User talk:Weltanschaunng

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Old Discussions: From the beginning to Feb-Mar 2008

vn-2 This user's talk page has been vandalized 2 times.



Contents

[edit] Good work

The Original Barnstar
Great job making a "list"... more than just a list. All the other lists are useless and can be replaced by categories. You took my advice and made the thrash list more of a "keeper". Keep up the good work. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


PS The lead on the thrash list could use a little more girth. Nothing too detailed... just a couple of extra lines to beef it up a bit more. Look at the List of Telecaster players for an example of an excellent lead-in for a music related article... it gives the list (and the reasons for it) a bit more longevity. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flagicons n' stuff

I usually agree with you on most issues. Just like how we both prefer line breaks and the such. But, I think the flagicons are a good thing. Even if one cannot tell what country a band comes from just by looking at the flag, you can always put your mouse on the flagicon and it will say the country. I think the flagicons are useful and helpful. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 21:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Left to quizzes? what do you mean by that? and do something about beforehand? I'm sorry I can't see where you're going with that. Well, that post above is about this current flag issue, a discussion where we will vote for its importance or not. It's basically for every list so I don't know why it's there and not at, say list of metal bands by genre or wherever the correct place for it should be. Oh and I agree^ I don't really see the nationalism for country comes in, it's just an honest list of metal bands and it's understandable that someone would want to put their mouse over the flag because even I do that. Also, I've asked my friend that knows nothing about wikipedia what he thinks about flags and he says he enjoys them a lot more than a long bare page but of coarse that's his pov and all but shouldn't we keep the actual people that visit wikipedia in mind? I also must say that I haven't been able to see what's been going on lately because crazy things have been going on in my college in the downtown area. Seems some thiefs were caught down there and really that's the main reason why I haven't been able to reply until now. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 00:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I know, it is basically only one editor pushing his pov (I also have some other things that I may want to e-mail you about) while many remain in favor of flags (even someone like Twsx (not to focus on but I find interesting enough)). Well, about identification, if someone (the reader) doesn't know the flag their first intention is most likely to mouse over onto the flag which only takes a second or two. I'm not really sure where the guy is on the drop-down feature, which may cause a whole new discussion entirely, plus the usage of that col-command. If he disfavors the drop-down too then here comes more chaos. If worse comes to worse, I've been thinking of keeping the col templates in but adding wikitables for each letter with origin | band | maybe their label (or labels) -{not too sure of this one} and maybe the year formed as well, I really don't know, the skys the limit basically. Maybe these type of things could be mentioned in the first couple of sentences. It should act like a discography list of sorts with different things listed around the releases like chart entries, record labels, and the like (not for the lists it's just a mention that lists should not only be a list but a list of lists) unless we make a list of x genre bands from country and theres already bands by label but not by a specific genre.

As for the thrash list, the list is really looking great now, especially with those pictures in place and yea also add the German three (the three kings). Maybe key thrash labels should be mentioned as well that helped the scene come into being and thrash metal scenes could also be mentioned like the Bay Area scene, East Coast scene and Brazilian scene, Teutonic (Germanic/German) scene (which may add a bit of reasoning for mentioning their location to show how it has spread). I think it will be a good example for what all the other lists should eventually be like. Although, one small question, why isn't the contents box centered? −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 06:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yea, that format seems to confuse users (several times I saw people adding bands into albums or between the formating) but with the 156.xx ip approving it, we're 100% safe on that. Maybe we could add hidden messages there to help people out, like: don't place band here at the start of the format and at the end of the format or where the albums go. Well, I might just experiment a little on what I want to do (and if it even can be done) and see how it comes out and if it goes well I'll suggest it. The tables will be somewhat of a backup plan if the flagicons end up deleted because I don't exactly see how their location with parenthesis will be like for e.g. band (country). You say you liked LoCmb before? Also, I would like to see how you envision it so I could maybe explain things a bit better [maybe draw me a picture of what you think I think ;)] because with your images even a smudge is your work. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 07:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I've done what I basically wanted to do, I removed the flagicons although I could readd them in. See here for an example. In my opinion, it's exactly what I wanted it to do, it looks good. :) −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 08:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool, looks good, I wasn't sure how far you wanted me to add to it. Also have a question: do you still want that expandable list feature or not? or did you just happen not to include it because it was just some example? −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 08:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well images can/could be used in the tables and they can be thumbed by adding |thumb within the link. Take a look now: User:CircafuciX/Sandbox although the image would ruin that style. I was going to do that before you changed it. (I see now but for years use endash and don't link years because of WP:DATE) −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 09:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, if any new idea comes up I'll tell you about it. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 09:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll just toss in my opinion, for what it's worth. :-) I think the table format looks good, however, I truly do find the flags useful to have. On many occasions, I'll be like "Self, let's go look up some UK thrash bands," so I will do a fast scan of the list for the ol' Union Jack. Quick and easy! With the suggested format, however, now one would have to actually go through the list one by one reading the country names. Ya know? Just my opinion. --Managerpants (talk) 13:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


