Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Metal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
August 2006 – August 2006

[edit] "Band Articles to be created" list trim(?)

Man, there's alot bands there; it's a bit daunting. Maybe we could trim the list down some...to say 5 or so and create a page for what's been edited out. Then when an article gets created from the main page move it out of the list there and replace it with one from the queue on the newly created page.maxcap 18:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we should rename the section to include "Notable", because I don't think a lot of those bands would pass the Wikipedia:Notability (music) test. Skeletor2112 04:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I checked, all the bands have at least one full length release, and so pass the notability test. It's true that the list is long, but I don't see how we can decide which to remove and which to leave, if we decide to trim it. Maybe we should just leave it as it is. Otherwise I like the idea of maxcap, even though 5 seems a bit restrictive; maybe 10 is better. IronC hris | (talk) 20:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

We could just pick out a random few, or have a vote, it doesn't matter. 5 is a small number, but I think someone is more likely to create an article if we keep the list short, and we wouldn't be throwing away the rest, they'd just be on a second page. maxcap 20:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

there is already such a page, see: Wikipedia:Wikiproject Metal/Collaboration of the month. It just isn't used yet. Spearhead 20:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

That page is for the best improved article of the month. I will created a /To Do article, with the list of bands to do, and keep only 10 un the main WikiProject page. --Neo139 03:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

IronChris, one full length release is not enough to satisfy the notability requirement. See Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Musicians and ensembles. The album requirement is at least two albums on a well-known record label. (There are other ways to qualify).--Srleffler 05:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaned up/New articles

I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Metal/To Do to clean up the main article.
Also i created Wikipedia:WikiProject Metal/Created to have a record of all the pages created by this project. At this moment there're only the articles that i had created.
I checked all the contributions of all the participants and cleaned-up the ones that didn't contributed at all. (Before delete, i check every single contribution of the participant)
I changed the order of the Articles contents. (The more importants at the beggining and the less at the bottom) For example participants was almost first, and it made people scroll to much, i moved at the bottom.
I archived the talk of this article: Archive 1

I hope you like the new changes. --Neo139 04:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lollipop Lust Kill up for deletion

Thought it would be fair to warn this WikiProject that the article for Lollipop Lust Kill is up for deletion as a non-notable band. The nominator and at least one commenting editor haven't heard of the group. I have and voiced my opinion in the AfD, but I couldn't find much online to back up the band's notability. If you think the article should stay, I encourage any LLK / general metal fans to voice your opinion in the AfD discussion. Your opinion will be especially noticed if you can provide any verifiable information that the band meets WP:MUSIC notability criteria. -- H·G (^words/_works) 23:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't find information about the band, i never heard about them, and they are not metal. --Neo139 04:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You haven't heard them, but you know they aren't metal? As one who has heard their music, even though I'm not really a fan, I assure you that they are metal. At any rate, I put the note here because certainly other metal fans have heard of the group, even if, as your comment demonstrates, not all of them have. How you choose to treat the message is up to you. -- H·G (^words/_works) 06:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Did a quick check; AllMusic defines the group as "Alternative Metal," "Rap Metal," and "Industrial Metal"[1]. One can argue about AllMusic's judgement in this case, but as the site falls under WP:RS, the "Metal" label is certainly verifiable. -- H·G (^words/_works) 06:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia_Metallum is the bible of metal made by 17000 persons that know about metal. --Neo139 07:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

As the article notes, the site is known to be strict in its consideration of what constitutes "metal." However, no one website is the final authority on the genre--such labels are loose and fluid. The people who I heard about the band from consider it metal, as do others who I've heard discussing the band, which leads me to believe that other metal fans might feel the same--that's the only reason I mentioned on this page. And as far as Wikipedia verifiability goes, AMG considers it to be metal as well.

