Talk:Heavy metal music/Archive 11

Recent Trends

 * "Revision as of 04:37, 23 September 2015 (edit) (undo) (thank) Binksternet (talk | contribs)(Reverted 1 edit by CombatMarshmallow: Rv per WP:CIRCULAR. Also, the source says that Hogan's Heroes is hardcore punk, and it does not describe anything about them being relevant in the 2000s." (TW))


 * What it really says. It says they are crust, metalcore, hardcore punk, metallic hardcore, skate punk and crossover thrash. Quote: "formed in 1984. The band was seminal in the development of metallic hardcore, skatepunk, metalcore and crossover thrash" seminal by definition: Seminal | Adjective 1. (of a work, event, moment, or figure) Strongly influencing later developments:his seminal work on chaos theory. Thesaurus seminal adjective her paper is a seminal work on the subject INFLUENTIAL, formative, groundbreaking, pioneering, original,... . The section is "Recent Trends" the Pioneer of recent trends is Hogan's Heroes. I believe there is some WP:OWN going on. I think since an editor said the only object they had is the picture, which was suggested to replace with a better photo. I think its an effort to prevent the photo from being re-added. Which btw was re-added by 4 or so editors and 1 admin. Two people continually edit warred its removal. One is this editor. Also, the quote which was utilized is completely original evaluation by an admin. at Metal Music Archives. Not a mirror at all. Circular in this case is a fancy way to make effort to prevent the article from having Quality Accuracy. "It doesn't say anything about them being relevant" . Pioneering is relevant and relative to new trends, one of which is Metalcore, and the other groups are there, keeping the first worldwide group isn't very accurate for any article, or wiki. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 06:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The big problem here is WP:UNDUE emphasis given to a little-known band. Sputnik Music does not have a biography written about the band. Similarly, AllMusic does not have a biography written. There is nothing about Hogan's Heroes in Altpress.com, AVClub.com, Big Cheese magazine, RobertChristgau.com, CMJ.com, Paste magazine, and the only thing in Billboard magazine about a band named Hogan's Heroes is about a youthful group that Brad Nowell joined for a bit when he was 13, before he founded Sublime. The only thing about the band in Juice magazine is a single review of Pura Vida by the New Jersey band OS101, formed from past members of Hogan's Heroes. So what I'm seeing is a band that has very little written about it, but that little bit is what you are latching onto as being very important. What I'm seeing is the forest of hardcore punk where Hogan's Heroes is not discussed very much, but you're seeing the tree of Hogan's Heroes where a few things have been written about them, those few things seeming to make the band important. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the whole forest view is critically important when writing about a subject. In terms of heavy metal music, Hogan's Heroes is not on the radar. Binksternet (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Grunge as derivative form
What other styles have been influenced by heavy metal? We currently list no others (horror punk's infobox claims metal as an influence, but this isn't sourced). This isn't a "position of high prominence"; the derivatives section of the music genre infobox is meant precisely for listing styles influenced by the genre in question.-- MA SHAUN IX 16:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I reverted because grunge is more a derivative of alternative rock than metal. I would assume that a derivative is still within the genre that birthed it; maybe I'm wrong here, but I don't know because the infobox template doesn't explain what the derivative parameter is actually for.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 03:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a subgenre of alternative rock. The derivative parameter might not describe what it's for, but it is pretty much universally used to include styles that have been influenced by the genre in question, but not to the extent of being considered subgenres or fusion genres. Thus, other influences on grunge such as hardcore punk and hard rock include grunge as a derivative in their infoboxes, while metal is included as a derivative in the infoboxes of blues rock and psychedelic rock, which it derives from, even though it is not "still within" those genres. What is the downside of including grunge here to note that it was influenced by metal, especially when it is the only style to be included this way?-- MA SHAUN IX 12:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The hardcore punk infobox for one looks very dubious to me. I'd like to see some other editors comment here.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 21:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well listing 15 derivatives is a very different case to listing one. Still don't see what the downside is.-- MA SHAUN IX 09:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I believe it is well recognised that grunge is strongly derived from heavy metal (and about equally from hardcore and alternative rock). Most other articles about music genres have a list of derivatives in the infobox, why not metal? I second everything MASHAUNIX has said. Regards, Aardwolf A380 Aardwolf A380 (talk) 04:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I also found this, which answers my questions satisfactorily. Yes, grunge belongs there.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 01:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for image in infobox
Hi all, The infobox in the lead is one of the first things readers see when they come to the article. For many casual readers who are not metal fans, the lead and the infobox might be all they read. It might be good to consider adding an image to the infobox, to give readers a sense of what a metal band looks like. Just as an example, see the infobox below with a Slayer picture from 2007. The picture shows some of the visual features associated with metal, including musicians with long hair, a metal-style drum kit with two bass drums, a wall of Marshall cabinets, metal-style guitars, etc. Of course many different pictures would be good candidates for the infobox; this is just to show a possible example. OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 05:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I never saw an image in a genre infobox; didn't even know there was a parameter for it. I do think it's a good idea, but IMO it would be better to include an image of one of the most famous traditional heavy metal bands mentioned in the lead, like Black Sabbath, Judas Priest, Motorhead, Iron Maiden or Saxon.-- MA SHAUN IX 16:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the article body does a good job of showing what heavy metal looks like visually with inline photos while the infobox summarizes the important points about Heavy Metal. Since the article is on a genre which is a concept over a physical subject like a person or a group, a photo to represent the actual genre isn't as straightforward as a photo of a metal band. Also, metal is a very wide genre, hence it's a bit difficult to represent all with a single photo. If we absolutely had to, I'd represent it with an early band like Black Sabbath, similar to how it was done in Jazz. Vortiene (talk) 16:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be included, because it will most likely lead to image wars and that's not needed. Furthermore, nowadays there's no concept on how a metal band should look like so adding images would just make it outdated and stereotypical. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Like Mashaunix mentioned, I didn't know that the infobox for genres could take an image (I might have noticed this at one point, but I don't remember). I can see the points made by Sabbatino and Vortiene that it is hard to summarize a genre with a band/artist photo, but, like Vortiene mentioned, there is a precedent for it on other articles such as the Jazz entry. If we were to include an image, I think the Slayer proposed by OnBeyondZebrax works well, as does this one of Judas Priest:
 * JudasPriest.jpg-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 05:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I would think an early photo of an early heavy metal band (led zeppelin/black sabbath/rainbow/etc.) would be less likely to fall into image wars and avoid major stereotyping. Example, Rainbow in performance (27 09 1977 02 500b).jpg (Rainbow in 1977) Vortiene (talk) 05:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Or, mirroring the Jazz page, simply a picture of an influential musician in the genre, such as Jimmy Page.
 * Jimmy_Page_early.jpg Vortiene (talk) 05:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If people are going to add photos then it must only be Black Sabbath or Tony Iommi. However, I'm staying with my opinion that there will be image wars. First person will add Black Sabbath, second will change it to Metallica and third will add something like Avenged Sevenfold... And guess what? Edit-warring party! It's better to stay neutral and don't add any image at all as article's text perfectly covers the whole heavy metal genre. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We managed fine without it for this long, why not save ourselves endless editing wars and just leave it alone?--  SabreBD  (talk) 13:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We could try to add an image and a hidden note justifying its use, noting it is based in current consensus and asking editors to discuss a change before doing it, and if it doesn't work, only then remove it. If we tried, I think that we should definitely do a band and not a single musician (because as opposed to jazz, bands and not musicians are generally the focus in metal), and that to be justifiable, the image would have to both depict a key traditional heavy metal band and typical heavy metal image/fashion. By these measures, 2 options seem adequate to me: Judas Priest, who are used for heavy metal fashion and have influenced the image a lot, and Black Sabbath, who are considered by many to be the first/most important metal band.-- MA SHAUN IX 14:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The other thing is, it can't just be a random photo of a band fitting that criteria, since this is an important article, it should be a well-shot photo. That's why I shared the previous ones, but I'm not against the other mentioned options if there are good photos available. Vortiene (talk) 15:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that since this article is an FA, in addition to the picture illustrating key visual elements, it should be a high quality photo. I agree the image should show a band rather than just an individual. Re: can or should infoboxes have images, WP:MOSIMAGES states that "It is very common to use an appropriate representative image for the lead of an article, often as part of an infobox. The image helps to provide a visual association for the topic, and allows readers to quickly assess if they have arrived at the right page." (from WP:IMAGE LEAD. I am not worried about edit warring. We can come to a consensus on the image, and add a note saying "this image was selected by consensus, please discuss on talk page". OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 04:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC on image in infobox
Should the infobox contain an image of a heavy metal band? OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 15:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC) The lead is often the only part of the article a casual reader will look at. To stimulate readers' interest in the article, it is proposed that a high-quality image of a heavy metal band be added to the infobox. Adding images to infoboxes is approved by WP guidelines. WP:MOSIMAGES states that "It is very common to use an appropriate representative image for the lead of an article, often as part of an infobox. The image helps to provide a visual association for the topic, and allows readers to quickly assess if they have arrived at the right page." The image could illustrate some of the key visual identifiers of the heavy metal style. OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 15:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Create a mosaic; see Japanese people for an example. bd2412  T 15:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: see also Classical music for a mosaic. OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 18:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * No image as per the norm for these overview articles (not even the parent article has one. Not sure how a guy with a guitar dressed in black will help people define the sound (a waste of space if used).
 * No - Having any real band pictured in the infobox would be alienating to non-fans, and would seem more than a bit promotional; having a faux band would be inviting mockery. Why does it need a band at all? If a picture would help, why not just show a guitar-? SteveStrummer (talk) 23:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No - Seems to have too many issues and with getting a definitive picture for quite a wide genre, even a mosaic probably won't accurately represent each part of it. Vortiene (talk) 01:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No image. It can only be decisive and adds nothing to the article.--  SabreBD  (talk) 09:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you mean "devisive?"-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 21:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "Divisive" - yes.--  SabreBD  (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * No image – As I said before there would be edit wars regarding the image and text perfectly covers everything. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Neutral or Weak Support As per my rationale in the talk section above this one, I can see the validity of arguments both for and against. There is precedent for images, like "classical music" as mentioned above. Jazz makes use of an image, though note that it has not even been approved as a good article.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 21:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A mosaic is a possibility, I guess, but I would prefer no image. Any image(s) would be arbitrary and prone to edit warring, and heavy metal is not really something that you can photograph.  A mosaic could explore the variation in visual styles, but the article already does a fair job of that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No image - Like an above user has already mentioned, an image would create unnecessary edit wars regarding which image is used. An image would add nothing to the article nor would it make it more informative.  A picture of a heavy metal band will not help "define" what heavy metal music actually is and sounds like.  Cheers,  Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 18:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No image or at most a collage. I agree that an image makes an article look more attractive, but choosing it would cause a lot of argument, and as has been pointed out it's the sound that's important.  I suppose a sound clip would be equally hard to choose, even if there weren't copyright problems.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 00:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No image Although I think images improve the appearance of a page, we're going to run into issues with folks attempting to replace the image with their favorite band members etc. Also, how would we narrow down what image to actually use? Meatsgains (talk) 23:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Image. A potential edit war is not a valid reason to omit an image.  A mosaic can address issues of preference.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 00:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting we add a gallery or mosaic of various heavy metal bands? Meatsgains (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * No image, like many other editors above me have stated, this is going to spark edit warring at one point  CatcherStorm  talk   10:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Etymology section

