Wikipedia

Talk:Trivium (band)/Archive 3

< Talk:Trivium (band)
Latest comment: 9 months ago by Joe Capricorn in topic Settling the galamity/George Moore debate
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Alternative metal

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

On allmusic.com Trivium is described as: Thrash metal, Heavy metal and Alternative metal. Shouldn't we add Alternative metal in the Infobox? I think so. Link: Trivium Biography —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.174.108.97 (talk) 15:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to disagree, as all metalcore bands are labelled as alternative metal on AMG. I would be more inclined to add heavy metal than alternative metal, but I know it'd just encourage vandalism to the page as there are a lot of people who believe Trivium are not even "real metal" (whatever that is). James25402 (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The description on AMG says they blend metalcore, progressive metal and thrash. But AMG doesn't include metalcore as a proper genre, thats why it has heavy metal, thrash and alternative metal as their genre. I personally think they are trash (not thrash) metal because I don't really like them, but i'm not a music critic. So theres my point. —π₰₯ ĬLʡ$Φǚɭђµπt₴ŗ ₯₰π 10:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Progressive?

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Many progressive communities consider that Trivium are progressive metal due to the instrumentals and melodic guitar work. What is everyone elses view? --Coheed56 (talk) 06:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I have not heard them referred to as progressive, and they do not really fit the genre of progressive metal. The genres should remain the way they are now. Feel free to find some reliable sources calling them that, but make sure they know what they are talking about. Zanders5k (talk) 07:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, It is true that alot of people do think they know what they are talking about when they dont understand the meaning of progressive. Mainly its around youtube and myspace they are called progressive, however these are not reliable enough sources for Wikipedia --Coheed56 (talk) 07:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The only song really Progressive is The Crusade, being that its long (compared to most songs), there are odd meters and time signature changes, and also the arrangment is a little different. I hope their new stuff sounds more progressive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.18.160 (talk) 09:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Allot of Heavy metal bands in the 80s and early 90s did longer than average songs and " the instrumentals and melodic guitar work." as well as doing songs with unusual structures. Trivium would almost rightfully be listed as Heavy metal as opposed to Metalcore with their new sound. Spydrfish (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

What the hell is "melodic thrash metal"?

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I'm not asking what it is as such, but where are the sources for this? I haven't seen Trivium labelled as anything like this, I've seen "metalcore" and "thrash metal" and that's it. What is this 'melodic' part doing there when it's not sourced? And Roadrunner Records do not count as they're Trivium's label and will market them where they feel they will sell the most records, not necessarily what is true. James25402 (talk) 20:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, "melodic thrash metal" just redirects to "thrash metal" anyways... Fezmar9 (talk)
Here maybe, [1] --Kmaster (talk) 22:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
First party source.Inhumer (talk) 22:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


Heavy Metal

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Trivium are for sure heavy metal. They've haven't been metalcore since Ascendancy. I was looking at the A7x page the other day and people are insisting that A7x is heavy metal...YEAH RIGHT lol.

So I'm adding heavy metal in because it's part of what Trivium is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TapOut 013 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Lemme quote J Milburn on this one. "On Wikipedia, we cite what is said in the article to reliable sources rather than deciding for ourselves what is right." --Kmaster (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to add

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Also I would like to say most of today's media lists Trivium as heavy metal such as Metal Hammer, Kerrang, ect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.32.103 (talk) 22:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Jarred Bonaparte

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Who is Jarred Bonaparte, there are no links stating that he was ever a member of the band, so im deleting his name from former members —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.177.74 (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

ok in doing this, i screwed the page up... sorry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.177.74 (talk) 00:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC) ok i just fixed it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.177.74 (talk) 00:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he even exists! Jonasbrotherareterrible (talk) 12:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Its the formal vocalist of Sanctity —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.45.135.244 (talk) 13:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Jarred was one of the original members (at the same time when Brad Lewter was with the band). And no, there aren't any links stating this, but as I watched the band form and am a good friend of Matt's, I can vouch that it's a fact. However, I'll refrain from changing anything since it can't be cited from anywhere. 24.110.251.72 (talk) 08:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

'Trivium is a heavy metal band...'

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

If we are going to keep heavy metal in the infobox (which I personally think it should be there and could produce 2-3 sources to back it up), we should change the opening sentence to 'metal' so that we are using the metagenre of heavy metal in the opening sentence and the genre heavy metal in the infobox, otherwise the opening sentence will not be neutral and will place more emphasis on the genre of heavy metal than on thrash metal and metalcore. James25402 (talk) 13:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thrash metal and metalcore are subgenres of heavy metal. J Milburn (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Heavy metal is both a style of music and a metagenre. Thrash metal and metalcore come under the metagenre of heavy metal, not the style. If heavy metal were to stay in the infobox we would need to differentiate between the two, however last time I checked someone had removed it anyway so it doesn't matter. James25402 (talk) 12:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Consensus on Shogun title

Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

I've notice the a constant switch between 将軍 (Shogun), Shogun (将軍), Shogun, 将軍, etc. I have noticed this title switch throughout all Trivium related pages and think editors should agree upon one formatting and stick with it. I believe a consensus should be reached (here) on what it is to be referred to, and reduce the constant change of title. Fezmar9 (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Although I've noticed that even on the band's site the title seems to vary. Personally I say we keep it as per the original announcement: Shogun 将軍 [2]. At least until it's released and a title is (hopefully) set in stone GeneralAtrocity (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I don't see a reason to state the same thing twice in two different languages. I think it should be titled on wikipedia throughout all Trivium related pages simply as Shogun, then on the album page have some statement like: often referred to as 将軍. Fezmar9 (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I can't even see the 将軍 characters, and this is a english wikipedia anyway.--Kmaster (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Now someone has gone through and changed it to Shōgun, with a macron over the "o" to show pronunciation. Anyone in favor for this change? Fezmar9 (talk) 01:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Like you say, it seems to be spelt to emphasise pronunciation, which could prove problematic if it sets a precedent! Anyway, since all the official press releases refer to it as "Shogun", without any macrons, I'll change it back GeneralAtrocity (talk) 10:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I am pretty sure this is the only place the album is referred to with a macron. Words are not spelled with pronunciation marks, unless to show how the word is pronounced. Right where you left it in the intro to Shogun is probably the only place it belongs. Fezmar9 (talk) 17:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
That was my doing post album release as the macro was intended for use, however the general press release title is confirmed to be without the Macron, however the album can be listed as

将軍 (Shogun) or Shogun

for the purposes of the articles i think its best that we stick to "Shogun" Luke Daley (talk) 08:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Picture

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I deleted the picture which was wrong to begin with, it was a picture of some unknown band called sound of violence or somthing so i deleted it, hope someone can get an ACTUAL picture of trivium up there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.8.78 (talk) 01:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I have added a Promo Shot from the Throes of Perdition Material, this will be fine now Luke Daley (talk) 08:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Musical Style section

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

We should work on something like this to expand the article and give more info about the band themselves. I can't do it myself but here are some things that should be in this section when it's created:

  • An explanation of the vocal style and how it has changed,
  • Some genres they've been referred to as,
  • Their influences,
  • A brief description of how they are metalcore and how they are thrash metal and such,
  • How they once admitted to being metalcore and how later they denied ever being metalcore.

If Someone could start this I could work on it but I can't write it myself. KezianAvenger (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

musical style has been writen but may need some polishing ! but the guts are there atleast Luke Daley (talk) 10:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Melodic Death Metal

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The source for it doesn't call them Melodic Death Metal, it calls them Thrash and Metalcore. The only thing relating to Melo-death is this " Mixing early In Flames thrash influences with the song-structures and vocal melodies of Metallica’s first four albums,". And being influenced by 'early In Flames' doesn't make you Melodic Death Metal. Duck610 (talk) 12:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

article needs cleanup may have even been vandalized

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the beginnings of the band section it says paulo joined in 2009, not true it was, as far as i know 2004. It kinda jumps around a bit feels really rushed. Also I think there was a member in the band who played guitar before Corey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.119.161 (talk) 08:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

this has been corrected to 2004, and there was no guitarist prior to Corey as trivium were originally a 3 piece Luke Daley (talk) 11:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Good article nomination

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

After taking a look at this article, I'd say it's a pretty decent article, and although I do have some suggestions, I'd say it's well on its way to GA status. So, pending some work on my suggestions below, I've put the article's nomination on hold, a process that lasts about 7 days. After 7 days, I'll have to either pass or fail the article's nomination based on the improvements made. So, without further ado: (also, please note that I just GA reviewed The Crucified, and the two articles have some similar problems, so I just went ahead and copy + pasted a few of my suggestions from the previous nom. Sorry if that comes across as lazy, but I guess it is!)

