Talk:Chevelle (band)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Page redirect

Since half the people editing this article aren't going to agree with me...I'll still say it. Since the band was named after the car, which has been infamous among muscle cars for the past 40 years, why does the page "Chevelle" contain the wiki page for the band, especially since the band was named after the car? It seems that a new (in comparison) band which took it's name from an infamous vehicle would have a wikipedia entry named "Chevelle (band)", while the car itself would be the page for Chevelle, or even a disambiguation page. It's as if I started a band named Camaro after the car, and the wikipedia page for "Camaro" (the car) got moved to something else. If one is obviously of greater fame over a longer period of time, why is the page about the lesser and more shortly known one? Zchris87v 23:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason that this doesn't have "(band)" after it is besause the car's article has the full title which is Chevrolet Chevelle.
Thank you,
Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 23:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
This is not what I was referring to. Please re-read what I previously wrote and then respond to the other questions I have raised, including my example for "Camaro". Thank you. Zchris87v 21:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
The name Camaro is just a short version of the full name, Chevrolet Camaro, therefor there would be no problem haveing a page named just Camaro.
Thank you,
Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 22:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Again, not my point. I was talking about something that is well known by its shortened name. If there were to be a relatively insignificant yet notable enough for wiki band named after something of large fame, to me it seems it would bear the name with "(band)" afterwards, with a line "[subject name] redirects here. For the band named after the [car, song, etc.], see [subject name] (band)". I understand your reasoning, yet in terms of notability the vehicle exceeds the band, so it seems it should redirect there. Thank you. Zchris87v 04:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

But that is the point, Wikipedia doesn't use short hand names in the title. A perfect example is the White Zombie album known as Astro Creep 2000 but the full name is Astro Creep: 2000 - Songs of Love, Destruction and Other Synthetic Delusions of the Electric Head. I'm sorry if I am upsetting you but these are just the rules of Wikipedia. Chevelle is actually quite notable anyway, they are a modern band and have gold and platinum certifications. I don't know if you have noticed but I have vastly expanded the article the last couple of days, and it is nealy ready for Good article status, maby you should read the article. And please remember I am sorry if I am irritating you. Merry Christmas.
Thank you,
Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 05:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

GAN

Comments:

  • Address the infobox field which needs citation.
  • The band originally comprised of the three brothers Pete Loeffler (lead vocals/guitar), Sam Loeffler (drums/percussion), and Joe Loeffler (bass/vocals), but Joe left the band in 2005 due to internal differences and was replaced by Dean Bernardini soon after. put a full stop after and Joe Loeffler (bass/vocals) and make the rest a new sentence.
  • Since its formation Chevelle Comma after formation
  • due to the band incorporating Christian-themed lyrics into the band's first two albums redudant band. use alrenative words
  • The band is one of the most successful bands of modern day Replace the first band with their name because its repeated in the latter part.
  • Chevelle has sold nearly two million albums in the United States, including its second album, Wonder What's Next, certified platinum by the United States RIAA with access sales of one million copies. it's? replace with "their"; they're not animals. i think its better to leave RIAA withouht United States.
    •  Done Its is common American English, the band is a single entitie, the members are "they".—Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 01:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • certified platinum by the United States RIAA with access sales of one million

copies. I'm confused.

  • Since its formation its again.
  • There's a lot of started in the formation section.
  • Soon after they began playing instruments the two brothers asked their friend Matt Scott to play bass. put a comma after instruments.
  • The band started playing small outdoor concerts and clubs around Chicago, Illinois with Joe being only 14 years old. comma after Illinois
    • Formation overlook the whole section. Try more broader word or add another word.
  • Wikilink demo.
  • Chevelle recorded a demo known as The Blue album and played small concerts for the next three years, until they were signed on to Steve Taylor's Squint Entertainment. move the comma after album
  • This is an early song from Chevell is or was?

