Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Metal/Archive 10

Request for comment regarding the Dio page move
See this discussion here: Talk:Dio regarding the proposed page move for the Dio article to Dio (band). Wether B (talk) 02:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

AfDs on Black Sabbath songs
"Killing Yourself to Live", "After Forever" and "Solitude" are currently discussed for deletion. Does anybody have secondary literature on the topic to expand (and possibly rescue) the articles? Also, which notable bands did cover those songs? -- Avant-garde a clue - hexa Chord 2  00:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Biohard covered "After Forever," but that is already mentioned, they also produced a video of the song. Someone once shot himself, blowing off his lower jaw, and blamed "Killing Yourself to Live". It was documented on 20/20 or some similar new-type show, if someone has more information on that it may make the song more notible. I also believe it was the first Sabbath song to use a synthesizer, I'll try to look that up. Not much on "Solitude" that I can think of, probably doesn't need its own page. -J04n (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the  parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:13, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Totimoshi
Hi WP:METAL! The article Totimoshi was recently created and speedily deleted by an administrator. I believed that it was notable and took the liberty of restoring it with additional text and sources, which I believe establish notability. However, the article is still in very bad shape. As I have little knowledge of the subject, I believe that your WikiProject can be of great assistance here! Thanks, Ynhockey (Talk) 00:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The Never Ending Way of ORwarriOR
On that page, there is a section that disturbs me to the point that I am writing this on the Wikiproject Metal discossion page. I typed something like this on its talk page, but I haven't received any responses, and that was after a few days. I would usually delete sources to forums, but there is a lot of information from the forum and the forum is the officiall forum of the Orphaned Land website. I the situation has gonesomewhat out of hand; there is not an editing dispute or anything, but there has been information added every several days and the whole section is unencyclopedic. I'm bringing this up on this site because I want someone who is more experienced in cases like this to do what would be appropriate and request what I should do if there is a similar event elsewhere. Thank you. B T C 21:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem has been officially fixed. B T C 22:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Graph of Heavy metal genealogy
Hi all, I created and uploaded a graph depicting Heavy metal genealogy. I got the idea, after I saw this file, showing genealogy of Cuban music. I was trying to understand the relationship between numerous heavy metal genres. It was difficult when there are so many of them. But after I created this I understood systematic evolution of Metal. Now there is no need for me to read thorough all the article and spend a lot of time to comprehend Metal. I dearly hope that would be the case for most of the readers too. After all one picture is worth 1000 words, right?

About Picture: I simply created this using Word 2007. For the simplicity I intentionally left out fusion genre. Notably, Alternative metal, Nu metal and Sludge. I hope to create a separate graph for fusion genre too. I would like you to comment on accuracy of the picture. If there are someone with greater graphical ability, I'd love you to go ahead and create a better picture. I prefer if we can reduced the number of arrows, if it is correct. For example, Speed metal and Thrash metal have same parents. would not it better if there is only the arrow from Speed to Thrash, providing if it is the correct case. Node of NWOBHM left white to indicate that it is a movement rather than a genre. Love to hear comments from you. Cheers!--Chanaka L (talk) 04:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The picture is really nice. It is definitely something that is interesting to read. A lot of the chart is pretty accurate and organized. However, I have a few things I want to point out about the chart.


 * Look at the part where it says this:


 * progressive rock




 * progressive metal


 * I would like to see some more parent genres of progressive rock; otherwise, it is suggestiong that progressive rock and progressive metal are one of the same, which is not the case. I would like seen another parent genre to progressive metal, probably being the heavy metal tab. There is a similar


 * I wouldn't want to have the avant-garde metal tab to be isolated as it currently is for much longer. I would suggest adding a red tab being parent to the avant-garde metal tab, such as one that says something along the lines of "avant-garde music". THe other parent category could, yet again, be the heavy metal tab.


 * I would have folk metal being mentioned on that chart. It isn't mentioned on there, but here is a possible solution to that. Folk metal was created out of inspiration from heavy metal and folk music, so the appropriate parent categories would probably be those two, with a red tab for folk music. Matter of fact, maybe thrash metal can be a parent tab of folk metal, since folk metal pioneers Skyclad is a band with thrash metal leanings. Black metal is another possible suggestion for a parent tab of folk metal, since another pioneer of folk metal, Bathory, was originally a black metal band, but later evolved into folk metal. Those last two suggesstions are just thoughts, though. Viking metal is a genre with influence from both black metal and folk metal, and folk metal would be another suitable parent tab to Viking metal.


 * That is my input on your picture. I wish you nothing except good fortune with this picture of yours, for it is definitely something that is great and can be very useful. Long live metal music!


 * B T C 05:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Backtable, for your comments. They are really encouraging.

