Talk:Deftones/Archive 4

Nu metal in the infobox
In the last discussion regarding the band's genre in the infobox (now located here: Talk:Deftones/Archive 3) the consensus was only to remove post-metal from the infobox. Since this discussion, has been continuously removing nu-metal from the infobox citing this old discussion as a source of consensus. Re-reading the old discussions, all I can find was the following quote from Trascendence: "...we all agreed in removing the highly disputed term "nu metal" from the infobox, that is something i wanted..." I don't actually see any editors discussing that idea or forming a consensus, just Trascendence supporting it out of the blue. And as much as I personally believe Deftones don't really play nu-metal (I personally hear a really wide range of influences), I've been highly neutral in recognizing that the band is widely, almost universally, accepted as being a nu-metal band. The sources provided to support this idea are all published books and hard to dispute—unlike some of the previous genres which where sourced to minor reviews and non-notable blogs. Fezmar9 (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Have to agree with Fezmar9, there was no discussion on nu metal, with only mentions here and there, just post-metal. In fact, the only other genre Trascendence appeared to have a problem with was experimental rock. Nu metal is well sourced and no other editor during that discussion stated that it should be removed (along with post-metal), the consensus was that post-metal should be removed, so why Trascendence decided to remove it without waiting for a reply from any of the editors, perhaps he could explain? HrZ (talk) 16:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If you give a look to the final posts in the post-metal thread you'll found that it was discussed, it was a solution in a "middleground" way, i understand that you two aren't up to date with this, because both rarely opined in it, it was an agreement between Wesleydoods and I, as way of both of us getting something we wanted. I made it to stop a discussion that could have gone in circles forever, nu metal was out of the infobox before the post-metal thing ended, so it was deemed as a silent consensus and i just made it explicit to him. In fact there is nearly twelve years since the band stoped playing it, and most important there are reviewers that states that Deftones aren't nu metal anymore, nd others going as far as to say that they have never been, the genre deserves mention, but not in the infobox. Trascendence (talk) 01:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've re-read much of the original discussion, I don't see an agreement between you and WesleyDodds. In fact, WesleyDodds brings up a number of published sources that support Deftones playing nu metal. Fezmar9 (talk) 01:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've re-read the discussion, there is no such agreement between you and WesleyDodds. I should also point out that the discussion was not just between you and WesleyDodds either, other editors were involved and you can't just ignore their views to get what you want regardless of when they last replied. Stating that "we all agreed in removing the highly disputed term "nu metal" from the infobox" really did come out the blue. The discussion was about post-metal not nu metal, so why you decided to add that at the tail end of the discussion instead of starting a new one, I don't know. And I am pretty sure one editor does not get to decide when the discussion is over and what the consensus is. Also, "and most important there are reviewers that states that Deftones aren't nu metal anymore, nd others going as far as to say that they have never been" - do you have the sources that state as much? HrZ (talk) 17:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Not all editors need to discuss the same issue ten times to reach an agreement, ones even do it in an implicit way (like this case) here's my proposal this is what wesley did 20 minutes later  removing the discuss template as a way of point that the discussion was over, also, if you were that much concerned with it's removal why didn't added it back while it was in dispute, you had two weeks to do so, you were aware it wasn't there. As for the oposition to nu-metal see:,  there are more, but i'm short of time today. Trascendence (talk) 04:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I "had two weeks" - you do know there isn't a deadline on Wikipedia right? I also have 996 articles on my watchlist (I don't always manage to check every edit), where I can only see the most recent edits, and I am not on Wikipedia every day, so please don't tell me what I am aware of in regards to this article. He clearly states "we don't need to highlight a content dispute in the article," meaing precisely that, it shouldn't have been there in the first place. He doesn't state that the discussion was over, so that is an assumption on your part. Again, the discussion was previously about post-metal, nu metal wasn't even in dispute until you mentioned it right at the end, and, based on your behaviour in this article, I can imagine any re-instating of nu metal would quickly be reverted by yourself. Also, two sources aren't enough. The reliable sources that exist stating nu metal (not just in the article, but any available) must be weighed with those that state they aren't. HrZ (talk) 16:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The other day you were saying that you were activelly involved in this discussion too, not only Wesley and I. But now you say that you don't have time to even check the infobox of the article that you must acces first to then go to it's talk page to participe, you can't be involved and indiferent at the same time, I indeed, questioned the presence in the infobox of a genre as debated as nu metal before, nu metal in Deftones' music has detractors, the infobox must be only for the most general and less debated genres, as of now, post-metal has more right to be there, because you won't find a number of journalists saying "Deftones have been wrongly labeled as post-metal" like happens with nu metal, and is a genre that Deftones plays right now. Trascendence (talk) 03:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The last time I checked this article and the talk page was August 20 (you don't have to go through the article to get to the talk page by theway). I made an edit to the article itself not long after but didn't notice the removal due to it being a quick revert. I did, however, notice it recently after another edit and checked the history as well and now we are discussing it. Since last month though, I have started at University so that deserves my attention more than a genre discussion in an article, wouldn't you agree? Hence the lack of time. "post-metal has more right to be there" - two weak sources for support against 4 published sources for nu metal. Doesn't have much right as it seems to be a minority opinion, ergo not a general genre. HrZ (talk) 14:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I do indeed support adding nu metal to the infobox. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And I do want post-metal to be in the infobox, and it's a genre less debated and controversial with the band playing it right now, but this was supossed to be a temporal "middleground" solution, if you had a problem with nu metal being removed you should have said it, in contrast you remove the discussion template and didn't even tried to add it back nor said it here. Althought it's obvious that you just changed your instance now. Without a doubt, the biggest problem with the editors and this discussion is that they change of instance randomly and contradict themselves all the time, one day they have no problem with a change, but two days later they comeback and rant as if they were opposing from the begining, it's like i get to add post-metal to the infobox and one week later i comeback and want to remove it at any cost, from here and onwards, can all the editors here be consistent about it's instance in the infobox issue? that will give direction to this discussion. Trascendence (talk) 03:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "And I do want post-metal to be in the infobox, and it's a genre less debated and controversial with the band playing it right now . . ." No it isn't, that's been roundly contested in the previous discussion.