This is just a partial review. Please feel free to object. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 06:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


My sincere apologies for taking so long with the review. Hopefully it was worth the wait. =) Overall the article is pretty good, though I do have some suggestions issues here and there, outlined below. So, I've put the article's GA nomination on hold until those issues can be addressed. Holds typically last 7 days, at which point I'll either pass or fail the article. So, without further ado:

  • The lead needs a bit of work. The entire second paragraph minus its first sentence reads as POV.  Done —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 19:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
It hasn't been fixed, "Chevelle is one of the most successful bands of modern day hard rock due to high charting albums and singles." is original research because you are basing the opinion on their charting positions and the band has only sold 2 million albums. That does not make them one of the "most successful hard rock bands" when there is Metallica, Foo Fighters, Velvet Revolver, and Audioslave when they were about till last year. M3tal H3ad (talk) 05:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • There's a few times where you mix up "access" with "excess." I think you really mean "excess" in most cases.  Done —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 19:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I told you Skeeker. Its the "access" that bothers me. Anyway, good job. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 06:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Why is Filter considered an "Associated band"? Because they toured with them once? I don't think that's the intent of that space in the infobox (or else you'd have to name alot more bands than Filter), so I'd recommend taking it down.
    • Actually they are, Geno Lenardo played with Chevelle when Joe left.
  • "The album was produced by Steve Albini, who was known for producing the album In Utero by Nirvana" should be "is known", since he's still alive and is still known for it.  Done —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 19:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Any website names should be italicized, including in the publisher value of in-line ciations. Also speaking of the citations, try and avoid ".com" in the publisher value. Most (though not all) website aren't know by the url, like Wikipedia.com, or Allmusicguide.com, but by their proper name, like Wikipedia, and All Music Guide.  Done —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 19:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • In general consider when it is necessary to state a full date of an event. Does it really matter that Point #1 was released on May 4, 1999? Wonder What's Next on August 27, 20002? Does the exact date hold some significance? Reads like recentism and/or proseline. Consider just giving the year.  Done —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 19:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "Sam Loeffler says" should probably be in the past tense, since he only said that exact quote once (I assume).  Done —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 19:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "according by record sales and chart positions." "according by" is awkward.  Done —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 19:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

And that's it! Hopefully that seems doable. Feel free to drop me a line on my talk page when/if you can address those points. Good luck! Drewcifer (talk) 12:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking much better! However the second paragraph of the lead still needs major revision. It reads like a fan site. Drewcifer (talk) 10:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... good point, I'll work on that in a little bit. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 20:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I got rid of one sentance, but everything is alright, correct? —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 20:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The one sentence was definately the most problematic, but I still see some problems with the others. "The band has also been highly compared to Tool" the main problem is the word "highly." Someone who doesn't like Tool or Chevelle probably would compare them "highly", so I'd recommend just taking that word out. "critics also state the band has a distinct sound to its music and lyrics." Again, sounds kind of like a fan site. Someone who doesn't like the band probably wouldn't speak so glowingly of them. And simply saying "critics" makes it sound like a unanimous consensus among all critics, which is unlikely. So, I'd still recommend tweeking that sentence around too. BUT, I'd say the article is gone through enough improvements the be granted GA status, despite the nitpicky stuff about the lead. So, I've promoted the article, with the hope that you'll still work on the lead a little bit. Good article, and good work! Drewcifer (talk) 00:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Done, thanks. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 03:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Page Rewrite

Please stop reverting the page to it's previous format. The page is quite uninformative and not helpful at all if not changed. Thanks. User:tribestros] —Preceding comment was added at 01:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You are using way to much POV and not sourcing. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 02:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

genere....

Alternative metal?????Post Grunge????? ......Hahahahaha Funny..... but they are alternative rock in your myspace said:

http://www.myspace.com/chevelle 

please change the genere.
I'll serve some copypasta from my comment on the List of Alternative Metal Artists discussion page: "After doing a bit more research, there's more citation for Chevelle being classified as Alternative Rock. At the same time, though, I'd argue that there's a bit of crossover between the genres, particularly in Chevelle's case (due to their heavy sound)." Particularly considering their similarities to Tool, their Alternative Metal classification isn't that much of a stretch. --Brainninja (talk) 06:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
As an addendum, I would like to argue the validity of MySpace as the final word in musical genres. --Brainninja (talk) 06:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Myspace isn't valid at all as a genre guide. Bands can call themselves whatever they want. Prophaniti (talk) 17:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Joe Loeffler Section Wrong

Joe Loeffler didn't leave the band before This Type of Thinking came out, he left before Vena Sera came out. He left in around 2006, and as you can see, This Type of Thinking came out in 2004. I'm sure of this because I've seen them twice, once after This Type of Thinking came out, and once after Vena Sera came out. Someone might want to fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.83.213.172 (talk) 06:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Nu Metal?