To be honest, I don't like it. I prefer the flagicons to the country names. For one, the flagicons are uniform and are all the same length and size. They're flashy, too, which helps if you're looking for something specific, as Managerpants pointed out. As I said before, if you don't know your flags you can always put your mouse hand on a flagicon and it will say what country it is. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 22:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re: Sandbox

Several of the Featured lists related to music use the table format. Its typically used for discographies and award lists. It is not wrong to use it here. I tend to think they look rather 'cold'. I am not sure what purpose having labels serves either. For dry topics like discographies and awards the table form is good. For "living topics" like bands I think the format used in, List of major opera composers has a better overall look and provides more information. Always remember these "List of X genre bands" are always on the verge of being deleted because they can be replaced easily by a category. The teenybopper fanboy cabal has saved a few from extinction... they likely won't be able to do it again. In order to save the Thrash list it needs to move away from the dry, boring, columns and add content that makes it a resource... not a "replaceable with a category" candidate. I read a lot of the support comments for the little flags but they were all coming from users who aren't very good editors and likely wouldn't know how to build a featured article. They seem to think Wiki should look some an amateur fansite and not an encyclopedia. Your idea about dividing the list by country first and - then alphabetical is still a good one. If you look at the Opera composers list you see they are divided by half-centuries. Translated over to the thrash list that would = dividing it by decade.... which wouldn't be good at all. It all comes down to the "prose" you select to include along with each entry that emphasises their place in the history of the thrash sub-genre. A good list is a companion piece to the main article. I keep going back to it but the List of Telecaster players is an excellent companion piece to the Fender Telecaster article. One is about the guitar and doesn't focus so much on people... the list is about the people who make the subject of the main article notable. Several editors(myself included) worked to remove all the "name dropping" and trivia from the main Thrash metal page so that the Thrash list could be fleshed out with some genuine quality content. Unfortunately some of the previously mentioned "teenybopper fanboys" have pushed some of the cruft back into the main Thrash page. Again... these are very poor editors so their lack of quality contribution has to be taken with a bit lip. CircafuciX is an editor who genuinely seems to want to move away from the cruft cabal and try to work towards true encyclopedia building. Getting his sandbox started was a great first move. There is no sense in experimenting with the main list too much until you know what direction you want to go. If you divide the list into "by country" sections perhaps you can throw the little flags in somewhere there and still appease the fanboys. In the end it'll save this list from the eventual fate of the list of power metal, list of black metal, list of death metal etc... lists that are all on a short term lifespan here. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 14:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] The 156 IP man and you

I'm surprised you guys are friends. I mean, I'm not that surprised, I guess, but you guys disagree on a lot of issues, or so it would seem, even though I've never seen you argue. You prefer line breaks, he prefers comma breaks. He doesn't like logos or other things he deems nonencyclopedic (in his mind anyways) yet you seem to have a stake in logos as you've uploaded at least a handful or so. Idk. W/e I guess, heh. It's not really any of my business. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 22:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it does. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 19:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Progressive metal list

Please help me! they are trying to merge the list of progressive metal artists and are actually questioning your thrash list... I am doing some editing to try to make it "a keeper", if you know what I mean. ;) still help! −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 01:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Metal list format