  • The article's biggest shortcoming is it's scope. Specifically, the article is primarily a historical/biographical account, albeit with two lists tacked on to the end (members and discography). Surely, there's much more that could be said about the band? What about their sound? Their live performances? The group dynamic? Their influence? Their influenceS? Any controversies? Major awards? etc. I'm not saying all that needs to be in there, but the article should ideally go into more detail then "X happened. Then Y happened. After that, Z happened." As a suggestion, I think alot of the discussion of the band's various vocal techniques could be the start of a really good "Musical style" section, or something like that. Fixing
  • The lead is very short. Per WP:Lead, the lead should summarize the article's major points. In a way, this is linked to the above criticism: the lead is so short simply because there isn't much to the article to summarize.
  • Since you have an audio sample for "Pull Harder on the Strings of your Martyr", the article needs to have a better rationale for including it. Ideally, the article shouldn't just casually mention the song in a list of other songs (as it does now), but actually discuss the song more specifically. By rewriting some prose, justify why the audio sample should be there. Fixed
  • "who signed Trivium and sent the band to record its debut album," awkward sentence. "Sent to" implies a destination, not an action. Fixed
  • "The label signed Trivium and the band members and began writing songs for their major album debut." Not really sure what this sentence means, it's kind of weird grammatically. Would they have signed the band but not the members? Whose doing the writing, Trivium, the band members, or the label? Fixed
  • "the album was released on March 15, 2005." consider how specific you need to get date-wise. Is it really all that relevant what day the album was released? Same with "Trivium released The Crusade on October 10, 2006." Fixed
  • Billboard Heatseekers should be wikilinked. Fixed
  • "The album debuted at number 151 ... number four" I think "#151" and "#4" is more appropriate here. Is there an MOS for this? Fixed
  • I'm not so sure about the glowing reviews of Ascendancy and The Crusade. If they were offset with some negative reviews that would be one thing, but right now it seems kind of propaganda-ish. Another related problem is that they don't really say anything about the band in a historical context. For example, if you take a look at the Silverchair article, some critical opinions are mentioned (in the "Reception" section), but most of the quotes are specific to how the group is evolving/maturing at the time the critic is writing, not just how awesome they are. And even that article throws in a negative review once and a while (again, however, even the negative reviews apply to where the band is as a band, not just how much they suck).
  • "The band opened for Machine Head, who were one of Heafy's largest influences, Killswitch Engage, Iced Earth, and Fear Factory." is a little awkward because of the phrase in the middle of the list of bands they opened for. Consider rewording somehow. Fixed
  • "The band supported the album by touring with Iron Maiden, Metallica, a stage on the Black Crusade tour with Machine Head, Arch Enemy, DragonForce, and Shadows Fall, and an opening slot on the Family Values Tour with Korn." has a similar problem. Fixed
  • I don't think the in-line citation for Jarred Bonaparte should be in the infobox. The Band members section is probably a more appropriate place for it. Fixed

And that's pretty much it. Hopefully that doesn't seem like too much. Overall it's a well-written article that just needs a little polishing. Let me know when you think you've addressed my concerns, and I'll be happy to take another look. Good luck! Drewcifer (talk) 03:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure this comes as no surprise, but since none of my suggestions have been taken into account, I'm failing the article's nomination. There was a bit of disagreement about some of my critiques (the first bullet point mainly), so if you feel unsatisfied with my review feel free to nominate the article for reassessment. Just let me know if/when you do that, so that I can state my case there. Drewcifer (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed a few things that you mentioned but some things need to be done by editors with more experience. Machene Head, #151 and #4 have been fixed. I'm banana at creating new content butwhen someone creates some new sections I will contribute. I'll talk to J. Milburn! Jonasbrotherareterrible (talk) 12:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I really was going to, but I've been busy. :( Burningclean [speak] 21:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, ok, no worries. If and when you think the article is good to go, and that you've addressed my concerns above, feel free to drop me a line and I'll review the article right away, rather than having to put the article up at WP:GAN and wait 3 weeks until it gets reviewed. Drewcifer (talk) 07:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of these things have been fixed now. All we need now are a couple reviews of The Crusade and Ascendancy that criticize the band and to make the Lead longer and possibly and another section about something he suggested and we'll re-nominate it! That sound okay? KezianAvenger 19:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

information with no point

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I have removed this

In July 2009, Paolo had his wisdom teeth removed and was unable to play at the Rockstar Energy Mayhem Festival. Doc Coyle of God Forbid was his replacement. Trivium's sound guy was also unable to make it to the first date of the tour, and as a result there were a few minor technical difficulties.

for a second time as its really not important, as it goes into un-necicary detail

however i have replaced it with

In July 2009, Paolo was temporarly replaced with Doc Coyle of God Forbid this was to allow paolo time to have his wisdom teeth removed. he returned later that month Luke Daley (talk) 11:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed a lot of recent edits in an attempt to get back to a point before the recent questionable uncommented edits. I put this back however, since it looked legitimate. could use a citation though. ~Fenrisulfr (talk · work) 11:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no point to stating this information considering it is under the shogun album header and has no bearing on the shogun album... deleted.--149.32.224.33 (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Metalcore

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I clicked the link to Melodic Metalcore and made a shocking discovery... It links to the METALCORE page. Why List as melodic metalcore rather than just metalcore if they direct to the same page?? The info box is ment to as general as possible while still being accurate. Put 'melodic metalcore' in the 'Musical Sryles' section and Metalcore in the info box. The sence and be seen with 'Metallic Hardcore' bands why can't it be seen with 'Melodic Metalcore' bands? Duck610 (talk) 02:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I've changed it, most of the reviews I've seen just say Metalcore anyway. Unless there is a better arguement can it not be reverted?? They both link to the same page regardless. 220.245.148.53 (talk) 07:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Info Box genres

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think they should left as is; Metalcore, Thrash Metal, Heavy Metal.

Those are the most used genres by critics as far as I tell. The constent reshuffling and adding and removing of these (and other) genres is a waste of time and IS NOT improving the article.Ducky610 (talk) 05:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Main Picture

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I think we need a new picture for the infobox. At the moment it's not a particularlly high quality picture, Travis can't be seen and until i read the description i didn't relise Corey was even in it.

