Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Metal/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Band member articles

Are we tagging members of metal bands with the project tag, or just bands themselves? Irishnightwish (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Horna

I have made an page for all the albums released by Horna. So, if any of you know good information to include on any of the pages, or know of anything good about the band, please start working on it. Thanks. Undeath (talk) 02:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

List of thrash metal bands

The list of thrash metal bands article is currently undergoing a peer review. Please help by adding to the suggestions on this here. Thanks, Welt^anschaunng 12:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk page banner template

I have updated our talk page template (Template:HMM) significantly, based on Template:Album. It doesn't look much different, but now caters for importance a little more, caters for comments, has an attention= and a needs-infobox= parameter, and also categorises all our articles in one place. I can't see any of them recieving massive use, but it brings us in-line with other projects, and, hopefully, will allow us to tag many of our pages at once using a plugin for auto-Wiki browser. I'm not exactly technically minded, but I have tested it and I am pretty sure it works- if anyone is any good with these things, I request they take a look and make sure I haven't completely failed. I have written a doc page (or, copied the one from the album equivilent) so you can copy-paste the parameters, and I am now going to attempt some mass tagging. J Milburn (talk) 13:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I still can't get it working with AWB, but that's probably my own stupid fault, rather than a problem with AWB or the template. J Milburn (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Added Scanner

I've added an article for the German speed metal band Scanner. I've also made articles for all of there albums, except Hypertrace which was already created. Xanar (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• I've found the album art for all of the albums. Any other help would be great. Undeath (talk) 05:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I've cleaned the articles up a bit, but, if you want to improve them, writing and searching for sources is gonna be the best way forward. Feel free to take a look at some examples of decent articles regarding heavy metal. J Milburn (talk) 17:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, since I'm new I'll be taking a look at those and try to improve scanner as much as possible. I've also added a navigation panel for all of the albums and the band.Xanar 00:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If possible, could you expand the biography with factual information? This would prove the article's notability. LuciferMorgan (talk) 10:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

OLD (band)

Hi everyone, I know I haven't posted here in a while, but I just created an article on James Plotkin's first band, OLD a/k/a Old Lady Drivers. Please look it over and let me know what you think. I invite everyone here to improve this article; this band got little recognition in its time, but really contributed a lot to industrial and avant-garde metal. --Eastlaw (talk) 04:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Black Sabbath peer review

I've finished my draft of Black Sabbath, and it is now at peer review. Gonna take this one up to FA, so any help would be appreciated! \m/ Skeletor2112 (talk) 11:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Genre delimiters

There has been some edit wars recently on (of all things) genre delimiters in the music artist infobox. Some of the pages that have been affected by this edit war include Amon Amarth, Venom, Opeth, Running Wild, and Cynic. For the record, I have not been involved in any of these edit wars. I honestly feel that it is a silly thing to fight over and get blocked as a result. I am hoping though that this can be resolved here and now so that we can all avoid seeing these edit wars again. I am aware that this issue has been brought up before on this talk page but it has not really been discussed at length so I'm hoping that perhaps we could get some sort of consensus here as to what format we should use for all articles that fall under the scope of our wikiproject.

The infobox template specifically states that Genres should be separated with a delimiter, either a comma or a line break. The template even provides two examples, one for each method: the infobox on Mariah Carey uses a comma while the infobox for Audioslave uses line breaks. Here are a few visual examples (based on the default font size that I use on wikipedia):

	Commas	Breaks
Mariah Carey	Pop, R&B, dance-pop	Pop R&B Dance-pop
Audioslave	Hard rock, alternative rock, post-grunge	Hard rock Alternative rock Post-grunge
Running Wild	Heavy metal, speed metal, power metal	Heavy metal Speed metal Power metal
Opeth	Progressive death metal, progressive metal, progressive rock	Progressive death metal Progressive metal Progressive rock

I personally feel that the infobox for Mariah Carey looks much better with commas since all three genres are fairly short words. On the other hand, I feel that the infobox for Opeth looks much better with line breaks since all three genres are fairly long words. Notice that the term progressive rock gets broken into two separate lines when commas are used. There are a lot of fairly long genres in heavy metal music: neo-classical metal, avant-garde metal, progressive metal, alternative metal, industrial metal, symphonic metal and of course, all the minor subgenres like symphonic black metal, technical death metal, melodic black metal, brutal death metal, blackened death metal. Even terms like oriental metal or Christian metal is relatively long compared to pop or hard rock. I can't say that I feel strongly about this issue one way or another but I would personally lean towards adopting line breaks as a standard for all heavy metal artists because of all these long terms in the genre.

