Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Black Metal

• No archives yet.

To start a new discussion section, please click here

[edit] the grim and frostbitten beginning

Here it is. It's mostly kinda minimal for now, since I've copied it all from Undeath's pages and the parent project's pages. I haven't changed the colors yet though. That may be something to do later on. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 02:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

If this get's big, which if I have anything to do with it, it will, I'll branch out and make a separate wikiproject. Undeath (talk) 03:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think our first priority should be to get the word out, and the best way to do that- mass tagging. J Milburn (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Great, I think that's best as well. We've already started, but there's so much to do. I think a great place to start is looking at what links to the black metal page and adding templates to articles that need them. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 17:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll get myself a metaphorical coffee and wade through Category:Black metal musical groups. J Milburn (talk) 17:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

ARGH! Grimmig und Erfroren!!!! I love it. I'm surprised we're even allowed to use an upside-down cross as our image thing. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 18:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea if we actually are, but it was the first thing that came to my mind. We can change it if we get complaints, but I hope we won't because it's petty awesome. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 18:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

We can and will. If you get any Christian types complaining, send them towards WP:CENSORED, and tell them that they really need to learn a little about their own religion. J Milburn (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It is pretty awesome. J Milburn is right about wikipedia not being censored and I realize the inverted cross is actually originally a Christian symbol (and still is; though uncommon), but it's obvious we're not using it that way... Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 19:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I just added a handful of template. I know you guys have all added way more than me, but how could you have forgotten Mayhem and Immortal!? Or Enslaved? Or Rotting Christ? Anyways. Argh! What is this? Celtic Frost, Hellhammer and Mercyful Fate were also forgotten! And Desaster and Emperor! As well as Marduk and Gorgoroth? Why are you guys mostly focusing on small bands? We should get the biggest bands in the genre first if you want more people to join. Satyricon, Sepultura and some of the 1st wave bands like Death SS were also overlooked. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 19:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm moving through categories in an orderly fashion so as to get as many down as possible. I would have got to them eventually! J Milburn (talk) 20:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Lol, alright. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 20:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I tagged each thing linking to Horna. (I bet with some effort, they could be FA class) Undeath (talk) 07:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quick question

What about Slayer? I was going to add the template but I was'nt sure. I know they never played the style, but they were pretty influential to it, their early stuff anyways. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 19:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother. Slayer already has a fantastic project of their own. J Milburn (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

True. Okay, thanks. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 20:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Band tagging

Ok, I've covered everything in Category:Black metal musical groups apart from Category:Polish black metal musical groups, Category:Norwegian black metal musical groups and Category:Swedish black metal musical groups, and I've had enough for tonight. If anyone wants to deal with them, go for it. AWB has a way to do this, but, try as I might, I can't get it to work. I'm not exactly technically minded... J Milburn (talk) 21:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice work. I'd just like to add that assessment on these articles is pretty easy if the Metal project already has a template their (most, if not all, do); I've always copied the class from the HMM one to the BM one. I dunno about the importance factor; it's pretty ambiguous for now. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 02:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah; I was just going for mass tagging here- if/when I start doing assessments, I would generally like to accompany it with a quick clean of the article. Some of them are awful... J Milburn (talk) 07:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page banners

Ummm ... I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade but task forces are not supposed to add yet another banner to the overcrowded talk pages of articles. Instead, task forces are supposed to be integrated into the parent project banner per this. For an example of how a task force is integrated into the parent project banner, take a look at the Christian music banner at Talk:Christian metal where the Christian metal task force is integrated or better yet Talk:Demilitarisation where two different military related task forces are integrated. The WikiProject Military history apparently has the most number of task forces so perhaps we could learn some things from them. --Bardin (talk) 04:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

hmmm... perhaps I should have read that before making that … I'd fix it but I'm tired of working on templates at the moment :) = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 04:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought that, but I had resigned myself to the belief that we were a separate project in everything but name. Also, Christian metal still has tags everywhere. I guess we could just split off from WP:HMM, I have a few ideas about what we could do as a project that the metal project itself would struggle with... J Milburn (talk) 07:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, well, if we're going to move it, it'll be best to do it now before it gets too big. I know it's ironic considering I was the one who said it should be a task force, but what's the general opinion on moving it? J Milburn (talk) 07:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

To its own project? Sure, why not? Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 18:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, whoever wants to coordinate that will have to move everything to WikiProject Black metal, rather than WikiProject Metal/Black metal task force, and fix the bits and bobs (userbox, talk page banner) appropriately. Remember the categories will also need renaming- do it manually and I'll delete the old ones. There's also a central list of WikiProjects somewhere, and a note on the WP:HMM page wouldn't go amiss. J Milburn (talk) 19:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll do the move. Just tell me when. Undeath (talk) 03:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Whenever you like. Remember to change the wording of, and, more importantly, the category names, on the templates. J Milburn (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Needed bands

I'll post here when I find a band that needs an article. (i have five accounts on metal archives lol) I'll scan the pages of the metal encyclopedia looking for notable bands. Here is the first one.

