Talk:Indestructible (Disturbed album)/Archive 2

Don't know what happened
I formatted all the references, and two sections disappeared: "Recording and production," and "Musical and lyrical themes." You can still see them if you click "edit page," but they're not there when you publish the pages. What happened? Also, how do I reference a DVD? The entire "Recording and production" section, is referenced from the DVD. The Guy complain edits 00:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Im prouble missing something, but why dont you try to go to the history and revert it back to the one before you formatted it, and then if that works try to format it again? Just a suggestion though, I dont know if it would work. Disturbedfan24 (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And for resources, I know its from YouTube, but the user who posted this video has all of "The Making of Indestructible" put up so I guess it could be used until a better resource is found? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiTYn0xfkAM Disturbedfan24 (talk) 17:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * YouTube is not a reliable resource, I'm guessing I can cite direct quotes from the DVD. Also, I'm not gonna revert it, then re-format, because formatting all the references took hours. I've got something in mind, though. The Guy  complain edits 19:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well whatever you did seemed to work. I know YouTube's not really reliable but thats all I found from the DVD. Anyways I doubt anyone's going to challange it. Disturbedfan24 (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems when you try to re-use a reference, it deletes the sentence after the reference you repeated. A weird problem that I've never seen before.  The Guy  complain edits 20:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's weird and prouble annoying. Disturbedfan24 (talk) 02:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Midlife Crisis
Why did all mentions of this song get erased? There are sources stating that the song was indeed recorded for this album, so we can be sure it's a b-side that has yet to be released, much like Criminal was for Ten Thousand Fists... Dan (talk) 23:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Link me to a source. As it stood, there were no sources in the article stating that.  Find me one. -- The Guy  complain edits 23:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Here you go: http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2007/11/21/in-the-studio-disturbeds-david-draiman-talks-indestructible-new-album/ Dan (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll review the source to see if it passes WP:RS (I'm sure it does) and I'll add the information. -- The Guy complain edits 20:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the source certainly passes WP:RS and provides a wealth of new information for some sections that could've used expansion. Thanks for providing that. -- The Guy  complain edits 20:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, good to see that this is now sorted out. Dan (talk) 00:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Midlife Crisis is #19 on the tracking chart. I added it, knowing it was on that chart. Don't remove it again. Bramblestar (ShadowClan Leader) (talk) 23:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The most accessible source shows the chart without the song. -- The Guy complain edits 00:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I was talking about the one on the DVD, I have never even seen the one you are referring to. Bramblestar (ShadowClan Leader) (talk) 03:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bramble; especially with the reference I provided earlier, Midlife Crisis should have more than a little mention in the article. The only board of songs I've seen is the one on the DVD, and that seems to be an excellent source, regardless of accessibility. Dan (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the song hasn't been released. Also, we have to cite the most accessible source, which is obviously the official website. -- The Guy complain edits 00:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Rolling Stone review
I think this review should actually be added for neutrality. It might get its facts wrong, but among all these other reviews, I don't think it does much harm. But we have tons of mid-high rating reviews, and one or two that rate album mid-low. We need more mid-low, and the Rolling Stone review could help to balance the review section out. -- The Guy complain edits 17:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * At a second look, we have no reviews rating the album below half of their scoring range. That's a violation of WP:NPOV that adding the Rolling Stone review could help sort out.  The WP:RS rules wouldn't apply to this, because we're not using it as a citation, we're using it as a review.  I think it's very necessary in helping the article to become a bit more neutral. -- The Guy  complain edits 17:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note that if no objections make themselves known by the end of the day, I am re-adding this review. -- The Guy complain edits 20:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems no objections have come. I'm re-adding the review. If you wanna challenge this now, don't remove it, come straight here and debate it. -- The Guy complain edits 04:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with negative reviews being added, but I think they should actually be reviews, not inaccurate descriptions of the band's history and genre and only a minor mention of the new album. As it stands, this particular review (and in my opinion, the whole magazine) is a piece of shit;  I'm sure there are more professional critical reviews of the album.  Dan (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That is your opinion, though. It's listed as a reliable review source here on Wikipedia... regrettably... If you want to find another negative review, go for it, but I don't think we have any real reason to take this one down.  We still need more negative reviews to balance the article, though, too. -- The Guy  complain edits 01:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We reached a consensus, please stop doing this, it is not "reliable" sources, it is a list of examples, and the review does not meet the criteria for reliable sources, we have gone over this. Revrant (talk) 06:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes but what are we sourcing? Nothing. We're not taking any information from it except its score, and a rundown of what it said. It doesn't need to pass WP:RS for that. I'm re-adding it and IGN. Don't take it back down. They're both needed to help with neutrality. -- The Guy complain edits 11:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I also have a couple of things to say about your "we already made a consensus" comments.


 * 1. WP:CON clearly states that no consensus are permanent. They can be rescinded if deemed not appropriate to the situation.  In this case, I have to say that we were inconsistent in our consensus previously.  We said it didn't pass WP:RS, and therefore should stay off the list of reviews.  We then proceeded to cite it directly in the article's "reception" section. I thought it failed WP:RS?


 * 2. As for IGN, no consensus was ever reached and this review certainly can not be removed for insulting the band purely. As stated, professionalism doesn't matter when determining reviews necessarily. Though it was an unprofessionally written review, it was published on a trusted publication.


 * 3. Neutrality is important. It's very important, neutrality is one of three pillars of Wikipedia.  For neutrality we need more negative reviews, which are hard to come by. That's why these two reviews are pretty significant.


 * 4. WP:RS doesn't apply to the list of reviews we apply. The reliable source guidelines make it clear that they're only significant when you're citing an actual source to information in the article.  In this case, we are not. -- The Guy  complain edits 22:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I reiterate, as I did many times before, the box is for professional, featured, reliable reviews of the best quality regardless of their score.


 * The fact that you are the one bringing up this consensus negates that fact, it is antagonistic to continue when a consensus, involving you, was reached. The review was not worthy of being featured due to a blatant error in the reviewers judgement, but it was still of note for elaboration in reception.


 * 2 is negated by 3, the review is clearly bias, clearly derogatory, and IGN is not a "reliable source" as per your own sourcing, therefore the review will not be part of the article in any sense as per Wikipedia guidelines.


 * I have no idea exactly what 4 is attempting to explain.


 * There are currently two non-positive reviews, giving a 6 out of 10, which considering the success of the band is nearly negative itself, they are thorough, fact checked, non-deragotory, and worthy of inclusion as featured, professional reviews with opposing views.


 * Please refrain from antagonizing the issue further, your personal desire to include the review is not part of Wikipedia guidelines. I do not wish for another incessant reiterating of the same opinion time and again, the previous discussion outlined what was wrong with the review that prevented it from being featured as a professional review, a compromise, and consensus was reached, I will say again, there is no reason to do this all over again. Revrant (talk) 09:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:CON states that none of the consensuses made are permanent. They can be reversed.  Where is the guideline that says "only professional, featured, reliable reviews of the best quality" are allowed?  I'm sure that the publication is a factor, too.  Also, WP:RS is not for reviews!  WP:RS is for citing references directly in the article!  Are we doing that?  No.  The previous consensus was to not cite it because it failed WP:RS but we cited it in the Reception section.  Do you not see the inconsistency of that? -- The Guy  complain edits 20:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yet you have absolutely no reason to bring it up personally, again, and therefore you are simply being antagonistic, I will not do this again, you will not argue the same points again and again from the previous discussion, please see the past archives, if you have new information to present do so, but do not change the article based on an identical previous argument that was discussed.


 * WP:V Outlines that the reviews fall under WP:RS as they are publications, the compromise reached was not ideal, that's why it was a compromise, though if you wanted to be literal only a small part of the review is quoted, and it is not used as a ratings device, if a review is used as a ratings device, it must be a reliable source, one that fact checks, is not inflammatory, and at least makes an effort to center on a neutral point of view, which is why the IGN review will not be part of the article - among many other smaller publications that are blatantly bias against the band. Revrant (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I felt the need to add, the IGN review is a mere 0.5 away from the 6/10 reviews, and your logic for it being negative is false, on a scale of 10 5.5 is not technically a "negative" score, that would be 5.0 or more literally, 4.9. The IGN review is in no way shape or form worthy of inclusion in the article of any kind, as it fails on multiple fronts of Wikipedia policy and your own argument for it is nonsensical given the other below average reviews currently sourced and featured as Professional reviews on the article. Revrant (talk) 21:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If it fails WP:RS then we cannot source it in the Reception section either, is the point I was making... The previous consensus was completely inconsistent. That is my new information to present. Also, explain to me how WP:V explains that reviews fall under there, using quotes from WP:V, because I see no intent of that on WP:V, only that information in the article that is actually sourced (which this is not) has to be verifiable. -- The Guy complain edits 21:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The previous consensus was a compromise because a certain party(me) was coming up with a bevy of new sourced information and another party(yourself) was consistently restating the exact same thing thirty times over and ignoring the previous poster's(again, myself) consistent, new information and direct quoting of Wikipedia policy. There is no new information to present, just an identical argument which was resolved, I made the argument to remove it completely but you ignored that argument, so a compromise was reached, if we went by Wikipedia policy it would not be allowed in the article in any way shape or form. Despite policy being the logical route I finally gave up and in essence violated the policy to reach the compromise. The reason for the violation being direct infringement of fact checking and the publication's no-correction policy with their published reviews regardless of the error made. Sources and verifiability are directly linked, why do I have to make an argument for that? Revrant (talk) 02:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I also said this: "Also, explain to me how WP:V explains that reviews fall under there, using quotes from WP:V, because I see no intent of that on WP:V, only that information in the article that is actually sourced (which this is not) has to be verifiable," don't ignore that now. -- The Guy complain edits 02:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright, what exactly are reviews then if not sources of information? Revrant (talk) 07:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Reviews are critiques, or evaluations of specific things, such as books, plays, movies, musical albums, etc. A review becomes a source only when we cite it directly in the article, and WP:RS makes it clear that only sources can fail that evaluation. If we don't cite the information of the reviews that are on the list, they cannot fail that evaluation, as they are not under that judgment.  As for the IGN review not passing WP:NPOV: the neutrality guidelines say nothing about citations that are biased not being used, it simply says that the manner in which the information is presented in the article must be unbiased. I wouldn't exactly call adding a review with a mid-low score, and a link to that representing information in a biased manner, do you? For example, WP:NPOV says "All editors and all sources have biases—what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article." -- The Guy  complain edits 16:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah I just found an inconsistency within my own argument. You win because I can not provide a reliable source for the Rolling Stone review, and WP:V clearly states that any material that is or is likely to be challenged should provide a reliable source, which this cannot.  You win there.  Congrats.
 * Now the IGN issue is all that remains. You point out that it fails WP:NPOV because it is blatantly bias, but that guideline itself states that all sources have clear bias amongst them.  This is where is says that, WP:NPOV: "NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases—what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article."  I think we can both agree that crosses out what you said about it failing WP:NPOV. (It's literally impossible for sources themselves to fail that policy, only articles can.) It clearly outlines that all sources have bias, and that the bias among sources doesn't matter, as long as we present that point of view in an unbiased way in the article. If you don't have any further arguments regarding the IGN review, I will be re-adding it. -- The Guy  complain edits 05:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Strange logic, but alright, and as for the IGN review, no, when I said the review was blatantly bias of course I meant it was presented in a blatantly bias way, which leads to damaging Wikipedia, you can't simply dump a link to bias information on the page. That's what it's about, by putting up a review that is blatantly bias, it damages the article, and that's the violation, if you were to quote it however, and in that way separating the bias, that would work, of course I wouldn't agree with any kind of bias quote were that to happen, but all the same. Revrant (talk) 08:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What would you yourself propose then? Hopefully we can reach a better consensus than last time, and work with absolutes here. I for one am just a little confused with how its presented in a biased way in the article by linking it in the review box, mind clarifying that? -- The Guy  complain edits 14:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been pondering what you've said for a while now, and it all seems very contradictory to me. You say that linking to a bias review damages an article.  Wikipedia says every source is biased.  You said reviews are sources.  That would mean Wikipedia is saying every review has bias, but that it's OK to use sources that are biased. Now it seems that you're trying to imply that the bias of the review in question makes it detrimental, while for the others it does not. I disagree. Every reviewer has either a positive or a negative mindset when they listen. Every review has even just the slightest bias, and if its not detrimental in one place, neither is it in another, as long as quotes and opinions we take from the review are presented in a fair matter. It's simply impossible for an external source to fail WP:NPOV, only an article itself can. I'm just trying to examine this and its confusing me so much.  Your own logic is being contradictory, in the long run. I really need you to clarify how linking to biased information is a violation of conduct, because if that's the case, then, by your own logic, we need to take all the reviews down. I'm re-adding IGN, man. If you think you can clarify how linking to biased information is detrimental, go for it, but you're only conflicting with yourself. -- The Guy  complain edits 23:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You're insinuating the review has only slight bias, when in fact that is simply the rest of the reviews, Wikipedia policy is against simply dumping clearly bias(to an extreme) information and links on an article, there is no contradiction. Information that is part of the article, is, part of the article, and subject to this. I have no intention of arguing this point, if you do, then I guess I'll just be forced to add a variety of abhorrently bias reviews that otherwise qualify under Wikipedia guidelines, unless you're now going to actually argue how bias the information presented in the article, in this instance, is, this debate is over. Revrant (talk) 08:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Now you're using your own judgment to say what a clearly biased to an extreme article is. I would rather you just give me links to where Wikipedia defines "bias to an extreme," because all I see is "bias." As far as I see, linking to a bias article, is not laying that information out in an article. The link is outside of the boundaries of Wikipedia. All it comes down to is the number of positive scores and negative scores we have, it has nothing to do with links in the article -- If it does, show me where it says so. I just want to know where you're defining "extreme bias," versus just "bias," because when Wikipedia says "bias," I'm pretty sure it means to any degree. -- The Guy  complain edits 20:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not, because you don't see extreme bias used in articles, and it's highly apparent that is tied to Wikipedia's NPOV policy, what makes it bias is often argued in the talk pages, the link is part of the article, and is an unmodified source of information, and therefore must be taken into account. Yes, because all the articles in regards to Nazi Germany are sourced by Neo-Nazi organizations, what kind of argument are you making that it means "all" bias? That is simply nonsensical and quite honestly an almost stupid argument to make. Revrant (talk) 00:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe I asked for a link, not an explanation. Show me where Wikipedia defines levels of bias. -- The Guy  complain edits 00:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't need to, your argument is the most nonsensical thing you've come up with so far, if you're going to continue down this path I will not continue debating it and consider the issue closed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revrant (talk • contribs) 09:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, you do need to. You haven't quoted or linked any policies that could possibly support you so far, which leads me to believe you're just going off of your own judgment. I'm actually rather disgusted with how you've been treating me so far -- like an idiot. Nonsensical or not, I can back myself up with policies, and you haven't yet proven that you can. Show me the valid policies, and I will drop the issue. -- The Guy  complain edits 22:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't imagine ever seeking to prove that Wikipedia purposely uses bias sources, it just makes no sense at all. No you won't, the reason I'm treating you like an idiot is because you have zero interest in resolving it, and have created another nonsensical argument that only antagonizes the issue and damages the article, you are not being beneficial at all, on any other article debating another person you could easily reach a conclusion, but as this proves that is not possible with you. Honestly if you continue this antagonistic attitude instead of attempting to resolve an issue, I may have to bring a higher power into the fold, because it is getting out of hand. Revrant (talk) 01:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I asked you to link me, once again, not to try and explain common sense to me. I already told you that if you can link me, and prove yourself right, rather then try to explain how common sense works, then I would drop it. So far you've proven only to continue accusing me, and assuming bad faith. I told you what I'm asking of you, you're just failing to provide. How hard can it be -- Unless there's no relevant policies??? -- The Guy  complain edits 01:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And I will not do that, I assumed good faith and you have proven only bad faith, I will not dignify it with a response because it's an insulting argument to make that defies logic. I will not prove Wikipedia has a policy against extremely bias sources, it is nonsensical thing to ask, you are only trying to purposely drag this out to such an insane degree over your obsessiveness, I fell for it before, and I will not fall for it again, come back with an argument based on policy(and not forcing others to prove anything) and I will assume good faith. Revrant (talk) 06:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I did use an argument based on policy, but you have turned this into a discussion about how nonsensical I am and how so right you are. I asked for a simple link to prove to me what you are insinuating.  And because of that you're assuming my intent is to mess up the article? If I wanted to mess up the article, I would have already, I wouldn't be having this discussion. It's not about proving that I'm wrong, all I want you to do is prove yourself right by quoting policy. And also, you can't assume I'm a vandal because of this discussion. Please, that's just not civil, and this article is just turning into a bunch of personal attacks on me, I feel. I have not vandalized the article, so you cannot assume anything but good faith. -- The Guy  complain edits 11:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've fallen for that numerous times in the past, provided you with direct information and policy, but you ignore it, and I'm done, okay? I'm just done with it, I'm not doing that again, your intent I have no idea of, but your obsessiveness is quite clear from the past discussion, I don't care about being right anymore, there is no fathomable way for me to be right in a debate with you, regardless of any policy I have on my side. Vandalizing isn't the concern, harassment is, you can't accept any kind of policy that does not support you and it creates what is now the second massive debate that just runs in continual circles, I will not be part of it. Again, return when you are using policy, accept policy given to you, which will be most difficult, and attempt to reach consensus instead of dragging everything out until the other person just gives up in frustration and concedes. Until you can come in here trying to resolve this, and present information supposedly supporting the inclusion of highly bias sources, please do not seek to reinsert the information. Revrant (talk) 04:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Now you're simply violating WP:NPA. WP:NPOV says sources can have bias. That's the policy under my belt, man. Where's yours? According to WP:NPOV, we can use biased sources, as WP:RS says, as long as they are reliable. WP:NPOV never defines bias amounts, it never says, "we can use biased sources, but they can't be extremely biased, which is measured like this," it says "we can use biased sources, as long as we present them in an unbiased fashion. Now you're going to tell me that linking to an external link on an article is presenting information is a biased fashion, so I'm going to say, "prove it."  I see no evidence of that on WP:NPOV, so please direct me. I don't care how absurd or insulting this argument is.  It uses policy, and you have to consider it. Now prove yourself right, using quotes from policies, and also linking to those policies.  I repeat, please do not give me another lecture on common sense. To me, common sense is in the eye of the beholder, which wouldn't apply here on Wikipedia. Also, man, a continuous debate here on Wikipedia, would not be considered "harassment," man. -- The Guy  complain edits 11:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Nope, it's an observation, you are here to antagonize and drag it out until the other side simply concedes out of futility, it serves no purpose when you should be able to easily reach a logical conclusion within a few posts most of the time, that's what almost happened before, giving up that is, and you're doing the exact same thing again, I'm not making this up to attack you, I'm using your previous activities as a precedent.


