Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Metal/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Classic metal

I didn't get much of a response on the talk page of that article so I thought I should try this place instead. What I wanted to know and still do is why the article is called classic metal instead of traditional heavy metal? Is there a consensus I missed about which term is more appropriate? I personally feel the term classic indicate something from the past and only the past while traditional metal seems more broad. There are still many bands that play traditional metal today. Describing new bands or new albums as classic metal just seemed rather odd to me. When I did my work on the folk metal article, I came across descriptions of bands like The Lord Weird Slough Feg and Mägo de Oz as traditional metal. Both bands released debut albums in the 1990s. Blaze Bayley was only formed in 2000 while Halford was formed only one year earlier. These bands obviously perform "classic metal" or better put, traditional heavy metal. Other bands like Scorpions, Maiden and Priest are still active and release new albums in our contemporary time period. As it stands right now, the article is used only to refer to "heavy metal bands from the 1970s and 1980s who peaked later than the late 1960s and early 1970s pioneers of the genre." Why is there no room to mention new bands that formed and emerged later than the 1980s? I think the restriction is just blatant original research. With that in mind, if we were to remove that restriction, I feel this article would be better off with a name change to traditional heavy metal. Most websites like Allmusic.com and Rockdetector.com just use the term heavy metal without any prefix, of course. About.com does use traditional metal. I do not know what, if anything, use the term classic metal other than this wikipedia article and its many mirrors. Just wondering what others think.--Bardin (talk) 12:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Traditional metal is a re-direct to the main heavy metal article. And Classic metal should be a re-direct to heavy metal. Both of them are typical fairy tale genres. Traditional/classic... it's just heavy metal. If some new band comes along that plays a heavy metal style that is similar to what heavy metal bands were playing in 1970... it isn't 'traditional' (heavy metal never went away) or 'classic' (a POV cruft term that is WAY too abundant on Wikipedia)... it's just heavy metal. 156.34.220.124 (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that article stinks of original research to me. Looks like it's just heavy metal- I'd propose redirecting it to the main article on the talk page, and, if there's no response after a few days, just do it. Nothing worth merging, as nothing is sourced. J Milburn (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It did occurred to me that the scope of the article overlaps too much with the main heavy metal music page. A rename to traditional heavy metal music would at least help to shift the focus from covering the same ground towards an area that the main heavy metal music article does not cover: namely, the history of traditional heavy metal since the 1980s, encompassing those bands that emerged thereafter as well as bands that only made it big after then. Does this area really need an article for itself? I cannot really say, not being well-versed or interested in it. I'll put up the redirection proposal as you suggested. Incidentally, most heavy metal subgenre articles are as poorly sourced as this classic metal page. I've worked on a few genre articles myself but there's still plenty more. --Bardin (talk) 14:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I've looked through wikipedia templates but I couldn't find anything for a redirect proposal. Did you meant a merge proposal? --Bardin (talk) 14:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Nah, don't bother with a template, just bring it up on the talk page. I certainly don't support a merge due to the OR/unreferenced nature of the article. J Milburn (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the proposition of merging. This idea is not justified to me. Classic metal here is just a word used to refer to traditional heavy metal bands like Judas Priest. I disagree with the use of the word classic metal, but I think the place of article is justified. It is supposed to deal with the original subgenre of metal. The music of bands like Iron Maiden, Accept, Judas Priest, Dio played is A specific subgenre of its own.

Now the article named "heavy metal music" deals with metal in the larger sense including every subgenres. it just doesn't deal with the original subgenre. Since every subgenre has its own article, I don't see why this subgenre should not be dealt on its own. This is unfair and not justified. I think Bardin and IP:156.xxx.xxx.xxx. are confused with the fact Heavy metal can be used in different senses. As a matter of fact "Heavy metal" can be used as a word to refer to the ensemble of the metal subgenres.(In this sense Heavy metal= metal). But the word heavy metal is also frequently used to refer to the original genre of metal.(in this sense heavy metal=traditional heavy metal). His arguement is based on the fact everything that this article covers is within the scope of heavy metal music. Yes of course it does since the heavy metal article deals with every subgenres including the original heavy metal. But the same goes for Death metal or gothic metal then. heavy metal music article deals with Death metal and gothic metal, now noone is suggesting to merge the death metal or goth articles into the heavy metal music article.

