Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Metal

I've started this project on Heavy metal music and it's sub-genres, to improve the standards of these existing articles and create missing articles. Join the Project by signing your name in the Participant's list.

New Rock Star 16:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Good job on creating this, I've seen several articles that really need the attention of knowledgeable metal fans. I'll help where I can. AidanPryde 19:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Edward the Great

The Edward the Great article under the To Do list allready exists. Should it be removed or moved to a done title? Absolute Zero 22:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Need to fix the link in the Iron Maiden (band) article. I'll remove the article from the to do list.

NRS^{(talk to me,mail me or award me a barnstar)} 04:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Some work done

Found the two missing Dokken album photos Also, I have done a substantial amount of work on the Chuck Schuldiner page.

--Johnson542 09:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

more work done

i did the article on les binks former drummer of judas priest * Halifax_corey (talk · contribs)

Still Hungry

The Still Hungry ? article is not created. This article is of some other band. I have moved the article to the create list.

Metal Thunder मेटल थणडर|(Talk) 09:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Heavy Metal Music Image (Metal sign)

http:/upwiki/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/0e/Metalsign.jpg/50px-Metalsign.jpg

The metal salute (sign) is done with the index finger and pinky NOT index, pinky, and thumb. That image should be replaced with a correct one. Pasajero 19:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I made a new one. I think it looks a little goofy, but at least its correct. What do you guys think? +Johnson 20:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the first one. The original image is also not in violation of copyright. It should simply be made clear that variations are used, some people using their thumb (as i do) and some not (as per Pasajero), which means using both images. Ley Shade 21:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to say that I've been to quite a few metal concerts, and I have never once seen anyone use their thumb. I don't know if you could accept that as a variation, it is just an improper use of the horns. See Devil horns and this. Also, I would like to know how the new image is in violation of copyright, since I made the image. +Johnson 14:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

People do whats comfortable. Putting my thumb in my palm often causes me muscual pain, some people just dislike it, and others have their own reasons. Also, the only thing i know about the copyright is the mumo-jumbo u have to do about listing the picture and stuff, thats what i was getting at. Oh, and the new one looks like yew broke your thumb.

The "copyright mumo-jumbo" is listed at the image page, as per policy. I think it can be recognized that the standard/style of the majority (not variations done by a few people) is as pictured in the new image. And yes, I have broken and jammed my thumb plenty of times. I think it would be appropriate to keep the new picture (or someone else doing the same exact horns) and then use your idea: "It should simply be made clear that variations are used, some people using their thumb" and this is made clear in Devil horns, even though it is not listed as a variation (See the variation section of Devil horns, it can be pointed out. At the same time other variations include things such as "too much metal for one hand" (putting the two fists next to eachother and extending the pinkys), so out of simplicity for the group image for the template I feel that this new picture should be kept. It only makes sense, since this is the way that most people do it. This is the way it was first done, and is the most popular method. +Johnson 20:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest holding a straw poll for a week, with the options of:

• Picture A) Thumballena
• Picture B) Jammed And Broken
• Picture C) To Much Steering Wheel For Me
• Picture D) This Picture Doesnt Exist

Should work to find an answer well enough. Ley Shade 21:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Whatever makes Leyasu happy. +Johnson 01:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Heavy Metal notice

Hi all. I wanted to ask, what is the "WikiProject Heavy Metal notice" for exactly? Does it have to be on every heavy metal music related article? Also, I just created the pages for Malmonde (a french electro-industrial-death metal band) and Axel Rudi Pell. I was very surprised to find that the latter wasn't already there. It would need a bit of expanding though, and I didn't know if I should create two pages, one for the musician, and one for the band... Sounds a bit too much so I just made one. Also, the stub on André Matos should be expanded, after all, he is quite an influencial and famous vocalist (Viper, Angra, Shaaman). When I get time I'll start a page for Mike Terrana (Rage, Yngwie J. Malmsteen, Axel Rudi Pell, Metalium, Squealer...). Cheers --IronChris 18:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOT for rules on what not to do, such as coining new terms (Ie: Cyber Metal). Also please see WP:NPOV. Anything yew do not feel conficant doing yourself, please list on the to do page. Ley Shade 19:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

OK.... Thanks a bunch for the encouragement here. I feel quite at home now (NOT). Could you tell me why you directed me to the NPOV page? I wasn't aware that either my entries (Malmonde and Axel Rudi Pell) featured POV. And I did feel confident about doing it, which doesn't mean that I couldn't use some advice. But I'm guessing this wasn't the place to ask. --IronChris 20:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I apologise if i came across in a hostile manner, as that wasnt my intention. Your work was good by creating articles that needed creating. I dont think you put POV in your article on Malmonde intentionaly, sometimes just a simple choice of word can be seen as POV when read by someone else, a trap ive fallen into many times.