 * My addition of a reference to the 1967 album by Hapshash and the Coloured Coat - Featuring The Human Host And The Heavy Metal Kids - has been reverted as "non-notable", which it is not.  The section is discussing the origins of the use of the term in music, and refers to 1968 usages by Steppenwolf, Sandy Pearlman, and Barry Gifford.  The Hapshash album (reviewed at Allmusic here) pre-dates all of those - it was published in 1967 - and unarguably places the use of the term in a musical context.   My edit made no claims that it was the first use of the term in a musical context - though it has been suggested that it was) - but simply noted its existence.  I could go on and make further WP:OR comments - that Hapshash were at the heart of the London music scene in 1967, and their contributions were listened to and taken seriously by musicians and journalists - but I'm interested to hear the justification for removing a clearly relevant and encyclopedia-worthy reference.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't actually have a problem with the text itself, I'm just questioning how useful it is to the article, and just want to see what other people think. Vortiene (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think its useful, considering that a reliable source has mentioned it as the first use of the term "heavy metal."-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 01:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Now when a good and reliable source was found, it becomes notable. Your earlier addition of content with AllMusic as a source was poor in every way, because apart from album's name, which we can find ourselves, nothing was mentioned about its use in heavy metal music. When looking for such information, AllMusic is not really reliable, despite it being classified as a reliable source (same goes to iTunes and Amazon, because there are many mistakes regarding release dates). – Sabbatino (talk) 08:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The Hapshash album was clearly not heavy metal music in the modern sense, and no-one suggested it was. My original edit was simply making a factual statement about the existence of the term "heavy metal" in a musical context in 1967, pre-dating the other examples cited.  Please remember to sign your posts.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't state that it was a heavy metal album... I was referring to the term itself. Source was in question and that's why it got removed. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