Colours I used are taken from articles infobox. For ex. Hip Hop would have Blue node. Based on these I'll redraw the graph tonight(SL time) and post it tomorrow. Until then, so long!--Chanaka L (talk) 07:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Progressive metal: This is easily solvable. I was struggling to draw a long arrow from Heavy metal to Prog. Thats why that arrow is missing. I intent create a graph for Rock too. Then we can show ancestries of Prog Rock there. I intended this to focus only on Metal. Thats why.
 * 2) Avant-garde metal: You are right. I should've mention Avant-garde metal's non metal parent. Though on its article it says it have various forms of metal. I thought therefore it would be inappropriate to connect just one node.
 * 3) Folk metal: As I mentioned above I am planning to create a another graph for fusion genres too. We can have Folk metal there. List of fusion genres I like to include there is given below.
 * Drone metal
 * Folk metal
 * Industrial metal
 * Metalcore
 * Nu metal
 * Sludge metal
 * Alternative metal
 * Christian metal
 * Rap metal
 * Funk metal
 * Grindcore
 * Neo-classical metal
 * Post-metal

Looks cool, fraid I find all the sub genere names too confusing though in general. Me, I just like to rock, variations in style come as they may! Dr. Blofeld White cat 11:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool. The whole thing is cool. But it lacks several things. As mentioned above there are many fusion genres and also many genres such as avant-garde/experimental metal and folk metal with further non-metal influences such as avant-garde/experimental music or folk/world music. some metal genres also need to bee added (pretty much of the list by Chanaka L). I would also add technical death metal which comes from prog and death; and brutal death metal (subgenre of death). Good idea in general. cheers.--  LYKANTROP   ✉  12:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the whole issue with avant-garde metal is that it's influenced by virtually every other style of metal and many outside sources at the same time- avant-garde music in general is so difficult to define that it's hard to see its place in a graph like this. Two metal bands may fall under the "avant-garde" description but sound completely differt and have two separate sets of influences. Also worth mentioning- possible influence of power metal on viking metal? Quorthon himself mentioned in influence Manowar had on his Viking-era work. Just a thought. It's hard to be both accurate and concise with these things, but I appreciate the work you put into it. Very good so far! Thee darcy (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * PS. I think it was very wise of you to leave out fusion genres- what a mess we'd have if we included stuff like black/death metal, prog/power, and so on. Sorry Behemoth, Symphony X et al. Thee darcy (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Uploaded new graphs. Thanks guys for the comments. I tried to comply with all of the comments. I hope I put a decent effort to make the graphs as accurate as possible. In the fusions graph I covered all main genres. If anything there to be change in fusions graph please mention here. If you think they are ready for the mainspace, add them to articles. Cheers!--Chanaka L (talk) 10:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not want to rain on your parade or see your efforts go to waste but how does this not contravene wikipedia's policy of no original research? There are no sources inside these graphs. Most of the articles on these heavy metal subgenres are poor in quality and similarly lack sources, particularly on the question of the genre's origins. Just because something is inside an infobox, it does not follow that it has been verified with reliable sources. There is no support whatsoever in the avant-garde metal article for the assertion that its origins include experimental rock. There is no support whatsoever in the symphonic metal article for the assertion that its origins include symphonic rock - it could very well just be symphonic music in general or classical music instead. One could make an argument that avant-garde metal is an outgrowth of extreme metal (Celtic Frost, Master's Hammer, Ulver, etc.) rather than heavy metal. Why is glam metal not linked to any other heavy metal subgenre? Is that supposed to imply that it's not really metal? I think the connection between Poison and Led Zeppelin is a lot more obvious than the connection between Ulver and Led Zeppelin. There is no support for rap metal being an origin for funk metal: they both emerged at the same time, it could very well be the other way around for all we know. Why is there no link from alternative metal to funk metal or rap metal when the allmusic article on the genre groups them all under the same umbrella? Why is there no link from speed metal to power metal? Etc. etc. I'm not expecting any answers to these questions. They are more rhetorical than anything. I'm just pointing out that there will always be room for people to make objections to this or that - unless we can say that everything inside the graphs is supported by sources, something that I do not believe is the case at present. I think the graphs would only be useful if all those heavy metal subgenre articles are improved beforehand with reliable sources on their origins. Or at the very least, just the one article on heavy metal subgenres itself. --Bardin (talk) 14:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for make aware of the original research issue. I thought it before I was creating the graphs. Actually I read the allmusic articles before creating them. But I'd agree with you, some of subgenres are poorly cited. I need to read thoroughly to check what are the uncited. Hope to write a detailed answer later. Cheers!--Chanaka L (talk) 01:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi again, it is my responsible answer fair criticisms. I found out most of the origins of styles mentioned in the article space is can be cited from allmusic. But I found some considerable deviation for power metal and industrial metal.


