Talk:Thank You for the Venom

If someone wants to redirect this page, they should probably get a consensus first. FYI, this song did chart in the UK.--Rockfang (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Because the controversy over the genre, I have changed it to "Alternative rock, disputed subgenres." Friginator (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The song is not even punk rock. Punk rock is nothing but a power chord. There is way more musical direction than there is punk rock. This falls under the category of Post-Hardcore so I will switch it do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.65.192.141 (talk) 21:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The quality is shit. Somebody upload a better one.

I have boldly decided to change this song from a single to a promotional single, in order to clear up the confusion between sources that say that Three Cheers has three and four singles. The reason for this is that I was unable to verify the status of this song as being anything more than a promotional single, after looking into WP:SINGLE?:

1. The song was referred to as a single by the record label releasing it — Not as far as I can tell, though this is true of the other singles off this album too

2. The song was referred to as a single by an authoritative, music-oriented media outlet — I've scoured both Billboard and the OCC (as the two authoritative outlets listed there) and found nothing referring to this song. The closest reference from an authoritative source that I could find to this was in Tom Bryant's biography of the band, Not the Life It Seems, where Bryant calls "The Ghost of You" the album's third single; given that the other two are indisputably and demonstrably "I'm Not Okay" and "Helena", that logically rules out "Thank You for the Venom"

3. The song was released commercially independent of an album — I feel that this song falls under "A promotional single may not receive the same amount of attention from an artist as a regular single", given that it's clearly not been picked up to the same level as a single would. This is on top of the fact that I can't find proof of the song being released independent of the album in the first place, which leads me to...

4. The song was serviced to radio stations with an official add date — The edition of both Music Week and Radio and Records for the date currently on the article, December 13, 2004, do not show "Thank You for the Venom" as being a single/going for adds: one and two. I have also checked the surrounding dates for both publications to play it safe, and have not found this song listed anywhere. This song was also not listed here, despite all three other singles from the album being listed.

As such, I hope that this is thorough enough to conclude that, at least by Wikipedia's standards, this song should not be considered a single. I am frankly a bit skeptical of it even being a promotional single, given that the only source I can find to its vinyl/CD release is Discogs (a user-generated source), but its charting date in the UK does suggest that *something* related to this song likely occurred around the date currently listed in the article. Leafy46 (talk) 05:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@Leafy46:Thank you for the deep dive into this, and excuse me if this may sound silly, but does the fact that there was a physical commercial release dispositive proof that it is a "single" and not a "promotional single"? – Zntrip 02:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Zntrip: Hey there! I realize my comment in the edit summary may have come off a bit too strongly, so I want to first apologize for that. For one, as previously mentioned, I could not find much information outside of Discogs concerning a physical release, despite me hounding down and looking through as many sources as I could. Naturally, Discogs is not a reliable source, but even looking there, the three listings of the song's physical release explicitly call it limited edition or promotional (I'll add in an archive link for posterity later). And even with that aside, I would qualify this as a situation where "A promotional single may only receive a release to one or two formats" applies — the fact that there was only a limited physical release, combined with the fact that no music publication announced it would be released as a de facto single and there was no radio airplay AFAICS, suggests to me that this may have been a promotional single instead. I especially keep this in mind because, as mentioned, there are a lot of sources which say that Three Cheers only came out with three singles, and very few which explicitly call "Thank You for the Venom" a single.

In short, the fact this song received a physical release doesn't alone prove that this song was released as a single, especially when all the reasons I've listed above are taken into account. Of course though, all of this is based on the research which I have done; there is always the chance that I've missed something, and there is an argument that WP:SINGLE? doesn't even apply at all given that the song was released before the "digital age" really took off. Nonetheless, I feel fairly confident in my assessment here due to the immediate lack of sources which could back up this song being a single, when compared to the plethora for the other three singles. If there is any information suggesting that this song received a further release beyond just a physical one, however, or even if a more concrete source suggesting that this song got a physical release in the first place is found, thenit would certainly help the argument of "Thank You for the Venom" being a "single" according to Wikipedia's standards. Hope that this clears up my stance a bit! Leafy46 (talk) 07:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Here is the Archive URL for the Discogs link, as noted: Link Leafy46 (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Leafy46:I very much appreciate all the research, but every definition of a single that I can find includes a physical commercial release. This song was released on a 45 with normal record catalogue numbers. It was not released with a "PRO..." catalogue number, which is what WMG uses for promotional release. To me, the fact that this thing exists proves that it is a single. What's especially troubling to me is the removal from the discography page. A discography is a list of published sound recordings. This song was published. Why should it not be listed in the discography? – Zntrip

@Zntrip: I must disagree with your assessment of discography pages, as that list of all published sound recordings would be the appropriately-titled List of songs recorded by My Chemical Romance. However, I do concede that many discography pages spin off promotional singles into their own section (e.g. The White Stripes discography or Coldplay discography), so I will work to separate it out.

