Talk:List of death metal bands

Nobody bands
Is it just me, or has this list become incredibly bloated with nobody bands? -- Dysfunktion 01:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Its not you, but it seems as though there are a lot of pointless articles in general. Constructive criticism cant hurt.MikeyOHoolihan 02:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There are some bands on it that shouldn't really be there. But you removed too many bands that are worth mentioning here. That you don't know them, doesn't mean they don't exist. Besides the idea was to be a list of death metal links. Not a list of important or notable or crucial or whatever. Tho I can't think of a good criteria. Maybe "have a CD out" is a workable one. Spearhead 16:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I just cleaned it up a bit. Hope you like it better now Spearhead 16:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I sorted it properly now-- Ch ild zy talkcontribs 21:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Have someone just taken out all of my bands that i have just put in like: Abed, A good day for killing? METALFREAK04 14:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Slayer
Yeah. I added slayer because they are definitely a huge influence and they are worth being in this list.
 * Hm, I just now took it off before reading this. But this is a list of death metal bands, not bands influential to it. That belongs in the death metal page. -- Dysfunktion 04:26, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I would also like to say that many death metal bands are "garage bands" so there are many that no one has heard of.

There is a lot of bands here that just don't belong. Therion for example just don't fit.
 * Therion's first three albums are classic death metal albums!Spearhead 11:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter if they're "nobody bands" does it?

Slayer are Thrash they are the godfathers of thrash and have nothing to do with death metal (some death metal bands have something to do with Slayer but just in one direction)

I think Soulfly should be mentionet in the Death Metal section. they aren't heavy metal Cavalera growls and they do a lot of double bass druming and they are very fast thats enough for death metal.

Soulfly aren't Death Metal--Inhumer 16:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Soulfly, isn't death metal. They are straight nu-metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.158.100 (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I heard from somewhere that Slayer don't even like death metal. They apparently consider it 'cookie monster music' (only true for some of it). So... including them here would actually be an insult. --86.0.183.95 (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

so what if they're "nobodies"
Doesn't really matter if they're "nobody bands" does it?

Nope, it doesn't. --86.0.183.95 (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)(note: I didn't make the first comment)

Nobodies
Certain bands may be nobodies in the eyes of this international scene, however they may be well known locally and have the potentiality to become well known. Thus, I don't think one should remove bands of this scene just because they are not famous. If that proceeds to be done the whole nature of our underground death metal scene will be killed off.

Cannibal Corpse?
Here, Cannibal Corpse isn't listed as key artist, but they are under the entry for death metal. I don't want to argue whether they're crucial or not, but there should be some consistency. --SAlpsu

Please, stop adding Bleeding Through to the list...
They're not death metal. The band's page calls them a "straight edge metalcore band", which is accurate. Some metalcore bands may have Swedish "melodeath" influences, and they may open up for bonafide death metal bands, but at the end of the day, metalcore and death metal are two separate genres of music. --Danteferno 18:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed Children Of Bodom and Norther since they aren't Death Metal.--Inhumer 17:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I felt it necessary to put Bodom back on because they are Melodic Death Metal, which is still Death Metal.--71.167.165.140 00:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I also removed Misery, because it says on their page that they're Crust Punk, and Regurgitate because they're Goregrind. --Inhumer 17:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Crust punk, remove it. Goregrind, don't remove it. Goregrind is a subgenre of grindcore. Grindcore is a form of death metal. Everyone forgets that. And Children of Bodom should stay on the list. It's just you get some people who think that they're 'URGH FUKKIN EEMO SCENE COKSUKKER POSERRS' who will go on and on about how they're not death metal. --86.0.183.95 (talk) 18:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Christ Agony
Christ Agony is a Black Metal band not death metal

Cradle of Filth
Cradle of Filth is Black Metal.

No, wrong they are Hyrbid genre which is EXTREME METAL band.

Yeah, nobody knows what Cradle of Filth really are. Complete fucking mystery. --86.0.183.95 (talk) 18:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Deathcore bands
Stop adding Deathcore Bands to this list! Or even metalcore at that fact! Suicide Silence is not death Metal. They are deathcore. Job for a Cowboy is NOT Death Metal. They are deathcore. Through the Eyes of the Dead is NOT Death Metal, they are deathcore/metalcore. ZAO doesn't even sound close to death metal, they are Generic Christian Metalcore. Same with other bands like Bleeding Through (metalcore), the Number Twelve Looks like You (mathcore), etc etc. Just because a Myspace page says "Death Metal" doesnt mean they are... thats why they list "Death Metal/Hardcore/whatever" Because usually they might be a combination of two, maybe hinting they are Deathcore, etc. I can ramble on forever but I'm just saying, do some research or know your music better before adding such bands.

Deathcore IS Death Metal, although Death Metal is not nescesarily deathcore. Deathcore is a fusion of death metal and hardcore punk, so they ARE death metal.