IP:156.34.220.124, the term "traditional heavy metal" is not fairy tale genre, this is just a convenient word to avoid confusion with the fact heavy metal music can refer to any subgenres including Death metal. of course the real true term is indeed Heavy metal, but the article Heavy metal deals with every subgenres, not the original classic style of heavy metal exclusively. Alpha Ursae Minoris (talk) 15:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again, I note that you are not a native English speaker so I assume you're not trying to insult me on purpose. I would appreciate it though if you would refrain from calling me confused. I am perfectly aware that there is more than one possible usage for the term heavy metal. If you were to look carefully at my original post here, I was not calling for any deletion, redirect or merger but merely questioning the name of the article. I feel that J Milburn and 156.34.220.124 made some good points in their remarks however so I'm inclined to agree now with J Milburn's proposal that the classic metal page be redirected to the main heavy metal music article. --Bardin (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Bardin, If you took it as an insult,it wasn't one. Sorry if I misunderstood you.FAlpha Ursae Minoris (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Alpha Ursae Minoris, do you have any referenced to back up what you are saying? I do not believe we have a separate sub genre here, I believe we have heavy metal with no subgenre. These bands are heavy metal; not death metal, not thrash metal, not post rock-influenced-love-grind, these are bands that don't need a subgenre- they're just metal. J Milburn (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe we do need this article. This enables a distinct article from heavy metal music, which deals with heavy metal and its subgenres, and the specific scene of the early metal artists such as Iron Maiden, Dio, Accept, et cætera. While the genre was simply referred to as "heavy metal" at the time (since the bands had a more uniform sound), metal has since then specialized in a number of subgenres. While "classic metal" or "traditional heavy metal" (I prefer the latter as an article title) is not an actual genre name given by music critics trying to coin a new term, I believe it describes the sound of the early heavy metal artists in an encyclopedic way. In brief, I feel that the article should stay, but the title should be changed to "traditional heavy metal". Zouavman Le Zouave 17:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, Zouav explained better than me what I was trying to say.

I do not believe we have a separate sub genre here, I believe we have heavy metal with no subgenre

J Milburn, i'm not sure to understand exactly what you imply here by heavy metal, but how can you explain then that the article heavy metal (music) deals with metal(including Death metal and every subgenres) not just the original style called heavy metal.Bands like Judas Priest, Iron Maiden and such are called heavy metal bands as opposed to thrash bands like Slayer for example. But the heavy metal music article deals with a wider sense to heavy metal from the beginging to the end,it refers to heavy metal simply meant as "metal" including every subgenre. For example in the caracteristic chapter of heavy metal: "Today, keyboards are used in styles such as progressive metal, power metal, and symphonic metal. Some nu metal bands incorporate hip hop elements, which may include a DJ scratching and creating various sound effects."

As for the sources, I got books who deal with the term heavy metal as a synonym to metal when some other use the term heavy metal to refer only to the original style of Judas Priest and black sabbath. I'm not really considering the original style as a "sub"genre, since this is the very first one. But this original style is clearly different say from Thrash or black. I guess everyone knows there are clear differences between the original sound of bands like Judas Priest and the one of band of say Slayer or Mayhem.... The orignal sound is called heavy metal, but any subgenre of it can sometimes be called heavy metal as well. So to avoid confusion some use the informal term Traditional heavy metal (I have published sources for this term as well as the term classic metal) even Though I agree they're only informal terms, used to avoid confusion. As for the distinction between the two sense.FAlpha Ursae Minoris (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) If you have sources that use these terms, could you please rewrite the article to include them? As it stands, it just reads like someone has decided that there is a gap, and so has written the article to try and fill it. My point above was that this isn't a subgenre- it refers to bands that play heavy metal without any specific sub-genre, meaning that information surrounding it belongs in the main article. However, if there are sources referring to it, I welcome it as a separate article. That's what's important here- not whether we think the genre does or doesn't exist, not whether we think there's a gap for it, but whether we have sources discussing it. J Milburn (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I have sources that use both "Classic metal" and "traditional heavy metal" as an unformal use to refer to the older sound of heavy metal. The sourced concerning the term "classic metal" is already featured in the article. But I'll be adding the other one concerning traditional heavy metal soon... gotta check the page and the ISBSN code. However I don't have explicit sources which state that the Heavy metal term can be polysemic and be used differently either as global genre or as the original older style. But I have books which deal either with with the term heavy metal as the older style(Dunoyer's Encyclopedia of music and Sharpe Young's Metal guide) and other sources (Oxford companion to popular music) that deal with the term "heavy metal" as a synonymous to "metal" including every subgenres.FAlpha Ursae Minoris (talk)09:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Correction: after reading back the source. I have to specify the genre is actually called "classic heavy metal" (not classic metal) by Ian Christe in the book "Sound of the Beast"(p.91-92) and is applied to such bands like Black Sabbath, Judas Priest or Scorpions.FAlpha Ursae Minoris (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with Alpha Ursae Minoris. We definitely need a separate heavy metal article, and it should be renamed to traditional heavy metal. Kameejl ^(Talk) 10:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't. That's not how genres work. Just like punk rock, or rock music in general, the name refers to the overarching style and all its subgenres. Just redirect Classic metal, is what I say. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