In regards to your other point, I must mention again that, even if a physical release were the only qualification for a song being considered a single, there would need to be at least *a* source (beyond a user-generated one like Discogs) which suggests that the song received a physical release. I was unable to find one despite my research, which is why I decided to change it; however, as you've mentioned having its record catalogue number, I must ask you then to WP:PROVEIT. Leafy46 (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@Leafy46:The source in this case would be the work itself (see WP:PRIMARY: "an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot"). However, you've addressed my primary concern regarding the discography. I think a separate section that lists promotional singles is a good solution. – Zntrip 19:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Zntrip: A primary source would work here to support the contents/track listing of this physical release, similar to how a novel may be cited to describe its plot, however that doesn't address the fact that there isn't a source which says that this physical release happened at all, let alone that it was a wide, commercial thing; even Discogs called all three versions of the song either limited edition or promotional. However, this is again based on the sources which I have been able to find, and I don't want this to be seen as me POV-pushing; if you still disagree on this matter, I don't mind bringing in a third opinion to arbitrate. Leafy46 (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Leafy46:I don't think that is necessary. I think we have reached a satisfactory resolution of the issue. I appreciate your comments and your willingness to engage in the discussion. – Zntrip 17:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I hate to start this discussion back up again, but I feel that it's relevant. Basically, I don't even think that this song can be labeled as a promotional single. Yes, it was released on a CD, but there is practically nothing that suggests this single was ever released as either a single or promotional single around this date. Which makes this a big WP:V issue for obviously this page, but also the album article and My Chemical Romance discography. Because claiming that the song was released as a single (with a proper specified release date) wouldn't be verifiable in a reliable source, but there's also nowhere besides us claiming that it is a promotional single. While it's probably fine for now, it is somewhat original research due to it being based entirely on our own policies and not the sources provided, which obviously causes problems. Especially with the idea of getting the discography article to featured list status or this article to GA, where verification that the song was, well, a single or promotional single released on a clearly given date, is obviously necessary.

As a result, I'm considering demoting it completely to just being a song, especially given that there is precedent on Wikipedia for articles that are just considered "songs" to still have charting information and even an infobox cover (see something like Daylight (Taylor Swift song), which while not a GA or FA at the moment, was still made by a well established, experienced editor). And for the discography page, my proposed solution is to simply rename the "Other certified songs" section to "Other charted and certified songs", and adding "Thank You for the Venom" to there. Maybe not the perfect situation, especially since it was released on CDs, but I think that's the best way to go about this bizarre situation and it is relatively inoffensive. @Leafy46: @Zntrip: I want to know if y'all agree with this stance, or if further discussion is needed. λ NegativeMP1 04:15, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I think it's worth pointing out that, in the images of this Discogs listing, you can indeed make out the ID "PRO15251" on both the back cover of the album jacket, and the back of the CD; while Discogs itself is not a reliable source, per WP:A/S the album jackets themselves can be used reliably. While this does not give us a date to work with, I thus believe it's reasonable to assume that the song was released as a promotional single (in addition to this specific listing following other giveaways listed at WP:SINGLE?, such as the cover art simply being that of the album and it not receiving the same amount of attention). Of course though, this is based on the assumption that "PRO" in the catalogue number is enough to prove it here. Some cases like Superstar (Madonna song) call the song a promotional single because of "extraneous" factors without a source directly calling it as such, however I can see the argument both ways. Leafy46 (talk) 04:41, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

If we can in-fact use the album jacket to demonstrate that it was a promotional single, which I suppose would be enough, then maybe what we can do instead is set the song's release date to Three Cheers for Sweet Revenge's release date. I mean, Vampires Will Never Hurt You uses the release date of I Brought You My Bullets, You Brought Me Your Love. Not whatever day it was posted onto MySpace or released onto radio. This seems like the best case scenario if we can cite the album jacket for that information. What do you think? λ NegativeMP1 04:46, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry that I missed this, but that makes sense to me. Feel free to make the change, if you're feeling bold and confident enough in it! Leafy46 (talk) 00:37, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Alright, done. λ NegativeMP1 08:20, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

GA review

Passed. RedShellMomentum 01:45, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

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:Thank You for the Venom/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Gavetheman555 (talk · contribs) 16:07, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: RedShellMomentum (talk · contribs) 19:46, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Shall review. RedShellMomentum 19:46, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@RedShellMomentum and Gavetheman555: Drive-by comment: I personally would object to this being promoted at present. I have done enough research on MCR songs over the past two years that I sincerely doubt this article is comprehensive at present. Every section feels way too short, and I can guarantee you there is more that can be salvaged from reception. For example, there is hardly anything taken from album reviews, just the rankings.

I really do respect your work here, Gave, considering you're picking up on an area that I've become too burnt out to resume work in... but unless you can somehow prove that this is all that there is, I don't think this is ready to be promoted under GA criteria 3: "Broad in its coverage" and "it addresses the main aspects of the topic". Compare the reception section here to other songs from Revenge like You Know What They Do to Guys Like Us in Prison and I'm Not Okay (I Promise). There's not much of a comparison to be made.