someone please explain why Chevelle is nu metal. if no one can, please erase it! they're not nu metal! 76.214.4.71 (talk) 03:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Genres again... -.-

I'd like a source on exactly how Chevelle's earlier sound was "progressive metal"? I honestly don't see how anyone can deduce that, unless they're just assuming that it fits because of all of the Tool-Chevelle comparisons. Point #1 wasn't a complex album at all; I don't remember hearing any odd time signatures, guitar solos, or songs longer than 5 minutes or so, which are all pretty much staples of the progressive metal genre. If anything, their earlier stuff was grunge, maybe post-grunge. But nothing about Point #1 was progressive metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.81.135.74 (talk) 00:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It's emo 22:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.126.85.117 (talk)

Original Name?

I heard on DC101 that the band was originally called "F-150", but couldn't confirm with 10 seconds of Googling, anyone know?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuckb187 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this really a GA?

"Matt was later replaced by brother Joe Loeffler when Joe proved to be better at the bass than Matt."???? A borderline WP:BLP violation in the first paragraph? IMO this needs to be sourced or purged immediately. Dave (talk) 06:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

First para seriously flawed

Now I love all things Chicago and Tool but two references to Maynard James Keenan of Tool in the intro seems pretty flawed. There are plenty of 00's bands that followed Tool's general style and we can probably find a good place to discuss that in the article. As it stands the references are unlinked and generally not helpful and contribute nothing to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jottpe (talk • contribs) 07:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Stray Arrows

Why is there no article just for Stray Arrows? There are more versions than just the one listed, all offered at different locations (eg: Best Buy version has 15 songs plus Figzig) 72.218.209.83 (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Notability is not conferred on every album that a notable band releases so the question I would ask is, does it meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for music, that would be WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS? If so, create the article. If not, then it's because it's not notable enough. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Timeline towards the end of page

I would like to point out that Sam also has also done backing vocals since Sci Fi Crimes. I would change this but am a total n00b when it comes to any sort of code, can someone please fix this? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.104.32.179 (talk) 17:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC) 

                                                                                                            == Genre ==

I understand that some people prefer to call Chevelle an "Alternative metal" band(which I don't think is wrong), but I prefer to call Chevelle both "Alternative metal AND alternative rock. Obviously, not all their music is alternative metal, for example: "Primma Donna", "Panic Prone", "Highland's Apparition", and some other songs are much softer and slower than their usual stuff, which goes to show that Chevelle isn't All alternativve metal. Also, their first album, Point#1, sounds more like grunge or post-grunge than alternative metal. So, if I can't change their genre, then can someone else please do it? Can someone at least consider changing it? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.91.234.134 (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. It's what people prefer to call them, it's what reliable sources call them. Feel free to find some of those type of sources and then we can talk about changing the genres. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I also forgot to mention that Chevelle could also be labeled as "hard rock", if you consider the songs "Clones", "Point#1", "The Red", "Vitamin R", "I Get It", "A new Momentum", "The Meddler", and a few other songs. By the way this is just my opinion so if anybody disagrees I understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.91.234.134 (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Matt Scott

Is there a WP:RS on Matt Scott being the original bassist? The GraceNote link cited is broken and not in the Wayback Machine. Looking through Google (well, Bing, but that's beside the point) every page that mentions him appears to be copied from Wikipedia or Last.fm (which is user-editable and GFDL; in fact I wouldn't be surprised if WP was the original source for Last's bio or vice versa).

In terms of "official"-ish bios, the Rovi one does not mention Scott. Openmikenite (talk) 19:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Genres

No need for alt rock in the infobox, hardly any of the bands material is tagged with that, it also only has one source, compared to alt metal which has three. In the end genres should aim for generality, and alternative rock is redundant since alternative metal is a subgenre of it. The source for alternative rock (which someone just pasted from the list of alternative metal artists article) can be used later if someone decides to list all the genres the band have been categorized as in the "musical style" section. I call the big one bitey (talk) 16:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Alternative Metal

