Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Metal/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 10

What happened to Deathrash?

Has the article been deleted? It vanished and I can't find any discussion or any Afd. Can anyone point me to a discussion on Deathrash (If there is one). Thanks, Emmaneul (Talk) 21:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD discussion can be found here, and it was then recreated, and speedy deleted as a recreation. Would you like a copy? J Milburn 22:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Wait... sorry if I seem a little ignorant or something but... it's possible to get a copy of a deleted page? ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 16:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm an administrator, I can view deleted edits (with the exception of those which have been oversighted) and I can restore them and move them to your userpace, or email you a copy, if you so wish. Often, articles have been deleted, and people request a copy so that they can work on it to deal with the problems which led to its deletion, and then recreate it. J Milburn 17:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

List of Nu metal musical groups

Was recreated. Does it qualify for Speedy Deletion since List of nu metal groups was just deleted? it looks likea C&P of the previous list. Inhumer 00:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted, thanks for the heads up. J Milburn 10:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
It's back, gawd dammit. Ours18 02:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
All lists like this shouldn't exist, especially if they're sub-genres. It falls under the category of WP:OR. I had this article AfD'd due to my feeling of sub genre "lists" being controversial. Whomever keeps remaking it should be banned or maybe the article (if at all possible) be locked to anyone but moderators even after it becomes deleted again. -- Shatterzer0 03:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Genres in Musical Artist Infobox

I'd like to address an issue, maybe people here could help me out. I've been discussing on Template talk:Infobox musical artist for while. The guy I'm discussing with wants a delimiter/lay-out standard for the genre part of the {{Infobox musical artist}} template, he likes to use commas instead of <br />. Nothing wrong with that.. I know that many metal articles use <br /> because it's the most simple and clean solution when infoboxes are full of long genre names and refs, so that's why I'm addressing this issue here.

If you have something to say about this please see Template talk:Infobox musical artist#Standardizing genre delimiters, and help us getting a satisfactory consensus. Thank you. Emmaneul (Talk) 09:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I personally think it looks better with <br /> as opposed to commas. Inhumer 15:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikiprojects

I think there should be wikiprojects for Metallica, Megadeth, Pantera, and Korn. They are all very important bands in metal so should be well kept I think (least of all Korn probably). I don't know how to start a wikiproject but they are really cool. So if anyone could help me out thet would be sweet, espcially that Metallica wannabe band Trivium they have a wikiproject these bands don't? Skeeker [Talk] 10:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Setting up four projects at once isn't recommended. Setting up a Wikiproject is so that the articles that fall under the project can be improved, and Trivium's project doesn't fall under that criteria. They have no GAs, no nothing. Your time would be better spent on improving an article instead of setting up a Wikiproject. LuciferMorgan 19:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Pretty much what Lucifer said, a lot of these wikiprojects are more of a 'fan club' than editors actually improving the articles. The Slayer Wikiproject is successful because myself, Lucifer and a few others got of our ass and improved these articles, most Wikiprojects don't. You're better of finding a band you like and collaborating with another editor who's interested in the article than creating Wikiprojects. M3tal H3ad 04:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Extreme Metal task force

I think an extreme metal task force would be a good idea. Basically, it would improve the extreme metal genres and the bands that play those styles. I think its a good idea. Anyone else support the idea? I shall Mezmerize you! My edits shall Mezmerize you!! My articles shall Mezmerize you!!! 01:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I could deffinatly go for that. You have my support. ≈ The Haunted Angel 01:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Sweet! :) Anyone else? I shall Mezmerize you! My edits shall Mezmerize you!! My articles shall Mezmerize you!!! 02:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This project is currently failing very badly, so why would an Extreme Metal task force work? LuciferMorgan 19:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point. :( I shall Mezmerize you! My edits shall Mezmerize you!! My articles shall Mezmerize you!!! 19:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Little work is better than no work. ≈ The Haunted Angel 22:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
True, but work spent setting up a task force would be better spent improving an article. LuciferMorgan 22:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm up for it, and Wikiproject: Slayer worked...
Everyone's enthusiasm for an Extreme Metal task force sounds cool, but a good way of expressing this would be working on a related article and working it up towards GA / FA. If anyone does try doing this, I'll be there to help and advise them on how to do so. LuciferMorgan 12:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this Project dead?