I realize that it might not be possible to get any consensus on this issue but we can certainly try. I'll be inviting some other editors to consider taking part in this discussion but I'm not familiar with all the regular heavy metal editors so if you could spread the word, that would be neat. --Bardin (talk) 14:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an excellent post and the foundation for a constructive discussion. However it should be located under the WikiProject Music talk page as this discussion covers more than just heavy metal related articles. There can't be a guideline for just one specific genre. The consensus guideline will cover all genres. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 16:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That is correct. However, looking at previous discussions, I'm afraid the chance of reaching consensus seems marginal. I have listed a certain extent of arguments promoting commas on this page. I am not at all opposed to use both versions, depending on what "looks" better. Unfortunately, such a measurement is subjective, and it would also rely on the reasonability of each involved editor — which is something that I think we all know is missing. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 17:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Bardin. Burningclean _[speak] 18:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

There were several reasons why I started this discussion here instead of elsewhere. The edit wars referred to above seem to be exclusive to heavy metal articles although I could be wrong in this regard. It seems to be an issue that might be irrelevant to other genres that do not feature such long terms as that used in heavy metal. I am also skeptical of the chances for consensus if we broaden the discussion to all music genres. The main reason though that I started this discussion here is because I'm not looking to eliminate commas or line breaks altogether. I think both have advantages and disadvantages. I do not want to deprive the Mariah Carey article of commas. I'm just hoping that we can come to a consensus here and adopt a standard for all articles within the scope of this wikiproject, i.e. all heavy metal related articles. Other wikiprojects can adopt other standards if they wish to. That said, if you really think that we should adopt a uniform standard throughout wikipedia for all music genres, then I'm quite willing to bring this discussion elsewhere. My stance will still be the same: different standards for different genres are alright and commas should not be adopted if the genre terms will get cut off as they tend to do in heavy metal music. --Bardin (talk) 06:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Man! Oh well, I think it will serve well to leave them as they are. There will be always someone trying to change them one way or the other. The "everything should be uniform" approach is wrong IMO, as there is more than one way to create a good article. If we want maybe we can decide on what format to adopt while creating new articles. Cheers! Welt^anschaunng 18:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

If you leave it as it is, then there are a million edit wars going on. That is the main concern. Burningclean _[speak] 18:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Generally I agree with Bardin, but should there arise the call for a common approach for all genres, I'd always go with the line breaks. I don't think we really need to save vertical space that badly. Moreover, all genres could enjoy the spatial luxury that makes so much sense for metal. Of course we could scratch all the metal subgenres or describe Running Wild, for example, as "heavy, speed, power metal" and Opeth as "prog-death, prog metal, prog rock", but I don't see any majority for this. To me personally, the format that uses line breaks looks aesthetically most pleasing. Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

We have to make a consensus, because there is nothing but edit warring going on. So please, for the sake of moving forwards, let's just vote now.

I vote line breaks. ≈ The Haunted Angel 22:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

No, do not vote. That is not what consensus is about, and will not allow us to reach one. Discuss, on a case-by-case basis if necessary, but no voting. J Milburn (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Normally, I'd agree with you - I know that Wikipedia is not a democracy; however, as it's been stated, there seems to be no chance of a consensus ever being reached - personally, I'd say we ignore the WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY rule and vote, as I find it difficult for a consensus to be reached here. ≈ The Haunted Angel 00:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with that idea for any number of reasons. A straw poll to get an idea for opinion is one thing (though not appropriate here, I would say) but a vote to determine 'consensus' just doesn't work. If we can't reach a centralised decision, then we can decide on a case-by-case basis. Frankly, I think this a pretty ridiculous thing to argue about, hence remaining neutral on the matter of forming an overall guideline. J Milburn (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with Bardin. I've proposed something similar before on the musical artist template page without any success. In metal, long genre names are used and it looks horrific when genres are cut of, or when an unfixed amount of genres are displayed on each row (see example below).

Alternative rock, symphonic black metal, soul, Hi-NRG, polka, gangsta rap

first row contains 1.5 genres, second row 2.5 and third row contains 1 genre. This inconsistency makes article scanning not evident and does not improve readability. This just is a "Wall of text" where the separate entities cannot be distinguished easily. A list of genres enables a reader to read from top to bottom, unlike the prose-like comma separated content. Line breaks are the way to go. Kameejl ^(Talk) 11:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant arguments; You make no sense. Neither is there any "inconsistency" that "makes article scanning not evident and does not improve readability", nor is it any harder to distinguish separate genres. Aesthetically, I would agree that in a case such as the one on Opeth, line breaks would be "prettier". This however is irrelevant, the box should give informations to the user. With a comma separated list, in that case, no info is missed or harder to retrieve, and space is saved. Obviously, with articles that have shorter genre lists, there is still not one single valid argument to use line breaks instead of commas. Niderbib (talk) 11:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you calm down and discuss this issue patiently without deriding others as not making any sense? Yes, the infobox is supposed to provide information and it can do this perfectly well with both commas or line breaks. You state that there is not one single valid argument to use line breaks instead of commas when it comes to shorter genre lists but conversely, you have not provided an explanation as to why commas should be preferred over line breaks. I noticed that you have continued the edit war and just two edits before you wrote the above, you made a change to the Amon Amarth article. What I see now on that article with the default font size is the word Viking metal being broken in half over two separate lines. What's the reason there for preferring commas over line breaks when we would still get two lines in either case, only one of them do not break any terms while the other does? You agree that line breaks look better when it come to cases like Opeth so why is Amon Amarth not a case like Opeth? --Bardin (talk) 13:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be a display issue. Standard compliant browsers aswell as Firefox display it on one line (knowing Niderbib, I'm rather certain he uses such a browser). Since I would believe to be correct assuming that the majority of people visiting Wikipedia use the Internet Exploder and I think he would not have done that edit if he was editing in IE, I have reverted his edit. He is correct with his arguments, though. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 16:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