1. Musta Surma (have released a few albums/done splits with Horna, notable label too)Undeath (talk) 07:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

A good idea- how about we make a little project page for 'requested articles'? J Milburn (talk) 07:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Created it here; it's linked from the task force 'things to do' section. J Milburn (talk) 07:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll make a deal. If someone makes a page for the band, I'll make all the album pages. (I made all of the Horna album pages as well as all the Astrofaes album pages too.) Undeath (talk) 07:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Oooooooh! I like the "things to do" list. Very organized. Well I could help with the Musta Surma page, but it might have to wait a bit. I'm quite busy at the moment. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 18:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Okay...it's consensus time

Since we have mass tagged bands, and seeing as we are growing fairly fast in relation to users and articles, I think it's time, already, to move the task force to a full blown project. I'm willing on doing the move, but I want your opinions. I think that a task force limits exposure and the formation of a new group will attract new members. Undeath (talk) 05:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Considering how I totally screwed up the formation of the task force and how it's basically a project in its own right, I don't really see why not. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 05:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I just realized that we don't need a consensus as this is a project and not a regular page, but, I'll wait a bit. I'll move the page when I wake up sometime within the next day or two. (I have insomnia, so when I sleep, I sleep a long time. I havn't slept in...4 days now XD) Undeath (talk) 06:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting... = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 06:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Now I can't sleep again. Time for x box and tv. I'll hopefully bore myself to sleep. Lol. I'll be back on later. More than likely tomorrow. (late tomorrow) Undeath (talk) 07:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to make the move now. If any objections ever occur, I can always move it back, but, for the time being, the move is taking place. Please notify me if a page is left unmoved, or move it yourself. Undeath (talk) 00:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Wicked sweet. I hope not too many people join. That would kinda ruin it for me. I like a small group. Only for the elite. Is he joking? Is he serious? Hmmm. Indeed. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Ha, we are the elite black metalheads. Undeath (talk) 07:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The Satanic Elite =D ≈ The Haunted Angel 11:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

HAIL XD. Undeath (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gorgoroth

I have decided to bring up this topic because I am sceptical over the decision to list Gaahl and King as the members based on a statement that was issued in December 2007. Allow me to paste here an extract from a post I made on their forums:

So, if I can comprehend the legal situation correctly:

King and Anders Odden apply for trademark in September 2007

Egil Horstad (Infernus' lawyer) warns King and Gaahl that the application was in violation of Norwegian trademark law and threatens legal action in October 2007

In December 2007, a week after Regain publicly announce their decision to side with Infernus, a statement is released saying that the Norwegian Patent Office have gone in favour of Gaahl and King.

So, I'm under the impression that after having read Horstad's letter, King did succeed in getting the trademark for Gorgoroth, but:

'§ 2. The exclusive right to a trademark may also be acquired without registration when the trademark is established by use.'

'§ 14. 7 it is liable to be confused with a trademark which someone else has started to use before the applicant, and the applicant was aware of this use when he filed his application for registration;'

Along with other sections of the act referred to in the infernus myspace blog link in this article, click 'older' to see the letter.

Patentstyret Trademark Act

Therefore, the application was considered an abrogation of the above conditions and hence illegal and so now it's going through the second office and the courts.

And if I'm correct, King and Gaahl released the statement to counter Regain's, and ensure that the masses (as exemplified by select users on youtube etc.) would ignore Infernus and flock to them.

To iterate, I am personally convinced that the article which prompted the listing of King and Gaahl as the current members really concerns itself with the possibility that the First Department of the Norwegian Patent Office gave their approval to King and Gaahl, not a court decision like King says. I believe that King is deceiving the public into thinking that a court case has closed the settlement for good in a bid to get them to ignore Infernus.

While I am aware that it has been argued that the Norwegian Patent Office has given authority to King and Gaahl, and hence they should be listed as the current members, one could also argue that due to the conditions from the Patenstyret Trademark Act I listed above, this was done in an illicit and illegal manner and hence this authority is dubious.

Therefore, I think the current revision of the Gorgoroth article is inappropriately biased and hence for the time being requires further revision in order to ensure NPOV.

