Template talk:Heavy metal music/Archive 1

Template discussion
A discussion on the contents and future of this template, and the categorisation of metal music on WP in general is going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Metal. Changes and reverts are likely to be made to this template as a result, such changes are intended to reflect consensus of the members of the project. An intention to strip this template down to "core genres" has been announced, and this is likely to be the biggest single cause of alterations at the moment. Please join the project and get involved!  Dei zio  16:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Misc
This article series box appears to be (a) completely redundant with Category:Heavy metal and (b) not the right thing to do as per Categories, lists, and series boxes - it really is a natural-born category, not ASB. It doesn't form a closed series in any sort of natural order. Is there any really convincing reason not to blank it? - David Gerard 19:11, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * No objections or comments? I'll blank it then - David Gerard 10:43, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * It allows easy navigation between the subgenres. It is a lot quicker than opening the category page. Andros 1337


 * It does, however, violate all four of the guideline questions, it isn't a complete set, it isn't in any natural order, it's a natural category and it is in fact entirely redundant with its category - David Gerard 14:23, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music_genres suggests to use templates for music genres, which is enough of a justification for this template to exists. At least hip-hop isn't more of a closed series than heavy metal, and I do not see any reason why a hip-hop template would be endorsed by a WikiProject, yet a heavy metal template would be against the guidelines. Furthermore, it makes navigation between the pages related to heavy metal easier and creates a clear overview. Joost 20:05, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Color
I feel it looks much better black and red than white and red. Sam Spade 22:44, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I do, too. Why were the colors reverted? - Omegatron 04:05, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Footer template for shorter articles
Click here to go to and edit this genrebox template.

Below is the footer template that should go with shorter articles, so that they are not visually overshadowed by the larger sidebar:

Reasoning: Whilst it is necesarily less complex then the sidebar main template I would suggest it provides a useful pointer to related articles, particularly short articles that can be visually overshadowed by the sidebar or where other factors impact on the visual presentation. It also allows easier use of multiple footers, for example for fusion genres. See Funk metal & Talk:Grindcore Paul foord 10:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Instrument Editation
Many forms of metal use Keyboards. I was wondering why these arent on typical instruments. And why nobody has added them yet. Leyasu

The supposed New Wave of American Heavy Metal
This is a neologism. I'm from Massachusetts, and I'm a big fan of heavy metal, and I've never, ever heard this term before. If it's just being used by a small group of people to refer to a (in my opinion) unfortunate amalgamation of mediocre wannabe metal bands, then I think that it should be removed from the template and the article should be deleted. I will do so in the next 24 hours if nobody objects.--AaronS 16:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I've added New Wave of American Heavy Metal to the Afd page. Please check out the deletion page and offer your thoughts. It would be much appreciated. I also removed it from the heavy metal template. --AaronS 03:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Adding Genre
Adding a link to the genre Symphonic Metal on the template linking to the article. As it makes sense to do so as to cover more genres that are significant to the metal community. Leyasu

== I have removed Grunge, because if the Grunge page is checked, it was influenced by Thrash Metal in its creation. It comes from rock music, is a form of rock music, and has in no way and inclination to the metal scene. Leyasu


 * Grunge is very related, Pearl Jam guitarists Stone Gossard and Mike McCready were big fans of KISS and this certainly shows in their music. Nirvana was influenced by Led Zeppelin and have even made a few covers of their songs. Grunge is more or less a mixture of punk, alternative rock, metal and many other genres. Cobra  07:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Many bands in many genres take influence from other genres. Just because 'some' bands in the grunge genre take influence from 'some' metal bands, does not qualify the genre as metal. Leyasu

Most "Grunge" bands Identify themselves as Heavy Metal.--24.93.137.172 (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Genre Deletion
I have removed genres that warrent deletion from the template, due tot he strong cases against them, their lack of actuall recognition within the world metal scene, and the strong cases for the deletion against the articles.

In the case of Grumge, if the article is read, it is a form of Rock music, not metal. It may have originated with some metal influences, but world wide and musically, it is known and is, a form of Rock music and does not warrent a place on the metal template and as such i have removed it. Leyasu


 * Can you say Soundgarden or Alice in Chains? Two of the biggest grunge bands that sound more like they should be heavy metal bands, often compared to Black Sabbath. And your saying that they should not even be given any recognition on this template? Cobra  07:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That is your personal opinion and not a musical fact. Often times bands are compared across genres. Soundgarden are most commonly known for being a rock band, as are Alice In Chains. It would serve well better to put them on the article for their actuall genre, than to try to make one up to encompass bands with no connection to each other. (Edit) If the bands were of the metal variety, and should be heavy metal bands, they would be listed on the heavy metal article, not be listed under a made up genre. Leyasu
 * Regardless, bear in mind that this is a collective project, and any major change (such as the one you have been enforcing) should be discussed on a relevant Talk page before being implemented. Please do not make this mistake again in the future. --Sn0wflake 17:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Grunge killed heavy metal. I'm a fan of both genres, but it would be wrong to call grunge a subgenre of heavy metal. --AaronS 17:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I apologise, but i hardly see how the removing of Grunge from the metal template was a major change. Also, simple moving of things around on the template was done due to the articles being deleted due to inappropriateness, or simply moving them into Fusion Genres as that is what they are according to the articles themselfs. It is more cleaning up and copyediting than major editting of the template. I will however give reason on the talk page for every edit i make now, as that is what you want Snowflake. Leyasu 17:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not imposing this rule on you in special, it's merely the way Wikipedia users are supposed to act on high-visibility articles/templates, such as this one. All I am asking is that you would be a little less bold in the future and discussed removals and such in case you noticed that it might cause some conflict. That being understood, your actions do have a basis behind them, I am not opposing them. --Sn0wflake 17:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

