Talk:Deftones/Archive 2

Hemispheric chauvanism
Can the introduction, which states "their most recent Diamond Eyes in spring of 2010" be changed? In my country it was released in autumn (or fall, whatever). A month is more appropriate121.73.19.225 (talk) 01:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Musical styles
their pre-adrenaline material has strong and clear reggae/ska influences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.81.145.210 (talk) 03:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Nu metal
Blatantly obvious in the five sources listed in this article. How many sources does experimental rock have? One. Five beats one. End of discussion. WTF (talk) 06:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, not end of discussion. Just because there are four sources stating it is nu metal and one for experimental rock presented in the article does not mean that they are the only sources on the internet. Unless if I'm missing something, there are only four sources, as opposed to five, in the musical styles section. If there is an additional one that I missed, feel free to remind me. I'm not taking a position on either side, though, because I despise genre feuding and I haven't listened to this band enough to be a good judge of their style. I hope that a good solution is reached soon. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 01:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents
Due to the large amount of feuding based on this article, I have reported the activity on the Administrator's noticeboard. Comments pertaining to the issue are welcome. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 23:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Rephrase: they are welcome here. Allow me to make a suggestion (I have no interest in editing this article any further, or I'd do it): find the proper references that establish the three genres now in the infobox, and my guess is that this is not impossible, and add footnotes to them in the infobox. Removal of a genre, then, counts as "removing sourced content" and that's usually a no-no. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 04:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It could be a good idea to put a source in the infoboxes. If it keeps up even afterwards, then I will entertain the idea of eliminating the infobox's genre area altogether. Seriously, there is a communication problem when 85 of the last 156 edits have been toward the genre. Freaking ridiculous. I guess I'll just try to add three sources to that area, and see what happens. They are already sourced in the musical styles and influence area. I'll see what happens. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 03:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Year of band's formation
The infobox says the band was formed in 1988 (and this is sourced to allmusic; I also found mentions to this effect from MSNBC and the New York Times), but the article's introduction says 1989, and later on in the article it says they started playing together "circa 1989". We have ourselves a contradiction here - which will we go with? As the "circa 1989" part is unsourced, I recommend 1988, but I don't know much about this band so I thought I'd ask here. Kansan (talk) 13:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Post-metal
I will add the post-metal genre to the infobox, is heavily sourced and isn't strange that critics refer to deftones as such. sources:, , , , , ,. The style is more prominent than experimental rock or nu metal, and these ones are in the infobox, i'll put it there too.Trascendence (talk) 02:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Very few of the sources you have provided qualify as reliable sources, and only a few of them referred to Deftones as a post-metal band. For example, this review of Deftones that you have provided only says the song "When Girls Telephone Boys" "spills over the brim into a Meshuggah style post-metal groove." This doesn't say that Deftones is a post-metal band, and it actually doesn't even say Deftones is a post-metal album. This review of Diamond Eyes you have provided doesn't even mention post-metal in it at all. Fezmar9 (talk) 03:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * before anything I want to point that shoegaze metal and post-metal are sinonimous terms.

Most if not all my sources are perfectly reliable, the only one from wich I'm not sure is the #1, but I think is because is a "low budget" site, for call it somehow. That leaves 6 sources that I'm sure are reliable, this three:, , are reports from well known sites that makes an overview over deftones' sound throught their entire carrer, agreeing that with White Pony, Deftones developed a post-metal/shoegaze metal sound and how they continue in that line today.

This three:, , , are professional reviews that calls their music either post-metal or shoegaze metal, i think that the reviewer calling the song When Girls Telephone Boys post-metal is rather enough to make the point, because having him saying "post-metal!" in every heavy song on the album would be seen as a very unprofessional action, the reviewer also used the introdution to say how all the heavy songs follows the same brutally heavy yet artistic direction in the album, post-metal is implicit there. Anyway, the Self-titled album is not much of an issue because there are three sources calling the music that Deftones have done from White Pony onwards post-metal or shoegaze metal.