Dark Prime (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

As of now, the current member list is correct. Until all legal matters are resolved, when that time will be is unknown, the article will be a hard one to ensure complete NPOV. Undeath (talk) 06:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, I feel that it is not neccessarily correct because the trademark was arguably acquired illegitimately, and Gaahl and King are possibly being given more credence than they deserve. I propose that both line ups should be listed on the page, while in the introduction it should be stressed that there is a legal dispute and there should be a comprehensive section on the legal dispute within the article. Dark Prime (talk) 09:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

As a disinterested observer who has not even heard of the band till now, it seems to me that the inclusion of this King and Gaahl as the band members has a reliable source for verifiability: the Norwegian Patent Office. Does the contention that this recognition is illicit, illegal and dubious has a reliable source for verifiability or would that be original research? --Bardin (talk) 11:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

This link (in the infernus myspace blog link in this article, click 'older' to see the letter), which refers to a letter (from October 2007) by attorney Egil Horstad from Vogt & Wiig, where he warned Gaahl and King that the latter's application for the trademark back in September 2007 violated some terms from the Patenstyret trademark act. I will admit I have done original research to see if these claims were reliably cited, but at the same time I did this research based on material provided by Infernus: done in the same fashion as King and Gaahl and hence I feel for the time being Infernus should deserve as much credence as them. Because of not only this original research but also the news article relating to Infernus (e.g. employing trademark expert Kate Lohren) as well as the fact that his Gorgoroth site is still intact, I feel the current revision of the Gorgoroth wikipedia article is supporting the apparent misconception that 'the case is closed' - as according to King in the wake of a statement referring to the approval of the first dept. of the Patent Office that was released a week after Regain Records decided to side with Infernus. Dark Prime (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Bardin, how the hell did you not ever hear of Gorgoroth? Lol. Thatz funny.Undeath (talk) 15:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't this discussion be better at Talk:Gorgoroth? This page is good for drawing attention to article-specific discussions that could use further opinions, but not for actually having them. Having discussions here limits it more to WikiProject members rather than other editors who may be interested, and you can't really make article-specific edits based upon a consensus here. J Milburn (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll copy the discussion over to Talk:Gorgoroth then. I just felt that since this project was possibly becoming an assertive body then it would be ideal to take matters here. Dark Prime (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

As I say, notifying the project of page-specific discussions is a great idea, but discussion here should be about the project itself or to develop consensus regarding several pages. J Milburn (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Time to focus on an article?

I just found this Wikiproject from Wikiproject Metal, and I'm interested in contributing. I'm a big black metal fan myself. It looks like you guys have done a good job starting it up. However, I think to start with we all should pick an important article and focus on it. Maybe we can focus on improving the Black metal, Mayhem, Burzum, or Immortal articles to good article or even featured article status? I believe this is the best way to get a fresh start on improving the black metal articles on Wikipedia. It's a shame to see even the most important black metal related articles as stubs. dethmetal (talk) 02:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

My vote is to improve the black metal article to FA class first. Then move onto Immortal etc... Undeath (talk) 06:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you proposing a collaborative effort? The black metal article has a long way to go before it can get to FA class. There are a lot of paragraphs that are completely devoid of any references. There also appears to be an abundance of original research. It looks like something that needs a near complete overhaul. I say near complete because there are some bits with references that can be salvaged. If we're going to do a collaborative effort, then I'd suggest that we should discuss things over in some detail first since we might not all be in agreement as to what this black metal article should contain. Perhaps create a sandbox with an accompanying talk page where we can exchange ideas, share links and sources, experiment around with the placement of photos and samples, etc. That's what I did when I worked on the folk metal and gothic metal articles, only I was pretty much on my own in both cases. --Bardin (talk) 12:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If I might have some input here, I feel that the ideology section could do with some revision. Although the opening sentence acknowledges that any attempt to try an establish an ideology is bound to generalise to the extent that certain traits are played up unfairly, I would suggest that some of the following sentences should be rewritten. The sentences imply that black metal has to be about nihilism, nationalism or individualism. While personally I agree with invidualist sentiment, it should be stressed that fundamentally black metal bands have promoted anti-Right Hand Path sentiment (particularly anti-Christian sentiment) in some way or another, and to a lesser extent misanthropy. Theistic or LaVeyan Satanists aren't Pagans or nihilists, Euronymous wasn't an individualist, Pagans aren't nihilists, there's too much inconsistencies to promote a 'coherent ideology' that goes further than anti-Right Hand Path sentiment or misanthropy. Furthermore, while select black metal musicians have been philosophically and ideologicaly inclined, they've also at times expressed disinterest in a 'coherent black metal ideology' or subculture, instead preferring to go about their own devices.

