Talk:2010 in heavy metal music

This article was nominated for deletion on 7 July 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

New deletion proposal[edit]

Just to fully explain: I removed the new deletion proposal because there's no good reason to delete. Articles on future events are fine, provided they are well sourced, which this one is. The sheer number of releases already on here only serve to show why such an article is justified. Please read the old discussion before proposing it again, where you'll see it got a "keep" result, with good reasoning explained there.

Basically, as with all articles, it should simply reflect sources. That's why we have rules on sources. If there aren't any sources, then it's just user speculation. If there are, according to sources, plenty of albums set for 2010, then the article is justified. Catglobal (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Devin Townsend's "Deconstruction"[edit]

The issue here is whether Devin's myspace blog is sufficient as a source. My point is surely "policy is policy" isn't enough: it's about the meaning of the rule, not the letter. The fact is it's his own personal myspace blog; the blog itself was mentioned in a blabbermouth post about the album before it, Addicted. So it's been verified by an external source as reliable, it's just that the blabbermouth post only mentioned Addicted specifically. What's the point in removing it when it is from the horse's mouth, the most reliable confirmation we could have? Primary sources are acceptable in certain circumstances. 87.194.171.224 (talk) 08:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, primary sources are acceptable in certain circumstances -- this is just not one of those circumstances. Usually when there are no other sources, a primary source may be used with caution (depending on what is being sourced), and in this situation information about an album release should easily be found through third-party sources. There is also an issue with verification. If a reader was curious where this information came from and decided to check the source, it would be best to link them to a published article than a myspace blog. Thirdy-party sources also establish notability. I could start a band tomorrow, create a myspace page for myself, and blog about my upcoming debut album; but that would not be sufficient notability to have an article on wikipedia. If such credible music sources as Rolling Stone and Billboard had an article about my band, then it could have something on wikipedia. Wikipedia's policy on "reliable sources" is a little deceiving to new users, because based on the title alone, one would assume reliability is the only issue. But there are many factors that go into defining a reliable source. I encourage you to read at least the intro to Wikipedia:Verifiability, and remember that there is no deadline so we can wait for a reliable source to come forth. Fezmar9 (talk) 17:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, there is no deadline per se, but I don't see any point in holding back when we -do- have a perfectly fine source for it. As I say, there's a blabbermouth article which uses the blog, and we're using that as a source for Addicted. So why can't it be used here? The blabbermouth article gives us a third-party source that verifies the blog as reliable.

The fact of the matter is, it's Devin Townsend himself saying "The album should be out in 2010". I honestly don't see how there could possibly be any issue with this. An artist isn't a good source on something like, say, a band's genre, because they're biased and not necessarily informed on the matter. But for this, no one is in a better position to provide this information than him.

I don't quite understand your analogy with yourself starting a band: that example is an issue of notability. Devin Townsend is a notable artist, so I can't see how that's relevant. 81.155.116.86 (talk) 18:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no third-party sources on a subject, then that subject is not considered notable, and is therefore not worthy of mention on Wikipedia. If the only source is the artist's blog, then it is not considered notable. This article was already nominated for deletion as a WP:CRYSTAL violation, and rightfully so. Several sources do not back up a 2010 release. Even the Devin Townsend blog only claimed that work would begin in October, with no tentative release date. It might still be too early to have this article exist. To avoid another nomination, this article should comply with Wikipedia policies on reliable sources, notability, verification and original research. If there is a blabbermouth source, then add that one. Fezmar9 (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article's in no danger of removal: there's a massive number of albums now in it, and as was explained when it was nominated, it doesn't violate crystal at all: crystal states articles shouldn't exist without sourcing, if they've got them then there's no issue.

But the notability issue doesn't have any bearing here. There's nothing that says an album has to have it's own article to be on the list. Only that the ARTIST be notable. Which Townsend obviously is. It's also on his official webpage here [1] so the issue isn't myspace anyway. We have a post on his official site saying he'll be working on it on October, and plans to tour in 2010. He's also stated he plans to tour once all 4 albums are finished. So it's not original research to say "Therefore he's saying the third be out in 2010", any more than it would be to say "A source says 1+1 is 2, therefore 2-1 is 1".

Just to reiterate all that for clarity: Devin himself has said he will tour once all 4 albums are out. Devin himself has said he will be working on the 3rd album in October. Devin himself has said he will be touring in 2010. Therefore Devin is saying the third album will be out in 2010. This isn't original research, or even synthesis. It's straight from the horse's mouth, and on a topic like an album release date you can't possible claim that a primary source isn't reliable. After all, where do most of the blabbermouth/metalunderground news reports on releases come from ultimately? The artists saying how far through they are in the studio. 81.155.116.86 (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else care to jump in here? Fezmar9 (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's cool with you I'll put in a request for comment. This discussion page doesn't seem to get much activity, and I don't think you and I are going to come to a full agreement without outside opinions. 81.155.116.86 (talk) 11:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Fezmar9 (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on Townsend's "Deconstruction" source[edit]

A dispute between myself and Fezmar over whether a source can be used. It originates from a blog on Devin Townsend's personal myspace page where he states that he'll be recording "Deconstruction" (the third in a series of 4 albums, one already out in 2009, the other due soon) in October 2009. This is also repeated on his own website as well. I feel this is enough of a source to include the album on this list, Fezmar disputes the validity of this source. See above for our discussion so far. Oh, also, I know I could have asked for third opinion on this, but I felt a bit more of an overview of opinions would be more helpful than just one other. 86.129.198.90 (talk) 01:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on how Townsend uses his website/blog, for example does he use it for only serious things? Has previous similar statements been held true? It should really state he has started recording, not just a plan, as it verges on speculation/WP:CRYSTAL.

