Talk:Welcome to the Black Parade

The G Note

Let's mention the "G note" that started because of this song. Namethatisnotinuse (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Namethatisnotinuse you'll be glad to know that I just added a section for it! I asked another wikimedian to create an audio file I can add of the note sound that is free to use on wiki so after that it'll just be finding sources to add. If there are any soucres you know of please add them! :D A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:00, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Namethatisnotinuse Namethatisnotinuse (talk) 12:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

First sentence in "Recording" section??

What the heck does the following mean:

> My Chemical Romance started writing the song since their start as a band, although in a different style.

I'm tempted to delete the sentence entirely, but I'm asking in case there's information to be preserved. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

GA review

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:Welcome to the Black Parade/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: NegativeMP1 (talk · contribs) 03:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Leafy46 (talk · contribs) 18:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I said to myself that I would claim this review if it wasn't picked up by the time I finished my final exam, and since I've just finished my final exam, here we are. This review is for the May 2025 backlog drive, meaning that a more-experienced GA reviewer will also be overseeing this review, and may provide some additional feedback. Hopefully I can get some initial comments out of the way in 24 hours, and the rest of the review finished in a week :) Leafy46 (talk) 18:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I also see that you're on vacation right now (per your talk page), so please enjoy that and don't feel too rushed about this review! Leafy46 (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, but I should still be able to address prose related comments. Turns out my hotspot works so I can use my laptop every now and then, plus I need something to do while winding down in the hotel room. λ NegativeMP1 21:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Initial review (QF and media stuff) is finished. As for the rest, I will first wait until this review gets picked up over at the backlog drive :) Leafy46 (talk) 04:58, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Leafy46, I'm happy to oversee this review. I hope your final exam went well! By the way, here are two user scripts that I think will really benefit you to have in this review, if you haven't got them already:

• User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors
• User:Phlsph7/HighlightUnreferencedPassages

Let me know if you have any questions! IAWW (talk) 11:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• Right, that's a wrap on the review! I would normally put this article on hold, but since I trust that you'll get to my last few points fairly quickly, I'll forgo that process for now. Let me know when you've finished up, and I'll notify IAWW for him to do his final checks before I pass this article!

• I believe I have gotten everything or at least given further explanation to certain things. λ NegativeMP1 22:02, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• I'm going to go grab a meal, but before I do, here are a few things which haven't been addressed yet as far as I can tell: alt text for the cover in the infobox, the magnum opus thing (I left a new comment there, because you may have misinterpreted my original one), a typo in Liz Scarlett's name (currently citation #95), and adding the studio to the infobox. Other than that, it looks all good, so I'll ping It is a wonderful world for his final check! Leafy46 (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

  Okay, I got those last few things. Sorry for missing them. λ NegativeMP1 22:41, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

  Hi @Leafy46, I just gave this review and article a quick lookover, and I'm impressed by the quality of both. Some of your points went beyond the GA criteria (some MOS and prose nitpicks), but I'm of the opinion that when first reviewing it's better to be a bit too in depth than not in depth enough. You have clearly checked every criteria well, which is the most important thing! I would be happy for this article to pass. IAWW (talk) 23:12, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• Wonderful! Passing this article, thank you both for your cooperation throughout :) Leafy46 (talk) 00:06, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Quickfail checks

• Article looks good from a first glance
• Earwig shows a 21.3% similarity, no issues there
• No clean-up banners
• Article is stable, no edit-warring
• No previous GA reviews to speak of

Media

• File:Welcome to the Black Parade cover.jpg — Y Fine, though I would highly recommend switching out its rationale with Template:Non-free use rationale album cover simply because that's the more common/comprehensive one for cover art in infoboxes afaik
  • Will update soon.
    • If you could also add some alt text to this infobox image, that would be great!
• File:My Chemical Romance - Welcome to the Black Parade.ogg — Y Good (though, in full disclosure, I am also the one who uploaded this audio sample more than two years ago)
• File:MCRBPset.jpg — ? Image is tagged properly, but it's not exactly a great image, especially given that it doesn't necessarily show MCR playing "Welcome to the Black Parade" specifically. As such, I would probably do away with this image per MOS:IMAGEQUALITY ("Poor-quality images—dark or blurry; showing the subject too small, hidden in clutter, or ambiguous; and so on—should not be used unless absolutely necessary").
  • You're right. Got rid of that one.