Suicide Silence IS death metal. Job for a Cowboy IS Death Metal. Through the Eyes of the Dead IS death metal. Zao, Bleeding Through and The Number Twelve are not.

It may be a fusion of Death Metal and Hardcore Punk, but it's not Death Metal. This is a list for Death Metal bands, not Deathcore ones. Therefore JFAC, Suicide Silence, and Through The Eyes do not belong on the list. -- ErikB 04:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Your wrong Zao is Christian Death Metal, but still they are death metal band. Your retarded Bleeding Through is death metal: Melodic Death Metal DUR DUR And finally... The Number Tweleve is so death metal, because they are using grindcore. Grindcore is a subgenre of Death Metal. panicpacpack121 3:31, 19 June, 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of what 'TRVE METALHEADS LOL VIKINGS FUCK EMO COKKSUKKERS' people think, deathcore is a form of death metal. Metalcore isn't, of course, but deathcore? Definitely. You can't even argue that it's not. --86.0.183.95 (talk) 18:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Ackercocke, Celtic Frost, Sepultura... here?
search videos from Ackercocke, Im not sure about what they are, but some say is BLACK METAL. And Celtic Frost and Sepultura are thrash...


 * Incidentally I think it'd be perfectly possible to find references for Sepultura and Celtic Frost playing death metal at various points in their careers. Zer Tolerance magazine included Morbid Tales in its top 25 death metal albums of all time. I think part of the problem here is that people aren't realising that a band can be both death metal, thrash, black and whatever at the same time, particularly in the 1980s where strict genre lines had yet to drawn up. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Centinex
How is Centinex a deathcore band? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gulivar (talk • contribs)
 * It's not. But the last time you added it, the band didn't have an article yet. Bands without articles are not accepted to the list anymore. Prolog 16:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Classification of metal bands in general
I'm placing this discussion point on a number of different lists of metal bands of differing genres, because it's a general point addressing many of them as a whole. I watch a number of metal band lists, and see an awful lot of reverting back and forth, often due to debate about what genre a band is. Think of this point as a kind of appeal for sanity. If in doubt about a bands genre, check their wikipedia article. If they don't have one, either make one if you think they should, or take whatever sources (e.g. the bands homepage) you might normally use in such an article. But ultimately the point of this is the wikipedia articles are the first and usually last place of reference. If you feel the classification of a band if wrong, then take that to the article in question, do not start having revert wars on the lists, going back and forth. If you feel that a band is wrongly classified, then go and debate that on their page, where there are likely more people who have something to say on the matter, and where it will need changing anyway if at all. It's confusing if the lists give one genre and the main articles another. If you have a good case for the genre being changed, then you should be able to do so on the main article of the band, and then you'll have every right to change the list article too. If we just accept that the main articles for bands are the primary point of reference for their genre, then things become a lot simpler. Someone's removed a band from the gothic metal list and you think it's not right? Go check the article. If it clearly says they're gothic metal, even in part, at some point during their career, or have influences of that, then there you go. No one can argue with that, and if they wish to they will have to take it to the main article. The lists are there to refer people to bands based on genre, they are not the place to debate genre in the first place. There will always be basic vandalism of course, but if people take note of this point I'd hope it might lessen all this silly waring over genre. Thank you. Prophaniti 17:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Relevance of this article
Is this article really warranted considering that all these bands are already listed in Category:Death metal musical groups? The category functions as a list of death metal bands - why would we need this article at all? - Quirk 11:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Melodic Death Metal
Seriously, should Melodic Death Metal be included on this list? it's just that that has it's own list? I love the genre personally, but this just doesn't seem like the place. Plus, Children of Bodom aren't even obviously that; they've been called power, symphonic, and melodic black metal. Again, personally I love them, but their genre justisn't clear enough to be on this list even if we do decide to include Melodic death. Kung Foo 18:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree melodeath bands should not be included in this list unless they also play death metal. The two genres are different and should not be mixed. I'm going to remove all the melodeath bands from this list that don't play death metal, however I will add a convinience link to list of melodic death metal bands for people looking for such bands. This should fix the problem of a lot of death metal bands getting added in the other list instead of this one. --Leon Sword 21:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Country of Origin
As can be seen on the "list of black metal bands" article, country of origin and associated flags are a nice addition to these types of lists, if anyone wants to add those in, I think that would be much appreciated. Perhaps move in the direction of doing the bands you know and looking up the ones you don't so this doesn't become a one-man job. Just a thought.


