Talk:Nickelback/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Criticism

Unoriginal lyrics + Amateur level musical ability + Recycled song format + Love of money = Nickelback. Seriously, I’m embarrassed for them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.208.6 (talk) 10:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

As there aren't any actual criticisms in the criticism section, I renamed it to the one thing it does contain, "How You Remind Me Of Someday". Wikipedia:Criticism is not policy, it's just an essay, a personal opinion. Here's my personal opinion: you're all a bunch of pussies. "How You Remind Me Of Someday" has its notability verified a secondary source (i.e. the interviewer mentioning it and asking the band member about it). If you think that one single criticism somehow skews this article, then you're terribly insecure. Go did up some awards your band won and add them to the article, don't sit around bitching that there's a "criticism" section. a81.179.126.207 23:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Add a criticism section. Critics hate Nickelback and that should be acknowledged. Add how some feel Nickelback is ultra-generic rock music. It's a part of the band's style, to be ultra-generic so it counts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.0.16 (talk) 06:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Find some verifiable secondary sources about it. Almost all bands have critics, but to put them in the article means we're deciding the notability of those criticisms. Instead, find reliable sources which report Nickelback being criticised. Secondary sources are the key here. 81.179.65.87 01:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

As I stated before on this talk page, criticism sections are against wiki policy. Instead, a reception section may be better, highlighting both god and bad comments on the band.Purplepurplepurple 11:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh really? The why does Green Day which is listed under Wikipedia:Good articles have a criticism section?Hoponpop69 (talk) 04:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

When i googled 'nickelback are shit respected critic' it came up with 9440 results. shouldn't be too hard to find one =P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.142.9.128 (talk) 20:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

When I googled 'nickelback is godly respected critic', it came up with 13,900 results. The moral? There isn't one, except that (easily manipulated, if you know how to enter the search terms) search engine results should never be used to back up your arguments.Kyalisu 22:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Kyalisu. Google-proof makes me want to stab people in the face. 22:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.157.150.78 (talk)

The singer's voice - that's what I submit as my proof. They are the most corporate band since Boston from what I can see, except that they are more irritating because music videos exist nowadays. Rock is dead, basically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndriley97 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't care about your opinion. This is an encyclopedia. See WP:NOT. --Yamla (talk) 21:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Wiki's NPOV policy should be suspended in the case of bands that really, really suck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.250.83 (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

seriously, nickelback is one of the OBJECTIVELY WORST BANDS EVER. empirical evidence can be shown to prove this. IF you want to read a glowing review of them, go to their shitty fan page. A dictionary entry should probably atleast mention the complete lack of respect from any one but bud light drinking larry the cable guy watching 16 year old wwf fans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.214.42 (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a criticism section. You will find that most critics are highly critical of their music. Just look up any of their albums on Metacritic, and you will see. I am of the opinion that this page is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts and reads more like a fan article than an Encyclopedic one. --Marto85 (talk) 05:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering Nickelback is debatably the most criticized rock band of this decade and everybody knows it, taking out the criticism section is leaving out important details about the band. To truly complete an article about Nickelback, there MUST be a criticism section, or else it is omition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.76.152 (talk) 03:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah their albums get terrible reviews, that can be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.222.97 (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The talk page for a band should not be used as battleground WP:NOT . I agree that, (perhaps as a footnote) noteable options (both good and bad) could be mentioned.Jadedhonor (talk) 02:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Being rather appalled by how many people use this page to trash Nickelback (what's the fun in doing that in here, where nobody who cares reads it?), I still think it's worth mentioning how they are hated by critics - with good sources of course. It just shouldnt be mentioned judgementally - I mean, I think it's cool that critics used to hate Zeppelin ;) - can't say the same for Nickelback, but that's my personal opinion and thus of no value. Btw, why is this article SO SMALL? Check any other wiki page on a band that's had multiplatinum albums by the buckets, and they're much longer. Especially since Nickelback STILL get multiplatinum in an age of declining cd sales? I don't really like Nickelback, but I think any band of such commercial size deserves a more detailed article. Or are their history so uneventful and boring, that there's nothing more to write?62.107.24.213 (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

If you include digital sales, music sales in general have doubled since 1996 and cd sales have increased. Do a google search on music sales if you don't believe me. Although it's unrelated to the article, I dislike Zeppelin as much as Nickelback (in that I don't like either of their music), but I can at least see why someone would like Zeppelin. Sebastian341 (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of what you think of them, we are talking about ONE OF THE MOST CRITICALLY REVILED BANDS EVER. Not including a "Criticism" section would be like leaving Watergate out of the Richard Nixon article. (LTH, 3/19/09) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.178.151.84 (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Now, I don't mean to offend anyone, but I knew that this would be a mess of a talk-page before I even opened it, and you guys proved that on the first section. Good job, people, I'll definitely turn to you guys when I want an article's point of view neutralised. I like how this article has no "criticism" section, since it just sticks to the facts: That Nickleback are a band who have made several successful albums. None of this hateful, fanboy-esque ranting is needed in an encyclopaedic article.

Just because "acclaimed" critics do or don't like it, I don't think that matters because they're still people, and that's still their opinion. If there are other criticisms apart from personal taste, like the way some rap artists are accused of glorifying gangs, that is different, but there's no reason for your opinion to be in this article. I'm not fond of some bands, but I don't go to the Hannah Montana article and start screaming about adding stuff that is irrelevant, do I?

Please, if you're going to keep ranting about how Wikipedia is wrong because you don't agree with it, then take that to your blog and be like every other teenager who thinks they are the definition of expert when it comes to musical taste. But this isn't your blog, so keep your personal opinion to yourself and so on. Thanks.

TheDarkFlame (talk) 12:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Nickelback is the most boring band in the world. There are quite a few videos on youtube of them being booed offstage in portugal. Another one has them covering "sad but true" by metallica, and they didnt even finish the whole song. When I have grandkids I am going to tell them stories of long car trips with my mom, she would turn on the radio, and I would hear nickelback CONSTANTLY, it became so droning. So tiring. So boring that I tuned them out, I heard a song the other day and I had no clue who it was, but it sounded very familiar, and boring. Then I find out that its NICKELBACK. They had been washed into my subconscious just like a song from a mcdonalds ad. That is MY proof of why nickelback sucks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.178.72 (talk) 08:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not even going to read the above conversation, but I will add to it. I am of the opinion that this article would definitely not be a complete encyclopedic recollection of Nickelback's history if the critical response from their records was not included. You read an article like this, they have a quote from Rolling Stone, Blender, Allmusic, etc. All chronicling their negative opinions of the band (View links for their negative reviews). I skim this and people claim WP:NPOV, yes these ^^^ opinions are POV/OR, but to exclude the critical response is a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. It's excluding a widely accepted critical opinion, and the dominant/majority viewpoint. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 12:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Pop metal, what the hell?

As earlier said, Nickelback are NOT under the genre of whatever you would call "pop metal". They have even confirmed they actually ARE a post-grunge/soft rock band, probably alternative rock/alternative metal, too, so stop changing it. Could someone find a good ref for these genre facts, cos' I suck at the techniques of referencing. A Powerful Weakness (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC) A Powerful Weakness

50 Cent could SAY he's a deathmetal group, it doesn't mean he's RIGHT. NOTHING Nickelback has ever done is "hard".

God Dammit, I had a list of genres as well as a message to warn others against chaging the genres without valid sources. When the hell is any of you going to realize that what you are doing is NOT Wikipedia Policy. 71.229.47.238 (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Bman was here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by W0lverine 2524 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Alternative? Alternative to what...good music? PeteJayhawk (talk) 00:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

They are too maintstream to be alternative metal and yeah they aren't pop metal... lmfao. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanner9461 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say that Nickelback is Buttrock. Other Buttrock bands are Daughtry, Hinder, Creed, Fuel, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.201.35.50 (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Pop-metal is more or less the style of Mötley Crüe/Poison/Def Leppard/Twisted Sister, etc. (don't go nuts just because one of those bands is your fave and you don't think it's pop metal, that's not the point). Whatever Nickelback are (i'd say post-grunge, but that's just my opinion), they're NOT pop metal. I mean, they're not Eighties, they're not glammed up, their lyrics are too dark (I mean, pop metal lyrics are usually VERY lightheart, party-kind), they lack the layers of synthesizers... I mean, that is what I've understood is pop-metal, so Nickelback don't fit the bill. I like pop-metal, don't really like Nickelback, but that's not the point. But listen to a Poison album (whom we must at least ALL agree are pop-metal), and then listen to Nickelback, and the difference is obvious ;) cheers62.107.24.213 (talk) 21:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I considered nickelback Hard Rock, saw them in concert, not HARD at all. Just because they say they are does not make them Hard, or Post-Grunge. Needs to be classified as Rock/Pop or Alternative! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.151.73.168 (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOR, WP:NPOV. Please don't add Original Research or your opinions to articles. We're relying on what Reliable Sources have to say on the matter, music critics and the like. --King Öomie 15:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Nickelback DO NOT play Hard Rock

It's Post-Grunge, a sub-genre of Alternative Rock. You have to be an idiot if you think Nickelback sounds like AC/DC, Kiss, Led Zeppelin, Van Halen ,Def Leppard, etc.

So you're saying that "Animals", and "Never Again" aren't Hard Rock? Adds more to your ignorance in music. 76.91.13.107 (talk) 04:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No... I think what he's trying to say is that Nickelback plays shitty music and some idiots try to make them seem so special by putting in the "hard rock" tag to they genre just so they'll stand out with Def Leppard, Van Halen, Black Sabbath, etc.. 66.225.14.190 (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Nickelback sure sell more records than those bands. Anyway, there are sources for hard rock so in the concerns of everyone here, the band is hard rock. Timmeh! 22:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculuos...Actually, Van Halen alone sold twice as much records as Nickelback...and Black Sabbath sold more than twice as much records as Van Halen...oO Frusciantor (talk) 14:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right, but you're getting off topic. I think this discussion is over. This was a pointless topic for discussion, and hard rock is sourced. Timmeh! 21:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Beaten, and decided to change the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.168.58 (talk) 04:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Animals and Favorite Damn Desease are Hard Rock. Plus, Def Lep is Glam Metal, Black Sabbathe is Heavy Metal, Van Halen is Classic Hard Rock... Thay are Alturn Rock Hard Rock Dudes. And don't swear. Altenhofen (talk) 23:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems someone is insisting on the genres being classed as "post-grunge" and "alternative metal". Now, post-grunge I'm not going to object to. But Nickelback are NOT alternative metal, not in the slightest. No, no, no, no, no. They are also the very definition of modern hard rock. Perhaps they don't fit in with hard rock from the 80s, but genres change over time. The point is they are most definitely not any kind of metal, even such a ridiculous genre as alternative metal, and unless someone can provide a -reliable- source for it (i.e. something other than allmusic), I'll simply dedicate my time to keeping the genres accurate. Prophaniti (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

But Nickelback is called a "Canadian alternative metal group" here. Just pointing it out. :) I'm not very familiar with music types or that stuff. --PeaceNT (talk) 19:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

True, although that particular source originates from all movie guide, another branch of the company that runs allmusic, so their reliability (which I'm working to disprove) would hinge on the same thing. Prophaniti (talk) 03:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I've removed their "alternative metal" tag. Allmusic is not really a reliable source regarding any kind of metal genre (see the current discussion on the source reliability noticeboard page), and if anyone wants a counter-source, the "Rough Guide to Heavy Metal" describes them as both rock and grunge (post-grunge will do) but never alternative metal. Prophaniti (talk) 23:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The Hardest thing Nickelback plays are their covers of AC-DC. Not Hard Rock, they are alternative or pop/rock with a few "harder" songs, but that doesn't make them hard. Tupac had a few songs which were R&B but that doesn't make him an R&B artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.151.73.168 (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

We're relying on what Reliable Sources have to say on the matter, actually, not the band itself. --King Öomie 15:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You are all forgetting something important alternative rock,post-grunge, alternative metal whatever you want to call them are all sub-genres of hard rock. Besides they have loud guitars on alot of their songs and guitar solos on most. Those are things you need for hard rock. And look at all the hard rockers they have played with ZZ Top, Dimebag Darell , And Ace freakin Frehley. I dare someone to argue with me. --User:Aceman97 —Preceding undated comment added 02:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC).

History

At first I want to say that the arcitles about Nickelback are great but the History is horrible, for example The Long Road isn't even mentioned. So I wrote a history, but I want you to correct it because I'm Austrian and I'm don't speak as good English as you do.

Nickelback's first release was a 7 Track EP called Hesher in 1996. In the same year Nickelback recorded their first full-length album Curb. Fly was released on Hesher and Curb and was the first single ever produced by Nickelback. It didn't get any chart attention and was only played on local radio stations. Curb sold record 100,000 copies as independent record.

The following album The State was recorded in 1998 and was released as independent record in the same year. Nickelback signed a record deal with EMI and Roadrunner Records. The State was then re-released in 2000 by EMI and Roadrunner Records and featured two top 10 singles (one being Leader of Men). It was certificated Gold in Canada and the United States.