Spotchecks

Before beginning my roughly-10% spotcheck, I'll quickly note that there is a Harv Error because the book itself, Not the Life it Seems, isn't actually cited on the page. Please do address that at some point! All spotchecks and numberings are based on this revision.

• • How the hell did I manage to not actually put the book in the page... oops? Anyways I fixed that.
• 5 — Y All good
• 6 — ? I don't have access to the same book version that you do, so I can't specifically verify if these references are all on page 183; however, I highly doubt that this song's inclusion on the Black Parade World Tour (d) would be on the same page as information about its writing (a-c), given that they are in different chapters as far as I can tell. Aside from sending me a copy of the page (which I don't know how it can be done), I can give this a pass if you could give me one short, direct quote from the page for each time the citation is used. I can then find the longer quote in my own copy, and I'll be satisfied as long as they are all in the same general area.
  • You're right, citation 6 does not verify it being played on the tour. 87 does if I recall correctly. I'm not sure why 6 is here.
• 18 — Y All good
• 24 — See below
  • a) N "Second half" is not verified in the source, especially since Weatherby includes "pinging piano" in her list of the "several rock elements" in the track, something which is likely from the song's first part.
  • Fixed.
  • b) Y Bear in mind, however, the the article does not technically specify that this is a ranking, nor explicitly call WTTBP their best song in the prose
    • It says "top 15" at the top of the page. It's very heavily implied.
  • c) N Similar problem as 24a, where Weatherby never explicitly praised the introduction, and instead seems to be talking more about the emotional instrumentation in general. In essence, saying that Weatherby was commenting on the song's introduction by connecting what she wrote about the song's overall use of piano to the fact that the introduction is piano-led is WP:SYNTH.
    • That isn't synth, the opening is the only part of the song that uses the piano. But anyways, reworded.
  • d) ? While 18e called this the band's "magnum opus", I don't see something similar in this source to suggest that WTTBP was the band's "most important". Could you clarify which line is supposed to back this up, assuming I've just missed it?
  • I thought magnum opus and most important would generally be synonymous, sorry. Fixed.
    • Oops, I think you may have misinterpreted my comment here. "Magnum opus" is great and synonymous with "important", but it's cited in in Louder Sound article and not the Billboard one. The problem with the Billboard article which I was trying to point out is that it doesn't have a similar thing, i.e. Weatherby never calls this song the band's magnum opus or whatnot. Does that make more sense?
• 31 — N "First time on television" does not necessarily equate to "first showcased"
  • Fixed.
• 38 — ? I'd argue including 4/5 of the quote "loud, brash, tuneful, fun, and disposable" shows a bit of editorial bias, given that the last one is the only one which is expressly negative. Other than that, the citation checks out.
  • I didn't leave it out because of bias. Rather because it somewhat disrupted the flow of the section. Why would the rest of the review be so overtly positive, and showcase why the reviewer liked the song, and then randomly throw in "disposable". Nothing else in the section or review could possibly flow well into the reviewer calling it "disposable".
    • In my mind, that's the reason why the single got a 9/10 rather than a 10/10. I feel like it'd wouldn't break the flow to throw something in at the end in the vein of "...yet he additionally described the song as "disposable" ".
      • Alright, fair. Although I'm putting the "disposable" thing at the end of the summary of his review rather than in the actual quote itself.
• 46 — See below for most comments, though there is a typo in the citation over Whitt's name
  • a) Y
  • b) Y
  • c) N "Emo culture" is not explicitly stated as the culture which this song shaped, and I'm not sure if the "This, dear emos..." at the end of this review counts as enough of a connection for this to work
    • I get the bad look here, but I don't think a genre can be plural I don't think many people could at first glance understand that "emos" is referring to a type of person, rather than the genre. Especially given that the article only uses emo within the context of the genre.
      • My point here is that, just because Richardson is addressing emos in his review, it doesn't mean that this song was influential in emo culture. If, for the sake of argument, he had instead signed off with "This, dear Aussies...", it doesn't mean that Richardson is trying to say that this song was influential in Australian culture. In fact, if he was trying to make such a connection, he could've very easily written that the song defined "our culture" instead of just "a culture". I still would ask for a different source here, if you have one.
        • Meh, you're right. I've just cut the emo culture thing from the page entirely.
  • d) ? Quote checks out, but I would guess that it was Richardson, not Whitt, who wrote this review based on the "JR" at its end.
• 51 — Y Both uses check out
• 60 — Y All good, though I'd highly recommend linking the Google Books copy of the magazine to supplement this citation: here
• 80 — ? AGF on the page numbers, since they are all around the same spot on my copy, and the content mostly checks out. One minor quibble: I interpret the text to mean that the singular "macabre marching-parade float" *was* the idea, and thus that there were no parade floats actually following the flat-bed truck. This is visually backed up by the music video itself (which you cited as a primary source), where I can't spot another parade float in the horde of people behind the main one that the band is playing on. What do you think?
  • Yeah you're right. Probably would've been a good idea to rewatch the music video more thoroughly before I wrote that section. But the blimps are backed up by both. So that part is probably fine?
    • Should be fine, yeah.
• 94 — Y All good, but fix the typo in the author's name
• 112 — Y You could probably milk this interview for a bit more, but the citation checks out
• 120 — Y