 * Linking to information with no filtering is simply giving the browser bias information in the article. I seem to believe it's important that information, as it cannot be filtered in this format, be presented in a non-bias way on the website itself, you do not, that is the point of contention. A debate with no debating going on would be, I considered involving a higher power the last time simply because there was no debating, and there isn't much this time either. I can't find any logic or sense in the statement that because that specific guideline does not define the "amount" of bias that anything can be included. Revrant (talk) 12:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if you're intending to attack me, but if you read WP:NPOV, focusing more on the editor with which you are debating, instead of the content being debated, can be considered a personal attack, regardless of the execution or reason. That is what I feel you are doing. Also, you're so far the only Wikipedian which I have encountered that has ever had problems with me, save for some IPs who couldn't get the concept of original research.  Look, man, I asked you back up what you proposed, and you never answered.  Then I tried telling you policies, and you keep slapping me with lectures on common sense. I'm asking you now to stop that, please.  I don't believe it states anywhere on Wikipedia of what you just said, which I don't quite understand.  I think you're trying to say, in a nutshell, that giving external links applies information to said article, even if the information is not in said article.  I agree that that makes sense, but I see no intention of that anywhere on Wikipedia, in my almost 8 months here.  It really doesn't matter to me if you can't find logic, or sense, though, because, as I said, I believe using our own logic or sense on Wikipedia would constitute original research. It does say that anything can be included here, as long as it is presented in an unbiased manner, and meets the expectation of WP:RS, so it seems that you were right about the conflict being about how information is presented. Look, though, man, all I'm looking at right now is the scores in the review box.  There's 8 total, and the generally accepted standard is 10.  There's also 5 positive reviews, and 3 neutral reviews.  That is not neutral, that is showing bias towards "the album is good" point of view. That's my main concern here, is that the article, as is, is not neutral. If you could find two reviews that meet the standards of WP:RS, and are both low to neutral scores, then I would be glad to drop this discussion and include them in place of this. Cheers, man! -- The Guy  complain edits 20:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There was no attacking taking place, I was vehemently pointing out your immense conflict of interest, You are obsessing over this and as with the first set of posts way back in the day, largely ignoring anything I put forth, regardless of how well backed it is, if it came off as personal attacks I apologize, but it was not, I was, albeit passionately, pointing out what appeared to me to be a large conflict of interest coming from you.


 * That is the first time you have acknowledged anything I have put forth instead of just restating yourself again and again, my interest in reaching a resolution is so nil that I have neglected to search for any such policy, because as evidenced from the past debate and consensus, I just don't think it would matter and no resolution would ever be reached. Revrant (talk) 00:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would recommend reading thoroughly the policy of WP:NPA, for your own reference. Even just discussing the interests of an editor, rather than talking about the content, is considered an offense in certain situations, unless it's in the context of, "the edit X you made was wrong," then its OK.  I'll let you slip this time without a template, man, but if I feel that you violate it again, you'll get a template, and if you remove it, that's grounds to place a higher level template on your page until you could eventually potentially get banned, unless I blatantly falsely use the template (no threats, dude, nothing but respect.  I'm just trying to explain it to you).  So please familiarize yourself with the policy well, for your own discretion.  Now back onto the topic at hand (finally).  As per the last debate, I was a 1-month-old Wikipedian, and I hardly knew anything about relevant policies.  I'll admit that the first time I was being obsessive, but this time I'm purely interested in making neutral the review box on the page by adding two more negative or neutral review scores. -- The Guy  complain edits 01:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am attempting to reach a conclusion, I directly quoted the policy on my user talk page before removing the unsubstantiated template.


 * "Pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest is not a personal attack."
 * "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor."


 * Everything I pointed out was in relation to the information and your goals, which I explained were, in my view, not in line with acceptable goals, they were not personal attacks, I did not insult or disparage you, you seem to believe everything must be specifically X and X edits, that is incorrect as evidenced by the direct quotation, therefore you are wrong and I will not be addressing this again.


 * I'll let it slide, for misusing a disparaging template as you did, when you now fully admit to being obsessive over the previous debate, and in my view, are being obsessive over this as well, and that obsessiveness is not beneficial to the debate or the article. Making such templates on a whim without fully comprehending the policy is also grounds for a higher power to become involved, much so like real personal attacks, and I encourage you to see the difference.


 * I have already debunked that view, two of the reviews are neutral and near negative, please stop restating it, it is incorrect. Revrant (talk) 03:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well then please help to find two neutral or negative review scores, you seem to be good at that. :) -- The Guy complain edits 03:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There are already two present in the article with ratings of 6/10, which are near negative, and on the lower end of neutral. Revrant (talk) 04:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but they're still outnumbered by the positive. -- The Guy complain edits 11:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you call 7/10 positive I suppose, because 3 1/2/5 converts to that, I don't see any argument for it down this path, the reviews aren't shining, and none of them give it top ratings. Revrant (talk) 05:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for taking so long to reply, I've been sick with the flu all weekend. I'm a bit confused as to what you mean, could you clarify? -- The Guy  complain edits 16:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, also your removal of Metacritic seems funny to me lol. That's because the policy you specify lists it as both a reliable review source, and an unreliable one.  I'm not gonna oppose that, but it amuses me. -- The Guy  complain edits 16:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand, 3 1/2 out of 5 converts to 7/10, neither of which are terribly positive, none of the reviews present are even four stars, or 8/10, so I see no reasoning for "negative" reviews when all but two are already not the most positive, and two are near negative.
 * Not at all, it's supposed to be used as a meta link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furious_Angels as seen here, especially for print sources that can't be otherwise used, but people just can't wrap their heads around that, and thus use it as a ratings device(which is explicitly what the guideline says not to do) I tried explaining this before to no avail on another article. Revrant (talk) 01:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that makes sense, I guess. I don't know where the fine line is between "positive," "neutral," and "negative," without defining it myself, though. -- The Guy  complain edits 02:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've just been using it literally, on a scale of 10, 4.9 is literally negative 5.0 is literally neutral, and 5.1 is of course literally positive, but being literal with reviews is difficult. Revrant (talk) 12:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break
Dude527 asked me to look at this, and I must admit it seems very familiar. I really don't have much to add to what I said the last time; basically, I don't know anything about this album, and thus I am not in a very good position to help out here. Please, please try to calm down, both of you. It is not the end of the world if this review is included or not. If you really can't resolve this, you could try asking for assistance at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Albums. They should be able to tell you if Rolling Stone is generally considered a reliable source, and they would definitely be in a better position to tell you whether or not the Rolling Stone review should be included in this article. J.delanoy gabs adds 02:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. J, the article header is about the Rolling Stone review, but it kind of turned into a discussion about the IGN review.  Might wanna read through it again, and re-comment, man. -- The Guy  complain edits
 * Yeah, paying attention is definitely a good thing :)
 * OK then. IGN... I never knew (before now) that IGN did music reviews. All I've ever seen were its video game ones. In articles about video games, at least, IGN is considered a reliable source. I have no idea about the perceived reliability of IGN's music reviews, since before now I didn't even know they did music reviews. Hrm.... I really am not sure. This type of thing is really not my forté. I think you should ask someone else, because I don't even know the most basic of the basics about this. Sorry. J.delanoy gabs adds  02:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh. That's all right.  I'll take your advice and bring this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Albums... at least I will after school tomorrow because it's time for bed for me.  So if you want to participate in that discussion there, feel free, but don't expect it til sometime tomorrow. -- The Guy  complain edits 02:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Find sources for the chart positions. If you do this it will become a GA. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Will do. Do you want references for both the album charting and the singles also?  Or just the album?  Anything I can't source, I will remove.  :) -- The Guy  complain edits 21:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * See Indestrucible european chart positions. You can also find Disturbed singles chart positions if you search for it. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 09:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I fixed the problems and i've removed the chart positions for the singles.

It passed. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 10:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Limited Edition Cover
Shouldn't this be added to the infobox? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyriani (talk • contribs) 08:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll add it, if somebody disagrees, remove it and post. Lyriani (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:NFCC #8 forbids the posting of the alternate album cover, as it does not significantly enhance the readers' understanding of the subject. If it is added again, I will delete it, again. -- The Guy  complain edits 00:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 99% of articles that have these covers include them, so I don't see why it shouldn't be added. Of course it depends on who interperates the rule, but as said before, nearly every other CD have these (even some singles have them), so they should be included.  I remember TTF having the black cover, and I'm assuming it was deleted because of this rule.  The Weak Willed 19:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NFCC #8: Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Including every limited/special/normal edition cover we could find wouldn't SIGNIFICANTLY enhance a reader's understanding of the topic (the album Indestructible). This is because it's just an image of a different cover. They don't go, "Oh, I see now! This cover indicates that guitar solos were heavy on the album and critics loved them!" Bottom line, only if the limited edition cover significantly enhances the understanding of the topic, for example, how Year Zero had a temperature-sensitive CD that changed colors according to the temperature. That would be an important part of the topic, so we would use that media, to illustrate. However, we don't need a cover to say "there was a special edition of Indestructible."  Readers understand that concept perfectly fine without the aid of the picture, and if they don't, the picture sure won't help them. -- The Guy  complain edits 20:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So the covers on As Daylight Dies, All Nightmare Long, Behind Silence and Solitude, Steal this Album, Issues (album), The End of Heartache, Alive or Just Breathing should all get deleted?? The Weak Willed 20:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, I don't edit those articles so they aren't my responsibility. However, no article would pass FAC with the extra media (believe me, I've tried). Rather than searching generally every article, find a Featured article that shows the other covers without very good reason.  You'll be hard-pressed. -- The Guy  complain edits 05:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The Night
This is absoltely ridiculous, Why does The Night article keep getting deleted and the song deleted from the singles list for the album? Blabbermouth.net has an article plus an interview by Disturbed themselves saying that the next single will be The Night and a music video will be filmed in January, right here: http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=108748

So stop deleting the article, because Disturbed has said themselves that it will be the next single. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sideswipe11791 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Because we have no other references. For example, it would have to say "The Night - Date: TBA" which would be original research. By this I mean that you could not say that they will ever announce a date, without it being original research.  The article itself implies no notability, nor could you find notability, so it can't remain as an article without that. -- The Guy  complain edits 00:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The Indestructible article maintained existence when it was announced as a single and had no video to accompany it with only a few sources, and I find it implausible you're claiming no notability when a video from the second most successful metal act of the past ten years is involved, that just doesn't seem correct at all. Here instead of websites, we have direct notice from the band themselves, and therefore the truest source you can possibly find in regards to band related announcements, the band themselves. Revrant (talk) 08:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My point is that all of the information available for "The Night" is already in this article. It would be absolutely ridiculous to write a separate article for the song, because it doesn't meet the notability guidelines.  WP:N says significant media coverage is required at least for something to be notable, and I'm afraid one source doesn't cut it.  The band themselves do not verify notability, here. -- The Guy  complain edits 00:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a lot of nonsense to me given that it's been covered by the music media already, though once more "sources" come in I'm positive there will be no more prevention of the article being added. Revrant (talk) 10:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It may sound like nonsense, but it is what is written. One source is not "wide media coverage". -- The Guy  complain edits 22:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

RollingStone review
Why is this being removed? Looking through the article history, I see that before the so-called "consensus to remove the review" was reached in September, an ip removed it because he thought that it was "a horrible review". As far as I can tell, nobody bothered to reinsert it into the article, and no consensus was reached to remove it. However, when someone added it recently, an ip removed it, citing the talk page discussion which had been deleted, not archived, and in which there was no consensus (as far as I can tell) to remove the review. Can someone enlighten me on this whole situation and whether or not there actually was a consensus to remove the RollingStone review? Tim meh  !  15:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Here you go. Re-reading the debate, I do not agree with why it was removed either, but I don't feel like trying to get certain parties to comply. -- The Guy complain edits 23:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You guys can re-add it in I suppose, but I really don't think that it deserves to be in the article. I mean, the reviewer got facts wrong but the song "Inside the Fire", and it seemed like the guy had no idea what he was saying, or the review itself just seemed really rushed. I do realize that Rolling Stone is a site that can be trusted, but this certain review doesn't really seem to pay the bill. DisturbedTim90 (talk) 22:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * We need neutrality though, and it seems that the current listed reviews are overwhelmingly positive. It doesn't really matter how the Rolling Stone review was written, it's a reliable source. Unless someone can find a negative review by a reliable source, we should probably reinsert the Rolling Stone review. Tim  meh  !  23:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I was thinking we could add the IGN review, but the user who opposes the Rolling Stone review also opposes the IGN one, specifically because it shows bias against the band. Come to think of it, that's not very valid, as Wikipedia says we can use biased references and sources, as long as we don't let the bias seep into the article itself.  They managed to convince me, though, that Wikipedia should choose not to use biased reviews, so we removed it (as evidenced by the second archived talk page).  I think we could add these two reviews (as they are both negative), but the user will likely take issue and come back to remove them again.  Then we could reach a consensus together, instead of just me and the user bickering back and forth. I do agree that we need neutrality, and I would be willing to support the addition of these two reviews (IGN, The Rolling Stone).  It should be noted that when I tried to get this article promoted to Featured Article status, many of the article-reviewers (for lack of a proper term) were questioning why the Rolling Stone review wasn't in the list, and a couple of those many who asked even re-added it to the article (and it was removed shortly after). I think that this is worth noting, although I do not know the significance it bears. I will re-add the review and await somebody to oppose it. If they do, we'll discuss it here. If they don't, that's fine, too. -- The Guy  complain edits 00:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Timmeh is quite right, and I'll assist in any attempt to revert removal of the review. What a user thinks about the review and how it might be lacking is of no relevance: that would constitute original research, it would only be meaningful if we had other reliable sources criticising the Rolling Stone review. RS is a reliable, professional source for music reviews, whether a few users like it or not. Prophaniti (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll just give up, as I can taste the disdain for my arguments across this thing we call the internet and I can see no sense will be had, the IGN review will not be featured, it is a disgusting piece of flaming and slander from a no-name part of an otherwise large media corporation. Had the site in question been notable in this instance I'd have trouble debating it, as apparently the name is all that matters seeing as how the issue has been brought up continually with no understanding beyond "This must be notable" and what defines notable being incorrectly sourced from "suggested" trusted sources, or apparently by what another user "thinks" is quality, being Prophaniti in this case, while claiming to negate what another user "thinks", leading to yet more nonsense.