So, would it be acceptable to add the following? "The term was also used in the title of the 1967 album Hapshash and the Coloured Coat featuring the Human Host and the Heavy Metal Kids, which has been claimed to be its first use in the context of music." Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

"Heavy metal kids" was a reference to characters in William S. Burroughs' novels, not a musical reference which the sentence sort of implies. Piriczki (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't dispute that - but the fact is that the term was used in the title of a musical work for the first time, to indicate ("..featuring the...") some of the performers on the record. Hence, "..in the context of music".    Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Julian Palacios explicitly calls Hapshash and the Coloured Coat featuring the Human Host and the Heavy Metal Kids "the first use of the phrase 'heavy metal' in music" in a parenthetical note. I think that it should also be mentioned, though, that the Burroughs novels are what the album title is referencing.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 16:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with this setup. Vortiene (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * But the source doesn't give any link between the album title and Burroughs. It may be a reasonable inference, but it's WP:OR to include it.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we should look for a second reference to make that connection then (if it in fact is a reference to William S. Burroughs), as otherwise it's somewhat misleading. Vortiene (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see why any connection to Burroughs needs to be made. The words can stand on their own.  If readers wish to draw their own conclusions, they can do so.   - what "setup" do you mean?   Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Not including the Burroughs' info can make it misleading. Considering that the article already discusses Burroughs' novels, that paragraph would be the ideal location for the info about the Hapshash and the Coloured Coat album.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 17:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * But where is the source that says they got the title from Burroughs? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Quote from Michael English "There was a concept behind making the record, and the project was intended as a complete experiment. ... used an anchor group of musicians we named The Heavy Metal Kids after William Burroughs' book Nova Express." Piriczki (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Nice one. I'd say we're somewhat good to go now if people are in agreement. Vortiene (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Such as: "Inspired by Burroughs, the term was used in the title of the 1967 album Hapshash and the Coloured Coat featuring the Human Host and the Heavy Metal Kids, which has been claimed to be its first use in the context of music." Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Almost, I'd prefer to go with "Inspired by Burroughs' novels," at the start, rather than just "Inspired by Burroughs,". Otherwise it's still a bit uncertain without checking the reference. If you are okay with that modification, I think people will be fine with adding that portion back in. Vortiene (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Fine - now done. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 one external links on Heavy metal music. 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:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071206171850/http://www.thedailystar.net:80/magazine/2006/07/04/musings.htm to http://www.thedailystar.net/magazine/2006/07/04/musings.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071111141800/http://feralhouse.com:80/press/mini_sites/american_hair_metal/excerpts.php to http://feralhouse.com/press/mini_sites/american_hair_metal/excerpts.php
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070308145737/http://www.creemmagazine.com:80/_site/BeatGoesOn/SirLordBaltimore/KingdomCome001.html to http://www.creemmagazine.com/_site/BeatGoesOn/SirLordBaltimore/KingdomCome001.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090425074919/http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/kingcrimson/albums/album/268735/review/5942988/the_power_to_believe to http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/kingcrimson/albums/album/268735/review/5942988/the_power_to_believe
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110425113211/http://www.rockpages.gr:80/detailspage.aspx?id=637&type=1&sub=%20&lang=EN to http://www.rockpages.gr/detailspage.aspx?id=637&type=1&sub=%20&lang=EN
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060718224746/http://www.mtv.com:80/bands/m/metal/greatest_metal_bands/071406/index7.jhtml to http://www.mtv.com/bands/m/metal/greatest_metal_bands/071406/index7.jhtml
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071031005254/http://www.rollingstone.com:80/artists/dimmuborgir/articles/story/5935933/dimmu_borgirs_death_cult to http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/dimmuborgir/articles/story/5935933/dimmu_borgirs_death_cult
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070701163046/http://www.riaa.com:80/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=tblDiamond to http://riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=tblDiamond
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070208190614/http://www.mtv.com:80/bands/m/metal_meltdown/news_feature_030124/index.jhtml to http://www.mtv.com/bands/m/metal_meltdown/news_feature_030124/index.jhtml
 * Added archive https://web.http://www.webcitation.org/5wXYVcYo2 to http://www.lotfp.com/content.php?editorialid=64

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 17 April 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix ( talk ) 22:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

– There is absolute zero debate when it comes to the primary topic of this term. The music genre is by far the first thing anyone has in mind when talking about "heavy metal". Unreal7 (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Heavy metal music → Heavy metal
 * Heavy metal → Heavy Metal (disambiguation)
 * Support - I see no reason to not move the page. Undoubtedly the primary topic. Meatsgains (talk) 20:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - Primary topic makes sense, but I'd look at the opinions of those who don't watch this page as well. Vortiene (talk) 21:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - My concern here is how we define "primary topic". "Heavy metal" is used to refer to one of the heavy metals in a lot of scientific literature, and that should be taken into account, even if such references might not be as popular.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 03:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment My only concern on moving is that the current setup allows to spot incorrect incoming links.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Primary topic, in my opinion, is chemical elements of periodic table. Support rename → Heavy metal (music). Baking Soda (talk) 11:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The current title is entirely unambiguous instead of nearly unambiguous, is a natural language title, and lacks any identifiable problem. Nothing would be improved by changing it. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose – I second this. The term has two widely used meanings, a scientific one and a cultural one. That makes it ambiguous and well suited for the disambiguation that it is right now. And "heavy metal music" is preferable to "heavy metal (music)" just as it is with "rock music", "pop music", "hip hop music" etc.-- MA SHAUN IX 18:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Current name is good and separates music from chemical elements. Although, I wouldn't have any objections for topic's move to Heavy metal (music). – Sabbatino (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - totally counter to WP:CRITERIA failing on almost every one of the 5 points. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. It's 3,000 views a day for the music, 1,000 for the 1981 film, and 290 for the chemical elements.|Heavy_Metal_(film)|Heavy_metal_(chemical_element) Gulangyu (talk) 09:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The problem with "heavy metal" as a title is that when discussed in itself outside of music, it more likely refers to science, so "music" as a disambiguator is necessary. SST flyer 05:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Determining a primary topic is about anticipating what topic the reader is likely to be searching for. That's something you can do with using search engine results and traffics stats. Gulangyu (talk) 06:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Outside of a certain milieu, "heavy metal" has a clear primary meaning. Although that meaning lacks the commercial qualities that produce massive pageviews, it has scientific properties that are infinitely more influential and enduring. SteveStrummer (talk) 07:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The concerns I voiced in my above comment have been confirmed by subsequent voters - the scientific meaning is too important to overlook.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 15:52, 20 April 2016
 * Oppose per -- Heavy metal can refer to metals used to build solar panels, etc. CookieMonster755 (talk) 21:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment there's some debate 2601:541:4204:7760:D9F3:7D71:70F6:C24D (talk) 23:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The chemistry term "heavy metal" has much more history and authority. Binksternet (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * To demonstrate: Search for "heavy metal" in Google Scholar. 1,770,000 results. Than search for "heavy metal" -music. 1,710,000 results. Within academic literature, the term "heavy metal" in reference to music is vastly outnumbered by other meanings.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 23:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose, Google Scholar and Google Books statistics are pretty damning to the nominator's claim that "there is zero debate for primary topic"
 * Google Scholar: ["heavy metal" -music 1,800,000], ["heavy metal" +music 33,100]
 * Google Books: ["heavy metal" -music 953,000], ["heavy metal" music 139,000]
 * enough said.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  04:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 8 May 2016
Heavy metal music → Heavy metal (music) – per WP:COMMONNAME, previous RM discussion. Baking Soda (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:NATURAL disambiguation and consistency with other music genre articles, e.g. Pop music not Pop (music), Rock music not Rock (music), Country music not Country (music), etc. SST flyer 07:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per SST.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I concur with SST and Lugnuts.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 15:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose: "Heavy Metal Music" is a natural wording and is widely in use, so it makes sense to keep it this way. Vortiene (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per NATURAL.   Calidum   ¤   18:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:NATURALDIS.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Agree with all users above. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:08, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Quorthon-related picture added to the black metal section
I don't really have a problem with adding one in place of the Aske EP photo in the Black Metal section. Anyone see a reason not to replace it? Darth Malloc seems to be set on it.