Prose review

Lead

• "With help from the album's producer Rob Cavallo after the band attached a piano lead that he created to the song, the band ultimately gained motivation to finish the song." — This sentence is a bit awkwardly-worded, perhaps "The band was finally motivated to finish the song after they attached to its beginning a piano line previously created by the producer Rob Cavallo" or something in that vein.
  • Done.
• "Samuel Bayer would direct..." to "Samuel Bayer directed..."
  • Done.
• "The music video was later labeled as the "Greatest Video Of The Century" following a MTV viewers poll in 2017." — I dunno if this is due weight for the lead. It should be okay if you preface it with something like "The music video received critical acclaim..., though
  • The critical acclaim thing would make more sense if there were more awards listed in the music video section, but they aren't at the moment as most of them appear to be dead links. I can remove the viewers poll thing entirely though if there are weight concerns.
    • It's fine, I guess. It sticks out to me as being hyper-specific instead of being a general sentiment (as the lead should be), but I hear you out.
• "Music journalists have often considered "Welcome to the Black Parade" to be an "emo anthem"" — I see what you're going for here, but "emo anthem" here sounds more like a classification rather than a signal of the song's legacy. Perhaps it would be better to talk about how some of the critics there regarded it as one of the greatest songs of the 21st century?
  • I don't think anyone other than Farrell said it was outright one of the best songs of the 21st century. I feel like "emo anthem", which several people refer to the song as, is better. As weirdly worded as it may seem.
    • Okay, that's fine. I'm not a huge fan of it still, but I'll respect your decision here.

