Talk:Blind Guardian/Archive 01

whats the return of the elven kings?

---

and has gone from being just famous in Europe and Japan to being a big heavy metal influence across the world.

Really? I've never heard of them. Maybe you should put in some more information. -- Jimregan 02:53 27 May 2003 (UTC)

---

Youde have to be a fan of power metal to have heard of them. Arm

---

The first poster is right. Blind Guardian is one of the most time-honoured and influential power bands in metal today. The European power metal scene would probably be far less exciting were it not for their existence. It would be a downright lie to say they've been copied as many times as Helloween or Gamma Ray, but I'm sure that plenty of bands have been inspired by them. Just about every European fan of true heavy metal knows not only their name, but also their music. They're far less known to those from outside mainland Europe, but then again heavy metal isn't as popular elsewhere. Child of Bodom

---

They are famous here, in Porto Alegre.

Bard's song

It would be nice if someone put on the article where was recorded this album's version of The Bard's Song (in the forest)

Leo McAllister 03:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

What?

"A mix of 30% new Blind Guardian style, 25% A Night at the Opera, 20% Nightfall in Middle-Earth, 20% Imaginations From the Other Side and 5% older work"

What does that mean?

You'd have to ask the vocalist of the band, Hansi Kürsch, that question since it is quoted that he has said so. A citation would be appropriate though. MacMoney 18:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Metallian.com link removal

Wizardry Dragon: Can you please explain why you don't think Metallian.com's Blind Guardian page is a suitable external link? I'm familiar with Wikipedia's external link guidelines, and it seems perfectly suitable to me. --Piet Delport 21:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm restoring the link. If anyone objects, please explain here. --Piet Delport 22:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a link farm for non-notable, non-verifiable sources. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 00:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, i'm familiar with those, thank you. Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability concern article topics and content, respectively, not external links.

Wikipedia:External links is the relevant guideline, and all its requirements are met by the link in question. If you disagree with my assessment, can you please explain why? --Piet Delport 14:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

(For the record, i have no relation to site whatsoever. The only reason i'm spending time here is because i found the content interesting, substantial, and well-presented. I am quite frankly perplexed by the persistent venom with which certain editors remove links to it.) --Piet Delport 14:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Fan sites of no merit with no editorial board and little editorial process have no merit being in an encyclopedia article. See WP:EL. I don't think you can have read it if you can't grasp it's most basic tenents. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 18:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm very familiar with them, and:

• They do not require having formal editorial boards or processes. (This would disqualify most external links currently on Wikipedia.)
• I disagree that Metallian lacks such processes.

Consider the facts, according to site:

It's the collaborative effort of at least 6 major contributers, going back 18 years. The content includes encyclopedic accounts on about 2000 metal bands, about 5000 album reviews, panel discussions with prominent industry professionals, and numerous band interviews[1]. The site's main editor, Ali, is professionally involved in the metal subculture, having been a writer and editor for several metal magazines (including one he co-founded), manager of the band Kataklysm, and volunteer presenter of a metal show on CKUT-FM.

Whatever this might make of Metallian, i don't think a "fan site of no merit" and "little editorial process" is one of the possibilities.

As for WP:EL, here's a point-by-point breakdown of how the page in question meets the criteria of what to link:

• Usefulness: It includes information not found in the article, including two interviews with Hansi Kürsch
• Tastefulness: Clean presentation, no advertising.
• Accessibility: Mostly plain text, without extraneous markup/images.
• Substantive longevity: The site has been running since 2002, and the existing content is quite stable.
• Neutrality: The site does not push any controversial views (except maybe "heavy metal rules").
• Accuracy: To the extent that i can tell, its facts are verifiable and correct, and it does not dabble in much speculation.

In addition, none of the criteria for link avoidance apply. (Since these are substantially longer and not overriding, i'll omit the point-by-point breakdown.)

If you disagree with me on any of the above points, or think there's any basic tenet that i failed to grasp, please enlighten me. --Piet Delport 04:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Wizardry Dragon: In your most recent removal of the Metallian link, why did you also have to go and remove the band's official MySpace page and MusicBrainz entry? Are you aware that the first is mandated by WP:EL, and the second is undoing the work of WikiProject MusicBrainz?

Myspace links are valid only in the context of Myspace, as they fail WP:V. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Page Moves) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 16:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, i want to re-emphasize what i noted earlier about WP:V: it is a content policy, concerning content added to Wikipedia. It does not concern external links, which have their own set of criteria (WP:EL). (WP:V would not automatically disqualify MySpace pages anyway. Like with anything else, their verifiability depends on their content.)