 * heavy metal-blues-rock, psychedelia
 * thrash-speed metal,nwobhm,hardcore punk
 * death/black-thrash
 * pop metal (glam metal)-glam rock related to bubblegum, punk
 * speed metal-nwobhm,hardcorepunk
 * progressive metal-heavy metal, progressive rock
 * (mid 90s)power metal-nwobhm,hardcorepunk, thrash
 * (90s)stoner metal-heavy metal
 * (mid 80s)doom metal-heavy metal
 * gothic metal-gothic rock,death rock
 * alternative metal-heavy metal
 * folk metal-heavy metal
 * sludge metal- realted to doom, stoner
 * industrial metal-not clear
 * neo-classical metal-classical music

I would say this is not a original research, can be verifiable. In specific individual cases it is debatable. Editors can use above citations to source articles.

Found out some answers to some of the questions on my way of research.
 * 1) glam metal: It can be connected to heavy metal. but because it is pop oriented other influences minimal.
 * 2) Rap metal is an origin of funk metal: Allmusic categorise funk metal "related" to rap metal, not an origin. In the infobox though it says it is an origin. But in the graph it is alright, Since all the arcs not indicating origins, but an influence (peer-to-peer) relationship.
 * 3) alt-funk-rap:Funny enough alternative metal's article, it not listed its relationship with rap and funk.
 * 4) speed metal-power metal: I could not found anything to say there are between these two.

My resolution: Graphs are fairly alright. some of the disputed origins can be readily discussed and be fixed while some tough cases need further citations. some articles need to be sourced too. Hope I can find help. Cheers!--Chanaka L (talk) 05:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the new graph, I'd say that first thing you need to do is to keep the timeline chronology from top to the bottom as you did in the first one, which was actually better arranged. It makes the whole thing transparent, otherwise it is really chaotic. You could put a timeline on the left: put there a line of boxes with "1960s", "70s", "80s", "90s", "2000s" etc. and keep the genres next to the time period of their origin :) --  LYKANTROP   ✉  13:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * New file uploaded with changes proposed Lykantrop. I thought it would be wise to first focus on genealogy graph only. Because it is the one can be easily cited. Main changes are,

It will be better to get into the fusions genres once after we have better citations in the articles. I'm pretty confident about the new version of the picture. Cheers!--Chanaka L (talk) 12:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Added a timeline. Now it can be read in chronological order.
 * 2) Hard rock's ancestries removed.
 * 3) Power metal's origin showed according to citation of allmusic.
 * 4) Glam metal now high in graph according to time it originated.

Question what is the purpose of this discussion over a graphic that will never be used in an any Wikipedia article about heavy metal??? Talk pages are supposed to be for discussing the article. This little amateur looking graphic is all fine and good on some teen chat page. But, in the end, it is a pov pic. Perhaps efforts could be put into improving articles rather than attempting to create something will will never be used here. The Real Libs-speak politely 13:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * And why will it never be used in any Wikipedia article? Richard BB 14:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bardin and Wiki libs. None of the variations of the picture shown on this this talk page have any sort of visual quality. Also they just represent the personal opinions of the few who have bothered to add commentary on the subject and do not support the cited text of the article itself. It would be an awkward eyesore to the heavy metal page and shouldn't be to a featured article. Wether B (talk) 02:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Best of luck for every one.--Chanaka L (talk) 05:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Talk pages are supposed discussing the articles: Check this discussion on an infobox and pictures that used there in my native project.
 * 2) Colours: I needed a fourth colour to distinguish arcs from nodes. But tested with black arcs in white background. Seems alright and I like to change that bit.
 * 3) Content: Citations are given above from the allmusic for each individual subgenre. second version of File:Genealogy of Heavy metal.PNG based on these citations. It's a my mistake to not to mention it in the graph. this file features in Genealogy of musical genres for 3 years and 10 months now and in Jazz drumming little over a year without a question.