Important to note however that the image Quorthon_Brutal_Pentagram.jpg being attempted to be added as a replacement by Darth malloc seems to have been nominated for deletion since it didn't have any fair usage listing and had not been released under a free license. Hence we cannot use that one if we do decide to replace it.

We can't really add an additional image without removing another since the sub-genre section is rather crowded with media as it is.

Vortiene (talk) 08:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That image is most likely a copyvio and I nominated it for deletion at Wikimedia Commons. Moreover, that user doesn't really know what a consensus is and doesn't really wish to discuss anything with anyone. Therefore, it shouldn't be included. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Darth malloc has been blocked per warnings for 48 hours. I believe there's previously been a Black Metal talk page discussion on what image to add here, so leaving it as is should be the best option. Vortiene (talk) 08:49, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Addition of Kawaii metal to fusion genres
I've attempted to add Kawaii metal to fusion genres twice, both of which were reverted, this should be added due to it becoming a very prominent sub-genre with bands like Babymetal and Ladybaby, fusing j-pop and metal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Issan Sumisu (talk • contribs) 20:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Adding pioneer photo
Since when is this considered Drastic. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Social background of heavy metal fans
At the moment this article states that the typical heavy metal fan has a working class or blue collar background, which I think is a widely accepted stereotype. Perhaps mention that in particular for more underground sub-genres, fans of the genre tend to be more highly educated than the average population and heavy metal fans are over-represented among highly intelligent teenagers.

Queen, the first non-blues based heavy metal band (I have facts)
Rolling Stone Magazine December 6, 1973: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/queen-19731206

Queen are the first non-blues based heavy metal band and one of biggest influence on Judas Priest music. Queen release his first album one year before Judas Priest. In the early '70s Queen are the heaviest band on the planet and the precursors of speed and thrash metal sound. In the early '70 Judas Priest are not an influential force. The Judas Priest albums begun to sale heavily in the early '80s.

—**Rob Halford (Judas Priest) about Queen: "All I've got on my iPod is every single Queen song and every single Judas Priest song. Queen were an incredible heavy metal band. I saw them on their first ever tour, at Birmingham Town Hall. They just blew me away.

-One of the best rock critics, GORDON FLETCHER, wrote in the Rolling Stone Magazine one year before Judas Priest first album release, in Dec 1973 this:

“Rumor has it that Queen shall soon be crowned "the new Led Zeppelin," which is an event that would certainly suit this observer just fine. There's no doubt that this funky, energetic English quartet has all the tools they'll need to lay claim to the Zep's abdicated heavy-metal throne, and beyond that to become a truly influential force in the rock world. Their debut album is superb. The Zeppelin analogy is not meant to imply that Queen's music is anywhere near as blues-based as the content of Led Zep I & II. No, their songs are more in the Who vein, straight-ahead rock with slashing, hard-driving arrangements that rate with the finest moments of Who's Next and Quadrophenia. There's a song on the album (remarkably reminiscent of "Communication Breakdown") called "Modern Times Rock 'N' Roll," and that's exactly what Queen's music is. They're the first of a whole new wave of English rockers, and you'd best learn to love 'em now 'cause they're here to stay. Regal bearings aside, Queen is a monster.”

-Queen are the first inductee in "Vh1 Rock Honors"

Queen helped spur the genre's evolution by discarding much of its blues influence — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseutu (talk • contribs) 04:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Lamb Of God is not groove metal
Seriously, Lamb Of God is no where near Groove Metal. They might not be The definition of Death Metal, but they are much more Death Metal-Like than Groove Metal. TheOnlineAuthority (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Hendrix reference
For many years, this article used to refer to a sourced 1966 or 1967 review of a Jimi Hendrix concert as the origin of the term heavy metal to describe rock music, where the music journalist in question had described Hendrix's music as "sounding like heavy pieces of metal falling from the sky". Whatever happened to that reference? --79.242.219.119 (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The quote is hard to pin down, but I've found two blog posts referring to it:


 * Winston Burton, In Search of Jimi Hendrix, November 11, 2011: "The term 'Heavy Metal' came from someone describing Jimi's sound, 'like heavy pieces of metal falling from the sky.'"


 * Yahoo Answers!, 2011: "A reporter sent to the first Jimmy Hendrix show out of the state of Washington on his first tour was asked what Hendrix's music sounded like. He said it was like heavy pieces of metal being dropped and banging together. This is where we get the phrase Heavy Metal."