No worries. I think that grunge fits perfectly as a "fusion" genre. That makes much more sense. --AaronS 17:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC) ,p>
 * Suggestion: Before making accusation as to where a genre belongs, please try reading the whole and complete article for that genre first. Leyasu 17:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You should also read the talk page for Grunge music, where we've had a debate regarding that heavy metal (not specifically thrash) should be cited as a primary ingredient in the genre's sound. Which it is.


 * And what's with your assertion that rock music and heavy metal music are two different things? Heavy metal is as much a genre of rock as are punk rock and alternative. WesleyDodds 08:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I really don't understand why "nu metal" is on the list, I thought it was removed a long time ago. User:192.168.0.146 18:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Consistency
When making changes to Template:heavymetal, please make the appropriate parallel changes to Template:heavymetalfooter, in order to maintain consistency. --AaronS 17:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Apologies given, as i was unaware that was to be done. Ill do so from now. Leyasu 17:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks! --AaronS 17:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Metal came from rock, true. Metal is the same as rock, untrue. They both follow different compositional patterns. Grunge, also, doesnt have any metal in it itself, and i have seen as to NO EXPLANATION as to HOW they do. When someone can go, yeah here is a bunch of ways in which Grunge is Metal and how it combines X genre and X genre, then it belongs in the template, let alone Fusion Genres. Leyasu 11:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I have never heard of metal being classified as a completely separate genre from rock music in the way blues, folk, jazz, etc. are. Metal is a form of rock music.  It's classified as such in AMG, among other places.  It's still readily recognizable as rock music.


 * And a fusion genre is any combination of two distinct styles. grunge is a fusion of punk and heavy metal.  This is well-established.  Hell, Alice In Cchains was  regarded as a metal band until 1992, and the Zeppelin/Sabbath influence on Soundgarden, the Melvins, and even Nirvana is readily apparent.  WesleyDodds 01:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Synth Pop band Seabound influence Labores Somnium. Are Labores Somnium Synth Pop? No. Therion is influenced by Egyptian Music. Is Therion Egyptian Music? No. Influences of certain bands doesnt make the whole genre metal. It means some earlier bands took influence from Heavy Metal. Notice i said 'some'. Do a worldwide search. Grunge is part of the Alternative Rock scene. As is Indie Rock and Shoegaze and all that other rock stuff. Notice how i said ROCK!. Metal, also, comes from Rock. Notice how i said it comes from. One genre of metal that is, the rest have little to nothing to do with rock music. Also, compositionally, they are extremely different bar they use the same instruments. Amg and 'a few other places' doesnt define fact, it defines the same misconception a child who trys to claim rock bands are metal makes. Fact: Grunge is not Metal. Fact: Some bands in a genre being influenced by another doesnt make that genre a fusion. Fact: Origins doesnt make a genre part of itself. Leyasu 03:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I never said grunge was metal, rather that is a fusion of metal and punk/alternative. Hence why it should be included in the fusion section.  I can understand the point you are trying to make, in that the focus should be on styles that are directly under the umbrella of heavy metal, but the fact remains that heavy metal is a genre of rock music.  It is NOT a completely separate form of music.  It is a genre of rock music that developed in the late sixites as a heavier outgrowth of British blues rock, and nothing in the last thirty-fvie years or so has convinced me that it should be regarded as its own form of music the same way jazz, country, fol, or any other genre umbrella is.  What makes it completely separate?  Zeppelin, Sabbath, Van Halen, Megadeth, Pantera, and countless metal bands contain the conventions that define rock music.  If metal is a completely separate genre, then so should post-punk, early industrial, Krautrock, and tons of other rock styles that are divorced from conventional rock n roll.  I'd certainly rely more on AMG's assetion that heavy metal is a form of rock music than  a strong insistence that metal is not rock and vice versa.  Hey, I'll get out some books on the history of rock music form my library if I need to in order to back up my point that metal is rock music.  WesleyDodds 07:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Early Heavy Metal/Thrash Metal, yes, does contain some rock influence. However, musical composition of the music is completely devoid of rock music. Black Metal, Death Metal, Power Metal, explain how these have ANYTHING to do with Rock music. Explain how they are MUSICALLY anything to do with rock music. Origins, do not denote what a form of music is. Metal, all around the world, is seen as different form of music. Yes, its similar to rock music, note i said 'Similiar'. Much in the way IDM and Hip Hop are considered similar. However, they are not the same. Get some books out from your local library, go do it, i emplore you to. AMG's POV doesnt = fact. Hey if you want, ill go get you several computer websites and archival sites that say Rock and Metal are different forms of music, though their fan base tends to overlap quite a lot for earlier bands. Grunge, not a genre of metal. Metal, not a genre of rock. Hence, why Metal has its own Template. Hence, why genres are called Metal, not Rock. Hence, why the two scenes are completely disassociated. Again, early Heavy Metal/Thrash Metal that uses influence of Rock music, and early Gurnge that uses influence of Heavy Metal, doesnt make all Metal, Rock Music, and doesnt make all Grunge, Metal based. Leyasu 17:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Now why would references to Wikipedia pages be less POV than Allmusic.com? If you notice there was an argument at the top of this very template about whether or not it was necessary.  Additonally, Templates have been created for Punk and Alternative.  Just because it has a template doesn't mean it isn't the same as rock.  AMG can't be edited willy-nilly by just anyone like Wikipedia can, and they have extensive genre descriptions and essays detailing the development of various musical forms around the world.


