Talk:The Black Parade Is Dead!

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Black Parade Is Dead! article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The Black Parade Is Dead! 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.
Review: November 28, 2025. (Reviewed version).

Albums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum

Post-hardcore: My Chemical Romance Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Post-hardcore, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of post-hardcore and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Post-hardcoreWikipedia:WikiProject Post-hardcoreTemplate:WikiProject Post-hardcorePost-hardcore
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the My Chemical Romance task force.

Release date?

So when is it again? Because the article now says it's coming out in June. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.37.71.137 (talk) 03:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've heard it's coming out June 24, but I don't have a source for that. Amazon UK says it's coming out June 30, so for the US June 24 seems reasonable. 76.93.136.62 (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Warner Bros. sent out an email saying it will be out on June 24. Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 00:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Death Wish"

It has come to my attention that track 13 It's not a fashion statement, It's a deathwish, may not be on the dvd, and that the track list on the official page which entitles track 13 as "Death Wish" is actually what the fans call "Stay". First of all, all the tracks on the track list are formally written, so why would they shorten the full name as "Death Wish"? I think maybe it's wrong, but I have no proposal to what we should do about it. Blkeddie! (talk) 12:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the track in question is in fact "It's Not a Fashion Statement, It's a Deathwish". I do not think "Stay" will be included on the DVD unless it will go without a title as Gerard stated he will not be giving it one yet. If you a referring to the post here it is stated lower down that "Death Wish" is usually how they abreviate "It's Not a Fashion Statement, It's a Deathwish". I have seen the song abbreviated as "Death Wish" before and don't think it is the song "Stay". Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 20:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same here, I think its just an abreviation. – Zntrip 22:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blkeddie!, I think you're right. As I said on MCR discussion, this title is different from "Deathwish", wich is the short form for the song "It's not a fashion statement, it's a fucking deathwish".

They said that Hoboken concert will appear completely (look here), and they played "Stay" right in the moment it was set to play a song called "Death wish". Search for videos of that show: Could you find the song It's not a fashion statement, it's a fucking deathwish? No... you will only find what people before called Stay

Find out before talking... --Moraleh (talk) 21:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in this review the setlist includes "It's Not A Fasion Statement, It's a Deathwish" or "Deathwish" and a "new song". Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 02:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still think we should assume that the song is "It's Not a Fasion Statement, It's a Deathwish". When the album comes out, we'll know for sure. – Zntrip 04:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll assume it's "It's Not a Fasion Statement, It's a Deathwish". But I think that the name on the page should list it as "Death Wish", just in case of an inaccuracy. Blkeddie! (talk) 15:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, and I changed the name to "Death wish". Though I think it's the same than Stay, I won't add anything about it, because of the differences of opinions. --Moraleh (talk) 19:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may be "It's Not a Fasion Statement, It's a Deathwish", because it also says on the listings "I'm Not Okay" as "I'm Not Not Okay." 12.37.71.167 (talk) 02:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The new My Chemical Romance website for the UK has a song called "untitled", so that might be the song known as "Stay". By the way, the track listing is different on the MCR UK website, so should that be put up here too? --76.93.136.62 (talk) 22:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good point. While I don't think the entire track listing should be added again perhaps "It's Not a Fasion Statement, It's a Deathwish" should have the full title listed along with the song Untitled listed. The UK website was just created so I'd think that track listing would be more accurate. Orfen ^T • _C 04:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect article title.

The title should be "The Black Parade is Dead!", that is, without the capital I in "is". That's how it's called on the official website, and that's how it's grammatically correct. Someone move, please. Litis (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Capitalization

Though it's true that about the official page. I don't know... --Moraleh (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Track Listings

Okay, so apparently there's a new site http://www.mychemicalromance.co.uk that has another track listing different than the one seen before. Well it's a UK site, so couldn't this mean that US and UK versions of the album have different track listings? On that note, they have the release date for June 30, on that site, so I think that just may be for the UK release. 12.37.71.142 (talk) 03:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The release date is different but usually concert DVDs aren't region specific which would mean both DVDs have the same content and could play on DVD players of different regions. I don't think there is anything to suggest there would be two different versions of the DVD besides the different track listings on the two websites. The track listing is listed as the track listing for the DVD The Black Parade Is Dead so I don't think there is going to be two different DVDs. The one on the American website has some errors even listing a song as "I'm Not Not Okay". Either way the track listing on both websites is from the label itself making it official and I suggest using the one off the UK website since it is more recent and doesn't contain those errors. I think it'd more accurately reflect the end result. Orfen ^T • _C 04:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leak

I'm adding on to the article to mention that the CD has been leaked onto various torrent sites as of June 25. 66.194.108.102 (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment was me, by the way.

I forgot to log in. Deadxsouls (talk) 21:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for this, but its not notable, yet. WP:ALBUM#LEAK Jakisbak (talk) 21:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok, Sorry about that.

