Talk:Amberian Dawn

Untitled

Removed copyrighted information and replaced with my own words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobert5353 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, nice that some one have created this article. I was thinking of it, but I'm quite bad in English, so I created a Swedish one instead. Im going to connect them right now. And i will add Amberian Dawn to the "list of symhonic metal bands" as well. /Vincent P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.227.192.112 (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability

Notability is being questioned on this band. A good way to establish notability would be to reference reliable, third-party sources, rather than just the band's official website. --Managerpants (talk) 00:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I own their disc myself. Bought it from www.cdon.com. Thats Scandinavias biggest online store for games, music and stuff like that. So... that makes the band quite notable? Right? / Vincent Palmqvist, 13 maj 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.227.192.112 (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Point of View

This article neutrality is questionnable, with words like "excellent" and "amazing". I'm adding a Peacock template. Sagara42 (talk) 02:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I've reworded the necessary sentences, and removed the peacock tag. Ahmahl Kotay (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sources

References are still mostly made up of primary ones, mostly pointing to the band's website. Aren't there any other references that can be used? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MadeYourReadThis (talk • contribs) 18:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the point of using a secondary source that can do no more than quote the primary source, and facts stated in a primary source (self-description by the band is an umambiguous fact, too, and the article clearly states that the description of the music comes from the band themselves, although it sure would be appropriate to add a description of the music that originates from a review) do not need interpretation through a secondary source. I've just read Wikipedia:PRIMARY and as far as I understand it, it agrees with my understanding. There is nothing wrong with using a primary source in this case, when there is no interpretation of anything involved, as there is nothing more accurate and reliable than a primary source in this case. Therefore, I'm considering removing the template and the tags, as their application seems to stem from a misunderstanding of WP policy. Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The article now have a bunch of secondary sources, and so I'm removing the template. Quispiam (talk) 10:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Genre warrioring

Please refrain from genre warrioring within this article. Do not remove genre classifications unless there is no sensible source that verifies this label. Feel free to add genres if you can provide a reliable source that identifies them by that genre. References recognize Amberian Dawn as a Symphonic Power Metal Band. As such, both Symphonic Metal and Power Metal Tags have been included. Speed Metal and Heavy Metal tags were both added at one point, however Heavy Metal is a redundant classification due to the fact that all metal subgenres fall into this area. Since Amberian Dawn is not typically associated with Classic Heavy Metal (a suitable reason to add the general Heavy Metal label), this label is not sensible. Speed metal is not typically used to describe this band based on references[1]],[[2],[3],[4] but as I don't see a good reason to remove this classification, I will leave it. I will add Neo-Classical Metal as well as they have been described as a Neoclassical Power Metal band in multiple places. Vortiene (talk) 02:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Amberian Dawn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090207065936/http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view to http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=145772080&blogId=537009251
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101007091937/http://www.sourcewebzine.com.br/neue/2010/09/amberian-dawn/ to http://www.sourcewebzine.com.br/neue/2010/09/amberian-dawn/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)