The Rolling Stone review, despite being shoddy, short, and containing errors, is "notable" and thus has to be featured, please leave the IGN review alone, there is absolutely nothing to back it's inclusion. The argument of "negative" reviews needed is, again, nonsense, there is a review with 6/10 that didn't speak of the album well, and for the sake of notability if not quality and professionalism the other lesser known sites exhibit(as well as AllMusic), the Rolling Stone review will be included to attempt balance. Revrant (talk) 03:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC) "The User"
 * In this case I want to pursue neutrality. I want to literally translate the scores all to numbers out of ten, and give them an at least equal ratio, while keeping an acceptable number of reviews posted.  For example, right now, if we translated every score on the board to a score out of ten, we would have seventy total stars possible, and right now we would be at 45/70 stars. I wanna get that forty-five as close to a thirty-five as possible (if we could maintain the seventy that way), because this would equal neutrality, thirty-five being half of seventy.  That's assuming half of the total score would be considered neutrality, too, though. Reducing the number of reviews to three or four just for this purpose seems unacceptable, though, so I just want to pursue that neutrality only as closely as we possibly can within reason; it does not have to be exactly equal, but it can't be overwhelmingly positive or negative, as it was earlier. In this case, I don't care about the review in question. If it drives us further to that equal ratio, then I'll support it; if it doesn't, then I won't. In this case, though, it surely does, bearing a negative score. I just think one more highly positive review should be removed, although that's only if others agree with me; I won't do it myself. Also, please define how the argument "neutrality is needed" (which is the argument) is nonsense. You said the argument is "negative reviews are needed", but that's absolutely not true, as I would seek it the other way had this article been overwhelmingly negative. Wikipedia seeks neutrality in all its articles, as indicated by WP:NPOV. The ratio of positive versus negative scores we have posted is certainly representative of possible bias, so this is a completely legitimate concern. It is not nonsense. -- The Guy  complain edits 04:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I really just don't care about this concern at this point, I see nothing in NPOV that states there needs to be a specific ratio, please quote where a specific ratio needs to be had, because otherwise it's perfectionism, and nothing can ever be perfect. I find it rather distasteful that an unbelievably inferior review written by a hack who does nothing but slander the band at every opportunity(which is indeed most of the article, as I daresay it doesn't qualify as a review), simply to even out the "score" presented to as close to perfect as possible. Revrant (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC) "The User"
 * If you read my reply a bit more clearly, I myself suggested ratios as an attempt to bring us as close to perfection as possible. I said that it was something I suggested, in an attempt to give a little bit of a clearer perception of what neutrality we should be seeking.  I would never suggest actually attempting to pursue that absolute perfection, as I said, I just want to get as close as possible, within reason.  I never said WP:NPOV suggests ratios, though, I said I do. I used WP:NPOV as a display that neutrality is a concern in each and every article on Wikipedia.  It states to present each point-of-view without bias, and having any emphasis more on positive aspects than negative, however slightly we lean, is still bias in the article.  That is what we are supposed to seek out and remove. Articles start out flawed, but as they progress here, they usually grow closer to perfection, to the point where we're only looking over tiny details, that usually have no overbearing effect on the article. This seems to be the point we're at here; nit-picking details. Also, just out of curiosity; if we found a review that absolutely praised the band unconditionally at every turn, giving an absolutely biased 10/10 score, would you fuss about that? I'm just wondering because so far it seems that you just take issue with reviews that in any speak badly of this band, which might present bias problems yourself. I'd personally avoid ruling out reviews because they insult something you like. Not meaning to discriminate or accuse, I'm just trying to get an idea of how you work. -- The Guy  complain edits 23:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well you just did, and if you do so again I'll be hitting complain, given I have personally removed and agreed with the removal of positive reviews that didn't fit the bill, and you just insulted my integrity as a contributor as well as stating it is your own perfectionism driving this, I will not be replying further. Revrant (talk) 05:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It was a simple inquiry, and was not meant to offend you. I do appreciate your contributions, and your cooperation. What I was asking was just a question about your nature as an editor. Each editor has their own preferences when editing, and that does not mean they're wrong; WP:CON proves it. I was simply making an inquiry about the nature of your preferences. To be fair, questioning one's style of editing is not an insult to personal dignity, unless intended as a question in negative light, which mine was not. I simply want to find a consensus that all involved parties will be satisfied with, and that will also adhere as closely as possible to the policies applied to this article, and to do so, I make inquiries about preferences. I apologize for offending you, and that my comment seemed to be made in a negative light; it was not intended. Also, for future reference, it is not my "perfectionism" driving this; no article is perfect. If an article were perfect, it wouldn't be edited. What I am saying is that I want to drive this article as close to perfect as possible (I already expressed and elaborated upon that); if we strive for perfection, we will achieve excellence. To say "no article is or can be perfect, so we should not even strive," seems to go against the purpose of Wikipedia, in my opinion. -- The Guy complain edits 21:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Overall genre
The genres listed for the album should depend on the overall feelings expressed in the reviews given. So, let's see what they say (note that I'm assuming all these reviews can be used for this, if they're not good enough to include they should be removed): So, while we do have one each for alt. metal and nu metal, I think simply hard rock and heavy metal would best reflect the sources. Prophaniti (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 411mania - hard rock ("people will enjoy it for what it is: a hard rock band getting all edgy on us with mixed results.")
 * About.com - metal/hard rock
 * Allmusic - Heavy metal, Alt. metal
 * Metaleater - general "metal" description
 * Popmatters - hard rock ("it’s still a reliably solid, passable hard-rock soundtrack for 2008.")
 * Rolling Stone - No real genre given
 * Sputnik - Uses the term metal occasionally, but mostly seems to refer to it as rock.
 * Metal Observer - Nu metal

I believe that something in that area is pretty direct. This album is general enough to just be labeled as "hard rock" or maybe just "heavy metal." There aren't any funk influences, rapping, or St. Anger-ish drumming, so nu metal is definitely out of the question, lol. 147.97.241.72 (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, we need to sort this out. For the record, "Heavy metal" is a subsidiary branch of "Hard rock".  In other words, if a work of music is in the heavy metal genre, it's also in the hard rock genre.  Stating in the information box that the album is hard rock, and heavy metal, is like trying to describe one aspect of it very specifically, but then others very vaguely.  Heavy metal is more specific than hard rock, for reasons I stated earlier.  Now, we have references for hard rock, cool.  But we also have even more references for hard rock's subsidiaries.  I believe we should post these sufficiently specific subsidiaries, rather than saying the general term, "this is a rock album".  General terms are for the lead, while we should be precise in the infobox.  Don't forget, we can always elaborate in the "Musical styles" section.  But, my main point is, basically, Heavy metal = Hard rock.  Stating them both is extremely redundant. -- The Guy  complain edits 02:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if you think it's redundant though: the writers of those reviews didn't think it was redundant. They made the specific description of "hard rock". You can't just ignore sources like that. You're interpreting them, something that is original research. What you're saying is that because we call it heavy metal, we're already inherently calling it hard rock. But in that case, how do you explain some of the genres on FA pages, where bands may, for example, be called a specific genre (like thrash metal) and then also a more general one (like heavy metal)? It's because while thrash metal is a form of heavy metal, "heavy metal" isn't just an umbrella term, it's a separate genre as well as a general one. Likewise, "hard rock" is a genre all of it's own. The fact of the matter is, we have sources that call this album "hard rock", and it's not our place to interpret them, because that is very much original research. 411mania, popmatters, sputnik and about.com are not calling it just a heavy metal album. They're calling it a hard rock album. These two terms are not interchangable, there is a difference. It's also worth noting that it's a stretch even to say "heavy metal is a subsidiary of hard rock". There are connections and influences, certainly, but heavy metal is more accepted as a subgenre of rock, not hard rock, again there is a difference.
 * You say heavy metal is a form of hard rock. Even if we accept this, a number of the sources just term it "hard rock". How do you explain those? Yes, they could be referring to heavy metal. But just because other sources do, doesn't mean they are as well. The sources don't need to be forced to agree completely. "Hard rock" could mean heavy metal, but it could just mean "hard rock", and it's not your place to interpret that. Prophaniti (talk) 08:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You are, once again, not reading what I write carefully enough. I did not say the terms were interchangeable; I did not say "if an album is hard rock, it is also heavy metal and vice versa." I said "if an album is heavy metal, it is hard rock." That's not interchangeability. Interchangeability would be the ability to place either term and have it mean the same thing. I'm not saying the terms mean the same thing. I'm saying that, genre-wise, hard rock is significantly more vague a depiction of the style the band uses with this album, while heavy metal is more specific, being a subsidiary genre. Subsidiary genres are typically more specific a placement than their main genres. Seriously though, did you just tell me that it's a stretch to call heavy metal a subsidiary of hard rock? Please use a little bit of common sense! Heavy metal is a form of rock, correct? Well, obviously it has its own style; this being fast paced, loud, et cetera. So how is heavy metal a subsidiary of rock, rather than hard rock, which is also characterized by a fast-paced sound (faster than rock, slow than heavy metal)? It doesn't make sense, especially taking into account that hard rock itself is a subsidiary of general rock, also being characterized by the prominent use of drums and guitars (heavy metal is characterized by guitars and drums, too!). So you're implying that heavy metal music is not "hard" (for lack of a proper term, but I think you understand me)? Or are you implying that it's an altogether different genre than hard rock, even though it's characterized by very similar things, just to a more specific degree? I hope I've made that clear; and, once again, please use some common sense in your editing. I am not trying to insult you, but it seems to me that guidelines matter a bit more to you than consensus and common sense. Guideline itself states that one should not use guidelines as a the main reference point for editing, but rather, common sense. More specifically, it also states consensus among editors is important and I believe editors should always be able to reach a good consensus, unless one editor's prospects are unreasonable. Mine are not.


 * OK, lectures in common sense and music styles aside. I will state again that I never said that heavy metal and hard rock were interchangeable terms. I said that if a sound is heavy metal, it is also hard rock; hard rock is an umbrella term for heavy metal. What I'm trying to say is that we have references for the more specific terms. Let's use them. It just doesn't make much sense to me, to place hard rock and heavy metal in the same infobox, though, because heavy metal implies hard rock. I mean, it's a subsidiary of rock (as you stated, although I believe it's a subsidiary of hard rock), and it's "hard." It's characterized by guitars, drums, and a fast-paced sound, like hard rock, but to a heavier degree. I'm sure you see my point. In terms of references, once again, we don't have to go by-the-book, but rather in a case-to-case mindset. Sources that confirm heavy metal are also generally confirming hard rock. But, these terms being related, we shouldn't use both. We could use the more general term, or the more specific one, but applying both seems unproductive, as it could even confuse some readers (i.e. they see that it's both hard rock, and heavy metal; research both, and learn that they're similar and wonder if there's a significant reason we added both). I do believe we should use the more specific one. -- The Guy complain edits 22:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The only reason for removing a genre is if it's the same as what we already have, which it's not, and apparently you're not even saying that anyway. Bear in mind that just because someone doesn't agree with your logic, doesn't mean they're not reading or comprehending it: it may mean they see a problem with the logic. The point is, we have references for heavy metal, yes, but we also have references for hard rock. Those are two separate genres, related yes, but separate. There are hard rock albums, there are heavy metal albums. Heavy metal albums can be seen as a kind of hard rock album, but they're still two separate terms. You cannot simply ignore the sources, nor is it up to you to interpret them in this manner. Just because the terms are related doesn't mean we can't use both: that would only be the case if they were one and the same. There is no rule on wikipedia that says "If two genres are related, you can't use both", as is shown by featured articles which use related terms in the infobox. Metallica has heavy metal, thrash metal, speed metal and hard rock; Audioslave has hard rock and alternative rock; Opeth has progressive death metal and progressive rock; Genesis have progressive rock and plain old rock; Nirvana have alternative rock and grunge.
 * If there is a difference between them, then both can be used, and since we have a clear divide in the sources, both have to be reported. To say just "heavy metal" -is- to deny the hard rock sources, no matter how much you might want to argue otherwise, because the point is there is a difference. They might be related, but there is a difference between the two: there is some hard rock that is not heavy metal, and as such, that may be what those sources are calling this: a form of hard rock that is not heavy metal. As such, to just say "heavy metal" is to interpret those sources, it is to say "This is not just any hard rock, it's this particular brand of hard rock", which is not what those sources say. Indeed, by your own logic, if we are just going to use one genre, it must be "hard rock", not heavy metal: because "hard rock" includes all the sources that say hard rock, and, by your logic, all the ones that say heavy metal. But to say "heavy metal" covers the sources that say that, and -may- cover the ones that say hard rock, but may not because not all hard rock is heavy metal. Do you see? Even using your own logic, your edits are not justified.
 * But regardless, I'm not trying to use your logic. In saying "It's a hard rock album" those sources are not saying "it is a heavy metal album": they're saying it's a hard rock album. So we report that. We don't interpret it. If those sources thought it was a heavy metal album, they would say so. They don't. They say it's a hard rock album. The two are not one and the same (and you apparently agree with that), so it's perfectly possible for an album to be a mixture of the two. Yes, we do have references for heavy metal, and we -are- using them. But we have references for another term too, one that is not exactly the same by any means, and as such should not be ignored or simply interpreted as one editor sees fit.
 * Also, please don't again insist that I'm not using common sense. Whatever your intention, I do find that insulting. I'm using plenty of common sense, and I know hard rock and heavy metal extremely well. I'm not going to get into a debate about them here, because it isn't going to change anything. Suffice to say, I'm sticking to the rules because "common sense" is an extremely unreliable concept here: what is common sense to one person is not to another. You think all heavy metal is hard rock. I don't. There we go, that didn't get us anywhere. Following the rules, that might. Prophaniti (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I never said you weren't understanding my logic, only that you simply weren't reading it correctly. To misunderstand my logic, you would theoretically have to know what it was that I said. You said that I claimed that heavy metal and hard rock were "interchangeable", that we could replace one with the other and it would be perfectly fine. That is not what I actually stated, but that is what you had claimed that I stated, when I actually specifically said in an edit summary, "I didn't say one in the same. I said if an album is heavy metal, it's hard rock. I didn't say if an album is hard rock, it's heavy metal. Heavy metal = subsidiary of Hard rock". I was trying to ask you to read more carefully so that we can avoid these silly mistakes, and dig in to the issue. Also, point taken; yes, we do have sources for both, and they are different, but I'm trying to say that they are very similar in style. And again, I do understand that there is no specific rule on Wikipedia that states that if two related genres are sourced, we can't use both, etc. I'm simply trying to invoke WP:CON. No editors logic or opinions should be ignored, ever. All of the guidelines here have a tendency to either do one or both of two things. They either state what is prohibited on Wikipedia, or they state what is recommended. Seldom do they ever state "an editor must edit like this," but rather, "an editor should edit like this." The words and meanings of "should" and "must" are radically different, and the guidelines often state what should be done, not what must be done. Unfortunately, many editors interpret "should" as "must." Please be careful. I'm not saying that we absolutely must not use both terms, but suggesting that we should not, in the spirit of WP:CON. In the spirit of WP:CON, you should also try to compromise with me, not reply, "well, guideline suggests this." I mean, if you already know that I disagree with these edits, don't just state them over and over again, trying to win me over with policy. Try to make different compromises, things we can both agree with. Shoving the same policy and edit down my throat will yield the same results every time. Simple solution: change the formula. Try and reach a compromise. All that I saw in your previous comment was you trying, once again, to explain the same policies to me that you have before. I've been on Wikipedia, actively editing for a year. I understand the policies. Please respect that and try to reach a compromise with me, rather than another policy.