Their third full-length album Silver Side Up includes the smash hit How You Remind Me which peaked in several countries on #1 and while it topped both the Mainstream and Modern Rock charts for 13 weeks. Too Bad, the second single, was in The Guinness Book of Records for peaking more than 20 weeks on #1. The following single Never Again also hit the top of the Billboard Hot Mainstream rock tracks. Silver Side Up was certificated 6x Platinum in the United States, 8x Platinum in Canada, 3x Platinum in the UK, 2x Platinum in Australia und Platinum in four other European countries. How You Remind Me became the Billboard Hot 100 Number one single of the year 2002.

The Long Road which was released in 2003 didn't do as well as Silver Side Up. Although its second single Figured You Out topped the Mainstream Rock charts for 13 weeks. Someday was criticized to have too many similarities with How You Remind Me and didn't get such a hit single. It was certificated 4x Platinum in Canada, 3x Platinum in the US and Australia and Platinum in Germany and New Zealand.

Nickelback's fifth studio album, All the Right Reasons, has sold over 6.7 million albums in the United States and over 9.5 million albums worldwide. It is the 16th album so far in the 21st century that has reach that level. The album produced five U.S. Hot 100 top 20 singles, "Photograph", "Savin' Me", "Far Away", "If Everyone Cared", and "Rockstar", three of them being U.S. Hot 100 top 10 singles. All the Right Reasons sold more than 6.7 million copies in the US and was found again inside the top 10 of the Billboard 200 in its 99th, 100th, 101st, and 102nd weeks on the chart. The album had never been below #30 on the Billboard 200 in 110 weeks, making Nickelback the first act to have an album in the top thirty of the Billboard 200 for its first 100 weeks since Shania Twain's album, Come on Over stayed in the top thirty for 123 consecutive weeks following its release. Billboard Magazine called the album "the biggest rock album of the century so far." In the UK, the album opened it's chart run at #13 before quickly leaving the top 75 with no top 20 singles, with "Savin' Me" being their first to miss the top 75 altogether. While being their smallest-selling UK album since "Curb", it experienced, in early 2008, a resurrection due to the single "Rockstar" becoming Nickelback's highest charting single ever in the UK. The album has now outpeaked its previous peak of #13, reaching #2. . All the Right Reasons has appeared in the top 40 of the United World Chart for 89 non-consecutive weeks making it the third album to stay in the chart for so long. It was certificated 7x Platinum in the US, 6x Platinum in Canada, 4x Platinum in Australia and New Zealand, 3x Platinum in Switzerland and Platinum in Germany and the UK.

According to Roadrunner Germany the 6th studio album by Nickelback will be released in Spring 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.47.219.70 (talk) 13:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Now this looks more like a real article. Anyone object to it being copied and pasted over that fanclub press release that's there now?216.197.230.150 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well it needs links and references, but overall its a definite improvement. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 23:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yet you also fail to mention the single "Side of a Bullet" released off of All the Right Reasons. This is something that needs to be added to make it accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.242.233 (talk) 02:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

They only played "Burn it to the Ground" at the closing ceremonies for the Winter Olympics 2010. They were originally scheduled to play a medley of both but changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geckofx (talk • contribs) 04:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? Until you can provide one, I'm going to keep the statement that they were to play two songs, since that's what the reference says. If you have a reference, please do change the statement, using your reference. Thanks, C628 (talk) 11:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I was there the YouTube videos of the performance will show the same. The refrence is wrong, written by some reporter that did not actually see the show just wrote it off the initial press release. So let's pull the reference all together and leave it as a statement of obvious fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.244.4.2 (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

And someone can add this citation from the aftershow press release. roadrunnerrecords.com/news/Nickelback-Say-Last-Nights-Performance-Was-Something-We-Will-Never-Forget-21017.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geckofx (talk • contribs) 00:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Gener(s) separated by <br> tags

The example template for bands uses br tags, and commas for solo artists. I have been following WP:MOS and separating the genre(s) by line breaks. User:Timmeh reverts my edits and said this is controversial, does anyone have a problem with following the example MOS provides? Landon1980 (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Landon, please take a look at the reply on my talk page. Also, that is not MOS, it is a template. If you scroll down to the bottom of Template:Infobox Musical artist you will see that all three examples, one being a band, have their genres separated by commas. Timmeh! 22:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, although you have only been editing for a week or two, you seem to know a lot about the policies and what goes on here. Have you been using an IP to edit before creating your account? If so, may I ask what IP? I'm just curious. Thanks. Timmeh! 22:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

My IP address is none of your fucking business.75.125.166.5 (talk) 04:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Landon, I could easily take that as a personal attack. You need to be more civil. And if you don't think what you said is enough to warrant a block, think again. User:MONGO (although this is being argued over) got blocked for a week just for saying "get lost" to an admin, so I'd watch what I say in the future if I were you. Timmeh! 15:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

OK thought I was still logged in. You now have my work IP, happy? To answer your question though. NO, you cannot have the IP address to my home computer. Landon1980 (talk) 04:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, what would I do if I were blocked from editing Wikipedia? My life as I know it would be over. Please spare me, I'm begging you. Landon1980 (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Guys come on i saw thiat at WP:ANI and quite frnakly its such a trivial issue that its not worth getting into a heated arugment. a word of friendly advice -- maybe if you both took a few hours off wiki to cool off and relax then when you come back youll realize that the commas/line breaks edebate is almost completley ireelevent to your lives. its certainly nort worth getting blocked by an admin for edit-warring, especially when you bot h look like such good editors. just relax, play something else, or edit elsewehre and come back when this issue doesnt seem so dramatic after all. Smith Jones (talk) 16:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

All we need is a third opinion. Do you think the genres should stay as they were before Landon changed them? That's the only logical thing to do since there is no consensus on how to separate genres. Timmeh! 18:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Landon, please see Template:Infobox Musical artist before you revert my edit again. It says in plain print that they can be separated by either commas or line breaks. Since there's argument over which to put, the one that was used originally should be used, and that's comma separation. You should know that I am absolutely not for all genres to be separated by either commas or line breaks. You have to use your judgement with these kinds of things. What you definitely should not have done is cite WP:MOS for your change because that template is not part of MOS. And you can't just use an example that happens to be separated by line breaks as a substitute for the template directly stating it. You shouldn't imply for unstated rules on guidelines or policies. I hope you understand now what I'm trying to say. Timmeh! 01:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

quite frnakly this whole debate is totally immaterial. EITHER option is perfectly accetpible under the laws of wikipedia. there is no need to have an edit war over this. one of you needs to be more mature and back down over this issue to avoid winding up in the wikipedias lamest edit war convention for this. I am personaly okay with the version currenlty on the page, and I see no reason for a continued protracted edit war or another WP:ANI case over this. I dont want to see either of you getting blocked so I realy advise you to let this issue drop for now and move onto something else more importajt. Smith Jones (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose adding references is "controversial" in the great Timmeh's eyes, so I better bring it here to discuss. Does anyone have a problem with content in this article being cited with a reliable sorce? Timmeh says it is cluttered to use sources for genres, so I guess if anyone out there wishes to add "Flintstone Rock" hell just add it, no need for the claim to be confirmed. Landon1980 (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Reliable citations throughout the article are great, the more the better, however I don't feel that they should be in the sidebar. The sidebar is just there to list some really basic information about the band, and such basic information should not need to be cited. As for vandals adding random genres, thats why we are here; put the page on your watch list if it is not already there, and correct any vandalism that occurs.Purplepurplepurple (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Seriousness

I am new here, but anyway, the tone of this article does not fit in with almost any other Wikipedia article that I've seen. It reads like a (very badly written) advertisement for the band. There are far too many positive adjectives for it to be an honest description of Nickelback. Incidentally, the above discussion where a Nickelback fan tries to suggest that the band is somthing other than a simple Pop band is quite amusing.

gracias Redemption Face (talk) 23:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

They are as far from Pop as Linkin Park and thats pretty Far. Wheezer and Avrile Lavigne are pop. They are a Hard Rock (Sometimes) and Altern Rock Band. Altenhofen (talk) 23:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone's obviously fixed this which is nice. Thankyou for your input, 'Altenhofen'. I'm going to assume you are being ironic when you say Linkin Park are any distance from being Pop, seeing as they are one of the most prominent bands guilty of making commercial Pop-Metal. If you are being serious, please avoid editing music pages. Incidentally, there's nothing wrong with Pop music per se, it can be both good and bad. Also, it's kind of making a mockery of the word 'Alternative' when it's attached to a group like Nickelback who sell millions upon millions of records. Redemption Face (talk) 17:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we please keep the musical elitism off of Wikipedia please? kthxbai --TwilightDuality (talk) 07:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll second that motion if we can extend the rule to forbid internet abbreviations... --King ♣ Talk 18:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you last two guys I don't want to be rude but you guys ae acting like kids no offense. Lets just put this behind us and just call nickelback rock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aceman97 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarised History

if you have a look on http://www.nickelback.com/new/bio, you'll see that the History section of the Nickelback article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickelback) has been copied almost word-for-word. I honestly think someone should try rewriting this section.

Bc.cho (talk) 10:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, placed copy-paste template, it's directly copied from http://www.nickelback.com/new/bio#tabset-1 - how come no one reverted the edit that copied that in at the time? kiac (talk) 07:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:FORUM

Since everyone feels the need to trash Nickelback in the discussion, I'd like to point out WP:FORUM. Also, see the top of the talk-page, this is not for discussing the subject of the article. /End Rant. --Joseph Leito (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Alternative Metal

I am new in this discussion! Nickelback is Alternative metal band!Alternative metal songs are:Flat on the floor,Because of you,Saturday night alraigh for fighting,Figured you out!Nickelback is post-grunge,alternative metal,Hard Rock band! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grungi17 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I also think we should add Alternative metal to the infobox because there's a good source:[1].

No, there's allmusic, which is not even remotely a good source, not when it comes to metal genres. They're about as unreliable as they come for that. Unfortunately, most wikipedia editors seem too stupid to realise this. Prophaniti (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

As "unreliable" as allmusic is, it's still more reliable than you. Not saying i condone it, but it's better than you adding your own thing there. If people stopped arguing about such a pissant issue and spent their time contributing to the actual article - rather than 3 lines in the infobox - then maybe it wouldn't be such a crap article. Goodnight. kiac (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to change anything here, because I know that, as I say, most editors are too stubborn to see how things are. And as it happens, actually I am a lot more reliable than allmusic. Many, many times more reliable. But I haven't been published yet, so I don't count. Prophaniti (talk) 16:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

And that is why you're not more reliable than AMG. Reliability and accuracy are not the same thing, you're getting them confused. AMG is reliable because it will give similar information on similar bands and it can be relied upon to gain important information - it is a source readily there to give information. You, on the other hand, are not, so you can argue until you're blue in the face that AMG gives wrong information (which is in fact impossible, as genres are not factual anyway), but it will continue to be used because it is reliable. Not necessarily accurate, but reliable. James25402 (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

No, you're confusing actual reliability and wikipedia reliability. Wikipedia reliability is what is dependant upon being published or not. Actual reliability is how much something can be relied upon to be factually correct. Incidentally, a common mistake is the notion that genres are in no part factual. They are in fact a mix of subjective opinion and objective information. There -are- definite things in genres, so yes, allmusic can be wrong, and indeed it is, many times.

However, I don't know why people are arguing over this with me. As I've said, I'm not going to attempt to change this article, because the alt. metal genre tag is perfectly in keeping with wikipedia's rules, however ridiculous such rules may be. Prophaniti (talk) 21:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Your definition of 'actual reliability' is actually what is known as 'validity'. Wikipedia reliability and reliability are essentially the same thing - the knowledge that all results will consistently appear to be the same over and again. One thing I have noticed is that AMG labels all metalcore bands as 'alternative metal'. This could be argued as being invalid as these bands are not strictly speaking 'alternative metal' (as an umbrella term perhaps), however it is reliable as you can check all metalcore bands and they will all be labelled in the same way.

Also, I'd strongly disagree that genres are factual. The only way to factually claim a band is a particular genre is to look at the criteria for it and deduce that the band fulfills all criteria for that genre and none of any other genres. If it is possible for anyone to disagree that this criteria has been entirely fulfilled, then it will become subjective. It's a matter of opinion how much criteria needs to be fulfilled in order for a band to fall under a genre. For example, power ballads are not considered a part of heavy metal music. Metallica have a song called 'Nothing Else Matters', therefore it could be argued that Metallica are not a heavy metal band. Admittedly this would be a pretty stupid argument as it's obvious Metallica are a metal band, but nonetheless a small amount of doubt could be placed upon it. It would be perfectly logical to make this argument - obviously in the real world this argument would never hold up as it is common opinion that Metallica are a metal band, but if it weren't, it is possible this claim would hold some weight.