 * Easy answer. Wikipedia has a NPOV policy. AMG is maintained by a group of people who do original research into things, and often make mistakes that they refuse to correct. Also, Yes, metal originiated from rock. But again, just because something originated in one place, doesnt mean it is that. For instance, the genre Gothic Metal originated from a form of Doom Metal. Ironically, Gothic Metal is not Doom Metal. Some bands do use Rock influence, most notably older bands. That doesnt mean ALL bands, and the whole scene is rock music, rock based, or rock influenced.


 * Power metal? I'm familiar with bands form Helloween to Nightwish, and they still have the conventions of rock 'n roll, ranging from the emphasis on guitar riffs and a rock rhythm section to the distortion and song structure to the scales (albeit with heavy classical influence and in more recent music, synths).  Nothing too far from 80's metal really, which is certainly rock music.  Recommend me some death and black metal bands (NOT the most unconventionl) and I'll check them out and get back to you on them.  And once again, what do post-punk, Krautrock, and industrial really have to do with conventional rock music either?  Yet they still are classified as such.


 * Now explain to me how all Power Metal has conventions from Rock N Roll, and musically, what they are. I fail to see how bands such as Sonata Arctica and Orphaned Land are Rock n Roll. 80's Metal? Ok so now explain to me how Megadeath, Kreator, and such are Rock Music. And if you want black/death, simple, look on the Wikipedia Articles for them, duh. And at the end of the day, Industrial Rock, Post Punk and Kraut Rock all share traits that are Majorly Defining as Rock Music. I fail to see how Metal does that. Oh wait, your argument, as it comes across, is they have the same instruments. Coz thats the only similarity, in the music, compositionally, sound, and play style, that im seeing.


 * And for the last time, I never said Grunge was a metal genre. I said it was a FUSION of metal and punk.  Hence the listing in fusion genres.  It should also be there to illustrate to people the connections and relationships between various forms of music.  This is my original point of contention, and really, it's all that matters (while I have beomce caught up in the argument over the classification of metal as a whole, I completely forgot about what I wanted to change in the first place).  WesleyDodds 04:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah Grunge in the fusion genres section would be great. However, earlier bands were influenced by some 80's Heavy/Hair metal bands. Thats all well and good. Notice how the majority, isnt? Notice how, just because 'some' bands take influence from something, doesnt make the genre automatically a fusion of that. Yes, having it there in the template for purposes of musical links would be good. But its not a fusion of anything to do with metal, the article itself of grunge says that, it also says it got its first influence from 90's Heavy Metal. Well Heavy Metal doesnt define every form of metal, either. It sounds to me more like you know very little about the worldwide metal scene, or the Grunge one, to be honest. And in the end, it comes across like you want Grunge on here, so it gets more advertisment, regardless of the fact it doesnt warrent a place on here. If it does get on the template, then it should really be in a section such as, per say, 'Metal Influenced Genres', listing ones such as Grunge, and any other genres influenced by metal. That serves to seperate, be more accurate, AND, show that metal influences genres outside of its own types, and what its fused with. Leyasu 06:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

More general template
I make the template more general, to allow the inclusion in the Metal Music page. See if it works well or not to you. Olpus


 * I concour. See the Metal Music talk page for my views and reasons on this issue. Leyasu 22:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This edit of the template pretty much ignores some important things, mainly that the Metal music page is disputed and that the Heavy metal music page actually covers metal genres and history as a whole. So I'd advise changing it back, at least until the debate concerning Metal music has been solved.  WesleyDodds 10:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Mainstream Popularity
Looks like around 90% of the genres have this sentence as their mainstream popularity description.

"Extensively followed by dedicated fans throughout the world."

This is pointless. If it's impossible to differentiate the popularity of different genres, then why bother including it in the template? I can't see any objective way of measuring a genres popularity easily, so this section should be removed. exolon 23:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That's more something to bring up to Wikipedia's template guidelines rather than this particular template WesleyDodds 06:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Speed Metal
I debate this being here. The List of heavy metal genres and the article both says its a cross-genre reference. Are we really going to be listing every little metal redirect and umbrella term on the template? Ley Shade 17:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * speed metal is a term that has been used for as long as I have been listening to metal, which is more than 15 yrs, so I guess it deserves a spot right there. Most notable soem 15 yrs ago bands like megadeth, metallica, helloween, etc were called speed metal. Anyway, many of these (pseudo)subgenres listed in the template are half-arsed... groove metal? rapcore? NSBM? thrashcore? In general there are too many pseudo subgenres on wp that can be removed anyway, being minor changes to other genres. Then again speed metal isn't one of themSpearhead 18:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