--72.251.108.18 (talk) 09:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC) We should take off all of the other genres except for Alt. Metal. They're too aggressive to be any of the other stuff listed. They're influenced mainly by Alt. Metal bands like Helmet and Tool. Let's please change it and keep it changed because it is missleading. --72.251.108.18 (talk) 09:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - Those aren't valid reasons to remove sourced genre. Sergecross73 msg me 11:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Do we have any sources to support the genres listed there? Is there a style section in the article? Are there sourced genres there? Do the band's albums have sourced genres? Opinion takes a back seat to sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Chevelle Profile Image.png

This is a fantastic photo, which I'd love to nominate at featured picture candidates; could someone please identify which person is which? I could guess based on other photos, but I'd hate to get it wrong. J Milburn (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

From left to right: Dean Bernardini, Pete Loeffler, Sam Loeffler. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 07:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! See Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Chevelle. J Milburn (talk) 16:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Question

Chevelle formed in 1995 in Grayslake, Illinois, when brothers Pete Loeffler and Sam Loeffler started enjoying music. What? Erm... "Started enjoying music"? Surely there's a better way to word this without saying so blankly that the band started as soon as the brothers just so happened to decide they liked music afterall. Jacedc (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Is what a band currently working on encyclopedic or not

About an hour ago some content about the band was added to the article. It's a short video interview stating that they are going to write new music and it's going to be "heavy, heavy, heavy". I have been accused of starting an edit war for removing "a legitimate addition", however I contend it's not encyclopedic. First, it's a WP:PRIMARY source. If it was a long article about the band in Billboard, Spin, or even a large metal- or rock-oriented publication it would be a different story. Second, it was just a short interview. It was filler for the radio. It is essentially fan cruft. Third, most bands work on new material, especially when working on a new album. Stating that does not make it important, unusual or encyclopedic. Stating it makes banal, trivial and expected. If they said that they had writers block, came to artistic differences where one member wanted to incorporate a completely different genre into the music and it was causing rifts in the band, that may be important, particularly if a third-party was discussing it. This is routine. Fourth, will it matter a few months after the release? If not, why are we adding it now? If the album is released and few reviewers comment on how it's stylistically different than earlier releases, was it really worth stating that they wanted it to be "heavy, heavy, heavy" but failed? If music journalists notice and comment on it, then it makes sense to include it. Finally, a long, extended quote is not good writing style and it felt as much publicity for the radio station as for the band. Let the album release speak for itself, rather than having the band do it, and when reviewers indicate that it was heavier than previous releases, we should write about it. Until then, I'll let other editors common on whether the content should be included or not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I saw the discussion invitation at WP:MUSICIAN. As long as it's written from a historical perspective, I really don't see what the problem is here.
  • On "it's a WP:PRIMARY source" — First of all, no it's not. The publisher here would be the radio station, 105.7 The Point. If you're trying to claim that people close to the subject being used as sources by publications is an issue, then all interviews would need to be deemed unreliable, and as a result the vast majority of Wikipedia articles on musicians would need to be deleted.
  • On "it was just a short interview" — This has absolutely no merit. The length of a source does not dictate whether or not its information is worthy of inclusion.
  • On "most bands work on new material" — This has absolutely no merit. Most popular bands follow a two-year cycle of writing, recording, promoting an album, releasing an album and then touring in support of it. Wikipedia articles about bands more-or-less just represent this repetitive cycle, and working on new music is a part of that cycle. There wouldn't be much of this article left if we went through and deleted everything that most bands do simply because most bands do it.
  • On "will it matter a few months after the release?" — Yes. If a band is making a stylistic change in their sound, that is absolutely historically relevant. And if the band changes their mind and decides to release a country music album instead, then it's still historically relevant that they at one point wanted to make a really heavy album.
My only real concern with comments like this is when they stack up and you end up with an entire paragraph of: "On [date], [band] said on [a social media account] their album would sound like [something hyperbolic]. On [date], [band] said on [a social media account] their album would sound like [something hyperbolic]. On [date], [band] said on [a social media account] their album would sound like [something hyperbolic]. On [date], [band] said on [a social media account] their album would sound like [something hyperbolic]. On [date], [band] said on [a social media account] their album would sound like [something hyperbolic]. On [date], [band] said on [a social media account] their album would sound like [something hyperbolic]."
I will agree that the quote was a little long, and you could probably just chop off these parts: "That's what we like. That's what we're good at. That's what inspires us." I also don't believe Wikipedia has an agenda of being up-to-the minute accurate, but I don't see what benefit deleting the quote and waiting would have in this situation. Fezmar9 (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Completely agree with Fezmar9 here. I too am against pointlessly long direct quotes, or the mindless minute to minute updates, but the core idea of a band working on new material, and a vague mention of direction said material is going in, definitely merits inclusion. This requires cleanup, not wholesale removal. Sergecross73 msg me 15:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Assoc. acts