 * Popular music genres like heavy metal, goth or punk tend to attract a lot of genre warriors, i.e. people who spent a lot of time arguing over whether this band or that band belongs in this or that genre, whether one genre is related to another genre, etc. A lot of flame wars on music related forums and a lot of edit wars here on wikipedia are caused by these genre warriors. On the other hand, there are not many genre warriors around for something like Cuban music. I'm not familiar with the subject so I took a look around and it was not long before I came across a problem. There is an absence of any mention whatsoever of guaracha in the article for mambo. There is also an absence of any mention whatsoever of mambo in the article for guaracha. Yet the graph presents a link between one to another. Original research? I have no idea.
 * Introducing a chronology presents even more problems with your graph. How does doom metal and avant-garde metal predate thrash, death and black metal? Venom released their first album in 1981 so some genre warriors will argue that black metal predates even thrash metal. Your graph still feature a link between experimental rock and avant-garde metal. The two bands cited in the wikipedia article as the first avant-garde metal bands are Celtic Frost and Master's Hammer. What connection did either band have with experimental rock?
 * You say you're using allmusic as your reference but there's no allmusic article for avant-garde metal, viking metal, symphonic metal, groove metal or death/doom, all of which are on your main graph. They do have articles for British metal, Scandinavian metal, symphonic black metal or punk metal, none of which are on either of your two graphs. They have separate articles for hair metal and pop metal but you only have one box for glam metal, which for some reason you pinpoint to the early-mid 1970s. Where is the verification for that? Certainly not on wikipedia or allmusic.
 * I'm going to stop now because I do not want you to think that I'm trying to rip your graph to shreds. I do think that a genealogy chart would be a nice addition to the heavy metal subgenres article if that article gets a complete overhaul, rewritten as a proper article rather than a padded list, get verified with citations to reliable sources throughout, etc. Then I could see a use for a genealogy chart like this to act as a graphic summary of the article's verified content. Right now, your graph is not a summary of anything other than the opinions of yourself and a few other editors who have made suggestions above. That is original research. --Bardin (talk) 11:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah. A graph is worth doing only if there is already a reliable graph published somewhere.--  LYKANTROP   ✉  13:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As previously noted by several editors. This is an original research graph and should not be used on Wiki. Fair Deal (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * When I started draw this graph I always new this is gonna be an introspection to WikiProject Metal. I expected the weaknesses in the article will surface. Though I think it is very good thing for this Project. Now it's members know what are their priorities would be. I don't regret for a moment for starting this discussion, and don't want be a snow ball either. So I hope this posting would be the last post on this discussion. Before I quit I'd like to answer fair questions raised by Bardin.
 * I have noted that you have stopped questioning cited nodes like Progressive and Black. But you still call this an original research? I don't think we, wikipedians should take the opinions of so called genre warriors. Wikipedians should doubt their credibility. See this discussion in Nu metal's talk page on "whether Nu metal is metal or not?". One Editor dismissing them as "dudes who sit in their bedrooms talking about their favourite bands".
 * I have placed avant-grade predating Thrash and others. It was so placed only because the arrow running from Heavy metal to Stoner metal. Please cite this as a drawer's difficulties. I have also observed every rock art movement as a similar mirror genre movement in metal. Progressive rock->Progressive Metal, Alternative rock->Alternative Metal. Similarly in the Avant-garde movement Experimental Rock is the mirror genre of Avant-garde metal. The two movements have the connection not the bands.
 * Viking metal, Groove metal and Death/Doom have simple ancestries. They have one or two definite origins and I hope editors can find citations for their origins. Viking metal already have. Only Avant-garde and Symphonic metal have complex origins.Glam metal should appear in late 80's. My mistake. I left out British metal (currently a redirect to NWOBHM), Scandinavian metal (currently a redirect to Swedish black metal) because I didn't think we should include regional scenes. Punk metal can't be in subgenres graph since it's a fusion. Symphonic black metal is a subgenre of a subgenre. We can't go too trivial in genres.(Grandpa "Heavy metal" can't have all his grandchildren the family photo. Photographer,(ie Me) can't fit all of them in a single frame.)
 * That's leave only Avant-garde and Symphonic metal is questionable. This will be my final edit regarding this matter. I know everybody acknowledge the importance of the graph. When we have better citings let's have it use. To the members of the project, Guys you have some work to do. Cheers!--Chanaka L (talk) 09:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the consensus that this is a personal opinion graph based on original research. It is also very amateur in design and not something you would want to see in a quality encyclopedia. It should not be used for any heavy metal related pages. GripTheHusk (talk) 10:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment regarding the genres of System of a Down
An editor is disputing the sourced genres of the band given in the infobox, and is insisting that there had previously been a consensus for the inclusion a genre term that was not as well sourced, when the term had been long disputed, as evidenced by the article's three archives. So far, the editor in question has not attempted to instigate an edit war, and most editors involved with the discussion have behaved within Wikipedia's etiquette rules, although the disputing editor has made a number of statements that appear to treat disagreeing editors as being wrong or ignorant. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 11:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Correction : I am not "disputing the sourced genres", I am supporting discussion rather than edits made without community consensus, a consensus which has been in place for quite a while and which has so far hardly been contested extensively. As for the accusation that I "treat disagreeing editors as being wrong or ignorant", I find that quite surprising, for I do not find any point in the discussion in which I have disrespected the editors involved in the discussion. Rather, I have repeatedly been an advocate for discussion rather than reversion, which is what you have mainly done so far, by violating consensus and reverting me as I preached for discussion rather than reversion. In reaction to your edit behavior, I have decided not to revert you, for that would only fuel an edit war which can only be solved by discussion. Now I would consider avoiding further accusations and focusing the time and energy on discussion, in the hopes of coming to a consensus. Any other user experienced in genre debates is very welcome to participate.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   13:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Correction again: I never "violated consensus" because there never was a consensus. I corrected the infobox to reflect what was adequately sourced, as opposed to content added because of editor opinion rather than sourced content. This is exactly what I'm talking about when I refer to Zouavman as making accusations/personal attacks. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC))