So in essence, shouldnt we get on the tale of clearing it up? Ley Shade 18:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have been trying to clean up wp before of all kinds of ridiculous non-existent subgenres, through merging, deleting, redirecting, etc, but to no avail. Lots of stuff I did has been undone I think... cause some ppl seem to think that " o it might exist perhaps, so maybe better leave it" so effectively I gave up on that Spearhead 18:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Well im happy to work with yew. Ill note this down. Also mind coming and killing the revert war on Moi Dix Mois and Gothic Metal. Some user is having a massive fit and vandalising the articles because she 'shock horror', is too Goth to like Gothic Metal. *Rolls eyes*. Oh, and im killing the non-existant genres each day, so any and all help is welcome in my book. Ley Shade 19:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * if he's vandalising a ban is appropriate. Anyway... Noise Metal has been bothering me quite a lot, since there is only one band actaully that plays it and sounds quite a lot like metallica and sounds mosly like it is a second articla about mastodon. Spearhead 19:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Its now got an Afd, so vote on it. =^-^=. 19:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

stoner metal
Regarding stoner metal please try to discuss it here whether this is a legitimate metal subgenre. I would propose to rename the article to stoner rock and link stoner metal there instead of the other way around it is now. For what the template concerns, it should be consistent with List of heavy metal genres. So all genres from the Heavy metal subgenres should be listed in the template. Spearhead 16:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Stoner Metal is a neologism that certain fans use to try to force Doom Metal, Stoner Rock, Black Metal and Punk Rock bands together, that have no connections to each other outside of being in the supposed 'stoners' cd collection. Thus it isnt a genre, its Coining A Term in violation of WP:NOT and is a prime example of what me and you are trying to get rid of. Ley Shade 17:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * the article says different "Stoner music, stoner metal and stoner rock are interchangeable terms" hence I would rather propose to swap the article with the redirect. Spearhead 17:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Go for it then. But if yew noticed, that list is ironically bands from the Doom Metal, Stoner Rock, Black Metal and Punk Rock scenes all mish mashed together, for the above reason. Ley Shade 18:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't quite see what the issue is here. This is Wikipedia, not the "pure metal or die" weblog. If people don't want to know anything about stoner metal, they don't have to click on the link. But don't tell us that "Stoner metal" is a made-up genre. The debate about stoner rock / metal will rumble on ad infinitum, as I fear this might, but the mish-mash argument is not grounds for dismissing all this. Agreed, some bands on there also fit other categories (like Cathedral, Electric Wizard are doom) but compromise is the name of the game here. I am happy to allow others to edit the list, as long as the bands are notable enough to have their own WP page, and are identified as stoner metal or rock on their page.
 * Let's talk about neologisms. "oriental metal" gets 21,600 hits on google. "stoner metal" gets 373,000. . Yes, it's a new term compared to Heavy Metal but if you want to see neologisms, try AfD. See how many of them get 350,000+ hits.
 * Wikipedia operates on the principles of verifiability, neutrality, good faith and strives to inform. I'm not going to get into an edit war here because someone sees the Heavy Metal template as "their patch" and doesn't personally have the hots for Stoner Metal as a genre, there's more to life. But it goes against the spirit of Wikipedia not to include it. If, by its inclusion we get a better consensus on what / who constitutes Stoner metal then great. This is not a debate anyone has anything to be afraid of. Phrases like "this is what you and me are trying to get rid of" seem to imply that you feel you have been appointed as the keepers of "heavy metal" on Wikipedia. It would do you great credit to be a bit more inclusive.  Dei zio  20:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is that WP is full of bogus genres. For many of these, their verifiability is questionable and their notabilty is even worse. Hence I have been cleaning WP of these bogus genres. Stoner metal is according to its page a synonym of stoner rock. Generally I think stoner rock seems a more appropriate term and hence I have switched the articles. This however implies that the article better be unlinked from heavy metal genre boxen and similar. Spearhead 21:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Stoner rock and stoner metal really are interchangeable terms, but it's a metal subgenre nonetheless. It certainly exists, and it certainly belongs in the template (although I always wondered why it was listed in the fusion genres section). WesleyDodds 23:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * First off, over half the band list is Rock bands, with no musical synergys. The other half are varying forms of metal bands, with no musical synergys. The only thing that the article does, is glorify the usage of cannabis, and rant on about how fans use cannabis. If i wanted to know about the use of cannabis, is read it on the cannabis article. The article, paraphrased, looks something like this:::


 * Stoner metal is any bands in the cd collection of someone smoking cannabis


 * Thats it, thats the whole article. Not very informative, is it. Ley Shade 09:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Judging from your talk page I probably like plenty of bands that you do and I don't think of them as stoner. I, and many others, can see self evident similarities in the sound and attitude of these bands which make them mutally classifiable, even if you don't. One paragraph of the article mentions marijuana, and says that it would be grossly inaccuate to define all bands in and fans of this genre as marijuana users. In any case, we are going for consensus and your opinion is welcome, I encourage others to give theirs.  Dei zio  11:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you mean "similarities", "synergy" (pl.:"synergies") means that a combination of things actively interact to become greater than the sum of their parts . Hence the members of one band can have "synergy" but a collection of separate bands cannot, unless playing at the same festival on the same day perhaps. But seriously, nobody is claiming Bob Marley is stoner metal. It doesn't help to slag off the Stoner metal article either, nobody is picking up on your output here or elsewhere on WP - lest we forget, this is the template talk:heavymetal page, a broader debate on this should be on a more general page. There are so many confusing mixes of genres, sub-genres, styles and labels throughout the heavy metal space that your crusade to sort things out is a bit out of focus. A lot of other articles in the section would benefit from the research, writing and presentation evident in the Stoner rock / metal page. You also mention putting together things which overlap to stop people having to visit lots of different pages to find information. Ta-da! That's exactly why Stoner rock / metal are combined on one page.