Bottom line is, if it can be argued against (i.e. cannot be proven beyond all doubt), it is not factual. Genres cannot be proven beyond all doubt, even in the most clear cut cases, which is why most band Discussion pages have genre arguments. James25402 (talk) 23:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

All I'll say in response is while genres certainly aren't truly "factual", there are many points in between "entirely objective" and "entirely subjective". But despite the urge to continue with this discussion, I think we've strayed well beyond the bounds of what this originally was, and into an area not relating to the article. Prophaniti (talk) 01:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Very true. While I was arguing that AMG is a reliable source, I'm not necessarily fussed if alternative metal is listed in the infobox or not as I feel that Nickelback's catalogue in general is not alternative metal, but if it stayed I wouldn't argue against it either. James25402 (talk) 12:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The argument "better than you" is a loaded argument. All music guide is pretty bad at it, it has no credentials other than being a site. Look at the "about us" or whatever section there are no credentials. Anyone can make a site -.- there are bands I like they get completely wrong, and I refer to older genres that they use to classify new groups because they feel they capture the "style" so right there it often confuses style with substance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.76.60.163 (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Unfortunately AMG is accepted on wiki: it's published, and has hired "experts". Of course, these are the same "experts" who claim Nightwish are symphonic black metal. AMG is one of the absolute worst sources for heavy metal genres: if there's a patent mistake on wikipedia, I can guarantee you AMG will be at the root of it. But alas, there's nothing to be done about it. Wikipedia just reports such mistakes. Prophaniti (talk) 10:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

New tour

Does anyone know whose supporting them on their newest tour for europe. I've also noticed this page hasn't got a lot written on it. And there is nothing about their tours. Despite them playing around the world. - Delete this if you like. I was just wondering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.111.228 (talk) 15:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Chad's job at Starbucks?

I understood the "nickelback" name was from Tim Hortons not Starbucks.

~ Kristen March 18, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamaray123 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That would make sense, given the band's Canadian roots 128.223.193.97 (talk) 06:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I heard him say it was Starbucks, and in Vancouver there are more Starbucks' than Tim Hortons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.183.70.15 (talk) 05:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

altenative metal

we have to put it back in the infobox, not only because it's one of the most frequent genres in the band's catalouge, but becasue if we don't wikipedia is contradicting itself. here on wikipedia, 4 out of the six albums they have released so far are correctly listed as alternative metal, whihc constitutes majority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.163.13.236 (talk) 05:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

"4 out of the six albums they have released so far are correctly listed as alternative metal"

-'Correctly' listed? Are they sourced, or is that your opinion? And the "majority" statement is entirely irrelevant. Wikipedia governs itself by community consensus, not brute-force majority rule. --King ♣ Talk 18:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with you, although it doesnt have much sources by the look of things. They do have quite a few notable Alternative metal songs, mostly on their first album it appears and some on later albums. Although they do seem more accurately classed as the genres currently stated, Alternative metal does seem present in their music style in certain albums so it deserves to be re-added. 86.166.248.9 (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Portugal Concert

For some reason my reference to the concert in 2004 keeps getting deleted. I would not mind if it was irrelevent or non-neutral or copyright or violated some other rule, but it just gets undone without comment. Please can someone say why this concert is not worthy of mention on this page?

FWIW here is the text I inserted:

Mainstream failure: 2004

In Portugal Nickelback were part way in to their second song when the crowds started throwing debris at the stage, causing Chad Kroeger to put down his guitar and announce on the microphone "Are there any Nickelback fans in Portugal?". As this failed to elicit a positive response he added "Are you sure?". The crowd still failed to beg for more, and so Chad said "See you" before leaving the stage with one digit raised. This film has been recognised as authentic by CTV Television Network who note "A YouTube clip shows the band storming off stage in Portugal after being pelted with rocks and water bottles. The video has been viewed almost two million times".

For starters, titling it "Mainstream failure" is just going to attract removal. It should be something more neutral, under a Criticism section, sub-sectioned to "Crowd disapproval" or something. Note down this and any other incidents in there. It doesn't warrant it's own entire section, not that notable of a thing really. Plenty of bands garner a hateful crowd every now and then. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 13:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks Kiac. On reflection I can see the word failure could be inflamatory, specially when seen by hardcore Nickelback fans. The only reason I chose this word was that it complimented the success headline, but I'll accept your suggestion to make it appear less hateful. FWIW I never heard about Nickelback till I saw this video, so in a strange way it may have given them a wider exposure and even a little sympathy. No such thing as bad publicity it seems.--Tomxcoady (talk) 08:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep, they're quite well known for being hated. No reason why it shouldn't be noted in an encyclopedic article, as long as there are reliable sources. It was a rather clever name, I liked it. :) But you're right, people take offence and suddenly it disappears. I might dig a little and see if I can expand on this section. Will keep eyes on the vandal removals for you. Nice work. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 11:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Kiac - it's good to know that there is some sense here when you look for it. Of course I'll always do my best to cite reliable sources while keeping a neutral point of view. --Tomxcoady (talk) 11:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

So... what happened to this...? I went on this page to check out if this was true or not and had to dig through the discussion to find out -__- Jcmcc450 (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure. It's definitely notable, I remember hearing about it when it happened. 32.97.110.58 (talk) 17:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Neutral article or an attack on Nickelback?

The author of the article is stating criticism of the band along with other unfortunate mishaps (i.e. the Portugal fiasco) the band has been involved with, but the article does not mention any of the positive, charitable work the band is also a part of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.227.204 (talk) 03:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to add it yourself, be bold and cite sources. This article is being closely monitored, and all derogatory/disputable claims are reliably sourced. The incident should probably not be singled out, but this just shows how much the article has suffered in the past from vandals/fans removal of detrimental material from their favorite band's article. If you have a problem with the neutrality of the article, please read WP:UNDUE. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 05:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we can integrate at least the Portugal bit into the History section. Tubularbells1993 (talk) 23:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Allmusic genres & styles

The editors which are insisting that Allmusic are claiming these guys are Pop/Rock are dead set incorrect. The "Genre" field on Allmusic is plain and simply, a categorising tool. The "Styles" field is what we are after, if you are going to list specific genres as you have now (Hard rock, Alternative metal, etc). Now, this practice is against the "generality" that we should be aiming for, but if you insist on maintaining specifics, then you are mistaken. Allmusic also considers Lamb of God, for example, as Pop/Rock in their Genre field. It is not a critique on a band's actual musical style or actuall genre, just a general category of which that specific genre essentially belongs in. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 08:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You're argument is flawed, and essentially you're merely arguing semantics.

For starters, you cannot bring other unrelated artists in as an argument, but if you insist, I'll address this. Your view of "pop music" is so narrow minded and inaccurate that you only think Lady GaGa etc are pop, but this is false. Actually, speaking in broad terms, Lamb of God is actually pop music; if it's not classical music or art music, it's pop music. Genre warriors, who are usually adolescent males with a "tough guy" complex, just can't handle the fact that a band they like is a pop band. These people need to learn that (a)Pop is a very vast genre that encompasses many different styles and sub-genres, and (b)there is absolutely nothing inherently derogatory about the pop genre. If people could just understand these two simple facts, 99% of all genre edit-warring would not exist. Alas, it's just wishful thinking that people will ever understand something so simple, so we'll just stick to policy.

It is beyond ridiculous to assert that even though the reliable source Allmusic has plainly and clearly listed Nickelback's genre as pop rock (or "pop/rock"), that they don't actually mean the band's genre is "pop rock". For you to use the argument that "The "Genre" field on Allmusic is plain and simply, a categorising tool" is pretty damn silly considering that Genres are just that; ways of categorising music. This is simply original research, and cherry picking a source to fit a specific POV.

On Allmusic, "Genre" is a general field to refer to the broader genre that a band fits into - you know, just like the "generality" the "Template Infobox Musical Artist" is asking for. Whereas "styles' refers to the specific genre/sub-genre within the larger genre. So when using Allmusic as a source for genres, one can and should include what is under both "Genre" and "Style". But considering that you yourself have just stated that going into too much detail in the infobox is against the guidelines, we should really be removing specific sub-genres such as alt-metal, post-grunge etc, rather than the accurate but general term "pop rock".

TL;DR? - "pop/rock" is verified by a reliable source. Last I checked, Wikipedia is still based on verifiability. 124.186.246.195 (talk) 10:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how many things you accused me of, you had a very nice long rant about my issues (haha). No I'm not a fan of Nickelback, no I'm not a genre warrior (I didn't even revert this once, just observed you idiots wasting your time), yes I'm an adolescent - I edit Wikipedia regularly, definitely not claiming to be a tough guy of any sort (lol), I merely came here to point out Allmusic's intentions - if you can't see that, then that's your problem.

Your second last paragraph is what I would do, but have fun enforcing it, you just lost my help. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 11:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe you should re-read all of that. Nowhere did I accuse you of anything, rather, I pointed out why your argument was wrong, and why genre warriors do what they do. If you can't understand how Allmusic works, then you shouldn't comment on it. The fact is Genres on Allmusic are genres period, not a way to "classify their database". 124.186.246.195 (talk) 11:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Kiac. Look at Metallica's and Justin Timberlake's listings. Neither are pop rock acts; this is simply a listing on Allmusic to combine pop and rock artists.

If it listed "Pop/Rock" as a style on Allmusic (see Britney Spears), you could add that as a genre on her page. But if it's listed as a genre and not a style, Allmusic isn't calling the artist a pop rock act. D.C. Blake (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You are reffering to popular music which is diffrent from pop —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jprothro (talk • contribs) 21:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Pop Rock

Nickelback is not pop rock so stop putting that they are post grunge —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jprothro (talk • contribs) 21:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Continuing the argument about Nickelback being pop rock and allmusic's styles (I heartily agree with that it SHOULDN'T be pop rock) I have removed pop rock genre from all thier albums. Putting "Do NOT put Pop Rock here. A discussion has been finalised on Nickelback's discussion page. Pop-Metal MAY be acceptable but a discussion needs to be made." tsunamishadow (talk) 21:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

This conversation hardly constitutes any sort of consensus which would over-ride the earlier discussion and consensus. Sorry. The Real Libs-speak politely 22:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I´m completely agree. NICKELBACK IS NOT POP ROCK...Just hear the riffs...it is Hard Rock/Alternative Rock and PostGrunge. That's it! Stop writing that... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asatvolca (talk • contribs) 22:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Genres Suck

Nickelback is pop rock. I'm not a metal expert so you can say what you will about the pop-metal/alternative metal thing, but Nickelback is not alternative rock or post-grunge. Just because some "Reliable" article says something doesn't mean its true. If you don't allow hardcore music fans to have opinions than you shouldn't allow crappy magazines to either. 69.136.97.61 (talk) 01:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Here at Wikipedia, we do not care what's true; we care what's verifiable. --Evb-wiki (talk) 07:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Erm, I'm sure we do care about truth. The point of the verifiablity policy is to enable the reader to check that we're not simply making things up (or advancing our own agenda etc). It's not there so we can wilfully spread disinformation.

(To 69.136.97.61) While hardcore music fans are allowed their opinions – as are all of us – Wikipedia's current policy is to base articles around reliable, published sources. If you wish to see a change to that policy, then the proper channel would be Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Alternatively, you are free to discuss the reliability of the sources present in any article. --Dominic Hardstaff (talk) 07:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

What the album genres SHOULD be

In my opinion, these are what Nickelback's album genres should be. Im sure many Nickelback fans will agree!

Curb-Alternative metal, post-grunge

The State-Alternative metal, post-grunge

Silver Side Up-Alternative metal, hard rock, post-grunge

The Long Road-Hard rock, post-grunge, alternative metal, heavy metal

All the Right Reasons-Hard rock, post-grunge, alternative rock, alternatve metal, pop rock (maybe)

Dark Horse-Hard rock, alternative metal, post-grunge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.206.87 (talk) 22:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

No Original Research, use Reliable Sources. Don't like it? Go start a blog. When will people learn? k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 13:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes that is correct...finally someone with musical senses —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asatvolca (talk • contribs) 22:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't consider Nickelback to be any kind of Rock. I don't mind that people enjoy their music, it's their opinions, I just want to clarify that this is at best a Country-music band or maybe Pop-Rock at best. I do not personally like them. 10.18.2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.220.135 (talk) 01:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! The albums should tell the genre not the fans. God bless you. Aceman97 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aceman97 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Video showcasing every vandalism

There is a video out showing every time the Nickleback article was vandalized. Do expect a large increase in vandalism and consider having that protection tag on for a bit longer. ;)Calaka (talk) 06:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I expected better from College Humour, that was a pretty poor video - and I had to sit through that song twice over in the process. They should have used diffs!!! Then you can actually see what's been changed.. and I doubt what's in the video is even 5% of the total vandalism haha. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 07:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hehe very true Kiac. I wonder how that new system they are implementing for bios might affect article such as this (where users that have been here for a while approve articles before seeing the latest changes).Calaka (talk) 11:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Unlock the page, Nickelback is not as controversial as one might think

Nickelback is just a band. Just because collegehumor.com has a video of all the horrible vandalism edits of nickelback-on-wikipedia (see: http://www.collegehumor.com/article:1792877) is no reason to lock the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.19.217 (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I saw the collegehumor video, and the only reason I am on the nickelback page is to vandalize it because god they are awful at producing sound. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.181.56 (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why it's locked. If you REALLY want to contribute, make an account. --King Öomie 21:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, unlock the page I want to vandalize this too, I did one account just for that, it should be a right when you do an account: vandalize nickelback page Just4dlulz (talk) 00:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope your real life is more thrilling than what you do on the net. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 01:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I wish Nickelback was more thrilling then this on the net. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.97.186.106 (talk) 04:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh Vandals, your ignorance and motives never cease to amaze me.--SKATER ^Speak. 00:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be unlocked. The page is mostly a surprisingly positive critique of the band. More people hate this band than like it and I think the page should reflect this. For starters 'Nickleback' can be hereafter be referred to as 'Nickleshit'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.165.103 (talk) 00:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia relies on neutrality in its articles, and vandalizing it to show your own dislike of the band violates several of our core policies, including WP:NPOV and WP:OR. There is certainly good reason for the page to be protected. Timmeh 00:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

We could win the war on terror so quickly if we just played nickelback's photograph song over and over and over in the hills of Afghanistan. Think of the lives you could save they would all be begging to surrender. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.62.222.33 (talk) 12:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Chad/Ryan

Why does it say the Chad is the lead guitarist? Ryan is —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.183.182.143 (talk) 12:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why that is, but it might be because Chad is more famous than Ryan. Although in a cuteness contest, Ryan would so beat him.----Catinthecloset

Why is this page locked?