I think we need a picture like one of these 2: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3548/3788170748_7bcd201374.jpg

http://beatsmash.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Trivium-throes-of-perdition-band-shot.png

I relise that because of copyright we probably can't use these exact ones but if we could get one like these —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.196.42.88 (talk) 18:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I do have the throes promo up but somone keeps removing it .. theres only so many time i'm willing to add it again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.58.233.129 (talk) 14:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Lead Section

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

I would like to find out what songs have been released as singles and don't have articles. We claim 11 singles but only 9 have articles and 10 are in the thing at the bottom. Becoming the Dragon needs an article if it's a single as does the other unknown one. KezianAvenger 19:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone even paying attention? Can someone fix this with some beter info? I don't know what's true in that lead section but something isn't right. We need this fixed. And could someone add some more info to the lead as well? I would like to see this get GA but as the reviewer said, the lead section needs work. KezianAvenger™ 18:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

And do we need a page for shattering the skies above? Is it a single? Does anyone know? Please respond KezianAvenger™ 19:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Picture

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

whered it go?... 141.132.99.107 (talk) 06:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It got deleted as a copyright violation and was automatically removed from the article. I've found another one that seems similar and inserted it. ~ mazca talk 15:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Does anyone besides me think that this page should be semi-protected? The vandalism done to things like genres has annoyed me for a long time, and the protection should get rid of most of that and other vandalism. yes (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I really, really think this page needs to be protected... I mean, look at the recent history. 124.176.190.219 (talk) 02:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

TRAVIS QUIT

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

cuz hes a wussy so deal with it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.11 (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The Band Agreed they wanted to progress forward with a new drummer, see Kerraning Interview with matt Circa 2009 212.58.233.129 (talk) 10:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Genre in lead section

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

"Trivium is an American (metalcore / thrash metal / heavy metal) band from Orlando".

There's been an endless slow edit war over which of those words belongs in there. Any of them, superficially, appear vaguely correct to me, and I honestly can't say I care one way or the other. But it would be rather nice to get some kind of consensus about this. My initial thought is that "heavy metal" is probably best being that it's moderately specific and covers most of their output in some form - it's clear that their style has changed from more "metalcore" earlier on, to more "thrash metal" in more recent albums. Anyone have an opinion? I don't think any of those words are wrong, but it sure would be nice to have some degree of stability. ~ mazca talk 18:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Everyone's idea of thrash and metalcore is different. I suggest a neutral heavy metal, and add a note not to change it. --Confession0791 talk 18:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, that matches with my opinion. Unless there are any objections I think that is the way forward here. ~ mazca talk 18:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I also agree, Heavy metal or metal it should be left as, the specifics are discussed further in the article Dims25 (talk) 00:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like consensus is pretty clear (even if only among 3 people); I've left it as "metal" and added a hidden comment. Thanks all. ~ mazca talk 00:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Travis Cleanup

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think the Travis leaving section needs cleaning up. While i understand there was alot of fuss about his departure, i don't think all of it is necessary here and either needs to have its own section or needs to be shortened and taken out of the headline to clean up that article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.73.37 (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

In Waves

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"Trivium's new single "In Waves" was leaked..."

Has it actually been confirmed anywhere that this will actually be their first 'single' of the new album? As far as I can tell its just a song they have released onto the internet much like the did with Detonation off The Crusade or Kirisute Gomen of Shogun... Dims25 (talk) 01:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

THIS BAND is nothing but METALCORE, do you need a biscuit to go with that tea?

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

isnt it hillarious how shallow the metalhead's mind is? Some even say Trivium should be classified mainly as a thrash band, but no. They're only metalcore! Need proof? This band HAS NO difference to The Word Alive other than lower sung vocals and no keyboards, and TWA doesn't even have that many keyboard part. It's the same exact stuff, the same exact kind of metal. They're metalcore, if you disagree then I guess apparently having different haircuts, wearing your own merch (which is poor sporting, btw), trying to sound your best like a James Hetfield wannabe and saying "fuck" every other word live (including interrupting your own set by doing so) differs from your band being metalcore into automatically being thrash. I'm sorry The Word Alive does none of these things which apparently differs them so much from Trivium even though these two bands sound just the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.233.136.160 (talk • contribs)

i agree, more MetalCore than thrash but theyre still a thrash band also 108.69.46.20 (talk) 03:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

As a listener of both bands, I've seen the similarity as well. I mean The Word Alive has a lot of the talent Trivium does in terms of drumming, wild guitar solos and screamed vocals but Wikipedia bases their information off of sources rather than original research so even if the citations that claim Trivium to play thrash metal don't match your opinion, it still has to stay per what the sources say. That's just how the website works; a bunch of proven information all put together on a page in the neatest way possible. • GunMetal Angel 04:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The world alive are similar to trivium (except more -core) but even they arent pure metalcore... ONLY metalcore is atreyu; drop dead, gorgeous; all that remains etc... trivium are far less -core than these bands.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.144.180.22 (talk) 08:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, The Crusade and Shogun are more thrash, and Ascendancy and In Waves are more metalcore. So both apply. – Confession0791 talk 09:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