 * As the second quote appears to be a hint towards the actual source, Hendrix had been touring the US even before he came to the UK in the fall of 1966. In 1964, he toured the US with The Isley Brothers, in the first half of 1965 with Little Richard's backing band The Upsetters, and from summer 1965 onwards with Curtis Knight and the Squires as well as with Jimmy James and the Blue Flames. --79.242.219.119 (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Heavy metal music. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/kingcrimson/albums/album/268735/review/5942988/the_power_to_believe
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/ratt/albums/album/211449/review/5946112/detonator
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080927052955/http://www.splendidezine.com/review.html?reviewid=1125311580560974 to http://www.splendidezine.com/review.html?reviewid=1125311580560974
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.guitarplayer.com/article/finland--39%3Bs/April-2008/35205
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.musicline.de/de/chartverfolgung_summary/artist/Dimmu%2BBorgir/?type=longplay
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.musicline.de/de/chartverfolgung_summary/artist/Blind%2BGuardian/?type=longplay
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.musicline.de/de/chartverfolgung_summary/artist/HAMMERFALL/?type=longplay
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.allmusic.com/album/age-of-winters-r820095/review
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.popmatters.com/pm/review/the_sword_age_of_winters
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.allmusic.com/artist/witchcraft-p391961/biography
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lotfp.com/content.php?editorialid=64
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160517094739/http://www.guitarworld.com/meshuggah-share-secrets-their-sound to http://www.guitarworld.com/meshuggah-share-secrets-their-sound

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Ridiculous list of references
What's the point of listing dozens of books that talk about the subject? I've removed the section which imparts no value and doesn't contribute to WP:V, but has reverted without rationale, other than inertia. Toddst1 (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Heavy metal music. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100912045843/http://www.villagevoice.com/1998-10-13/music/nothing-s-shocking/1/ to http://www.villagevoice.com/1998-10-13/music/nothing-s-shocking/1/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Heavy metal music. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100112065633/http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/humblepie/albums/album/312133/review/5943267/as_safe_as_yesterday_is to https://www.rollingstone.com/artists/humblepie/albums/album/312133/review/5943267/as_safe_as_yesterday_is

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:33, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Article currently underestimates US role in origin of heavy metal
Right now the article treats the inception of the heavy metal as an almost exclusively British thing, starting in the very first sentence. But, we may be undermining the American role in what likely had a trans-Atlantic origin. Wouldn't it be better to start out with something like: "...began in the United Kingdom and the US"? Furthermore...
 * In the History section it does mention that, according to McClary, American act Blue Cheer's January 1968 version of "Summertime Blues" as the first heavy metal song. And, in the Characteristics section, citing Walser, we treat Blue Cheer as a bona fide "heavy metal" act.  Still, we fail to mention that their first two albums (both released in 1968—the first recorded in late '67) are largely in the same heavy mold.  When Blue Cheer appeared on Dick Clark's show in Feb. '68, they used the adjective "heavy" to describe their sound and Clark commented on their huge wall of Marshall amps.

Food for thought (abeit rare):
 * American act Bitter Creek released the song "Plastic Thunder" in 1968, replete with heavy lower octave-tuned guitars.
 * Glass Sun did "Silence in the Morning" in 1968
 * American acts such as Vanilla Fudge and Iron Butterfly, while not exactly heavy metal, are still often cited as playing key roles. Led Zeppelin toured with Vanilla Fudge in late '68.
 * Joe Qeenan of the Guardian attributes the beginning of heavy metal to the Unites States (with Blue Cheer) in 1968.

So, perhaps we could find ways to better-represent the American contribution the formation of heavy metal. We already have the sources by McClary and Walser to back that up, and I'm sure that there are more. Garagepunk66 (talk) 15:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Proto-metal
I propose that proto-metal should have it's own page. Has plenty of coverage (    , among others), and has a distinct sound from the original form of heavy metal. It is important to have a page dedicated to the history of heavy metal, proto-metal. Thoughts? SuperLuigi22 (talk|contribs) 21:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * It's a thought. I appreciate the way you've connected with some of the stuff in the thread above—your links mention some of those formative American acts.  My only reservation is that the term "proto-metal" may not have found its way (sufficiently yet) into the common vernacular.  But, it is an enticing thought.  Personally I've never been a big fan of "proto-genres" as names, but, that's just me.  I guess I've always believed that even the main musical forms tend to exist before people find labels for them—only becoming conscientious of their existence later, sometimes too late—and often at the exclusion early pioneers.  So, writers end up later compensating by inventing new subgenre "proto" names to give the early musicians some of their due (when they really should have just given them full credit for the main genre all along).  But, I realize at Wiki we need to reflect the larger consensus out there, whatever it is.  So, if enough of a consensus exists to justify standardizing the term here, then I'd say create an article, but if not, perhaps it would be best to wait.  You may be on to something, though.  Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I created the page right here if you want to see what I've done or add to it/see if it is adequate. SuperLuigi22 (talk|contribs) 22:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Proto-metal is not a musical genre, but a descriptive term used to say that certain hard rock songs can be seen to have had an influence on the not-yet-invented genre of heavy metal. I don't think we should have an article about proto-metal. Binksternet (talk) 22:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It has been recognized as a music genre by many people and sources. If proto-punk warrants it's own article, proto-metal certainly does, and it's long overdue. Take a look at the article, sources say that there are differences between proto-metal, hard rock, and heavy metal, such as it's psychedelic rock influence as well as it's amateur and lo-fi sound. SuperLuigi22 (talk|contribs) 23:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Your comprehension of the sources is faulty. All the sources describe hard rock songs that influenced the later genre of heavy metal. There is zero assertion of a unique musical genre called proto-metal. Binksternet (talk) 23:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I truly don't see what you mean. I read the sources, they don't say anything about it just being hard rock except one, which I can admit that source was faulty. But all of the other ones that I read only describe it as it's own thing. Psychedelic rock and blues rock fused to make amateur, heavy, and distorted rock music. SuperLuigi22 (talk|contribs) 23:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * None of the sources says there is a specific musical genre called proto-metal. Rather, they describe how certain characteristics of certain songs led to heavy metal. When a writer says a song is proto-metal, they are saying the song was influential to heavy metal, that it was a precursor to heavy metal. They are not saying that the song is in the notional musical genre called proto-metal. The fatal flaw in the argument is the complete absence of a source describing the parameters of proto-metal as a musical genre – the complete absence of a description about how the genre arose as a separate entity, what groups were its standard bearers, etc. Instead, all the sources describe how various musical trends went from several kinds of hard rock to early heavy metal. Binksternet (talk) 23:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Read this: http://www.metalmusicarchives.com/subgenre/proto-metal SuperLuigi22 (talk|contribs) 00:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I read that already. As a source, it violates WP:CIRCULAR. Its text was taken from Wikipedia. Even if the source was original and reliable, it describes how musical trends led to heavy metal. Binksternet (talk) 00:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Proto-punk is the exact same way, but it still warrants it's own article. I don't see proto-metal being any different. SuperLuigi22 (talk|contribs) 00:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * A big difference is that the proto-punk article has an AllMusic page dedicated to the topic, while proto-metal does not. Binksternet (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Binksternet has a point. Neither proto-metal or proto-punk are really genres per se.  But there is one difference.  While proto-punk isn't exactly a genre either—it is a descriptive for specimens of music from disparate 60s and early 70s genres that influenced or preceded the sound and/or attitude of the 70s punk movement, it has nonetheless ascended into the popular vernacular as a familiar term (for better or worse).  Whereas, the term "proto-metal" has not yet achieved that kind of notoriety.  That is not to say that it couldn't down the road.  It might be best to wait until that kind of popular consciousness arises.  So, while I wouldn't be in favor of a new article at this time, I do think that the Antecedents and Origins sections serve this purpose very well. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Also against inclusion. It's yet another minor variant in the rock/metal world. It can be described just fine in the context of the parent article. Sergecross73   msg me  20:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Traditional doom; unrecognized microgenres
Hi all, since traditional heavy metal was now finally redirected here in the consensus of User:Binksternet, User:RoySmith, User:BigHaz, User:Dom Kaos, and User:Sergecross73, could we agree to cut down the pointless over-fragmentation of heavy metal on the site in general? The same arguments that were made against traditional heavy metal apply all the more to "traditional doom" (which does not have an article but is listed in the doom metal and extreme metal templates). I attempted to remove this "genre" from templates about a year ago but came to an impasse with User:ABC paulista (who I would, meaning no offense, describe as the "watchdog of extreme metal") at Talk:Doom_metal. In my opinion, at least a third of the "genres" listed in Template:Extreme metal (and the equivalent infobox) should be removed, being redundant micro-genres and micro-fusions with little to no support in published sources. You can find my general arguments for this in the doom metal discussion linked; I would be glad to get some opinions.-- MA SHAUN IX 14:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I fully support this proposed trimming. I think the AFD can show a precedent of supporting this mindset, especially with these redundant "traditional-(insert genre)" deviations. I feel like the template should be trimmed down to the genre that have their own stand alone-article, which is a pretty standard "inclusion criteria" for lists and templates. Sergecross73   msg me  14:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify my role, I closed Articles for deletion/Traditional heavy metal (2nd nomination) as a purely administrative action. I have no opinion on this issue.  -- RoySmith (talk) 15:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Very well, sorry about bringing you here then.-- MA SHAUN IX 16:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I would consider any AfD I see on its merits. Can't claim any specialised knowledge on the topic, beyond being a fan of a wide range of metal. If something were to cross my radar (please don't ping me if you list it, though, I have a busy December coming up), I would look into it further. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