I want to tell everyone in the world that Nickelback is an awesome band which sucks so hard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.226.197.96 (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The page was protected from editing due to the frequency with which it was vandalized. To edit the page, one has to create an account. Also, despite the page being protected, it is still frequently patrolled, and any vandalism or inappropriate edits are quickly reverted. C628 (talk) 00:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has got nothing to do with awesomeness or sucking, it's only about providing accurate information. For as long as you're a Wikipedia editor, you're not a fan or a hater of anyone. ×××BrightBlackHeaven^(talk)××× 08:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't have put it better. C628 (talk) 14:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Timeline?

Seriously, Nickelback does not need a timeline. Timelines are usually used for bands where the members have frequently changed, not where only 2 lineup changes have ever happened, both times on the same instrument. I think most people in the world can understand the complex history of nickelback without a visual aid. Pritoolmachine2806 (talk) 06:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Ha, I agree. ×××BrightBlackHeaven^(talk)××× 07:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Nickelback is NOT a heavy metal band.

Come on, people. Listen to one of their records.

Now listen to stuff by Black Sabbath, Dio, Iron Maiden, Scorpions, Judas Priest...

Can you tell the difference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GDA9 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Um...please read the references; Allmusic right here says that one of Nickelback's "styles" is heavy metal, and we have to go with what sources like that say, rather than someone's opinion. Also, please have a look at the rest of this page; there's been several complaints over the genres listed; consensus has been that what's up there is good. Thanks, C628 (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, but have you listened to actual heavy metal bands? Do that. Then listen to Nickelback. Nickelback IS NOT heavy metal and never will be. Iron Maiden IS heavy metal. Judas Priest IS heavy metal. Dio IS heavy metal. Black Sabbath IS heavy metal. Nickelback is NOT. This is an OBJECTIVE fact, not an opinion. Search Nickelback here: http://www.metal-archives.com/

You won't find it.

um i don't mean to bard in but in Nickelback's early years, such as their album, The Long Road was metal in the genre category of my MP3.-- Cucumberkvp (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

My tastes in music are irrelevant to editing Wikipedia. That said, my point still stands; consensus says that the genres up there are sufficient, and will probably not be changed in the near future. If enough people were to advocate for the removal of the heavy metal characterization, that would be enough to get it removed, but given that reliable, secondary sources have labeled Nickelback as heavy metal, I honestly don't see how that'd happen, as our policies state that what we write must be backed up by sources, not someone's opinion. Thanks, C628 (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the genre classification in Allmusic is someone's opinion.

The fact that Nickelback isn't a heavy metal band is just that, A FACT.

Another thing I should point out: their lyrics. They're about relationships and feelings. Heavy metal lyrics is about war, death, being a man and honour - NOT faggot shit like Nickelback's lyrics. GET A CLUE!

Please explain, then, how your argument is not your opinion just as much as that of Allmusic's editors. C628 (talk) 10:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

::Go to www.metal-archives.com - that's where you'll find experts on heavy metal.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.60.42 (talk) 12:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC) 

Justin Bieber connection

Is there any? I think there is, considering Chad Kroeger is good friends with Bieber. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.88.253.147 (talk) 01:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep, find me something that says the two are friends and I'll start taking you seriously. Until then, there's been too many people who've added random stuff about Nickelback being related to bands or people like that for me to take one more seriously. Cheers, C628 (talk) 01:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Well all I can say is that Justin Bieber does drum for Nickelback on the occasion and the fact that he is touring with them in Canada is another. What more can you add? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.88.253.147 (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Still waiting on that source... C628 (talk) 21:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Facebook group?

I didn't realize a number of people on a group of Facebook were notable or relevant to this article. Seems a tad inappropriate, no? A neutral article of President Obama wouldn't include a large Facebook group criticizing Obama, would it? 65.13.0.127 (talk) 12:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It was a somewhat controversial addition; you may want to ask the person who added it, Doc Quintana (talk · contribs) at his talk page here. Cheers, C628 (talk) 15:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Article Grammatical Errors

I would just like to note that the section under "Criticism" has a small grammatical error that could be fixed.

The first sentence, second word.

Currently states: "Nickelback are one..." Should state: "Nickelback is one..."

As the band is one, "is" should be used.

This message may be removed once the editation has been made.

Thank-you

SilentPaw (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Just a thought, you can feel free to do stuff like that yourself without asking anyone; it's not particularly controversial. C628 (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Wait, I lied; it's semi-protected, so new or unregistered users can't. You could edit most articles, just not this particular one. Sorry... C628 (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Moved from top

Comment moved from top; put in proper order. C628 (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Um, is it REALLY relevant that the Facebook group "Can this group get more fans than Nickelback" really relevant. I don't freaking think so. If Facebook is the new judge of cultural significance, then society is really screwed. I'm taking that little section out, because it has nothing to do with the section at all, and it doesn't contribute a single thing. If anybody can convince me otherwise, go right ahead and try. Elias Blondeau (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

I came to this article to read about the notable amount of vandalism it received before being locked. I found, however, no mention of such. As this is an important part of Wikipedia's cultural history and also information relevant to the band, I expected there to be some note of that issue. 149.150.236.189 (talk) 19:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to contribute, and if I do something incorrect, I'm sorry. I got redirected here from "World Funniest Joke" page. Admittedly, I laughed since Nickelback really sucks, but however, I guess that's kind of vandalism. I like Wikipedia and just wanted to say it. Don't know if its intentional, though ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.63.38.85 (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

undo weight

The main portion of this article is a Criticism of the band ....i will be removing most soon as per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight just giving time for others to clean up first Moxy (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

I have moved this here..as we will have to trim it down due to WP:NPOV WP:UNDUE, WP:ATP.

At various points in their career, Nickelback has received widespread negative reviews from various sources. However, they are the best band ever. Review aggregator Metacritic reports that three of their six most recent studio albums since becoming a mainstream act, The Long Road, All the Right Reasons and Dark Horse, have scores of 62%, 41% and 49% respectively.

They have, at times, been ridiculed for their lack of originality.. In 2001, Rolling Stone criticised the band's musical style, saying, "If you're looking for originality, you might want a full refund instead of a Nickelback." Rolling Stone also said their 2003 release, The Long Road, was "[b]razenly consistent, if unimaginative", while Allmusic also stated, "Nickelback can now afford a little more time in the studio and a little more time to indulge themselves, and they turn out the same record, only slicker, which only highlights just how oppressively and needlessly sullen this group is." Harmonix, developer of the video game Rock Band, gave its Rock Band Network the internal codename "Rock Band: Nickelback", "on the theory that the name of the quintessentially generic modern rock group would be enough to deflect all curiosity" according to The New York Times.

In 2005, Rolling Stone said "All the Right Reasons is so depressing, you're almost glad Kurt [Cobain]'s not around to hear it." Tiny Mix Tapes also expressed concern over the release; "Like all Nickelback releases before it, All The Right Reasons was made for all the wrong ones and follows all the formulas and clichés you should be bored to death of by now." Stephen Thomas Erlewine of Allmusic reviewed Dark Horse, claiming that "Nickelback are a gnarled, vulgar band reveling in their ignorance of the very notion of taste, lacking either the smarts or savvy to wallow in bad taste so they just get ugly, knocking out knuckle-dragging riffs that seem rarefied in comparison to their thick, boneheaded words."

In 2007, USA Today reported that "few bands inspire such intense hatred as Nickelback." The article questioned whether Nickelback's commercial success made "critics wrong", and published several statements from various sources within the music industry. Nathan Brackett, a senior editor at Rolling Stone said, "There are some bands that, let's face it, are critic-proof." Both Brackett and Craig Marks, editor in chief of Blender, credit a lot of the band's success to young people who are introduced to them on the radio and "very casual music fans who don't buy a lot of CDs". Marks complimented Nickelback's popularity despite the critical response, saying "it is a tribute to their success."

Despite a barrage of criticism, Nickelback has still managed to please some reviewers with each of their mainstream albums. Allmusic reviewer Liana Jones complimented Nickelback after their commercial breakthrough, Silver Side Up; "what gives the group an upper hand over its peers is intensity and raw passion... Nickelback ups the ante by offering realistic storytelling that listeners can relate to." Following their 2008 album, Dark Horse, ChartAttack credited the band's success to knowing their target audience: "Chad Kroeger is a genius because he knows exactly what people want and precisely how far he can go. He turned out an extremely racy album that's loaded with songs about gettin' drunk and doin' it all without breaking any taboos, and with enough love and moral authority to grease its passage into the mainstream. Rejoice, North America. This is your world." Billboard also praised the band: "The bulletproof Nickelback provides affordable fun that promises good returns in hard times." Also various fellow musicians like Chris Martin of Coldplay as well as R&B singer Timbaland support the band, and cites Nickelback as a major influence in their music.

In 2009, The Word magazine readers voted Nickelback "Worst Band In The World", receiving 19.8% of the vote.

Jam! Canoe columnist Darryl Sterdan named lead singer Chad Kroeger the second worst singer of all time, behind Taylor Swift saying: "Nickelback's frontman may not have invented that post-grunge moose-in-heat bellow he relies on, but nobody does it better than he does. And by better, I mean worse".

Rock Group Link Missing

I don't know anything about editing Wikipedia, but when I looked up the list of Canadian rock groups on Wikipedia [Category:Canadian_rock_music_groups], Nickelback was not on it, even though the lead paragraph says they are a Canadian rock band. Is there some kind of link missing? Or am I missing the distinction between a band and a group? 69.231.157.55 (talk) 01:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see --->List of bands from Canada that is under Category:Canadian musical groups :) ....Moxy (talk) 01:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

So why are they in the list under Category:Canadian musical groups and they are a rock band but they are not in Category:Canadian rock music groups? I spent quite a while looking through the latter list before I went on to Google... Just curious, now that I found them. :) 69.231.157.55 (talk) 01:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

good question ....i say if you wish to add it ..i dont see y not...but then again i dont deal with Categories.Moxy (talk) 01:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

why is a page on Nickelback protected of all things? i tried to edit ... 69.231.157.55 (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I will ask the guy (Extra999) that takes care of cats for the music project and see what can be done...Moxy (talk) 03:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

:) Solved. Added both the categories. And it is protected because there was a huge sum of vandalism last month. Thanks for telling. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 11:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Seventh album

Daniel Adair mentions the band's plan to make a seventh studio album after the Dark Horse tour. This interview was from earlier this year. http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/interviews/hit_the_lights/nickelback_i_guess_the_bigger_you_are_the_more_haters_you_have.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Husachi (talk • contribs) 06:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Nickelback heavy metal?

Other then a poorly sourced article that happens to contradict it's self listing nickelback as pop/rock then listing nickelbacks "style" as heavy metal/grunge it doesn't make any sense.Someone care to explain what makes them "heavy metal"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalpurity (talk • contribs) 20:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

They're called heavy metal here because that's what a reliable source says they are, and per the verifiability policy, that's what's added to the article. C628 (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone bothered to listen to Nickelback then compare it to an actual heavy metal band like Judas Priest, Black Sabbath, Helloween, Iron Maiden, etc...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.2.165 (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Listen to their first album Curb and tell me one song that doesn't have a heavy metal/grunge influence in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avatar Master (talk • contribs) 21:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Omission of Criticism Section

I believe the criticism section is quite unnecessary. It is easily the largest section on the page, as well as having the most sources (10 sources cited). Sure, the information is cited and sourced, and shows both sides of view, but honestly it isn't necessary. There are these little to mid-sized sections on their background, history, and such, but then there's this huge section on how they are criticized by critics. Call me crazy, but that doesn't seem fair and balanced. I believe it is best to omit the section altogether, because critics are irrelevant when a band is at this point of success, and are not part of the band in any way. A Thousandth Sun of a Gun (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• Considering that the section you refer to has ten sources, perhaps the way to improve the article is to beef up the other sections with reliable sources and more text--that would be a good idea either way. I read the Criticism section, and it is not unnecessary or redundant or one-sided: valid points are raised from reliable sources, and that criticism is irrelevant when a band is successful, that is simply not a valid point. Drmies (talk) 21:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Never said it was one-sided, man. I said it shows both sides of view. These so called "reliable sources" do not even raise "valid points." It's all in opinion. A critic's opinion on a band does not belong to a band's biography.A Thousandth Sun of a Gun (talk) 22:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia articles are not biographies. Please keep your 'man' to yourself. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Obviously, due to your pedantic and P.C. nature this debate is going nowhere. I'm thinning out on this one, man.A Thousandth Sun of a Gun (talk) 18:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
        • All bands have a section on Wikipedia about their reception by both critics and the pulbic. It is not Wikipedia's fault that everyone thinks that this bands sucks. Sbrianhicks (talk) 23:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

"Criticism" sections are typically avoided on Wikipedia. There's got to be a more balanced way to cover unfavorable remarks about the band (which, by the way, is a group I personally dislike). WesleyDodds (talk) 14:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Honestly guys...