Aside from being a hive for absolutely unneeded discussion as concerns a band's genre or saving an obscure Metal article which by right should be deleted, is this project virtually dead? Of the 11 FAs the Project has, not one has actually been done by a Project member - not one. Seriously, it's disgraceful. Awhile back an editor helped me put rating parameters on the {{HMM}} template, and I have rated 99% of the articles and am the sole person handling it. Most of the people who have signed up don't even edit Metal articles, and frankly if they don't intend working on articles they shouldn't have wasted others time by signing up in the first place. Such signatures aren't welcome. Anyone can try defending this Project, but before they do I'm saying straight that any attempts to defend this Project are a bunch of rubbish. In my opinion, this Project should be deleted. This Project is all talk and no action, and hasn't achieved a single thing in its entire existence. Does anyone want (and will actually get off their ass) this to change, or will the project remain comatose? I'm willing to advise anyone who's trying to write a GA or FA but doesn't know how, but the problem is there is no active work going on. LuciferMorgan 22:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, and think you are the only person really actively doing anything for the project. At the moment, the project is not achieving anything. Can you think of any way to improve it? I'm not a huge metal fan, and I am not as active on Wikipedia as I have been, but I am willing to help out. J Milburn 22:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, it would be nice to have more active contributors - this would be the most important thing. I would like to set up a Project peer review sometime, but the following concerns I have;
  1. Would anyone submit anything?
  2. Beyond asking for a peer review, would the nominator act upon the feedback they're given? LuciferMorgan 23:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
It seems for the most part dead. I have been working steadily on the Soilwork wiki for some time now, as it was sitting there in desperate need of attention (and being one of my favorite bands...) I try here and there to contribute, like I've said before but it seems like editors that undermine one another (see the Children of Bodom fiasco) among other things has probably driven editors away. -- Shatterzer0 23:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Although this might seem a shallow suggestion, redesigning the main project page may help, as it gives the project a sense of rejuvenation and makes it easier to navigate. With the Alternative music WikiProject, the page was redesigned in March 2007, and since then, we've produced at least two FAs a month. Probably coincidental, but worth a shot. CloudNine 13:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I just came across the project, and I've been adding and cleaning up some pages about metal bands for a while now. And oh yeah, someone keeps nominating the Darkthrone page for deletion.Kgppra17 22:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for your contribution. Darkthrone certainly is worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia, so whoever nominates it is mistaken. LuciferMorgan 11:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Metallum

A few months ago I asked here if Encyclopaedia Metallum is a good (or at least usable) source considering genres. Most project members were positive about Encyclopaedia Metallum so in some cases I used it as source. I used it to improve some "lists of genre X" articles (like List of gothic metal bands because that list really needed a clean-up). Using sources for each list entry made the list more stable and reliable (additions, alterations were being discussed to satisfactory results). Even if Encyclopaedia Metallum is not the best source, it's better then no source, I thought.

Now I came across an editor who thinks Encyclopaedia Metallum is not a good source, and he deleted all refs to Encyclopaedia Metallum. Is he doing the right thing? Or was the list acceptable when it still contained the refs (see [1])?. What should we do with Encyclopaedia Metallum?
I 'd really appreciate your help, Emmaneul (Talk) 23:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I say if another source is available, use the other source. If another source cannot be used (or if Encyclopaedia Metallum is obviously better than this other source), then Encyclopaedia Metallum should be used. Zouavman Le Zouave 23:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I referenced Encyclopedia Metallum in Desolate North, which is now a good article. I personally wouldn't use it unless it was a last resort, I am not certain whether we can count it as reliable. For something as contentious as genres, I'd say it probably shouldn't be used. I was using it for the track lengths, which I could see was correct, but which I couldn't reference to anything else. J Milburn 01:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Metallum is a decent reference, because it does have moderators who check what's being added. I have an account there and it's not like here where you can change genre's on a whim by saying "I'm gonna edit that." You have to tell a moderator it's wrong and then general consensus takes over. As for using it for "lists of genres" that's a whole different story, as I think those lists are just pointless, because we already have categories and making such lists is in essence WP:OR. Your best sources though are by the band themselves. Look at their myspace (99% of bands have one anymore), look at All music guide and search through interviews is all I can say. -- Shatterzer0 02:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

What the bands say is often utter rubbish. Tokio Hotel springs to mind. J Milburn 02:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I concur. Lots of band refuse to be labeled a particular genre. Motorhead and Led Zeppelin don't consider themselves metal, for instance. WesleyDodds 03:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I would say no. Rely on All Music Guide and books on the topic of heavy metal when determining genres. WesleyDodds 03:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of what a band says, you can not discredit them for labeling themselves. It's in essence profiling them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shatterzer0 (talk • contribs)04:42, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

I'm really against using Encyclopaedia Metallum as a reference, and that's since users guide what information is written. When we decide what genre (s) a band is, that must come professional sources - ie. experts in the field. If someone used Encyclopaedia Metallum as a source, I would personally object to it based on criteria at GA / FA. I agree with J Milburn on being careful as to what bands say - for factual information it's usually ok, but for opinions it's best to tread carefully and make sure that any opnions are attributed to the person expressing that opinion. The problem is; how many bands in Metal reckon they're the next Metallica, Slayer etc.? Too many. LuciferMorgan 09:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Genre debate that matters