Secondly, if MySpace pages (or similar things) are the official ones of an article subject, they are specifically encouraged, not discouraged. (Why do you think {{MySpace}} exists?)

From WP:EL:

[Avoid] Links to blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace), or discussion forums unless mandated by the article itself. (In this context, "mandated by" includes "is the article subject's official one".)

From WP:MUSTARD#External links:

Articles on performers should have a link to their homepage(s), or other official pages (e.g., the record company's page for that artist, if there is one, or an official fanclub)

I hate to sound negative, but for someone who goes around accusing people of not reading the guidelines, you really should be familiar with all of this already. --Piet Delport 19:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I have re-removed the links. We are not a link farm. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 19:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I see that you have re-added the links, I removed them again as you have not addressed me here. If we are not using them as citations or as sources for the article, we really don't have a need for them. We are an encyclopedia first. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 23:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I was busy typing the response below, and i have already addressed your given concerns in my earlier responses to Wizardry Dragon.

Your claim that Wikipedia doesn't need to link to anything not used as citation or source borders on the absurd. (It's the very reason for having external link sections and WP:EL in the first place!) --Piet Delport 23:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The links in question are not link farming, they're in full accord with all relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines (as i try to explain above).

If you disagree with my interpretation, or think these links should be made an explicit exception, please explain yourself.

(If you disagree with the policies/guidelines themselves, this is not the place to do so. Work towards getting them changed before applying them here.) --Piet Delport 23:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you miss-read WP:EL? This band already has an official page. Also have you read my rational? If we are not using them as citations or as sources for the article, we really don't have a need for them. Plain and simple having the links do not improve the encyclopedia. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 23:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Explain then. They are not used in a citation, they are not adding the the article in any meaningful way, therefore it is link farming. If you continue to add them in despite consensus, you may be blocked. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Page Moves) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 23:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Eagle, Wizardry Dragon: did either of you even read what i've written? I have tried to explain in detail what the links add, and how removing them goes against Wikipedia's established policy, guidelines, and convention, and so far you haven't given any specific objection to my reasoning, nor a rationale for why this article should be an exception to the rule.

I'm trying my best to be reasonable and work towards consensus, but you don't make it easy by repeatedly claiming "link farming" without acknowledging or considering my side of the argument.

So, to repeat my position (in summary):

• The MySpace page adds a substantial amount of official content (news, tour/show details, competitions, ...) not found elsewhere, including the band's main site. For better or for worse, MySpace has become a significant form of online presence for many artists, which is why it's fairly standard to link to official artist profiles, and why there's even a dedicated template to do so (see its backlinks and failed deletion discussion for examples and rationale).
• The link to the MusicBrainz database entry is useful enough that there is an entire WikiProject dedicated to adding them to all applicable articles. You are, quite simply, trampling on the work of these editors.
• The Metallian link, which started this whole debacle, is useful for all the reasons already given above, and like the two previous links it is in accord with EL and MUSTARD. A large number of other Wikipedia articles link to online databases like Metallian, Encyclopaedia Metallum and the BNR Metal Pages when their content warrants it: are you advocating removing those links as well?

--Piet Delport 03:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Just adding to an already building concensus. Repeating what I've already said in a very clear edit summary...WP:EL only allows for 1 fan page of lengthy history and notability and evne then...if it doesn't add anything to the article that isn't already there....it's a no go. And if only 1 fan site is allowed...surely one exists that is WP:EL worthy because metallian is an extremely poor website that doesn't add anything of any quality anywhere in Wikipedia. And, for the record, Encyclopaedia Metallum is just as bad. Fair Deal 04:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

About adding to the article: What about Metallian's reviews and interviews, something WP:EL specifically makes provision for?

About being a poor website: Can please you elaborate/explain? To me, at least, Metallian compares favorably with the article's only current link[2]: better/longer interviews, no (annoying, blinking) ads, and it manages to spell the band's name right.