WesleyDodds, look at it this way. On one side, you've got users who back up their proposals with sources and examples, and on the other, you have a user that simply claims that "it's not how genres work". Writing an article about traditional heavy metal would not constitute an original research since Alpha Ursae Minoris apparently has considerable amount of material covering the subject. And I am terribly sorry to contradict you, but the original genre known as "heavy metal" back in the day where it had no subgenres definitely has uniting musical characteristics that make it distinguishable from the subgenres known today (black, death, power, doom, thrash, etc.) Zouavman Le Zouave 11:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

What I believe WesleyDodds is saying is that 'classic heavy metal' is heavy metal, end of story. It's not like we have a different article for the genre of music played by the founding punk bands, though we do have a separate article for the genres that later split off from punk rock. We have to decide whether 'traditional heavy metal'/'classic heavy metal' is distinct as a genre, or just a handy way to refer to heavy metal with no subgenre. J Milburn (talk) 11:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Given the sources I've read when working on the Heavy metal music FAR, "Classic metal" seems to mean two things that may or may not overlap: 1. A period in the late 70s and early 80s where much of the "classic" metal canon (for lack of a better word) emerged, and 2. An American-centric view of heavy metal that overlooks the New Wave of British Heavy Metal as a distinct movement to an extent. Think "classic rock" for comparison, but without the radio format associations. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I got many sources that deal with the original genre(known as heavy metal)as a distinct and separate genre (from the subgenres). Sharpe Young for example uses the term "heavy metal" for the original genre exclusively (including only bands like BS, Scorpions,Judas Priest, Ozzy, ect...but excluding bands like Mayhem or Slayer for example), whereas he uses the word metal when he refers to all the subgenres at the same time.

In such sources (including Dunoyer's encyclopedia, Sharpe Young metal the definitive guide, Dictionnaire du rock de A à z) the word "heavy metal" is not used to refer to all the subgenres but only to the original genre(including only bands like Black Sabath, Scorpions,Judas Priest, Ozzy, ect...). This original music is dealt as a genre on its own. This is also this original genre Ian Christe refers as "classic heavy metal"(p.91-92) in his Sound of the Beast (including only bands like Black Sabath, Scorpions,Judas Priest, ect...).

@Wesley/j.Wilburn, sorry but Rock music DOES have an article for its original style: it is called rock'n'roll. In their case noone denies the differences between both because they have different names. But here the problem with heavy metal is both have the same names. In fact the wiki article named heavy metal music actually deals with the whole genre commonly known as "metal", not just with the original style called heavy metal.(as Sharpe Young or Dunoyer use it). The thing is both are called heavy metal: metal is called heavy metal(because that's its real name) and the original style is also called heavy metal, which leads to confusion.

On a side note, this genre doesn't necessarilly refer to music exclusively played in the 70s and 80s. Some recent bands including Lordi still play this type of music. FAlpha Ursae Minoris (talk) 13:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It's been a week since the last comment on this subject. As the person who originally brought it up, I see a few options: a) leave it be as it is; b) change the name to traditional heavy metal and hope for the best; c) propose a merge and hope it will not take months or years before consensus can be established; d) officially propose a deletion and/or redirect. The first option is certainly out. The third option is rather unappealing too. So that just leaves a name change or deletion. I suppose I should give the name change a chance before calling for deletion so that's just what I'm going to do unless anyone strongly object in the next day or two. I'm not going to wait forever. --Bardin (talk) 14:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I support the b solution...Give it a chance and see if the article can be improved and be an independant article.If nothing evolves, then propose to deletion. Thanks for suggesting this option.FAlpha Ursae Minoris (talk) 13:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate lists