OK well, if that's the case then, as Bardin has said, maybe we can set standards as to when a line break can be used and when a comma break can be used.
The comma breaks are found not-so-good in case of long genres. So if we have even a single genre describing the artist with two or more words, the line breaks be used. Otherwise we can use comma breaks if we want to. I hope that settles it, Welt^anschaunng 14:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with Bardin that long genres should just use breaks instead of commas. But, the problem would arise in this, When would you find it necessary to use breaks instead of commas? How long would the word have to be. For example, New Wave of British Heavy Metal is also known as NWOBHM, so, would it have a comma, or a break? I think that genres like progressive (insert other genre like rock, or metal here), symphonic (insert genre here), and alternative (insert genre here) should all have breaks after them. They just look a lot better, and a lot more organized. Undeath (talk) 16:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna' have to fully agree with Kameejl - I think this should be used in all metal articles to maintain a consistency. ≈ The Haunted Angel 20:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to argue for consistency, then all music articles should be treated the same. J Milburn (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

For the time being, keep it to metal articles. That way, we can see how it all plays out. If it turns out to be a bit more stressful than we had anticipated, we can get out of it. For the time being, let's just change the metal articles, and, if it works great, propose this to all music articles. Undeath (talk) 21:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

So, obviously, people here think line breaks are better for metal articles. What's the next step? Where should we document this? When can we start to licitly convert infoboxes? Kameejl ^(Talk) 14:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Not everyone. See the above response by Niderbib to your previous comments. --Bardin (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Nidercrib has been banned for vandalism before, and is being warned again for vandalism. I say that a conscensus(Sp?) has been reached. Undeath (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be a negative. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 16:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we have a consensus. Niderbib has now started to vandalize pages, like Venom (band). I think his comments here should be struck. Undeath (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Niderbib was the only user that kept changing those pages to comma breaks (along with some suspicious IPs that only edited those pages' delimiters) for no reason. I and a few others kept reverting him and those IPs (and I was blocked for that, even though Niderbib continued). Both Niderbib and those IPs kept giving ridiculous edit summaries that were either downright lies, deceptive, or just plain had no good explanation for what he was doing except inane things like "more space." Now I'm not an unreasonable guy (though I'm sure some would disagree) and I actually suggested the same thing Bardin is saying here, before. The whole "let-them-use-comma-breaks-if-all-the-genres-fit-on-one-line-but-let-them-use-line-breaks-if-it-continues-beyond-that-or-splits-up-the-genres-arguement" seems good in theory (and I happen to like it) but there's a few problems with it. One, a lot of users on wikipedia are pretty anal about uniformity (I doubt anyone will diagree with this) and this afore-mentioned arguement goes against that. Second, though it has surprisingly not been brought up here, most people who like comma breaks argue that {{nowrap}} solves this problem and no genres will be split. I happen to think that breaks WP:KISS but I'll let the people who like "nowrap" argue their case. Now, I would also like to point out that Niderbib has made no good arguement up there except that with comma breaks "space is saved." What exactly does that mean? Are we gonna run out of space on wikipedia? Somehow, I doubt the validity of that arguement. Also, Niderbib mentioned that, "there is still not one single valid argument to use line breaks instead of commas." There's also a problem with that. What Niderbib and other people who like comma breaks don't realize is that the burden of proof is on them, not on the people who prefer line breaks. On that note, though, I've yet to see a valid arguement for comma breaks. I'm not the best at this so feel free to help me out, but here are some arguements for line breaks. Yes, aesthetically they do look better on many of those pages with long genres, and yes, I believe (as many other "line breakers" do) that line breaks improve readability. However, Niderbib is at least right that these are not good arguements. How about this. Line breaks have been around a lot longer (probably at least years longer) on most wikipedia pages. Most old wikipedia band articles started out with line breaks (which you can see if you look through their histories for a while). And then comma breaks came along. But what improvement over line breaks did comma breaks make exactly?? I for one see none. I guess both sides like to argue that "their" [line/comma] break "looks better." Both sides also seem to think their version of the break is more popular than the other. When it comes down to it, though neither side is going to agree with the other and both sides think their break is more encyclopedic. How to rationalize all this and come up with a solution? Hell if I know. I've become disillusioned with the whole thing. Both sides think that they are "right" and the other side is "wrong." In reality both sides just prefer their way to the other. Neither is "wrong" or "right." People like different things. Can't be helped. So maybe this post has caused more problems than its solved, but I've just come to realize that there's a reason why this issue has never been solved. The reason is that it's obviously split damn near the middle down the line and that neither side will back down and there really is no compromise. None that I've seen anyway. If only it was possible to create a whole 'nother type of delimiter that we could all agree on. But for the record, I don't think Bardin's idea is such a bad one, though it could cause uniformity issues further down the line. I still prefer line breaks. They were here first and I see no reason to change to line breaks. No improvement is brought by them. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 18:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that genre delimiters have been discussed above on this very page twice, though briefly. The first time, admin [[[User:J Milburn]] stated that he thought people were leaning towards line breaks. The second time was just a brief complaint by an IP that some people were trying to change articles to comma breaks and that this was not to his liking and s/he also pointed out that metal genres are usually long as far as words go. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 18:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't intend to answer that at first, I only made a comment because no one else had replied (check the timestamps). In any case, my answer was based on me having seen linebreaks a little more than commas. J Milburn (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Well I noticed everyone suddenly just stopped talking after I left my big comment. Why? Is it because my logic cannot be debated? I've had problems in the past on this same issue with people not wanting to answer my questions and what not because they are suddenly infected with cowardice or (for some reason) seem not to be able to refute my logic. Either way, every single conversation about genre delimiters has ended up being just like this one. People talk for a while and then just stop and nothing more happens till next time. Let us settle this!!! And will someone please respond to my above comment? It seems in every genre delimiter conversation I point out that there are no good arguements for comma breaks and that line breaks have been around for a lot longer (therefore pointing out that there's no reason for comma breaks) and no one will answer me. This has happened numerous times on many different pages including on the template for the musical infbox artist's talk page. No one seems to be able to or wants to argue with me when I point that out. NO ONE. I've not been answered once even though I've pointed that singular flaw numerous times over many many months. If that's the case then it only strengthens the idea that line breaks should be used. Gah, this is bullshit! Now we all just wait for the next edit war and the next conversation, where I will most likely point this out again and will again go unanswered. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Big huge swathes of text are often not read. People tire of the conversation when people start posting messages like that. I'll be honest, I haven't read it. However, in response to what seems to be your main point, there's no need to 'settle' it. I still fail to see why we need a hard and fast solution to this. Why does it matter? J Milburn (talk) 22:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hah, what you said sounds like an argument for line breaks and you didn't even know it (because comma'd lists are like huge swathes of text…). = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 22:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Lmao. Well J Milburn I don't understand why you think this doesn't need to be solved. If we don't solve it people will continue warring over genre delimiters. It should be solved so we can continue on to better things. And as for you not reading my "huge swath" that's disappointing. I made a lot of good points in it. It would help if people at least read it. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't need 'solving' because, whatever conclusion we (or anyone) comes to, people are going to continue arguing about it, and writing/reading essays on the subject is a waste of time when we could be doing something a little more productive- I didn't intend to become involved in this, but now I've got myself dragged in due to your belief that people have stopped replying due to your 'soundproof' argument. We are not able to solve a problem by coming to a 'consensus' that results in mass changes, which will then be reverted, resulting in more wars, on some little corner of Wikiland watched by few. I ask again- why are you so certain that we need some kind of centralised rule on this? I can see advantages to both solutions in different situations- why can't this be decided at the discretion of the author of the article, discussed on the talk page if people care enough to have a war about it? J Milburn (talk) 23:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

We're not in disagreement over this. I agree with what you're saying. I want a rule so that there is no room to argue, though. People will just cite the rule and that'll be it. People can argue about the rule but at least we'll have uniformity and less edit wars over it. Whether it's comma breaks or line breaks a rule that picks one will stop edit warring, which is good. I do like your way the best (people deciding on an individual article's talk page what would fit better is great) but I somehow don't think people will be able to handle that. They'll war and say there's no rule that governs it either way. That's why the best solution for now has been to just not change genre delimiters. But that's a temporary solution and still doesn't work well. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It's truly amazing that there is an argument over this. Ours18 (talk) 10:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Lmao. Niderbib was finally blocked for persistent vandalism. I was basically blocked for no reason. And here I said that he was a "possible" vandal. Heh. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I never have seen so much support for a genre delimiter guideline. Is niderbib throwing a wrench in the works? If wikipedia is about arguments, then I don't see why this initiative shouldn't be continued.