 * Now, onto the topic at hand, once again. I'm not trying to use sources to dictate what genres we use here. I should rephrase that, actually. Rather, I'm cherry picking sources. I don't want to have multiple genres in the infobox simply because sources suggest that the album contains them. I'm trying to say that we should use one genre for the infobox, not multiple. Multiple will confuse readers. One will not. This is what the "Musical style" section is for. I'm not suggesting that we deny these hard rock tags, by any means. I'm suggesting we only use one genre for the infobox, and elaborate that there are others in the appropriate section. Adding all those genres to the infobox, in essence, says "the album is this and this and this", but prohibits the reader from actually understanding why all of those genres are warranted. I'm not suggesting we remove all referenced genres from the page, but that we only place one in the infobox; the one that we, as editors, believe best represents the album, using WP:CON. You could argue that WP:UNDUE could be invoked, and thus, we should add hard rock to the infobox, but that's not valid. That's not valid because we're not actually placing any undue emphasis on anything. Saying "placing a minority view in the infobox is giving undue weight" just isn't valid; we aren't removing the majority views from the article at all. As long as we give everything due weight in-article, it doesn't matter what we place in the infobox, as long as it's cited. That's why I'm trying to make suggestions for the genre of the infobox. It's really up to us as editors, from a referenced perspective, we could add anything that's cited. Majority view, minority view, it doesn't matter. I'm simply suggesting that instead of flooding the infobox with genres, we add only one. Just to keep it simple. Then, as I said, we can explain it all in the "Musical styles" section. This is where we disagree. You believe we should flood to infobox to best represent all sources. You believe that to not place these sources into the infobox is to deny them. What about the other genres then? At the top of this discussion, you made a list of all referenced genres. Under your "we must not deny sources" logic, we must add these to the infobox, otherwise we're "denying" them, which is against policy, according to you.


 * I also see your comment, "... but there is a difference between the two: there is some hard rock that is not heavy metal, and as such, that may be what those sources are calling this: a form of hard rock that is not heavy metal. As such, to just say "heavy metal" is to interpret those sources, it is to say "This is not just any hard rock, it's this particular brand of hard rock ..." Please pay more attention, and don't try to interpret my own logic to what you want it to be. I mean exactly what I type, nothing more, unless I choose not to type it. I never said we'd interpret the sources that are saying hard rock. I said we should not include hard rock in the infobox, not that we should interpret the sources to make it seems like that's what they're saying, and basically look the other way. So please do not assume that I mean something that you concluded, if it's not explicitly in my text.


 * So now it's simply a matter of preference and consensus: heavy metal, or hard rock? We already know each other's preferences, so we must now somehow reach a mutually satisfying consensus that actively expresses every genre that is sourced, but not in the infobox, in the "Musical stlyes" section. -- The Guy complain edits 00:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm perfectly willing to compromise with other editors, but only where there is some need for it. I won't just back down and compromise on every single issue, only where there is a good reason for it.
 * "Rather, I'm cherry picking sources. I don't want to have multiple genres in the infobox simply because sources suggest that the album contains them." - And this is part of the problem. It doesn't matter what you want: the sources say it's a hard rock album and a heavy metal album. If the sources suggest it contains multiple genres, then that is what we include. Just as with the reviews, you can't "cherry-pick". The very notion of cherry-picking is inherently linked to imposing POV.
 * "Multiple will confuse readers. One will not." Oh come on. Readers are not going to be "confused" by more than one genre. You can't honestly think people are going to be left baffled by seeing "Heavy metal, hard rock". Honestly, do you really think more than one genre in an infobox is confusing? Of course it's not. I really have trouble believing that someone might actually think that. An album is perfectly capable of being in more than one genre class at a time, and people are perfectly capable of conceiving of that.
 * It doesn't matter what "we, as editors, think best represents the album", because we are just that: editors. Read policy regarding original research. What matters is what the sources think best represents an album, and in this case that is clearly hard rock and heavy metal.
 * I'm all for trimming down the genres in infoboxes. If you look at my edits you'll see that I do plenty of that, moving genres with only one source out of many into the body of the article so as not to clutter the infobox. But in this case it's simply not necessary: two genres is by no means excessive or cluttered, and we have pretty much an even divide in the sources. Actually read what I say up there originally: I pointedly left out "nu metal" as a genre specifically because it's a small view, and to include every genre is cluttering. I never suggested including every view. If there's only a small minority of sources for a view, then it is indeed cluttering. But as I have said, there's almost a straight divide here, that's the difference. So nope, my logic doesn't at all suggesting including "every genre". "Flooding" the infobox? I'm sorry, but don't be ridiculous, you can't honestly believe two genres is "flooding the infobox"?
 * You're arguing that because heavy metal is a form of hard rock, the sources for hard rock can be taken as heavy metal too. That's interpreting sources. And if you're not arguing that, then you're denying a good proportion of the sources. So which is it, original research, or denying sources?
 * The fact is, unless you can point to where it says "Albums may only have one genre", you don't have any good reason to exclude hard rock. It's not "confusing" to readers, and you yourself say they're not one and the same. Some sources say heavy metal, others say hard rock. These are two separate genres, neither of them is a minority viewpoint, and there's absolutely nothing saying the genre field should be kept to just one. So we have two genres given by the sources, and you're arguing for just one. That's original research/placing POV into the article. I'm sorry, but it just is. If you wish to gather consensus, add this talk page to the request for comment or third opinion. Prophaniti (talk) 00:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This is also getting overly long and convoluted, so I'll make a short, clear summary: According to the wikipedia guideline on NPOV: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." There's pretty much a 50-50 split in our sources between hard rock and heavy metal. The two genres are not the same, you yourself admit that. So it's safe to say that "This album is hard rock" and "This album is heavy metal" are two different, equally significant viewpoints. Not that far apart, no, and not contradicting one another by any means, but still separate views. We must represent all these views fairly. That means we must give each of them equal weight. Excluding one from the infobox is contradicting this, so unless there is another guideline somewhere that contradicts this one (e.g. one that says "the genre field for albums may only have one genre"), there's no reason to do this, as it goes against wiki policy. Prophaniti (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering if you're even reading what I'm writing anymore. You're still saying that I'm trying to "deny" this hard rock source, even though I clearly said that all sourced genres can be elaborated upon in the musical styles section if need be. As long as the information is in the article, the source is not being denied, even if it is not in the infobox.


 * I'm perfectly willing to compromise with other editors, but only where there is some need for it. I won't just back down and compromise on every single issue, only where there is a good reason for it.
 * Compromising is not "backing down". If an editor has a varying opinion from your own, that is, in your own terms, a "need to back down". Policies regarding genres seem to be very vague, anyways. Compromise is always needed, and so, "backing down" is too.


 * It doesn't matter what you want: the sources say it's a hard rock album and a heavy metal album. If the sources suggest it contains multiple genres, then that is what we include. Just as with the reviews, you can't "cherry-pick". The very notion of cherry-picking is inherently linked to imposing POV.
 * Cherry-picking was simply the term I used to communicate this. What I meant by that was what you (not you specifically, but an average editor) do all the time: choose which genres go into the infobox. While you like to do this based on what you think relevant, I believe anything cited is just fine. I mean, as long as due weight is given in-article.


 * Oh come on. Readers are not going to be "confused" by more than one genre. You can't honestly think people are going to be left baffled by seeing "Heavy metal, hard rock". Honestly, do you really think more than one genre in an infobox is confusing? Of course it's not. I really have trouble believing that someone might actually think that. An album is perfectly capable of being in more than one genre class at a time, and people are perfectly capable of conceiving of that.
 * Readers who are unfamiliar with the topic could very well be confused by multiple genres. You're assuming that everyone who views the page will be a teenager or young adult, familiar with the band and genre. What about the readers who are unfamiliar? A grandma wants to do a little bit of research on an album her grandson wants for his birthday before she buys it for him. She typically listens to jazz. She presumably wouldn't be familiar with the topic, or genre. You could argue that it's likely that she would be, but we're expected to gear these articles toward readers who aren't familiar with the topic, not those who are. It's safer to keep it as simple as possible, and there's simply no need for two very similar genres.


 * It doesn't matter what "we, as editors, think best represents the album", because we are just that: editors. Read policy regarding original research. What matters is what the sources think best represents an album, and in this case that is clearly hard rock and heavy metal.
 * I was prepared for you to play that card, in fact, I saw it happening as I typed that. All I have to say is this: the OR policy isn't valid here. It talks about personal, un-cited user views. In this case, we would have references for the genres we put in the infobox, so it would not be OR, but verified information. As long as we don't place undue weight on a minority view, picking, as editors, what genre goes into the infobox is fine, as long as it is cited, and it will be. In other words, as long as we give each genre its fair shake (due emphasis) in the corresponding sections, we're free to add however many of those that we want into the infobox, and whichever ones we want. They're all cited, and all given their due weight in-article, so they're all fair game.


 * I'm all for trimming down the genres in infoboxes. If you look at my edits you'll see that I do plenty of that, moving genres with only one source out of many into the body of the article so as not to clutter the infobox. But in this case it's simply not necessary: two genres is by no means excessive or cluttered, and we have pretty much an even divide in the sources.
 * But you suggest adding an unnecessary number of sources, which would be more practical to elaborate in a relevant in-article section, and just place one genre in the infobox. But you do like to presume, don't you? I didn't say that, in this case, two genres would be clutter. I said that you'll clutter the infobox, if necessary, with all relevant genres if there is an even divide on sources. That is what I meant; I've seen your edits. I never meant that two genres is clutter. Stop presuming that I mean things I don't say.


 * So nope, my logic doesn't at all suggesting including "every genre".
 * Then how do you interpret this whole "ignoring sources" thing? Not placing a relevant source in the infobox is, according to you, ignoring it. Every genre from a reliable source is relevant. So we're denying all of these sources, then. Your logic is very confusing.


 * You're arguing that because heavy metal is a form of hard rock, the sources for hard rock can be taken as heavy metal too. That's interpreting sources. And if you're not arguing that, then you're denying a good proportion of the sources. So which is it, original research, or denying sources?
 * You're NOT listening! I've said multiple, multiple, multiple, times that I'm not interpreting sources, because I'm not ruling our hard rock, simply putting it in-article, rather than in the infobox. This is perfectly practical. I'm also not denying sources. As I said, again, I will place other relevant (i.e. sourced) genres in the article itself. They will not be denied. Just because something is not in the infobox does not mean it's been "denied".


 * The fact is, unless you can point to where it says "Albums may only have one genre", you don't have any good reason to exclude hard rock. It's not "confusing" to readers, and you yourself say they're not one and the same. Some sources say heavy metal, others say hard rock. These are two separate genres, neither of them is a minority viewpoint, and there's absolutely nothing saying the genre field should be kept to just one. So we have two genres given by the sources, and you're arguing for just one. That's original research/placing POV into the article. I'm sorry, but it just is. If you wish to gather consensus, add this talk page to the request for comment or third opinion.
 * I've already covered the "confusing to readers" topic. Placing one genre of two that are very similar into the infobox is perfectly practical, so long as they are both given their due weight in the relevant sections, in-article. In this case, they would be, ruling out user-POV. Placing a sourced genre into the infobox is not original research, that's just a ridiculous notion. -- The Guy complain edits 02:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * To not place both in the infobox is denying them their due weight. That's the whole point. We have an even spread for hard rock and heavy metal. By only including one, you are lessening the other. How do I explain the thing about sources? Easy. "Nu metal" has one source out of about 8. That's not much. Hard rock and heavy metal have an equal number. This is the point I have been trying to get across to you all along. Nu metal doesn't need to be included in the infobox because, in essence, it's a minority view, and to include all such views in every case would just clutter the box up. Two genres is not "cluttered" in any way shape or form, nor is it "confusing". I'm not going to get into some kind of pointless debate about who is reading it and so on. Ultimately, that whole point is more to do with general album/band genre policy. If you want to press for some kind of guideline where we only have a single genre per album, take that up with the relevant wikiproject. As of now, there is not, to my knowledge, any such rule, and so it is purely your take on things.
 * This part however, which you haven't responded to, is not my take on things: it's simple reading of one of wikipedia's core policies:
 * "This is also getting overly long and convoluted, so I'll make a short, clear summary: According to the wikipedia guideline on NPOV: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." There's pretty much a 50-50 split in our sources between hard rock and heavy metal. The two genres are not the same, you yourself admit that. So it's safe to say that "This album is hard rock" and "This album is heavy metal" are two different, equally significant viewpoints. Not that far apart, no, and not contradicting one another by any means, but still separate views. We must represent all these views fairly. That means we must give each of them equal weight. Excluding one from the infobox is contradicting this, so unless there is another guideline somewhere that contradicts this one (e.g. one that says "the genre field for albums may only have one genre"), there's no reason to do this, as it goes against wiki policy."
 * Now, can you answer all of that or not? How can you, reading that, justify leaving out one genre from the infobox while keeping the other, when both are equally significant viewpoints and thus must, but wikipedia cornerstone policy, be given fair and equal weight? Prophaniti (talk) 02:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * To not place both in the infobox is denying them their due weight. That's the whole point. We have an even spread for hard rock and heavy metal. By only including one, you are lessening the other. How do I explain the thing about sources? Easy. "Nu metal" has one source out of about 8. That's not much. Hard rock and heavy metal have an equal number. This is the point I have been trying to get across to you all along. Nu metal doesn't need to be included in the infobox because, in essence, it's a minority view, and to include all such views in every case would just clutter the box up. Two genres is not "cluttered" in any way shape or form, nor is it "confusing". I'm not going to get into some kind of pointless debate about who is reading it and so on. Ultimately, that whole point is more to do with general album/band genre policy. If you want to press for some kind of guideline where we only have a single genre per album, take that up with the relevant wikiproject. As of now, there is not, to my knowledge, any such rule, and so it is purely your take on things.
 * I also saw this card coming. How can you say that leaving one out of the infobox is to lessen it, if both are elaborated correctly in-article? It's still being given it's due weight, and just because it's not further up in the article does not mean it's not. And I didn't mean for the other sources out of the infobox. With the other sources, I meant that you took them out of the article altogether. You seem to have this weird notion that genres can only be described through the infobox. This is not the case. Every sourced genre is relevant, and should be elaborated with its according weight. In essence, only elaborating (if you can call placing their names in a box that) the two most popular views is cherry picking. I wasn't trying to start an argument about who views the article, either. I was simply making the point that every article on Wikipedia is supposed to be geared toward readers who are not familiar with the topic. It's better to use as little terms as possible to start out small (there's no need to use both terms), and then elaborate later.


 * This part however, which you haven't responded to, is not my take on things: it's simple reading of one of wikipedia's core policies: "This is also getting overly long and convoluted, so I'll make a short, clear summary: According to the wikipedia guideline on NPOV: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." There's pretty much a 50-50 split in our sources between hard rock and heavy metal. The two genres are not the same, you yourself admit that. So it's safe to say that "This album is hard rock" and "This album is heavy metal" are two different, equally significant viewpoints. Not that far apart, no, and not contradicting one another by any means, but still separate views. We must represent all these views fairly. That means we must give each of them equal weight. Excluding one from the infobox is contradicting this, so unless there is another guideline somewhere that contradicts this one (e.g. one that says "the genre field for albums may only have one genre"), there's no reason to do this, as it goes against wiki policy."
 * You're being far too presumptuous. There is no guideline on Wikipedia that says "leaving a significant view out of the infobox is to unbalance the due weight." That is certainly not the case. As long as everything is given its due weight, in-article, the contents of the infobox is pretty insignificant. You're placing far too much emphasis on infobox genres, and their significance. They really aren't significant, and genres for albums should not be expressed solely through them. Now, unless you can find me a policy that says "a significant view left out of the infobox is given undue weight", then you're dry in that regard. As long as we elaborate both equally in-article, the due weight policy is not being breached. I didn't reply to that comment before because I had already basically responded to it throughout all my other responses.