The reason i sent yew to WP:NPOV was simply so you could see examples and use it as a fallback guide if you needed to. I also sent you to WP:NOT so you could see your mistake with the Cyber Metal incident, which is now all good.

As for being confidant in doing something, there is somethings im not clued up on when it comes to them, so i list them here to do. I then take over doing the jobs on articles of which subjects im proficient in. That is what i meant.

More so, welcome to the Wikiproject. Ley Shade 20:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the advice then. And thanks for the improvements on the Malmonde page, I realise my mistakes. Good day to you! --IronChris 21:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Erm... my question remains however, where is the "WikiProject Heavy Metal notice" supposed to go? It's not very clear to me, is it just for articles initiated by members of WikiProject Metal, or does it have to be placed on the talk page of every Heavy Metal group article? --IronChris 23:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The notice goes at the top of discussion pages of Wikiproject Metal current projects. You can always add a wiki to the "to do" list and then add the notice to the discussion page, if you like. This project is all about expanding metal, so feel free to discuss in here if you are not sure about anything. You can also contact me if you need help on my userpage. Don't let criticism get you down, for as many users that disagree with you there will be just as many agreeing with you. We need as much help as we can get. +Johnson 23:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

List of heavy metal bands clean up?

The List of heavy metal bands is in dire need of a clean up. As Fuzzypeg states on the talk page, "many of these band names are wikified, but the wikilinks take you to the wrong place" and many bands in the list don't have an article, some of them probably shouldn't be there anyway (no discography, etc.). It also needs a better lay out, maybe a similar one to the artist list on the industrial metal page could be used, it's very neat; apparently it's used extensively on the german wikipedia. I think it's an important page, and should be brought up to Wikipedia standards (which it certainly doesn't reach in its present state). What do you think should be done? --IronChris 02:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Lets just start working. We should make articles for confirmed metal bands that come up as reds on the list, remove non-metal bands, and clean up links. I'll make it an official WikiProject Metal project. +Johnson 04:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I have already done a lot of work on creating articles for death metal and doom metal bands and albums and I will go on. Natheless I agree with most of the above. Other List of * metal bands could use some work as well. Spearhead 10:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Subgenres & Styles

I do not know about anybody else but I find the list of metal subgenres to be rather messy and unhelpful. The infobox in the main Heavy Metal article lists 13 subgenres of metal and 10 fusion genres. Browsing around, however, would lead one to encounter other infobox that expands the list to include such entries as "melodic death metal" and "blackened death metal" (shouldn't they be covered under death metal itself?) as well as other entries such as Celtic metal and Oriental metal. On the Folk Metal article, someone has even listed a genre known as Pirate Metal.

My objection here is that there are really only a handful of metal subgenres and yet by browsing through wikipedia, one might get the impression that there are more than thirty different metal subgenres. As it is now, I see six different concepts that are being grouped together under the umbrella term of subgenre.

Group 1: The primary style in which the vocals, guitars, drums and bass are being played. Black. Death. Power. Thrash. Doom. Glam (or Pop). Classic. These are metal subgenres that stand alone.

Group 2: The secondary style that is layered on top, over or fused with the primary style. Gothic. Folk. Progressive. None of these subgenres stand alone. A band combines the stylistic elements of folk music, gothic ethos or progressive aspirations with their primary genre - death, doom, power, etc.

Group 3: The manner or approach in which the above groups are brought about. Symphonic. Avant-garde. Neo-classical. Tech (or Math). Speed. These are not subgenres of metal but rather a stylistic preference amongst a diverse array of bands from different subgenres. Some fans who are drawn to a particular stylistic preference might have a desire to label it as a subgenre. You can find bands in the power, black and gothic subgenres using a symphonic approach. You can find bands in the black, gothic or doom subgenres using an avant-garde approach. You can find bands in the power, death or progressive genres using a tech approach. An analogy would be the choice of a first person, second person or third person narrative or approach in a book. I find such terms as Dark Metal and Extreme Metal to be rather redundant but if people insist, they can fit into this group too.

Group 4: Fusion with music outside the family of metal. Funk. Industrial. Grindcore. Alternative. Etc.

Group 5: Regional scenes that develop a particular style unto their own. Gothenburg, NWOBHM, Bay Area, Florida. I believe Oriental metal comes under this group as well.