Since I'm bringing attention to some neglected issues concerning this wikiproject, I might as well mention this one. We have a list of heavy metal bands and we have a list of heavy metal bands by genre. Neither are newly created articles. The former dates back to January 2003 while the latter dates back to April 2006. I personally prefer the latter over the former since the latter is simple and straight to the point: it merely compiles all the lists of heavy metal bands by genre. On the former though, we first have a list of bands from the "original movement" with the rather arbitrary dates of 1967-1979. This is followed by a section entitled "Subgenre and cross-genre lists." Whatever is a cross-genre I still have no idea. It's used on heavy metal subgenres but I do not believe I have ever seen the term used outside of wikipedia or online forums. Anyhow, under that heading, we have another compilation of lists by genre although this is shorter and missing a few entries, apparently. For each list, three bands are provided as examples. That seems unnecessary to me. I would really like to be bold and make wholesale changes to both articles but still feeling new and inexperienced on wikipedia, I have to refrain myself. I'm not even sure what's the best procedure here: a speedy delete, a redirect, a merge proposal? I will suggest that a separate new list be created for traditional heavy metal bands though so that the arbitrary 1967-1979 list can be deleted. --Bardin (talk) 14:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Every list of "any metal" band can be deleted since they don't do anything that a category doesn't already do. 156.34.220.124 (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

All modesty aside, I do like to think that my work on the list of folk metal bands proves otherwise.--Bardin (talk) 15:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

And I spoke too quick forgetting that I have been tutoring "Welt" on how to turn the List of thrash metal bands into something more than 'just a list'. But a grand majority of the rest of these lists can be turfed. Between the 2 heavy metal band list I think the "by genre" list is lower on the useful scale as the other list has a workable(and referenced) lead-in. and a direction. The lead is pretty self explanatory. The genre starts in around 67... here's the bands that gained fame.. and after 79 the genre splintered into all these different sub-genres... some real... some hokey/fairy tale. There is room there to expand and tweak and cite whereas the 'list by genre' is pretty much a dead end. The point of any good list is to be a good companion piece to a main article that contains the fine details. It, hopefully, should help rm some of the list crufting and name dropping that occurs in these 'parent' articles. If you have done a good job on the list of folk metal bands... then it should mean that the folk metal parent pages should have little to no specific names and pov favourites. I always point people towards the List of Telecaster players as a good example of what a music related list should look like. List of doom metal bands, list of black metal bands, list of nu metal bands.... these lists are pretty much useless and can be done away with. 156.34.220.124 (talk) 16:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Subconscious (band)

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subconscious (band) about a German heavy metal band article nominated for deletion. If you know more about this subject please add your views. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopaedia Metallum

I have nominated the above for deletion. I'm aware that this might make me very unpopular among other metalheads. The reasons for my nomination are provided there. That's no need to provide any comments here. --Bardin (talk) 06:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

List of thrash metal bands - Request for assessment

I recently did some substantial edits to this list and I would like it to be assessed. It is currently assessed as a list class article, but I guess that was a long time ago. Thank You, Welt^anschaunng 09:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arafel (band)

The above was nominated for deletion by someone else a few days ago. I've only just become aware of it. Just thought I should mention it here since that seems to be the proper thing to do when a metal-related article gets nominated for deletion. --Bardin (talk) 13:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There are metal-related articles nominated daily. We do actually have a deletions page which I used to maintain, but I then stopped. I guess you could post them there from now on- it's linked on the main project page. J Milburn (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Tenacious D

The Tenacious D article is currently undergoing a peer review. I need some outside help, as I am the only one editing this at the moment. I think the article can make FA class. Please help by adding to the suggestions on this here. Thanks. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Naming conventions

I've been sorting through the heavy metal categories and I've noticed a lot of different names. For instance, in Category:Heavy metal musical groups by genre, we have categories under "bands," "groups" and most commonly "musical groups." I've spent a while looking through wikipedia to see whether there's any naming convention for this but I was not able to find any so I'm just wondering what's going on here. Is there a reason why the cumbersome phrase "musical groups" is used to such an extent? Do we really need to have the -al at the end of music? Who decided to use this phrase and was there ever any consensus on this issue? I would like to see a uniform standard and I tend to think "bands" or "groups" is clear enough and straight to the point. Is there anything else that "heavy metal groups" or "heavy metal bands" can possibly mean other than the music genre?
Another naming issue. Everything else in the parent Category:Heavy metal has the word heavy before it except for Category:Metal subgenres, Category:Metal festivals and Category:Lists of metal bands. Again, is there any reason why these are so exceptional that they should not have the word heavy before metal?
I must confess that I was very disappointed with the awful state of the categories but I've noticed that this is not exclusive to heavy metal. It seems to me that wikipedia categories have been almost completely neglected all over with a lot of absurd categories, similar categories, duplicate categorisation, lots of articles being categorised in a bizarre location and even orphaned categorised. Terrible, really. --Bardin (talk) 14:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Strapping Young Lad

Hi! Just wanted to let you know that Strapping Young Lad is currently a featured article candidate. Gocsa (talk) 13:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)