But then again if other things in this list include 'planned' albums then that doesn't matter. But most of it appears to be material in-production, not just planned. So I don't really see the source as the problem.--Otterathome (talk) 20:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source doesn't outright say "We will release it 2010", but likewise (as I think you're saying) nor do a lot of the sources. Most of the sources on these pages say "We're working on it" and make the assumption that it should be out within the year. You could argue that's original research, personally I'd say in this case it's just common sense: he's said he's doing a four album series. The first one came out mid-2009, the second one out late 2009, and he's said he's working on the third. I think it's a reasonable assumption that it should be out in 2010.

Previous updates about his progress from the artist himself have held up. Basically, we've got a source from the artist saying "I'm working on it" ([2] scroll down to 30th September, quote: "I’m working on record 3 now."), and really that's all we've got for many of these sources. 86.129.194.36 (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read WP:COMMON? "When advancing a position or justifying an action, base your argument on existing agreements, community foundation issues and the interests of the encyclopedia, not your own common sense." Stating that an album will be released in 2010 if the artist just recently started working on it implements nothing other than your own common sense. Both WP:COMMON and WP:IGNORE are based on improving Wikipedia. Adding unverified claims and original research actually hurts Wikipedia. This article is for albums that are to be released in 2010, so the source provided should back up exactly that. The source is for the reader to see where we got the information. If the source says something different than what we are claiming, then we failed. Fezmar9 (talk) 15:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did read it, and I did base it on that. As illustrated by my argument that we already use many sources that say "The band is working on it and will release it soon", and that this source is no different.

How is it an "unverified claim" when we have a source that verifies it?

How is it "original research" when the source is not my research, it is the word of the artist himself?

The source doesn't claim anything different. It says, as of the end of September 2009, that Devin Townsend is working on the next album. Thus far these albums have no had much time between them, and I can't see you providing a source that suggests otherwise.

Utilising this source is no more "original research" than many of the other sources which likewise say, "We're working on it", and it seems like nit-picking to say "He doesn't ACTUALLY say 2010, so we can't use it". The above user appears to draw a distinction between albums planned and albums actually in production. Well, since Devin himself says he is working on it, that obviously counts as "in-production", and we've no reason to believe this process will take beyond 2010. 86.146.156.162 (talk) 19:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, many of the sources here do say "we're working on it." I will go through and tag those probably sometime tomorrow. Quoting directly from the source you provided, "this is the next record in a long line of records, I’m working on record 3 now. Be well, forgive yourself." It does not say 2010, it does not say next year, it does not even say soon. Not even a hint at a tentative release date. The original research is saying, "Thus far these albums have not had much time between them, and I can't see you providing a source that suggests otherwise." I don't need to provide a source that says he won't, you just need to provide one that says he will. Think of all the albums in the "Unknown" section of 2009 in heavy metal music that have been sitting there since this time last year, most of which have an "in production" or a "tentative release date" source and yet were never released in 2009. The above user makes a valid point. Is this a list of albums in production or is this a list of albums to be released in 2010? The title of the article (2010 in heavy metal music) suggests the latter. Either:

1. An "unknown release date" section can exist but ONLY if sources directly support that claim.

2. This article becomes ONLY for confirmed and verifiable release dates -- which is what the article becomes at the end of year anyways.

3. A new article is created for albums in production (much like List of video games in development and 2009 in video gaming) -- though, to have a totally new article for a genre specific list of albums in production seems really excessive. Fezmar9 (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adema[edit]

Sources for Adema playing heavy metal music: Allmusic review for Unstable, Allmusic review for Planets, Rolling Stone review for Adema, Rolling Stone review for Unstable, New York Times article, Daily Nebraskan review for Insomniacs Dream, Register-Guard article, Salon article, Business Wire article, Rockol article. There are plenty more where those came from, but there really only needs one for this bit of information to stay. Fezmar9 (talk) 06:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for metal[edit]

The following bands were removed for not playing metal music, however here are sources that they do play metal. Fezmar9 (talk) 07:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greeley Estates -- allmusic, The Dreaded Press, Consequence of Sound, Revolver
Look What I Did -- allmusic, Decibel, blabbermouth, aversion, Maelstrom
The Bled -- MTV, Alternative Press, metalsucks, pastepunk, Skratch, ChartAttack
Cancer Bats -- Blabbermouth, Alternative Press, Exclaim, Vancouver Sun, Dreaded Press, Westword