Nickelback isn't a heavy metal band.

Just because the guys at Allmusic.com think they can call Nickelback heavy metal, doesn't make them so.

Please do yourselves a favour and listen to Nickelback's albums, then a few true heavy metal albums, and you'll soon notice the difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.2.141 (talk) 09:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Sadly (in this case), wikipedia is a encyclopedia and must be able to link to reliable sources. As long as you don't have a reliable source stating the opposite, it will stay like this. -- 84.74.42.77 (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC

Sadly, you are mistaken! Wikipedia isn't "a encyclopedia", it's "an encyclopedia." - Signed by The Devil.

Nickelback isn't a metal band--but the label they're on, Roadrunner Records, is a metal record label. Honestly, I'm not sure why allmusic is considered a "reliable source" since they seem to get these things wrong all the time. 99.99.225.7 (talk) 01:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's some information on identifying reliable sources. Sergecross73 msg me 01:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is your "realiable source"

This is proof that Nickelshit isn't a heavy metal band.It is a great band and has many fanns. :)

http://v2.metal-archives.com/search?searchString=Nickelback&type=band_name

Also, my ears and their expertise in the wondrous genre of heavy metal are a reliable source. Ask the millions of true metal fans out there, too! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PikkoroDaimao (talk • contribs) 08:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, none of those things qualify as a reliable sources on wikipedia... Sergecross73 msg me 22:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Nickelback is definately heavy metal (atleast for some stuff), not in the 80's heavy metal, but in Enter Sandman way. Listen to their first album, mostly grunge (post-grunge) and alt heavy metal. Even listen to All the Right Reasons, some songs are even metal there. "Because of You", "Just Four (Curb version), "Where Do I Hide", and "Side of a Bullet" just to name a couple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.54.248.168 (talk) 01:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this isn't an opinion site, and just because in your opinion they are not heavy metal doesn't mean they aren't. 76.104.188.248 (talk) 07:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

"Musical evolution" section

There has got to be a better section title than that. Nothing in that section, or in their last album, suggests anything about evolving. "Mainstream success", "Early Years", those type I'm fine with, but this one seems like a poor choice on a number of levels. Wasn't sure what would be better though, so I thought I'd open it for discussion here. Sergecross73 msg me 13:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm Going To Change Nickelback's Wikipedia a Little

Ok guys I'm just wondering if I can change Nickelback's wikipeda a little and I'll start with this. "Early Years" (1995-1999), "Beginning of Mainstream Success and Mainstream Success" (2000-2002), "The Long Road, All The Right Reasons, and Continuing Mainstream Success" (2003-2007), "Recent years and Dark Horse" (2008-2010), "New album" (2011-present). Also, after the "Discography" section, I'll add Riaa for the albums and DVDS, and I'll put in the Nickelback DVDS in the Discography section and I'll put in the DVDS release dates. Lastly, I'll put in a "Recognition" section showing want Nickelback accomplished over their Mainstream Success, and you can edit the Recognition section if you have a information that Nickelback accomplished something, for example: Nickelback won a World's Music Award in 2006 for best selling rock artist beating some well-known rock artists, such as Green Day, Cold Play, etc, Reference. So, what do you guys think, oh and I'll put in a image of Chad in live 2006 Sturgis near the "The Long Road, All The Right Reasons, and Continuing Mainstream Success" (2003-2007) section, so if you guys want the page like this I'll change it but only IF YOU GUYS AGREE OK. Also, I'll tell you why this version is better than the current version, because it has more information and it has the right information, for example, Nickelback got their MAINSTREAM Success in 2001 NOT 2003. User talk:Nickelbackrules1518 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickelbackrules1518 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, let's review bit by bit...

• I am okay with changing the timeframes, they were mainstream by 2001. But it needs a different title than "Mainstream" and "Continued Mainstream" like you tried before. That sounds awkward. Additionally, the "new album" doesn't need it's own section considering it only has 2 sentences.
• Do not add the RIAA certifications. That's already listed in the discography section. You could integrate it into the paragraphs I suppose, but we don't need another chart of it. Sergecross73 msg me 21:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

pls see Wikipedia:Verifiability - WP:BURDEN - WP:SYNTH before adding anything back.Moxy (talk) 21:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I still think we need the "New Album" section, think about it or just like I like to say "look at the BIGGER PICTURE", everything of Dark Horse ended so it'll be a little awkward to put stuff from the new album in it, instead of creating a new section of the new album would sound better. Also, I'm thinking of putting the video albums after the studio albums in the discography and yea I'll start a new section for the Riaa. User Talk:Nickelbackrules1518 —Preceding undated comment added 23:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC).

I see all has been reverted again and again and again ... There are a few errors and not sure anything has changed - nor have you seemed to understand the points raised aboveMoxy (talk) 23:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Definitely don't need a "new album" section until there's more to discuss. Too little is known about a future album to warrant it. Sergecross73 msg me 23:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Alright can I change it now, and sorry for the edit I did yesterday, I was just testing something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickelbackrules1518 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

What is it exactly you plan on changing? Because the answer was "no" to a lot of the things you wrote above... Sergecross73 msg me 20:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Wait what things, do you not want from the things I wrote above? User Talk:Nickelbackrules1518 —Preceding undated comment added 21:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC).

On going problems

We have some Wikipedia:Disruptive editing here that is not benefiting anyone. Besides the fan fare in the new section we have unsourced assertions. We need this fixed d before the material is added again. So lets break this down sentence by sentence - PS we use the word Nicklback alot in this one section that needs some grammar fix ups to (but not a concern or reason for reversal). So to be clear the removal of the section is due to verification problems as per Wikipedia:Verifiability not for grammar as per WP:IMPERFECT.Moxy (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• Nickelback's songs are in Rock Band as Downloadable-Content. Nickelback's single How You Remind Me is the most played song of the decade.
• Nickelback's songs are in Rock Band as Downloadable-Content. Nickelback's single How You Remind Me is the most played song of the decade. Nickelback's album All The Right Reasons is listed as the 13th albums as the decade, Nickelback's Silver Side Up is listed as the 47th album of the decade, Nickelback's The Long Road is the 157th album of the decade, as well as Dark Horse which is the 191th album of the decade. Nickelback's All The Right Reasons album, spawned five top twenty Hot 100 singles in the U.S., (Photograph, Savin' Me, Far Away, If Everyone Cared, and Rockstar), making it one of only a handful of rock albums to ever produce five or more top twenty U.S. hits. "Photograph", "Far Away", and "Rockstar" were all top ten singles on the Hot 100, making Nickelback the first rock band of 2000s to have three top ten hits from the same album. - all sourced to a page that redirects so (worlds longest sentence)
• In 2002, Chad Kroeger collaborated with Josey Scott and Gaige Corvo who played the lead guitar on the Spider-Man theme song, "Hero". - this should not be to hard to find
• This also featured Tyler Connolly, Mike Kroeger, Matt Cameron, and Jeremy Taggart. - - this should not be to hard to find
• Nickelback's Burn It To The Ground appeared in Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen and Nickelback's Never Again is going to appeared in Transformers: Dark of the Moon. -
• Nickelbacks' Burn It To The Ground is the theme song for WWE Raw. - - this should not be to hard to find
• Nickelback got an award in 2006 for World's Best Selling Rock Artist - beating some well known artists suck as Green Day and Cold Play (not relevant).
• Nickelback was named #1 Most Played Rock Artist of 2002 Across All Radio Formats. - huge assertion with no ref
• Nickelback was inducted into Canada's Walk of Fame in 2007. - is sourced all good.
• Nickelback is name the most successful Canadian and Rock group of the decade. - sounds reasonable but no ref!
• Nickelback's album All the Right Reasons was the 4th best selling album of 2006. -
• In the same year received an award for People's Choice Awards for the category Favorite Group. -
• Nickelback has received 27 awards from 67 nominations. - sourced but not sure all that good ( think we could do better if its all true should be able to find all over the net )
• Nickelback's Dark Horse Tour sold a total of more than 1.6 million tickets sold as of July 2010. - - [lost ref] ref does not work - i take it this was a copy and pasted from else were - the FULL ref should be were this originally came from and can be transferred here.
• According to the Billboard Magazine, Nickelback played in front of 1,046,973 people on the 2009 section of the tour. In the same section, Nickelback grossed $49,908,542 from the tour. - all good its sourced
• Nickelback's front man Chad Kroeger started his own label company - (should be easy to find a ref for) in 2002 because of the success of the band. - (just because he had cash he did this?)
• . On February 28, 2010, Nickelback gave a performance at the beginning of the concert portion of the 2010 Winter Olympics closing ceremony, performing "Burn It to the Ground". - sourced so ok i guess.

I'm sorry if my changes goes against anything you were going for here. It looked like "Nickelbackrules" did all sorts of things that went against what most people wanted, so I did a big revert. He made so many poor changes, and you listed so many things here, that it's hard to tell if I messed up any of your work. It was not intentional if I did... Sergecross73 msg me 23:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Section titles

So, there's also a lot of arguing over the section titles. So here's the place to hash that out. Some points to start off with:

• They kept on being changed to sections that have every word capitalized. You're only supposed to capitalize the first word. So, for example, if used, it should be "Early years", not the proposed "Early Years".
• It doesn't make sense for one section to include "Mainstream Success" and the other one to be "Continuing Mainstream Success". If we're going to categorize certain time frames as the same thing, there's no reason to split them up...
• "Recent Years and Dark Horse" also doesn't make sense. Dark Horse came out in 08, so I would assume that the Recent Years refers to the tie after Dark Horse. So the order should be reversed. That being said, it doesn't seem both are necessary to begin with... Sergecross73 msg me 03:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The editor who keeps making the changes hasn't yet come to the talkpage, but for the record, apart from the WP:MOS problems these changes clearly have very little logic and make navigation much more difficult.--SabreBD (talk) 08:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. It's be nice to see more documentation against his changes, in addition to the fact that he refuses to discuss things here. The only valid point "Nickelbackrules" makes, in my opinion, is that it could be said that they're mainstream success started in 2001, not 2003. However, what he keeps changing it to is far worse, and he refuses to discuss any alternatives. (Or anything for that matter.) Sergecross73 msg me 12:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Sections

Ok I'm want to change the timelines in Nickelback wikipedia because Nickelback didn't got their mainstream success in 2003. Ok here it is

• Formative years (1995-1999)
• Rise of fame and mainstream success (2000-2007)
• Recent years (2008-present)

User:Nickelbackrules1518 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC).

Why 1999? as a turning point? Given that Silver Side Up is the breakthrough shouldn't it be 1995-2000, 2001-7 and 2008+?--SabreBD (talk) 23:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, 1999 was not a turning point for the band. Curb, while I guess did have some singles that did well, didn't really sell all that well until the band brokethrough with Silver Side Up... Sergecross73 msg me 23:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Well since the originator has now been blocked indef we are not going to get a reply, but since we have got this far why don't we go for:

• Formative years (1995-2000)
• Mainstream success (2001-2007)
• Recent years (2008-present)

The last division is purely arbitrary, since they are still having mainstream success.--SabreBD (talk) 06:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I personally prefer sections that are merely titled after a major album or two of a given timeframes. It's less subjective that way, so no one argues "when being mainstream" happens. However, I usually do that to articles for bands that have only put out an album or two. I realize that that approach doesn't work as well when so many albums have been released...

My approach: Keep "Early years" section intact, section off the rest by album title, unless they're too short, where 2 could be combined (ie "Tile 1" and "Title 2")

Sabre's approach: Works fine as well. If more people agree with that, I'm fine with that as well... Sergecross73 msg me 13:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I think there is a good case for Sergecross73's approach. Creating headings tends to be a subjective process and as a result is open to arguement. If we go for album based titles some of that room for debate. To that end I will boldy edit the titles along those lines, rather than let this minor issue drag on. Obviously any disagreements can be sorted out here.--SabreBD (talk) 08:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I largely kept your changes, just altered them a little. Most notably, I made ATRR have it's own section because it seemed like there was too much going on with it being grouped with either other section. I know that leaves that section a little short, but with that being their best selling timeframe, I feel like more can be added to it too. Feel free to adjust further Sergecross73 msg me 16:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Its fine by me, except that you changed the dates to full figures and the MOS says 2 digits after the dash (unless there is a change of century) - see WP:DATESNO.--SabreBD (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

You know, I've never known a policy on it one way or another, I had always done it the way I did because I saw so many other articles doing it that way. (Two instances that I'm fairly certain I'm not responsible for, for example, are Three Days Grace and Seether.) I know that what other articles do, and my personal preference, certainly don't trump policy though. Feel free to change it. Sergecross73 msg me 19:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

It is probably more honoured in the breach and I apologise, because now you know you will have to decide whether to implement it elsewhere everytime it comes up. I have changed them back and made some other minor MOS fixes. I also moved the Critical reception section up as it is more usual to have the lists towards the end.--SabreBD (talk) 07:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I reverted your changes to I could also revert the changes also done by User "Mad Hatter", who changed the section titles without any sort of reasoning or discussion here. Then I went back and re-did your MOS changes. I think your changes are all intact, and if they aren't, I apologize, it was not intentional, but rather, an accident. Sergecross73 msg me 12:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, for once I didn't check on the all the changes before. Its cool.--SabreBD (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Section titles and progress

I want to pinpoint as a justification that the band's recent years are more progressive and persepctive, that's why I proposed something like this. I don't think it's perfect it was outwordly reverted and I just want to say that the message of the band can't be just some titles. We have to think of the best possible way into presenting the real development this band has represented into what, their 15 years of making music and 7 albums. I don't say it is way, I just want to say that Nickelback material is relatively small and we have to be further developing further explaining the band than just stastically saying 'Good Ole Hamburgers" 15 million of records. We need more material in order to make good hm.. adjectives... good captions. "Good, good, good" That's not the way. So I once again want to say that we have to work onto making something new, more material, and more ideas... than just reverting.

Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

1. What's wrong with objective, title based section titles? Does that go against something in Wikiproject Music or something like that? (Not especially familiar with finer points of that project.)
2. How do you justify some of these subjective claims you've made in your version? What makes the year 2004 fall under the claim of "Stardom" but not in "2003". Unless you've got something to back this up, there's original research problems and point of view problems that can (and have in the past) lead to arguing and edit warring. On the other side of things, there's no room for argument with the fact that Dark Horse falls under the label of 2008, for example.

Thank you this time for discussing it here though, instead of going against consensus and changing it like in the past. Sergecross73 msg me 20:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Additional comment: I only object to the section titles you changed. I have no objection to the other information you introduced to the article. Re-add that if you want to. Sergecross73 msg me 20:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Any particular reason why you keep removing some of these sourced quotes without explanation? Most notably, you keep removing a part where it says they had 4 songs done in February, and that a member of the band claiming that "Here and Now" would be "more organic sounding" and like All the Right Reasons. I see no reason to remove that, it's sourced and important info regarding the new album. Even if you do have a problem with it, you should be explaining why. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 02:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

So, to be clear, your approach this situation, was to never respond, and then try removing it again, 6 months later, without any discussion or edit summary? Sergecross73 msg me 14:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Copy and pasting and fan site

I see a few problems as to why they were delete - first we cant use fans-sites for references as per WP:FANSITE - secondly you have added some quotes that were not sourced in the proper way. See also WP:QUOTEFARM as to there over uses.

I see an even bigger problem here. We have Copyright problems. A huge amount of the text is simply copy and pasted from the fan site. So we have 2 problems first the copyright problems and secondly a Verifiability problem. I have also now reverted the additions and believe they should not be re-added as per the above concerns.Moxy (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The quote were not over use. Number 2, there was a reference on each one of them. Number 3, I see bands that they have a lot of quotes with no REFERENCES! And number 4 ok is a fan club but if you go to it is gonna show you a bio of Nickelback please understand that, that is the OFFICIAL Nickelback Fan Club which means the BAND created it. I think what's going on here is that you guys have to compare Nickelback's Wikipedia to something like Linkin Park's Wikipedia, Sum 41's Wikipedia, Green Day's Wikipedia, and then you guys will see that Nickelback's Wikipedia is more like a definition to the band while other bands just like I mention are what I called a "TRUE" Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph201 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, I forgot to mention that I don't think is a copyright problem if you give a link because if you see Nickelback's wikipedia MadHatter edited it and he put this

In November of 2005, Nickelback Chad Kroeger asked that Vikedal and his production company Ladekiv Music, Inc., give all financial interest in future royalties for the songs, featuring Vikedal as drummer and return any public performance royalties earned since January 2005. Nickelback spent much of 2006 touring. Chad Kroeger was arrested in the Surrey, British Columbia in June and charged with drunken driving. His attorney entered a plea of not guilty on his behalf at a court hearing in August.

In November of 2006, Nickelback won an American Music Award for best pop/rock album, surprising the band itself. "We just kinda showed up because we were supposed to give one of these away tonight," Chad Kroeger said after receiving the award, according to the Calgary Herald . Kroeger added that he had thought the Red Hot Chili Peppers would win the award.

But he post a link on where he got it from just like what I'm doing right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph201 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because other band articles have unsourced quotes doesn't make it right, and that's not a reason to keep it in this instance. All that means is that other unsourced quotes should be removed. Saying "Well, that other article has it" doesn't make it right. That'd be like if a police officer pulled you over for speeding while driving, and you told him/her "But I broke the speedlimit yesterday on another road and I didn't get pulled over!". That excuse wouldn't fly,nor does it here. Same kind of concept.

Anways, if you're really interested in a "true wikipedia", you'd follow all the rules and notifications we've put on your talk page, and not include that information... Sergecross73 msg me 22:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, same concept applies to Mad Hatter. Just because he did it doesn't mean it was right. (No offense, Mad Hatter.) Sergecross73 msg me 22:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Dude how many times I have to tell you all my quotes were sourced, go check my latest edit of me editing the section and then you will see a quotes in a paragraph and after that you will see a link of where did I get those quotes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph201 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec)How many time must you be told that fansites are not reliable sources. Beyond that, even if you could use your fansite, lets say you want to quote something from, for example "Entertainment Weekly... Reviewer Whitney Pastorek" (taken from one of your edits.) - You need a link to that specific interview, not someone else who quotes it. Please, do yourself a favor and read up some on reliable sources and WP:COPYRIGHT. Sergecross73 msg me 22:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec) We cant simply copy and past web pages to here - Most of what has been added is just a copy and past from a fan site that is copyrighted - AND I am sorry my new friend but this site is not good for Wikipedia - Even the official site is not a reliable source - could we get you to read over Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Copyright problems (the latter is the biggest concern).Moxy (talk) 22:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok so I wanna hear from you guys on how to EXPAND Nickelback's Wikipedia because I'm sure this is the ONLY way! A lot of bands have EXPANDED Wikipedia because of this! So if you guys have a suggestion of how to expand Nickelback's Wikipedia I would LOVE to HEAR it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph201 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

1. I'm not sure what's wrong with how it is now, it's already plenty long, and there's plenty of extended info in the respective album articles, and the discography article. (I keep on looking at this-- have you even looked at it?)
2. I suppose it'd be by using reliable sources (i.e. Not fansites), while staying away from copyright issues. It's silly to think that the only way to expand this article is to ignore major policies... Sergecross73 msg me 23:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

1. Pretty long are you crazy is shorter than most INDIE bands I know!

2. Who cares about the discougraphy our albums wikipedia, are you forgetting that were working on the band's main wikipedia!

3. Let me ask you again, tell me how to EXPAND it!

4. How MANY TIMES I GOT TO TELL YOU is a OFFICIAL fan club of the band which the band created. Also, they have something called "BIO" on the top of the page which tells you about the BAND! Are you blind? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph201 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding #3 - Use Google, find some different sources, and follow the rules we've been telling you about. I don't know how to make it any more simple than that. Sergecross73 msg me 00:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

I have reverted the last set of edits. Some of it was not reliably sourced and unfortunately much of this is not in an encyclopedic style. If you want to make additions it would probably be best to do so with a small sections at a time so that other editors can easily see what is being done or to use a sandbox and invite comments. I don't want to discourage you from editing but you need to be familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines and the way in which encyclopedias are constructed. Key guidelines here are WP:NPOV and WP:WEASEL.--SabreBD (talk) 09:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that he has now broken WP:3RR. In fact, it's more like 4 or 5 at this point. Stop re-adding the info as is, Joseph. Sergecross73 msg me 14:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The guitarist info is backwards in the opening paragraphs. It has Peak listed as the bass guitarist Numbat81 (talk) 23:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Um, the chart of the band members is backwards, claiming Ryan Peake is the bassist and vice versa. If someone could please edit this, thank you. I would also like to point out that I think the page should be a little larger, and Nickelback be made into a book. Also, Ryan Peake deserves his own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.210.143.36 (talk) 22:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 January 2012

Lead

Add to end of lead - Nobody has seen or heard from this Chad Kroeger since the night of the Award Ceremony in November of 2006.

Dark Horse (2008–10)

After taking much of 2007 off to search for a new frontman, they finally found him in late 2007. Their new frontman bore a striking resemblance to Chad, with a few minor differences including eye color, nose shape, and hair.Shortly thereafter, the band gave this new frontman the "Chad Kroeger" title, and his true name has never been released. It is heavily theorized that the band is holding the real Chad hostage in an uncharted, remote prison location somewhere in Canada. It is believed among fans and others that the reason he was captured relates to an argument that the he had with the band in mid 2006. The band wanted to be more mainstream, and they intended to appeal to the people rather than their own love for the music. All were in favor except for Chad. He loved their old style of writing, and he believed that they could continue to write music they loved and in turn appeal to the people. Peake stated that this wasn't good enough, and their argument ended. Chad kept coming up with new material that would be rejected by the band. Because of this, he swore to break off and go solo, but this idea was never fully developed.

They vowed to continue their career with their new frontman, as he had helped them sell out and become a whole different band.

Cherry poppins (talk) 09:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Pls read over Wikipedia:Fringe theories..Moxy (talk) 09:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Reception

The Reception section is overshadowed by POV presentation and phrasing. Specifically;

The first two sentences refer to "widespread negative reviews". This is backed up by cites to Metacritic that reports scores of 62, 41 and 49. Metacritic itself rates these as either "Mixed or average" and "Generally favorable". So where is the evaluation of "widespread negative" coming from? Not from these cites.

The next sentence explains where "Criticism tends to focus", and cites a single review to support this. This one source can only be used to support what one reviewer said. Any claims that this is representative of a common complaint are unsupported. Who says it is representative? How was this determined? Not by original research, I hope?

The next paragraph begins with the blatantly POV statement; "Despite a barrage of criticism Nickelback has still managed to please some reviewers with each of their mainstream albums." Not only is determining that the criticism constitutes a "barrage" plainly not neutral, it also manages to suggest that the band only "managed" to impress "some" reviewers. The clear implication is that the negative reviews are the mass majority, and the positive is merely a grudging recognition by a minority persuaded against their better judgement. If this phrase is supposed to be neutrally factual then it could equally be rephrased in the opposite POV; "A trickle of criticism aside, Nickelback delighted reviewers with each of their mainstream albums." Same facts, different spin. Far better would be to remove the POV intro completely.

The eval8 cite is a dead link. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

With regards to "criticism tends to focus", I added another source that states that these criticisms are the common ones, even while arguing that Nickelback has probably been disproportionately singled out for it due to other causes.--Louiedog (talk) 18:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

In general, the band tends to get a lot of criticism directed their way, so rather than cutting it down, it seems more like more sources should be provided, and if additional sources can't be found, then the wording should be softened. If we're so concerned about POV issues, it seems like more positive aspects should be found and added in addition to the negative, verses chipping away at the negative stuff, which clearly exists, whether represented her or not... Sergecross73 msg me 18:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

POV issues are not about balancing the positive with the negative, it's about presenting both, where they exist, neutrally. Currently this section does not do that. It starts with a bold and sweeping statement that is totally contradicted by the cite on the very next sentence. Then goes on to say, in non-neutral phrasing, that reviews are a barrage of negativity, and it's a bit of surprise to find any positive ones. I don't know (or care) if reviews are so negative, but I do care that Wikipedia should not be taking a position on the subject and that what is said should be verifiable.

Removing the lead sentence from the section is not "chipping away", it's removing factually false information. If Nickelback gets widespread negative reviews then where's the evidence? Is Metacritic wrong? Says who?

It should also be kept in mind that the section is "Reception", which should concentrate on professional reviews. It's not the place for general criticism unless it's from these reviews. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Then soften some of the word choices. However, I don't think it's as bad as you claim. For instance, album reviews in the 40% range are not good reviews. (Especially if you consider how reviews typically work. I mean, how many cds get 0/10 or 1/10's? Usually "you get a few points just for trying", if you know what I mean.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the simple facts of Nickelback are that they are an enormously popular band, the reception of which is split between (1) the critics who see the band as a cheap xerox machine with no soul writing music for tasteless teenagers who don't know better than to listen to them and (2) the critics who are equally disdainful of the snobby critics in the first category who think it's funny that said snobs won't acknowledge that they're simply a very popular band that continues to sell that isn't really any more worthy of hate than countless other bands that are far less hated.--Louiedog (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm commenting two years after this discussion ceased, but anyway: Escape Orbit and Loodog (Louiedog), it seems out of place to me that the criticism aspect was before the praise/commercial success aspect in the Reception section, even if Nickelback are one of the very hated bands out there. It would seem just as, or more so, out of place if the criticism came first in the WP:Lead. So, in that respect, I put the positive material first in the Reception section, as seen here and here. I don't much care if I'm reverted on this matter, but it seems POV-ish to me to begin commentary (the non-Metacritic material) in that section with information about how hated the band are. Flyer22 (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Curb - Nickelback: Genre

This album was grunge. PROOF! http://www.musicomh.com/albums/nickelback.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMetallican (talk • contribs) 23:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you giving the right link? Because that review is clearly only calling them "Post-grunge", something that's pretty well accepted. That's literally the only time the word "grunge" shows up in the article. Sergecross73 msg me 00:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Poorly Worded

"Nickelback, confirmed their Here And Now Tour (Nickelback Tour) on January 11, 2012 they stated that they're playing with Seether and Bush (band). Since then, the band is only schedule to play on their North American leg, no word yet on the worldwide tour. The band is nominated for 4 Juno Awards in 2012, also, the band is going to perform there." Can someone edit this? Sounds very inappropriately worded to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.210.143.36 (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Band members

The legend in the diagramm (showing the current and former band members) mixed up the description of the green and blue bar, making Mike Kroeger a guitarist with backing vocals and Ryan Peake the bassist, it is the other way around. I edited the diagram and corrected it.

http://s1.directupload.net/file/d/2813/z46nm67u_png.htm

Please switch the pictures. --84.140.152.194 (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Expansion

This Wikipedia is too short for probably the biggest band of the 00's. We need to edit these sections instead of removing some stuff on them. We can remove things later, but right now we got to focus on expanding this Wikipedia. I don't expect this Wikipedia to be long enough as The Beatles, but I know one thing, it has to be way longer than this. I know people are not going to hear me or they're going to ignore me or they're going to probably change the topic, but this Wikipedia must and will be expanded.