I decided to make a new section for this instead of using the general topic. I just happened to see before you messaged me (which I knew was coming). Yea looks good to me so far you might have something there. Also, you're right with the Rome wasn't built in a day thing, I agree and I think it will take a considerable amount of time for these lists to become featured and for people within the project to wake up and see the possibilities. So yea, why delete them? They will just get recreated again and we need to actually see what we're doing as a whole (unless one person does everything and uses sand boxes as you are well I wouldn't really say everything on those terms but from a format usage way, (hope you understand)). But I could dream that they all will be featured someday at least. Maybe checking the featured lists (of music) histories will be interesting to see. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 09:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm sure I know a little more about them than you do because they're from my area. :) I'll see what I can do but what exactly are you unsure of? everything? Hope you don't mind I switch things up a bit. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 13:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about White Noise and Stomp being "mainstream metal" it's hard to tell this fact but I think I've heard mixed reviews with those two, especially Stomp. And their new releases after those are definitely thrashy. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 15:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I would not say that exactly, they did jump off thrash but didn't "fall" that bad as Metallica did so I'm sure it wasn't total disgust. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 16:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I really don't know about that resolution problem and yea I'm about due for that. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 16:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

How could that be the problem? −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 18:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The blue boxes show for me. I have no clue why it's doing that for you. Maybe something needs to be changed in the format. Also, enough of this and back to the metal list format from now on! −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 18:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yea I saw the edit he did and I was stumped as well... I think it is looking great now it's a lot cleaner and appreciate the flagicon still being used but will other locations of bands be added in later as well? I keep trying to envision how it would end up. It's 1:40 here right now and I'm getting hungry so I'll do a few edits and be off for awhile. And other than the big 4 and the three German kings what other bands should be featured? −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 18:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I am eavesdropping. Every entry should have a blurb of some kind. IMHO the central showpieces of this article should be: A) The 'big four' B)The 3 notable German acts (Ipersonally only see one of them as a "1st tier" but... oh well) C)the 2 Bay Area "runners-up"... Exodus and Testament D)Overkill-just like Slayer/Exodus-they've never deviated from their roots. E)Biased Canadian opinion... Annihilator (I personally don't like them but... like Exodus/Slayer/Overkill LONG history of straight forward thrash metal) F) Sepultura - to me more 'death' than thrash but... well y'know they are what they are and thrash or not... they are a massive influence on the genre. G) the leftovers-Death Angel, Dark Angel, Flotsam and Jetsam, Forbidden, Nuclear Assault, Voivod, Suicidal Tendencies and Scared Reich. These acts should be given priority as list "showcase pieces". Every entry ahould have at least one line but the acts I have just listed are far and above the rest of the pack as far as the history of the genre goes. A good rule of thumb... aim for 3 lines at least.... maybe four. I am very picky but I think the sandbox prose entries need lots of work. If you want I will help. I have a knack for summarising for lists like this (I have built or tweaked many of the entries on the List of Gibson players and the List of Stratocaster players) But I can't pump them out quickly... I usually run them over aa few times (with a mental locomotive) before I see a wording that appeals to me. The Slayer wording that I threw out in the post below... that one was easy... because the subject was easy. I would still tweak it out so that it could actually be referenced and not just my own poetic plug. Like I say below... focus on "the thrash" not the soap operas. Direct quotes from reliable sources can do your work for you... you just have to find them. 156.34.231.56 (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok that color should be better. death metal has the most - more so than black metal. Yea, I like dark and intense colors ;) (the white here on wikipedia personally hurts my eyes) and blackle? lol I never saw that. Thanks though I guess. I won't have a lot of time to make real edits because I need to use my week off (next week) pretty much to finish my load of work... Also saves power? does it really? −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 19:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow that is pretty cool and almost the way I wanted it. Thanks! my eyes feel better already :) −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 20:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Offered an alterate wording

As I read from one list to another I notice that most really well done list entries don't focus on "the whole"... they focus on the entries relationship to the title of the article. I stuck a more general version for Metallica to show an example. Your wording was OK... but to me it didn't "nail" their thrash importance... instead it detailed what a few consider to be their 'non-thrash' elements. I saw Metallica and Anthrax both before either of them had ever released an album. And as much as I loved their ealiest elements of music... I still think Anthrax's Volume 8 is as solid an album as Among the Living was.(and ATL is one of my favourite thrash albums of all of 'em) As for Metallica. I consider Justice to be just as much a thrash album as the first 3... and as good as any of their first four 'masterpieces' are... "Outlaw Torn" off the Load album is the best song they ever did. Your wording for Megadeth also seems to alude to some sort of on-again/off-again thrash and specifies which albums "are" and which "aren't" Being that specific within the confines of any list should be avoided... if possible. I don't think Megadeth have done a "thrash" album since 'Peace'. But their music is not easily pigeonholed into any other limiting sub-genre class either. So for them I think the important "nail" is to emphasise "Peace Sells" and find a really good quote. It's OK to say the band formed after Mustaine was fired from Metallica. But keep it very brief... the entry is about A)Megadeth and B)Thrash metal. Breaking up and getting back together... not so important. That's detail for the band's main article. Focus on "the thrash" Slayer is easy. Slayer are one of thrash metal's earliest and most influential bands and have not deviated into any other musical form since their inception. Their "blunt force musical attack" has been maintained in every album the band has released. The extreme aggression in the vocal style showcased in their albums has been credited as a direct influence on death metal. I just made that up in the last 2 minutes... Like I said... Slayer are easy. Another "easy" candidate... Exodus. But with them, like the others... don't focus on the breakups/regroups/numerous frontmen.... etc. Focus on the music. Focus on the thrash. The word come easy then. Cited direct quotes are great too in any entry. 156.34.231.56 (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Metallica