Group 6: Distinction arising from non-musical consideration. Christian metal. Viking metal. And if someone really wants it, pirate metal.

I believe it would be more sensible to distinguish the above groups from one another as follows. I am referring particularly to the infobox.

Subgenres: Group 1 & 2

Fusion genres: Group 4

Common Stylistic Approaches: Group 3

Regional Scenes: Group 5

Lyrical Themes & Images: Group 6.

This is merely a suggestion to clean up something that I personally find to be rather messy and muddy. I will leave it to you lot in the project team to discuss the merits and lack of with regards to my proposal. Cheers. --Anarchodin 10:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Its already noted to be cleaned up. Also, most of what you said is only half right. Progressive Metal and Gothic Metal are stand alone genres, they do not fuse anything with anything else, except for minor attributes.

For the complete list of Heavy Metal genres, see this article. Also realise that the reason the Heavy Metal template lists only certain genres, is because i removed the ones that do not have any direct connection to the original Heavy Metal style.

Also note, if yew see any non-existant rubbish in infoboxes, like Pirate Metal, you can just delete them and let the project know. I recently had to do this with a host of genres, including Circus Metal, Extreme Goth Metal, and Ghost Metal. Ley Shade 12:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• As I've noted elsewhere on WP today, "the battle to avoid over-categorisation in music has been lost." Categorising is important, but inherently subjective. This community needs to be inclusive, for example: "pirate metal" gets 13,000 hits on google (11,600 for "pirate metal" +music) - niche, certainly but not non-existent - so if someone wants to create an article about it that's fine by me. If that article is informative and defines what is different about the topic, let's see some bluelinks and list entries. On the other hand, Ghost metal fails the google test and needs to WP:CHILL. Circus metal falls somewhere in between. But ultimately, excluding such things from info-boxes and lists should be done with consensus, not because anyone regards themselves as an authority on what does and doesn't exist, and what does and doesn't qualify as metal. And that's coming from a card-carrying deletionist. Wikipedia works on consensus (WP:CON) especially to avoid edit warring and POV. Involvement in a Wikiproject should be done in accordance with the house rules.

I've spent some time editing the Stoner rock / metal article, which Leyasu / Ley Shade does not deem suitable for inclusion on heavy metal lists and templates. That's being discussed on a different page, and my intended involvement in this project goes a lot deeper than stoner metal, but it's another case in point. Stoner metal gets over 370,000 googles so dismissing it as a made-up genre doesn't cut it. The only claim that can really be made is that you don't regard it as "true metal" - fine as an opinion but it becomes POV when you start deleting references to it as a sub-genre of metal without consensus. Wikipedia is never going to be the last bastion of true metal and trying to exclude styles or labels you don't agree with is a losing battle. Every genre was "made-up" once but this 2006, the face of what is considered "metal" might have changed, and we need to deal with that. I'm as much a fan of the "true metal" genres as anyone, and I hope to concentrate on encylopedia-building and getting people involved, rather than the minutiae of labelling. Deizio 13:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

first of all there is a whole load of metal genre related articles on WP, most of which are crap. Many POV and narrowminded if they are not mere stubs.

What we needs is guidelines for genre inclusion (see also WP:MUS and the talk page). Further we need to fix the list of actual heavy metal (sub-)genres in the list of heavy metal genres and get a consensus really that this is it. From thereon we can start fixing the actual genre articles, deleting with this consesus in mind all sub-genre articles, merging them where necessary.

One point is that I don't believe that the distinction above is going to work. Most genres grow from other genres and taking incluences from various (sometimes obscure) sources. Imo, although it is a bit subjective (or vague) is that a genre should stand out from other genres, mostly attracting a different audience or having major stylistic and musical differences. Spearhead 16:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

First off, the Pirate Metal article claimed that the bands wrote about Pirating. Well, i could see how that would work, Pirate Metal, bands writing Pirate type music with metal elements, yeah. When the article goes on to list bands with nothing to do with Pirates, and the article says nothing about pirates, and was created by a member of the infamous Coin Terming Yahoo Group, there is a problem.

Genres that exist, are fine. Genres that are notable, with well written out definations, examples, citations and what not, yeah, fine. But what was discussed months ago, was that A) Cross-Genre References wouldnt go on the template, B) Only notable genres would be on the template.

WP:NOT explicitly states coin-terming isnt allowed, so when Yahoo Groups, Anons and Pirate Captains start coining terms to group together their favourite bands, that will get deleted. Which is exactly why Circus Metal, Pirate Metal and the other triad of made up nonsense, gets deleted.