The most consistent way to do this is to have all genres line break delimited in all band articles within the scope of WikiProject:Metal (in fact, this is the way the most metal band articles are/were formatted) Kameejl ^(Talk) 11:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with everything you have said, but there are people who will fight it. They will also claim that we do not have consensus to change genre delimiters to line breaks. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 19:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a passing comment but it wouldn't matter what anyone thinks in this discussion since the overall decision has to be made under the main music project talkpage. Any one genre can't play by its own rules. This is an encyclopedia. There has to be consistency throughout all music related pages regardless of subject or style. Peter Fleet (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. Any guideline, policy or rule has exceptions. However, having one genre with a different rule to all the others is a ridiculous idea: any rule must come from the central WikiProject and will then be added in to the relevent section of the MoS or template documentation. Until then, case-by-case basis, and, even after that, there could be exceptions. J Milburn (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There is some history on Wikipedia for "exceptions". The composer project has successfully opposed having the musician template forced on them and they refuse to use it. Subsequently no classical composers have any infoboxes at all. At the Guitarist Project we had our own infobox for a long while. An infobox that was superior in many ways to the current musician box.(and for the 4 editors who support line-breaks, yes we did use line breaks in the Guitarist Infobox) But it was voted down and replaced with the musician infobox despite the fact that it was simpler and cosmetically more appealing. Having this debate here is a grand waste of time. As J Milburn puts it "having one genre with a different rule to all the others is a ridiculous idea". Where would the "heavy metal consensus" fall for bands like Led Zeppelin or Deep Purple or AC/DC or Van Halen? All were considered heavy metal at one time. Most tend to look at them differently compared to what modern heavy metal and it sub-genres have become. But at one time they were heavy metal. Would a WP:METAL consensus cover the formatting of these articles? Certainly not. Where does the genre line get drawn? And whose POV draws it? I want the Guitarist Project's infobox back, line-breaks and all. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 22:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

What you say makes a lot of sense. I guess for now we'll just have to use a case-by-case basis, as J Milburn said. I'm surprised, though. The composer project refused infoboxes? I wonder why. I think they should use infboxes. Why should it be any different than other musicians? What happened to the guitarist infbox? Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of folk metal bands

Comments are welcome. --Bardin (talk) 02:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Katagory V - Request for Assement

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katagory V about U.S. Progressive/Power Metal metal band. I was going to post this in the Afd on the main page, but it seems to be inactive? The reasons for Afd in the debate seem fairly week, but plausable. Several solid sources sited for viabilitly to Keep it. If anyone here knows about this band and/or subject please add your views. Also, if anyone would like to asses this article and give any pointers on what could be done to possibly clean it up to avoid another Afd, assuming it does get trashed before hand, that would be helpful. Thanks in advance Prog2112 (talk) 05:30, April 28 2008 (UTC)

Disappearer article

I recently created an article on Boston Heavy Metal band, Disappearer (band) (sister band to Doomriders, but it's tagged for deletion. If there are any users/admins who could show support to this article, it'd be great. Im just learning the ropes here on Wikipedia and this is my first article.

Calling for support in deletion debates is generally frowned upon. You will need to provide reliable sources showing the band is notable to prevent it from being deleted. J Milburn (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

New Wikiproject

I am making a new wikiproject for black metal articles. It bugged me to see a project for Slipknot and Emo music, so I started a project. It's being developed. I need help. Feel free to edit. Please start talk sections before large changes though. Here are the pages I've got so far. Please help. Undeath (talk) 04:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should create a task force for black metal rather than a separate wikiproject? You can locate it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Metal/Black metal task force. --Bardin (talk) 05:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Bardin, a specific WikiProject is maybe not necessary. Zouavman Le Zouave 08:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This project only just has enough members to keep it of any real use, cutting several of those (EG- those not interested in black metal) out of the loop seems to have no real benefit. What could a black metal WikiProject do that this couldn't? It's not as if we're in over our heads with messages... J Milburn (talk) 11:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I support the project, but if it makes more sense (via WikiProject standards) to use a task force instead, then we should go for that. I guess it would make more sense as a subproject of WPM. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 12:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above users about the task force subproject thing. But why does there get to be a whole seperate wikiproject for a single band like Slipshit (or any single band for that matter)? Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 19:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There 'gets' to be one because someone makes one. Whether they are needed is another matter. WP:SLAYER was/is successful, but that's just because there are a batch of editors willing to actually write something, rather than other projects which just end up being a group of 12 year olds who like the band and spend the whole time arguing about the genre and guessing what the next album will be like. J Milburn (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I see. Well, alright then. Now I understand at least. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 21:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to create a page if there's no objections. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 21:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason I'm making a black metal project is due to the huge ammount of black metal bands, that are notable, that have not recieved any wikipedia pages. I'm a huge black metal fan. I don't want to sound like I'm bragging, but I travel all over the world to gather cds, dvds, autographs etc... Black metal is growing fast. Heavy metal is starting to die in my opinion. Heavy metal, as it's own genre, is fading. Heck, if we have a project for Emo, black metal should be great. The emo project could have been a side project from the rock wikiproject. Black metal, being as big as it is, deserves it's own project, which is why I'm making it. I'll open it up to Viking metal and blackened death metal groups too. Undeath (talk) 06:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(Not judging whether a project is needed or not with this statement) The reason why many other genres or even smaller entities like just a single band have their own wikiproject (such as your example with emo music) is, i would say, a reflection of the amount of coverage provided for them on wikipedia. I guess it is imaginable that there are more Green Day fanbois out there than black metal listeners. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 06:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You havn't been to Norway. :) Undeath (talk) 11:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm a black metal fan and would be willing to do project-y stuff with them, but I would imagine I would stay more active here than there- as I see it, any needed black metal stuff can stay here. I'll join the project if you create it, but I'd probably be a reactive rather than proactive member. J Milburn (talk) 15:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You're a fan of black metal, J Milburn? Wow. Ha! I just went to your user page and found a lot of similarites between us. Wow, you're only 17. You're in college and semi-worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster! Just like me. Not to mention you like D&D stuff, lol. Well, I'm a huge fan of black metal and will be glad to join any project based on it. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, let's see who the biggest fan is...(i have 1200 CDs, LPs, EPs, tapes, etc...) lol. But anyway, I need help on the user signup form. I can't get it to list the users. Undeath (talk) 06:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Aw, come on man. That's inane. And the biggest collection does not the biggest fan make. Talking about who likes something more is completely inane, though. Feelings can't be measured anyways (which also applies to fandom). Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 19:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Lol. That was just me being a smartass. (a lot of my cd's were destroyed in a fire though) Undeath (talk) 06:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone going to help me? I need it bad. Undeath (talk) 01:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll create a page right now. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 02:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I ought to provide a link. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 12:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm in! I'll do some mass tagging later tonight. J Milburn (talk) 16:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a question; what is the point of this actual taskforce, and what efforts has it made to improve black metal music related articles so far? LuciferMorgan (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