Go back to a version of the article from last autumn. The actual sales total is 90 million and there were 2 refs for it. 156.34.216.200 (talk) 08:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, the link for Metallica's entry on the List of best-selling music artists page is one of the 2 refs that was used last year to support 90 million. The other ref was long standing in the article (I know that because I reverted vandalism to it quite a lot) 156.34.216.200 (talk) 08:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New topic location

Hi. Please do not start new topics at the top of the page (as you did in this edit); instead, please follow the advice "Start new topics at the bottom of the page" here. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 09:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Heavy metal fashion

What do you think of this article? I think it is incredibly shitty. I put it up for deletion. If you agree (or disagree by some chance) with my reasoning cast your vote, please. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 23:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your attire comment. I already said that a long time ago. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 18:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A related topic to focus on

A thought that I had as you work towards making the List of thrash metal bands a list that stands out above being just a repeat of a category... perhaps you can take the time to review the Category:Thrash metal musical groups to make sure there are no "non-thrash" band who have been given the category in error. It look to me like there may be more bands with the category then there are bands on your list. The two should pretty much match up. 156.34.239.151 (talk) 12:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Here I am :D

A quick critique on the Anthrax entry... ...I would reverse the first sentence. IE: Of the "big four" of thrash metal Anthrax was, perhaps, the most adventurous in terms of genre-crossing, experimentation and tempering often serious music with a healthy dose of humor and realism. The rest is OK except I personally don't like about.com as a citation/reliable source and Chad Bowar is no more notable then... well... me :D . The quote from AMG about "Among" being the band's high point is perfect. Can a similar quote be found to historically link that album as an influence into the genre as a whole? I know it's my personal fave for thrash albums. But, like Chad, I am not a reliable source. :D

I am liking the wording of the other entries. I will read them through a few times and see if anything leaps... but so far they seem OK. Is there anything to get the fact that Death Angel came "out of the blocks" when most of th band were still only teenagers?(I think their debut was recorded when the drummer was only 15). Trivial trivia... but citable... fleshes it out a bit and adds a bit the the whole Bay area/thrash creativity thing.

You are covering off all the "biggies" well. Whose next... not too many left out so far. Sacred Reich, Nuclear Assault.. a few others that fit into the "3 or 4 sentences" category. The rest can be just one-liners.

It's really looking good. 156.34.220.124 (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The main thing with about.com / allexperts.com is the author credentials. They may have access to many staff writers for some subjects. But for many others they just seem to scape out anyone who seems to have a background. My cousin, who is an accountant by trade, has been writing/reporting regularly for a regional music magazine for almost 30 years. As a hobby. He is a good wroter who provides loads of information about the local music scene. But I wouldn't consider him to be a reliable source. And many of about's submissions come from writers just like my cousin. It's just my thought that it's pretty low on the reference food chain. 156.34.220.124 (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Pro sites... no not really. I prefer books. Kerrang... the website is pretty barren. A websource for old Kerrang issues would be good. You really have to dig deep into the printed word to find good quotes. KNAC the radio station has hosted many many interviews over the years... but I am not sure if they publish them online. Rockdetector.. the website... isn't very good. But it's owner, Garry Sharpe-Young, is a published author on the subject of heavy metal and his book has been used as a ref quite a lot on Wikipedia. 156.34.220.124 (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The prods

I got your email and replied to you about it. It's not an issue of keeping it it's an issue of when I created it (explained in more detail in the email). −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 21:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, did you get it? If not, our emailing won't be mutual then. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 03:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Iced Earth/Heathen

Well I would say mainly their first 2 really stand out as thrash. Then later on, power metal/normal heavy metal took over (after Something Wicked Comes thrash diminished further but I've heard they may have been back to more thrash) and their songs remained thrash-influenced to the point that a few songs can be called thrash or have elements of it. I'll also silently say they have some progressive metal influences as well throughout their releases. Their album's genres can be debatable though but if references can be found on this that would be helpful.