 * What about the lay-out? I think the layout of List of avant-garde metal musical groups is more appealing. The flag + country is a too much information isn't it? I think only a flag suffices.--Emmaneul 18:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I added the flags for A, B, C, E, F, G, I, J, K, L and several other bands and I edited the list layout, I hope you people like it (I think it looks better), inspired by the list of avant-garde metal musical groups.Emmaneul 09:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Grind Bands
A few of the bands on here are actually grind and grind core bands rather than death metal. Just for example...Assuck, Extreme Noise Terror, Napalm Death, F*** I'm Dead, and probably a few more...candidates for deletion? Fightinginthestreets 19:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Extreme noise terror are yes, delete them. Assuck used to be death metal, dont get me invovled. Napalm death(early) are death metal, as they didnt know they were grindcore (there wasnt that genre till the early 90s) F**k im dead are porno-grind delete that. PS: im adding loads in the next few weeks, just tell me if there wrong. Then i can learn from my mistakes. Thanks METALFREAK04 14:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Brutal Truth is new scholl grindcore!!! Early Napalm Death death-metal? lol amateurs... is a grindcore/deathgrind 100%!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.206.52.30 (talk) 08:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Later Napalm Death is death metal actually. Bloodredchaos (talk) 09:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a little info. And nobody overreact to this. GRINDCORE IS A FORM OF FUCKING DEATH METAL!!! There. I got it all out. --86.0.183.95 (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Extremely late to this, but no, grindcore is not a subgenre of death metal or even a subgenre of metal period. Grindcore is a form of extreme hardcore, that may or may not be influenced by death metal. Also, @METALFREAK; it's later Napalm Death that's death metal. Their earlier material isn't metal, just pure extreme hardcore, a.k.a. grindcore. Whether the term existed back then or not makes no difference. Bloodredchaos (talk) 16:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Lamb of God
I found Lamb of God in the list. I don't think they are listed as death metal on their page. Weltanschaunng 20:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

That would be very laughable at the best. Lamb of God isn't even metal.

Yes, it is. They are too. panicpack121 (UTC)

Death Metal list revamp
Hey, i have like over a thousand bands that arnt on this list that are considered death metal and was wondering if people can either help me put them on or tell me only to do the most known, i have done a few of the bands already. They are: A Good day for killing (AGDFK), Abed, Jungle Rot. So if you think there good enough, basically all of the list i have are them sort of bands, [underground but known to the death community or completly not known by the underground community(AGDFK)] type back, i go on this page every day as its on my watch list. METALFREAK04 14:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think in general, wikipedia editor want quality, not quantity. Wikipedia is not a medium for band-name dropping, it's an encyclopedia. If you know some notable bands, you're welcome to make quality articles about them. Wikipedia doesn't support the edition of bands just because they exist, there should be some encyclopedic value and the band should comply with the notability guidelines. Creating an article by copy-pasting some MySpace biography is something I wouldn't support (I'm not saying you do, but it happens a lot). I'm not a deletionist, so if you'd add a nice, sourced, and well written article about some (not yet notable) band, I wouldn't protest. Emmaneul (Talk) 18:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, part of that, but i was saying undergorund bands as in, people are saying "nobody bands" here, even though i know all of them. And i know this is an Ecy. i wasnt just gonna list any old ones down lol. i Dont copy and paste often i only do if a bot is up my ass. aka jungle rot article. but i was gonna do it at later date, but ALL Moderators on ALL things like this, are so, now now now, me me me type of people, and can't be patient. :) METALFREAK04 15:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Why does Jungle rot (band) always...
get deleted off wikipedia, i made a masterpiece. i swear all things like this the mods are so God dam, picky. and Gomorrah is gonna get deleted unless the person that put it there makes an article about them. METALFREAK04 17:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

With Faith or Flames is a red
Either i will delete it or the person who put it on should make an DECENT article on it first. METALFREAK04 15:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Extra tags and questions on melodeath
First, I've been trying to help with lists of metal bands and I like how this list states if a band played the death metal style early or recent next to the name of the band. Should it not also state (in the same place as (early) or (recent) preferably) if the band plays a mix of styles. For example, Torture Squad and Goatwhore mix death metal with thrash metal and black metal (in that order). So perhaps it should say next to the name the other style. For example- Torture Squad (thrash) -just as it states (early) next to some bands.
 * Second, I know about melodeath and the gothenburg scene, but someone created a page for bands of that genre, so should bands of tha style still be listed on this list? I don't think they should seeing as how they have their own list.  Or they should at least then have a tag next to them, for example- In Flames (melodic) -but that seems ridiculous, so I believe they should be taken off all together unless they clearly played the pure death metal style at some point in their career.  Perhaps I'm just being too detailed on that, though.Navnløs 18:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You're not the only ones sharing that view: see Kameejl (Talk) 02:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah I noticed, but why was that list deleted? I saw the list before.Navnløs 18:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Job for a Cowboy
They are not death metal. Their new album is deathcore, not death metal. Quit adding them.76.177.109.212 (talk) 08:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Who said I was a fan. I was checking sources while I added them and AMG undoubtedly labels them as death metal not deathcore in their bio. And there's other sources that label them death metal and deathcore at the same time. Now this your POV but I can agree that their last album was undoubtedly deathcore not death metal. --CircafuciX (talk) 08:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In the Job for a Cowboy article there is a source that states they play death metal nowadays. Kameejl (Talk) 09:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

