Talk:The Satanist (album)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: move to The Satanist (album). Armbrust The Homunculus 11:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The Satanist → The Satanist (Behemoth album) – With all respect to the upcoming album of a Polish blackdeath metal band, in Google books it is The Satanist (Dennis Wheatley novel) which is overwhelmingly the topic, nevertheless since "The Satanist" is somewhat generic, the base The Satanist should redirect to Satanism (disambiguation). In ictu oculi (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support The Satanist (album), in the absence of other albums by this name. --BDD (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There is actually a 2002 album of the same name by a German band Armatus, though the band has no article. I don't particularly object to concealing the band Behemoth's name in this case, it will only mildly obstruct Users to do so. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Support it should eb a disambiguation page link. Redirect to satanist (disambiguation) (create) or satanism (disambiguation) and add the appropriate entries. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. The main entry should be a redirect to disambiguation page. But the album should be reflected under The Satanist (album) and not The Satanist (Behemoth album). werldwayd (talk) 12:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Genre
Please do not edit cited material within the article, and then leave the source in. If you have dispute with it, discuss it here. All added content on wikipedia requires a source. Per WP:SUBJECTIVE, "Wikipedia articles about art and other creative topics (e.g., musicians, actors, books, etc.) have a tendency to become effusive. This is out of place in an encyclopedia. Aesthetic opinions are diverse and subjective—we might not all agree about who the world's greatest soprano is. However, it is appropriate to note how an artist or a work has been received by prominent experts and the general public. For instance, the article on Shakespeare should note that he is widely considered to be one of the greatest authors in the English language. Articles should provide an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations to experts holding that interpretation. Verifiable public and scholarly critiques provide useful context for works of art."

and per Verifiability, "Readers must be able to check that Wikipedia articles are not just made up. This means that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.". Genres are something that are challenged and edited 24/7 on wikipedia, so you require a source to back up your statement.

As for the genre being added, I do not really disagree with the editor on my own, but it still requires a source to back it up on Wikipedia. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)