I'm not saying that this should be failed outright, but my gut says there's more work to be done here if it wants to meet the standards set by other MCR articles, let alone the other articles for Revenge songs. I don't think it's ready. λ NegativeMP1 18:33, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello there Negative, I greatly appreciate your thoughts on this article/review. In your response to the reception section being too short, I added three additional reviews that somewhat expand it to get it to a decent size. It's okay if you think it isn't ready yet and I agree with your statement that this shouldn't be completely failed as this does clearly have potential. There's not much more for me to really say. Gavetheman555 (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Comments

• "It was released as a promotional single in 2004" Specify full date.
• "Described as a punk rock song, it's lyrics" its lyrics, perhaps?
• "The song charted in the United Kingdom, reaching number 4 on the UK Rock & Metal Singles chart and number 71 on the UK singles chart" Mention UK singles chart first for obvious reasons.
• "The song was later released as a promotional single" Ditto for the first comment.
• "A punk rock song, it's instrumentation has been described as "metallic guitar heroism"" its lyrics, and put a period at the end of that.
• Move "Additionally, it was certified gold by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) in 2025" to Background and release since it's in critical reception.
• "My Chemical Romance" and "Additional personnel" should be sub-headers of Credits and personnel per MOS:PSEUDOHEAD ("Do not create pseudo-headings by misusing semicolon markup (;), which is reserved for description lists, and avoid using bold text for headings").

I'm pretty sure I got this right? However if I didn't please let me know and I'll correct it Gavetheman555 (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

They're supposed to be "===", not "'''" RedShellMomentum 18:32, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Done Gavetheman555 (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

• Refs 6 and 9 should have My Chemical Romance as the author since they made the song.
  • While on ref 6, it should have its date (June 8, 2004) and since it has the via parameter, use "|publisher=Reprise Records".
• I did a tiny change to the Charts section, let me know what you think!

That's all I got. RedShellMomentum 17:59, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Got all the changes, thank you for reviewing this as always! Gavetheman555 (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

• @RedShellMomentum: Just incase it slipped your mind :) Gavetheman555 (talk) 12:26, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks, I'll get this done. RedShellMomentum 17:03, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

@Gavetheman555: Done with my comments. RedShellMomentum 18:07, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Table

More information Rate, Attribute ...

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Passes.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Passes.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	There is a list of references, so this passes.
	2b. 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).	15 generally reliable sources out of the 24 total sources, so this passes.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Source spot-check is all good, so this passes.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig shows 38.7% similarity, which is a bit high, but since it's in the green, this passes.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Passes.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Passes.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	I see 100% neutral wording, so this passes.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Page history shows no recent edit wars, so this passes.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Only image is the cover art, which is properly tagged and has a valid non-free use rationale, so this passes.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Cover art is obviously relevant to the topic, with a suitable caption, so this passes.
	7. Overall assessment.	All good, passing now.

Close

Source spot-check

This table lists 3 random passages from throughout the article (10.3% of 29 total passages). These passages contain 3 inline citations (8.3% of 36 in the article). Generated with the Veracity user script. RedShellMomentum 19:46, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

More information Reference #, Letter ...

Reference #	Letter	Source	Archive	Status	Notes
The band began recording Three Cheers for Sweet Revenge in 2004 after concluding a short, already scheduled tour in the United Kingdom.[4] The album, along with "Thank You for the Venom", was produced by Howard Benson.
5		stereogum.com	web.archive.org
"Thank You for the Venom" is a punk rock
18		teamrock.com	web.archive.org
Andrew Sacher of BrooklynVegan described the track's instrumentation as "metallic guitar heroism."
22		brooklynvegan.com	web.archive.org

Close

• @RedShellMomentum and Gavetheman555: What is the status of this review? Is this ready to be promoted? If not, what else needs to be resolved? Z1720 (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Little on the fence here, on the one hand I do think it should be pushed to GA, but on the other I feel something about it just Isn't right. Right now I think I'm leaning towards to the GA range, considering I addressed all the comments + did some slight expansion, @RedShellMomentum: any thoughts and do you still think this reaches GA status? Gavetheman555 (talk) 12:41, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

@Gavetheman555: Apologies for the late reply. Are there any contemporary reviews for the song? 'Cause most of critical reception is later articles. RedShellMomentum 21:12, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I found a couple of contemporary reviews while doing my research, which I have incorporated into the article. Gavetheman555 (talk) 00:52, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Great, thank you! I see no more issues with the article, so I'd be willing to pass this if you're happy with how the article currently looks. RedShellMomentum 01:08, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm currently happy with it, as always thanks for reviewing this and thank you for your comments! :) Gavetheman555 (talk) 01:26, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, passing now. RedShellMomentum 01:44, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

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.