User:Drecool1, as you are constantly reminded on your talk page, you need to provide reliable sources to the information you add. Information keeps getting removed because it is either unsourced, or poorly sourced/biased information ripped straight from their facebook, fansites, etc. We need to work on quality, not quantity. That being said, as popular as Nickelback is, there should be no shortage of coverage of them in reliable sources, so it's possible. You just have to go about it the right way. Sergecross73 msg me 21:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Last 2 additions by this editor were simply a copy and past copyright violation. Editors has been warned.Moxy (talk) 04:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• this edit is a copy and past from www.mtv.com
• this edit is from there myspace page.

Endless list of awards

Do we really need to list off all their awards so much, like done in edits like this? I feel like that's why we have articles like List of awards and nominations received by Nickelback. It makes for very dry reading, list after list of awards, and after a while, it starts to sound like a press release from the band's management, or a fansite. Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 03:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I think its a little silly but its the only way to expand these short sections. A lot of bands have this like Linkin Park, Metallica, Creed (band), the lists goes on and on. Sure were not gonna put ALL THE AWARDS on there but were just gonna put the most important ones. It's just progress of the band's years. Still this is mind opinion and as long as not ALL the awards are listed on there but the most importantly ones are there and they have a SOURCE then hey I'm ok. Heck, I'm not saying to do this on all sections, in fact I was not even intending to do this on the other sections like the "Silver Side Up and The Long Road" section but the "All The Right Reasons" section and the "Dark Horse" section really need expandment. Lastly, like I said before not ALL the awards just the most relevant ones, and as you can see it said "The album has also led the band to win other several awards."

1. You're the one doing it, so it doesn't make sense for you to say "it's a little bit silly".
2. Futhermore, the logic "it's the only way to expand these sections" is flawed. You keep on operating on this premise of "it's quantity over quantity." There's no length requirements. We're not obligated to make this longer for the sake of making it longer.
3. Can you point out, where, for example, in the Linkin Park article, where there is a full paragraph devoted to listing off awards? You linked to the article without point out how exactly it's similar to this situation. I don't think it is. I'm not sure any of those band's articles are relevant.
4. Do you have any proof to such claims such as "award a" led to "award b"? Does one really lead to another like that? Sergecross73 msg me 03:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

From the perspective of someone what has participated in a number of GA reviews, extensive listing of awards is something that tends to get questioned when articles are being assessed for quality. The point of having a discography or awards article is to save having to state them all in an artist's main article. Please keep it to a minimum for the sake of ease of reading.--SabreBD (talk) 08:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Just because I did it doesn't mean I can't say that is stupid. So your saying if you do something bad and you did it, you can't say that the thing you did was bad!? Is called "common sens"e also on the Linkin Park's wikipedia, under their "Hybrid Theory section and their "Meteora" section it shows some awards that the band won. You see that's how I want it to be instead of us arguing which can just put some awards like the Linkin Park's wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drecool1 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense for you to have the self-awareness to call your actions "silly", but then not have enough self-awareness to not realize why the action shouldn't be done. It comes off as sound like: you understood it was a bad idea, but then did it anyways. Furthermore, looking at the two paragraphs under "Hybrid Theory at Linkin Park, those paragraphs mention many other things beyond awards, for example, producers, songs being on movie soundtracks, a live DVD, a remix album, etc etc. It's very different from the paragraph in question here, which is just listing off award after award. It's as Sabre said above, it's okay to mention an award here and there, but you don't need to over do it and dedicate whole paragraphs to it. If you're so dead set on working on their awards, go work on improving the awards article or something. Sergecross73 msg me 22:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Music Style

I just put a music style for the band because a lot of people are confused with their sound on the earlier albums to their sound of today. Tell me what you think about this? Also, if you want to improve it you can. -- User:Drecool1

The band's music styles have changed over the years, well over the early years. The band is considered to be Rock but their first album Curb (album) was their heaviest album which people considered Grunge and Alternative Metal, so people usually call it a Nirvana rip-off. Their second album The State (album) had a much more mainstream sound and it was considered Post-Grunge. The band's third album Silver Side Up was considered Alternative Metal with twisted guitar riffs, some people call it the Seattle, Grunge, rip-off only with out the yelling. Their fortuh album, The Long Road is considered Hard Rock and Post-Grunge. Their 5th studio album All the Right Reasons took the band a whole new direction and a whole brand new sound which brought them to Alternative Rock roots with the Hard Rock tunes.

With songs like Bottoms Up (Nickelback song) to a softer-sound like When We Stand Together the band stated several times that they've never thought of putting 2 kind of music.

So I've decided to cut and past it here because it needs a lot of work. There's a lot of typos and generalizations. Points to follow. Sergecross73 msg me 03:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

1. The band's music styles have changed over the years, well over the early years. - I'm not sure what the part after the comma is supposed to mean...
2. All the genres should be lower case.
3. The band's third album Silver Side Up was considered Alternative Metal with twisted guitar riffs, some people call it the Seattle, Grunge, rip-off only with out the yelling. - Awkward wording, Grunge originated in Seatle, but isn't typically called "Seattle Grunge" like that, nor is Grunge especially known for yelling as far as I've really known.
4. so people usually call it a Nirvana rip-off. Do people usually say that? I think that's a generalization made by one (unreliable?) source. You can't make general claims like "usually" with only one source. Same concept applies to point #3 as well
5. Typos ("fortuh"), inconsistencies (using "third" and then "5th".)
6. Their 5th studio album All the Right Reasons took the band a whole new direction and a whole brand new sound Lastly, this statement, and much of the paragraph in general, strikes me as a big case of WP:SYNTHESIS. You've found these different sources that make different comments on genre, but then you string them together like they're progressing so far in their music. I don't think they're music is known for "progress" or "development". Pretty sure the band themselves prides themselves in presenting "more of the same". It seems much more like they have rocking songs and soft songs on every album.

Any thoughts from other editors? Sergecross73 msg me 03:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Good idea, but I DISAGREE on the comment you stated that the band has rocking songs and soft songs on every album. I lol at that, no offense but have you heard of Curb, The State, or even Silver Side Up. This proves to me that you still did not listen to the band. But it still doesn't matter if you've listen to the band or not, the only thing that matters is that you know how to edit. Also, I seen a lot of bands Wikipedia that need fixing and all that stuff I might give you a band list soon so you can fix those Wikipedias.-- User:Drecool1

I've heard most of their albums, and the singles from all of them. (They're played all the time, how can anyone accuse anyone of not knowing what they're music sounds like?) What matters is what reliable sources say about them, and I've read a lot of articles like this one from NPR, a very reliable source, (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4258547) where it says much of their music sounds the same. Here's another one.

In short, the band definitely have a reputation for each album sounding very similar. As such, it doesn't seem right to write a paragraph that takes different sources and calls different albums different genres, and call it "progress". Sergecross73 msg me 23:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I knew you were about to say that because you haven't heard of old Nickelback listen to Curb (album) that album was not successful and is their heaviest album to date. Also, let me say it for you but when their album All the Right Reasons came out the band decided to stay with that style. That's why Dark Horse (Nickelback album) and Here and Now (Nickelback album). And yes I do agree that there recent stuff have been played a lot of times on the radio, that's why everybody thinks all their albums sound the same. Also, that's the reason why I wanted to put the music style on the band.-- User:Drecool1

Yes, many band's album before signing with a major record label sounds drastically different than the rest of their work. Getting that additional funding naturally causes a change in sound. Let's look at this differently; do you any sources that says Nickelback has changed over its many years? One source referencing their career, not multiple sources commenting on separate parts of their careers. (Which is WP:SYNTHESIS.) Sergecross73 msg me 04:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

"Side Projects"

It is unnecessary to list off every song every song Chad Kroger writes or sings on. This has little to nothing to do with Nickelback the band. List those things on Chad Kroger's page, not here. Sergecross73 msg me 01:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, Chad Kroeger is the lead vocalist and the guitarist of the group. He makes 2/4 out of the band. Also, he was the one that made Nickelback big in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drecool1 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

First of all, that fraction makes no sense. Secondly, he has his own article, so it's obvious it makes more sense for it to be there. Thirdly, these things really aren't that much of "side-projects" to begin with. They're just one-off songs. A Perfect Circle is a side-project. Them Crooked Vultures is a side-project. Your proposed paragraph is just listing off some random unrelated songs Chad Kroeger contributed/sang in. Sergecross73 msg me 01:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Pardon me, but when did Chad Kroeger became a solo artist. I know he's not a solo artist but your treating him like one.

Extensive listing of these "projects" moves into the territory of WP:Undue. The article is about the band and that really does need to remain the focus.--SabreBD (talk) 07:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

At no point did I call him a solo artist, and I don't understand what you're getting at when you say I'm treating him like one. All I've said is that Chad Kroeger's side projects belong on Chad Kroeger's article. (In fact, all that information is already listed there, with less formatting errors.) Sergecross73 msg me 12:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Band members

In the section band members with the fancy timeline, Ryan Peake's and Mike Kroeger's names have switched places. Also, I have never seen Mike Kroeger do any back vocals. Yes, he might have done it once in a gig in some sort of alley, but that's not notable.

Calown (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Needless touring updates

User:Drecool1 erroneously labeled this edit as "disruptive", and keeps on reverting the edit without any actual reason as to why, so I'd start a discussion here. Here's even more details on why it needs to be changed:

1. We don't need to update the paragraph every time Nickelback updates their tour plans. We're not Nickelbacks fansite or Twitter page or something.
2. There's a separate article for documenting their tour here. That information belongs there.
3. The info is sloppy. It lists Bush twice, and lazily, one time, is kept as Bush (band) instead of Bush.
4. Some of it doesn't logically make sense. One sentence says they've only announced North American tour dates, another sentence lists off European dates.

Short version: I don't reverting the information back is warranted at all, but if it was found that it should be there, there's obvious things that would need to be cleaned up. Sergecross73 msg me 20:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

No need for tour dates at all. Wiki is not a fan site nor a newspaper.Moxy (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. It's appreciated. Sergecross73 msg me 20:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

the genres are so wrong it's laughable

the only genres associated with this band should be post grunge and hard rock — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.220.148 (talk) 14:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Without any sort of reliable sources, or even an explanation for your thoughts for that matter, that's not a very convincing argument... Sergecross73 msg me 14:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to add something here,Nickelback is not related to metal not even in someone's wildest dreams.Playing mediocre groove based riffs don't make a band a heavy metal band,they are simply a below average pop-rock band with some elements from alternative & grunge.Allmusic source isn't helping the article,in fact it's ridiculous. Metalvayne (talk) 13:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

"Rate You Music" is not a reliable source, and as you can see, there's much disagreement on what their genre is, so wait and discuss and find consensus, then make changes. Sergecross73 msg me 12:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You're saying allmusic is a reliable source.Hmm,sometimes I wonder how exactly one would abide by wikipedia policies while all the self-proclaimed several star achieved sycophants are always eager to deliver wrong information to people around the world,anyways,as you've said allmusic is a reliable source,so,why did it got removed here. Metalvayne (talk) 19:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Because you didn't discuss the changes to genres first, as the edit summary pointed out.--SabreBD (talk) 14:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Most definitely I've participated in the discussion before making changes,see for yourself. Metalvayne (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

And did you bother to read anything people said in response to your edits? Like, per that conversation: The talk page needs to be consulted before genre changes occur, as opposed to just signalling controversial changes. Metalvayne, you're doing it incorrectly. Furthermore, there's clearly not consensus of other editors agreeing with your edits. Do you understand the concept of consensus? Sergecross73 msg me 14:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) - (Seems Sabre beat me to the punch.) Regarding the example you just offered up, there's clearly a prior consensus not to change genre unless discussion happens first. Something you failed to do there. You see, on Wikipedia, there's a balance struck between using reliable sources and following consensus. While you provided a reliable source, you went directly against consensus, and not only didn't discuss it on the talk page, but you didn't even leave an edit summary. Your edit was reverted based on that, not the reliability of the source. You really should understand these concepts by now...
• Secondly, plain as day, a Wikiproject has found consensus that AllMusic is a reliable source, at WP:ALBUM/REVSITE. Different editors have different opinions on how to use all the genre they list in their articles, and thus, that's why discussion is supposed to ensue as well. Sergecross73 msg me 14:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

alternative rock should be replaced with just plain rock, and any mention of metal needs to be immediately removed. it's been proven time & time again that allmusic tags are not reliable, according to them deftones album adrenaline is hair metal & grunge http://www.allmusic.com/album/adrenaline-mw0000179793 which just goes to show you how random they can be when it comes to tagging artists/albums