A survey has been started on the SOAD talk page regarding classifying them as a nu metal band, if interested please participate. J04n(talk page) 15:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed revision to Featured List criteria which may affect several of this project's FLs
Hello, there is currently a proposal for a revised Featured List criteria which would see the addition of a stand-alone list/content forking/notability criterion. If it passes, several of this project's FLs will be affected by it and could be delisted. Any input from any project members would be very welcome. Thanks, Scorpion 0422  14:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Magazine sourcing.
I read the May 2009 issue of Revolver Magazine, and I want to source page 82 on there. The article on page 82 has sort of a long title, and I'm wondering what sort of title abridgement I could use to make it optically superior. Is there any help that I could receive for abridging the title of that magazine article? Or is the title fine as it is, which I am doubting at the moment? Thank you. The reference will be displayed below.

Backtable Speak to Me about what I have done  00:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I am concerned, we are not really allowed to abridge titles of sources and I also don't really think that there is a need to abridge them. I would simply cite it as it is. A shortened title would cause problems when someone verifies the information and there is enough place for the whole title. So I would leave it as it is. Cheers :) --  LYKANTROP   ✉  11:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, thank you. Your explanation made perfect sense. Backtable Speak to Me  about what I have done  19:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Should we use this as a reliable source
This article is from the New York Times but as this archived response on the reliable sources noticeboard says, even reliable sources can make mistakes and we should use editorial judgment. The article invents non-existent neologism ("trench metal", "new york squatter metal", "extreme ambient", "machine assisted metal", "turncoat metal"), mixes up genres (sludge/stoner, black ambient/darkwave), and misidentify bands (Pantera/Sepultura/Brutal Truth/Kreator as power metal), etc. If someone is using this article to cite something on wikipedia, is it not fair to ask the editor to provide other sources instead of or in addition to this NYT article? Thanks. --Anarchodin (talk) 09:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * For those wondering, the issue is at the list of folk metal bands. An anonymous editor using an ip address has added Ulver to the article three times now. The one and only source being used for that is the above-mentioned article by the New York TImes. This same article also mentions Einherjer as a folk metal band but for whatever reason, the anonymous editor has chosen to only add Ulver and not Einherjer. Anarchodin reverted the editor and left a message on my talk page, presumably because I was the one that rewrote/reformat the folk metal article and its accompanying list. Anarchodin also initiated a conversation at the talk page of the list of folk metal bands. There's not much point having the same discussion at three different pages so I suggest anyone interested should hop over there instead of replying here. --Bardin (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thrash Metal
the article thrash metal has a quality rating of start. people have improved on it and im sure its quality should be better than start. can someone get the quality rating up to date please?. thanks. CallMeAndrew (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You can nominate it for good article status here. You may want to read this to see if it meets the criteria. Good luck. J04n(talk page) 16:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Neurotica (band)
Not sure about this one; maybe you guys can save it. Also, just a reminder, you now have article alerts (see "proposed deletion" on your wikiproject page) where you can see articles like this one that could use your input. - Dank (push to talk) 23:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Full Armor of God Broadcast

 * Comment The Full Armor of God Broadcast is facing deletion. Any advice, assistance or help would be much appreciated!173.88.28.69 (talk) 04:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

==Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Rage Against the Machine== nominated List of awards and nominations received by Rage Against the Machine for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Scorpion 0422  15:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

New wave of thrash entry?
I was thinking that this whole new wave of thrash metal wave that's happening, deserves it's own entry. It could describe what events triggered it and what bands are a part of it. Maybe something about Thrash Unlimited too.