Oh, and just to be a bit light, I suppose it'd be harmless to refer to here. Dark Prime (talk) 12:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I can definitely support this idea (focusing on a single important article for a while) but I probably won't help out- I'd rather focus on categorisation and working with the smaller bands (deleting where necessary, cleaning everything else, adding a source here and there- perhaps writing up a couple) than heavy aiming-for-FA writing. J Milburn (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll definitely help out - it's about time there was a project that focussed on black metal, so let's get working on it. I agree with the notion of working on the title article first. ≈ The Haunted Angel 19:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. A good idea however is to gather some sources first. Does anybody have any reliable sources that can be used for the article? dethmetal (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

To start with, I think it would be good to account for interviews by Euronymous and Ihsahn among others as far as ideology goes, since it never really was concrete. Dark Prime (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, but don't forget, Euronymous contradicts what a lot of other black metal musicians say. Euronymous claimed that there was indeed what him and the members called 'The Inner Circle', but a lot of black metal musicians deny there ever being a cult like group. Varg, for one, denies this. If the source is reliable, however, that shouldn't be a problem. dethmetal (talk) 23:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Then that should be mentioned in the article - Euronymous I believe, was a theistic Satanist, whereas most black metal musicians use Satanism as an image. Altogether, Euronymous' views were a bit different to the majority of black metal musicians. ≈ The Haunted Angel 23:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

There are other satanist black metal musicians of Euronymous' ilk (Deathspell Omega I think, among others), and I'm inclined to believe Infernus is also a theistic satanist. However I don't think they share the same subservient sentiment that Euronymous had though. A lot of the satanist black metal musicians have different ways of going about Satanism. Fundamentally however, whereas the majority of black metal musicians seem to be individualist and somewhat anti-collectivist, Euronymous was the opposite. If I may opine, personally, I'm inclined to disagree with the idea of a coherent black metal ideology other than perhaps anti-christianity/right hand path or misanthropy. Not even the members of Gorgoroth concern themselves much with how other black metal bands go about their business. (from Dark Prime, forgot to log in, sorry) 90.196.92.177 (talk) 10:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Members

Being one of the founding members, I think it would be a great idea, instead of having a regular sign up, to have members ask to be admitted to the project. Not to sound elite (lol), but I think that members to the project should show a bit of dedication before joining. I don't like the idea of someone who joins just to put the userbox on their page. We have a small group now, but, a small group of dedicated people is better than a large group of opportunists. Please discuss. Undeath (talk) 06:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think we can allow that- I understand what you feel, but that is very much against Wikipedia's ideals. I think a reasonable compromise could be removing people from the list if they have not edited any black metal articles after having signed up (give them a few months) and/or if they are indefinitely blocked. J Milburn (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Two more thoughts- firstly, why do we need to protect entry anyway? We know who's a good editor and whatnot, and there's no reason to stop people joining as a member gets nothing that a non-member doesn't- respected members can maybe expect a little more, but so can respected non-members. Secondly, if you are concerned about new members not editing the subject area, watchlist the members list and contact any new members, offering them a few things they can do for the project. If you do do that, remember to be welcoming and not too gnashy. J Milburn (talk) 18:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with Milburn - the other idea of course, is to have an "inactive" section, so if any members don't really do much in a couple of months, then we move them to there. ≈ The Haunted Angel 19:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's against any policy. It's just like trying to become an admin or have rollback features. I don't like the idea of a group of people joining that have no intention on doing anything. Undeath (talk) 21:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Follow the spirit, not the letter, of the rules. In any case, there's not really any way that you can compare this to rollback/adminship- it's not like users get any rights from adding themselves to the user list. No harm can come to Wikipedia from them abusing their position as a WikiProject Black Metal members. J Milburn (talk) 22:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You are right in the fact that no harm can come, but no good can come too. Having people in the group just to say they are in the group should not be allowed. Undeath (talk) 05:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Then follow one of the suggested methods above- there's a fine line between keeping the member list clean and becoming a clique, and having to go through a procedure to enter the project crosses the line. J Milburn (talk) 11:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Then if there is a member who has not contributed at all, he/she will be booted? Undeath (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If that was the case, then there would be no harm in removing them from the list (as long as they were given an adequate amount of time- a couple of weeks at least- to make said contributions). I've personally removed a lot of 'members' from the list on one of my other projects. J Milburn (talk) 17:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Instead of booting them from the list, and effectivly the WikiProject, I think they should just be moved to an inactive section - lest we start to bite people. ≈ The Haunted Angel 17:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree- with the other project I mentioned, there is a 'sympathisers' list, and that is what I was moving the inactive members to. J Milburn (talk) 18:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category discussion

I would appreciate it if a few people could voice their opinions at the link above so that we can get some kind of consensus regarding something that could effect a lot of our black metal categories. I'll say no more here- I'll leave your opinion to be influenced by what is said at the discussion. J Milburn (talk) 12:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Need to change the image.