We've discussed an issue on Gorgoroth and are working on establishing a collaboration project. I've personally done a lot of category work (as I do with metal articles in general) and there has been a lot of tagging/rating, which is useful for the purposes of drawing others in and starting dialogue for article improvements. If you remember, it was your tagging and rating of Celestiial that made me join this project and then improve the article (and the album article) to GA. The project is still starting up, but things are happening. J Milburn (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Metal fusion bands

We have no article on this genre, metal fusion simply redirects. Do we really need a category for bands that play it? Could this category not be merged elsewhere? Just wanted to get some thoughts from others as to what the best action would be before sending it to categories for discussion. J Milburn (talk) 18:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we should get rid of the category. As you said, metal fusion redirects to progressive metal (which I think is correct and fitting anyways) so there's no need for a category for it, especially if there's already a progressive metal category. I say move all those bands in that category to the progressive metal category (if they're not already there) and then get rid of the metal fusion category. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 18:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that was my thought- merge with the prog cat, but I'm not really familiar with 'metal fusion', so I didn't want to jump to any decisions. Anyone else have any thoughts before I nominate for merging? J Milburn (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

"Metal fusion" sounds like a prank genre made up by some 13 year old? "Anything" fusion is usually just some musically impaired dimwit trying mockup a decription of a genre they don't really understand. Jazz fusion is the most inappropriately used genre tagging on Wikipedia. Does this actually exist with a reliable source? (other than some amateur webzine or teen fansite) The category could just be CfD'd as a hoax. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 02:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Category renaming

I have nominated several categories for renaming so that they conform to the "[genre] musical groups" norm. Anyone with any thoughts is welcome to comment at the discussion (with a separate one for avant-garde metal). Specifically, I nominated- Category:Rap metal groups, Category:Glam metal groups, Category:Folk metal groups and Category:Christian metal groups. Category:Avant-garde metal is in a separate discussion. Also, I nominated Category:Stoner rock groups, which had found its way into Category:Heavy metal musical groups. If anyone has any others they feel should be nominated or any general comments, here would be a good place to mention it. (Remember when linking to a category to use a colon; for instance, [[:Category:Heavy metal musical groups]] instead of [[Category:Heavy metal musical groups]], which would put this page in the category. J Milburn (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see someone else working on the categories. Do you know why the naming convention is musical groups instead of just groups or bands? While you're at it, 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. Should we rename all of these too so that heavy comes before metal in all cases? --Bardin (talk) 00:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, couldn't agree more. I think the reason that 'musical groups' is used is that some musical groups don't self-identify as bands (classical ensembles, barbershop quartets, 'hip hop crews'- I dunno) and 'group' is too vague- you can get groups of anything. 'Musical groups' is unambiguous and all-encompassing. I'll nominate those others you mentioned for renaming in a minute. J Milburn (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Just refactored my original comment as several of the discussions have been merged. J Milburn (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The discussion of Bardin's suggestions can be found here. J Milburn (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Note that all of the categories above have now been renamed, but I am still working on cleaning up categories. J Milburn (talk) 10:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Storm (band)

I did a lot of improvement to that article recently, and I'm bringing this up because I want to put the rank of it into investigation. It used to be a stub (and a quite crappy one too), but I've expanded the article more than 4⅛ times as much. I have added information about the dispute of Kari Rueslåtten vs. Fenriz and Satyr. Before my improvements, the article didn't mention anything about that dispute. It didn't even mention that Kari Rueslåtten was once part of The 3rd and the Mortal! I need to mention that I also added an infobox to the page as well. So, with those improvements, I want the class to be re-investigated and maybe even changed. Thanks. BT^C 01:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