As I said above, post-metal/shoegaze metal is more prominent than experimental rock or nu metal, it deserves way more to have a place in the infobox because is a style that Deftones plays today (and I guarantee that their new album will be post-metal too) so lets put it up ok?Trascendence (talk) 03:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * MakeFive, Ology look like user generated/social networking sites (anyone can sign up and post) so unreliable. Creative Loathing and Straight.com seem ok but I'm not entirely sure. Sputnikmusic IS reliable, however, it has to be the staff review (this which doesn't mention any of the genres you want to include) not a user posted one. Thrash Hits I am unsure of. That leaves 2 possible sources. However, that, to me, isn't nearly enough for inclusion in the infobox. Will take a better look when I have time. HrZ (talk) 11:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no real reason to doubt about the reliability of thrash hits, that leaves three sure sources, that is more than the sources that experimental rock have and experimental rock is there, that makes no sense.Trascendence (talk) 03:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thrash Hits failed to established notability in 2008 and a discussion in October 2009 deemed it generally unreliable. The unwritten consensus among the music-related Wikipedia community is that it's unreliable as many editors remove their reviews from ratings templates. Please visit identifying reliable sources and note that Wikipedia's definition of "reliable" may be different from your own. Fezmar9 (talk) 05:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * First of all, it appears to be your opinion that shoegaze metal and post-metal are synonymous. Based on the quality of the sources you have provided, it appears that Deftones performing post-metal is a minority opinion. Based on the content of the sources you have provided, it doesn't even appear that many people believe Deftones are a post-metal band, but rather that they display post-metal influences here and there. Also note that the genre field is meant to be general. Deftones are generally described as alternative metal or nu metal by the vast majority of established publications. Having a few songs on a few albums being described as being post-metal by some non-notable doesn't make Deftones a post-metal band. Fezmar9 (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * First, I only were clarifying, since the source says "metalgaze" that is a word that obviously was made from these two words, there are three sources from notable enough sites that says that Deftones plays post-metal, or shoegaze metal or mixes both in an unique style, also with your criteria nu metal shouldn't be there, since there are loads of reviewers that says that Deftones were just taged as that by their time of emergence or things like that.Trascendence (talk) 03:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I just don't think these measly sources are really enough to warrant post-metal's inclusion in the infobox. It would be a different story if you had a handful of articles published by sources that hold more weight such as Rolling Stone, Spin or Alternative Press. Fezmar9 (talk) 05:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding use of "currently"
Use of the word current or currently within articles is incorrect no matter what another article may say. Wikipedia is timeless and statements about current events should be reported without speaking as if the event is happening right now. RELTIME specifically states that times should be referred to generally. There's no exception to the rule. Stating that other articles refer to events this way is not precedent for not fixing it. It just means those articles need to be corrected as well. NJZombie (talk) 18:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've just never seen an issue with current members sections being out of date. I see it all the time in article bodies, but in my almost five years of editing, I've never seen an out-of-date band members section. Can't the same be said of a former members section? Former is also a time-related adjective and can also become out-of-date in the same way current can. Fezmar9 (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter with of list being out of date. It's the use of the word current. It's too precise and Wikipedia calls for a general time reference. Keeping the list up to date right up to this very second is not the issue. Also, former is not a precise unit of time. It simply implies that the member is no longer with them because they left at some point prior. Currently implies that this is the lineup as of this very second. Even if that's true in every case, it's not supposed to be doing so. NJZombie (talk) 20:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all you have it backwards. You say Wikipedia is looking for general terms, but WP:RELTIME says "Prefer specific statements of time to general ones." WP:DATED, linked to from WP:RELTIME, also says "use more precise phrases." Second, you say this isn't an issue of being out-of-date, yet both WP:DATED and WP:RELTIME are about material becoming dated. So it seems that this is, in fact, the issue at hand. Third, you also say formerly isn't a word of concern, yet it's listed at WP:RELTIME as a word to avoid.
 * Let me illustrate this with another example. The sentence "Deftones is currently working on a new album" should be avoided since it wouldn't make sense once Deftones actually finishes a new album. Instead, the sentence should read "Deftones began working on an new album and follow up to Diamond Eyes in June 2012." Now the sentence is timeless and specific as requested of the guidelines. No matter what happens in the future, that sentence will always be true. However the same cannot be said about band members sections. In the event that a band loses a member there are three issues that cannot be avoided: the "current members" section now has a former member, the "former members" section is now lacking a newly departed member, and the "–present" range is no longer true. Thus, a member section is never timeless for a currently active band, nor is it timeless for a formerly active band who has the possibility of reforming. Even if you take out the word "current" you still have issues with the words "former" and "present".
 * To achieve the sense of timelessness you're trying to achieve, all articles on bands must also drop "is" from the lead sentence and drop "–present" from both the infobox and most recent subsection under "History". Both of these suggest "the event is happening right now" and are also "general" which apparently should be avoided. Fezmar9 (talk) 01:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was mistaken in my use of the words I chose, like generally. Regardless, yes the statements should be dated or at the very least, use the "as of" method. As far as the band sections go, "former" members will typically remain former and therefor those sections have much less chance of being outdated whereas "current" lineups will more often change. Regarding "is" in the leads, that's incorrect. If the Deftones broke up, they would still be a band and regardless of what other editors have done in other articles, it shouldn't change to "was a band". The is refers to what the subject is, not their current status as a band. NJZombie (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Because the outcome of this discussion has implications for all band articles across Wikipedia I have invited members of WP:MUSICIAN to participate. Fezmar9 (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)