It wasn't my intention to start a nitpicky squabble over a label's applicability to an article. I just felt that some metal fans might want to know about this AfD. It was meant as a well-intentioned heads-up for metal fans who've heard of the group, no more than that. If members of this WikiProject don't feel the band is notable, I have no objection to them stating as such in the AfD. -- H·G (^words/_works) 07:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heavy metal umlaut

Heavy metal umlaut is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 22:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Newly-created "hipster metal"

A user created the aforementioned genre and wants it listed in the heavy metal template. Participate in the discussion here: Template_talk:Heavymetal#Hipster_metal. Prolog 17:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Professional reviews

Over a while a large number of album infoboxes have links to review sites like metal observer. This does not consitute a professional review site and as such I have been removing many of these links. Some ppl however seem to think that these should be there. Also note that such sites do not meet WP:WEB and do not have a WP article themselves. Aynway, I guess we'd better come up with a list of sites that do appear to have professional reviews for metal articles.

Professional Reviews:

Not Professional reviews

Metal observer
ANUS
Metal Storm
Metal Reviews

Spearhead 08:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it would be best not to add any reviews at all? They're all subjective and unless there are many of them, the review section of the infobox can not present multiple points of view, thus failing WP:NPOV. Usage of star ratings such as

even makes Wikipedia look like a review website, rather than an encyclopedia.

About AMG, I think many of us agree that although the website is notable and "professional", at least when it comes to metal, it is infested with factual inaccuracies such as calling black metal albums death metal. This can hurt the Wikipedia article which links such a review. Prolog 16:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Black Metal Tapes

Is there a specified color for cassete tapes? like darkseagreen for a tribute album. If someone can help me out in this, post a message to my discussion page. Darksteel 13:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joining

So, if I want to join this project, i just add my name to the list on the page? WereWolf 13:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep, as long as you make some contribution to the project, add your name and work on whatever bits you want to. Dace59 13:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inline citations

I notice there isn't much in the way of promoting inline citations within Heavy Metal related articles, so can the Wikiproject somehow place a request for members/fans to actively add inline citations? Inline citations are important in articles and add to their credibility. Simply adding the information to the article is ok, but supporting inline citations are much beneficial. LuciferMorgan 21:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It could be added to do the to-do lists. Or someone could go and flag articles with the correct "needs citations" notices. Maybe notices on talk pages of the articles. Hmmm, in some cases it's the trouble of finding notable and varifable sources for Metal stuff. Maybe we should draw up a list of all the sites we can use for citations, so people can just skim those sites for info. Though other cases it simply just needs to get done. I'll admit a lot of the articles I've made probably need citations. Dace59 22:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Actual music interviews with the artists in question I feel are the greatest articles to use for inline citations - I don't care much for other websites lest they contain interviews. LuciferMorgan 22:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dream Theater

Dream Theater is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 17:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iron Maiden

Iron Maiden is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 17:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to that if the criteria concerns aren't addressed on both these articles, we'll be down from 4 to 2 FAs. The Iron Maiden article in particular is riddled with crappy fancruft proclaiming how big they are and so on without cites - both need serious work, so let's get to work! LuciferMorgan 09:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Articles

On the Wikiproject Page, can we draw up a list of good articles, GA candidates, GA removal candidates and so on, much in the same way we have them for FAs (speaking of FAs, doesn't Marilyn Manson (band) count or do people dispute he's not heavy metal even though Kerrang and Metal Hammer cover him often?)? If we did this list, it may motivate some people to get a heavy metal related article up to GA status. Come on, let's do it! LuciferMorgan 09:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I second that - we need to elevate some articles here, it seems like most work around this project is creating stubs, fixing small format issues and whatnot - work that needs to be done, sure, but I think we have quite a few articles that are very thorough and close to GA status. What happened to the "Colaberation of the Month" thing? Im not sure it ever got off the ground, but if we focus on a band that is pretty universal, and that has a substantial existing page, rather than a stub or small article, I think there are enough "regulars" here to get stuff peer reviewed, GA status, and so on. Take a look at Dream Theater, Rush, Iron Maiden, and other featured music articles - we are not far off on a lot of stuff, really.