NOT THRASH METAL

Latest comment: 12 years ago17 comments10 people in discussion

Trivium is not Thrash metal. They may seem like it, but if you listen carefuly, you will realise its nothing but the emo-metalcore sound from the previous albums. And no, ripping off Metallica, Slayer, and Megadeth do not make you thrash metal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.61.168 (talk) 00:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we cite what is said in the article to reliable sources rather than deciding for ourselves what is right. J Milburn (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

- Then you have obviously never listened to Trivium at all have you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.61.168 (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've listened, I think they're a bloody awful band, but I am not saying where I think they are genre-wise as what we think is irrelevent. J Milburn (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it really doesn't matter what we think, it matters what the "professionals" say. Whether they are professional or not in your opinion is irrelevant, the fact is that they are the music critics and, on this website, their opinion means more than any of our's do. James25402 (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC) Well at least you think their aweful T. Anderson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.82.239 (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


Trivium is definitely not thrash metal. They are a metalcore band that are trying to cover up their tracks. If you look back at this interview http://www.geocities.com/manticorabe/InterviewTRIVIUM.html] They have already admitted to being metalcore in the past. Now look at them. Every interview they do they try to say that they were not ever metalcore. Trivium = a metalcore band. No debate about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diddydang55 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

So because they deny ever being metalcore, that means they are? Firstly, what the band says about their music means nothing. Secondly, it is well-sourced that Trivium used to be a metalcore band, clearly this article cares not for what Trivium calls themselves. Thirdly, there are reliable sources calling Trivium thrash metal, so it doesn't really matter what you think. James25402 (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok you have some serious interpretation problems! I never said that what they're saying means anything, moron. I think you should learn to read. I was pointing out that they are a METALCORE band that are trying to cover up their tracks. And there are credible sources that also label their first 2 cd's thrash metal and it is clear that they are metalcore. The Crusade is definitely not thrash metal. You have to remember that all of those sources are biased. It's all a gimmick to pass them off as thrash metal. Listen to real thrash metal, then listen to Trivium. If Trivium is real thrash metal than Slipknot is real death metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diddydang55 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Please familiarise yourself with WP:CIVIL before commenting again. Thank you. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
And once again you have backed nothing up with citations, making your opinions worthless. Unless you are going to back your opinions up with sources, it is wholly irrelevant what you think of the band. James25402 (talk) 21:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This source right here says they aren't thrash metal. http://www.sputnikmusic.com/album.php?albumid=12471 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diddydang55 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That appears to be a user-submitted review on a non-commercial site run by fans; as such it is inherently unreliable. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

They arent thrash metal.They are mostly metalcore,with some exceptions,ill try to find a reliable source and change it because allmusic isnt a gospel and it looks like a lot of fanboys are sourcing it to support a lot of emo bands as 'metal' on wikipedia.77.49.67.212 (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't consider it very wikipedia-ish to argue about something that's completely subjective, all that needs to be done is make a list of genres they have been claimed as and cite each claim accordingly and never claim it to be fact, that's how objectivity works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valethar (talk • contribs) 09:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Trivium ARE Thrash Metal. It's clear as day. The Crusade and Shogun are both CLEARLY Thrash Metal. And unlike you I am not only using my personal opinion but the opinions of ALL the articles written about both of the above albums. melodic metalcore is a wast of time being listed, who keeps doing it? The first 2 albums are Metalcore, the Crusade is Thrash and Shogun is a combination of both. By the fact the the word 'emo' has been mentioned at all it proves that some people have no idea what they are talking about considering the majority of Trivium's songs have nothing to do with the wining and self pity that is emo themes and the music isn't even close to sounding emo. The bias shown on *wikipedia* articles is getting out of hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.166.126 (talk) 10:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

thrash metal should be replaced with groove metal, which trivium are listed as on metal archives — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.220.148 (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

^ I don't know what's funnier, that statement or the fact that you trust a website like that • GunMetal Angel 18:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

NOT Trivium VI

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just to make things clear, the name of the new album is not going to be Trivium VI. I tweeted Paolo asking that question and he confirmed the name of the album is not Trivium VI. I have changed the title of the topic to 'Sixth studio album'. Cheers :) Sandshark23 (talk) 08:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Vengeance Falls article

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've created an article for the upcoming Vengeance Falls. If anyone has anything they'd like to add to spruce up the article a bit all contributions would be appreciated. Also I have no idea how to upload a cover, and the cover art has been revealed as well. TJD2 (talk) 08:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

groove metal

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

should be one of the genres. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.220.148 (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Funny stuff • GunMetal Angel 18:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Ironically, Vengeance Falls does have more of a Groove metal flavor. We need some sources though to add it to the articles. — Confession0791 talk 20:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Peter Bond

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Peter "James" Bond was a member of the fictitious metal band Spinal Tap. Trivium posted the tweet as a joke, so please don't revert the changes I've made to the article. Thank you. TJD2 (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Touring Bassist Monstronsity's Mike Pggione