 * So its an article on Stoner Rock, not Stoner Metal, which means it belongs on the Rock template, not the Metal template. Ley Shade 16:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It's the same thing, and it should be on both templates. WesleyDodds 07:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hardly. Rock is not Metal, as Metal is not Rock. Last i checked, the article was moved so that Stoner Metal redirects to Stoner Rock. Also, its not the 'samer thing' when less than half of the bands are metal bands. Ley Shade 09:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I could argue that metal is a form of rock, which would invalidate your argument. But really, the names "stoner rock" and "Stoner metal" are interchangeable because these bands draw primarily from early metal bands like Zeppelin and Sabbath.  WesleyDodds 05:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That's just going to get you nibbled... Ley Shade's problem with Stoner metal seems to stem from a belief that there is no such thing as a "stoner metal" band, all the bands in the genre are something else and happen to be listened to by marijuana users. I don't agree either, but that seems to be the crux of this little debate. The metal vs. rock argument is a little easier to hear, but is inherently subjective. If you aren't a 6-piece symphonic metal band featuring a female singer decked out in gothgear and black liquid eyeliner with a bunch of very beautiful / squat and ugly guys standing behind then you might just not be metal enough :)  Dei zio  05:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Adding a genre
Why is Nu-Metal added in the template ? The result in the poll was delete. Yet it is there. And Classic metal is not added. I guess, people have a knack of being biased against older guys. We must understand that it is because of them that metal is popular. Anyway. I will add Classic metal to the template. You can comment here. Bye for now.

-- N R S(talk to me, mail me   or award me a barnstar) 13:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hipster metal
This doesn't most likely belong to Wikipedia at all and most certainly not in this template. Here's why:
 * 1060 Google hits altogether (vs. 200,000 - 10,000,000 that the other genres in the template get).
 * "hipster metal" tag has been used 2 (!) times on Last.fm
 * All the bands mentioned in the hipster metal article are hard rock, post-rock, heavy metal etc. Not "hipster metal".
 * What makes it a subgenre of heavy metal music? "hipster rock" gets 10 times more Google hits.
 * No big online metal medias use the term (Encyclopaedia Metallum etc...).

Prolog 17:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The movement is mentioned and covered in Revolver magazine, Kerrang!, Classic Rock and Guitar World. (As shown in its article) Not all subgenres of heavy metal are covered by the website you mentioned, it seems to lean heavily in the extreme metal direction (tedious, considering extreme metal's relation to the original movement is very distant). The site doesn't even include Blue Cheer one of the bands who INVENTED heavy metal, thus it is not a very reliable or complete source.


 * Personally I do think the movement known as "hipster metal" is just a continuation of the original 1970s heavy metal movement, thought prominent music media have labeled it as a new subegenre calling it "hipster metal" or "meta-metal" in the mediums I mentioned earlier. The genre is very recent, which could explain fewer results than subgenres that have been around for 25+ years. Though it is certainly notable with bands having both Billboard, UK, Canadian and Australlian chart appearences. As well as appearences on some of the most famous music festivals; Lollapalooza, Download Festival, Lowlands and the Reading and Leeds Festivals, etc.


 * What makes it a subgenre of metal?... the bands who are part of it all take influence from the original heavy metal bands; Black Sabbath, Blue Cheer, Deep Purple, Led Zeppelin, etc... what makes Black Metal a direct subgenre of heavy metal, rather than one of Thrash?


 * Through influence this is the line-age of the genres...


 * Heavy Metal -> Hipster Metal
 * Heavy Metal -> NWOBHM -> Thrash Metal -> Black Metal


 * Comparatively, Hipster metal is a far more closely related subgenre, has had more notable success (in terms of chartings) and thus more worthy of an inclusion in the genre box of an article on heavy metal. - Deathrocker 18:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the main point is that either these bands already fit fine into existing Metal genres or aren't Metal. Sure it's happening, but it's the media trying to push it, rather than the music. Though if the bands themselves are calling themselves part of this Hipster Metal scene, the point is mute. Also the wave of new bands playing or reforming to play Trad. Metal is already something that has happend. Such as the True Metal America tour, different bands, different scene. Dace59 19:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "Prominent music medias" also use the term "funk metal" but that doesn't mean that the genre is widely accepted A. as a genre and B. as a subgenre of heavy metal. As Dace59 mentioned above, the bands on the hipster metal article are all part of more widely-known subgenres of metal and (mainly) rock. If this "hipster metal" is just a new movement, a so-called "revival" of an existing genre back to the mainstream, it doesn't sound like a genre itself.