As for the List Of Heavy Metal Genres, that was already extensivly worked on by me and WesleyDodds, amongst its moving/merging/copyediting. So, last time i checked, we should be merging the Cross-Genre Reference articles into one, so that we have them all safe and sorted, and then we can get to deleting all the nonsense articles which me and Spearhead have been doing. Ley Shade 18:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I think things are moving here. But here's one for you... First line, "Oriental metal is a crossover between death metal and doom metal". Going deeper, "oriental metal" - which I had never heard of til yesterday despite 15+ years as a metalhead - gets 21,000 google hits and the article mentions a grand total of three bands (2 from Israel, 1 from Turkey) with a list of influences from various genres. Yet this is on the glorious template. I don't have a problem with the inclusion, I have questions about the exclusion of other sub-genres which clearly have equal or greater notability and popularity, and where several genres or styles are also listed as "influences" but have been labelled as a "mish-mash". Pirate, Ghost and Circus metal might not qualify but others possibly do. Nobody can have this "both ways", we have to strip things down to the basics - Thrash / Death / Doom etc. and then have sub-lists, sub-templates etc. - or be a lot more inclusive, and say that (within Wikipedia) any existing article which satisfies notability criteria and is referencing a sub-genre of metal qualifies that as a sub-genre of metal. As far as the "coin terming Yahoo group" goes, I know nothing of this outfit, but instantly don't like the sound of them. I agree on the WP:NOT but am interested to know if Ley Shade still thinks "stoner metal" contravenes WP:NOT? I would also like to hear a better definition of "cross-genre references", especially given the "oriental metal" question. Deizio 22:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Id already deleted Oriental Metal from the template a number of times, so someone else has added that back in. Delete it when yew have the time. The Stoner group article belongs on the rock template. As for genres of metal, someone coining a term is someone coining a term, and no amount of hits on Google will make any difference. Search Gothic Metal on google and youll get only a handfull of pages that have abything to do with Gothic Metal. For term coined 'subgenres', sources have to be provided. If they arent, they get deleted. Simple as. Ley Shade 23:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you're underestimating the popularity of gothic metal there. There's plenty of white noise from jewelery and trinket-related stuff, and plenty about stuff that isn't "gothic metal" as the true metal fan might see it, but also plenty of real stuff as well. Anyway, what's the criteria for "coining a term"? You're glossing over a pretty subjective area here. As I said on another page, everything from "Heavy metal" on down was "coined" at one point. Anything that has been defined as "genre x" in the mainstream music press or respected metal press is about as verifiable as I think we can reasonably push this. And are you talking about deleting entire pages - obviously a job for AfD, or deleting stuff from metal lists and templates. That's still a job for consensus. Deizio 23:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

To help you understand. Coining a term on Wikipedia is in violation of WP:NOT. If the term has been coined elsewhere, and there is significant sources to amount to it being used, we include it here. However, if its a nickname for something else, it doesnt get its own article, it gets mentioned as a nickname for whatever else.

Also im talking about AFD. Core Templates list only the core musical forms, Ie: The Heavy Metal template only lists the core musical forms, the other templates list the subdivisions of themselfs. Ley Shade 09:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thx, but you don't need to "help me understand" Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I'm suprised you haven't gone further, as you would dismiss Pirate metal as "made up", yet you can google any number of media sources which reference it. Making up terms entirely for Wikipedia or your own self satisfaction ("protologisms") is obviously not on, using recently coined phrases which might not be widely accepted or have a clear meaning ("neologisms") is a much greyer area. Let WP:NEO be your guide here.

there is also the issue of notability. Then there is a discussion whether it would warrant a article by itself or that it can be included in an existing article (with a redirection). I am very strongly against all metal subgenre information being scattered among dozens of articles that are barely more than a stub Spearhead 15:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want the Heavy Metal template to be respected as containing only core genres, I reckon there's a long way to go. Oriental for a start. NSBM a "core genre"? "Blackened death metal" is by definition a crossover, as is "thrashcore". Read the "Viking metal" article recently? And that's just the screamingly obvious ones.