 * " but this was supossed to be a temporal "middleground" solution . . ." No, it wasn't. Consensus was against you. You're the only one who considered it a stopgap solution.


 * "if you had a problem with nu metal being removed you should have said it, in contrast you remove the discussion template and didn't even tried to add it back nor said it here" I didn't discuss nu metal's inclusion because the discussion was about post-metal and I wanted to keep things focused. I had actually toyed with starting a new section to discuss the inclusion of nu metal once the previous discussion wrapped up, but passed on it to focus on other work on Wikipedia in the meantime. Me not raising an objection to something isn't silent consent--I tend to either clearly agree or disagree with something. What a lack of comment means from it is I most likely became busy elsewhere. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

If editors disagree with post-metal but don't show any source that refutes deftones being such, It doesn't matters Trascendence (talk) 03:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's keep the discussion focused on nu metal and not post-metal--that particular horse has been beaten to death and the consensus was in favor not including it. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As long as nu metal is out, it's fair, because alt metal and exp. rock are the genres everybody agree with, these have to be the ones that appear in the infobox. Anyway I could bet that when they publish the new album the genre will get enough back up and nu metal will be more dismissed, regardless of who likes it and who doesn't. Trascendence (talk) 03:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually don't agree with experimental rock being there, but I won't get into that here. Whatever you speculate on what people might say about nu metal in the future is certainly your right, but that doesn't mean anything here, as we're not here to predict the future. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Only reiterating what Wesley just said, but he is right, we don't predict what will happen here. Nu metal has more sources than most in the article. And there are bound to be more as well. If there is enough evidence that outweighs those sources then it should be removed, But that evidence hasn't been provided yet with the exception of only two album reviews. It shouldn't be removed because of editors own personal opinions of what the band is (just to throw it out there, I NEVER describe Deftones as nu metal or think of them as such, but it is irrelevant because Wikipedia is about verifiability). HrZ (talk) 16:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah wesley, we can't predict what reviewers might say, that's why i want the article to be this way until more reviews appear. Also HrZ nu metal isn't the most sourced, that would be alternative metal, and while nu metal deserves a mention in the article, the infobox must be only for genres that don't have any controversy. Trascendence (talk) 04:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, its 3 for alternative metal and 4 for nu metal (5 if you include the Honolulu Weekly source used for experimental rock) from the infobox and musical style section. Unless I have missed something? Can you point out a policy or guideline that states that the any "controversial" genres should not be there? The closest thing to what you are saying is Template:Infobox musical artist. However, it only states "the genre or genres of music performed by the act. Aim for generality." I think someone has previously suggested this, or something along similar lines, but perhaps all genres, with the exception of alternative metal (use it as a general term), should be removed and the musical style section expanded in more detail (such as the arguments for and against nu metal and such). HrZ (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, reviews aren't the best source for anything aside from the critical opinion expressed by the authors, as by nature they are opinion pieces, not reporting or historical analysis. Even if more reviews using a certain genre phrase show up, that doesn't necessarily mean anything. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Honestly, leaving aside the arguing for the sake of arguing thing, anybody here is realy concerned for the prescence of exp. rock in the infobox? Historical analisys stills an opinion, just on a diferent presentation. Reviews are as aceptable as any other kind of articles. Wikipedia does not favor one over the other. Trascendence (talk) 04:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Historical analisys stills an opinion, just on a diferent presentation". Nope, you don't need to cite references to have an opinion published. And per SOURCES, certain sources are indeed preferred over others, (ex. "academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources"). Reviews are opinion pieces, and are at a lower rung. So to further iterate, the mere presence of a genre term in a review or ten does little to influence the matter at hand. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "anybody here is realy concerned for the prescence of exp. rock in the infobox?" If you wish to discuss it, start another topic. HrZ (talk) 15:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't care about experimental rock, i ask because the other editors here have shown to disagree with practically everything, And accord to the wikipedia's sources policy: "academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science... Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria." It in no way says that one is superior to the other, just what would be prefered if aviable, and it does emphasizes in the fields of science and history, not music. Trascendence (talk) 23:37, 02 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "It in no way says that one is superior to the other, just what would be prefered if aviable" - WesleyDodds stated "certain sources are indeed preferred over others." No mention of superior. It does not emphasize, it gives history, medicine and science as examples ("such as.."). Just because there is no mention of music, doesn't mean that published sources are not preferred. At the moment, there are four published sources (two of which are specific to the genre) as well as one source that mentions they have played nu metal). You have provided only two sources (both of which are only album reviews and opinion pieces). If it is a controversial genre as you state, surely you can provide more evidence? HrZ (talk) 09:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

By the by, Google Book Search is a good place to look for credible sources (beware the occasional sly reprinting of Wikipedia articles, though). There's a couple of Spin articles and you can get a peak at the Deftones article from around the release of White Pony reprinted in the Guitar World Presents Nu-Metal collection. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not ok to asume things that the policy don't says, because music isn't a topic as delicate as medicine, as long as the site have a printed couterpart or meet the review criteria it's allright. Now regarding to the nu-metal thing, here's some more:, , , Trascendence (talk) 03:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Those are all reviews. The first is a scan of an Alternative Press article that's missing important citation information (when was it published?). WesleyDodds (talk) 06:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * No fear you must, it's from June 2010. Trascendence (talk) 00:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)