A few days ago I began a serious revamp of the Megadeth page (I'm up to SFSGSW now) with the goal of getting GA and then FA status. One of the main points needed is proper referencing - somthing Im not great at yet. But this article contains a lot of info, and along with detail, references, and general expansion stuff that I am adding, somthing like this could get featured.

As for stuff I've worked on - Overkill, Death Angel, and currently Megadeth I would nominate to be considered, but I think we also need to start big. Metallica, for example - may not be a fan favorite to everyone, but as a "metal" band they are easily the biggest. GA or FA should be a given there - though I don't think I'm the one for that job (I side with 'Deth, thank you!) Same with Black Sabbath, Judas Priest, Pantera, Slayer, Anthrax, ect. Bands that really define "heavy metal", the leaders of our genre need solid, reliable, rated articles.

Also, as is becoming a WikiProject standard these days - how about adopting an "assessment scale"? Another project I work with, Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts just implemented Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/Assessment, with project banners displaying assessment status on talk pages(like the album project does now) Just another way to track articles that need improvement or that are close to GA.

I'm with you 100% Lets cut this shit loose and take over Wikipedia with the power of metal!! \m/ Skeletor2112 10:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC

I'm all for everything you said. How do we gain consensus from other Project members? LuciferMorgan 17:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Probaby wait for people to notice and give views. Users like Prolog and Spearhead do lots of work on stuff and seem to be key guys, so might do well to get in touch with them. I'm certainly up for some of this stuff, but we might need to think over how to do it all. Dace59 19:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The only downside to that is that most if not all of your articles are within the scope of other WikiProjects, namely WPMusicians, WPAlbums, WPSongs. Doesn't mean you shouldn't have your own assessments department of course, but you might duplicate some effort. If you go ahead with it then please try to assess for the other Projects at the same time, cos stub to one project should be stub to another :) Likewise, if you me know when you start and I'll make sure that I double tag with your project's tag where appropriate. --kingboyk 17:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Key guys? I don' think so, because I haven't seen anyone use inline citations yet. It's about time editors started, because I'm sick of viewing every goddamn Metal related article and seeing possible "original research" issues. Read what I said under "Project page". LuciferMorgan 21:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capitals

Why do you insist that heavy metal and metal should be capitalized? I'm changing it for now. Michaelas10 12:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a member of this project, but one instance of an errant "H" does not an insistence make. Discuss. Bubba hotep 20:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Who insists and where exactly? Many users in this project, including myself, have been fixing instances of Subgenre Metal to subgenre metal, Metal to metal and so on. Prolog 21:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, there is no reason that genres need capitals -see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters). I only leave Subgenre metal as such in infoboxen. Spearhead 21:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

In that case, should the name of this WikiProject be moved to WikiProject metal? What are you suggesting to do? Michaelas10 (T|C) 00:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The first letter is capitalized per Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide. Prolog 03:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Widescale vandalism of Megadeth albums

67.185.73.31 has made a number of edits, mainly to Megadeth albums and mainly altering the track times - sometimes only by seconds, but usually quite large amounts (which are easier to spot). I have reverted some of them, but The System Has Failed is trickier because the vandalism occured a while ago and there have been several valid edits since. Thought I'd let you know. Bubba hot ep 09:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems his vandalism has gone unnoticed for a long time. I gave him a straight {{verror4-n}}, so the next time he vandalizes he can be reported on WP:AIV. Prolog 16:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

More vandalism overnight - this time to three Slayer albums. Sufficed to say, this IP will now be blocked. Bubba hot ep 09:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project page

This is a bit pompous isn't it?

"Also, first confirm that a band is really heavy metal and not hardcore, hard rock or alternative music."

Given that it's just about impossible to define these things in a way that satisfies everyone, wouldn't it be easiest to cover any loud guitar music?

I mean, some folks consider Motorhead to be hard rock, like Thin Lizzy or even early Status Quo. Lemmy himself talks about "rock" a whole lot more than he does "metal".