Not all black metal bands embrace anti-Christian values. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.179.239.38 (talk) 05:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

What is your suggestion for a new image? = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 05:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, most black metal bands do support anti christian values. You might be thinking of unblack metal. The image will stay as it is. Undeath (talk) 06:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think anti-Christian values are what springs to mind when one thinks of black metal. In any case, as I mentioned above, it's also a Christian symbol, so also embraces the 'Christian black metal' (if such a thing exists) bands. If you have another suggestions (an svg image of someone wearing corpse paint, perhaps?) we're all ears. J Milburn (talk) 11:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Undoubtedly, anti-Right Hand Path sentiment is prominent among most black metal bands, but personally I've always taken a Tolkien-style (well, he was a Christian and Iluvatar = God and Melkor/Morgoth = Lucifer/Satan) approach to 'black metal', heh. (Dark Prime) 90.196.92.177 (talk) 12:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

To Milburn, it is a paradox to have "Christian Black Metal". The two contradict themselves down to the roots. If any article here claims that, change it to unblack metal. And no, the project does not cover unblack bands. Undeath (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

That's why I put it in inverted commas. I can't see why we shouldn't cover unblack metal- it's certainly linked to black metal in the same way blackened death metal is. J Milburn (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

While I do agree it is paradoxical - even if there wasn't the vehement anti-Christianity - I still think that such a stance is considerably biased and unnecessarily elitist as it reflects personal opinion - although I understand that some christian or other metal projects may cover unblack metal, this is wikipedia after all. Meanwhile, Satyr from Satyricon (and yes, I know they've been walking the same path as Dimmu etc. lately) has also said that black metal 'just needs to be dark'. We shouldn't generalise just like that. 90.196.92.177 (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Satyr does not define what black metal is. Besides, most bands, especially underground ones, believe that black metal is satanist/pagan in nature. Christian metal has it's own project. This is not the place for it. Undeath (talk) 18:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Most bands have different motives for their anti-christianity. Effectively, you are arguing in favour of a centralised subculture. Furthermore, it's not like any of these bands received the recognition of Venom anyway as black metal bands (even though they've all had anti-christian lyrical themes), given that they coined the term and labeled themselves black metal. If anyone is a supreme authority, it's them.90.196.92.177 (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It does not matter one way or another. The image will not move becuase it offended a christian. Unblack metal won't be included into the project because it's not black metal. Simple as that. Undeath (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Eh? I never asked for the image to be removed, and I have no objection to it. And I'm can't say I'm really petitioning for the inclusion of unblack metal either, given that it's already covered by other projects. But I'm appalled that in light of the arguments I've given you, you merely respond 'simple as that'. And btw, check out the Gorgoroth talk page. 18:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.92.177 (talk)

I respond with simple as that becuase it has no reason to be changed. Unblack metal is not even dark. Plus, if you want to have another definition of black metal, take a look at King of Hell's interview on youtube. He says, that to be truly black metal, you need to have a satanic agenda. Undeath (talk) 19:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Now you're deciding that one person - who wasn't (at least prominently) involved with black metal until 1999 and has been involved for no longer than Satyr (sorry if I might have implied he was an authority) - can define black metal, when he can't even maintain the integrity of Gorgoroth or his own (((btw, I know that Infernus has insisted on satanism as well))). If he was that concerned about his agenda, would he be touring with a non-serious band such as Cradle of Filth? He also said in a recent interview that he did not care for how other black metal bands went about their business, just Gorgoroth (with which I agree in principle) Being an A-Level History student (and thus I would have dealt with sources since GCSE History which I did entirely outside of school other than the exam papers themselves and got an A), I'm insulted you suggest I have to adhere to a specific source.

Funnily enough, you also referred to Paganism earlier, which he said was 'no good' (though Jotunspor was described as black metal). Either way, although I myself would have considerably anti-collectivist (with religion among other things being collectivist) were I to be a black metal musician myself, it's because of the considerable lack of integrity of many and all the inconsistencies here and there as well as the opening for herd mentality that personally I reject the notion of a centralised, coherent, black metal ideology. Especially with all the fanboyism. That said (given my hostility towards emphasised subculture etc.), I can say that I would certainly not consider myself a 'fan'. At best, perhaps a third party observer in some respects. On a humourous note, I suppose this can explain some of my opinions better than I can, though I wouldn't say its absolute. Dark Prime (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that unblack metal should still be covered by this project - musically, it's still black metal, even if lyrically, it has a different ideology. Often when you listen to an unblack band, it'll still sound like black metal - there's no harm in a band being covered by both the black metal WikiProject and the Christian metal WikiProject. ≈ The Haunted Angel 20:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, unblack metal still counts for the most part. And as I've said before, I only chose the original image impulsively… if someone can think of anything better, I see no reason to change it.

