Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Slayer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Miscellany for deletion This page was nominated for deletion on 16 November 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Proposal Big Four Wikiproject

I have just created the Megadeth Wikiproject. But I think that the scope is too narrow (just Megadeth) and I think that the Metal Genre Wikiproject is too large of a scope to handle everything. I propose that we make a Wikiproject Big Four, or something to that effect to cover the Big Four American Metal bands, Metallica, Megadeth, Slayer, and Anthrax. I'm eager to hear any opinions. Adumbvoget 08:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

That idea actually sounds brilliant. Not only is the scope size appropriate, but its topic spans the importance and evolution of modern day heavy metal branches such as thrash metal, speed metal and glam metal. I'm surprised this has not been suggested before as it makes complete sense in terms of heavy metal coverage. If at all, I would be more than honoured to create a nourish such a project. Let me know what you think. Megazodiac 02:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Every once in a while, someone thinks it's great to start a WikiProject. In truth though, that's the easy part. Write some GAs / FAs on Big Four related articles, then I might change my opinion. Before then though, I don't think there are enough active contributors to warrant such a project. LuciferMorgan (talk) 12:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Five GA's in February

Lets do it again in March :) Dave Lombardo and Still Reigning are currently GAC's, and Lucifer is almost done with Eyes of the Insane, I'm going to be editing Show No Mercy. Any recommendations for articles that should be fairly easy to bring up to GA? M3tal H3ad 07:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll be working on "Jihad (song)" in my sandbox as a future GA possibility. I'd recommend Paul Bostaph as a future GA possibility, and also / especially Kerry King. Hopefully Christ Illusion will pass its FAC to make 2 FAs for the Project. LuciferMorgan 01:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll pick Bostaph, this interview basically covers his whole career with all the band he's been in, but has nothing on early life. As for King, well he never talks about his early life, always about how good he is, and today's "we're the most underground band" was just stupid. I'll see what i can do thanks, Jihad is coming along nicely and gl with Christ. :). M3tal H3ad 02:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll likely see if I can get "Eyes of the Insane" to GA sometime also. As the GAs clock up, we should keep an eye on which ones could most likely be future FACs. With Bostaph, strip away the headings and make it more like the other Slayer bios etc., but of course don't concentrate too much on his Slayer work - give equal time to his other bands. Oh, and see if you can find a better picture than the current one - I loathe the current one. By the way, you should've given me a shout when you started GHUA in your sandbox as I could help out - I think it should follow the "Christ Illusion" format, as controversy comes after "Reception". Ie. band releases album, critics review it, controversy happens over cover blah blah. Anyway, wish for help with GHUA, or you want your sandbox to yourself? :) LuciferMorgan 03:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greetings from WP:KLF