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think this should be added since he toured with the band as a temporary bassist back in 2004. http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/trivium-secure-slot-on-iced-earth-tour/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:AB41:4100:E137:94E4:75B8:B024 (talk) 06:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Trivium (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Trivium (band). 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:

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) 14:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Trivium (band). 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:

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) 18:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Trivium (band)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zawl (talk · contribs) 12:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


I will be reviewing this article as a Good Article nominee. — Zawl 12:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

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. —
  1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. The lead is too short.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
  2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. —
  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). Unreliable sources are used.
  2c. it contains no original research. There are many unsourced claims.
  2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. —
3. Broad in its coverage:
  3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. —
  3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). —
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. —
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. —
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. —
  6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. —
  7. Overall assessment. As noted in the comments below, there are many issues.

Reviewer comments

  • The first citation in the lead which goes to a Facebook post is not relevant to the text. It appears to be promotional as it tells people to buy their product. It does not provide a description of the band like how it's written in the lead. "The band has sold over one million albums worldwide" is supported by a self-published primary source. This may be considered original research and is not suitable.
You misunderstand the purpose of the Facebook link. It is to prove the band was established in 1999, and by using this we have official word from the band. And the second ref is not considerable as original research, but you're right, it is in fact a self-published primary source. I replaced it with a new one.
  • The word latest is not appropriate as it is a variable and should be replaced with a fixed value such as eighth. The comma should be removed after the period at "entered a studio to record its debut album, Ember to Inferno.,". LetsSingIt may be a website with user-generated content and would generally be unreliable. "Trivium also played at Road Rage 2005 [15]", the space between the citation and 2005 should be removed for tidiness. "Later in 2007 the band received their first Gold Record in the UK for more than 100,000 Sales", this is only supported by the record label's website. There should be a reliable source to verify this claim.
  • The album was also recognized as the "Album of the Year" by Kerrang! magazine - this is unsourced. Trivium was named the best live band of 2006 at the Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards - not in source. Recording ended June 2008 (in?). "The group will forgo the complex epic compositions, tricked-out leads and seven-string guitars that characterized its past two albums. Trivium will take an approach similar to that of its second album Ascendancy (2005) by using uncluttered riffs, Drop C# tuning, and more straightforward solos" - this is taken directly from the Guitar World source, which constitutes both a copyright violation and plagiarism.
  • Their song 'Strife', the double quotation mark is preferred. "On July 17, 2015, the band launched a website "snow.trivium.org" teasing the new album" - it's not a new website, it's just a subdomain of their original website. "They also changed their Facebook profile to the same picture as on the website" - is this even necessary? It's not in the provided source so it may be considered OS. "Corey Beaulieu defended the band's decision regarding changing drummers in an interview", this statement is supported by a Wordpress source, which in general is unreliable.
  • Trivium has been described as heavy metal,[66] metalcore,[67][68][69] thrash metal,[70][71][72][73] progressive metal,[74][75][66][76] melodic death metal[74] and groove metal.[77][78] - WP:OVERKILL.
Genres are typically exceptions to overkill. Maybe like five or six is excessive, but it's not uncommon to see three or four lumped into one musical style section. See A Perfect Circle, for example. However, some of those don't even look reliable to me so I'll probably cut some anyway.
  • In the Influence section, there is name-dropping of tons of people, which should be trimmed to include just 2-3, for the sake of credibility. Much of the Lyrical themes section are unsourced. Only the last line is relevant to the source. The Awards and nominations section, which is a significant part of the article, is totally unsourced.
  • The lead is too short and does not summarize the entire article in a sufficient length. As this is an article with about 20,000 characters, there should be at least 2-3 paragraphs per MOS:LEADLENGTH.
  • Trivium EP - a redirect which redirects to this article is linked in the second paragraph of the Formation and Ember to Inferno (1999–2004) section. It should be delinked to remove the redirect circle.
  • Web sources include the following:
  • au.music.ign.com
  • blabbermouth.net
  • community.hottopic.com
  • decibelmagazine.com
  • distortedsoundmag.com
  • entertaimnet.wordpress.com
  • facebook.com
  • fourteeng.net
  • guitarworld.com
  • heavymetal.about.com
  • i.imgur.com
  • itunes.apple.com
  • kerrang.com
  • knac.com
  • letssingit.com
  • lordsofmetal.nl
  • loudwire.com
  • metalhammer.co.uk
  • metalinjection.net
  • metalinside.de
  • metalinsider.net
  • metalunderground.com
  • metalvoid.com
  • moderndrummer.com
  • news.spotify.com
  • ozzfest.com
  • phoenixnewtimes.com
  • roadrunnerrecords.com
  • rollingstone.com
  • soundwavefestival.com
  • spinitloud.com
  • sputnikmusic.com
  • stylusmagazine.com
  • teamrock.com
  • theprp.com
  • thoughtco.com
  • thrashhits.com
  • triviumworld.com
  • ultimate-guitar.com
  • wacken.com
  • Primary sources such as the label's and band's websites are too many. While they may be useful for verification purposes, they make an article look unconvincing. Citation 86 is exhaustively long and should be trimmed. Proper author attributions should be added to the citations and single-purpose references such as this, which is used to prove the existence of the material it supports, shouldn't even be there. — Zawl 15:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Zawl, I'm stunned you're generous enough to leave this on hold. The nominator's made one edit to the article and hasn't edited since nomination. I'd try to fix it, but will shortly have my hands full with Evanescence and have already volunteered to rescue two other nominations in review should they need it. If you decide to leave this open awhile I might attempt to fix it, but I don't know. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 01:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
It's my first GA review and the issues look like they can be fixed but just requires some effort. I'm leaving it open but if they're not solved in 7 days, it'll be failed. — Zawl 02:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
In fact, you should probably fail this. I see much bigger problems than what you've listed, and fixing those wouldn't be enough. The lead's incredibly short, there's a maintenance template in the article that's been there for two years (a quickfail criterion - while that one is no longer valid, a refimprove template above the whole article would be appropriate in its place), and various other unsourced content is littered in the article. A rescue mission would likely take >7 days, because some of it needs expansion and/or rewriting too. I'd have never nominated the article in this condition. Around the point of In Waves, the article's history starts to fall apart, and their style section is poor. I doubt I'll be able to find references and be able to distinguish what's fact and what's not in time, but I can try since my review's still waiting. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 16:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Revert of good faith edits