 * Now, can you answer all of that or not? How can you, reading that, justify leaving out one genre from the infobox while keeping the other, when both are equally significant viewpoints and thus must, but wikipedia cornerstone policy, be given fair and equal weight?
 * Simple: having a genre in the infobox does not affect its due weight. The critical commentary in-article is where the due weight lies, not in the infobox. As long as they are given their due weight in-article, it doesn't matter which one we choose for the infobox. -- The Guy complain edits 02:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "As long as everything is given its due weight, in-article, the contents of the infobox is pretty insignificant." No it's not. The first thing anyone looks at in a band/album article is the infobox. The whole point of having one is to sum up the article. If the infobox genre field really is insignificant, why not just remove it altogether? In fact, if it's that insignificant, why are you even arguing for hard rock not to be in? You just said it doesn't matter what's in there, something insignificant can't confuse people much, because they can just read the rest of the article, as you yourself said, and understand. Either you think it does matter, or it doesn't, make up your mind.
 * Having a genre in the infobox DOES affect it's weight, because people look at it. They see "Genre: heavy metal". You are placing heavy metal in a particular place of importance in the article, and you are not placing the other equally sourced viewpoint there. That's violating NPOV. We have the same number of sources for that view as we do for the hard rock view. So both must be represented in the infobox to give them their due weight. It's either both of them, or neither of them, you cannot put one in and not the other because they're both equally sourced. Why include heavy metal? Because that's what the sources say. The exact same answer applies to hard rock. Prophaniti (talk) 03:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly; the first thing anybody looks at is the infobox (maybe the lead first)! Readers unfamiliar with the topic will more easily understand the topic if we start out simple, then explain the ins and outs of the genres in a more proper format: in-article. Just because the infobox is the first thing the reader will look at does not affect its weight. Everything else is still viewed, just as it is. Also, I'm arguing this over because, not because it's significant, but because it does matter that the article starts out simple. I don't care what goes in there, but I do care how much goes in there. And you also have an odd concept of an infobox. If it sums up the article, where is the information about the promotion, the track listing, sales figures, production? It's absent. Why? Because the lead section is meant to be a summary of the article, not the infobox. WP:LEAD even says it: "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic."


 * Also, as you said the first thing anybody views is the infobox. I'd like to just ask, where does this imply inherit weight? The infobox does a poor job of conveying information, anyways, as it's not even capable of sentences; only numbers, dates for example, and some words. More elaborate concepts, like this genre split between sources, would be better elaborated in-article; we'd be more capable. Anyways, if the first thing the people view is indeed the infobox, we want to start the reader out with smaller, easier concepts, then work their way up to more knowledge-savvy topics. So, in theory, our prose and article structure would benefit with just adding one genre; a rough reflection of the total, and then elaborating the rest, which will be more advanced to grasp, later in the article. The last impression of the article to the reader is, in my opinion, more important than the first. The contents of the article itself are far more significant than the contents of the infobox, as I have illustrated, and so carry more weight than the infobox. I'm just not seeing the infobox's apparent vitality to the genres, when they could easily be elaborated upon more easily in an in-article section. They actually, in fact, have more potential for reader understand while in-article. -- The Guy complain edits 03:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The infobox genres are important because the first thing people see gives them their first impression: it makes immediate impact. And many, as indicated by the number of edits in infoboxes, will look at the infobox and nothing else anyway. The basic question is: why do you want heavy metal in the infobox? Just answer that one. Why put that in there at all? Prophaniti (talk) 03:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not really for either one. At first I wanted it to be heavy metal, but now it doesn't matter which is in there, to me, as long as it is only one. -- The Guy complain edits 03:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In which case I would have to quote you the wikiproject albums guideline on the genre field, which states very clearly that the genre field should be: "The one or more music genres that the album reflects". So your whole point about the genre field only having one genre is ended by that. "One or more" clearly suggests there’s no problem at all with more than one. So we can discard that whole argument.
 * It says it should be the music genres that the album reflects. Well, according to the sources, this album is hard rock and heavy metal. The sources say, with equal strength, "This album reflects hard rock" and "This album reflects heavy metal". The genre field should say which genres the album reflects, so the genre field should say, with equal strength "This album reflects hard rock" and "This album reflects heavy metal". I really can’t see how that could be any clearer to you. Prophaniti (talk) 03:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's a prime example of the "should/must" thing I mentioned earlier. The guideline suggests, "The one or more music genres that the album reflects, delimited by a comma should be listed here." It doesn't say "You must place all significant views in the infobox, or die." It says that we should place them there, not must. WikiProject Albums is one big list of suggestions anyways; none of it is relevant in proportion to other certain guidelines, which must be followed. These ones are just suggestions. But that's where consensus comes in. And that's what this has all been about: consensus. I don't think you've seen it as that, though. -- The Guy complain edits 03:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I know they don't say that, I never said they say that. Let me spell it out very very clearly:
 * You: "There should only be one genre in the field."
 * The guideline: "There is no problem with more than one."
 * Now, I know a guideline is just that: a guideline. But it still carries greater weight than you personally. The guidelines are themselves the result of discussion and consensus. If you want to change them, go discuss them on their page. I know they're not hard and fast rules, but nor is what you say. The fact is, you say one thing, the guidelines say another. It's very clear which one we should go with. And in doing so, we're left with a situation where, as I have said over and over, we have two equally sourced views, and two guidelines that tell us A) There is no problem including both, and B) in the interests of NPOV, we should report both. Prophaniti (talk) 03:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but WP Albums doesn't even have guidelines, it's all suggestion, not rule. Guidelines =/= suggestions. But yes, I realize that WP Albums carries more weight than I do, but that's where WP:CON comes in. WP:CON is like Wikipedia's Bill of Rights. Every editor is entitled to an opinion and a valid argument regarding it. And while there aren't any problems or guidelines against adding both genres, there also aren't any for it (besides WP Albums, which is a set of loose suggestions). It all comes down to WP:CON, see? Your argument "there isn't anything against it" goes both ways.

But you're still ignoring that we are reporting both in-article, so it doesn't matter which one we put in the infobox. WP:OR will still be satisfied. That's why this comes down to nothing but WP:CON. -- The Guy complain edits 03:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course consensus matters. But you’re acting like you have some kind of consensus. You really don’t. It’s so far just you and me, but the crucial difference is I’m using guidelines to back up what I say. Those are themselves representative of some kind of consensus. I know they're not hard and fast rules, but I still have significantly more on my side of the argument (that there is no problem with more than one genre) than you do, because at the very least the wikiproject represents one other editor, and in truth it probably represents a lot more. Until there are other editors agreeing with you, I'm the one closer to consensus out of us.
 * And you're still going back and forth between the infobox mattering and not mattering. If it doesn't matter, then why not include both, when they are equally sourced? If it, as you say "doesn't matter", then it can't confuse people in any meaningful way because by your own logic they can just read the rest of the article and then immediately find clarity. Prophaniti (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Consensus is an agreement between two parties, not whoever wins with the most guidelines. I'm trying to make a consensus with you. Neither of us are close to consensus until we are both in agreement. What guidelines do you have backing you up, anyways? I just see that small sentence on WP Albums. But just tell me: What are the strengths of having two genres? What benefit will readers receive? How will it significantly impact the article?


 * The infobox does not matter in the long run of the article. In an FA, the reader will probably forget about most of the information in the infobox in exchange for information in the article. But it is crucial to get the reader into the topic because, as you said, it's the first thing they read. But I simply meant that the infobox itself is pretty useless. Coupled with the entire article, sure its good to have. But we just don't want any initial confusion, we don't even want to risk it. Even if we offer clarity later in the article, initial confusion is a bad thing. -- The Guy complain edits 04:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What I mean with consensus is that we have two opposing viewpoints: that more than one genre is a problem, and that it isn't. In favour of more than one genre not being a problem is one editor and the wikiproject on albums (which is not a hard and fast set of rules, no, but it still carries more weight than just one editor, this much you cannot deny). In favour of just one is one editor. This is simple mathematics. The guidelines on my side are those of the wikiproject on albums (which I say again: is not a hard and fast rule, but still carries some weight, the whole point is the lines in there are the product of discussion by the wikiproject members) and that of NPOV, as I have quoted to you.
 * Having two genres improves the article because it makes the infobox more reflective of overall source consensus without making it cluttered with too many genres (and yes, I know you think two is to many, but as I've illustrated to you, that's just your opinion, and there are more opinions against you on that). Besides which, it simply reflects the sources, which is the whole point of wikipedia.
 * There's no "risk" in the first place. It's an absolutely absurd notion that people will be "confused" by two genres in the infobox. Remember that we don't censor wikipedia. We don't dumb things down to make readers more comfortable. We report what sources say. Sources say this album is hard rock and heavy metal. If you only include one of those in the infobox you are making it look more significant than the other. Yes, you are, before you deny it. You are making it look like heavy metal is the only real genre, and while this will of course be sorted out as folks read on, I quote from you yourself: "Even if we offer clarity later in the article, initial confusion is a bad thing". You are hung by your own logic. You say yourself that the initial impression is something to consider. The initial impression should be what the sources say. Your edit is giving an incorrect impression there. Someone reads just "heavy metal". They think that's what the album is, just heavy metal. They read on. They see that both heavy metal and hard rock are equally sourced. This creates confusion as to why one is being left out. With the other genres, people can read on and see that they are minority views not worth including in the infobox. Prophaniti (talk) 04:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to reply to your comment; haven't even read the whole thing yet. I have to go. I'll continue tomorrow. Good night (or day) to you. EDIT: Also, just wanted to point out, from what I read, that I have explained that this is perfectly in line with WP:NPOV.  Now I really have to go.  Bye. -- The Guy  complain edits 04:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright, as I said, I've time for one more comment, but after that I'll have to check out for the night. As for your proposal that WP Albums carries more significance than me, I'll have to disagree. It's not a rule, meaning it doesn't universally apply to every article. You could still argue that it's written, so it's supportive, but that's unprofessional. Every issue should be taken on a case-to-case perspective, so using something that's generally written as support for your opinion, while I clever ruse, doesn't enhance it: it's still your opinion. The editors who made that consensus aren't here discussing this now, so that doesn't generally support your case, you just support its case. Also, NPOV isn't on any sides: it's neutral (nice pun, eh? Ha ha). There's no such thing as biased views when looking at genres as long as you post references. NPOV is appeased. Perhaps having more than one genre in the infobox is beneficial, but I'm still not entirely convinced when the genres are so similar in style. It would make more sense to me if they were dramatically different in style.

No, we don't dumb things down on Wikipedia. That's why we have all the information, down further in the article. It's all still there, but we're easing the reader into it, instead of throwing it all at the reader at once. The entire goal of Wikipedia is to make a database of knowledge, and the purpose of the Manual of Style (which IS a universal guideline that every article must follow) is to make sure every article is comfortable for readers to read. So, in essence, yes, we do make sure readers can understand it through simplification, if necessary. Again, it's your opinion that adding one to the infobox but not the other makes the one there not significant. I said the first impression wasn't significant in comparison to the rest of the article; the last impressions. The risk for reader confusion earlier on in the article is far greater. As they ease into the topic, and read more about it, they understand it a bit better. Plus, if we place all the genre explanations in context, the reader won't necessarily be confused. Even if that risk exists, it's a greater risk in the beginning of the article, when it's not in the context of musical styles. -- The Guy complain edits 04:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added a request for a third opinion. To sum up: your main objection currently seems to be that having two genres in an infobox is inherently confusing for readers and should not be done even when the genres are both evenly sourced. Prophaniti (talk) 04:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems about right. I'm just saying, it's definitely more easily understood when placed in prose, than in the initial infobox. -- The Guy complain edits 04:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The basic problem is that your whole argument now is based around the notion that there should only be one genre in the infobox, something I’ve never heard any editor ever express before. Reporting just one when we have two evenly sourced -is- misleading, regardless of what you use elsewhere, because it means there is a place where you’re making it look like "heavy metal" is the only genre of the band, and many folks will only really look at the infobox.

And the whole idea that two genres is a "risk" and will "confuse people" is still just bizarre. You’re making it sound like I’m trying to insert 4 or 5. Two is not confusing, and even if it were, that’s what the sources say, so that’s what should be made clear in the infobox, because regardless of what you say elsewhere in that infobox you are making it look like there is just one accepted genre. One genre should be aimed for if there’s a fairly clear source consensus, but when it’s such a clear divide we have to include both. The sources, taken together, suggest that some view the album as heavy metal, some as hard rock, which itself suggests it’s a mixture of the two. "Heavy metal, hard rock" sums that up perfectly, and I still fail to see what’s so horrifically confusing about the idea of an album mixing hard rock and heavy metal.

How do you account for all the featured article albums that have more than one genre, including at the time of being made FA? Those show that while you might have a problem with it, clearly those who made them featured articles didn’t, and FAs are supposed to be guides to what an article of the same type should strive for. In the face of this and the wikiproject guide, I really don’t see how you can still argue that there should only be one genre. Prophaniti (talk) 11:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The Guy, it's always good to see people so passionate about editing an article, but honestly, I'm going to have to agree with Prophaniti. The guidelines should always be followed unless there is a reason or large consensus for saying otherwise, but in this case there isn't. I could be wrong, but I would be very surprised if you found enough people to agree with you and gain consensus on your opinion. I think both should be in the infobox - if you really feel so strongly about it, try to find some more sources which support either hard rock or heavy metal and present them here. It would certainly be beneficial to the article if there were one clear genre to be presented in the infobox, but since that isn't possible here based on the sources, if you can find, say, three additional sources for either hard rock or heavy metal, we will look at this issue again.

As you said, compromise is important and I believe this is a fair compromise. James25402 (talk) 15:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't believe there's a Talk page listed on WP:3O that's remained this civil. Kudos and cookies to both of you. arimareiji (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That sounds fair to me. My point is, and has always been, that as things stand we have two evenly sourced genres, and so it is misleading to only display one in the infobox. But as I've mentioned earlier, I'm a big fan of trimming down infobox genres so they represent only the source consensus, not just every source there is. As it is, we have about 3 or 4 sources for each genre (depending on exactly how you look at what they say). So if that became more like 6-3 in favour of one or the other, that would seem like a significant enough majority to include just that one in the infobox. Oh and ta Arimareiji :) Prophaniti (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thing is, guidelines don't specify anything. There's nothing regarding any of this saying, "This must be done." Therefore, no guidelines aren't being followed. Maybe I wasn't expressing myself clearly enough previously. I'm not fearing that somebody will see that there's two genres and say, "Oh, two genres! I don't know what to do, my mind is reeling!" My concern is that these genres are similar. The fact that they are similar coincides perfectly with the fact that they are equally sourced, too. So, no, I'm not afraid that people will be utterly dumbfounded. I'm concerned that, possibly (and now I'm talking about someone who is familiar with the topic, rather than unfamiliar), somebody will see it, and have to stop and go, "Hmmmm.... Those two genres are very similar. Why list both of them?" That very stop is a concern of mine, as, at no point in the article should a reader have to stop at something we wrote and go, "Weird..." I do understand the entire undue weight policy, and guideline. I understand that concern. But, again, these rules are just guidelines; suggestions. Most are not set in stone, and most never will be. Regarding the weight policy: there's still no evidence to support the proposition that the infobox genre is a slot of importance. Your saying so is not compelling evidence. I still believe that the article would be more efficient if we started out with one genre. Now, if there were two very different genres, equally sourced, I wouldn't have a problem. It's the similarity, please understand. As I said, anyways, we'd be more efficient to start out small with one genre, and then explain the rest of them in proportion later in the article. Under no circumstance would we be giving the genre we select undue weight, unless we didn't explain the other genre in proportion, in the article. Honestly, we are allowed to do that. The possibility of the stop in prose for the reader is a more compelling concern than the undue weight policy, which can easily be remedied by adding both genres in-article. So I propose this: we add one genre. Prophaniti, you can choose which one. Then, after that's done, we can add information about the genre conflict (not the user conflict here, but the sourced genre split) in the reception section (because all of our sources for genres are reviews) or in the musical styles section (because that would be where it rightfully belongs). You may choose which section we place it in, as well. If you don't agree with the compromise, it's fine. Change it a little to fit your own terms, but please, try to satisfy mine, too. In other words, instead of saying "but policy specifies __________" as we've been going on and on about this whole debate, just try and move forward. Accept the varying opinions, accept that both methods would be guideline-friendly (unless you could prove that not placing one of those two genres in the infobox would be undue weight; notice the word prove), and let's try to compromise with each other. Also, I apologize for my delayed response; I had to help take care of a sick family member. I hope you understand. -- The Guy  complain edits 22:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * But that whole reason, that someone might stop and go "weird..." is such a flimsy reason in the first place. There're millions of things on wikipedia that might make people do that. Many will see if and just go "Hang on, Disturbed, heavy metal?! That's wrong!". Sure, there might be some people who would think it odd, but I honestly don't think many would be even slightly confused by seeing "Heavy metal, hard rock". It could suggest there's a split in sources; it could suggest the album mixes the two; it could suggest some songs are one, some the other. They're vaguely connected genres, certainly, but if anything that's only an argument -against- excluding one, because people will be less confused by seeing similar genres.
 * But this whole thing about trying to predict user reactions is fairly meaningless. You can make any kind of argument with it, and I still say the chances of people genuinely being even a bit confused by seeing heavy metal and hard rock listed are minute.
 * As to your compromise suggestion....hang on...can I be quite clear here, in case I haven't read it right: you're saying I can add hard rock? The exact thing I've been asking for since the very beginning? Prophaniti (talk) 08:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Section break
But now you're using another issue to argue against this one. Fact is, nothing on Wikipedia is supposed to puzzle readers, and suggesting many things do in an attempt to justify this particular issue makes me wonder what your motives are. I do believe you want to improve the article, but putting sources and guidelines before readers isn't the way to do that. The fact that there might be a thousand mistakes is not a justification for us to pass up this particular one. Thing is, there's very few things written on Wikipedia that are biased toward either opinion, generally. There's literally nothing toward either opinion in a specific perspective, either. It's all dealing in generals, which we will not do unless it's a rule that must be followed, not just a suggestion. Rules make the foundation of the article, but this is a small detail, and so is uninvolved in that broad category (although either method abides by the rules that they are supposed to). Also, people being puzzled by heavy metal (or hard rock) if either were up there ultimately doesn't matter as much; guidelines don't suggest that we add more than one genre if all are similar, while it clearly says one must use sources, regardless of whether or not users will think these "sourced opinions" are inaccurate. We can't break rules, letting people rampantly place un-sourced genres, while it is OK if we use sourced ones at our own discretion (meaning where and how we choose, as long as the text represents its source). Your example wasn't the best. We're debating an issue of preference, and now you're bringing a completely separate issue, one dealing with rules, in.