Just a thought. I know nothing. --kingboyk 17:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Not really, just gotta have sources, this is wiki after all. That and there are other music projects that are there to cover bands in genres that sometimes sound like Metal. And having a loud guitar really isn't that important compared to how a band actually plays. Distorted guitar and vocals do not a metal band make. Generally they make mordern rock. But if this work is that bad, people can change it. Dace59 20:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with kingboyk - the metal/rock debate is frankly bullshit, and I'm rather tired of it. People can debate all day about what's metal and what isn't, and you can have a 100 inline cites saying someone's metal, and I guarantee another could get a 100 inline cites saying the opposite. Rather than debating over what is tedious BS, can't this WikiProject get off its ass and actually do some real work? Every damn article I see concerning Metal is riddled with possible original research as everyone here thinks they're a bloody music reviewer - NEWSFLASH - any critical comments on bands/albums must come from a reliable music reviewer and be fully cited. LuciferMorgan 21:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and removed the sentence. (We need some initiative here, dammit!!) Skeletor2112 06:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Noisegrind & Cybergrind

I think that since Pornogrind has been deleted, the these two articles should also be deleted and/or merged and redirected to Grindcore since they are even less notable than Pornogrind. Any thoughts?--Inhumer 17:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, and goregrind too Spearhead 18:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I personally think Goregrind in notable enough for its own article.--Inhumer 21:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

That is, unless all the articles for the subgenres of Grindcore are deleted and given a section in the main article explaining it and naming notable band of that particular subgenre.--Inhumer 21:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I too think that goregrind should stay, unless all of the subgenres are merged to main article. In terms of notability, it's in a different league than these two, which is proven by the number of Google hits. Prolog 07:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm also unsure how to start the whole vote process--Inhumer 17:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

see WP:AFD Spearhead 18:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I started one for both, but I'm unsure on how to link the deletion debate page for Cybergrind to the main project page since its the 2nd nom for it.--Inhumer 22:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notice

I have done something that you posers should have done a long time ago and nominated Christian metal for deletion. Why was it allowed to stay here for so long? The Crying Orc 19:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I have moreover now made additions to the Christian metal, Mortification, Horde, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Nihilist Underground Society pages.

Christian metal is a well-known genre. It seems your AfD for the genre failed. Also, most of your additions seem to be adding the word "Christian" to many bands, some which may not qualify; please make sure your additions are verifiable (WP:VERIFY). --Lim e tom 03:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Church of Misery

I could not believe no one has started an article for this excellent Japanese doom band...so I did it myself. Anyone who can provide input on Church of Misery, please do so, it would be much appreciated. --Eastlaw 06:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Update--User:Mr. Spunky Toffee has taken it upon himself to list this for speedy deletion. Please help explain why this is incorrect. --Eastlaw 07:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

No doubt that was an incorrectly placed {{db-band}}. Unsurprisingly, it came with an edit summary "die, band, die". I added a few external links to the article, as they even seemed to have an AMG page. Prolog 08:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

Is anyone going to begin using inline citations and remove weasly statements in metal articles they edit? LuciferMorgan 20:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Obviously nobody could care less considering nobody has replied. LuciferMorgan 12:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Cronodevir

I've had a friendly word with the above user about changing genres on articles. Several of the articles they have recently edited have been the subject of disagreement, and in some cases protection. As a general point, admin help regarding controversial edits can always be found at WP:AN/I for content, banned user and other general problems, WP:AIV for vandalism, and myself at my talk page. Deizio talk 00:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great White

I wasn't sure how to add this to the list of metal bands we cover, they are however glam metal to the max and are covered by this project (certainly if black metal is covered i refuse to let this not be covered). I've added the tag to their talk page.--I'll bring the food 20:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now put the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 00:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This is some kind of independent project, rather than a formal Wikipedia thing, right? Deizio talk 00:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BNR Metal