There are various sources that say the new album is death metal. They are no less death metal than Six Feet Under Bloodredchaos (talk) 18:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't know anything about them. If they say they are progessive death metal then they are prog. death metal, but not. They have to fucking delete it, just because it isn't a guideline or something like tha.t User:panicpack121 3:35 19 June, 2009 (UTC)

Not many people seem to be getting it in their heads that deathcore is - AND READ THIS - a combination of death metal and metalcore. Therefore, death metal. Doesn't matter what death metal is mixed with - it's still death metal.--86.0.183.95 (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Deathcore-Important
Are we allowing deathcore bands into the list now or what? Do they have to play more death metal metal than core (punk) to be accepted or is it just all deathcore bands allowed?  Blizzard Beast  ''$ODIN' 01:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC) I didn't think we were allowing deathcore bands in (unless they clearly played death metal at some point). I don't think they should be in there, either.  Blizzard Beast  ''$ODIN' 01:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd personally be inclined towards inclusivity. Otherwise you go down the messy road of 'at what point precisely is it decided they play more death than core?'. You'll never find a reliable source breaking music down like that, so I'd err on the side of letting deathcore bands stand. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 01:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that's total crap...but ok. -Core genres are a plague upon real metal. Old hardcore punk like the Circle Jerks is the only good -core music. Deathcore, thrashcore, metalcore, screamo-post-hardcore, fagcore, shitty-lets-dick-around-making-gay-music-while-touching-each-other-at-night-music-core.  I swear...it's all gay. Metalcore needs to die.  It's worse than glam metal.  All these shitty bands like Devildriver, Killswitch Engage, Lamb of God, Hatebreed and uh...damn, they are all so forgettable...well they';re just as bad as nu metal damnit!.  "Hey guys let's go make some pop-rap band and hey, while we're at it, why don't we try and stick a little "metal" in there just to show them we love incest and have no idea what music really is!  Also let's make our music sound exactly the same as those other hundrerds of bands and play the same crap with absolutely no talent ad nauseum"  ARGH!  I hate people.  Blizzard Beast  ''$ODIN' 21:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe that all deathcore and metalcore influences do not classify a band as death metal. The -core genres originated from punk, and they are not metal, even if they seem to borrow influences from real metal genres. There is a difference between the two musical genres, and as core bands have more roots in the genre of punk, I do not see them fit to be in a list of death metal. Inn Skogen (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately your opinion on the issue is of no interest to anyone on Wikipedia. You bring no sources, just opinion. Feel free to contribute in a worthwhile manner when you've actually got some sources to back up your point of view; my take on the issue has been stated in fairly clear terms above, and you have failed to address anything I had to say. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Does this always fucking happen whenever someone discusses metal? Whatever the subject, if it involves metal, it results in some whackjob going on about nu metal and metalcore and poser metal and mallcore and corecorecore and... fuck it. Don't people like that realise how BORING it is? Listen: METALcore. MetalCORE. As in, the two words 'metal' (heavy metal) and 'core' (hardcore punk) combined. Two genres, together. Which means that metalcore equally qualifies as both metal and punk. Same with deathcore: it's death metal AND metalcore. --86.0.183.95 (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and whoever dissed Lamb of God - FUCK YOU. Sorry, but they have to be defended. Someone has to.--86.0.183.95 (talk) 18:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Removing flagicons
They are misused here. Nationality has no relevance to the criteria of this list. See Manual of Style (flags) -- neon white user page talk 23:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Policy and consensus both agree with you that they should be removed. If I get time, I'll remove them myself.--3family6 (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Danger-To All Metallers Concerning The Lists!
Someone's trying to change them again. We all know how that turned out last time. I do not want that shit to happen again and I'm sure no one else does. So, anyone want to tell Neon there why the list has flagicons and is formatted the way it is? Also, someone should go ahead and revert it to its last version.  Blizzard Beast  ''$ODIN' 00:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There's also the issues of the Categories. I know that was an issue last time. Flagicons don't belong in the Categories, but the lists are different. I can't explain it as well as some of you, though.
 * Flagicons only belong where they are appropriate, there is no reason to emphasise nationality here, it has no relevance to the criteria of this list. Be warned your behaviour is bordering on Canvassing.

The relevant paragraph is here.

Do not emphasize nationality without good reason

Wikipedia is not a place for nationalistic pride. Flags are visually striking, and placing a national flag next to something can make its nationality or location seem to be of greater significance than other things. For example, with an English flag next to him, Paul McCartney looks like an "English singer-songwriter from Liverpool who was in the Beatles"; without the flag next to him, he looks like an "English singer-songwriter from Liverpool who was in the Beatles". Emphasizing the importance of a person's citizenship or nationality above their other qualities risks violating Wikipedia's "Neutral point of view" policy.

