Talk:Heavy metal genealogic tree

Untitled
Partial tree. Still lacks various genres. Feel free to edit or upload a new tree. Pasajero 11:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Good idea but still lacks much
This is a good idea, I'll be working with you on it. I think as it stands now that it's still pretty much work in progress and is somewhat flawed (Seems that Punk started it all because it's over the top, but Black Sabbath and the like came before punk...). I've already made a genealogy chart for the dog, so I'm pretty much at home drawing genealogy charts. Loudenvier 16:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually I put punk at the top because it was the most convenient place to put it without making the tree look like a mess. If you find another way to rearrange it please do so. Pasajero 13:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's good outline and would look very good when it's cleaned up. Needs a few more of the genres like Prog Metal as well, but I guess you want to keep it clean without cluttering the chart up with too many subgenres, etc. Maybe save that for a less "solid", larger chart. Dace59 17:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

bad article
no offense but this is just terrible, its just wrong and the origins make no sense. you should probably delete it until someone makes a new one — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.139.207.100 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 22 August 2006


 * How is it wrong? Yes it needs to be replaced with a proper tree, but the info is right as far as I can see. Dace59 22:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * All the articles in Wikipedia confirm the ramifications found in the tree. If there is something wrong please do us a favor and specify so we can fix it. Pasajero 19:29 22 August 2006
 * It doesn't matter if it's a bad article now, it's a great idea tough, so please, instead of destructively criticism why don't you contribute to the article itself? Almost all wikipedia articles starts small and bad, it's people contributions that made them great, not bad criticism. If you delete the article how would you take the attention of others towards improving it? It makes no sense. The article should stand, and people will improve it. Why don't you propose (text based) a genealogy tree? Regards Loudenvier 14:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The article space is not for just having an image, and the title of this page does not indicate it would be a proper encyclopedia article. To use this image, the image should be included in an article like Heavy metal, not here. This page will soon be deleted. —Centrx→talk &bull; 19:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The image is way too big to include in the heavy metal article. Please suggest an appropriate alternative. Pasajero 16:16 23 August 2006
 * This article does not need to be an image. The article is still a stub, it's a good article candidate. By the way, to delete it, just follow the deletion procedures, if the article stands then it's done, if not, then it's done too. I think an article about Heavy Metal genealogy to be very important and encyclopaedic. If it can be merged to the Heady Metal article, then it's good, but keep in mind that the Heavy Metal article already passed the threshold for a good article size! Loudenvier 21:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break
Currently, this page (not the image) qualifies for speedy deletion under Criteria for speedy deletion, A3: "No content whatsoever". 'Articles' that consist only of images are regularly deleted summarily. Adding some empty sentences (or redundant with Heavy metal music) would also not save it. I have not deleted it in order so that no one would be aghast or confused at its disappearance, and to temporarily preserve the messages about it in this Talk page.

Heavy metal music being a Featured article does not mean that its size is now capped, and if a future article created here were to pass a deletion discussion it would not mean that the article is "done" or that it would not still warrant merging into Heavy metal music.

I do not see what sort of article could be created here that would not be a duplication of what is already under the "History" section at Heavy metal music. This image can be reduced in size, either by using Image parameters (size when displayed, see Images) or by altering it using an image program. Its proper place is at Heavy metal music. If the image needs to be improved, then that can be done. If the people at Heavy metal music don't think it should be included, that would be unfortunate, but creating a redundant article is not the solution. —Centrx→talk &bull; 23:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. but... I was thinking about to make the Heavy Metal article shorter. The fact that it was a featured article doesn't make it a good article forever. There were many changes made on the article since it was "featured". It's my opinion that the article is now much worse than it was then. A Genealogy Tree of heavy metal can be an article, and an interesting one. In fact, it can fit an entire book. You start to make separate articles when the detail information would make the main article too long. But, if this article was meant to be only an image of the HM tree then it should be speed deleted as you yourself reasoned.. Regards Loudenvier 13:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's fine of course, but it needs to be discussed at Heavy metal music, and I think a better name for such an article would be "History of heavy metal music" or "Genealogy of heavy metal music". —Centrx→talk &bull; 15:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought about something like...

Heavy metal would spawn two new genres: Speed metal saw the birth of two new extensions: Doom metal would produce: Thrash metal would provided four new genres: Pasajero 23:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Speed metal - (1978) Stained Class by Judas Priest
 * Neo-classical metal - (1984) Rising Force by Yngwie J. Malmsteen
 * Progressive metal - (1984) The Warning by Queensrÿche
 * Doom metal - (1986) Epicus Doomicus Metallicus by Candlemass
 * Thrash metal - (1983) Kill 'Em All by Metallica
 * Power metal - (1984) Ample Destruction by Jag Panzer
 * Gothic metal - (1990) Det Finnes Alltid En Utvei by Ameneon
 * Black metal - (1984) Bathory by Bathory
 * Death metal - (1985) Seven Churches by Possessed
 * Grindcore - (1987) Scum by Napalm Death
 * Groove metal - (1992) Vulgar Display of Power by Pantera


 * Then that should merged with the Heavy metal music article where appropriate. This title doesn't make sense as a disambiguation page. —Centrx→talk &bull; 23:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Question about invalid re-creation of a re-direct
I SPENT HOURS CREATING A NEW TREE, IT WAS DELETED AND!!!!! WHY!!!!!! I WAS GIVEN THE "THANKS FOR TESTING OUT WIKIPEDIA, BUT PLEASE USE THE SANDBOX FOR For FUTURE EXPERIMENTS" MESSAGE!!!!! WTF!!!! TELL ME WHATS GOING ON!!!! User:Iron bob is their anything that i can do to the article that would make it usable? I thought that it was ok to recreate the article since it was listed on Wikiproject metal as something that needed to be worked on. i'm not finished yet but i think that if i could finish it would be a good article, instead of deleting the whole thing could just the copyright violations be deleted? Or is a recreation of the article out of the question? Pasajero said that it would be ok to make a new tree. Is what i did okay?? I got rid of the copyfight image problems and did not delete your redirect thingy. WHY DID YOU DELETE MY ARTICLE AGAIN???? WHAT CAN I DO????????? READ THIS AND REPLY!!!!--Iron bob 01:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The original article violated many Wikipedia policies including WP:CITE, WP:V, WP:ATT, WP:AWW and WP:NPOV. The new "undo" of a admin directed re-direct was 10 times worse for policy vio than the first version. Re-direct will likely be locked in to avoid a similar mistake in the future. 156.34.216.32 00:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, page contained several illegal copyvio images which will have to be deleted from Wikipedia. 156.34.216.32 00:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)