Just an idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.185.211.142 (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm - to me, new wave of thrash metal isn't really a documented genre - I've never seen it printed in magazines or such - it seems to be a word-of-mouth thing. So, in my opinion, not yet. Maybe once the craze takes on though. Tomflaherty (talk) 09:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Question for anyone to reply to....
Does anyone think that this is completely useless and should be deleted quickly from Wikipedia? The Real Libs-speak politely 16:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Already has been. Tomflaherty (talk) 09:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

John Bush article up for deletion???
Someone has nominated the John Bush (musician) article to be deleted. My agf is that the person knows nothing about the subject and it is just a simmple blind-ignorance nom. Should be an easy keep. The Real Libs-speak politely 12:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * yea obviously it shouldnt be deleted, its too important. CallMeAndrew (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

FLRCs
nominated List of awards and nominations received by Soundgarden for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

nominated List of Metallica band members for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Scorpion <sup style="color:black;">0422  14:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/1349 (band)
I believe the discussion of this article being proposed for deletion should be wrapped up. It has been six days since the discussion started (which, to my knowledge, is longer than these discussions usually are), and nobody has put any input on this subject ever since I did at 4:07 wikipedia time on June 15. Also, everyone who has displayed input on that article (other than the person who nominated it for deletion in the first place) is in agreement that the article should be kept. I'm pretty sure I don't have the authority to wrap up the discussion myself; therefore, this message is directed to someone with such an authority. Thank you in advance.

Backtable Speak to Me about what I have done  17:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

PS: Yesterday, I posted a similar message in the talk page of 1349 (band), but to no avail. I just thought that was notable to point out.

Thank you. Backtable Speak to Me about what I have done  04:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Discography FLCs
Featured list candidates/Dream Theater discography/archive2 and Featured list candidates/Devin Townsend discography/archive2 need eyes desperately. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 19:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

How useless is this trivia article
Black Sabbath Covers is a waste of space. I have prod'd the page. But it is easily and AfD or even a speedy delete. The Real Libs-speak politely 16:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oy vey! And not a single source either. Zazaban (talk) 17:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say that it should be discussed at AfD. I am having trouble justifying it in my mind and I tend to be an inclusionist in this subject, I just don't see it as notable enough to warrant an article. If it were to remain it should obviously be renamed "List of Black Sabbath covers", an introductory paragraph is needed, and it has to be completely reformatted. Its inclusion would lead to tons of similar articles. The things going for it are that Black Sabbath is/are notable, it is verifiable, there would be a finite (but large) number of entries, the entries (for the most part) are notable enough to be included on the individual album/song pages, and if one was looking for all of the Black Sabbath covers they would be able to get it all in one place rather than going to each album page. In summary I would say delete but it merits a discussion. J04n(talk page) 17:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that article is extremely botched. EXTREMELY BOTCHED. I would say that the article should be deleted, but if not, then, for starters, it needs sources. But I'd rather it be deleted than just stay there talking up space on wikipedia. It's a bad example of an article, and anonymous users or newbie wikipedians may think it is okay to mark all section names with <

! ese symbols | >. When are those symbols even used on wikipedia at all? Maybe in some reference names, but that's the only thing that I can think of where those symbols can be used. My official verdict would be to delete this page, which, at the moment, embodies botched work. It is a pretty useless article. It is not like all the covers will be on there anyways. Backtable Speak to Me about what I have done  21:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Canopy
I just discovered that there is no page for the band Canopy, but there are pages for three of their albums: During Day One (album), Will and Perception (album), and Serene Catharsis (album). If the albums are notable enough for pages a page should be created for the band, if the band isn't notable enough for a page the album pages should be deleted. I suspect that the latter is true but I am not expert enough in death metal to be sure. J04n(talk page) 19:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The real links for those who are interested: During Day One (album); Will and Perception (album); Serene Catharsis (album).


 * My personal input is this: the two EPs are independently released and the debut album was released through Disconcert Music, which doesn't have its own wikipedia article. However, the first EP of theirs had Dan Swanö do guest vocals for it. Also, none of Canopy's associated acts have a wikipedia article except one, Decadence (band); that article does need to be cleaned up, but not deleted, due to their association with Massacre Records. None of the band members have their own wikipedia article, either. Therefore, I will say for the articles of the two EPs and the full-length album, although they have a little bit of notablillty behind them, I have to take up the unfortunate opinion that these three articles should be deleted.


 * Backtable Speak to Me about what I have done  20:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "See these articles again," and, … surprise!--<font face="Tahoma" size="3"> C  anniba  loki  23:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Blackened
Your input is requested at a move discussion here. Neelix (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Desolate North GA Sweeps: On Hold
I have reviewed Desolate North for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

For Lies I Sire
There is an anonymous genre warrior who keeps adding in the aforementioned article's infobox that the album is gothic metal. It was decided in the talk page that, unless if a reliabe source was attached to it being considered gothic metal, that there would not be any mention of that genre in the article. In spite of that, and even in spite of warning this individual about this decision multiple times, the person is pompous enough to keep editing the article with the same crap without edit summaries. This person is clearly a genre warrior and there needs to be something done about this. For the revision history of For Lies I Sire, click here. For the user contributions of 58.172.146.242 (the anonymous disruptor), click here. I know that I do not have the authority to ban the disruptor; since he/she has been doing this for several months, that is what I would request. If not, then I will trust those who have the authority to deal with this disruptor.