-- neon white user page talk 00:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The flagicons are important on that list to emphasize nationality so that one can see what countries those bands come from more easily. The way you formatted it make it look like a Wikipedia Category. You mentioned: Emphasizing the importance of a person's citizenship or nationality above their other qualities risks violating Wikipedia's "Neutral point of view". Where your wrong is that first off, this is not a person or even an articles about a person or persons. It's a list of bands. That does not risk any sort of neutral point of view. Besides, there are no "other qualities". No neutrality is being broken. And this already has been discussed. Those flagicons simply make it easier to see what country those bands orignate from. I think that's all justification enough.  Blizzard Beast  ''$ODIN' 00:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm also well aware of wikipedia's "rules". I'm no n00b. I know it sounds like canvassing, but it's not.  This issue has been debated before and everyone came to the conclusion that flagicons should be included.  I don't know why they're all taking so long to do anything, but rest assured, they will soon enough.  Blizzard Beast  ''$ODIN' 00:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This article does not comply with WP:FLAG. A proposed change for this page in the discussion page there is to remove the flag icons but list the bands by country instead of using purely alphabetical sections. This would make country of origin much easier to identify than using flag icons, it would also allow bands from the United Kingdom to be identified using England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland subsections, etc. Also, it would be easier to navigate than the 3 columns mess it is now.--Boffob (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

How is country of origin easier to identify with words than with a flagicon? With the flagicon one can immediately spot, say the American flag, etc. With words you'll have to read everything which is more cumbersome. I'm not saying you shouldn't read or that anyone can't, but the flagicons are easier to spot a country with.  Blizzard Beast  ''$ODIN' 21:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Because words are easier to identify than flags (especially for the colour blind, and not everyone has country flags memorized either (I couldn't tell that Rudra's from Singapore by looking at the flag icon), etc, really read WP:FLAG on the many reasons why flag icons can be problematic). You make a section on the US, you list (alphabetically) all US bands in it. Make a separate section on Norway, put all the Norway bands in it, and so on and so forth. You order the country sections alphabetically. It's nicer looking, easier to navigate and complies with WP:FLAG. After looking at many "list of bands" article, I've noticed those with flag icons are the minority. If country of origin is so important, then ordering the list by country is simply a better approach than using flag icons with purely alphabetical ordering.--Boffob (talk) 01:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(Personal attack comment removed) Scarian Call me Pat  14:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Umm?? WP:OWN - it's worth a read. 156.34.239.151 (talk) 13:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

In fact, a long time ago, the origin was listed in text next to the band name. It was cluttering up the list and the list was less comprehensible than it is now. It was changed to make it consistent with other (metal) band lists. Since then, flags are perfect here. No flag related problems have ever occurred (except for this one). That way it's fast and easy to see what scenes are big (Sweden, USA). If you don't know the flag the tooltip/flag name will tell you. I know band origin is important to metal fans as origin often tells something about the sound of a band. Genres and scenes often start off in a country or region (f.e Scandinavian death metal, British and Australian heavy metal, Norwegian black metal, Bay Area, Brazilian and German thrash metal). Flags make the list much more interesting. I don't see any problems, only benefits.

If flags improve such lists as List of teams and cyclists in the 2007 Tour de France, why wouldn't they improve metal related lists? Don't apply the rules just because they exist, please apply them in a pragmatical way.

If a rule prevents us from improving wikipedia, we just ignore it. (Even though I don't think the flag rules apply to this page.) Kameejl (Talk) 16:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Read WP:FLAG. Though flag icons are allowed in sports articles (flags are extensively used in sports events, I don't think it's the case with death metal bands), the one you mentioned would need a little bit of tweaking to actually follow the MoS with respect to flags (e.g. the flag icon should be accompanied by the country name at least once); not to mention it needs some more copyedit to follow general style guidelines (such as wikilinks overdose in the text).--Boffob (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have read the guideline a couple of times before. I still don't see any problems with the list. The only thing that matters is if it works or not. It works for metal band lists. "...please apply them in a pragmatical way". Kameejl (Talk) 14:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "They should always be accompanied by their country names at least once." No country name appears in this list.--Boffob (talk) 18:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have been working on this for some time, and though it is still incomplete to a great degree, I hope something of this sort gets implemented in this article too >> User:Weltanschaunng/Sandbox. Ignore the horizontal grey bars, they are a sort of relic, and will be removed soon. Weltanschaunng 16:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

lupara?
There's a band named lupara (dont have an article though because theyre not well known) that are classified as death metal -- heavymetalhobo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heavymetalhobo (talk • contribs) 00:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If notable enough request them here. − ₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪  kaiden  03:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Flag icon consistency
Do we not think that we should be consistent as to the use of the UK flag?Sometimes the UK one is used, sometimes individual Welsh, English or Scottish flags. I'd strongly recommend we stick to the UK one for consistency, as to use individual ones would rather fly in the face of the arguments that the use of flags is handy because of regional scenes rather than national pride. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * no point in including non-country flags, we are not expecting the separation of the Union. Anyway the confusion with flags in the article is big enough, we don't need more spice in it. Weltanschaunng 20:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, I am a spoon
I've cocked up the formatting of the table trying to move the UK into the <30 category and now I can't work out how to correct it. Can someone help me out here? Again, very sorry! Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

New bands added
I have seen alot of red bands on here, but I am not deleting them...I want them on wikipedia, so I need a editcore gang. Any volinteers? or pirates want to help the articles to get going...