After a quick clean, I have upped it to start class and left an explanation of what needs to be done to bring it to B class. J Milburn (talk) 10:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Emperor - In The Nightside Eclipse

It seems impossible to avoid an edit war on this article. The last factually correct version I can find is the one from March 14, 2008. If anyone else has any input on this your help is appreciated- I've fixed up this article a couple times and left notes on the talk page, but to no discernible benefit. Maybe semi-protection is the way to go on this one? Thee darcy (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Strapping Young Lad

Strapping Young Lad is a FAC (again), please, anybody who's interested in this band, help me improve the article, and help those nitpicky people convince about the sources used! I think it's a much better article than a GA, but it seems not good enough for a FA. Any help would be much appreciated! Gocsa (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Underground era of Christian metal

I've just nominated underground era of Christian metal for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Underground era of Christian metal. I thought it may be of interest to members as it's a metal-related AfD that isn't just some tiny band, throwaway song or obscure super-rare demo. All comments welcome. J Milburn (talk) 14:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You might also want to take a look at Politics in metal music and Heavy metal in Muslim majority countries if you haven't already. --Bardin (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Haven't looked into them yet, but they are certainly on my to-do list... J Milburn (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Metal Archives

I've noticed certain people have been adding links to the above site in metal articles. Every time the discussion has occurred, it's been deemed (which I 110% agree with) that Metal Archives cannot be deemed to fall under WP:RS. Also, it's not even needed. Discographies can be cited by using an artists' official site, so can people please dispense with adding links to this website in X amount of album articles? It achieves nothing. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I can confirm that previous discussions have deemed it inappropriate, and also agree that it is not a reliable source. I think we should discuss this once, and then (if consensus is so) remove it from articles on sight. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 22:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Metal Archives is just like Wikipedia, I know because I have an account there as well. The whole structure for genre there is suggestive, not from reliable sources. There if you said Lamb of God was emo and enough people agreed with you, it would get changed, seriously. They are also very selective of bands that they approve and disapprove of, as is witnessed by my original submission of STEMM saying they were rapcore to begin with and now groove/metalcore and it getting axed, but now that I left off the part that they were rapcore, it got approved. All in all, that site isn't even as reliable as this one and you can't use wikipedia in college! -- Shatterzer0 (talk) 22:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Watershed (Opeth album)

An anonymous user suggested that there should be a table for the album's worldwide chart positions on that article, since the album has made the charts in several nations. I think it's a good idea. Your thoughts? BT^C 18:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, take a look at other bands around wikipedia, several come to mind when their albums are worldwide sensations. see Untitled Korn album#Chart performance or, The Open Door#Charts and last but not least The Blackening#Chart performance -- Shatterzer0 (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, thanks a lot for those links. I'll get right on making the chart table. BT^C 18:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the one exhibited by The Blackening, and personally detest those tables. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with LuciferMorgan- on an article about the album, chart performance should be in prose. The tables should be used in discographies (or the artist page, if the discog page hasn't been split off). J Milburn (talk) 17:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Folk metal and Oriental metal

I'm not entirely certain, but it seems to me that a lot of the ethnic music influential in Oriental metal isn't really the "folk music" of the regions they come from; it's traditional music but I believe it's of a considerably more elevated status which is more similar to classical music in Western society. If you look up Middle Eastern music the term "folk music" comes up only twice. I also have my doubts that this style was really inspired by European folk metal bands. As far as I know this style of music developed more or less independently of European folk metal. The article seems to be assuming a lot about both Oriental Metal and Middle Eastern music in general.Thee darcy (talk) 14:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Technically, most of the ethnic music among the European folk metal bands aren't really "folk music" either. That's really quite obvious for the more keyboard oriented bands like Empyrium and Summoning where the folk tendencies only go as far as folk-like melodies and sounds. Other bands like Silent Stream of Godless Elegy appear to take more inspiration from world music groups like Dead Can Dance than traditional folk music. The medieval approach of In Extremo and the other mittelalter rock bands probably have as much to do with medieval art music as medieval folk music, if one can really discern a difference between the two in the first place. Even for groups like Skyclad and Cruachan, their folk leanings stem not so much from traditional folk music but rather a popular music tradition based on and commonly associated with folk music: i.e. the Pogues, Clannad, etc. I think this is just a problem with the word folk: it's been used for so many different things from electric Bob Dylan songs to non-western music to ancient art music to roots revival and so on. I do not recall any suggestion that oriental metal was inspired by European folk metal bands in either article. The whole genre's just a loose collection of diverse bands who came to the fusion of folk or ethnic music with heavy metal through their own means. There's very little in the way of direct influence or ancestral lineage in this genre as far as I'm aware. --Bardin (talk) 16:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