It's great to see another small project churning out good articles, and particularly in this genre which has been really weak on Wikipedia until now. With 2 FAs from 36 articles already you're not only catching us but I suspect you'll be passing us soon enough too. Keep up the good work! --kingboyk 12:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw the KLF project and wanted something like that (Lots of GA's) so started this, and yea article relating to heavy metal are really crap. Anyway, keep up the good yourself :) M3tal H3ad 05:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The KLF project indeed kicks ass, and I agree with your sentiments on Metal representation on Wikipedia *torches the Metal WikiProject alight*. Yeah I think the Slayer Project has a few more GAs yet and even one or two FAs ("Angel of Death" and Dave Lombardo look the closest so far), but it'll be cool when the KLF Project is back in full swing. I'm sure out of those 10 KLF GAs there must be another two or three future FAs lurking. One thing that's a shame though is most small Projects, to be honest, do little beyond tagging articles - I could name a few of these, but that would be telling wouldn't it? :) LuciferMorgan 06:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I wonder what project you're referring to ;) M3tal H3ad 09:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Projects, plural :) LuciferMorgan 17:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
That would probably be most of them then? :) Even WP:BEATLES wasn't getting much done in the early days, and that's relatively large. A lot of projects seem to do bugger all other than tag pages, and sometimes not even that :)
And, yes, there's a few articles in our project which I think just need a bit of work before they go for FAC, but it's getting back into the swing of things isn't it... and knowing where to start. Vinoir is back so I guess I ought to make the most of that and come up with a plan... --kingboyk 23:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
It would be most of the Projects, yes indeed. They seem to think "Ooo let's start a Project" - anyone can start one, but it's maintaining one that's the difficult bit. I'm rather annoyed with the Metal Project as I've said on numerous occasions, as they seem to have no definitive objectives or goals, or any ways or strategies in achieving any goals. It really needs a few editors to overhaul it - I'd have a go though it's too much work for one person. I'm hoping to persuade them to start assessing Metal related articles like other Projects, and then they can see where they're at. Then if that works, see if they can start getting a peer review going etc., and get some GAs off the ground - a hard task indeed, but let's see how it goes. LuciferMorgan 01:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that post and I think it's a good idea. If I were you I'd get it all set up for them and see what happens; when they see the template parameters and the article worklist they'll probably want to use it! --kingboyk 01:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
How would one set that up then? This assessment template I mean. LuciferMorgan 01:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
here M3tal H3ad 06:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok thanks. I'm guessing the index is taken care of solely by a bot then? Or not? LuciferMorgan 08:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Yea, you tag them bot updates the index and that table. Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot is the thing you're looking for, for article assesments. M3tal H3ad 08:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I find it very hard to understand to be honest. I'm guessing the bot creates the tables too as a result of the category? If I create a talk page template that's the same as the Slayer one, but substitutes the word "Slayer" for "Metal" wherever Slayer is mentioned, would that work? LuciferMorgan 09:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
The Bot creates the table, by you creating categories like "FA-class heavy metal articles" When i did it for Slayer i had no idea what i was doing. You need to add the class and category parameter to template:HMM, i could do it if you want. M3tal H3ad 09:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
It'd be great if you could, but thus far nobody has replied to me on the Project's talk page about implementing such a scheme. I think if it goes through it'd be the first step in the right direction for that Project. I think what the template says could be reworded too. LuciferMorgan 09:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, should it be "A-Class Metal articles" or "A-Class Heavy Metal articles" M3tal H3ad 09:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm Heavy Metal articles, since it's formally referred to as Heavy Metal. Let's hope none of the Project members cause a fuss... LuciferMorgan 09:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Could you tag a few while i get it set-up(see if it works, and class= is set up) thanks. M3tal H3ad 09:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Will do - I assume you mean assess a few, and not tag? LuciferMorgan 09:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Considering HMM's size, an unassessed category will have to be made also. LuciferMorgan 09:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Done, but it's going to take awhile, goes through unassessed articles one by one. M3tal H3ad 10:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks - that Project is gonna take a miracle to get off the ground. LuciferMorgan 10:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
More then a miracle ;) currently on Ne. Could you check the Angel of Death Technical section in my sandbox? like anything missing or needs to be added :| thanks. M3tal H3ad 10:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah it's gonna take a ton of work, but I'd really love it to take off (doubtful thus far though :(). How do you feel about Slayer related articles having the {{HMM}} tag, or is this something you'd object to? Just wondering. As concerns Angel of Death, that bit looks fine, and I really hope you're going for FAC with that one. LuciferMorgan 10:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Done, like 920 unassessed articles. AOD, never thought of FA but i guess it could be done, a sample of the "big double bass part", copyedit, picture of the crowd going crazy live when they perform it would do the trick. Are you going to tag every article relating to heavy metal? I don't it's worth the effort. M3tal H3ad 10:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I think if all were tagged it'd tell the Project where they're at, but if they don't get off their backsides to improve them it may prove a waste of time. Let's hope not LuciferMorgan 10:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't bother. Now the bot has stub assessed a couple of thousand I'd maybe assess the few hundred in the unassessed articles cat, and mainly try and get some interest drummed up. Your call, but the idea is to stimulate interest not give u 2 guys more work! --kingboyk 12:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Blimey, you move fast. Are Motorhead within scope of HMM? They're quite well documented, thanks in main to 2 dedicated editors. If they're within scope I'll get some of their articles assessed. --kingboyk 14:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say they are yes 110% (I'd say they can be classed as rock and metal judging by the media) - best band I seen live are Motorhead. Any help is welcome :) LuciferMorgan 22:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I've seen em live too (when Wurzel was still in the band). Not the best live band I've seen tho :) That would probably be Carter USM. --kingboyk 12:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Blood Red" and "Jesus Saves"

Per WP:BOLD, I have addressed the problems with these two articles;

1. "Blood Red" didn't have enough factual info to warrant its own article, so all the salvageable info was merged into the "Seasons in the Abyss" article and the BR article made a redirect.

2. The "Jesus Saves" article had numerous entries for different things with that name, though the Slayer entry had nothing apart from fancruft. This has been eradicated, and an italicized note above the article for those looking for the Slayer song to refer to Reign in Blood.