About "WP:EL only allows for 1 fan page" (ignoring for the moment that Metallian should count as an online magazine/database, not a specific fan page): Where does WP:EL say this? I looked, but couldn't find anything construable as this. --Piet Delport 05:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Created an article for the Blind Guardian discography

After seeing the message that the article was too long, I decided to move the discography to here. I don't think I've done anything wrong here, but if I've messed up with something here, then please go ahead and change it back.--Bahamut 17:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. The previous version's year formatting was according to Wikipedia convention, though; i've restored the main article's studio album listing to that. --Piet Delport 12:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Ok, as I mentioned, I'm your friendly cabal mediator. I understand you are having a dispute over the external links section, and the interpretation of the Wikipedia:External links guideline. Would I be correct to characterise the dispute as follows: "Piet wants to include links to an official Myspace page and to Metallian", "Eagle and Wizard don't"? - Francis Tyers • 15:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Not forgetting the MusicBrainz entry, I believe that's an accurate distillation of the affair. (The "Metallian.com link removal" section above constitutes the whole exchange, so far.) --Piet Delport 16:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll wait for the others to get back. Thanks :) - Francis Tyers • 17:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It is basically he wants the link and no one else does. He has been reverted by far more people than Eagle_101 (a sysop, by the way), and myself. He and I are just the ones that have discussed our reversion. If you were look at Piet's talk page, he has a history of wikiLawyering to support his disruption, and that's just what it is at this point - disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. He has been reverted no less than ten times, and he continues. Heck, even a friendly IP reverted him. As to mediation, I feel it would serve no purpose other than to be a soapbox for the user's wikilawyering. He can argue a link's usefulness all he wants, consensus is it is spam, and it has been removed, repeatedly. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 18:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and remain civil. Comment on the content and not the contributor. --Ideogram 23:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Wizardry, you should be aware (as a sysop) that sysops have no more power or rights than any other user. The fact of being a sysop does not automatically make you more respected. Am I to take it that you are refusing mediation? - Francis Tyers • 00:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

That is correct. It can serve no purpose in my opinion. Let the user add their link back, I really don't care, nothing is worth the stress of putting up with it. I can all but guarantee another user will remove them as per WP:EL and WP:SPAM however. And I do know that a sysop is not given any higher standing, however, quoting policy to a sysop as Piet did seems crass and disrespectful - anyone in a sysop position is well versed in policy. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 01:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, as you are unwilling to take part, I will advise Piet to take his complaint up the dispute resolution process. I must say that I find your attitude astounding for an administrator. The very fact that you wrote "quoting policy to a sysop as Piet did seems crass and disrespectful" is mind boggling. Your position entitles you to no more respect than any other user, and I have to say that your aggressive attitude needs to be checked. You would be well advised to re-read WP:CIVIL thoroughly. - Francis Tyers • 14:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Wizardry Dragon: I promise, i have no interest in proving points. I only care about this tedious and unpleasant dispute it to the extent that article quality is affected.

You make some serious accusations, but:

• You don't mention that i did not originally add the Metallian link, and that i am not the only one to keep restoring it.
• You don't mention that 7 of the 9 times i restored the Metallian link were in response to anonymous, rationale-free deletions (possibly vandalism). I reverted deletions by logged-in users only twice: once with Wizardry Dragon, yourself (after i answered your call to explain myself on the talk page, and waited an entire week for any response/objection before continuing anyway), and once with Eagle 101 (who had also deleted the band's MusicBrainz and (official) MySpace links at the same time). After this, i did not "continue": i stopped touching the article entirely, and turned to the talk page.
• Your claim of consensus is based on a dangerously small sample, and for at least two of the links, heavily contradicted by circumstantial evidence (see my summary above).

(On the other hand, i can't refute your wikilawyering point. I don't see anything on my talk page that would qualify, but since it's something i strive not to fall prey to, and know i can't judge on my own, i would appreciate it if you could point me at what you were referring to, in private or on the side.) --Piet Delport 01:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This is what i keep trying to say, though: these links do not qualify as linkspam, and according to WP:EL (as well as the more specific WP:MUSTARD), they should be included, not removed. A well-versed admin should know this.