Latest comment: 4 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

Hi @Tobi999tomas:, can we discuss the recent revert of changes by me and @Vdubs21:? Are there issues with specific edits, or with all of them? A blanket revert seems quite heavy-handed. I'm new to Wikipedia so I hope I haven't broken any guidelines, but the edits were all in good faith and I believe the changes improve the article in the following ways:

  • Fixing dead links
  • Add more information to the lead (obviously still not perfect, but I think it's more informative than the current one). The current tags explicitly say that the lead needs more information.
  • Add more references (Alex joining, awards). The current tags say that the article, and specifically the awards section, needs more references.
  • In the "for other uses", specify this page is about the band (I think this makes it clearer, but not 100% sure on the wiki guidelines for when to use each tag)
  • Remove "Underground Interviews" award because the site does not seem to be significant compared to, e.g. Kerrang! or the Grammys (I could not find any sources for this other than the dead link to their website)
  • I believe Jared Dines is a former touring member, at least for a few shows when Matt had to stop touring (along with Howard Jones). We should find a source for this (there's certainly video evidence from the tour videos/vlogs).

Many thanks,

Quuxbazbarfoo (talk) 10:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm just popping in on the Jared Dines situations. There's a seperate List of Trivium band members page which includes him and cites him as a touring member. As there is a separate page for all members, this main page should only include the recording members according to the guidelines. Issan Sumisu (talk) 10:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Ok, good to know, thanks for the clarification! Quuxbazbarfoo (talk) 10:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

As there has been no response, I've un-reverted all changes apart from the Jared Dines one. I'm happy to discuss the changes here further. Quuxbazbarfoo (talk) 10:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Tobi999tomas: Can we please have a discussion about these changes rather than repeated reverts? If you have specific problems with some of my changes I'm happy to discuss, but I believe they improve the article and work towards fixing the issues that have been pointed out with tags (such as poor referencing and the lead not having enough information).

Regarding your points in the edit:

  • I think it is useful to include genres and musical styles in the lead, as that is one of the most important things people will likely be looking for if they have heard of a band and are thinking about listening to them. The lead should be a summary of the article, and musical style is one of the defining elements of any band.
  • And I believe the wikilinking of the awards is (a) useful and (b) doesn't detract in any way. If someone wants to know more about the awards they can click the link; if they don't they can ignore the link, all it does is change the colour. An argument could be made for a separate link rather than linking in the heading, but having some form of link is useful.