All this discussion is tiring, to be frank. If all of you focused your efforts on improving an article instead of all this discussion, then we'd see some results so to speak. LuciferMorgan (talk) 02:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Unblack metal. Let's just take a look at the word. The prefix UN makes it the opposite. So unblack is the opposite of black metal. That being said, it should not be included in the black metal wikiproject. Also, being as unblack is christian, how much of a ruckus do you think we might stir up by placing our little template on christian talk pages lol. Undeath (talk) 06:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Lucifer Morgan does make a good point. Nonetheless, unblack metal is still black metal - lyrically it may be different, but musically it is considered by the same as regular black metal. And as was stated earlier, the inverted Crucifix is in fact a Christian symbol. Even if some people take offence to it, it's not like we're putting it on the Christianity page itself - just the music pages. ≈ The Haunted Angel 11:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This might sound childish, but I'll not be editing the unblack articles. It's just my stance on issues that I feel particularly strong about. This goes beyond wikipedia. (right now i'm still working on the discog. for Graveland. Undeath (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

In that respect, I'm actually quite concerned that you think this project should cover NSBM. As with unblack metal, I would support covering it in regards to its relationship with conventional black metal etc. but do you regard their ideas of racial superiority etc. as black metal, then? Dark Prime (talk) 18:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Now here's an interestic topic: I may not agree with the theology behind NSBM, but it is still black metal, regardless. Their ideals of racial superiorty may not be black metal per se, but I can see where they are connected - NSBM draw a lot of influences from old Nordic Paganism, and the same goes with Nazism itself - and black metal's inspirations do come from all forms of paganism. So yeah, I think that even NSBM should be covered by this project, as it is still black metal. On the main article, mention could be made of national socialist traits, but only in rarer cases. ≈ The Haunted Angel 18:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Eh? Black metal started off with satanic themes. Although eventually it became just anti-right hand path or the like, the paganism wasn't so much there to start with. Just Bathory's 'Blood Fire Death' would inspire the sentiment that developed later on during the second wave. I wouldn't recognise NSBM as black metal were it not for anti-individualist black metal musicians like Euronymous. Dark Prime (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

But again, all the "Satanist" themes are derrived from paganism. If you look at your history of Christianity, they persecuted the pagans for being "Satanists", which is the real inspiration behind all the left hand path religions, Satanist or otherwise (LaVeyan Satanism included). Even if you don't count Satanist elements, many black metal bands draw inspiration from the ancient pagan religions. What it comes down to is opposing Christianity - and Christianity's oldest enemy is paganism, as the pagan religions were prominant in Europe before the Abrahamic religions were born, thus, many black metal bands will in one way or another embrace elements of the pagan theologies. ≈ The Haunted Angel 19:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

NSBM is, sadly, black metal. National Socialist black metal. While the points and views are different, most of the members come from true black metal bands, or are related to a tru black metal band. Undeath (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

A problem is occurring here, in the sense that the focus has shifted away from a project discussion towards a discussion as regards black metal. If anyone has GA or FA aspirations as concerns a specific article, I'm willing to review that article for them - I have 4 FAs under my belt which are all on music related topics, so would be more than willing to help. LuciferMorgan (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, defining black metal is essential to the project. Please mind that the project is new. Very new. We must get a good footing down before setting off. The problems need to be worked out. Undeath (talk) 03:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the definitions are pretty clear already. LuciferMorgan is right, and seems to be the most sound of mind here. We're supposed to be improving articles in general. We can do this without worrying about what things are defined as. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 03:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Either way. This is still a new project. I knew there would be some problems to work out before I propsed creating this. Anyway, a good article to work on is Horna. Just a thought... Undeath (talk) 05:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the idea of getting the main article up to GA or FA status? I think that would be best for the start ≈ The Haunted Angel 12:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I just picked an easier article. IMO, the main article needs a LOT of work done to it. We need to have a few people start helping us on it. I can help write a decent history section. We need to get the notable artists, the controversies surrounding the genre, and much more. Undeath (talk) 16:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're definitely right about Horna; I'm taking a look at it now. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 16:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, well we'll start with Horna, and a few other bands, then move up to the main article fairly soon. Shall we have a collaberation of the week sort of effort? As in, we go all out on one particular article every week? ≈ The Haunted Angel 16:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Horna

I'm expanding and cleaning up Horna at the moment, BUT the album articles and navbox need a shitload of work, as they rarely follow style guidelines and the navbox is really confusing. Also, the album titles need to be decapitalized as per Finnish capitalization standards. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 17:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