This means the project now has two less articles, and so does the Slayer template. If anyone has reasonable objections, message me on my talk page. Thanks for your time. LuciferMorgan 03:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. M3tal H3ad 05:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Come to think of it, i don't think "Behind the Crooked Cross", "Mandatory Suicide", "Dead Skin Mask" and "Seasons in the Abyss" should have their own article, most of the info is speculation of what the song is about. M3tal H3ad 12:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Zap the fancruft! Good work guys :) --kingboyk 13:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Well zap them then M3tal H3ad I would like I did with the other two. Merge any worthy info into the main album article, make it a redirect, and then delink the song in the Slayer template (you can still keep the song name there). Aside from some critical reception, there's nothing that can be added to those four song articles at present. If some good sources turn up in the future, we can revert the redirect and then clean up the song article in question. If we zap those 4, that would hit us down to 30. LuciferMorgan 14:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Kingboyk does have a point though; how many song articles on Wikipedia are worthy enough in terms of quality to merit their own article? Not many I reckon. LuciferMorgan 19:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Still Reigning

Ya'll want to collaborate and get this featured? :) M3tal H3ad 14:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright. Say, have you thought of nominating Slayer as a featured topic? Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 13:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Yea, i did at one stage, it will defiantly need King, Bostaph, Seasons and Divine (at the minimum) GA which will take awhile. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by M3tal H3ad (talk • contribs) 02:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC).
Don't forget Undisputed Attitude and Diabolus in Musica :) LuciferMorgan 20:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, Diabolus is quite crap atm as is Seasons. I can expand the Reception section of these articles to a decent size but that's about it. We'll get there one day :) M3tal H3ad 10:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] God Hates Us All

Could everyone give it a once over to "fine tune" it before i nominate for FA? Thanks. M3tal H3ad 09:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It's nominated. Let's hope we receive some sound feedback and more importantly positive votes :) LuciferMorgan 00:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reception sections in Slayer album articles

I've noticed a trend in "Reception" sections as I was browsing articles on Reign in Blood, Seasons in the Abyss, etc... The wording suggests that All Music Guide reviewed 80's Slayer albums upon their release. AMG was not founded until 1991. It would be preferable to use reviews actually written upon an album's release to support claims about critical/popular reception at the time. Not to say AMG's reviews shouldn't be included, but not in a way that conflates them with contemporary reviews if the AMG review was done 5, 10, 15 years after the album's release. 35.12.24.81 19:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point, reviews written years after the release are often informed by recieved openion. Agree that both should be included, but they should form a seperate paragraph, and should be qualified by phrases such as "writing in 1991" etc.
Good point, but there is no date on the reviews. M3tal H3ad 05:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
We generally try to say "writing retrospectively" or something like that but tbh I think we've always treated AMG reviews as contemporaneous. Well, anyway, it's certainly a good point and worth bearing in mind. --kingboyk (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Progress

Lombardo and South of Heaven are future FA's, are there any other articles that can be expanded in the future to reach FA or GA level? M3tal H3ad (talk) 04:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The McIver book should present new possibilities. I think Haunting the Chapel is a possibility, maybe. LuciferMorgan (talk) 04:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
South of Heaven is now FA. :) LuciferMorgan (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Until the McIver book presents itself, there isn't much else we can do right now. LuciferMorgan (talk) 12:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
We might come up lucky and find an audio interview like i randomly found with Undisputed Attitude. But yea..until the book pretty much no more GA's although i might start reception sections for each album. M3tal H3ad (talk) 03:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wow

You have 9 FAs now? That's just fantastic. --kingboyk (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC) PS I just read the MfD, what a joke - looks like 1 or 2 people were seriously considering deleting a project that has created more featured content than most projects several times it's size!

Thanks, but we've ran out of content until a Slayer book is released in June 08 :(. I think the guy who nominated the project for deletion has a pet-hate against Slayer or something, tried to get the page moved to Slayer (band). Anyway, nice to see you around again : ) M3tal H3ad (talk) 02:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Christ Illusion

You know I have the utmost respect for you guys, and I'm well aware that as writers we snap up all the Featured "awards" we can get, but Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Christ Illusion is a bit of a joke isn't it? An article on an album and 2 singles that it spawned doesn't make much of a "topic" AFAIC. At the very least I'd like to see Slayer (band) included (and better still, such micro-topics disallowed: all of Slayer should be at FA/GA or none at all). Anyway, I commented at Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Christ Illusion.

Of course, I am going to straight away go scrutinise The KLF list to see what smaller topics I might attack, "if you can't beat them join them" :) Cheers guys --kingboyk (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion: We're way behind, there's one or two possible topics but nothing really complete. Kudos again to you guys. --kingboyk (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Seasons in the Abyss

Is anyone from the wikiproject going to work on Seasons in the Abyss? I'm just wondering, that is my favorite Slayer album. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 03:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Afraid there isn't enough content for it to be expanded. M3tal H3ad (talk) 03:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Not even with the oral history? I'd help if it is possible. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 02:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The oral history of SITA is only available in the magazine version. I gotta order it someday. M3tal H3ad (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)