BNR Metal has been listed for AfD here. This is a great website and I think it deserves an entry in Wikipedia, so let's see if we can keep it here. --Eastlaw 00:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I listed BNR as I'm not sure it meets the WP:WEB criteria (multiple, non-trival media coverage / independent, respected award / content hosted on a notable site independent of the creators), not because it's not useful. Please make any submissions to the AfD debate relevant to the :WEB guidelines, as comments such as "It's a great site" are likely to be given less weight by the closing admin. If it can be shown to meet the relevant criteria then I'm more than happy for it to have a WP article, but remember that deletion from WP will not wipe BNR off the face of the internet. Deizio talk 00:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree it's a good source and very notable within the metal scene, but as I mentioned in the Afd discussion, it doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB. I'm adding a note to the main page Deletion section. Prolog 00:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Cheesera

...has very similar habits to User:Cronodevir. I've given them a similar note (see above). Deizio talk 19:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Entwine

This band is listed as Gothic Doom metal and it has been changed simply to gothic metal before. This band has never ever been anywhere related to doom. While their earlier releases are my slow and atmospheric it doesn't make them a doom metal act. They are simply gothic metal and they should be listed as such. Listing them as gothic-doom is misleading and embarrasingly incorrect. Blackserenity 06:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to change it back. Bring it up again if it continues to happen. Deizio talk 13:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Deiz. I have fixed it up again and I will let you know if it happens again. Thanks for your help Blackserenity 14:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two Lost FAs

This Wikiproject has lost two FAs. Does it want to lose its other 2 also? If it doesn't it needs to use inline cites. LuciferMorgan 19:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This needs to be heavily emphasized. I'm slowly working on bringing Heavy metal music up to code, but editors should acquaint themselves with Wikipedia guidelines regarding sources and citation so we can avoid messes like this. WesleyDodds 03:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I also agree - we need to band together here and elevate some articles instead of making endless stubs for obscure bands and albums. I am currently working Megadeth, but I am almost done, and next I will focus my attention on bringing Iron Maiden back to FA, then Dream Theater. As I said before, we really need to get some of these core metal articles up to standard - Metallica, Black Sabbath, Judas Priest, Slayer, ect ect all deserve GA or better pages - and to get there they all require mass inline citations. I added a section to the main project page to include former FA's, so we can work those back to FA. This project has a ton of members, but it seems like we never get anything elevated... So put on a loincloth and some Manowar, and do it for the GLORY OF METAL!! \m/ Skeletor2112 04:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I really like what's been done with the Megadeth page. This should be an example of what to do.

There are certain articles that should be pretty easy to bring to GA status very quickly; all it takes is effort. For instance, one day I got sick of the "Smells Like Teen Spirit" page being a mess, so I sat down and worked on it constantly for about four days. Now it's a GA. I was able to do this because the references were readily available and I was able to use other, better articles as exemplars. In some cases like Led Zeppelin, Metallica, and Van Halen, the material available to work from (books, articles, documentaries, even analysis of their music in guitar magazines) is staggering, but why they're not GAs already is mind-boggling. WesleyDodds 09:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disturbed

I am currently proposing to add a statement on the Disturbed article. The purpose of this statement is to aknowledge the fact that many metal fans do not regard Disturbed as a "true" metal band. I have had some trouble since some users are quite protective of Disturbed's "metal" reputation. It would be helpful if those who agree with the statement give their opinion on the discusion page of the Disturbed article.

For more information: The proposition or talk to me on my talk page.

Thanks in advance for your support, Long live good music,

--Zouavman Le Zouave 10:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category: Heavy metal bands with female lead singers

How about category Heavy metal bands with female lead singers? -- Panu 23:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Since there is Category:Bands with female lead singers, I guess Category:Heavy metal bands with female lead singers could be a subcat of it. Be bold and create it. Prolog 07:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lamb of God

This page should be protected: The citations keep being replaced with wrong genres, and the page is constantly messed up by unregistered IPs. --Ryouga 02:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I listed the page for semi-protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. In the future, anytime an article comes under fire from those unregistered IP vandals(and there are enough reverts to justify a block), you can list the article there for protection. Thanks for the heads up! Skeletor2112 07:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Semi protection has been done I'd like to consider unprotecting in week or so and see what happens Gnangarra 14:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