Background and production

• All instances of "Gerard" should be replaced with "Way" per MOS:SURNAME (especially since Mikey Way isn't mentioned at all in this section)
  • I have a bad habit of trying to distinguish between the two regardless of who is or is not mentioned. Sorry. Done.
• "...which was originally conceived as a song that the band created shortly after they were formed in 2001." — Kinda weirdly-worded. Maybe "...based on a track which the band created in 2001 shortly after their formation."
  • I've cut this down to "which was originally conceived shortly after they were formed in 2001" as I believe your wording suggested here implies that TFOUAD and WTTBP were different tracks, and technically they are the same song.
• I feel that a lot can be cut from the second paragraph in this section. There are essentially three sentences in a row ("The song was one...", "Tom Bryant described...", "Gerard stated that...") which all boil down to the same thing: that the song was difficult for the band to complete. If these could all be combined into one singular sentence, it would help the flow of this part a lot
  • I've slightly trimmed it by deleting Tom Bryant's thoughts on its production, but I think that Way's thoughts on its production and how "pressure was tearing us up" is helpful context.
• "During the album's production..." — Remove this. It's the same introduction as the second paragraph, and we already know that this song was being crafting during this album's production
  • Done.
• Un-link Los Angeles, as it's WP:OVERLINK
  • Done.
• Also, I feel obligated to mention that the band did not record The Black Parade at the Paramour Estate, rather it was at the Eldorado Recording Studios per the album's liner notes. Thus, writing "...to record the rest of the album..." here is a bit misleading
  • I've completely reworked this section to not have this detail at all and add "The final song was recorded and produced at Eldorado Recording Studios." to the end of the paragraph.
    • You should also consider adding that to the infobox, but it looks good!
• "...a process that took place in the middle of the production of "Welcome to the Black Parade"." — I would remove or re-phrase this bit. If the song was being entirely re-worked, as is stated by the next sentence, then this process was not in the middle of this song's production, rather the production of the song (as we now know it) had barely started.
  • As just mentioned, I've fully reworked this paragraph to not include this bit.
• "At this point, the band was didn't want to continue work on the song... — Typo
  • As just mentioned, I've fully reworked this paragraph to not include this bit.
• "The band then decided to adopt an idea that the album's producer Rob Cavallo initially had for the albums introduction [...] Cavallo would later showcase to the band his initial idea by playing a portion of the instrumental he had planned for the track on the piano, which the band later added a portion of to "Welcome to the Black Parade"." — It doesn't make sense to me how the band could have adopted an idea that Cavallo hadn't yet showed them. Could you re-phrase this bit to clarify that?
  • I think I've made this slightly more clear?
• "Gerard later rewrote the piano introduction himself, which gave way for the band to refine and finish the rest of the song." — This line didn't make sense to me (since why would he rewrite the introduction if the band was already satisfied with the end result?), and looking at the source provided, it's not supported either. I'd say to remove it entirely.
  • I think I've admittedly screwed up quite a lot writing this section. This is what happens when you try to piece together an article rewrite over the course of several weeks (or months, I forgot) in completely different thought processes each time. Anyways, I've rewrote this paragraph - hopefully what I have right now is fine?
    • Looking at your re-write, it's definitely a lot more cohesive now. Great job!

Composition and lyrics

• "David Fricke of Rolling Stone described it as featuring "rock-hero tilt", specifically in reference to Gerard Way's voice during this part." — Looking at the source, it seems like Fricke is only referring to this "rock-hero tilt" when Way is singing "We'll carry on", and not in reference to his performance in the entire second half of the song.
  • Tweaked.
• "Several journalists compared the song to Queen's "Bohemian Rhapsody"..." — "Several", by definition, means more than two. Throw in a source like this one (which should also give you a lot more information to milk for this section).
  • Done.
• Clarify that The Black Parade is a concept album, just so the reference to the Patient makes some sense to a reader who doesn't know anything about this album.
  • Clarified in Background and production, where I think specifying this detail would be better than slapping it in the middle of this section.
    • Sounds good. I would just suggest removing the quotation marks around the Patient at this point, or at least standardizing with the Background section whether or not to include the "the" within the quotations.
      • Fair enough, removing the quotations.
• "...recalling his aforementioned childhood memory before his death." — I'm not a big fan of using "aforementioned here, especially since it's from a different section in the article (see WP:AFOREMENTIONED). I would just replace this with the actual lyrical meaning of this song, for the sake of clarity.
  • So are you suggesting that I completely gut the meaning of the song within the context of The Black Parade's narrative...?
    • Nope, what you did seems fine. What I meant here was, instead of saying the "aforementioned childhood memory", to write out the whole description about it being a "childhood memory of when his father took him to see a marching band".
• "The main chorus featured in the latter half of the song has Gerard Way shout out "we'll carry on", as will the memories of the Patient's, despite their death." — There's a certain whiplash here from awkward wording, coming from the sudden jolt behind telling the story of the song in the previous sentence, to a straight depiction of what Way is singing, and whipping back to the story of the song. It also doesn't help that the latter part of this sentence is not verified by the source, despite falling into that "interpretation" territory of the lyric's meaning. Is there any way you could re-phrase this?
  • I tried to make it flow a tiny bit better by cutting the "as will the memories of the Patient's, despite their death". Does this work?
    • Looks great! It would be even better if there were some source talking about the lyrics in the song's second half beyond just the chorus, but I won't hold back the GA review for something like that.