Quuxbazbarfoo (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Tobi999tomas: Thanks for the response. Bringing the discussion here to the talk page so other editors can chime in if they wish; here's Tobi999tomas' comment from my talk page for everyone else's reference:
As per MOS:LEAD "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should [...] summarize the most important points". For this reason I think the lead should include a description of the band's musical style, as this is one of the defining points of the band. Separate sections are for further reading, but a comprehensive summary should still be included in the lead.
The lead section should be a comprehensive overview for someone who has never heard of Trivium before, so they can get an idea of the band without listening to them.
This also agrees with existing articles such as Metallica, a featured article (the gold standard of Wiki articles which we should be aiming for here), which includes in the lead "The band's fast tempos, instrumentals and aggressive musicianship"
Quuxbazbarfoo (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I already explained, everything is written under musical style section. No need to add links to the awards, many other pages are like that. Metallica description is just in one sentence to derive to big four. Trivium does not have that big notification to do it. And people always will read all of it, not just the summary. Also, why so many details about the band members of what they do? Only the main instruments that they play is already alright. No need for details. Why is necessary so much details, when they are sections for it to read more details. If the details are already in summary, then where is the need for other sections, we could delete them right now. So stop this, cause you already said that you don't want any edit war, and you are causing one. --Tobi999tomas (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for responding (and I welcome the input of other editors as well on these changes).
I disagree the lead bit. Not everyone will read the whole article, the whole point of the lead is to summarise the *whole* article for people who don't want to read it all. This is evidenced on Wikipedia:LEAD, which says "The average Wikipedia visit is a few minutes long." and "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic."
The bit about musical style in the lead in this article is only one sentence as well. I don't see why we shouldn't aim to get this article up to the same standard as the Metallica one just because the band is less well-known.
What's the harm in adding links to the awards? Wikipedia:Links says the following should be linked: "Relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully" and "Proper names that are likely to be unfamiliar to readers", both of which apply in this case (no, we can't assume that a reader knows what all the awards are. I certainly didn't before reading this article.). However, it does note that section headings themselves should not be linked, so a small description (my preference) or {{see also}} tag should probably be used instead. Again we can take inspiration from a featured article, List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Metallica, which does link to many of the awards.
Are there problems with the other changes you keep reverting as well, or just with these two? Specifically, making the "for other uses" bit clearer (I'm not too sure on this one myself. Input/feedback is appreciated) and removing the "Underground Interviews" award because it's unsourced and not very notable.
Can we restore some of the changes while continuing to discuss the other ones?
Many thanks for the feedback,
Quuxbazbarfoo (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
I have to disagree with the linking, cause many filmographies of many actor's pages also don't need linking every single thing. And about that "Underground Interviews" award, it is literally there a link that will send to the award of that year.--Tobi999tomas (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
I do feel that the links will help (especially for the less well-known awards), but fair enough if you don't think so. We can wait for another editor's opinion.
Sorry, I meant undersourced, not unsourced. The link to the award's website (which is now a dead link) is the only source of the award I've been able to find, and I don't think that's reliable as per Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If you can find some more reputable sources I'm happy to leave it in.
As you have not replied to my other points, does that mean you're happy for me to make those changes again while we discuss these ones?
Thanks, Quuxbazbarfoo (talk) 13:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I agree that we should wait for the third voice here to come for a conclusion, because this is really going nowhere. --Tobi999tomas (talk) 06:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Third opinion

  Response to third opinion request:
I removed this entry because the dispute is between more than two editors (not to mention there is more than one issue being discussed). Consider opening a thread at WP:DRN. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 19:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1Q8Id5bUYs SirZPthundergod9001 (talk) 02:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, what are we supposed to do about this? An unlisted, self-published Youtube video sent solely for the purpose of changing the name on a Wikipedia article? I know of no precedent that would establish this as actionable, but it makes it even harder because of two things: it was offered in the first place to a grossly unacceptable user-gen source (EM), and the artist in question hasn't been active in either of his notable bands for almost 20 years (the latter group was less successful and broke up 14 years ago). Do we act any differently about former names? Is there a precedent to set here? The problem is there's no press who cares to cover this change at this point because the artist (it would appear) has been out of the light for quite some time. dannymusiceditor oops 02:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
a deadname refers to a person who no longer existed, so in my view the current name should be used in all instances, regardless of notability Joe Capricorn (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

past member: galamity :legal name change from dead name

Latest comment: 9 months ago4 comments4 people in discussion

galamity is the current legal name of Trivium's 2003 guitarist

the previous name is a dead name as they have transitioned their gender

federally issued legal documents are viewable, verifiable, and presented by the member themselves via the video url below:

youtu.be/U1Q8Id5bUYs?si=ZKp6vZOxk4Bwq_xS

Galamity33 (talk) 05:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Galamity33 Arguably, under WP:BLPPRIMARY, legal documents should not be used as source for verifying a name change. We need coverage of the name change in an independent reliable source. Even so, because the member in question was notable only under the former name, it would need to be included. —C.Fred (talk) 11:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
MOS:DEADNAME only discusses the deadname being discussed in the article if the article is about the subject, not a member of the subject of the article: "In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if they were notable under that name". Is there a different policy discussing your last sentence or is it based on that same sentence? Issan Sumisu (talk) 11:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
And 2 entries under that:
There are living persons who publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:
it is not unduly self-serving;
it does not involve claims about third parties;
it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
the article is not based primarily on such sources. DoomedCowboy (talk) 12:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Settling the galamity/George Moore debate

Latest comment: 9 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm noticing there is something of an edit-war going on with some users adamant on using galamity's deadname or outright removing them from this page, so I feel that consensus should be reached on how to move forward.

There are two basic and easily verifiable facts to consider: 1. galamity, then known as George Moore, played in Trivium in 2003 - they are credited in the liner notes of Ember to Inferno 2. galamity has legally changed their name and shown proof of this

I don't see the issue in updating the former members to reflect this name-change, perhaps including a note that galamity is formerly known as George Moore. This would be the most neutral and comprehensive edit. Joe Capricorn (talk) 14:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trivium_(band)/Archive_3&oldid=1214164977"