NSBM is one that should be merged into Black metal. Oriental metal should be removed and blackened death metal as well. There is lots of work to do and lots of discussion is needed to reach a consensus on what the core metal genres are. Spearhead 15:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll fully support any AfD proceedings against unnotable articles. I would also support the Heavy metal template being properly stripped down to core genres. In its current state, and per Wesley, it's open to any genres which define themselves as metal, and nobody has the right to delete them because they don't like them. So, strip it down or open it up, what do you reckon? Deizio 15:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Strip it down. Cross-Genre References and Fusion Genres are not core genres, unless they have their own established scenes, and are not part of another. Ie: Symphonic Metal would be a core genre, but Viking Metal wouldnt be. Ley Shade 16:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I love it. But even "symphonic", which the article says "...takes a lot of its musical basis from early Gothic metal, power metal, and classical music" is IMO not really a core genre. Not when you think about thrash / death / black / gothic as core genres. Deizio 20:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

List of heavy metal genres lists it as one. Symphonic Metal = Core Genre, its subsidarys like Symphonic Black/Symphonic Power = Not Core. Get the point now? Ley Shade 22:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

List of heavy metal genres being what, the definitive guide to what Ley Shade thinks qualifies as "core metal genres"? I "get" that you are keen to shape the presentation of metal on Wikipedia. That's OK because we're here to help. Per the quote from the Symphonic metal page above, it still strikes me as a crossover. The Gothic metal article also lists it as a derivative form. The list of bands on the Symphonic metal page contains a total of 10 bands (8 blue and 2 redlinked). Not what I'm looking for in a "core genre", I have to say. That fact you have been heavily involved in "policing" the list of heavy metal genres and Symphonic metal, removing things you don't agree with using terse edit summaries rather than attempting to build any kind of consensus is there for all to see in the page histories, [1], [2]. It's going to totally fuck up this project if we can't all work together. I personally have no axe to grind against anyone, any band or any genre and I'd love to see this project be a success. Deizio 00:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100%. IMO, Leyasu needs to WP:CHILL. We need to work together. On a side note, Leyasu has Symphonic metal as a core genre (even thought is has only 8 bands, questioned sources, and is a combination of core genres), and said that groove metal is not a core genre (even though groove metal has 16 bands, is an expansion of one genre, and has the highly notable Pantera along with some other, and the Pantera page discusses the development of groove metal). I don't think either should be a core genre. But what do I know?. +Johnson 06:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Their is far more Symphonic Metal bands than the ones listed. A small list on Wikipedia doesnt summarize 'every' band of a given form. If Symphonic Metal will be left off, thats fine i can understand the reasoning, as all the non-core genres will be on the revised List of heavy metal genres that will be formed after weve got all the cross-genre terms onto one article. Ley Shade 10:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Still Hungry fixed

See Still Hungry, and Still Hungry. +Johnson 04:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Metalhead Category

Hey, I just wanted to mention that I made a category for the metalhead subculture! If you would like to join, please go here

If this is irrelevant on this talk page then please feel free to delete. Thanks! (Wikieizor 11:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC))

Template:Heavymetal - core genres

This area is for discussion of the core genres in relation to the poll. All previous comments that have not been votes are here. Please feel free to debate the genre in its subposition below. Ley Shade

Avant garde metal

• Article: "is a cross-genre reference to metal bands characterized by large amounts of experimentation and by non-standard sounds, instruments, and song structures." Again, not sure, not convinced it's "core", Delete, not yet sure whether minor or cross-ref. Deizio 13:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Yes, there is a lot of experimentation but if you would keep Folk metal then this is important too. Not because of reasons like is it famous enough or is it something completly new in the Heavy metal but because of the music that is more progressive than most of others. Not that it redefines the sound but it's rich and has a great deal of variations. Unlike Nu metal or Glam metal that just have a "new" formula and then hundred of bands follow it and no variation! +If you throw it of the template other readers may not even know it exists, it's not so easy to navigate through millions of links. I didn't know that it even exists before i checked Celtic Frost's page!!! (Reply here) Death2 03:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Black metal

needs a complte rewrite, top to bottom. Big in albania 11:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Gothic metal

Thunder, please explain how you come to the conclusion the genre is a cross-ref? Ley Shade

Grindcore

• Keep. +Johnson 15:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Ley Shade 14:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• NeutralMinor, if this will contain Noisecore, Goregrind and friends I guess it works. Deizio 16:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• keep Spearhead 18:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Deizio. --IronChris 02:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --PopUpPirate 08:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Metal Thunder मेटल थणडर|(Talk) 12:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (who the f==k can delete this ?) =Mangonel 12:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Power metal

• Article is clear as mud as to what this actually relates to. "American " and "European" power metal seem to be different sub-genres of metal. The US variant also seems to have a lot in common with "Progressive metal". Deizio 16:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Speed metal