Release

• "According to Craig Aaronson, the decision to release "Welcome to the Black Parade" as the album's lead single was initially contested by a few people working for the record label, who instead wanted "Famous Last Words" or "Teenagers" to be released, although the majority of people agreed to release "Welcome to the Black Parade" first." — This is a run-on sentence, could you break it up a bit?
  • Not sure where it could broken up at.
    • It could be re-phrased like "According to Craig Aaronson, the majority of people at the record label agreed that "Welcome to the Black Parade" should be released as the album's lead single, despite some believing..." However, I frankly think that you could do away with the whole "FLW" and "Teenagers" bit, as it is ultimately tangential to the song itself.
      • My thought was that maybe it would give more context behind the initial reactions to the song, but meh, you're right. Cut the detail entirely.
• "B-sides for the physical releases ranged from a live recording of the song to another song..." — I'm not a huge fan of the word "ranged" here, as it implies that the live recording and "Heaven Help Us" are two endpoints, between which lie other songs used as B-sides. Could you re-phrase this, perhaps?
  • Reworded a tiny bit although I'm not exactly sure what to do here - I'm not even sure if the B-Sides are relevant looking back honestly.
• "...which also includes "The Five of Us Are Dying"; the demo was shared prior to the release of the reissue." — Because "TFoUAD" was established earlier in the article as a working title and not a demo, perhaps reword to "...which also includes a demo of the track entitled "The Five of Us Are Dying"." or something of that nature
  • Done.

Critical reception

• "He also called it "ridiculous in its pomposity and fantastic in its smile-inciting execution"." — Is this full quote necessary? I feel like this is verging on WP:OVERQUOTE, and could be merged into the previous sentence.
  • I agree but I also have zero idea how to paraphrase it...
    • Frankly, I would just remove it. The rest of the sentence is good enough to sum up that Jefferson praised the song, so this extra quote doesn't add much content-wise.
    • Okay, fair enough. Removed.
• More of a stylistic sort of thing, but I'd connect the NME review with the Sputnikmusic review instead of the Rolling Stone one, given that both of those reviews talk about how the song is a "cornerstone" of the album (in line with thematic organization per WP:RECEPTION).
  • Done.
• There is also a typo in Fricke's name ("Frickle")
  • Fixed.
• Hyperlink Kerrang! Award for Best Single
  • Done.
• In most situations I'd point out how there isn't a negative retrospective review in that section, but I also don't think there is an overtly negative one to point to given how this song is pretty widely celebrated. Maybe do a double check of this, but I won't fault you if you can't turn up anything
  • I recall doing a pretty thorough search for reception as I initially planned on organizing it thematically - one paragraph on composition, another on lyrics, etc. - but I ultimately couldn't find enough to do that. The only "negative" thing I recall finding was the Observer opinion.