No they don't- our naming guidelines take precedence over their styalisation. I'll take a look at the navbox now. J Milburn (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Darn, I thought I had made all of the albums for the band. Now, I see there are a few more... Gah. Undeath (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not seeing it. It looks fine to me- are there non-stuio albums in the studio album section, perhaps? Stylistically, it's fine, but it may need the attention of someone who knows the band better than me. J Milburn (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

There are a few non studio releases there. I'll take care of it. BTW, I added this section for convienence and reformatted the comments accordingly. Undeath (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added a collaboration area on the main page which anyone should feel free to edit. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 23:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The Tartarean Desire biography cannot be deemed a reliable source. Please find reliable sources to cite the information which Tartarean Desire claims is true. LuciferMorgan (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I seem to have lost track of their studio albums, the main page only lists (and the articles call themselves):

• Kohti Yhdeksän Nousua (first)
• Haudankylmyyden Mailla (second)
• Sudentaival (fourth ?)
• Envaatnags Eflos Solf Esgantaavne (sixth ?)
• Ääniä Yössä (unnumbered)
• Kohti Yhdeksän Nousua (Sis. Ordo Regnum Sathanas) (which is just a re-release of Haudankylmyyden Mailla)
• Sotahuuto (was unnumbered)

I then found Black Metal Warfare on the category, which calls itself the fifth. Is that all of them, have I missed any, is there a "third"? — Balthazar ^(T|C) 15:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The group's complete discography is here. LuciferMorgan (talk) 10:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dimmu Borgir

Here's where the controvosy is going to arise - the point is that Dimmu is still covered by this WikiProject, even if they arn't "true" black metal anymore. What I'm suggesting though, is that after we finish the collaberation on Horna, that we work on the Dimmu article. Arguably the most popular "black metal" band about, their article has become a bit of a flagship for extreme metal as a whole - and whether or not you consider them black metal at all, they do represent the genre, and by effect, this project as a whole. And so, I suggest that after the collaberation on Horna is done, we work on the Dimmu article, particuarly the genres - getting as many references and sources for them as possible. ≈ The Haunted Angel 18:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Ugh… I should have known that all this elitism about "true" black metal was going to crop up. (Not aimed at you, THA.) Yes, we should cover Dimmu Borgir, regardless of what genre they are now, since they used to be quite a traditional black metal band (in a sense). Their article does need a bit of work, especially since there is a lot of genre controversy. (Though it isn't really controversy at all—more like people who don't know how Wikipedia works adding their own misguided opinions and "facts".) = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 19:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm trying to avoid the eliteism for this point - but the Dimmu article really does need a clean up and its own MoS for the genres, at least. I'm sure you can guess, 5th Eye, that it's the IP editor on the page now that has bought my mention of this up ≈ The Haunted Angel 19:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did guess, and I'm going to give him a vandalism warning if he keeps it up. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 19:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well he's just broken the 3RR, so I'm about to warn him anyway ≈ The Haunted Angel 19:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

He won't give up. I've warned him again, but even with three people reverting his edits I don't think he'll stop until he's blocked. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 19:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've reported him to WP:AIV, so that should be the end of it. ≈ The Haunted Angel 19:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll look into the issue, watchlist the article and block/protect as appropriate. J Milburn (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, a lot of people may be in breach of the 3RR there. It's not a specialty area of mine, at all, so I'll leave it to another admin to deal with. Also, 3RR reports should not be made at AIV as they are not usually that simple (as it isn't in this case). Instead, reports should be made at the three revert rule noticeboard. J Milburn (talk) 19:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I realised that we might be breaking the 3RR ourselves - but I feel that this is a time to ignore the rules to keep Wikipedia a bit neater. I didn't know bout the 3RRN though - I'm sure I've reported people to AIV in the past for 3RR and they've been dealt with from there. We'll see how it goes ≈ The Haunted Angel 19:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, he's been blocked now - so, now that that's cleared up, shall we go back to the discussion of making our next Collaberation of the Week being Dimmu Borgir? ≈ The Haunted Angel 19:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I've added a Collaboration of the Week section to the main page. (There would probably be a better way to do it, using templates or something, but whatever.) = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 19:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was trying to figure out that myself, to see if there was a way - but that'll do :) ≈ The Haunted Angel 19:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Dimmu is still considered symphonic black metal. Their newest cd only proves it. Songs like The Serpentine Offering fit under no other category other than Symphonic black metal. Either way, even if you all disagree, Dimmu will still be covered because they were originally a black metal band. Undeath (talk) 20:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