Didn't realize there was a notability issue with album leaks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadxsouls (talk • contribs) 04:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just found out that MCR released the entire album on their myspace. I noticed on the Rotation album page that was considered notable, so would this fall under the same notability.? Deadxsouls (talk) 04:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it, unless someone has said something about it it shouldn't be included. Its one think that annoys me quite a lot lol. Although its quite useful sometimes. Jakisbak (talk) 09:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is notable... We put the date "1 July 2008", but people can already listen it, and it's not leaked, the band uploaded it... I would include it --Moraleh (talk) 01:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's tricky. It says that it's usually not notable unless "directly responded to by the musical artist or their management, or the leak itself receiving broad media coverage." While they did leak it themselves on their Myspace, they have no news of it on their website. They don't even have an announcement on their Myspace saying it's leaked or any information about it. However, I think the band leaking the album themselves would be a case of them responding to it. The style guideline also has the word "usually". Orfen ^T • _C 04:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goofs

During Mama in Mexico City on the clean version, instead of cencoring fuck, it cencored gun and left it un-touched. Why? Girdog (talk) 21:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...the title of your section is your answer--Jakezing (talk) 01:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Refused?

Any indication from the band that the title is an allusion to the band REFUSED? Their tour documentary DVD - as well as one of there songs is entitled REFUSED ARE FUCKING DEAD

GA review

Passed. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:32, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Black Parade Is Dead!/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: NegativeMP1 (talk · contribs) 03:31, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: LEvalyn (talk · contribs) 01:13, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will take on this review! I typically prefer to make smallish prose edits myself and only place comments here when I have questions, though of course as always you should feel free to change or discuss any edits you happen to disagree with. Looking forward to it! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:13, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Notes

I made a pass through the prose to polish things. Of course as always, you should feel free to revisit or discuss anything that you don't consider an improvement. You might notice a number of changes relate to a particular pedantic quibble of mine, namely, I prefer not to say that people felt/believed certain things when we can say that they wrote/said those those things. I also found myself fiddling in that section to try to bring some more logical flow to the section, though I am still not fully satisfied. I don't think it's strictly necessary at the GA level, but the article would probably benefit from following some of this advice for writing reception sections. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:24, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be brutally honest, this was an odd article to try and write reception for. I kinda did what I felt was best. Maybe it could be improved, maybe it couldn't. To be fair I nominated this seven months ago. λ NegativeMP1 03:28, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Appropriate fair use rationale for the album cover, and good free licenses for the other photos. They are relevant, and there are no obvious omissions of other needed images. I don't think it's crucial for a GA, but it looks like the photo of the set could actually be transferred to Commons instead of hosted by enwiki because it's Public Domain. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:24, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Earwig copyvio check is fine -- it's just picking up titles and properly-attributed quotes. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:52, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

This table checks 8 passages from throughout the article (19.0% of 42 total passages). These passages contain 8 inline citations (11.8% of 68 in the article). Generated with the Veracity user script. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:52, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reference #	Letter	Source	Archive	Status	Notes
My Chemical Romance released their third studio album, The Black Parade, on October 23, 2006, through Reprise Records.
1		music.apple.com			Is a store listing the best source for this information? Could we cite a news article instead?
Their performances as the Black Parade were noted for their "theatrical"-styled production,
8		Bryant 2014, p. 279.			Not sure if I just have access to a different edition somehow, but the p. 279 I'm looking at doesn't support this, though there's some material on p 282 that does. Maybe double check the page number?
They released the full footage from the DVD onto YouTube in 2019.
13		loudersound.com	web.archive.org	Y
Sophie Bruce of BBC Music wrote that the album demonstrated how My Chemical Romance was the "perfect live band", and that the album was a must-have for fans who were unable to see them live.
11	b	bbc.co.uk	web.archive.org	Y	I added quotes around "a must-have" since those are her words verbatim and the kind of subjective thing that's best to attribute, but this is fine.
IGN's Ed Thompson wrote that The Black Parade Is Dead! was better than the original album, stating that the live performances gave it an "extra dose of the excess that made the studio album so good in the first place".
19	a	music.ign.com	web.archive.org	Y
and in New Zealand, the album reached #6.
25	a	charts.nz		Y
Elsewhere, the album reached #10 in Australia,
26	a	australian-charts.com		Y
and Recorded Music NZ.
36	a	radioscope.co.nz		Y

I just have two small quibbles in the table check above, and the rest is good. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:52, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LEvalyn: I swapped out the reference for the album's release date (although I think a primary source for a release date is fine) and, regarding the book source, I swapped out the edition of the book for the one on Google Play, which is the one I currently have access to. It too has different page numbers than the version you seem to have but at the very least here is proof that the page numbers on my end verify the specific claim. λ NegativeMP1 04:15, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great, so speedy! Thanks for going above and beyond with that page number verification, once I spotted the info in my edition I figured it was something small like that and technically at GA the page numbers aren't required anyway... but it's nice to have it tidied away. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:24, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Questions/suggestions

Should the tables for the charts and certifications go in the same section as "commercial performance"? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:24, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In music articles, they traditionally don't. Charts and certifications are the sections where everything is displayed in a table while Commercial performance is for explaining those charts and certifications in prose or explaining additional achievements. In that sense, they serve two different purposes, even if there is overlap. λ NegativeMP1 03:29, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see, that makes sense. I asked because the "flow" felt strange to have the personnel and the track listing "interrupt" the information about commercial performance, but does that also strike you as a usual order? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:25, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's normal. Most album articles do it that way. Some might have extra sections after "Commercial performance" like "Legacy", but this is pretty standard. λ NegativeMP1 04:28, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I think everything is in order -- good work with the article, and thanks again for the speedy turnaround! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:31, 28 November 2025 (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.