 * I see you are not fond of Encyclopaedia Metallum as a source and I have no problem with that, but your edit on the article breaks WP:NPOV. It's also a factual inaccuracy to claim that the website only aims to list extreme metal bands, as there are numerous power/speed/progressive/neo-classical/industrial metal, metalcore and even hard/gothic rock bands in the database. Prolog 20:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Rock is not a subgenre of heavy metal; heavy metal is a subgenre of hard rock. Wolfmother and Roadstar (bands associated with this genre via the press) play music akin to heavy metal acts such as; Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath and Blue Cheer, NOT Chuck Berry.


 * As I've said; personally I agree that it is a continuation of heavy metal of the 1970s. But due to the difference in times of the movements (one been from the 2000s and one been from the 1970s) the media has given it a new name, I can't change that... I'm not gonna call up Revolver magazine and say "Hi, would you mind just calling these bands a continuation of heavy metal instead of hipster metal? thanks.", but it would be POV just to exclude these bands.... and as for Encyclopaedia Metallum; the majority of the bands covered are of the extreme metal genre, very little are acutually heavy metal, though they do seem to include Deep Purple and Black Sabbath. - Deathrocker 20:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * On the Encyclopaedia Metallum, yeah there are more bedroom Extreme Metal projects that put out a demo cd, but nearly 7000 Trad. Metal bands is no small number. I think the name sucks, but ok you can't change what the media call it (be it wrong or not) and there's no hard and fast rule for naming a genre of music, if enough people play the style and use the name, it fits I guess. But still, bands like Wolfmother are just Rock bands, with slight indie overtones. In my review, the revival of Classic Metal is more linked to bands like Overlorde, Attack, Twisted Tower Dire, Halloween (the screw all these generic and crappy Extrem Metal bands, let's play some real classic Metal attitude) etc, etc. But that's my view and not the wiki one, but there's no need to cram bands into this genre. EDIT: It seems to be noteworthy and well covered, but still looks like a media thing rather than a genre, but if it has critical mass for wiki inclusion, it has to be in, but maybe not as whole new genre. Dace59 21:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I too agree that the movement seems notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, and will likely get bigger by time. But it still isn't a genre (and definitely not a main genre of heavy metal) as it doesn't have a distinctive sound and mainly includes bands that are already suited to their proper genres, which seem to vary from post-rock and post-metal to hard rock and traditional heavy metal. It's not very encyclopedic to buy into every "new genre" that is mentioned on a few rock magazines, as the main goal of these magazines is to sell their issues and not to provide reliable and verified information. Prolog 10:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=es&q=%22Hipster+metal%22&btnG=B%C3%BAsqueda&meta= There is my explanation. Don't try to invent new subgenres, as "Belic Forest Metal" or "Blood Metal" or "Your mamy metal". I have never heard the term, and the bands you named are situated in their respective subgenres.--Neo139 03:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The genre is equally as worthless as "Neo-metal," "New wave of American heavy metal," "New metal," and etc. Furthermore, if those genres cannot exist, this one should be deleted on the double. Not something clearly defined or accepted. --Ryouga 22:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The article has now been renamed "Retro metal", and passes WP:V as it is cited with sources from Rolling Stone magazine and MTV, thus it is now added. - Deathrocker 14:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Both references are trivial mentions of the term, and this template should contain well-documented and notable music genres, not promote related neologisms and protologisms. Prolog 19:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Rap metal
What's wrong with you people? Just because you don't consider rap metal legitimate metal, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be listed! WHY ISN'T RAP METAL METAL? Lemmie guess, "z0mg i ha4t3 d4t l1mp b1zk1t dAy n0000t m3t7al!!!!!!!!!111111111111111111111111oneoneoneoneeleventy" &mdash; Phantasy Phanatik | talk | contribs 18:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, first off, you're actually linking to rapcore. It's not quite the same thing. As other editors have pointed out, nu metal already covers rap-metal sufficiently for the purposes of the infobox. Additionally, please calm down, you're not helping your point by adding it back constantly and making insulting comments to other editors.  WesleyDodds 23:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Still, I added it anyway. Thundermaster367 08:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Avant-garde metal
I think there should be a new section: Avant-garde metal.