Actually, you're quite wrong about there only being an argument against my suggestions. I am arguing you, and my replies are making sense, are they not? There's an argument. But in all actuality, the Manual of Style is also in my favor. It suggests starting out simply, and getting into more complicated concepts later on. This improves prose, which improves overall article quality, making it seem more professional. A split in sources between two similar genres (one a sub-genre of the other, no less) can't adequately be expressed by simply adding them both into a box at the top of the article, while it can be expressed quite clearly later in the article, in prose (as I have suggested). A source split is something that I would call a rather "complicated issue" to express in-article. It's a tougher concept when the two main genres are very similar, and it makes common sense your ultimate tool. Do you think we can adequately express a source split between two equally popular, similar genres by simply adding their name into a box?

Let's get our genres in a list again, here, though. I count up more heavy metal than hard rock, anyways. Many of the reviews mention both, and the others only mention heavy metal, but not one source that says hard rock doesn't say heavy metal and there's one or two heavy metal sources that don't mention hard rock. Ultimately, hard rock is out-sourced. If you're going to look over these reviews again, be conscious of when the reviewer is mentioning the band as a whole, and not the album. If a review says the band is a modern rock band, that doesn't mean that they're suggesting it about the album itself. For example: the 411Mania review is something you claimed specified hard rock, because it said, "people will enjoy it for what it is: a hard rock band getting all edgy on us with mixed results." Notice that they say it's a hard rock band, not album. If you claim it means album, you're interpreting sources. -- The Guy complain edits 23:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 411Mania makes no suggestions on the genre of this album.
 * About.com suggests Heavy Metal (the review is in the "Heavy Metal" CD review section), but also specifies in the review, "metal/hard rock"
 * AMG suggests Heavy and Alternative
 * Metaleater suggests Metal in passing
 * PopMatters suggests some songs are heavy metal, but the album overall is hard rock. So, "heavy metal/hard rock"
 * Rolling Stone suggests... Pop ("the album has clear pop appeal in its own dour way")??? D:
 * Sputnik mentions metal and rock in passing, but nothing explicit
 * Metal Observer: Nu metal
 * IGN: Alternative
 * Metacritic: Rock, Metal


 * "Do you think we can adequately express a source split between two equally popular, similar genres by simply adding their name into a box?" Yes, I do. And I think most editors would agree with me on that one.
 * And I'm not "interpreting" 411mania. It says people will enjoy the album for what it is: a hard rock band. The album represents the sound of a hard rock band = the album is a hard rock album. I'm afraid you're just clutching at straws on that one. Which also in turn means yes we do have a source for only hard rock, and also means the balance is much more even than you would portray. It's very simple, and has been all along: sources represent a straight split between hard rock and heavy metal, so that's what we show.
 * Regardless, I'm getting tired going around in circles, so I'll take your offered "compromise" and add hard rock in. Prophaniti (talk) 08:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I disagree, and I'm the editor you're dealing with right now, so it doesn't matter what you think other editors would think. 411mania never says it's a hard rock album. It says "a hard rock band getting all edgy on us." They're calling the band hard rock, but the way they express the album is more along the lines of "a band primarily hard rock is getting edgy on us." To say that means hard rock is interpretation; you seem to be completely discarding the bit about them getting edgy. What do they mean by edgy? Faster paced, heavier? It's not really explained, and if we don't know what a word is supposed to mean (perhaps you do, though?), then we can't just fill in the empty space. Bottom line, the source says that they're normally hard rock, but they're different in this album, more "edgy". The source expressing change from hard rock does not represent it remaining hard rock. Besides, let me explicitly count up the sources for you. Heavy metal: 3, Hard rock: 2, Alternative: 2, Nu metal: 1, Pop: 1, Metal: 3, Rock: 2. By my count, even the generic metal tag has one more source than hard rock. I'm unfamiliar with the phrase "clutching at straws", but I believe it basically means getting picky. Well, yes, I am getting picky. If we have to search deep down and inspect everything with lightning accuracy, and let the deciding point be little details, so be it; we aren't getting anywhere without that. I offered a compromise, but it's too late to accept now that I've found heavy metal to outsource hard rock. But, you misinterpreted my compromise, anyways. I said that, if we placed one genre in the infobox, I'd let you decide which one we'd place. That was my compromise. I never said that we should add both; only that I'd let you choose which one we wanted to add of the two. -- The Guy complain edits 00:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hang on...you’re using “edgy” as a good reason to ignore them being called “hard rock”...and I’M the one who’s interpreting sources and commiting original research? You don’t see the problem with this logic?
 * You’re the one who’s interpreting things here, and you’re also now operating against myself and another editor, not to mention the guidelines (which, whether you like them or not, -do- mean something) of the albums wikiproject. You're currently faced with the arguments of myself and another editor, the wikiproject guidelines and the numerous featured articles that show there is no problem with two genres in the infobox.
 * You also seem to be mis-counting the sources. It’s 4 all, actually. Hard rock from 411mania, about.com, popmatters and sputnik; heavy metal from about.com, metaleater, allmusic and sputnik. Even if they didn't perfectly balance in your eyes, a significant proportion of the sources term it a rock album, which is different to a metal album, and this must be noted in the infobox. Some of those sources have no problem describing it as rock and metal, and as I’ve repeatedly added, nor do numerous featured album articles. If you’re going to persist in this, then we’ll have to proceed to the next level: request for comment. Prophaniti (talk) 07:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You never even replied to my comments... I'm not using the fact that the review said the word "edgy" as a means to avoid an extra source. Rather, I'm trying to point out the phrase "a hard rock band getting all edgy on us", as you seem to be ignoring it. You pointed out "a hard rock band"; you completely left out the edgy bit. That seems to be important. The word "getting", in this context, means changing. It means that a band which is usually hard rock, is changing to get "all edgy on us". What does that mean? I don't exactly know, but I know it doesn't mean "a hard rock band getting all hard rock on us." I won't let you interpret it that way. The phrase "getting edgy on us" is expressing a change in the band's sound, and the source also points out "a hard rock band", as you said. Now add "getting all edgy on us" and you have "a hard rock band getting all edgy on us"; "a hard rock band becoming 'edgier' on us". It's expressing change from the band's usual hard rock sound, not a hard rock band remaining hard rock. Also, Sputnik Music never expresses hard rock; it expresses generic rock. But if you want to group together the genres rock and hard rock, then fine. We should also group together metal and heavy metal, then, and the proportion of sources would be 4-7, respectively. That's a significant lead for metal/heavy metal, so I don't think you'd like to do that, correct? Then let's not. But you seem to be missing the point, and -once again- not reading, or remembering, what I write. I said I would have no problems with two diverse (different) genres in the infobox. But two that are very similar, one a sub-genre of the other? Redundant.


 * Now you're just trying to intimidate me, but it's a bad attempt... "Operating against you and another editor?" No! Reasoning with you. Just you. If you mean the person we asked for a third opinion, that's completely moot; he's not involved anymore, he only commented once. Even if I am "operating against you and another editor", so what? You're no administrator. You and I are of equal dignity and opinion; your opinion is no more "right" or "sacred" than mine, as you're making it out to be. Neither is that "other editor's". Just because he agrees, that doesn't certify you as the "winner". He came to offer helpful advice, then left. That doesn't mean he's involved actively still. He hasn't commented in a while, in fact. But, as for the Wikiproject, I already explained this to you. The project neither supports, nor rejects your reasoning. The only thing here on Wikipedia that deals in absolutes is the rules; the pages that all articles must follow. The guidelines do not rule, especially the Wikiproject ones. The Wikiproject ones were written by a bunch of editors of no higher rule or authority than us. Their opinions are no higher than ours, and we do not have to abide them. You may argue, "it's what's written, so it supports my judgment." False! As I said, the only thing that should be dealt in absolutes here on Wikipedia are the rules that must be followed. Every other issue should be handled in a case-to-case manner. In this case, you do not have this group of editors here to support you. They do not know anything of this debate, and if they don't know anything, then they can't support you. It's unprofessional to say that they do. If they actively expressed their support, and demonstrated an understanding of the debate on this talk page, then that would be different. That would be a case-to-case issue, and you would have their personal support. But just because they wrote something on a page of little actual significance to the function of this encyclopedia doesn't mean they support you on a personal level, in this specific issue. You're trying to deal in absolutes what should not be dealt in absolutes. -- The Guy complain edits 23:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, if we count "metal" and "heavy metal" as the same, the balance becomes 4-5. Not 4-7.
 * I'm not trying to "intimidate" you, you're missing the whole point: you think one thing. I think another. It's fairly obvious neither of us is going to agree on it, and sometimes that does happen. Sometimes one editor in a dispute is not going to get the edit he/she wants, and the way this is determined is by A) looking at the guidelines we have, and B) gathering the opinions of other editors. The point I'm making is, in favour of my edit we have numerous featured articles, another edtior, and the wikiproject. Yes, it -does- support me, because it very explicitly states that there is no problem at all with more than one genre, and that is thus far your only real argument against me.
 * Look at your own logic: you talk about the number of sources outweighing others and so on. Well that's the same kind of thing we have here: the number of editors in favour of my edits vastly outweighs you. You're so far all on your own, you've provided absolutely nothing that backs up your points. I have. And indeed, I'm sure that once others come for the request for comment, even more will agree with me. How many will it take before you finally back down? I quite agree that things should be dealt with in a case-by-case matter. But that doesn't automatically translate as "Therefore The Guy can never be wrong". It just says we have to be open to discussion, which we have been. Discussion between you or I isn't going anywhere, and likely won't do, so we bring in other opinions. That is where the FAs, the wikiproject and the third opinion come in.
 * Oh, and I found another review for it, on IGN music. The site uses the word "metal" occasionally, mostly in vague terms, but very clearly says "Genre: alternative rock". So again, another review that specifies it as a rock album, if we're now using general terms. Incidentally, noting "Rock" as a genre in the infobox would be perfectly acceptable to me. I just want to represent the significant number of sources that lay out the rock aspects of this album. Prophaniti (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * About.com suggests Heavy Metal (1) (the review is in the "Heavy Metal" CD review section), but also specifies in the review, "metal (2)/hard rock (1)"
 * AMG suggests Heavy (3) and Alternative (2)
 * Metaleater suggests Metal (4) in passing
 * PopMatters suggests some songs are heavy metal, but the album overall is hard rock. So, "heavy metal (5)/hard rock (3)"
 * Rolling Stone suggests... Pop ("the album has clear pop appeal in its own dour way")??? D:
 * Sputnik mentions metal (6) and rock (4) in passing, but nothing explicit
 * Metal Observer: Nu metal (7)
 * IGN: Alternative (5)
 * Metacritic: Rock (6), Metal (8)

I've highlighted all metal/heavy source in boldface, and all rock/hard sources in italic boldface. I counted them up. How does that not equal 7, instead equaling 5? Did you not read my earlier list that I posted (at the top of the section break), which also includes the IGN genre? Incidentally, though, since we're dealing in complete generals now, I put nu metal with metal and heavy metal, and alternative rock with rock and hard rock. The scores now read: metal, 8; rock, 6.

Also, don't try and lecture me on disagreements, please. Twice, now, I have offered a compromise (both times offering that you can change it up to fit your standards if you disagree), and once I have suggested that you try and make your own compromise. You responded once, but way too late, and you failed to interpret my offering correctly anyways. The other times you simply ignored it.

Actually, you talk about numbers of sources outweighing other sources. I honestly don't believe that sources are directly proportional to what we put in the infobox, as long as it can be sourced, because I don't believe that genre slot is a place of particular significance for information. I believe it's important to make it right and readable (etc), but I don't believe that excluding something from there will ultimately affect the overall proportions of the sourcing. My attempting to use proportioned sourcing as of now is due to the fact that nothing else, including offering a compromise, has worked.