As a heads-up, I would likely propose that speed metal, symphonic black metal, death-doom, deathgrind, goregrind, pornogrind, and post-black metal be deleted and ambient black metal, industrial black metal, war metal, slam death metal, symphonic death metal, epic doom, funeral doom, traditional doom, black-doom, black and roll, and blackened death metal be removed from templates.-- MA SHAUN IX 20:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's pretty over-zealous. Those proposed deletions have stand-alone notability. Blackguard  20:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * All of them? Judge this on a case by case basis. While many of these have been applied by reviewers to a number of bands, the lack of sources cited in their articles in regards to their characteristics suggests that they would be better discussed in sections of more relevant articles than treated as stand-alone. Post-black metal is a new article and IMO ripe for a redirect to blackgaze since it is being used to refer to the same set of bands (exceptions can be covered in the post-metal article). Goregrind and pornogrind can be given sections in the grindcore article and all of the micro-fusions have no informational value; they simply suggests that a band fits into both genres, not that they are distinct from them. Only the deletion of speed metal could be considerably controversial; my issue is that some sources cited in its article treat is as a synonym of thrash metal and generally it is seen as more of a transitional stage in the evolution of NWOBHM into thrash than a stand-alone genre.-- MA SHAUN IX 22:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - per comment above. Sergecross73   msg me  20:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Women in Metal
Hello, fellow Wikipedians. I'm doing a project for the Press for Progress movement, and part of that project involves adding to a Wikipedia page that has to do with the binary of men and women. On this page, I couldn't help but notice that the segment on women in heavy metal is just a small paragraph at the end of the characteristics section, despite the large contributions that women have made to metal at large. I plan on adding to this page by enhancing that small paragraph or creating a whole new section about women and their contributions to heavy metal because there are plenty of examples, like what Gaby Hoffmann did for Accept or what Sharon Osbourne did for Ozzy. Gaby wrote some of Accept's most popular songs from 1982 to 1996 and Sharon Osbourne founded Ozzfest. For my sources, I'll be using an article about Sharon Osbourne that highlights her accomplishments as Ozzy Osbourne's manager, as well as the reputation she built throughout working in the music business. The article is entitled, [https://www.theguardian.com/friday_review/story/0,3605,495951,00.html 'Eminem sings about killing his wife. My husband actually tried to do it'] Another article I plan to use is entitled,The Never-Ending Debate Over Women in Metal and Hard Rock, which covers why women got involved with heavy metal, to which the writer of the said article says, "They are here for exactly the same reason that someone with an XY chromosome is here, and care just as much. Finally, I will use a scholastic research journal entitled, Women in Hypermasculine Environments: An Analysis of Gender Dynamics in the Heavy Metal Subculture. In this journal, we can see how gender dynamics play in a largely male-dominated genre of music.

Sources: https://www.theguardian.com/friday_review/story/0,3605,495951,00.html

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2011/11/the-never-ending-debate-over-women-in-metal-and-hard-rock/247795/

https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4159&context=etd

Jfunchion (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Non-heavy metal bands that shouldn’t be in the page.
Linkin Park and Poison are not heavy metal, thus they should be changed. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * They are two bands very frequently mentioned in reliable sources discussing the genres and are some of the biggest and best selling bands in those genres. That's why they're included, what would you even propose they be replaced by? Because if you can get a consensus then we could change them. Issan Sumisu (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

For glam metal: Ratt, Quiet Riot, or Twisted Sister For nu metal: Limp Bizkit Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for not adding the point between “Sister” and “For”. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Any replies? Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Its hard to agree to when you haven't provided any sort of valid rationale for these substitutions, you just rattled off some band names. You should be going by what reliable sources say. That's how things work on Wikipedia. We don't go by personal preference or personal opinion on the musical classifications of bands. If you've got sources for your additions, I could see potentially adding your suggestions, but I'd be against your suggestions being a replacement. I can't understand a potential reason as to why it would be better to remove Linkin Park in favor of Limp Bizkit - both are extreme solid examples (and well documented by source) of nu metal bands that have sold well. Sergecross73   msg me  19:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