Commercial performance

• "best performing" — typo, should be "best-performing"
  • Done.
• "In the United Kingdom, it reached number 1 UK singles chart..." — typo
  • Done.
• Name-drop Recorded Music NZ for the New Zealand certification, since it's done for every other country
  • Done.
• Something about the raw numbers in this section sorta bugs me. Looking at FAs like Diamonds (Rihanna song), chart rankings seem to always be prefaced by "number", no matter how repetitive it is
  • Done.
• I think it's worth mentioning that the Japanese certification is specifically referring to this song as a ringtone, per the 'Certifications' section and the source (despite how odd that sounds)
  • Ok.

Music video

• "As a result, the music video for "Famous Last Words" was recorded immediately after filming for "Welcome to the Black Parade" concluded, with the former serving as a continuation of the latter's premise." — A bit clumsily-worded imo, given that the "former" here could refer to both "Famous Last Words" (being the first in the sentence) or "WTTBP" (being the first chronologically). Could you rephrase this to avoid the confusion?
  • Tweaked a little bit.
• Looking at List of awards and nominations received by My Chemical Romance, the music video for "WttBP" seems to have been nominated for/won a lot of awards not mentioned in this section. It would be nice if you could try and find sourcing to include some of them, for the sake of completeness
  • If I recall correctly, a lot of those are either not even citing the original site / publication that nominated them, or are dead links, or both. That's why I didn't end up including many of them. Though if I can something more about them then I'd add them.

Live performances and legacy

• I think that you *technically* need sources for both the Reading and Leeds festivals, and that the one for Reading alone isn't enough. Fortunately for you, I was in the same boat as well and came across this source you should be able to slide in: Gigwise
  • Added.
• Just noticed this, but add author info for citations #95-97 (based on this revision)
  • Done - I also noticed that some of these citations were duplicated so I merged some.
• Try and put some of the Kerrang! in your own words, given that it is essentially two long quotes pulled from the article
  • Paraphrased a bit.
• "Many have considered the song to be recognizable through just the opening G5 note..." — "Many", as used here, is a weasel word, especially since the only attribution given is Em Casalena of American Songwriter writing about how "some listeners" would immediately recognize the note.
  • Reworded to "some". Is that fine?
    • "Some" is still a weasel word (since the question of "whom exactly?" can arise), but it's better. I'll let you know if I think of something.
• The short length of the Steve Aoki remix makes me think that it could possibly be merged into the "notable covers" paragraph from this section, rather than having its own dedicated sub-section. What do you think?
  • I kind of agree but I also feel like Aoki's remix should get the upper hand and a bit more weight given towards it since it's an official remix, in comparison to other artist covers. Furthermore, there are things to say about the remix - there's not much to say about the covers (hence why there's a paragraph-long sub-section). I'll merge it if you think that's the best course of action here though.
    • Eh... I could go either way on this one. I found one more source on MTV News regarding this song, but I'm not sure if there's a wealth of information about it beyond basic background information and that Buzzfeed interview. I wouldn't object if you decided to keep the section though; this is definitely more of a suggestion than a request.

Rest of the sections

• There's an extra period at the end of the "Personnel" section
  • Removed.
• ...And one more little thing here too: There seems to be quite a bit of difference between the Apple Music credits and the one in the article. Is there a particular reason for this difference? Otherwise, it would be much appreciated if you could get the two looking about the same.
  • Other than the two musicians and an arranger I accidentally left out, I'm not sure who else I'm missing here.
• Typo in reference 121, currently reads "Best of 20107"
  • Oops. Fixed.
• For the sake of Criteria 3 (broad in its coverage), there should really be a "Release History" section for this song. It doesn't need to be something crazy, but there should at least be a digital release date, radio impact dates, and/or physical release dates. Lmk if you need help with any of this!
  • I honestly forgot that "release history" sections are meant to exist since most of the song articles I've done straight up don't have enough information (or releases at all) for a release history section. But this song probably does. If you want to add one go ahead!
    • Maybe later. I won't fault you since a lot of this information would likely be repeated with what you've already got in the 'Release' section, but it's a good reminder nonetheless!
• One more little thing down here: remove the music video from the 'External links' section at the bottom of the page, given that it's already in the infobox
  • Done.