paper (by the way, for reference sake, I'm about to start my graduate degree) because high school papers encourage original thought while encyclopedias don't. While high school (and even college papers) encourage original thought and opinion, they seek original thought and opinion that can be backed up by truth; by hard, consistent facts. Wikipedia, then, is an unreliable source because, as you said, it does not strive for truth, but instead verifiability. If you want your students to back something up with truth then, obviously, you would not want them using a website that does not strive for truth as a source. So it's not the fact that anyone can edit it; it's irrelevant at that point, because, as you said, the truth itself is not the main goal. And as I said, I've had professors call it a joke. I'm not saying that's the consensus among professors, I'm just saying I've heard it said. Anyway, we can continuously argue over this, or we can drop it. You've said what you've had to say, and I've said what I had to say. We've come to a conclusion, at the very least, and for that I'm happy. Flamelordphoenix (talk) 03:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)FlameLordPhoenix

Genre, Again

I propose removing the "emo" and "post-hardcore" tags from the genre box, at the very least. We had seemed to reach a reasonable agreement on this some time ago, with DeckKiller deciding that "alternative rock" was a broad enough genre tag. The "emo" tag especially incites debate every time someone decides to try and raise this as an issue (which seems to happen once or twice every year), and every time the argument drags on with the tag eventually being removed. Some people may think the band are emo, but many don't; as DeckKiller said "alternative rock" can encompass "emo", and would be a fair compromise for the genre box. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.22.125.73 (talk) 13:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned to the user who changed it that he's perhaps should have brought up the genre changes on his talk page here. Maybe best to revert it all until a consensus is reached. I've seen discussions on emo and prog but "emo-prog" is a new one on me. Rehevkor ✉ 13:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


So it's fine that I reverted the genre box back to simply "progressive rock" and "alternative rock" for the time being? 70.22.125.73 (talk) 13:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Just an idea, up to everyone involved to decide whether it's "fine" or not.
(Also, to all the users reverting, despite what you may have heard, genre changes are not vandalism, and describing them as such is counter productive and not an excuse to continue edit warring.) Rehevkor ✉ 14:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the same user is back again; all of the albums introduce the band as "emo-prog", despite my editing the term out previously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.200.181.208 (talk) 22:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Added Label

Added the Roadrunner Records label under the list of labels for the band. Roadrunner is distributing their albums internationally. http://www.roadrunnerrecords.co.uk/artist/Coheed+And+Cambria 70.22.125.73 (talk) 13:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Shawna Wirkus?

In March 1995, Claudio Sanchez and Travis Stever's band Toxic Parents split and, together with Shawna Wirkus, formed the band Beautiful Loser. The band featured Stever on vocals and guitar, Sanchez on guitar, Kelley on drums and Jon Carleo on bass. The group was short-lived, breaking up by June 1995 after an argument over gas money.[5] Stever left the band, and the resulting trio was named Shabütie,[6] a word taken from African tribe chants that means "naked prey" in the film The Naked Prey.

Who is Shawna Wirkus? Is this just some super-fan trying to get there name on the page? Please site a source. I am deleting until I get a source.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.238.174.115 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 24 May 2010

I'm guessing vandalism. Was changed by an IP back in Feb, see here. I have reverted now and restored the original text. Cheers for pointing this out. Rehevkor ✉ 04:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Cambria & Taylor; this is a valid talk point.

A long time ago, I posted this and I just noticed it was removed per WP:TALK.

I was asking about a company called Cambria & Taylor, with a stylized logo that was very similar to that of Coheed & Cambria. It was a valid article discussion, because if there is some connection between the two, perhaps one inspired the other's name, it should probably be mentioned here. So again I ask, does anybody know anything at all about a company that makes soap for hotels called Cambria & Taylor?--Johnny Jupiter (talk) 18:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I suspect it's entirely coincidental. If you can't provide anything besides anecdotal observations (i.e. sources) there's not much more to say. Per WP:TALK talk pages are for discussing the article only. Perhaps you'd like to find a forum to discuss it. Rehevkor ✉ 19:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I do expect that it most likely is a coincidence, but I don't see any reason it shouldn't be brought up on the talk page. Of course I don't have sources. If I did, I could have just added it to the article myself. I asked about it on the talk page just in case someone does have a source confirming or denying it. It may be a trivial insignificant coincidence, but it's still a proposed addition to the article, and therefore a perfectly acceptable talk page discussion. Besides, the logo DID look a lot like the way the band stylizes their name. If someone does know something about this company (I tried looking them up but couldn't find anything), the uncanny similarity alone might be worth a mention, even if it is a coincidence.--Johnny Jupiter (talk) 07:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Without reliable sources explaining a direct and notable connection there's not much to discuss and nothing to add to the article. The similarities between soap at a motel and a band logo is not something that is frequently discussed by the music press. Rehevkor ✉ 14:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

coheedandcambrialive.com

Someone spammed this site just now, I was about to add it to the external links section on the basis it was an official site. But is it? No mention on the official website that I can see, no copyright notice. The Conditions of Use is suspiciously blank, as is the Privacy Notice. Rehevkor ✉ 22:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The genres?

How is it we can label Madonna a rock artist, and Muse a progressive metal (of which there's no metal at all in their music), and we can label some individual Coheed and Cambria songs "progressive metal/alternative metal", but we can't have either in the genres section of the band's wiki page? Progressive rock hardly fits, same with alternative rock, seeing as for the most part Coheed and Cambria has far more of a metal influence if anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.243.225 (talk) 21:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Moved from article

refs etc that were hidden in the article. moving here until they cane actually be used (hidden in source)

Rehevkor ✉ 10:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Mic's departure

Just in case everyone hadn't heard, Mic is done with Coheed once and for all. http://childrenofthefence.tumblr.com/post/8475445424/the-future Should we add a new section to the page about this? ~cal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.180.180.217 (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how it warrants a new section - histories in band articles are usually divided by albums. Other than the robbery (which is not directly related the the band) the split is amicable and not really a major event in the history of the band. Also, any got any sources other than tumblr? No way to know who is really behind these accounts, and it's a damn weird way to make such an announcement. Яehevkor ✉ 19:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

They posted a link to it on their official facebook fanpage~cal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.180.180.217 (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

genre debate

well seeing as this band was one of a group in the emo scene movement in the mid 2000's i think they need credit in the article that says that, specially since the genre didnt exist until after 2000 when they, as well as others, made it a popular style of music. also "post-hardcore" is another term for the emo genre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.178.123.113 (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Any claims such these require reliable sources that can be verified supporting them. Also, no, post-hardcore and emo are not the same. – Richard BB 21:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Coheed and Cambria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.playbackstl.com/content/view/6709/167/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coheed_and_Cambria/Archive_2&oldid=1088793196"