 * That sounds like something Leyasu would say? 156.34.142.158 20:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Christian metal
Christian metal was removed with an edit summary indicating that it is not a genre because it is defined by lyrics rather than style. I've reverted because plenty of "genres" are defined by lyrical focus (gangsta rap, for example). Tuf-Kat 03:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Metal is about the music, not the lyrics. Inhumer 04:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What about black metal than? It is largely defined by its lyrics which is why a band like Venom is considered black metal.--E tac 11:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Explain to me how Christian metal is genre if band like Trouble, Mortification, or Zao sound nothing alike. Inhumer 21:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What about viking metal then? It covers a broad range of musical genres and influences, such as folk metal, thrash metal, death metal, black metal and power metal. If we include that I see zero reason not to include Christian metal.--E tac 04:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That because its not a genre either, it too is just a blanket term. Remove both. Inhumer 04:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Remove Extreme and Punk metal too. Inhumer 05:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any reason to be so strict in deciding what can constitute a "genre". Neither specialized nor general use of the English language is generally so limiting in its usage of the word "genre", and I don't think metal is particularly different in this regard. "Genres" frequently contain a wide range of bands that share only a very limited set of musical characteristics, and are often more based on image, location, time, ethnicity or race of the performer than anything even directly related to the music (and lyrics are an integral part of music, not some irrelevant footnote of musical trivia, even in metal). And this is not a recent muddying of linguistic waters - for much of the 20th century, lyrical content was the sole real distinction between "gospel" and "blues" and later, "soul". Many well-established "genres" are defined in large part by their lyrics, ranging from salsa romantica to psychedelic rock (and lyrics are of secondary importance to salsa in general). Anyway, my point is that the whole idea of a "genre" is inherently a social construction, not a taxonomic structure, so many "genres" blur together, or consist of various combinations of overlap with no consistent rule, and this is just as true for metal as it is for every other form of music in the history of the world, AFAIK. I don't see why we can't simply define "genre" for this purpose as "category used by reliable sources to describe music", as anything else would be in violation of NPOV for taking the position that "genres" can only be defined by certain criteria, a position not supported from most sources. Tuf-Kat (talk) 07:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed umbrella terms (christian, Extreme, Viking, ect.) from the template. DragonDance 20:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with someone else's revert of this change. There's clearly no consensus for it, and I don't understand why "umbrella terms" shouldn't be included here. Tuf-Kat 04:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Christian metal in itself may not be a specific genre, but certainly it could be classified as a notable scene? BreakerLOLZ (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Nu-metal
Is not a sub-genre of metal. The only thing that bands like Linkin Park and Limp Bizkit have in common with metal is the distortion, which is found in genres like grunge DragonDance 20:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're right, nu metal is not a sub-genre of heavy metal, it's a derative genre of alt. metal, but because it's a major metal genre, it's included on the template. Thundermaster Thundermaster's Talk 08:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not quite. It's derivate of alternative metal, but both those forms are still heavy metal. Subsets of subsets. WesleyDodds 09:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So it's a derative of alt. metal and a sub of heavy metal? I see. Thundermaster Thundermaster's Talk 09:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Gothenburg scene
I know that there's no article about the Gothenburg scene of melodic death metal bands (which the genre could actually be moved to The Gothenburg Scene because it lacks the style of the genre at the moment) but shouldn't there be a piped link like Gothenburg metal ? We also seem to be adding other scenes lately. − ₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪  kaiden  00:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Funk metal
Does it really deserve a place in this template? There does not even exist an article for funk metal. Instead, it redirects to a mere paragraph in funk rock. That paragraph consists of four lines. No references or citations. Just four lines. Is there any funk metal bands that do not fall under the umbrella of alternative metal? --Bardin (talk) 11:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it's been nearly a month now and I haven't gotten any response. So I guess I'll just be bold and removed it myself then. --Bardin (talk) 07:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Blues metal
Add blues metal I just made a page for it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crasherisntmydogsname (talk • contribs) 02:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Blues metal is not an actual genre of metal, and its article is now up for deletion. I feel like a tourist (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Glam Metal
Why the Hell is Glam Metal a kind of Metal? It's just a mix between Hard Rock and Glam Rock. It might have Metal influences, but symphonic metal is not classical music just because it has classical influences. Rock is about Partying, with simple and catchy songstructures. Metal has progressive structures and explores darker themes and Fantasy. Glam "Metal" - btw. i never said i didn't like Glam, it's just not Metal - is about partying, is catchy and has a simple and steady beat. So how can it be anything but a kind of Rock? And screw all those citations you find on the internet, of course they believe Whitesnake is a metal band, they've always been told so by MTV! The'yre not reliable sources! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.62.83.205 (talk) 12:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It is moved to reflect that it is a description of 'look' rather than musical style. It is a term applied to heavy metal bands because of their look. If a reviewer was to hear the music wihout seeing what the band looked like he would simply describe it as hard rock or heavy metal. It is only after the band's 'look' or fashion is introduced that the term 'glam' comes into effect. The Real Libs-speak politely 16:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Glam metal is in the infoboxes of many artists Libs. It's a subgenre, like it or not. Rockgenre (talk) 03:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Subgenres
I see that alot of genres are now on this template, and alot of them are actually just subgenres. Such as the numerous subgenres of Death Metal, I'm not saying we need to delete their pages or anything, just remove them from the template or move them around on the template. I'm open to suggestions.Mogthetormentor (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Color contrast issue
Hello. Sabrebd reverted a color contrast improvement of the Heavymetal template and Extreme metal template. The current colors (white links on a red background) do not match the guideline: Accessibility. Yours, Dodoïste (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It wasnt a straight revert, but an attempt to solve what I took to be the problem (blue (used link) on a red background) - was it a different problem?-- SabreBD  (talk)  22:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry. I'm used to this kind of contrast issues, so I began to find it natural. I should not forget that I found it quite complicated at first. :s
 * There are two issues here. The first is the blue link "show/hide" on a red background. The contrast is not sufficient. The second is the idea to change a link's color. On Wikipedia, links are blue, it is a rule. It is very important to follow that rule to keep Wikipedia user-friendly and easy to use. There are two rules on the Web that allow the users to easily notice links:
 * The links are blue and/or underlined (to have both is the best);
 * The appearance of links on a Website is consistent.
 * On Wikipedia, links are blue and underlined on a mouse-over. That rule should never change. This is also explained in Accessibility. Yours, Dodoïste (talk) 11:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, if its a guideline, its a guideline and I have no problem with that, but this does mean that almost all footer templates are going to have to be changed to light blue, which, aside from the fact that this might appear a little bland, does remove colour as a usual category for navigation. Is there any other possible technical solution to the problem that would still allow coloured templates?-- SabreBD  (talk)  14:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Before trying to find a solution to every footer template, I want to experiment the reactions of the community on a few of them. If we can find a solution that can be applied easily and without provoking a huge ruckus in the community, correcting this contrast issue will become a priority. If not, the other issues will take priority. Your sincere feedback is very important to me. :-)
 * I don't understand how the color is useful for navigation. Maybe it's only me, but I find it unclear. If I'm not mistaken, the red and white color doesn't have any related significance with heavy metal. I've been a fan of heavy metal for seven years and I'd be surprised if it were the case. Of course red feels more appropriate than light blue, but it's a felling and not a meaning. My point is that the average reader doesn't understand why it's red, thus he is not helped. Light blue would fit just as well.
 * As for navigation, I'm surprised. O.o Do you realize you are reading an article about heavy metal only after noticing the template at the very bottom of the page? Don't you read the top of the article first? Joking only. ;-) How does the colour help you to navigate?
 * As long as the contrast of the links and text are not affected, the color can be changed. I mean that is okay because there is nothing in the colored box, but  is not. Yours, Dodoïste (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Trance Metal is missing
The subgenre Trance metal is missing--188.100.29.173 (talk) 17:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Les Legiones Noires
I think it's high time we add them under the Notable Scenes. Their legacy and influence on Black Metal is profound. Groar! (talk) 03:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_L%C3%A9gions_Noires