RE: your last point- in the Oriental metal section under Musical Characteristics it begins with "Similar to its parent genre of folk metal, oriental metal bands adopt different styles of heavy metal music." I'm going to go ahead and change it just to "similar to folk metal" for now. Still, in the folk metal article it identifies Oriental metal as a subgenre of folk metal which I don't think is really accurate. I can see where you're coming from though, that's why I decided to start a discussion here rather than make a bunch of grand, sweeping edits- particularly in the list of folk metal bands, where a number of Oriental metal bands are listed.Thee darcy (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, this was how the oriental metal article appeared before I worked on it and this was how the folk metal article appeared before I worked on it. Notice that both articles described oriental metal as a subgenre or form of folk metal. I never really questioned this relationship to be perfectly honest but it seems pretty accurate as far as Orphaned Land is concerned. They are the most well-known exponent or representative of oriental metal and seemingly have more coverage on the web than all the other bands put together. They are also identified as a folk metal band by both reliable sources (eg. 1, 2) as well as not-so-reliable sources (eg. 1, 2) which does suggest that there's a popular perception that oriental metal is a form of folk metal. Is there any other reason why you would question this other than the aforementioned explanation of how the ethnic elements of these oriental metal bands might not really be traditional folk music? I think the label folk metal is a bit misleading in this regard. Ethnic metal or world metal might be more appropriate but we obviously can't change names of music genres on wikipedia just to suit our whims. --Bardin (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right. Popular opinion is the very stuff that makes these genre titles, whether I consider them accurate or not. I think I initially noticed because I remember a conversation I had about Rudra where someone referred to them as folk metal, rather than Vedic metal, but in truth the "ethnic" element in their music is derived explicitly from classical Indian music which is hardly a "folk" movement at all. I also agree that while "world metal" or "ethnic metal" would be better, that's not the purpose of Wikipedia. Thanks for taking the time to discuss it. Cheers! Thee darcy (talk) 18:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I'd agree that it would be troubling if classical music gets lumped into the folk metal genre but as far as I know, that hasn't happened yet. There's no reliable source out there that identifies Rudra as folk metal. --Bardin (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Mucky Pup

Mucky Pup lists heavy metal as one of their genres, so maybe you like to tag it for this project? Regards, BNutzer (talk) 23:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Metallum

In an effort to improve the reliability of Wikipedia, I think the staff should use The Metal Archives more.

MANY bands on Wiki are either placed in the wrong genre or are considered a genre that doesn't exist, let alone a large number of bands that aren't metal are considered metal in several Wiki articles. I have done much research over the last year and a half and I have learned many things that Wiki seemingly neglects to correct. As it stands, many people among the learned metal community look down upon Wiki for this, and they consider it an unreliable source of proper metal education.

The biggest problem that I have found is that most people in the educated metal community have determined that nu metal is NOT a genre of metal, but rather a media coined term for hard rock music that has been misinterpreted as metal. This is just one of many examples of something that causes a distrust of Wiki.

I may be anonymous but I promise you that my ideas are not uneducated. The Metal Archives is a great tool for many people that are as educated, if not more educated, than I am on this wide and expansive genre of music. Most of its judgments on a bands genre are correct. I think that if the editors start to consider it a reliable source, then the quality of Wiki's content will increase, and isn't that the goal of Wiki in the first place?

The simplest (and possibly easiest to understand) way that I can put this is:

This website knows what its talking about, and most of the time, Wiki is completely wrong.

The Encyclopedia can be found here: http://www.metal-archives.com/

Please note that this is primarily a suggestion about GENRE CORRECTION.

Sincerely, a metal fan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.179.160 (talk) 02:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

This has already been discussed to death, and we decided long ago that the metal archives are not a reliable source for anything, let alone genres, since it is user-submitted content and therefore subject to opinion and bias. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 02:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand that, which is why I tried adding another part onto my original post: Genres may be subjective and are formed by a common opinion, but I have found that genres listed on Metal Archives are more often closer to what a bands genre actually is. Case in point would be Mirrorthrone. I was reading the article on that band yesterday and Wiki lists it as avant-garde metal, when in actuality it is closer to melodic death/black metal. Now, there is a well known avant-garde metal band named Unexpect. If someone wanting to look for bands like Unexpect went to Wiki, and saw Mirrorthrone under avant-garde metal, I believe they would be disappointed to find that Vladimir's music is NOTHING like Unexpect in the least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.179.160 (talk) 02:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, genres are subjective, but therefore bands never have a definite genre they belong to. Also, as I've said, metal archives is unreliable. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 03:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

A group's genre is decided by the opinion of reliable critics, not any Tom, Dick and Harry that has an intense discussion as regards a group's genre. If we wanted to decide genre's via that method, that site wouldn't be needed as we could have the discussion ourselves. I'd also like to state, as the writer of four featured articles, that the above assertion that the quality of metal articles will improve if Metal Archives is used as a source is actually the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard. To improve metal content, good editors are needed. The mathematics aren't exactly difficult to work out, and Metal Archives certainly doesn't figure anywhere in the sum. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

NEVER use MA as a source for genres. This is coming from someone who has defended the site many times on wiki.Inhumer (talk) 12:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15