But, irritations aside, I notice you say a general "Rock" tag in the infobox would be fine with you. That would be perfectly adequate with me, if that's something you would be willing to settle on. That is meaning that we'd place just that, not that along with metal, of course. I just want to be perfectly clear. Metal outsources rock, but as I said, as long as we elaborate in-article, I don't care which one gets slipped into that genre slot. Let's get a move on, though, with this agreement, shall we? I want to work on this article more extensively and get it submitted to FAC again by it's release date anniversary, latest point in time. I need this issue out of the way first. -- The Guy complain edits 04:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * However, you miscounted again: you can't use about.com as two points for metal. So it's actually 7-8. Again, much closer to a balance.
 * I'm not sure where exactly you offered these other "compromises", and the main one was worded badly: you said "We add one genre". Add implying an extra one besides what we already had.
 * Regardless, a general "Rock" tag would suit me just fine. To be clear: we are suggesting having the genre field simply say: "Genre: Rock"? There's still no problem at all with more than one genre, and there never has been, but if it'll end all this I'd go with that. Prophaniti (talk) 05:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * About.com lists both metal and heavy metal, so I had believed it was implying that it viewed them as different. Also, you're right; my wording was a bit badly. I should have said "include" instead of "add". Also, yes, that will suit it fine; "Genre: Rock". It can be sourced, and proportioned (although I've been slightly pressed for time lately, so I don't know when I'll get around to tidying this page up for expansion; for sure within the month), so I think it's fine. Are we agreed? -- The Guy complain edits 00:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * While I agree that would be a perfectly acceptable compromise and I completely agree with it in theory, this is not going to work. Seeing the genre as "rock" is going to encourage vandalism to the page, since the controversy over Disturbed being "metal" is bad enough on the band's main page, let alone if the genre simply says "rock". We can certainly try it, but I have a feeling the vandalism is going to be even bigger here. James25402 (talk) 13:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll go with it (and made the original suggestion) to end this constant going round in circles discussion. Prophaniti (talk) 14:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If the page is vandalized, we will revert it. If the vandalism continues, we can either report the user(s) (plural being a small group) who continue offending, or register the page for protection.  If a legitimate concern appears on this talk page, however (e.g. not an IP saying "you HAVE to admit it sounds like this!"), we can always reach another compromise. That's the great thing about Wikipedia. This compromise will ultimately benefit us, as it will either cement a genre on the article, or it will encourage more editors to come and reach a new consensus to us. So, while I agree this compromise could, and likely will, provoke more vandalism, it will most certainly not "fail". -- The Guy  complain edits 02:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Rock vs. Hard rock and/or Heavy metal
If I may, I'd like to give my two cents on the subject and I don't mean to keep on extending this discussion-turned-argument but I can't see how you guys can classify this as "Rock". After reading through your previous discussions/arguments, I'm beginning to think that you guys don't know the difference between "Hard rock" and just plain "rock". Bands like The Rolling Stones, The Who, and Loverboy are just plain "rock" and not any other specific type of rock music and bands like Kiss, Aerosmith, and AC/DC are hard rock. I see "rock" as not too hard, not too soft, and not too progressive, not too grungy. And the fact that this album by Disturbed is classified as "Rock" baffles me. If you look at the singles from the album, "Indestructible", "Inside the Fire", and "Perfect Insanity", they all have Heavy metal in/as their genre. Point is, there is no reason why heavy metal or hard rock shouldn't be labeled as this album's genre. And you can't tell me that those three singles just happen to be the only metal songs on the album and that the rest of the album is "rock" because that's just ridiculous. Now can we keep this discussion as what is it (a discussion) and not turn it into an argument? In other words, can we keep this debate clean and civilized not turn it into the O'Reilly Factor? I won't berate and lecture you guys and end all my sentences with an exclamation mark if you don't with me.--Madroxxide17 (talk) 01:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to agree, it should be Hard Rock/Heavy Metal The lable of simply 'rock' is missleading, and more significantly, not what the album is refered to as by sources which moslty call it hard rock or heavy metal. Put them both in, they can both be rliably source and having both best describes the sound of the album on top of that. I will say no more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.225.30 (talk) 04:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Jeez, does anybody even read this section anymore? I'm trying to discuss this issue but either no one is responding or not noticing. Do I really have to edit the infobox for this article to get your guys' attention?--Madroxxide17 (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see any reason not to put Hard rock and Heavy metal in. There are sources for both, so why not put them in? Look at the other Disturbed album articles. All of them have multiple genres listed. Rock and Metal (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * And exactly what source do you guys see that classify this album as "rock"? Calling this album rock doesn't really solve anything and only makes the issue worse. I've just edited the infobox to "Heavy metal, hard rock" but I only did that to get someone's attention. I didn't really want to but I don't just want to send you a PM telling you to get in here and debate the issue again. Anyways, we have sources that call the album heavy metal and other sources that call the album hard rock and one (that I see) that calls the album rock so why can't we just go with "Heavy metal, hard rock"? It doesn't have to be just one genre and it'd sure be more relevant than "rock". --Madroxxide17 (talk) 17:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You have seen my argument for that above. Putting two genres in the infobox can be misleading, as it can't be elaborated upon in the infobox.  If we place general "rock" as a placeholder (we do have references) in the infobox, that gives us better room to elaborate on the specific reasons why this album is two genres.  The articles with best prose ease unfamiliar readers into the topic by starting out with simple concepts, and then elaborating on more complicated ones later in the article.  This is a case like that.  Therefore, the reason why rock was in the genre section was not to be misleading, but to ease readers who are unfamiliar with the topic into the article by starting out simple.  Like I said, it is elaborated later in the article, so hard rock and heavy metal are both there.  There is no rule that states that all applying genres must be placed in the infobox, but there is such a rule stating they all must be in the article itself.  In this case, we're following rules, and trying to create better prose.  I believe it should stay a simple rock (as we had a consensus before) for the sake of the article's prose.  I rest my case.  I also apologize for taking so long to reply; my computer had software & hardware issues (severe virus... 'nuff said). -- The Guy  complain edits 00:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I accepted your compromise based on the fact there had been very little input on the subject and that I was willing to try it for a while, but it's quite obvious from all of the uproar recently on the discussion page (not just this one but on the main Disturbed article) that this isn't working. While nobody is ever going to be able to argue against your points, because your whole stance is opinionated anyway (as it is not based on the verifiable sources but on your opinion of heavy metal and hard rock being too similar to list both), clearly people are disagreeing with you. Unless you are going to attempt to claim ownership over the article, which by assuming good faith I am hoping you weren't intending to, I think you should back down on this issue. Without counting, you have at least 5-6 editors against you on this. I have yet to see anyone agree with your stance. You have verifiable sources against you and several editors as well. Please accept that your stance is not significant enough for this article. James25402 (talk) 12:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Prose is as important to an article as sources are. My standpoint doesn't take out any information or sources, just allows them to be elaborated upon, instead of simply stated.  I don't know when the genre slot became this important to an article, that people think it's the only place in the article where we can explain the genre.  It's clearly not.  Also, you are wrong about my stance.  As I said, I favor improving prose.  It has nothing to do with actual content bias in my case, but that prose improves subtly.  What verifiable sources are against me anyways?  I have yet to see anyone actively reply to my comments about prose improvement.  All the replies I get say, "the sources say this, we must as well."  We are!  Just not in the infobox.  Nobody said the infobox must accurately depict every detail of the topic and get super in-depth.  In fact, it's supposed to just be a summary of points covered later.  So you guys are saying that sources are disagreeing with me, but they're not.  I'm still actively and expressively using all my source (simply not the way others would), but I'm trying to improve the overall quality of the article as well.  It still has the same content it would if that infobox were to say "Hard rock, heavy metal," it's just not all in the same place it would be.  Therefore, the sources as much oppose me as they do you: Zero percent.  Also, you're the only editor currently expressing your stance here.  That's one editor, not 5-6.  The original section-writer has yet to comment back, their stance is unknown.  Prophaniti obviously agrees with the previous consensus, elseways it would have been opposed.  You're the only one here still actively opposing.  That's 1/4 editors, not 5 or 6 out of 5 or 6.  lrn2math.  Unless you mean universally on all Disturbed-related article talk pages, but they don't count.  They haven't read or reviewed this case (all issues on Wikipedia should be handled in a case-to-case matter, not just generally), so you cannot commit them to it. -- The Guy  complain edits 18:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Look, as I've said before, there's a fine difference between "rock" and "hard rock"/"heavy metal" and I won't explain that again, you'll have to read my previous posts. Sure "hard rock" and "heavy metal" fall under the category of "rock music" as they both originated from the rock, but that doesn't stop them from being their own specific genre of music. And yes, putting two genres in an infobox can be misleading but in this case, it isn't because there's heavy metal on this album and there's hard rock on this album and anyone who has listened to it would know that. We can't just call the album "rock" because, on wikipedia, "rock" is used to described the original rock sound that you hear from The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, etc and is not usually used to describe all subcategories of rock music. We need to be specific when it comes to describing album genres, is that not we're supposed to do as contributers when it comes to specifying album genres? And as James25402 said, obviousley just putting "rock" isn't working out at all as you have quite a few people objecting to it, mainly in the main Disturbed article's talk page but I'm sure they would think the same if they debating this issue on this page. The sources themselves are specific on describing this album as "hard rock" and/or "heavy metal" and only one that I see calling this album "rock" so I suggest that we not only be specific as well, but just go with the sources we have that describe exactly what type of rock/metal the album is. This is an encyclopedia, after all...--Madroxxide17 (talk) 23:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

And another reply to directly ignore a lot of what I said in favor of saying that I'm defying sources. Listen to your keywords, "anyone who has listened to this album would know that." True enough, however, what of those who haven't listened to this album? We aim Wikipedia at readers who are unfamiliar with the topic we are researching, and we put it into a friendly format. We make the prose ease readers into the subject, and we assume that they are unfamiliar with the topic. In this case, I believe "misleading" might have been the wrong word to use. If two different genres were misleading at all, I would be all about not applying them at all. However, it's not particularly misleading, and therefore we do put the information in, we just ease readers into it. That's the entire purpose of the infobox and the lead section; not to review vital points of the article in a blatant manner, but to ease readers into the topic, and prepare them for what they are about to read. Therefore, I do agree that it is important to be specific, but to say that it is important to be specific from the start of the article is blatantly wrong. A comment like that completely disregards prose, as we need to be simple and a bit more general at the beginning of an article, for the sake of prose, to ease unfamiliar readers into the topic. You're right in saying that readers who are already familiar with the topic will see right through the "rock" label on this, but then again, we don't aim this entry at users who are familiar with the album. So therefore, we're not categorizing this album in favor of general rock permanently, we're just easing readers into it. We still do elaborate upon it later in the article. This improves prose progression, as I've said numerous times (and been ignored numerous times). My original suggestion was actually to simply put one or the other, heavy metal or hard rock, in the infobox, and elaborate later. I do believe that that would have worked, but it was disagreed upon in favor of putting the simple rock label up. So yes, there is a difference between rock, hard rock, and heavy metal. However, all three are sourced anyways, so any of the three are appropriate. I don't care which is used, as long as only one is used, for the sake of prose and easing readers into the topic. Now, please don't reply with another reply of the same thing: how people in the Disturbed talk page, who are completely unfamiliar with this discussion, are somehow still against me (bogus), or how rules specify using only sourced genres (which I am still abiding), or how rock is different from the two other genres. I hate Wikipedia debates that get repetitive; I understand your points, and have replied with my own, so please don't keep pushing them on me over and over. -- The Guy complain edits 00:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just reviewing the article, and I noticed you tried to change the genres back to the two. Let me note one thing. I don't care how much your points are going to own mine, or how right you are; we do not change text that is being debated without first reaching a consensus. This results in too many edit wars, and is generally inadvisable. Please don't change it back until we reach an agreement. -- The Guy  complain edits 00:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I wasn't ignoring your posts, dude. If you read my last post, you'll see that I reply to the things you said in your recent posts. Let's try to settle down here, okay?
 * I know we're doing this for those who haven't listened to this album, I was saying that anyone who listened to the album would know that it's hard rock and heavy metal and not just standard rock. Which is why I feel that classifying the album as "rock" just isn't right.
 * "I believe "misleading" might have been the wrong word to use."
 * Excuse me, but I believe you were the one who said that two genres in an infobox can be misleading first (the second sentence in your first reply to me). I was just agreeing with you because it's true, in some cases, two genres in a band or album's infobox can be misleading but this is not this album's case.
 * I'm not saying the entire beginning of the article has to be specific, but that we should be specific when defining what genre the album is. If you don't get what I'm saying, here's an example: Led Zeppelin's third album is mainly folk rock but we can't just put "Rock" or people will think of hard rock and heavy metal (the majority of Zeppelin's material) so we have to be specific when defining the album's genre and show the viewers exactly what kind of rock music the album is. So if we just put "rock" for this album's genre, then people are left to think exactly what kind of rock is in the album.
 * I don't see why we have to put one or the other (hard rock or heavy metal) for this album's genre. If you look at Disturbed's previous album's not one of them have one specific genre so why must we put one genre for this album?
 * I understand you want one genre in the infobox for the sake of prose but as you've been told and hopefully, been seeing, it's not working.


 * I want to reach a consensus here as much as everyone else does, but that's not going to be possible if you can't see that putting just plain "rock" in the infobox isn't going to work out. Once more, I understand that you want that in for the sake of prose and to ease viewers to see through the one genre but you're clearly outvoted right now and we're trying to tell you that the previous consensus that was reached didn't work out as you guys planned. I think it'd be best if you just let his one go because even if we did let it stay, it still isn't going to work for others who are opposed to it. It's not like you can say "they'll get used to it", not on Wikipedia, man.


 * OK, thanks for an actual response. sorry if I seemed a bit livid (I assure you, I wasn't), but I'm just used to arguments here going absolutely nowhere; i.e. "My argument is right," "No, mine is," "How so?" "No, mine is," "Well prove it," "No, mine is." I was scared that this was degrading to that, because both you and your predecessor had similar messages. Anyways, the real reason I'm here... Even if people who have listened to the album fell misled, again, we're not gearing this page towards them at all. If we're not gearing this toward them, why cater to them? They already know what they think about the album. Also, I'll state again, and in bold, "Just because it says a genre in the infobox doesn't necessarily mean the entire album is that genre. You can feed the people part of the pie, then give them the rest of it later." Also, yes I did say that. I was simply correcting myself that, in this case, "misleading" probably wasn't the most accurate word to use. And again with the pre-necessary specific thing. We must be specific somewhere in the article, yes. However, in the beginning, no. Remember, what the infobox says is designed to lead people into the details of the article. If we feed them every detail off the bat, that's not going to work as intended. It screws up prose. So no, what the infobox says isn't law. As long as it's in vague agreement with the rest of the article, it's fine. For example, currently the producer of this album is Donegan. The actual producers are Donegan, Draiman, and Wengren, the latter two being co-producers. Do we reveal that in the infobox? No, because we're trying to be as and vague, but accurate, as possible up there. So I ask you, how is this not working? You and the other editor are the only ones who have come to this talk page and started asking to change it. Two hardly makes for a movement. If it's not working on the Disturbed article, that doesn't necessarily mean it's not working here. I simply fail to see evidence that points to it "not working." I also want to reach a new consensus (I was not satisfied with the rock label, either), but we're not moving toward that as long as we're debating this whole 1v2 genre thing. I would be willing to accept that you change it to hard rock or heavy metal. But I suspect you would want to add both. It doesn't matter if that wouldn't work for other editors; they can express that they don't like it and, if enough of them want to change it, I'd be glad to. However, as I said, 2 people is hardly a movement. -- The Guy  complain edits 12:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I can acknowledge a consensus was reached with Prophaniti, even I agreed with you that we could give just placing 'Rock' a try, because there was too much arguing between just two people (even if I had involved myself, a 2 vs. 1 scenario isn't enough weight to win the argument). However, while Prophaniti agreed to your stance, are you trying to tell me this is how he wanted it? If you are, you have a very selective memory, because you know as well as I do that given the choice he would've rather had 'Heavy metal, hard rock'.


 * Let's look at the facts here:


 * You, The Guy, think it should be 'Rock'.


 * Myself, Madroxxide17, Rock And Metal, Prophaniti and the guy who came here when RfC was requested all think both genres should be added (this is without me doing a proper count up).


 * Now, I know you are going to argue against these, but Prophaniti, while he has not come here to state his opinion recently, may well be offline, have internet problems, may not use wikipedia anymore, etc. and has stated his opinion is to include both genres. Because he is not actively discussing does not make his opinion any less valid, because quite honestly, I think we all have better things to do than argue over this and we shouldn't fault someone's opinion on this basis.


 * Rock And Metal may have discussed this on the main article (not sure if he has contributed here, however his opinion was based on this article). Because he is not actively discussing does not make his opinion any less valid, because quite honestly, I think we all have better things to do than argue over this and we shouldn't fault someone's opinion on this basis.


 * The guy who came here after RfC - again he has not contributed much to the article but he is an editor with an opinion and he clearly stated it. Because he is not actively discussing does not make his opinion any less valid, because quite honestly, I think we all have better things to do than argue over this and we shouldn't fault someone's opinion on this basis.


 * You are correct that the information is in the prose and the information does not have to be added to the infobox, however it does not have to be omitted either and this is where our arguments differ. In this case, you do not have consensus, agreement or any kind of authority behind your discussion other than your own opinion. As things stand, this page will need to be changed unless you can convince either us, or some other editors that your stance is correct.


 * We should not be changing the infobox until the discussion reaches consensus, I agree with you, however you must bear in mind that we do not need your agreement for a consensus as there are plenty of people who share our view and by discussing it further with you we are giving you an opportunity to gain support and showing good faith. Accusing us of ignoring your points is not very respectful of our view.


 * What this comes down to is personal preference. It is not necessary to have the infobox as 'Heavy metal, hard rock', nor is it necessary to have the genre as 'Rock'. Either would be perfectly fine, however the preference of the majority of editors to have commented is to have both in the article AND the infobox. James25402 (talk) 12:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I hope you, The Guy, are not avoiding this debate so a consensus to remove "Rock" and replace it with "Heavy metal, hard rock" is reached. The only reason I haven't been saying anything is because I don't want to repeat anything I've said before because you've obviously been through much of that before as you say so I won't want to add to your frustration. But we are far from a consensus here so I suggest we not let this die.


 * If we don't hear from him soon, we'll just change it. There are a lot more people in favour of having the infobox the way we have stated than the way he has suggested and I don't feel like we should leave 'Rock' there indefinitely until TheGuy is able to come back and repeat what he has already said, which nobody appears to be in agreement with. Of course, if he can provide any policies which state we HAVE to just have 'Rock', or if he can find some editors who think this is the best course of action, fair enough, but I don't think he is going to change our minds, in which case his is just a minority view and will need to be omitted from the article. If he hasn't come back by, let's say, May 18th, we'll change it and if he has anything further to say on the matter, he can do it while 'Heavy metal, hard rock' is in the infobox. James25402 (talk) 12:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, if other articles have multiple genres listed why not this one to. Rock and Metal (talk) 14:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't care to read multiple lengthy replies. Merry Christmas, happy new year, etc, etc.  I'm done here. It's insignificant, and I don't really care, as long as the information is accurate. -- The Guy  complain edits 00:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay....so have we reached a consensus here?--Madroxxide17 (talk) 06:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for accepting our view, TheGuy. We do appreciate your contributions and your efforts to improve the article. :) No hard feelings, just a difference of opinion.