• I notice you've just unilaterally deleted Speed metal from the template. Deizio 17:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It was done before i knew about this vote on this talk page. It can remain for now. But word of warning, if this is kept on, then ALL the Cross Genre References will have to go on. Ley Shade 18:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• I would urge everyone to take a look at this article before voting "keep", it defines Speed metal as a crossover which is what we're trying to weed out from the core genres. Also, see next topic below. Deizio 11:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Symphonic Metal

I have no intention of swaying your vote Deiz anymore past you reading the article. I do agree the article could be improved, as i originally had to do the whole article on my own with no help, so some help improving it would be much appreciated. Either way its on the List of heavy metal genres, so it doesnt matter if every genre and then some isnt on the template. Ley Shade 11:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The core genres in the heavy metal list and template will have to be coordinated. Non-core genres go to section 2, cross genre references. Deizio 11:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

No, they wont.Core Genres and references are different things. Just sort it into Major and Minor - Major is whats on the template, Minor is everything else that is actually a genre. References are all the things already listed there. Ley Shade 11:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

So you're suggesting the list should have "major" (aka "core"), then "minor", then "cross-references"? Seems sensible, but it would have been nice to agree on this first so we could have voted major / minor / other in this poll. Deizio 13:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Major / minor / cross

Building on an idea Ley Shade advanced above, is seems sensible that Template:Heavymetal will contain only the "core genres" - ie the ones "kept" from the poll, while the List of heavy metal bands should have 3 sections; Core (ie the ones on the template), minor (genres with a high degree of "distinct"-ness but not strictly core, and the cross-references, which can contain more or less anything with metal roots and a decent article behind it.

If this is acceptable, then a "keep" vote above is still for the core genres that will go on the template. It is also fine to vote "Minor" or "Cross-ref" instead of "delete", although as not everyone might feel like changing their votes we can sort out these two sections in the next stage of this process. Thoughts? Deizio 11:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

What is going on with the colors?

I am not particularly interested in music, but I've noticed a lot of switching around colors on the Infobox, and creating new, inappropriate tempaltes (such as template:Trashmetal, which I subst'ed). In any case, any change in infobox colors should be worked out with the Music genre WikiProject, which maintains a list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Music genres/Colours. Circeus 19:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Correct the colours then. Apologies for reverting the colour on Speed Metal, i forgot to change it to what you had when i reverted the silly anon. If you want to go back and fix it thats cool with me. Ley Shade 21:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to know if what was going on had to do with the project or random anons. thanks for confirming. Circeus 13:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Symphonic Metal

Also, I think there should be both symphonic black metal and symphonic power metal on the list of heavy metal genres, because they have next to nothing in common, and I don't see why they should be put together. Dimmu Borgir and Nightwish don't really fit in the same category, in my opinion. --IronChris 00:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Symphonic Metal doesnt cross either. Subsidarys are listed on the articles main page. Much like Blackened Death Metal mixes Black Metal with Death Metal, is being moved to the Death Metal article. Symphonic Metal is its own genre and scene, Symphonic Black and Symphonic Power are subsidarys there of, much like Gothic-Doom is a subsidary of Gothic Metal. I also fail to see how Symphonic Power has anything to do with Gothic Metal. And Deiz, i didnt figure to do the Major/Minor thing till i posted that :P Ley Shade 02:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah fair enough on the major / minor, in any case it's a good idea. Deizio 21:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

My problem with treating symphonic metal as a genre is really just that it includes symphonic black metal, which is very different from Nightwish, After Forever or Within Temptation. If we were to restrain symphonic metal to just that kind of "symphonic power metal" then I would totally agree that it is a minor genre. But as long as it is an umbrella term for every kind of metal genres that use symphonic elements I will have a problem with that. --IronChris 23:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Chris. Those bands ARE NOT SYMPHONIC POWER METAL. The Symphonic Metal genre is a genre in and of itself. Gothic Metal bands use Symphonic Metal, but are not Symphonic Metal bands. The article lists Symphonic Power and Symphonic Black in its subsidarys, the same as Gothic Metal lists Gothic-Doom in its subsidarys and Black Metal lists War Metal in its subsidarys. Thus, Symphonic Metal is not a umbrella term. Ley Shade 01:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I think I understand what you mean now. It's just confusing to have the symphonic power and black metal in the same article as symphonic metal; the conclusion I draw from that is that the article is about "symphonic metal, a genre that includes symphonic power and symphonic black metal". If you say that these do not belong to symphonic metal, then I see your point, though maybe it should be better stressed on the article that these are different genres. Or maybe the symphonic power metal section should be on the power metal page, as you seem to insist that it is not the same as symphonic metal, and likewise symphonic black metal should on the black metal page. This seems much more logical to me, since symphonic black metal is hardly even mentionned on the black metal page (despite whole sections dedicated to dubious or even controversial genres such as troll metal and war metal (i mean, wtf!)).