True, but the point is that we need to find reliable sources for the main page and all of the albums. Still, this is something to do next week - we'll concentrate on Horna for now. ≈ The Haunted Angel 20:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) Yeah, one at a time. Also, remember that there are more important things to focus on than the genre. J Milburn (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course - I just feel that, with the Dimmu article in particular, that is the most pressing issue. ≈ The Haunted Angel 20:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Infernal hails, my black metal brethren. I've returned from my absence and I wish to be of assistance. I feel bad, having been gone for the past few weeks. After all I was the second person to join this project (at least on the original page along with Undeath, which was moved to this wikiproject) and I feel I should be doing more. As for this Deehmu Burger business, what exactly needs fixing on the article? It seems that most of the arguement is about the genres and nothing else. My opinion is that they're early stuff is symphonic black metal and their later stuff is symphonic extreme metal; same as Emperor. I suppose I could see how Dyhmoo Burger might be a "flagship" for this project (as far as mainstream popularity goes), but if there's so much controversy about the genre, they should just be called extreme metal and possibly symphonic metal. That should hopefully stop some of the controversy. A hidden message should help (it usually does) in the genre area stating that anyone who changes the genre(s) will be reverted and that they must instead discuss it on the talk page. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 17:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course - there are a few sections which perhaps need a tidy up, just to get it a bit more prestine (and hopefully up to GA status), but the genre is the main point. I do agree with what you're saying, Nav, but we'll still need all the sources and references just to secure the dispute. ≈ The Haunted Angel 18:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

6 refs now – however, some of them do not seem to satisfy WP:RS and should probably be removed. I would also recommend removing the refs from the infobox - looks clogged. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 19:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Which refs do you think don't support WP:RS? ≈ The Haunted Angel 19:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• #3, anus.com - in the context of sourcing the genre which seems to be in debate, this is not a reliable source.
• same goes, even more, fore #2, fabchannel.com
• #1, metalstorm.ee is more borderline, i guess this one can be kept without a doubt - even though i dislike pages that index kiddycore music. :-)
• #5, nuclearblast.de, is a primary source.
• #4, EM, we all know its importance, yet, previous discussions have led to the consensus that it is not a reliable source.

Now, i'm not going to remove anything, and i guess those refs are better than nothing. Still, that is something you could improve. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 19:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

After looking through anus.com, I'd have to agree with what you said about that - the other links though, I'll give a more thourough look-through. Don't hesitate on making any edits to the article though! ≈ The Haunted Angel 20:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That all sounds good and everything, but people will still war about it. I've never cared to enter that fray. The few times i ever visited the Deehmoo Burger page it had different genres every time...and I didn't care. Now if we really want to prevent warring we might just have to go for something more general. Like "extreme metal," though I must admit that is still hardly close to the truth. We could always just go with "symphonic black metal" which would appease most everyone (even though I still disagree with that label somewhat regarding their later works). We could do something like that and just put a hidden message there, as I said before, and enforce it. No one gets to change the genre unless they discuss it on the talk page and a consensus is reached. I must admit I still think "extreme symphonic metal" is the best label for them, or "symphonic metal" with black metal vocals. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 19:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, how grand were the days before labels were associated with values. While i would definitely agree with both statements – one being that they were definitely related to black metal at some point, and absolutely doing... something else at a later point – i think we should not go with what we believe or know to be right this time. For all i care, the article should state what the first reliable source we can find says, and revert whoever messes with it without providing a better one. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 19:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess. It doesn't really matter to me that much anyways. Heh, haven't labels always been associated with values, though? At least for thousands of years. I mean, everyone knows what rock 'n' roll is about. Sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll, right? It doesn't matter if not ALL the rock bands promote that. It's just associated. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 19:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to state to twsx that we do not all actually know the alleged importance of Encyclopaedia Metallum, as it has no importance on Wikipedia. Discographies can be cited using a group's official website, and as for the endless genre discussions, it'd be great if those clowns could actually go on music forums instead and stop wasting people's time. Like above for example; can someone please actually state why Dimmu Borgir's genre is being discussed? Please give a valid reason, and not some hogwash. What should be being discussed is how the article could be improved, and not genre discussions. Or better still, actually go and improve the article. Take the genre discussions elsewhere please - enough time has been wasted on genre discussions. Wikipedia isn't a forum. LuciferMorgan (talk) 11:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

But if you'd see, Morgan, I'm not simply discussing the genre, I'm trying to achieve a consensus so that there is no more edit warring over the genre. It's being discussed because it's the main problem with the article, as it is the thing most under attack in the article itself. The valid reason is that I'm aiming to have a well sourced consensus which is in place so that IP's and other users can't push their POV onto it. I'm not stopping any other edits of the article, just trying to tackle the largest problem with it so far. ≈ The Haunted Angel 12:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Amen. Then we can put that article to rest and hopefully never touch it again. Maybe that's just me. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 17:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)