You’re talking to me as if I didn’t have experience in Wikipedia, though I have been signed in only a month, as an anonymous user I’ve been much longer. Linkin Park, did make a lot of nu metal songs and was immensely influential in the genre, but have moved away from nu metal, they’re now rock oriented, even showing pop songs in their latest album. But Limp Bizkit have done little to change their style, although their page says their rap rock, most of their albums are heavy metal. And for Poison, it may be confused for the German thrash metal band of the same name, and it is also much more oriented in hard rock. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The replacement for Poison could be Ratt or Quiet Riot. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Any replies? Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm strongly against your proposal. You complain that I'm treating you like you don't have any experience in Wikipedia, but that's exactly how you're acting here, like you don't know how the website works. You still haven't provided a single source that backs any of your argument. Your entire argument hinges on original research - your personal conclusions on band's genre. That is not allowed on Wikipedia. Was all of the warnings (and a block) you received not enough to convince you that you're approaching music genre in the wrong way on Wikipedia? Please stop. This won't convince people, it'll just likely keep getting you blocked if you don't stop.  Sergecross73   msg me  21:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Poison is the name of the hard rock band, it is also the name of a thrash metal band from Germany. That’s why I’m proposing to change Poison for another band, to avoid confusion. And also About.com considers them rap rock and even Chester Bennington has said that they’re not a heavy metal band, if you want proof, copy this link: http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/linkin-parks-chester-bennington-were-not-a-metal-band/ Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 22:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Linkin Park that’s who I’m talking about for the last sentence. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 22:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Could some one respond? Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 23:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Chill, talk pages take a while, some discussions go days without replies but usually do get replies. Also, that Blabbermouth source is unreliable because it's Bennington saying himself that the band aren't metal, and he can not be a reliable source on his own band's genre, along with the fact that he's also said this: http://www.nme.com/news/music/nme-62-1201694. Issan Sumisu (talk) 05:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

What about About.com? And also, re-copy the link so I can visit it. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 10:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The fact that there are two bands named "Poison" isn't a valid reason for removing the correct band from this list. Any confusion can be cleared up by WP:WIKILINKS or adding context (like stating "Poison (Country/Genre band)"). A band shouldn't be conceptually discounted just because they have a generic name.
 * As Issan says above, we don't usually go by first party accounts on genre (ie genre classifications by band's themselves) as they often make choices more on popularity or promotional reasons. Bands often abandon genre that fall out of popularity. We generally go by what neutral third party music outlets and journalists say (websites like those found at WP:RSMUSIC) and I really don't think you have much of an argument in that case. In their band article alone, there are countless sources that refer to them as a few variants in the metal genre. Sergecross73   msg me  12:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

But In the case of Poison, it’s better to change the band, because they were influential, but with to bands of the same name and both have Wikipedia articles. Also, the German Poison was influential in the underground teutonic thrash metal scene. You really should listen to their demo. They also participated on the Teutonic Invasion Part One sampler LP by Roadrunner Records in 1987. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 14:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Two* Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, this is very easy to solve. See Poison (disambiguation). Its very simple to list it like it is there, which eliminates any are for confusion. Looking at each bands individual article, I see that 1) Poison (American band) has a scholarly book source calling them "glam metal", and a variety of sources calling them heavy metal, so that a very valid case for inclusion in this article, and meanwhile 2) the Poison (German band) article is extremely short and under-developed, leading me to think that they were nearly as popular or accepted by the mainstream, making me think most general audiences (which is who we write Wikipedia for) aren't even going to be aware of them, let alone confused over which Poison band we're discussing here. Sergecross73   msg me  14:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

It may be underdeveloped, but they were influential. Plus it could be better to put a band with less hard rock songs, I mean, a large portion of their songs are hard rock, not to mention their biggest hits. I mean, bands like Ratt, were older and were one of the biggest bands that help develop the genre, as well Def Leppard, who some critics say that it kickstarted and immensely popularized the genre, as well Quiet Riot and Dokken. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 16:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This article is a Featured Article. That means its received extensive review from a lot of editors. It doesn't mean its perfect or infallible, but it means that a lot of work has already gone into this. I highly doubt a large group of experienced editors accidentally added band that's generally considered a metal band. And the entries are extensively sourced, verifying that they're metal bands. This all trumps your "I don't think they're metal enough" personal opinions. The current entries are fine. I think you should focus less on what needs to be removed, and more on creating rational, source based arguments for what you want to be added. People who just go around attempting to make Wikipedia reflect their personal opinions on "real metal" or "true hip hop" just get themselves blocked over time. Genre is subjective, and there's often many valid interpretations. That's why we go by what sources say, or we'd just be constantly be undoing and redoing things to people's personal preferences.  Sergecross73   msg me  17:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Well is not my personal opinion, technically, because I just highlighted that a large portion of their albums are hard rock. But I just think that we could add a band with less hard rock in their discography. There’s no “real metal” heavy metal is heavy metal, from slam death metal to groove metal to nu metal to glam metal, they’re just heavy metal. I don’t people to think that I’m going around the internet saying what’s “real metal”. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

As well, you could make the same argument for Linkin Park. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I know there's no "real metal", I'm referring to you and your arguments that you personally don't feel these band's have released enough metal songs to be included here. That's the same sort of thing. Sergecross73   msg me  17:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I don’t personally feel their not heavy metal, all I’m saying is that it is better to put bands with less hard rock in their catalog. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 19:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I know that most of Poison’s albums are somewhat heavy metal, but a big minority of the albums are hard rock, same for Linkin Park. Also, bands like Cinderella, Europe, Ratt, Dokken, Quiet Riot, and Def Leppard (the latter of wich being more influential than Poison) are more suited to be recognized in the page, As well for Limp Bizkit, which have been very controversial (remember Woodstock ‘99) and have proven to be more influential in the genre of heavy metal, not to mention that they are much more consistent than Linkin Park (with their following albums promising to explore much more out of heavy metal and enter the realms of different genres such as pop). Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, all of this is problematic, because it's all set to a subjective standard created entirely by yourself, featuring no discernible objective criteria. You've made up an extremely vague standard (there should be "less hard rock in their catalog") with zero means of future enforcement. How much "hard rock" should be acceptable? Why? What is it now, and what should be the cut off point? How would one measure this? You've made a statement based on nothing other than your vague personal observations on a band's genre, and set it across a personal standard (that you didn't even bother defining.) Reasoning like that violates WP:OR, not to mention, isn't a sustainable solution conceptually in a group project like this. Sergecross73   msg me  19:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, please don't take this in the wrong direction again. I'm not recommending you propose some zany scheme about an artist's catalog has to be 75% metal or something like that. That's not workable either, for any number of reasons. My point is to stop using your personal thoughts on genre, and start focusing on what sources say. Sergecross73   msg me  19:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

