Talk:Coheed and Cambria

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: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], 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

• http://www.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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111118121042/http://www.coheedandcambria.com:80/note-from-josh.html to http://www.coheedandcambria.com/note-from-josh.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131231001828/http://www.anotherascendinglark.com/2012/10/album-review-coheed-and-cambria.html to http://www.anotherascendinglark.com/2012/10/album-review-coheed-and-cambria.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081216141731/http://www.musictowers.com:80/news/features/metal-hammer-golden-gods-awards-2006/?page=3 to http://www.musictowers.com/news/features/metal-hammer-golden-gods-awards-2006/?page=3

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

Y 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)