Backtable Speak to Me about what I have done  03:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Umm, the allmusic review linked on the article appears to describe the band and the album as goth metal: "the goth and doom metal outfit's ninth studio offering since 1990" ... "a sound that pushes the doom metal attack of yesteryear toward the margin where it entwines sensuously -- and inseparably -- with gothic rock" ... "they've effectively created their own subgenre of goth while retaining enough of their earlier M.O. to keep old fans, while no doubt gathering to themselves a legion of new ones -- who have little to no use for doom or goth metal -- in the process." That seems good enough to me. --Bardin (talk) 06:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I respectfully disagree, considering that it is taken from a review. Thank you for your input, however. Backtable Speak to Me  about what I have done  04:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Cone to think of it, I am going to recant my disagreement. I guess that's reason enough to have gothic metal be on there. Backtable Speak to Me  about what I have done  04:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Popular pages
I requested a popular pages report for this WikiProject (for more info, see WikiProject Metal/Article alerts: "13 July 2009 – A new tool listing the most popular page...").--<font face="Tahoma" size="3"> C  anniba  loki  04:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That seems like a good idea. Backtable Speak to Me  about what I have done  04:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks interesting. Probably Metallica will be at the top of this list.--<font face="Tahoma" size="3"> C  anniba  loki  05:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Or heavy metal music. Zazaban (talk) 07:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Metal
I made another request here, someone has something against it or any suggestions?--<font face="Tahoma" size="3"> C  anniba  loki  05:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Bleeding Through
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:Bleeding Through/GA2. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Iwrestledabearonce
I posted information about the line-up of the band on the profile, becuase there was not its own section about it yet. Is that the current line-up of the band? If so, what is wrong with it? Backtable Speak to Me about what I have done  02:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The Way of All Flesh (album)
I believe that page needs a re-evaluation. I do not believe that stub status fits the article anymore. Since it was first assigned as stub status, I, along with many other people, have added additional information to the article. I don't request this very often, but I will now, since the article was last evaluated on June 10, 2008 and it was like this when it was evaluated. It was four days old when that happened. Thank you. Backtable Speak to Me about what I have done  17:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅--<font face="Tahoma" size="3"> C  anniba  loki  17:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. Backtable Speak to Me  about what I have done  23:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The Waste Lands (album)
Just thought I'd let people know in this project that the Venom album The Waste Lands article is up for deletion. People involved with this project should make comments about it. Cheers. 205.211.50.10 (talk) 16:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

FLRC: List of WarCry band members
nominated List of WarCry band members for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- <font face="Mistral"> SRE.K.A.L. | L.A.K.ERS ]]  23:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Pageview stats
After a recent request, I added WikiProject Metal to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at WikiProject Metal/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! <font face="Broadway">Mr. Z-man 02:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Metal Observer deleted and blacklisted
Doing some edits on metal album articles, I see that some referenced sections and links to reviews have been deleted, with the notice "reference missing". Going further back in the edit history, i see that references links to reviews in various metal zines have been deleted with the explanation "remove spam". When restoring those links and deleted sections, Wikipedia gives me an alert that I am linking to a blacklisted URL - metal-observer dot com.

What I do in this case is that I simply transform the Cite Web tag into a Citation tag, without URL. But I see that many other articles have been pruned and the references to M.O. simply removed... And BTW, the Metal Observer wikipedia article has been deleted in May (only surviving on the Danish wikipedia). Looks like I missed that battle (and no single comment here?!). --Irina666 (talk) 09:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Metal Observer has been blacklisted as it is not considered a reliable source, so you really should be reinstating the citations to it, with or without a link. J Milburn (talk) 10:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as reviews of obscure black metal albums go, an unreliable reference is still much better than no reference at all... Also, where can I find infos about *how* the reliability has been asserted? This could start a tendency where only mainstream media will remain as "reliable" reference - very bad for fringe music scenes that are mostly documented through semi-official publications. --Irina666 (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Very understandable- many of my articles are sourced to very much touch-and-go sources (ezines and the like). The central place to discuss these things is the reliable source noticeboard- I'd imagine the regulars over there would be in a better position to explain the process/reasoning behind the Metal Observer removals. J Milburn (talk) 22:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I do remember Metal Observer being on wikipedia. All I know is that it one day just became unnotable for wikipedia and started getting cracked down upon. I don't know the story behind it. I do believe an expanation would be nice, but this ban doesn't really effect me much, since I didn't really use Metal Observer as a source much, if at all. Backtable Speak to Me  about what I have done  22:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD discussion of Hela metal
AfD page is here. I pretty much stumbled upon this article at random, but it looks to me like it might be notable. I'm pretty out of touch with even the UK Metal scene though, never mind the Sri Lankan one. It would be useful if any project members who are more informed on whether this really is an emerging genre or not could take a look and give thier opinion (either way) on the AfD.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 07:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