Having read and cited a number of sources during the Heavy metal music FAR, I can safely say Van Halen is by popular and critical consensus classified as a heavy metal band. I think I'm laying out my argument soundly on the talk page (which is, basically, rely on reliable sources, not vague POV), but I'm not sure it's really registering. WesleyDodds 05:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Van Halen is mainly classed as Heavy Metal, but can also (on a lesser scale) be classed as Hard Rock. I stress the words on a lesser scale - for example, Rolling Stone classes Halen as Heavy Metal. Black Album era Metallica for example is classed as Hard Rock by some quarters. Seriously, tell these arguers to shut up arguing over genres and start focusing their efforts elsewhere. I'm sick of the constant genre debates they instigate - if they love Van Halen so much, tell them to try improving Halen related articles. We know you pen great FAs / GAs Wesley, so you'd be better off focusing your efforts in that direction - these debates waste valuable time in all areas. LuciferMorgan 09:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll keep a watch over Van Halen; as (another) analogy between WP:ALM and WP:HMM, the Red Hot Chili Peppers article used to suffer from genre wars, but now is fine . CloudNine 09:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The best part about genre debates is that if you try hard enough you can actually get people interested in examining reliable sources, so I do think there can be an upside to this. Aside: personally never could get into Van Halen. Am I the only one who thinks David Lee Roth doesn't have that great of a voice? WesleyDodds 09:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Apart from "Jump", I've never heard a single Van Halen song. LuciferMorgan 10:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
"Unchained" is alright. WesleyDodds 10:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Impossible to make new articles

New articles made are continually posted for deletion by mods as soon as they are put up. This is pathetic. How can one created a nessessary article if it is deleted as soon as 5 words are added. Wikipedia is retarded —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kronix (talk • contribs)14 August 2007.

You have to show in the article that the band is notable. Cite your sources, and make sure they are reliable. J Milburn 10:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
In the current environment, you should not assume that the main article space can be used as an editing space for creating a stub article, fortunately or unfortunately. My suggestion to most people is that if they can't create a stub with staying power in a single editing session (for whatever reason) that they create a subpage of their user page, then move that page into main article space once the article reaches an initial stub form. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

The Project's very first peer review has been submitted, and can be viewed here. Any editor who has some suggestions is welcome to share their opinion, and I really hope they do so. I think this process will be vital in fostering future GAs / FAs, so i really hope it takes off. LuciferMorgan 12:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Added some comments. If we can get three or four project members to review each article, that'll offer a lot of momentum. CloudNine 12:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll review them all, but I can't review my own. J Milburn 15:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
As soon as a Metal article is nominated, of course we can review them. Since some of the reviewers will likely be Alternative music Project members, I'd like it so that Metal Project members at least have the decency to extend the same courtesy. LuciferMorgan 15:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have the desire to choose a Heavy Metal article and maybe earn a GA or FA for the first time? Don't be scared, as although it's time consuming it isn't as difficult as it looks. There's plenty of experienced editors willing to give feedback every step of the way, and valuable advice. The first step is always the hardest, so once you've taken that it's easier after that. So step right up first timers and write a GA / FA. Any takers? LuciferMorgan 09:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

For those who need references, I have access to three well-researched and reliable books on the metal genre as a whole. Ian Christe's Sound of the Beast (2003) is the most recent, but the other two (published in the early 1990s) are the best and are what I would consider essential reading for those interested in studying metal. I also have a number of Guitar Worl issues ranging from 2000 to 2005. WesleyDodds 03:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Toxik

This article needs some attention. Sources, notability, templates, categories, etc. 24.4.253.249 22:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll work on it. Thanks.

Megazodiac 19:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed all the tags on the page and the notability tag is something that caught my eye, as they did release 2 albums under Roadracer Records (which changed it's name to Roadrunner Records which we all know) a few years later, so you might wanna mention that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shatterzer0 (talk • contribs)19:35, August 20, 2007 (UTC).
I have added a discography section, including the re-releases, which should verify the article's notability. Thank you for bringing that up. Megazodiac 15:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Redesign