Artists in question:

Chaosbreed, Corpsefucking Art, [creating now] Wakeup DEAD!,

some of may or may not be death metal/grindcore. So be helpful if we had a user that knew Wakeup DEAD! more than I do. METALFREAK04 (talk) 10:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think sticking a list of artists that need articles on this talk page seems a very reasonable thing to do. Having them in the actual article would probably lead to too much cruft. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I too agree of that. We have people asking for genres already . And if we do add that list here (and probly' elsewhere) then it should stay unarchived. − ₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪  kaiden  06:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion
If anyone can be smart enough to make this list up to the standards of List of thrash metal bands that be great. Look there, it's great. Except I don't personnally like the list structure without the flags but the introduction is a nice touch to this kind of page. METALFREAK04 (talk) 17:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What about the format on this list of folk metal bands instead? --Bardin (talk) 15:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I must say, I dislike the emphasis of country in these lists. I do not follow exactly what the purpose of (or source of) the table at the bottom is. Removing that and the flags, this is just an unkempt list of bands. I share your sentiments regarding the List of thrash metal bands page; rather, I consider it brilliantly-poor execution of a generally good idea. However, this page needs some substance. I'll toss some general suggestions: For ordering, you may do it by time period and/or geographic region. Mention should be made of the Swedish and Floridian death metal scenes and their times of prevalence along with the bands. You may do this by organizing the time range of organization or activity and then subdividing by region (Americas, Europe, Asia, Oceania). Focus on key bands -- firsts, well-known bands, and staples of a genre. You might note the Floridian technical bands and describe Atheist (band) as an example. Start with Morbid Angel and work your way up in period. It could take some work, but in the end, you'd have a very respectable list. And, as I am doing with the List of progressive metal artists list, it couldn't hurt to source the bands on the list. 71.203.185.108 (talk) 02:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to stop anons and new users from adding bands with no articles, etc
I know many, (if not all of you) are incredibly tired of people adding bands with no articles to these lists, especially, along with links that are blue but are disambiguation pages or something else along with not even being the "x" genre of metal it's supposed to be. I was thinking of making a rule box or something similar like a section for it, instead of it being with the context/intro. For example, bands that are added because the editor wants an article on them very badly, people who just look over our (damned) comments, the people that don't check their links for the right article and those links that lead to disamb pages that don't have the band or you would have to make a huge search for the band and the bands that are not even part of the genre. If there was a "master list" that I know of where all editors that edit these lists would see it, then it would've been better to put this there and as there are many metal lists it would be insane to put them all over which I might want to do anyway if you accept my proposal or better yet show you here and you decide how we should go along with it and to fight those that add redlinks and remove bands they dislike, etc. Something must be done and I thought those hidden comments were enough and it's clearly not. I also think this would make a good explanation to editors who do this type of thing as a warning on their talk pages which is an action we can partake. Here is my proposal below:

This will be part of the introduction to an editor for his warning:

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to add bands to this list, the last band you added was a red-link, was not the intended article or has notability concerns on it's article page. Hereby you must follow to these guidelines for band inclusion to this list:

Article rules/warning explanation:

Bands without articles will hastily be removed from these lists. This list is not merely the place for you to add bands of the style that you want an article for, this is a list of "x" bands with articles nothing more. You can do this exactly at Requested articles/music/Performers and bands but they must pass WP:MUSIC to be acceptable here. Also, please click the "show preview" button next to the "save page" button to check your article links before adding them here and that you also have the right band that plays the genre. This is not of your personal opinion of what the band actually plays, the band's genre must have been approved either by verifiability with other editors or sources stated in that respective article. Also, make sure a band is notable, if a band is being questioned for notability has a notability tag at the top of the page then it should not be added to this list, wait awhile and re-add them when the notability of the band has been established. Please make sure bands are alphabetised and that the formatting is consistent with the other bands before adding them. Thank you.

I hope this proposal goes well. − ₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪  kaiden  05:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yo, I like the idea man. But how is this going to trigger? is it like all HTML'd and stuff I don't understand or is it some person who catched the person themselves? I would like though, one thing, if the band added is a 'red' link and a death metal band...if that band is notable, I think we should create a 'death metal article to be made list' so that all the notable bands go on wikipedia. My last header, was saying this, I don't think we should just delete bands becuase the wikipedians before us haven't bothered to get information and make a dam article for them, do we?

Also, this way you get notable bands, becuase of wikifacists like speedy deletion service jeps the dam articles you make, just becuase you translate the biography into english and change a few sentences and that somehow interfers with G what the fuck O laws. Bullshit. Anyway, yeah nice idea, but ant going to work...you still going to have fags that think Bullet for my valentine are metal.