As for Heathen, I can't seem to find anything useful. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 03:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, seems TMO was deleted for notability (which I thought was established somewhere before it was created) so I'm unsure of it's use here anymore (which is unfortunate). We need more "reliable" metal review sites, etc with experts on metal that actually know what they're talking about (but from an unbiased pov of course). −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 03:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's the one you emailed me with.

I don't have metal megazines, so I can't help you there.

I hope the format is received well too but sometimes maybe this is for the best... or save it for wikimetal [1](which has my type of colors! almost, although it's in French which will be hard for me to edit). −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 01:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HOW TO?

dude how do u super script ur user talk link ?-- Pushdgr8 12:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
TELL ME SOME THING ABOUT USERBOX AND HOW TO USE THEM

[edit] Bathory

I don't think so, it would be better that those albums be left out. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 22:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really the person to ask for Bathory... :as Navnløs gets pulled into the interesting discussion:.......... (awaits) −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 03:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmmmm, to be honest I'm not quite sure. Personally, I would not include the pre-Viking era albums. I realize Bathory is first wave black metal, but to me they never really had any of the thrashy sound like, say, Venom did. I think before we do anything, more research is required. But as I said, I wouldn't include any Bathory albums except Requiem, Octagon and maybe Destroyer of Worlds. When i get a chance I'm gonna listen to some of my early Bathory albums and listen carefully and try to decipher what level of thrash I hear in it. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 18:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Morbid Saint

Which info on Morbid Saint are you referring to? About them being a favorite opener of Death? I found that on Encyclopaedia Metallum and their Myspace (I know, I know, not the best of sources) and it seems to be somewhat common knowledge that I've seen in a lot of forums. People either say they were a favorite opener of Death or a favorite opener of Chuck's, which means the same thing. They did open for Death a TON. Maddox does rule. Also, what are you talking about for Bathory? If there's anyone who knows Bathory, it's me =). Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 22:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna look for something that says that. I found a portueguese website that said, "Juntando isso ao vocal maníaco de Pat Lind, não tinha como não agradar Chuck Schuldiner e aos thrashers!" But I'm not totally sure what that means exactly...I did fin this site: http://www.emptywords.org/TALKS.htm which has a TON of interviews with Chuck and other members of Death, etc. I can't possibly look through all of that now, though. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 18:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Well then, to be honest, I don't know what to say, man. I'll keep looking, I guess. As for Bathory I responded in the above section. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 20:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Lol!! I got, "Joining this to the vocal maniac of Pat Lind, it did not have as not to please Chuck Schuldiner and to thrashers!" from Babel Fish. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 20:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm guessing you still want that source to prove that Morbid Saint was a favorite opener of Death or Chuck Schulinder. What if I were to email someone who knew either band about it back in those days and they were to confirm it? Could I use that as a source? And, if so, how exactly does one source an email? Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 20:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tremor (band)

Hello! I just wonder why you made this change? At Myspace the band themselves say they are playing death, black and thrash metal. They have only released one album yet, but i belive they are planing for more releases in short time.

Sorry for my poor English :) BiblioteKarin (talk) 19:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Metalcore#Attention_to_all:_New_Wave_of_American_Heavy_Metal

What's your opinion on this matter? Please share on that page. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 22:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! I don't listen to pretty much any metalcore (I used to) because I detest the genre (and it's totally not metal IMO). But your reasoning is right. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 18:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Metal#Genre delimiters

You're invited to the above. --Bardin (talk) 14:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello there!

I wanted to ask you a question, since you're a fan of heavy metal. Me and another user have been having some problems on the Shadows Fall page. I'm not a fan of their music but I noticed that someone had put thrash metal as one of their genres and I immediately changed it to metalcore, as I believe that is the style of music they play. Now the other editor didn't agree with this and we had a little edit war. Well now I want to gather some consensus on it so we can resolve the issue. If you go here you may vote on what genre(s) you think Shadows Fall has played. Thanks. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 19:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you need any help with anything feel free to let me know. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 19:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Eh, don't worry about it. Focus on your exams. Good luck with them! I have finals coming up, too. Cheers! Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 17:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)