My sincere thanks to you both -- protecting that article was a serious pain! I hope within a week or two the IPs will realize that vandalizing or removing things they disagree with won't get you anywhere. Again, thanks. --Ryouga 21:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It is a shame -- the lock was going very well, and then (I assume) an IP had made an account, and had removed "metalcore" from the genre. Yet again, they added the mislabel "death metal" without sourcing or even bothering to remove my own sourcing for the "metalcore" genre (thus making the article messy yet again). These people ignore the three sources, and keep claiming the band to the extreme metal genres without proper sourcing or discussion. I was actually hoping we could unlock the page... oh well, I don't think they'll ever accept the "metalcore" label. Reverted the page. Not too sure what to say -- I guess I'll just have to continue to watch the page, now that we have a registered account making the unsourced claims. Thanks for the lock again though -- the constant rv. wars have definitely died down. I hope this account doesn't change the page again.

In addition: it is interesting to note the same account "MetalForever" removed Lamb of God from the metalcore band page, which was reverted immediately by another user, and this makes up two of the three edits s/he made. *sigh*...It is difficult to keep the metal articles clean with users like that... --Ryouga 23:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big four

Is there actually a such thing as the "big four of thrash metal"? A google search indicates the term was invented here on Wikipedia. I suggest removal of the term from all Metallica, Anthrax, Megadeth, and Slayer as per WP:OR. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It's been around for a while, and certainly wasn't created by Wikipedia. Notice how I referenced it in the heavy metal music article. WesleyDodds 20:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The term has been used for years by music critics. Certainly didn't originate on Wikipedia - it was around long before Wikipedia was. LuciferMorgan 00:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yea, it is a common term (for thrash fans) that originated back in the late 80's, when those bands were the biggest American thrash metal bands. Cites are available, I've seen a few from the "Clash of the Titans" 1990 tour interviews with Megadeth, Slayer, and Anthrax - I can hunt a few down if it becomes a problem. Skeletor2112 05:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

That's one that I don't think really needs to be cited, as most people who have any interest in thrash metal have no doubt already heard the term used half a dozen times. I've seen it in tons of unreliable, populist/mainstream publications that don't know jack about metal, and I've heard it simply by reading thrash metal messageboards. So it's not hard to find by any means.Ours18 06:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LyricWiki

Does anyone know what the position is with LyricWiki[2]? I've been seeing links to the site appear on lots of bands' articles, e.g. Iron Maiden and they have boxes that make them appear as though they're part of the wikimedia foundation rather than just an external link. Is there a policy against linking to pages with song lyrics? Timkovski 14:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless they own the rights, these lyrics sites are usually guilty of copyright violation. LuciferMorgan 22:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Megadeth up for Featured Article

Just to let you all know, the Megadeth article is now up at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Support metal! Skeletor2112 06:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I noticed the article had alot of weasel words. I removed some, but removing them all will take awhile as the article is pretty big. Check User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_2a:_redundancy_exercises Scroll down to the boxes and see how they take words like 'both', 'has' and 'also' out to make it sound more formal. I got up to question G in Excercise 1 and about halfway removing alot of 'the's. Also maybe check User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a. Goodluck with FA :) M3tal H3ad 09:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey dude, I reverted some of your edits for reasons explained here, although I am going through and implementing the stuff you mentioned. Thanks, Skeletor2112 09:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that :$ M3tal H3ad 09:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

No worries, I look forward to seeing Slayer up there as a FA one day, too! \m/ Skeletor2112 10:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slayer