FLRC
nominated List of Dream Theater band members for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SRE.K.A.L.24 (talk • contribs)

Those Whom the Gods Detest
There is a conflict about the album's leak on the wikipedia article that is mentioned in the subject. Usually, stuff like leaks are non-notable, but on the talk page, there is a notable exchange about this that has some informatin backing the alleged notablilty of the leak. Other opinions in this matter would be nice about this matter. Thanks. Backtable Speak to Me about what I have done  00:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Reliability of two sources
I am acquiring resources for a rewrite of Extol and found an old reference to a German metal site called [www.metalglory.de MetalGlory]. There is a comprehensive interview with the band, as well as interviews with stars like Slayer and Queensryche. I am wondering if anybody has run across the site before and more importantly whether they are a reliable source. Conducting interviews with notable bands is a plus sign, but that doesn't automatically mean they are reliable.

The other source is MusicMight. It is a rock music database site started by metal authority Gary Sharpe-Young who wrote the useful text The New Wave of Heavy Metal. At first, MusicMight appears to be a wiki as it allows users to edit content on artist profiles. Edits must be examined by a moderator. However, the biography of the artist cannot be altered; I registered an account and experimented. The biography for The Chariot was also taken directly from his book; I assume the other biographies are contained in other books he has written. Is the site reliable for biographies? -- Noj r (talk) 08:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I would probably use these as sources; thus I would say that they would/could be reliable. Backtable Speak to Me  about what I have done  22:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * MusicMight used to be called RockDetector and they have received coverage in Blabbermouth.net and Ulitmate-Guitar. So I would call that site reliable. I'm still not sure about the German site though. Anybody else have any thoughts? -- Noj r (talk) 23:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Design Your Universe
There has been a recent review posted on there which I question the notability of, and want extra opinions on. Here it is. Would papelmag.com be a notable source for reviews? Because I am either editing the format of the review or deleting it from the Design Your Universe page. Also, I think it may be notable to point out that my computer doesn't like me visiting there, since it kind of gives me a message after a segment of time (not immediately, though) stating an "Internet explorer cannot display this web page" message. Backtable Speak to Me about what I have done  03:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Move: Ben Carter (Evile) to Ben Carter (musician)
There was an illegal move performed by moving the info from the first article mentioned to the last article mentioned. I was going to move it correctly, but someone else copied and pasted the information to the Ben Carter (musician) profile before I got to do that. Proof that it was illegally moved is that in the Ben Carter (Evile) article, there is a long log of history, while the Ben Carter (musician) article has only one edit's worth of history behind it. I believe this is worthy of being attennded to very soon. Backtable Speak to Me about what I have done  03:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

PS: By the way, I do believe it is notable to point out how I learned about illegal moves the hard way by doing the same thing back in 2007 with the Emmure page.
 * Reported at WP:REPAIR. J04n(talk page) 09:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. I hope to remember that link if I come across such an incident in the future. Backtable Speak to Me  about what I have done  23:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The Anatomy Of
Would that count as a studio album, considering its status as a cover album? My vote is no, but some anonymous users beg to differ and are counting it as such, marking The Great Misdirect as their sixth studio album and Colors as their fifth studio album. Colors and The Great Misdirect are their fourth and fifth studio albums respectively with original material. I would like some extra opinions on this matter. Backtable Speak to Me about what I have done  23:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if you're looking for precedent, Acid Eaters is a similar album by the Ramones and it is grouped with their studio albums. J04n(talk page) 09:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Club Sonderauflage
This bootleg is listed to deletion, can someone help establishing its notability? For me its just another non-notable bootleg, I can't find any professional review throughout Internet.--<font face="Tahoma" size="3"> C  anniba  loki  23:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Major cleanup
This article requires major cleanup, I have been working on it for a couple of days.T.tyrael (talk) 10:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gathering_(band)


 * The Gathering, eh? I noticed a while back that there were some screwed up aspects of the page, and I edited some of those. Thanks for your cleaning up efforts. I believe that I will put this on my watchlist. Backtable Speak to Me  about what I have done  21:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Quo Vadis Article
I rewrote almost the entire Quo Vadis article but I'm not sure what the quality of the article is. Could someone help? Limaj daas (talk) 22:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * First off, thanks a lot for the information added to the Quo Vadis (band) article. With your additions, it is definitely more detailed and thorough concerning the band. I did a few adjustments to it, and I will put the page on my watchlist and will help with the maintaining of the page. Backtable Speak to Me  about what I have done  22:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)