• If there's consensus to remove it, it's fine. I just don't like the "They don't sound metal so they aren't" arguments. That's incredibly subjective. "Metal" is different things to different people in different timeframes. I don't find Led Zeppelin fitting into my definition metal, but it does for many, and in reliable sources, so I dont fight it. Same here. I don't consider them a metal band personally, but that's not how Wikipedia works. As far as I can find, I'm not aware of any blanket-policy against using Allmusic for genre. If there is, I'd love to see it, and would gladly abide by it. But I haven't found it yet, just WP:LOCALCONSENSUS's here and there. And that's why we should find consensus here first too. Sergecross73 msg me 03:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Allmusic guide calles it "Heavy metal" because they use a rhythm and tempo that is generally characterized by short, two-note or three-note rhythmic figures... this defines Heavy metal.Moxy (talk) 17:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

well by your logic insane clown posse should be listed as heavy metal since allmusic tags them as that http://www.allmusic.com/artist/insane-clown-posse-mn0000079959, i think at times allmusic tags can be reliable but their are times when common sense has to prevail, and its common knowledge that bands like insane clown posse and nickelback aren't metal, and im sure the majority of people here would agree with me on that. their needs to be another source other than allmusic calling them heavy metal and alternative metal — Preceding unsigned comment added by I call the big one bitey (talk • contribs) 21:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The prospect of "common sense" is extremely subjective. What "makes sense" to one may not another. Since you haven't shown me a blanket-policy regarding Allmusic for genre, and just talk about hypothetical "majority of people" agreeing with you, we use consensus to decide. Sergecross73 msg me 21:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Using "heavy metal" in the infobox

There has been arguments on whether or not heavy metal belongs in the band's infobox. One one hand, Allmusic, a source that is considered reliable in a more general sense, calls them that. Others feel that they don't fit into the sound. Please include your thoughts below:

• Undecided - While they don't fit my personal view of what "metal" is, I'm not a third party, reliable source, so my opinion doesn't matter. There's a reliable source that calls them such, so I haven't found an objective reason to remove it personally, so I probably wouldn't be for removing it unless a consensus forms in favor of removal. Sergecross73 msg me 21:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - I suggest that we could use the Musicmight bio of them to avoid the kind of disputes take place in this article.If AllMusic can be considered as a reliable source I believe Musicmight is not much different from it. Bloomgloom talk 11:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • What about it do you want to use? Sergecross73 msg me 03:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - I will need to find the discussion, but I believe that MusicMight is considered unreliable (I think it was due to anyone being able to edit pages much like Wikipedia) but I will have to check. I used it previously but then seen it removed from a number of pages (on my watchlist) due to a discussion. The biographies and reviews from Allmusic are considered reliable. The genre lists though are not, mainly due to them not being attributed to anyone (the bios and reviews are attributed to writers, such as Greg Pato). HrZ (talk) 14:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - Musicmight doesnt have a registration/log in tab, then how can anyone edit stuffs? Bloomgloom talk 15:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't know, just saying what I remember. If I can find the discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard, I will post it. But I know it is considered unreliable. HrZ (talk) 15:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Look at their "About" page. Clearly shows any one can edit it. Definitely doesn't fit Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. Violates WP:SPS. Sergecross73 msg me 22:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 September 2012

In the beginning, when Nickelback was still a cover band called Village Idiots or Point of View, it was just Chad Kroeger, Mike Kroeger, and Ryan Peake. Chad did not sing and Ryan played the trombone. After a while Chad moved to Vancouver and the band broke up. He eventually moved back and the band got back together. They called themselves Brick. Chad at this point began to sing, Ryan played guitar, and Brandon Kroeger played the drums. It was not until right before the release of Hesher that the band called themselves Nickelback. http://nickelbackgeeks.150m.com/Biography.html 75.69.13.84 (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Declined - Please provide a reliable source that backs all this information up. "Nickelbackgeeks" is a fansite, and as such, does not qualify. Sergecross73 msg me 18:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

So back in 2010...

Someone deletes the "criticism" section about Nickelback to make it balanced.

Now aside from criticism being the whole point of Nickelback, do you not realise that is the problem with Wikipedia at the moment?!?

Someone has a well-referenced section with criticism, and some dickhead removes it to "balance" the article. Turning the article into a stub!

Wikipedia - you have lost your way. 118.90.34.133 (talk) 07:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't remove it, but for the record, writing articles from a neutral point of view has always been part of the basic foundation of Wikipedia, and this article is most certainly not a stub, nor was it at any point in the year of 2010. Sergecross73 msg me 13:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Section Needed

Nickelback is by far the worse band in the history of "bands". There needs to be a section about this. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realperson69 (talk • contribs) 08:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to add reliably sourced information to the Reception section, but adding a whole section detailing how they're "the worst" is probably going to violate Wikipedia's policy on neutrality... Sergecross73 msg me 12:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Nickelback and Pop rock term

Nickelback are NOT Pop rock. Pop rock is a genre with catchy riffs and dancing pops. Nickelback music is VERY far away from that. I never heard into that was Pop rock from Nickelback. If Creed AREN'T even Pop rock then why is Nickelback pop rock? In fact both of these bands sound very SIMILAR. Nickelback ARE NOT POP ROCK. Their music genres are mostly Post-grunge and alternative rock. In fact what is Pop rock? Are you guys referring as stuff as Maroon 5? Because Nickelback doesn't even sound NOTHING like Pop rock. If you look st Matchbox twenty well you could see they are Pop rock. Their music doesn't sell to rock radios anymore. Nickelback music still sells to rock radios. Why are they label pop rock? They are not. I never heard that from any of their biographies or articles. Nickelback is a band that just put grunge music into radio friendly grunge. Term comes Post-grunge. Of course their early releases were label as GRUNGE. But their newer stuff is just Post-grunge. In fact all they play is a radio friendly style of grunge. So playing a radio friendly style of grunge makes you Pop rock? No is not. Post-grunge is influenced by GRUNGE. Is just grunge to be more on the radios. Nickelback are not this Pop rock label. I saw the pop rock Wikipedia and Nickelback AREN'T even their. Fail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.133.243.249 (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

1. Reliable sources support the term "Pop Rock"
2. Come on, songs like When We Stand Together or Far Away (Nickelback song) are like the definition of what pop rock is. Everything they do is extremely mainstream, radio-friendly, simple rock music, but those softer tracks definitely push them into "pop music". Sergecross73 msg me 19:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Radio friendly doesn't really mean that a song is pop rock. Sure, When We Stand Together was a little poppier than their normal stuff but you also have to look at the fact that that is really their only song that has a pop sound to it. Their other adult pop hits are ballads or songs that don't have shredding guitars on them. Pop rock is a genre for some songs, but not the band. I'd take it out. Plus there is no source there anyways. Contactman7 (talk) 22:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Definitely has a clear cut ref in the musical style section. Definitely disagree with be rest of what you said too. Majority of their music could be argued into being pop rock, but especially their ballads. Considering WWST isn't there first or only ballad, I don't really follow you... I can dig out more sources upon request, but its pretty typically easy to prove for most bands that cross into pop/adult contempory type radio stations, which Nickelback does commonly.. . Sergecross73 msg me 02:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Well radio-friendly doesn't really mean Pop rock. Nickelback are not pop rock just because they make ballads. Lots of bands do it and they don't get label pop rock. Post-grunge is a term that is used in alot of rock bands today and Nickelback is included there. Lots of post-grunge bands make soft songs and sell out to aldult and pop radios but that doesn't really mean they are pop rock. If a pop rock band makes a soft love song then it would be label as pop rock. If a post-grunge band makes one it will be just label soft rock or post-grunge. The media describes it that way. I am pretty sure Nickelback are not Pop rock. They are just a post-grunge band like Foo Fighters, 3 Doors Down, Creed, Puddle Of Mudd, Seether, The Calling, Our Lady Peace, Staind and all of those bands. Heck, Staind make soft songs in their last albums and they don't get mention pop rock? But they are not because their main style of music is post-grunge. The same thing goes to Nickelback. They are not pop rock and they shouldn't be include. Other than that I believe your source in wikipedia but the pop rock term doesn't make sense for a post-grunge band. Post-grunge bands like to make soft ballads but that doesn't mean they are pop rock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.133.243.249 (talk) 06:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - None of the band's you've just listed are "Good Articles" or Featured Articles, in fact, most of them are in pretty rough shape really, so that's not a good argument. Many of those bands could easily be called pop rock as well. 10 seconds of Google searching lead to an LA Times article labeling 3 Doors Down as "Pop Rock", for example, so the label could, for example, easily be applied to them as well.

That aside, on Wikipedia, these things are determined by what sources say. See below for a list of sources that call Nickelback pop rock, and they trump your personal opinions on this. Sergecross73 msg me 18:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Sources supporting "Pop rock"

• http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/NewsDetails.aspx?storyid=267080
• http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-11-08/genius-the-nickelback-story
• http://www.vulture.com/2012/01/brief-history-of-popular-nickelback-bullying.html
• http://rocknewsdesk.com/world-news/kroeger-gives-ex-more-than-a-nickelback/1951/
• http://www.atlantamusicguide.com/2011/11/16/cd-review-nickelback-here-and-now/

More to come... Sergecross73 msg me 18:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

All those articles are just news articles. Those are basically opinions from the author. Contactman7 (talk) 01:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Really? Youre going to discount Business Week as "just a news article"? Beyond that, the rest of the refs used to source the album are the same. What exactly are you looking for? The Pop rock term is pretty common, so Im sure it can be found regardless. Sergecross73 msg me 02:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The Nickelback "Pop Rock" term

Hello there, I have seen people arguing over weather they are pop rock or not. I come here to inform you guys that they are not pop rock. When people put Nickelback in that position they mean "Popular Rock" not "Pop Rock" musically. I came here to change that to "Country Rock" because they have some "Country Rock" songs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiiu91 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Ignoring the fact that I'm 90% sure that you're block evading and/or a sock puppet based on your edit history, but if you were reading these conversations, you should know that 1) You need to provide sources to back what you say and 2) You need to explain yourself, not just describe what you did without any sort of insight of why. Sergecross73 msg me 01:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The source is a blog, and explicitly says that only that one song is country, and that they have no interest in pursuing a country album or sound in general. Also, its no justification for removing the "pop rock" label either. Sergecross73 msg me 02:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Nickelback "Popular Rock," not "Pop Rock" musically!!!!!! READ BEFORE GOING ON AND CHANGING!

Got a link to prove it. http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/69119/for-nickelback-success-rocks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.133.243.249 (talk)

Did you actually read the article? Its Kroeger trying to "celebrate" that they're pop band, he's arguing against people who say "pop" is a bad label. It may not literally call them pop rock, but this article actually supports my argument. If no one referred to them as pop rock, then the whole premise of the entire article wouldn't make any sense. That article doesn't prove anything. Sergecross73 msg me 02:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

This article supports "my argument," have you read it. He's not celebrating because he didn't say, WE'RE a pop group. He just said when people refer to them as "pop" they mean "popular." Why do you have to be so stubborn? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiiu91 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

1. No, it doesn't. It literally starts off It's OK with Nickelback if you want to call them a pop group.. Then it just says that they're okay with the term because other respected bands are also called pop, like Tool or Slipknot. It just flat out doesn't say what you're arguing in the article.
2. I notice you're alternating between a name and an IP. Is 50.133 and Wiiu91 one and the same? Sergecross73 msg me 02:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

It is somewhat ironic that topic 3 of 3 of this Pop rock series states "READ BEFORE GOING ON AND CHANGING!" due to the editor failing to read the responses here on the talk page. Sources exist stating that they are pop rock so you are continuing to remove sourcesd content. HrZ (talk) 13:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2014

Can you please remove "Heavy Metal" from the genre background information and change it to "NU Metal." Source of NU Metal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nu_metal

50.168.172.170 (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

No, this is one if the reasons the article is protected - people's unsourced opinions on genre... Sergecross73 msg me 02:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe an "In Popular Culture" section?

While the "Reception" section does acknowledge how much some critics dislike Nickelback, what seems like a glaring omission to me is anything about the general treatment of the band in popular culture.

Nickelback jokes: http://www.sickipedia.org/search?q=Nickelback Nickelback memes: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/people/nickelback Nickeback on Urban Dictionary: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?page=3&term=Nickelback Nickelback as the punchline of a joke by Australian police just two days ago: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/05/20/nickelback-australian-police_n_7344974.html

Slamming Nickelback is so well-established among the general public that Billboard treated it as news when the band began responding to negative tweets: http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/510683/nickelback-responds-to-insults-on-twitter#/news/nickelback-responds-to-insults-on-twitter-1005965952.story

98.232.26.108 (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

"In Popular Culture" sections are usually frowned upon, as they tend to degrade into pointless "trivia lists, which we try to avoid. Your first 3 sources would not qualify as a usable source by Wikipedia standards, while the former 2, would be reliable sources, but I'm not sure how you'd move it into the article as is, or if its important enough to work into the article. ("Random police officer makes comment that disparages Nickelback" doesn't strike me as all that important of an event in the course of their collective career.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:0