So, following your definition, which bands fall into this category? Because if Nightwish are not classified as symphonic power metal, then I'm really confused when the article states that "Nightwish composes songs that are often classified as either symphonic metal or power metal". Sorry, but I really have a hard time finding a difference between some symphonic metal bands and gothic metal (After Forever, Epica) or symphonic power metal bands (Edenbridge) (which leads me to think it is a cross-genre). If there was a clear separation between these genres I would agree with you all the way, but I fail to see this separation. --IronChris 19:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• I would also interpret it as "symphonic metal, a genre that includes symphonic power metal and symphonic black metal", but I fail to see what the problem with that is? A sub genre which contains sub-sub genres is fine, and it's far better to have them on one article rather than fragmented across others. When a subsub can be attributed to two different parents (eg symphonic black metal) it becomes tricker but my gut feeling on this is its better suited to a description on the symphonic page with a link from the black metal page. If it was "black symphonic metal" then maybe it would go on the black metal page. I still see symphonic as one of our "minor" genres but when getting into the minutiae of it I bow to LS's obvious knowledge in this corner of the metal church. Deizio 20:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the source of confusion for me is that LS insists that Symphonic metal is different from symphonic power metal and symphonic black metal, but they are on the same page. That was why I failed to see why it wasn't a cross-genre in his opinion, for me their being on the same page automatically made me think they belonged to the same genre.

"Symphonic" just indicates the use of symphonic elements. So in my opinion this doesn't constitute a genre, just as bands using violins don't all belong to the same genre, or bands using grunts aren't all in one genre either.

Also, as pointed out by several people on the talk page of the black metal article, symphonic black metal is hardly even mentionned. Symphonic black metal IS black metal (see Dimmu Borgir, Hecate Enthroned...) and symphonic power metal IS power metal (see Nightwish, Angra, Stratovarius). Really, if LS can come up with a clear definition of symphonic metal, showing how it is distinct from other movements (including symphonic black and power metal), and a decent list of bands, then I'll agree absolutely that it's a minor genre. It just seems ridiculous to me (and many others) that while the black metal article mentions troll metal and war metal, not a word is said about symphonic black metal.

I don't have a problem with the idea of sub-sub genres, or even with symphonic metal as a minor genre given a clear definition as I said, it's just that putting symphonic black and power as subs of a rather controversial genre (just look at all the discussions it is causing) that only has a handful of bands in its list seems to me to be a mistake. --IronChris 00:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I havo to agree that Symphonic Black Metal is Black Metal and Symphonic Power Metal is Power Metal (I would even goes so far to say that Gothic Doom is Doom Metal, especially if we're going to play with linguistics). I have always wondered why Dimmu Borgir's genre is lumped together with Nightwish's. If thay don't have their own page they should be talked about on the main genre page, not a mostly ambiguous page. marnues 01:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Gothic Metal

Im calling attention to the above article. The article is currently the target for much vandalism, especially from the user Danteferno, who has been placed on 1R a day and has currently claimed ownership of the article and has forbiddon any and all users involved in this project from editing it. I would request that members of the project monitor this article closely for changes, and revert and clean up as and where neccesary. Ley Shade 12:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The genres

It would help greatly if new voters, particularly if new to the project, relatively new to Wikipedia and / or when voting against the "tide" of already cast votes, could give a rationale to support their vote which demonstrates understanding of what we are attempting to do with this poll and the heavy metal list and template, and the definitions of "core" (indicated by a "keep" vote), "minor" and "cross-reference". Also, it should be intuitive that participating in this poll indicates a willingness to abide by the results of consensus built by the poll. Deizio 13:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about subgenres and sub-subgenres

What's going on over on the black metal talk page is just ridiculous. I know we haven't yet agreed on what is a major, minor and cross-ref genre, but we also need to reach an agreement on what subgenres and sub-subgenres can be included on Wikipedia and which can't.

Discussions over "pirate metal" illustrate this. Despite the 14.100 google hits, pirate metal is not considered a valid subgenre by some, whereas others would like to have a section on it in Wikipedia (for my part, I have no strong opinion on it, though I tend to think it is not notable enough by number of bands).

The Black Metal page is facing daily reverts by those who think "faggoth", "troll metal", "war metal" or "cyber metal" should have their own section as a subgenre, and those who oppose this. We cannot keep on like this, the discussions are not leading anywhere and we need to reach a concensus to stop these excessive reverts and avoid edit wars.