Can anyone explain to me why Filter and Daylight Division are listed as associated acts? The infobox template says to not list bands with fewer than two members in common. Jacedc (talk) 05:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to remove. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 Done Jacedc (talk) 07:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Style

We have an editor hellbent on proving that Chevelle is a nu metal band. over the past three days I have seen and removed a handful or poor references. We have https://books.google.com/?id=IHNuYCb0ewoC&pg=PA99 that calls the band an intense nu-metal power trio, but reviews like that are paid-for by the label who want to try to reposition the band. I don't see it from any reviews of albums or serious discussions on the band. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Just wanted to chime in to question the validity of the sources linking Chevelle to the nu metal genre. This review http://www.ign.com/articles/2002/12/09/reader-review-wonder-whats-next is not only from a website dedicated primarily to video game criticism, but the album review itself is classified as a "Reader Review," which to me doesn't sound like qualified music journalism. Also, the flippant way in which the reviewer from this article http://www.popmatters.com/review/chevelle-thistype/ lumps the band in with the nu metal genre strikes me as derogatory and unprofessional. He labels them nu metal because "that's what they get for putting parentheses in the album title." It also seems odd to me that the band article as it is now written needs an additional sentence in the Musical styles and Influences section specifically to qualify the nu metal categorization. "The band's albums Wonder What's Next and This Type of Thinking (Could Do Us In) both are described as nu metal." Does this hastily tacked on bit of labeling really justify an additional subgenre in the infobox? Taylor Stuart (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Chevelle (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

  • Added archive to
  • Added archive to

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Chevelle (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chevelle (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Christian controversy section

That seems like it was written about 9 years ago (there are present tense things in it). I would suggest reducing the WEIGHT and blending it in to the history, as opposed to having a stand alone section. Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 10:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Better integration of that section into the article was on my list to do. I would like to hear what @Walter Görlitz: would have to say though, as he ‎has more knowledge of the band and Christian music in general then I do. The wholesale blanking of the section gives the air of censorship. Karst (talk) 10:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
It is dated and if there are updates, we should update it. Blanking is not the way to go. Can it be merged into the history section? I don't know. Give it a shot. Walter Görlitz (talk) 12:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I blended it into the history in this series of difs. Jytdog (talk) 02:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks!Karst (talk) 07:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
It looks great. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Glad you are pleased with it. Maybe the band will chill now too. :) Jytdog (talk) 02:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Genre in lede

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chevelle_(band)&oldid=prev&diff=844389512 Not sure why we're going generic again. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry that every time I see a dispute on a musician we always disagree, so don't take it personally. But I yet again seriously believe you're wrong. I am 100% with Bowling is life here...how the heck are hard rock and post-grunge subgenres of alternative metal? It's completely formed the other way around. I presume that's not what you meant to convey, would you mind making your point clearer to us? dannymusiceditor oops 18:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Not every time, but I'm fine with going to a generic genre, but how are these genres "rock" in the most generic sense of the word? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Rock is the only genre all of these subgenres can trace back to. Post-grunge stems from grunge, then alternative rock or punk rock, and then back to rock. Alternative metal stems from either heavy metal or alternative rock, or both, which lead back to rock. And hard rock is simple - it was the next step up, I think, but maybe it could have gone through the development of blues rock? I don't know that for sure, but I know the path all leads back to a common one like rock. Now, if they all shared a more obviously rooted genre, I could agree with something else. For example, we have Limp Bizkit as a rap rock band through the same type of discussion. dannymusiceditor oops 18:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I would go with hard rock, since it can be used a catch-all term for heavy rock music, and just about everything Chevelle is associated with is related to that. Kokoro20 (talk) 05:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chevelle_(band)/Archive_1&oldid=1136608339"