 * Now that this minor part of the article is sorted out, hopefully we can all contribute to more important matters. James25402 (talk) 11:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I still want my points to be clear. They could be vital in some situations, however this is not one of those situations. The article is fine either way, and the reward wasn't worth the debate. I simply agreed to disagree. Anyways, I have tons of magazine sources covering a multitude of things in my e-mail inbox. These are reliable, and I will be adding and referencing them. If I do not get around to that in the next week, just message me and I'll e-mail them to whoever did so. I do think I will get around to it, maybe even today, though. -- The Guy complain edits 12:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Metal Observer review
Okay Revrant: what possible reason have you got for removing the Metal Observer review? Prophaniti (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A) It would add an outstanding balance on the bias of the article, being an almost perfect review, and that would counter-act the balance we are trying to apply right now, specifically to reviews.
 * B) It gives almost nothing but constant praise to band and that album. I read it; it's just a few paragraphs saying, "I love this, and I love that, and I'm a fan of Disturbed so I reviewed this." It's exactly the reviews Revrant has been describing; extremely biased.  Except in this case, it's extremely positively biased, not negatively.
 * C) I come full circle to neutrality. WP:NPOV says to represent fairly, and without bias, all points of view. Right now the article represents the positive point-of-view of the article (against policy, however slightly), and just adding another almost-perfect review score here make us extremely biased.  The total added up stars for the album would be 54/80; we should be 40/80 for complete perfect neutrality. I do realize the perfect neutrality is unattainable, but adding just another positive review is ridiculous. No effort in trying to follow WP:NPOV what-so-ever.


 * Also, watch out who you accuse for vandalism; an edit in good faith is never vandalism. Vandalism is simply that; vandalism: an attempt to disgrace the integrity of the article purposely. He's not trying to disgrace the article, he's making an edit in good faith to try and preserve the article's neutrality. Also, policy states that a conflict of interest (which is the immediate problem) can not be considered vandalism if both parties are in good faith.  Read WP:CON, please, and keep it in mind for your next reply. -- The Guy  complain edits 23:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Jeez...your point really doesn't work (so much so that I'm honestly not sure if I've read it right, and if I haven't, I apologise) You're trying to use the NPOV policy to argue that we should aim for a particular score? The aim of the reviews section is not to show a 50/50 balance. It's to show the reviews as they stand. If the response to an album is highly positive, then it's not up to us to deny or try to bend that. That is imposing POV. If this album has mostly positive reviews, then we must show that. We are not here to say "Right, every album should have an equal number of good or bad reviews, regardless of how many there actually are, so let's find ones that back that up."
 * I think you might be misunderstanding the NPOV policy. When it talks about representing all views fairly, it means in proportion. This means that, no, we shouldn't deny negative reviews. But we shouldn't give them undue weight either. We shouldn't try to make out that an album has an even spread of good and bad reviews when it doesn't.
 * In short, there's good reason to deny the review. We're not here to say "This album should have an overall score of X, so let's manipulate the reviews to make it look that way." We're here to represent the reviews in proportion. If you have plenty more reviews that are negative, by all means include them. But simply removing one when we don't even have the full 10 yet, that's not got any justification whatsoever. You say that you're aiming for a particular balance in the reviews, but that is not what you should be doing at all.
 * Please read the WP:Undue weight section of the NPOV policy. Hopefully that should explain it all to you.Prophaniti (talk) 00:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Fascinating turn of events, this is mostly differing viewpoints, personally I have to admit I'm quite deep into the idea of the reviews being of a good quality and source as opposed to their views being represented within a set ratio, or by how "notable" they are. I opposed the review mainly because I didn't think it was very well written, and the source looked like a poorly done, small site, but after looking it up, I am mistaken, the site is well known and well established.


 * I suppose this was a case of mistaken identity, I don't think the review is of good quality, but much like the Rolling Stone one, I feel no need to protest it now regardless of it's quality, as it is notable and I will never see the light of reason if I attempt to argue sensibly against notability being a defining, all inclusive factor for anything again. Revrant (talk) 02:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I had initially opposed this review because I had (once again) misinterpreted an important policy (I really need to read over those things more carefully). Now I only oppose it because I still believe it is badly plagued with bias, but WP:RS says that sources we have in articles can have bias, and I am also outnumbered, so WP:CON is no longer in my favor, either. Unless you want to seek a consensus, there's really nothing stopping you from adding this review, as there are no policies that prohibit it, anymore. I have nothing to stop you, but a simple request. You don't have to listen to me, though. -- The Guy complain edits 05:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks guys, much appreciated. The site's an accepted one, and even if the review appears badly written to editors, that doesn't inherently rule it out. Cheers. And also no worries: wiki policy states users aren't required to read every bit of the rules, apologies if I came across a little harsh (certain other users driving me up the wall lately, it seems so rare that anyone is ever willing to back down). Prophaniti (talk) 09:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Is metal observer really an accepted website? According to WP:ALBUM this site is unprofessional and should not be includedMad Dingo704 (talk) 00:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

FA nom
Hello, I would like to nominate this article for the FA list. Before I do this, I want to know if there are any editors of this page who would like to disagree with this choice, or would like to nominate it with me. Please consider the other nomination as well. I am currently going to submit this article for a few peer reviews, so now seems as good a time as any to ask if there are any editors who would like to follow me into this FA nomination process. Thanks. -- The Guy complain edits 07:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll second the nomination. The article looks good enough to be promoted to FA. Tim  meh  !  02:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking about skipping peer reviews in favor of going straight to the FA process. The peer review apps look pretty bogged down, and while we could take the safe route, taking more time for this process, I'd rather cut to the chase, as if we fail, we can THEN submit it for peer review, anyways.  Right now, I'm just waiting for a reply from the other recipients of my message, and when they all state their standing, we'll go forward and do this. Shouldn't take longer than a day or two.  Also, thanks for seconding the soon-to-come nomination. -- The Guy  complain edits 03:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've only really contributed in that business with the Metal Observer review and the overall genre, but I'd be delighted to assist in promoting the article to FA status in any way possible :) Cheers Prophaniti (talk) 08:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes that certainly sounds like a good idea, the article has come a long way since it's creation. Revrant (talk) 08:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. The only person left who I requested join in is DisturbedTim90.  We'll wait for him for a while.  In the meantime, thank you Revrant for seconding this, and Prophaniti.  Revrant, sorry I didn't send you a message requesting that you second this; I used Wikitools to skim through the editors of the page, and picked out mainly names that I recognized.  Thanks for seconding this nomination despite.  So on the nomination, I will print that I nominate the article on behalf of Timmeh, Prophaniti, Revrant, Dude527, and possibly DisturbedTim90.  I believe there's a "Nominators:" thing, too, where we can all be listed as well.  Thank you all. -- The Guy  complain edits 22:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I was surprised at the message I received from Dude527 about asking me to join in. But, in any case, I also nominate the article. This article looks like it deserves to be featured. It is, to me, the best article that involves Disturbed, and it becoming featured would be pretty cool to see happen. DisturbedTim90 (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, so it's settled then? Since I'm the "instigator" of this movement, I guess I get to type the paragraph about why we think this article is adequate to be featured.  So, can somebody give me some ideas?  I'd like to add something convincing this time, instead of my "article is at full potential" crap I put last time.  Also, would anybody like some preparation time, to make a few more amendments to the article?  I think I'll submit this for featuring tomorrow after school (approx 18 hours from me typing this). To be fair, anybody has until then to make any further amendments (of course you can during the process, too). -- The Guy  complain edits 03:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

One point I'd like to bring up for it: Dude527's change in the opening line from rock to heavy metal. I don't have a particular problem with it, but rock is the more general term, and it's also the term used on the band's actual page, so it would seem to make sense to keep it as rock. Prophaniti (talk) 09:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The genre used to be rock, but that changed, as somebody from this article's last FA nomination wanted the article to be a little more specific, and not so general in genres. I believe if we don't change it, it'll probably ultimately add up against us in what's supposed to be a comprehensive, non-general encyclopedia (depending on your interpretation).  We have references for heavy metal, and the majority of Disturbed articles say, "by American heavy metal band, Disturbed."  I think we should just keep it, even if temporarily, because, as I iterated, we do have the references, and it is definitely more proper, and wanted, to be a little bit more specific. As an example, Miley Cyrus and Disturbed could both technically be labeled "rock."  Do they sound even close to the same?  ... Ah, no. Anyways, I'm nominating the article right now. -- The Guy  complain edits 02:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright, it's been nominated. Please all involved parties try and check it daily here.  If you've never been involved in a FA nom before, you basically try and convince the opposing parties of the good aspects of this article, and any, any, ANY flaws, even small ones, that are pointed out by a judging party, you fix them. -- The Guy  complain edits 02:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * True, being specific is better when the sources are perfectly clear on a matter. And while there are certainly enough sources to warrant use of heavy metal tags and so on, there are also sources for the more general "rock" as well. All told, I just feel it would be better for this article to reflect the main band article. There are plenty of sources for "heavy metal", but they're not unanimous (or near enough) on it. Prophaniti (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be better to have the band's article coincide with the rest? Quite honestly, well over 75% of Disturbed articles have a "Heavy metal" tag in the lead, with the exceptions being Disturbed, "Indestructible", and "Inside the Fire".  It's simply more specific, as heavy metal is a sub-genre of rock, and heavy metal implies rock, and so we should put heavy metal.  Plain and simple. -- The Guy  complain edits 01:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It does, but rock also includes heavy metal, and guidelines usually suggest aiming for a more general term. Of the sources given for their genre on the band page, aboiut two thirds use the term "nu metal" (which itself is a very diluted form of heavy metal music) and a third use the term "rock". So a form of metal is in the majority, but not by an enormous amount, that still leaves a significant number of sources saying just "rock". If we use the term "rock", we're not saying anything those sources aren't already saying. If we use the term "metal", we're using a term that potentially goes beyond what a number of those sources say. Prophaniti (talk) 01:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We still need to be more specific, especially for an article that we want to be a Featured article. Precision is a platform for comprehensiveness; something this article lacks.  Heavy metal is a sub-genre of rock, so we ARE technically listing both, just more specifically.  True, some sources simply label it "rock," but that could potentially mean heavy metal, so these sources ultimately coincide with the article. Fact is, we aren't surely out-stepping our source boundaries, as they are more general in listing.  One could say that we should be general, too, to coincide with this, but I think we should be more comprehensive. -- The Guy  complain edits 03:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * True, they could potentially mean it, but by the same logic they could potentially mean black metal. Effectively, all the sources say rock, a number say heavy metal, but to say that for the rest is making a particular assumption. However, I won't press the point any further unless other editors express a similar feeling. I just thought I'd bring it up. Prophaniti (talk) 08:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * To answer everyone's question: it depends. You want to aim for generality when writing a lead, actually. How general you start out as can vary, depending on the content of the lead itself. For example, the first sentence in Nevermind calls Nirvana a rock band, while In Utero calls them a grunge band. They played the same genres in both albums; however, the lead of Nevermind talks about the band's impact on alternative rock and grunge (with added wikilinks), while the lead of In Utero starts just calling them grunge because there's no discussion of specific genres in the section. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Shocking you would use them as an example Wesley, simply shocking. Nirvana heralded grunge, so I fail to see why they'd simply be called a "rock" band, especially considering the only genre listed on Nevermind is in fact grunge, thus making no real sense. I don't rather like the idea of Black Sabbath starting out with just being called a "rock" band, and they aren't, there's definitely a point where you should use a generic term, but I daresay when a specific term is present and agreed upon by reputable sources it should be used, given this is an encyclopedia, not a two paragraph Rolling Stone artist biography. Revrant (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You missed the point. Since the intro to Nevermind mentions grunge further down in the lead, the article starts out with a more general genre. Since In Utero doesn't discuss grunge elsewhere in the lead, so it just starts out calling Nirvana grunge right out of the gate. It's a way of easing unfamiliar readers into the subject. That's the whole point of a lead section. It also cuts down on repetition and redundancy. That ensures a given article is well-written. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I daresay again, that is true for the artist's article given the genre is not as familiar as Heavy Metal, however if you're looking up specific songs and albums by the artist, why would you need to be eased into the idea of them being a rock band? That you would even know of these implies you are familiar with the subject at least to the extent to understand what genre the band is, so I'm lost on the point yet again. That we must ensure a reader incapable of ascertaining what genre Heavy Metal is, be accounted for? Revrant (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You never know. Not everyone reading this is familiar with the nuts and bolts of popular music. But really, lead section guidelines state that the intention is to start off the article in as general and accessible a way as possible. So that one of the ways of doing it. There's also the redundancy factor I pointed out. If you're going to talk about heavy metal later in the lead, start out just saying rock, because then you won't be repeating yourself and the prose will be better as a result (I'm saying this both as the writer of several Featured Articles and as someone with a degree in English). WesleyDodds (talk) 03:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the advice, but that begs the question, why would someone totally unfamiliar with Disturbed, a rock band, be viewing this article? The other thing of mention is many of the aforementioned featured articles you helped promote start with the specific genre outlined in the lead, and I think redundancy is hardly possible given there are only two mentions of the phrase "heavy metal" in the entire article, and no other mention of metal period. Revrant (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well it looks as though it failed, or was withdrawn? My fears came true in regard to the magazines, I have not received any responses even now, though given only two opposed it, this was a rather large step up from the last nomination. The end result is, given we can attain the articles from the magazines in question to bolster that specific section I think we would be in reach of the FA nomination barring any malignant parties seeking to bring down the nomination as is often the case with other musical acts. Revrant (talk) 04:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I noticed the FA nom just now as I was going over reviews for Indestructible in iTunes (don't ask), and decided to have a peek at the magazine databases available to me (yay for being at college!). I found a couple of press releases that could be helpful, as well as a Billboard article that could probably find a place here, as well as a review or two, if needed. I'll get around to adding some of that when I have some time; if I don't, someone come and bug me and I'll email them to you. --Izno (talk) 06:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool, that would be appreciated, Izno, thanks. I'm pretty much "dormant" right now on Wikipedia, and only check it maybe twice a week at this point. If you don't update, maybe within the week, I'll message you to make sure you haven't forgotten. Thanks again. -- The Guy complain edits 02:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Izno sent me the articles via e-mail, and I will be placing and sourcing the information variously throughout the next week, probably starting tomorrow. Along with that, I'll be lengthening the Reception section, as well as the Musical and lyrical themes section. -- The Guy  complain edits 02:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Section break
Yeah, I still haven't done it. I suppose that's why we don't have a deadline for Wikipedia as an encyclopedia; it will get done eventually. If you look at my contribution list, it's not that I've been avoiding the article, but that I've hardly been on Wikipedia in the past week; and I probably won't in the upcoming week, either. I have school work to deal with, among other things, including leisure. On that note, expect not to see me on at all this Thursday; the Prince of Persia: Epilogue downloadable content is being released, and I plan to spend a good chunk of my day on that. Same with this upcoming month, too; after Halo 3's Mythic map pack is released, expect to not see me for as much as a week at a time. Anyways, I've just come on to check on the articles in my watch list, and to inform you all of this. I promise I will add the magazine information in the article, but I make no promises on when. -- The Guy complain edits 02:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

RfC on two genres in Indestructible (Disturbed album) genre field
Disagreement regarding whether it is acceptable to include two significantly sourced genres in an album genre field.


 * Assuming that the two genres are both significantly sourced, then per WP:NPOV it is obligatory to include them both under genre. I also recommend referencing their inclusion.  Ty  02:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We have reached a consensus. Thanks anyways for your input, but assuming both genres could be fairly explained in-article, it is not necessarily obligatory to insert them both into the genre slot on the infobox. They still get their equal point-of-view. I'd like to explain this more in detail, but I already have a significant number of times. If you want a more in-depth explanation, look at the genres debates above. But I would not like to re-kindle this debate, as it's hindering my ability to tend to the rest of the article, based on time. -- The Guy  complain edits 03:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you've reached a consensus, then there shouldn't be an RfC in progress. Your argument that they "still get their equal point-of-view" gives weight to the inclusion of both of them in the info box. If they are equal, then one shouldn't take priority. I'm not interested in debating this further. An RfC is a request for comment from neutral editors, and I've commented.  Ty  10:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't the editor who registered at RfC, although I do appreciate the time you took to come and comment, despite a consensus being reached before you arrived. -- The Guy complain edits 02:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)