CloudNine has kindly given the Project page a redesign, so anyone's thoughts upon the redesign is extremely welcome. I like it personally :) LuciferMorgan 11:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Beautiful, looks much more professional. Now, someone give me a job to do! J Milburn 12:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! You might want to include a free image of a band rocking out in the top-right hand corner; makes it look a little more metal ;) (see WP:ALM). I think I'll help implement an importance rating, if only to see what the most important articles are to the project. CloudNine 12:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Currently working on an importance rating for Template:HMM, which I'll finish tommorow. The statistics might be incorrect until then. CloudNine 15:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Dude, it looks great. Maybe instead of a band rocking out (if so I suggest Metallica), get a picture of metal horns (preferably a flaming metal horns picture). And if you get a free use picture of a band I would personaly prefer Metallica, first of all because they are the best selling metal artist in the world, second of all they just friggen rule. Skeeker [Talk] 15:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I can help rate some articles for importance (once we get to mid-importance it'll be a bit of a challenge for me, though). Top importance level should be easy: you've got Heavy metal music, of course, and then essential bands like Led Zeppelin (yes, they fall under the scope of this project), Black Sabbath, Judas Priest, Van Halen, and Metallica. I suggest keeping the Top Importance category small (WP:ALM only have 11 Top Importance articles) since that level is reserved only for articles essential and indispensible to the layperson to understanding the topic. WesleyDodds 20:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Can't say I'm a big fan of using an importance rating, since this is rife to cause trouble. At this Project, we already have people debating which band belongs to which genre. This will garner Metal fans complaining their fave band deserves a better rating. Also, beyond rating top importance articles like Metallica, Slayer etc., then I would not be able to rate mid importance articles. My honest feelings is most will be left unrated for importance as nobody will be rating them - unless I rate new articles, they haven't been receiving quality ratings, so what's stopping the same scenario here? :( LuciferMorgan 21:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It's natural to think so, but after about seven months of rating for importance on WP:ALM, no-one's really complained (after all, it doesn't affect an article as such). You could always start an assessment drive for importance (once the top and high importance have been rated, people should be able to rate mid and low without too much trouble). Just a thought. CloudNine 21:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

CloudNine did a pretty good job, if I do say so myself :)I shall Mezmerize you! My edits shall Mezmerize you!! My articles shall Mezmerize you!!! 04:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Death metal article rewrite

The death metal article isn't very encyclopedic. The lack of sources, all the original research, constant vandalism, bandcruft etc. make the article scream for a rewrite. I've started a prototype article at User:Emmaneul/Death metal based on the black metal article. I'm changing it sentence after sentence, step by step, using sources along the way. I'm planning to reuse the good parts of the actual DM article where I can.

If you would like to comment/help, please do, reply here or at User talk:Emmaneul/Death metal. Note that it's still a draft version and I'm now rewriting the "Early history (up to 1991)" part, the sections above it have been rewritten, soon I'll be working on the rest. Emmaneul (Talk) 08:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Great idea! Since I'm not really a specialist in the genre, I don't think my help would lead to anything constructive, but I think that this is a very good idea. Zouavman Le Zouave 10:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:PROD nominations

Yeah, it would be nice to have somewhere on the main project page to post these, as long as it was kept reasonably clean. On another note, I fully support the deletion of the above article. J Milburn 03:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
A way in which you can indicate your agreement that the article should be deleted is to add {{prod-2|commentcomment}}, replacing 'commentcomment' with your rationale; the template should be placed under the initial subst'd PROD template, leaving the PROD template in place. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 05:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
putting on main page There are a variety of strategies used by other WikiProjects; for an incomplete accounting which is growing organically see User:Ceyockey/Notifying WikiProjects of Deletion Proposals. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 05:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Not certain if it is metal, but I have added some references and removed the prod regardless. (conversation break)
I typically won't place something on a WikiProject Metal page unless there is a WikProject Banner associated with it as I'm not that familiar with Metal myself ... and in this case such a banner is in place. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
(conversation break rejoin) Perhaps the best way to incorporate something like this into the main page would be to link to a subpage, as we do with the peer review, and we can have separate lists for AfDs, PRODs and recently deleted. We could also incorporate merge requests with that. I think such a page would be a useful reference. J Milburn 16:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Would Wikipedia:WikiProject Metal/Deletions be sufficient? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I have created the relevant subpage, and linked to it from the main project page. Someone else may want to rearrange/rewrite it as they see fit, it isn't exactly an artistic masterpiece. J Milburn 12:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I've updated User:Ceyockey/Notifying WikiProjects of Deletion Proposals#WikiProject using a Project-specific Deletions page accordingly. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post Mortem (Boston Band)

Although I am maintaining our deletions list, I just wanted to draw attention to this particular debate. The band seems to be notable, but, having disbanded before the Internet really caught on, they have limited web presence. If anyone is able to locate any sources, you will be able to save an article that appears to be worth saving. J Milburn 00:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The article needs a rewrite, and especially needs to add any signs of notsbility. What labels signed them? What famous bands did they support? Etc. etc, Currently, a quick browse at the article suggests they're of no notability (which might not be the case if notable things were added to the article). LuciferMorgan 13:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Metal/Archive_4&oldid=1190119952"