What about replacing Poison and Linkin Park with more influential band such as Def Leppard and Limp Bizkit? Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Bands* Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * What part of the responses you've received so far would make you think that suggesting other bands without any sources, or any reasoning other than your personal subjective claim of being "more influential" would gain you any support here?  Sergecross73   msg me  19:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Loudwire: 2nd best glam metal band: Def Leppard Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

And note, I said “such as”, I was giving an example, so it could’ve been other bands. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 20:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and I’m more than happy to drop the Linkin Park argument, but not with Poison. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 20:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

TheTopTens also put Def Leppard in second place for best glam metal band. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 20:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Generally its considered more persuasive to actually provide the sources here, so people can actually see what you're referring to. You can just copy/paste website links on talk pages. (That being said, I know what source you'd be able to provide to warrant the removal of any of the current bands in the article, as they're all well-sourced by reliable sources.) Sergecross73   msg me  20:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

This is the link to the video, if you want to see the webstote just visit “best glam metal bands Loudwire” bandhttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6VtCE8iXyUE Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 20:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Whoop, sorry. http://loudwire.com/10-greatest-hair-metal-bands/ Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

https://www.thetoptens.com/glam-hair-metal-bands/ Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Your Loudwire source seems to single out both Def Leppard and Poison as being good examples of glam metal, so that doesn't exactly help your case for removing Poison. (Before grunge came along and killed hair / glam metal on MTV, bands like Def Leppard, Poison and Cinderella were the hottest thing going.) As for DL, yes, the Loudwire source shows that they are considered a glam metal band, but I'm not sure how exactly you're trying to add it to the article. If you're trying to have it be one of the bands listed in the intro, you'd probably want to keep finding sources, one source saying they're second best isn't the best evidence for being a defining band of a genre. (TheTopTens isn't looking like its what Wikipedia considers a reliable source. It looks like the type of website where anyone can sign up and start writing. Websites like that fail WP:USERG. Its not written by professionals, but rather by anyone.) Sergecross73   msg me  21:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The Ringer calls Hystria the best glam metal album ever. https://www.theringer.com/music/2017/8/7/16111390/def-leppard-hysteria-30th-anniversary Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 21:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I also put a source on “Should we put hard rock on stylistic origins?”. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 21:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

And also, should post-metal, wich is a sub-genre of heavy metal be in “derivative forms”. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Anyone? Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 22:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As you've already been told, you don't need to keep asking "Anyone?" Or things like that. Responses often normally take hours and days. Adding more and more edits doesn't speed that up. Were not texting or chatting/instant messaging each other, so please be patient. Sergecross73   msg me  00:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, I know that. I just pu that text for other individuals that might want to join the conversation. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 00:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Put* Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 00:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

And also, Halestorm shouldn’t be on the page since sources such as AllMusic calls them post-grunge: https://www.allmusic.com/artist/halestorm-mn0000662952/biography Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 12:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The two ideas are not mutually exclusive. See the Halestorm article. Some sources consider them various forms of metal. Not surprising at all. Many sources label bands genre as both alternative metal and hard rock. Again, please stop making changes according to your own personal analysis of band's genre. Sergecross73   msg me  14:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Halestorm as hard rock or post-grunge: https://www.thoughtco.com/halestorm-biography-and-profile-289799, https://www.allmusic.com/artist/halestorm-mn0000662952/biography Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

And also, you haven’t answered me on post-metal or Def Leppard’s Hysteria being considered by The Ringer as the best glam metal album. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 15:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Wrong link for ToughtCo Halestorm article. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 15:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

https://www.thoughtco.com/halestorm-biography-and-profile-2897996 Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 15:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for having that toddler link, I don’t know how that happend. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Loudwire also calls Halestorm hard rock. http://loudwire.com/tags/halestorm/ Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Metal Storm also calls them hard rock: http://www.metalstorm.net/bands/band.php?band_id=6978&bandname=Halestorm Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * None of this changes that multiple sources consider them multiple types of metal. It's right at their article. Stop edit warring with people over this or you're going to be blocked from editing. Sergecross73   msg me  18:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

If multiple sources calls them forms of heavy metal, then link me those sources. And respond to me on post-metal or in the glam metal band discussion. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There's two sources easily found in the Halestorm article alone, as you've been told multiple times already. One is this one from Billboard, one of the most major music authorities in existence. Sergecross73   msg me  19:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

And what about the argument on post-metal and Def Leppard? Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems Def Leppard is consistently called metal by sources. Feel free to add content on them as long as the source verifies the statement you're making. That does not give valid rationale to remove any other bands though. As for post-metal, like always, find a reliable source. Sergecross73   msg me  21:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thank you! Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I literally said it is NOT a valid reason to remove any bands. So why in the world would you remove Poison citing consensus? There is literally zero consensus to remove Poison. That has been explained over and over to you. Sergecross73   msg me  21:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I put some examples of death metal and black metal bands; is that alright? Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 22:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you remove sourced entries? Did you add unsourced entries? Sergecross73   msg me  22:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Death, Possessed, and Obituary are examples of influential death metal bands. And Mayhem, Bathory, and Immortal are examples of influential black metal bands. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not what I asked. Please answer the two questions I asked you. And not only just that they're the genre, but that they're "subcultural phenomenons" as suggested with your added wording.  Sergecross73   msg me  22:52, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I did not remove sourced entries, and I added sourced entries. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, looking it over, that seems correct. We want to be careful of example bloat - listing too many examples at the expense of readability - but yes the current versions seem to be supported by sourcing at least. Sergecross73   msg me  23:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

And yes their sub cultural phenomenon. Death, considerd by most critics as the first death metal band. Possessed, considerd by some critics as the first death metal band. They’re both disputed. And Obituary being an influential death metal band with their 1989 masterpiece, Slowly We Rot.

Mayhem, one of the most controversial acts in music in general, and having one of the most influential black metal records in history, De Mysteriis Dom Sathanas. Bathory, credited with implementing the first screeches of black metal, and credited for creating the genre of viking metal. Immortal, being an influential black metal band and credited for doing one of the best black metal records in the year 2002 with Sons Of Northern Darkness. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 23:24, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I like doing summaries. And if grunge is a derivative form of heavy metal, shouldn’t hardcore punk be also considerd one? Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 23:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source that states this? Sergecross73   msg me  13:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

And should we also put Grindcore as a subcultural phenomena? Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 23:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't currently state this - very little of the article discusses grindcore. As such, it should not be mentioned like that in the intro. (see WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE for what I'm getting at - the intro is only supposed to discuss major aspects of what is covered in the article.) Sergecross73   msg me  13:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

And, should there be a part of the page listing micro-genres such as industrial black metal or epic doom metal? Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 23:44, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, that is unnecessary. The current set up is fine. For example, if people want to see all the doom metal variants, they can go to the doom metal page. That's why doom metal has its own article. Sergecross73   msg me  13:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)