Nintendocore
This genre doesn't even exist and on it's page it doesn't even mention metal until the end and those aren't even cited properly. It should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.98.206.253 (talk) 00:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * First, the genre definitely exists, it's even had an extensive article in The New York Times and has been discussed on NPR, in addition to coverage in many, many other reliable sources. Second, the article mentions metalcore as an origin right in the lead, and everything is cited.--3family6 (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Skuld (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

They genre may exist in the current scene (emo) trend, but has nothing to do with the history of Heavy Metal and isn't a confirmed sub-genre by the majority. You'll only find people in that particular scene use the term; never a Heavy Metal musician, musicologist, or even a metalhead whether a purist or not. Nintendocore if anything should be listed under the Post-Hardcore genre in the Punk template along with Crust (I don't know why that's in the Metal template as well). Also, the "Punk Metal" sub-genre added must have been added by some child because that's definitely not a sub-genre. Only a weak term to describe a confirmed sub-genre (by the musicians who pioneered the genre and witnessed the local scene) such as Crossover Thrash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davewhite728 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Crust Punk, Nintendocore, and Punk Metal should be deleted
Crust Punk is a sub-genre of Punk Rock that has drawn influence from Heavy Metal (particularly Black Metal) unlike Thrash Metal which is truly a sub-genre of Heavy Metal, for it is a genre defined by Heavy Metal bands drawing influence from Punk. Most importantly, Nintendocore is not a confirmed sub-genre, and instead is only a loose term coined from fans of the Post-Hardcore sub-genre that is used to describe only a handful of bands. The confirmation of the sub-genre is not noted by Heavy Metal sites or the majority of the community (Documentary, Books, or TV). If anything, the sub-genre should be deleted from the Heavy Metal template and added to Post-Hardcore page in the Punk template due to the bands being rooted in that particular sub-genre. As Nintendcore, "Punk Metal" is an even looser term only to describe noted and confirmed sub-genres such as Crossover Thrash or Metalcore that has tied Hardcore with Heavy Metal.

Davewhite728 (talk) 02:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Requests to edit need a reliable source.  Chzz  ► 03:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 December 2011
Add pages such as 'Deathcore' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deathcore) and 'Mathcore' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathcore) to the template.

Communat12 (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. I also added some other subgenres that needed to be done.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 01:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Titlestyle color
I would like to purpose a change of "Titlestyle color" (#BB0022) to something less loud. All heavy metal group "Navboxes" are this color (#B0C4DE). Which seems that would work fine but, if the Heavymetel navbox needs to be visually distinctive then I belive it needs to toned down a bit. Thoughts ? Mlpearc ( powwow ) 05:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S. The portal main page (#000000) background color would be OK, IMO. Mlpearc ( powwow ) 05:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Why is this template being included on band articles?
This should not be included on band articles. Why is it being added? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You are correct Walter... I believe it is simply a good-faith misuse of the template and the additions have been reverted. Mr Pyles (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes it was good faith. If this template is not for "music articles" then why was it created, what is it's purpose and why isn't there any documentation explaining what is it for ?  Mlpearc  ( powwow ) 14:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's for genre articles not artist and band articles. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * documentation This probably would be a good idea.  Mlpearc  ( powwow ) 15:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Be WP:BOLD and write some. I believe that this is the first time someone has done this. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't believe a user without a firm understanding of the template's purpose should be writing it's documentation page. Mlpearc  ( powwow ) 16:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

With any footer template for Wikipedia (not just music) the template is to be used only in an article which is actually linked in the template itself. See WP:NAV. Mr Pyles (talk) 18:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)