I apologize for quoting policy, though; i know it's rude. (In my defense, i only resorted to it after three increasingly elaborate attempts at indirect reference failed.) --Piet Delport 02:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It is never rude to quote policy, and don't let this gentleman (or woman) persuade you otherwise. - Francis Tyers • 14:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not sysop (ask a b'crat to check flags if you don't believe that), nor do I want to be one at the current time. The only sort of administrative role I have is as the chair of the Wikipedia Neutrality Project. As is, I have recused myself from editing this article, as you would have gleamed if you red my message, so I think you will find Arbitration needless, and I think the arbitrators would agree. You are more than welcome to open a request, however. That is any Wikipedian's right. I find it odd to be accused of being uncivil - perhaps I am being a bit direct in what it is I am saying, but I am not trying to be uncivil, and I think you yourself would do best to assume good faith on my part as well. It seems inappropriate that a mediator would be "taking sides" in any dispute resolution, as you seem to have. My only interest is in protecting the integrity of the articles, and of Wikipedia. Perhaps I have mistaken Piet's intentions, but that is no reason to jump down my throat, so to speak. It would seem counterproductive, at least in my view, for a mediator to be attacking any side, and I do indeed feel a bit attacked. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 18:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Please point out where I have taken sides in this dispute. My apologies for thinking you an admin, I was wrong. Regardless, my advice stands. - Francis Tyers • 18:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I need to tell you that MedCab is not a form of user advocacy (though Im not against such things when the results are productive). MedCab is a mediation facilitator, and I simply feel that this has largely been yourself and Piet against myself, seeing as the ground you seem to have been taken with many of the statements here is his. In fact, it's why Eagle hasn't responded here - what's the point of responding if the mediator appears to have already taken sides? Perhaps this was not your intention, I honestly don't believe it was, at least originally, but as a mediator you should be mindful of appearances, in my opinion.

By the way, as a friendly notice, I would be careful what you refer to the higher end of dispute resolution - ArbCom - it is not something to be taken lightly, as they are very selective in the cases they take, and do not take to when people are simply passed on with no serious attempts at previous dispute resolution. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 18:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't mentioned ArbCom, and I don't know where you got the idea that I had. I am well versed in their running having been involved in several cases myself. I'm sorry if it seemed that I jumped down your throat, that wasn't my intention. And I understand that both yourself, Eagle and Piet are working for the betterment of the encyclopaedia. I think we all need to take a dose of WP:AGF here. Now, I have never attacked you, I have merely attempted to point out where your writings contradict policy. Now, I understand you are unhappy with myself as a mediator and would like to ask if you would prefer a different mediator? I notice you appeared to assume bad faith the first time with Piets mediation request. Perhaps you might do better on the second try? :) - Francis Tyers • 19:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Francis only took issue with your conduct (of which this unwise accusation can be considered an example). This is not the same as taking my (or any other) side in this dispute. --Piet Delport 22:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It was my understanding that the next step in the dispute resolution process is Arbitration. In any case now that we seem to have "gotten over" our preconceptions about each other, the compromise I indirectly suggested would seem reasonable. I suppose we'll have to wait for Piet's reply and go from there. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 20:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:MEDCAB is merely an initial informal attempt at resolving disputes. After that is tried and failed, the next step would be either WP:RFC or WP:MEDCOM. The ArbCom almost never deals with content disputes, so it would have to get pretty bad to get that far! :) Aye, we'll see what Piet thinks of the suggestion. It seems very reasonable to me. - Francis Tyers • 22:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You may wish to appeal to a broader community for input by asking at the Village pump, posting a Wikiquette alert, or filing a Request for Comment. --Ideogram 02:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Wizardry Dragon, Eagle 101: given everything presented thus far, will you at least concede that the MySpace and MusicBrainz links be restored? They should never have become entangled in this. --Piet Delport 06:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't really have an issue with the MusicBrainz one, and never intended to remove it (and never really noticed that I had). Sorry about that. The Metallian one is iffy, but I can extend the benefit of the doubt. The myspace link, however, just duplicates content already on their official site and the forums therein. I know - I visit the site, and forums, frequently. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 18:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

How do you feel about the compromise Piet? - Francis Tyers • 19:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I agree with Wizardry about the MySpace link. It doesn't really add any content and the page is poorly designed and has large amounts of Flash. - Francis Tyers • 19:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't really speak for its design (I kinda like it), but everything, and I mean everything, on that site is duplicated on the official site and it's forums. Tour dates, the movies, etc, are all available from the official site and it's associated forums. It does not seem productive to me to have redundant links. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 20:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Certainly not, I would agree that any more than 3-4 links is generally inappropriate, especially for bands. - Francis Tyers • 22:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks like we agree on restoring the MusicBrainz and Metallian links, and dropping the MySpace one, then? --Piet Delport 22:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. - Francis Tyers • 23:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, done. I did not restore the ODP link, but if another editor is motivated, they can probably go ahead. --Piet Delport 00:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Created a Blind Guardian template

Just to mention that I created a template for Blind Guardian and have added the template to all articles that are on the template.--Bahamut 14:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)