METALFREAK04 (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well it would be like User warning templates, if you catch them you warn them and if they persist well... I never thought of that but they would keep on being reverted until the link is blue, that's for sure. And of course, if a band is surely notable we'll have a list here (wouldn't make sense to have a death metal band article to be made list anyways (and would have to start with "Wikipedia:Requested articles/music/. . .")) for them (which I'm not sure can stay up here, as this page would need to get archived within time) and also at the request article link I provided. Also, the amount of editors we will need will be like the size of a taskforce (albeit small one) for this to be carried out well. I've been thinking I should really add this to all the other lists.


 * All I ask for is for people like you and everyone who edits these lists help in notifying these type of users. If that can be done then that's the least you could do for these lists. Have hope, and let's make an example for them. − ₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪  kaiden  06:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Korn
They say that their Christmas CD is Death Metal. One song is death metal. The song is called,"Jingle Bells". We could put on here. They say Korn was death metal back in the early history of the band. User:panicpack121 (UTC)

I don't know. Not that I'd go on a stupid 'URGH NU METAL MALLCORE POSERS FUCK FUCK FUCK' rant, but I wouldn't regard Korn to overall be death metal. I wouldn't mind them being on the list, but... well, you all know the types of people who would mind. And start a flame war. --86.0.183.95 (talk) 18:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I just listened to their demo and there are NO SIGNS of death metal at all. It's actually closer to groove metal which at times sounds 'death metalish' for its gruff vocals and its influence from thrash metal. There are no clear cut death growls (there are some lower grunting vocals on "Daddy" and a few parts of "Alive" but it is still far from the thought) or even blast beats. They have some weird gruff southern vocals and play nu metal and that's it. I've never heard their Christmas CD but I seriously doubt they would be death metal. I don't think they know what it is and how it's played and neither do you. Listen to Immolation, Morbid Angel, Obituary, Death or Possessed for true death metal and learn about what makes 'death metal' death metal first. 71.190.246.97 (talk) 01:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not a demo. There are only a few actual Korn demo's and Christmas song is not one. Besides, their Christmas CD is called All Mixed Up. I have all of their crap including their early cassettes. (Neidermeyers mind was pretty cool) Anyway, the only Christmas titled album is called Christmas Song. It's a 12" red vinyl and it's still Nu-metal. It's a bit guttural for nu-metal, but it bases itself along the lines of L.A.P.D. Oh yeah, it's not Jingle Bells, it's Jingle Balls. It's off of All Mixed Up. It's the last track too. (And IMO, it sucks) Undead Warrior (talk) 09:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Not a demo? Then why is it a cassette tape with only 4 songs on it? If anything I'd call it a promo or a promo EP but whatever. If the wierdness can be compared, I would say Dir en grey are pretty close to their style (or experimentation with rock music). Songs like "Zan" from Gauze or "Pink Killer" from Kisou shows drumming that is closer to blast beats. Is that death metal now? No, not even. They overall have a much heavier sound than Korn but have a lot of mellower songs to begin with. 71.190.246.97 (talk) 01:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Referencing of the list of death metal bands
I've finally finished referencing every item of this list (sorry for the gap in editing; I was off at Wacken). There are a number of points I wanted to clarify, and a number of suggestions for future editors (I'd rather get on with editing individual articles than referencing lists!). Firstly regarding what I've done: I looked for reliable sources at Allmusic, MusicMight and at Google Books; there are certainly other reliable sources out there that could be used, but they were the most straightforward when starting from scratch. By "reliable", obviously I mean sources that qualify under WP:RS, rather than those I personally regard as being "reliable"; I have in fact deleted bands from the list that I could not immediately find sources for, despite my personal opinion (Cock and Ball Torture, for instance). There's been some chat about MusicMight, as it has recently (seemingly) become to an extent user-edited... this is slightly misleading, as the vast majority of entries on the site are still contributed by Garry Sharpe-Young, a very experienced journalist in the field of extreme metal, as evinced by the large number of books he has published on the subject, through independent, third-party sources (initially Cherry Red, and now Zonda Books; these books seek to reproduce the content of the MusicMight website and hence I feel it passes WP:RS... it would be preferable to some extent to replace the URL links with refs to the print sources, and if anyone would like to spend the time doing that, please feel free :-)). As for suggestions: Any other comments very welcome, and hope that was all helpful! Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest that all redlinks continue to be removed on sight, and anything added without a reliable source (i.e. excluding all webzines, Myspaces, band websites and label sites).
 * I suggest that at some point the list should be re-formatted, probably to look something like the List of folk metal bands... this will take a lot of work, but will look an awful lot better. It will also involve losing the flagicons, that I appreciate lots of people feel strongly about, but at present they certainly contravene WP:MOSFLAG, that states unambiguously, "When a flag icon is used for the first time in a list or table, it needs to appear adjacent to its respective country (or province, etc.) name, as not all readers are familiar with all flags. Use of flag templates without country names is also an accessibility issue, as it can render information difficult for color blind readers to understand. In addition, flags can be hard to distinguish when reduced to icon size."
 * Finally, and somewhat controversially, to avoid WP:NPOV issues, if someone sticks up, say, Slayer or Slipknot with a reliable source (such as a commercially published book about metal), then it should stay... there certainly are bands on here with far less in common with death metal than Slipknot, but I'm going to leave that for someone else to tussle over ;-)