In your Greeley Estates allmusic link, they are listed in there as Screamo. which is not metal at all, but based from punk music, not metal. your second link The Dreaded Press lists them as Post-hardcore. listed in the decription, which u should read, Post-hardcore is dirived from Punk music, not metal. your third link Consequence of Sound is a little confusing, but with the proper reading i can understand your confusion. when under the Greeley Estates chapter, this quote appears, "Running the track between thrash, metal and borderline emo we arrive to Greeley Estates." when the article mentions thrash and metal, they're referring to their earlier chapters about Skeletonwitch, Kylesa, and Black Math Horsemen. The emo they are talking about Greeley Estates. Your 4th link Revolver 3 genres descriptions are as descripted in the article, "post-hardcore/screamo/metal/whatever the hell you wanna call it". So once again u see the Post-hardcore, the Screamo, but i see for the first time out of 4 articles a metal reference. and that's at the end of the 2 that aren't metal at all, which makes it Hardcore. Therefore i am voting that Greeley Estates is not heavy metal, and does not belong on this page.

for your Look What I Did links, the first allmusic link is ubsurd... Pop rock? your second link Decibel just drops the word metal down once, and isn't even the full article. it shouldn't be counted. your third article blabbermouth completely rips the band apart, going more along my side of the arguement than yours... the 4th article aversion explains the Fusion between metal and Punk rock, which makes Hardcore punk. your 5th article Maelstrom he says this quote at the end of his bias review "All in all, Minuteman for the Moment is an oddly addicting release, definitely worth a listen or two if you don't have a problem with sacrificing a bit of "metal cred."". i vote that Look What I Did shall not be on this Heavy metal page, because it is not heavy metal, it is Post-hardcore, a sub-genre of Punk rock.

i'm going to sleep, i'll finish this tomorrow lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ant smusher (talk • contribs)

The only elements that separate heavy metal from rock 'n' roll, and unifying themes among all heavy metal subgenres, are loud distorted guitars and simple rhythms. So if someone were to take these elements of loud distorted guitars and simple rhythms and mix them with hardcore, you end up with a fusion genre. A list of various fusion genres with punk and metal can be see at Punk metal. While many of these bands do play post-hardcore, I feel that they play a more metallic variation or fusion genre, which is backed up by the sources provided. Yes, Allmusic does list Greeley Estates as screamo, but they also list them as heavy metal and punk metal. Yes, Dreaded Press lists them as post-hardcore, but they go on to say they look outside of post-hardcore on that album and include metalcore and old-school speed-metal on some songs. Allmusic recognizes a difference between genre and style, much like a genus and species relationship. So ALL metal bands are categorized under rock/pop as the genre, including Metallica and Slayer. I am not sure if you actually read the Blabbermouth review of Look What I Did beyond the first sentence, but the album received an (8/10) rating, the genre was referred to as tech-metal and it was said that the band sticks out from generic metal bands. In fact, based on the rest of your issues with these sources it's reasonable to assume you didn't actually read any of these articles. Fezmar9 (talk) 07:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to using allmusic as a source, the genre must be in the bio, not the sidebar.Inhumer (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Genres and styles are published by an allmusic staff member just like anything else on the site. Fezmar9 (talk) 20:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Avantasia[edit]

In April, please add The Wicked Symphony. Both albums are released on the same date. Skuld (talk) 02:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Mushroom (Talk) 00:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overkill release date moved[edit]

This article has the Overkill album listed in January. It should be Feb 9. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodyclutchfan (talk • contribs) 22:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. It is February 29 in Europe. We list the earliest release date, as per WP:ALBUM. Mushroom (Talk) 22:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Devin Townsend[edit]

Could someone please remove Devin Townsends "Deconstruction", see this source

http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=135020

"'Deconstruction' and 'Ghost' are basically finished, and the musicians are for the most part lined up, but I'm one thing at a time and I'm currently focusing on making the live shows as good as they can be, but when the October tour is done, I'm putting three months aside for these albums...and hopefully they will be released simultaneously next May."

So that and "Ghost" are due for the 2011 article when that gets made later this year. Thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.207.221 (talk • contribs)

Not done: The general consensus is that the "Albums in production" section should be for albums being worked on in the year 2010, not nessecarily being released in 2010. According to the source you provided, Deconstruction will be in production during 2010. Fezmar9 (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for Murderdolls performing metal[edit]

Sources for Murderdolls performing metal: [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] Just as with the previous issues, there are an astounding number of professional journalists that seem to think this band performs metal. Including the band themselves. Fezmar9 (talk) 03:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Best selling albums section?[edit]

I visited here hoping to find a list of the best selling metal albums of 2010. Maybe that should be part of this article? Jason Quinn (talk) 04:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a bad idea, the only problem is what would we use to source this information? There would have to already exist a list of best selling metal albums, and I'm not currently aware of one... Fezmar9 (talk) 18:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on 2010 in heavy metal music. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 26 external links on 2010 in heavy metal music. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on 2010 in heavy metal music. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 24 external links on 2010 in heavy metal music. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]