Myself and Michaelas10 (Talk) have been making big improvements to this article. Added over 40 references, moved sections, deleted sections, removed weasel words etc. But the lead is still too short. To get it to FA or GA i need to improve the lead. I was thinking someone here could help me with that. There is currently 3 paragraphs and one is way too short, and the second may be too short. Any advice, ty. M3tal H3ad 01:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey dude, I started a lead paragraph revamp on the Slayer article, with more to come later. Nice work on the overall article, it is much improved! \m/ Skeletor2112 07:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I moved the 'big four' thing into the other paragraph so it looks better and both are related. The only thing this article is missing is that one citation. Thanks again :) M3tal H3ad 07:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yea it looks much better with that sentence moved. Also, if you can find a cite, it might be good to describe a little bit about Slayer's style in the lead, somthing along the lines of "Slayer is known for their fast tremelo picked guitar style...double bass drumming...shouted vocals" type thing. Anyway, good luck! Skeletor2112 10:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Distinguishing genres and styles, and ending edit wars

As part of my cusade against the "genre edit wars" that plague many band articles, I have made the following proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians#Genre wars and the distinguishing of genres and styles.
I would appreciate feedback on this proposal. I am going to push hard for this proposal to be put into action, and I appreciate any supporters in helping me do so. Thank you. --Reaper X 01:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nightfall

I added a pic to the Nightfall page, but I am not sure if it's the right one. Could someone confirm it?Animeguy99 17:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A request to Wikiproject Metal members

When classifying bands, especially nebulous nu-metal bands, please do not contribute to edit wars. An article I watch over, Fred Durst, has seen dozens of edit wars regarding whether Durst is a nu metal or rapcore artist, or whether Slipknot is a metal band. I've asked multiple people to not contribute to these sorts of edit wars on this particular page, and I'm sure it's not the only one to see them. - Stick Fig 22:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

As I stated in my initial edit, just saying "the band" when referring to Slipknot is fine, and doesn't result in any disputes....except with you, apparently. Oh well. Don't say I didn't warn you this was going to happen. Ours18 01:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the point in removing something just because a few people who dislike the music disagree with the sentiment. It's clearly what the mainstream would describe as metal. Also, WP:NPA. - Stick Fig 02:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It isn't "a few people who dislike the music." It's "a whole freakin' lot of people who disagree with the categorization, and might possibly not like the music as well." The mainstream doesn't count as a reliable source. Like I said: just change "the metal band" to "the band" and you won't have this problem. In other words, do what I did. Ours18 02:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

To elaborate, I feel that, despite the many disagreements over what constitutes or doesn't constitute metal, they're all unnecessary and are just drags on our time. Narrowing genres or removing them entirely isn't the solution. It's understanding that they need to be broad enough for the average person to recognize. Your involvement in the mallcore debate shows your bias against the music in this situation. I'm a fairly neutral party, as I don't listen to any sort of metal, nu or otherwise, and am just trying to create a good article here. Fred Durst was a very-poorly-edited article before I started helping with it (I specifically chose to edit it because I don't have any sort of passionate opinion about him), and these sort of edit wars take away from an article's usefulness. Not just those I'm personally involved in editing.

If you don't like the music, that's fine. But you're not the average person. You're a metal fan. And you're going to bring that bias with you in your edits about music you don't particularly like.

Please respect my wishes in this situation. - Stick Fig 02:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ours. Changing "the metal band" to "the band" does not do anything negative to the article apart from taking away a reason for edit wars. As for your statements about the "average person", I think that the "average person" should not be given information that is disagreed upon. An article cannot be given a bias by erasing a useless word, this is actually taking away any kind of bias. And finally, shouldn't the opinion of metal fans matter? I mean, the article says that Slipknot is a "metal band", so I guess the metal fans are involved in the dispute! I am going to look further into the Fred Durst article in order to make my mind. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. --Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • See my edits!)} 10:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You've also sided with Ours on the Mallcore debate, and you're also guilty of making the same edit, so I don't think you're the right person to chime in here. We need a third party to the situation. - Stick Fig 19:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to say that I was completely unaware of the edit war when I edited the article. Inhumer 21:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Band Lists

I think band lists should be semi-protected as unregistered users add bands without articles on a regular basis.Inhumer 05:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the list of musicians should also be protected. I have participated on the list of bass guitarists, and I don't want to generalize, but unregistered users are usually the ones who add bands/musicians without articles. Zouavman Le Zouave 10:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Metal_5c46.html"