Someone please, delete Hatebreed from this list, it's just not funny at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.119.38.70 (talk) 09:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggesting Split
This article is 140KB, that's 40 more than the proposed limit per WP:TOOLONG. Considering it takes a very long time to load up this page, I'm suggesting either a split to List of death metal bands: and List of death metal bands: N-Z or that we remove these sources altogether.-- F-22 Raptör Aces High ♠ 16:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I notice that this article still isn't split. I can volunteer to do it. If there should be a division in approxmately half, then what would happen would be a page each for 0-G and H-Z. However, the letters are very lopsided in that case. Should I do it the same way that the List of black metal bands page is categorized and do it 0-K and L-Z? Or is the 0-M and the N-Z suggestion still a good one (I think it is a viable option.)? Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 22:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the 0-K and L-Z would work best, as there are only a few bands with numbers.--3family6 (talk) 14:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Something that I think might help reduce the size is if we remove the flagicons, which aren't being used the way they should be anyway.--3family6 (talk) 19:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Objection to As I Lay Dying
The addition of As I Lay Dying has been challenged, and a debate has started on my talk page. I am referring the debate to here, as this is the proper place for it. I am giving the full text of the debate so far below.--3family6 (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ As I Lay Dying is not a death metal band. Control-F the article. See where you find the word "death" - if you disagree with the actual article about the band explicitly stating that they are metalcore, try to change it and see what happens. Myrkkyhammas (talk) 03:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I 100% agree that they are metalcore, the death metal source says they are metalcore, and a gajillion other sources say they are metalcore. However, the particular source I cited has them listed as melodic death metal in addition to metalcore, hardcore, Christian metal, and Christian rock. MusicMight is a reliable source, and in this case the bio is done solely by the late Garry Sharpe-Young (username is Taniwha), who was a respected heavy metal writer, and therefore a very reliable in and of himself. I plan to work on the AILD article itself sometime and add this description. I noticed that on your revision you said you have a source stating that they are not death metal. Can you please send me the link or book reference?--3family6 (talk) 12:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You should check out the burden of proof article. I don't have to demonstrate to you that As I Lay Dying is not a death metal band. There are, as you have said, a "gajillion" sources saying that they are metalcore. The fact that you found one outlying source saying that they are death metal (amongst a couple other sort of meaningless things) means very little. If we made a list of every genre that every band has been labelled as by every single reliable source, it would not be long before nearly every band was listed as everything from Baroque to Nihilistic Depressive Suicidal Funeral Doomcore. As I Lay Dying is a metalcore band, as is stated by the vast majority of reliable sources - including the Wikipedia article, which by itself is enough to end this discussion. I now consider the matter closed.


 * Also, you say on your page that you don't like genre warriors. You also said that you're also planning to "work" on the As I Lay Dying article. Please be careful. Pushing your ideas about metalcore and death metal does not improve Wikipedia. Best, Myrkkyhammas (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The discussion is not closed, though you may be finished with your part. At least one third party has to join the discussion to establish a consensus. As to the actual debate, you are incorrect in saying that you don't need to demonstrate that AILD is not death metal, as you are the one who has challenged the addition and have further claimed that you have a source. I know that the majority of sources claim that they are metalcore, but hardly any or none say that AILD is not death metal. WP:WEIGHT might apply in this case, but we need other editors to debate that. Wikipedia is never, ever, a reliable source, so that has absolutely no bearing on this debate whatsoever. However, the opinion of a reliable heavy metal music author means a great deal, though he could very well be challenged in another reliable source, though so far no sources objecting to AILD being death metal has been provided. I am not trying to push my ideas about death metal and metalcore, as I am not a music expert, and most of what I know about those genres is from various random sources, and even if I knew a lot about the subject personally, my opinions published on a wiki talk page are not a reliable source. Genre warriors use primarily original research, do not try to gain consensus, hardly ever use reliable sources, and don't try to get involved in actual article content. While I sometimes can be a little over-zealous and/or quick to label sometimes, Wikipedia likes but boldness, and I am learning to be more careful in the way I make additions. Making additions that are fully supported by reliable sources is improving Wikipedia, though often consensus is needed on just how the source should presented and whether it is presented accurately. But for the discussion to move any further, it needs to be addressed on the talk page, so I am moving the discussion there. Please voice any further comments/objections on the talk page here. Thank you, --3family6 (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

"A list of all death metal bands" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A_list_of_all_death_metal_bands&redirect=no A list of all death metal bands] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)