I propose that discussions about the validity of sugenres should all be grouped here. I will start a list of controversial genres and sections, and everyone can put their opinion. I cannot stress enough the importance of stopping this ridiculous reverting process, and the inconclusive discussions that are scattered all over the talk pages of different articles.

If a subgenre seems controversial, just add it here and lets discuss it all together. Don't just delete it leaving a 3 word edit summary, this will just lead to more reverts and more frustration. --IronChris 21:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

All those silly subgenres are very much of out control on WP. Most should be deleted where some information may be kept in one of the "core genres". Regional scenes should be merged either into a general regional metal scenes article or just into their core genre article. Spearhead 22:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly what we need, but we also need to be confident that the people reverting etc. on Black metal are onboard with this, or at least grudgingly accept the process is happening. It's not a page I'm hugely involved with, are we dealing with otherwise reasonable, dedicated editors who disagree on a few things and can brought round a table, or do we have anons and pure mishchief-makers? Deizio 22:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Faggoth (on the black metal page)

• Strong Delete This section is plain ridiculous. It is by no means a subgenre of black metal, as the section states itself. It scores a miserable 652 hits on google, and thereby does not pass the google test. Either delete it, or prove its verifiability and notability. --IronChris 21:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• delete - just a load of crap Spearhead 22:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism, slang, not a genre, per all above. Deizio 22:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete again for the 1000th time. Absolute garbage of the highest order Big in albania 15:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (Never heard of this one) --XylyX | (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per pretty much what everyone else has said. marnues 00:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, like everyone said. It seems to be a made up slang-genre used to describe a type of music somebody doesn't like

Troll metal (on the black metal page)

• Delete: even less hits on google than pirate metal, most of these bands (finntroll for example) can be considered as folk black metal, a widely accepted subgenre. --IronChris 21:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• delete per above Spearhead 22:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete it really is just a different name for Folk Black Metal. marnues 01:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

War metal (on the black metal page)

• Delete: I have never heard of this subgenre, and it doesn't seem to have any clear differences from other black metal styles. The section states the controversy about this term that was made up by one band. "an audial image of war, using buzzsaw guitars, brutal blasting drums, and screeched vocals reminiscent of a war command" doesn't seem enough to justify the creation of a new subgenre. --IronChris 21:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• delete not a genre, just a name a couple of bands use occasionally. Spearhead 22:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as NN. Big in albania 15:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (This seems childish and unencyclopeadic) --XylyX | (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Pakistani black metal (on the black metal page)

• Delete: this is just a list of unnotable bands from Pakistan, a totally confusing thing to have at the end of the black metal page. I understand that some people don't want to lose the info, but then why not move it to the talk page, or someone's user page? If no one wants to store it temporarilly on their user page I guess that means no one cares about it. Even if we delete it, it will remain in the history for future reference and can be placed on an appropriate article when one is found. --IronChris 21:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• delete - also check out the Iranian metal article Spearhead 22:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete now.. Genre and "bands" not even near the "e" of "encyclopedic". Just because they're the only guys in the country growling and grinding into a tape recorder doesn't make them notable. Also regional scenes should be devolved from parent articles unless the style originated there. Deizio 23:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as NN and possiblely as advertisment. Big in albania 15:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I can not believe how ignorant you guys are. Black Metal bands do not generally aim to be "known" or "famous" and beside the very first notable bands such as Burzum/Mayhem/Darkthrone/etc they generally are not famous. Just because you have not heard of the Pakistani BM scene it doesn't mean it isn't notable. Same goes for the Iranian metal scene which Spearhead wanted to delete because apparently its not "notable". I agree that it should not be on this page (although it should be noted here), but the reason why its here is because it had its own article which you guys wanted to delete off! -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 14:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Can't say (Keep in Regional if authentic) (Need to know more about this. One can't say much about other regions) --XylyX | (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - The fact that NO-ONE here or anywhere else it seems has heard of the pakistani BM scene means it probably isn't notable. The fact that we cannot find any further info on Google about it means it's not notable. That fact that none of these bands have ever been mentioned in any metal related publication i've ever read that deals in underground BM means they're not notable. These bands and thousands of others of ANY genre are simply too obscure to pass WP Notability criteria. By User:Khashayar Karimi's criteria, there's no band too obscure to NOT have a wiki article. In the words of someone in an AfD debate - "Someone else needs to write about this band first before we do". Big in albania 15:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment : Here's what I posted on the black metal talk page : "I tried to find info on those bands. I could find neither Miasma nor Void in the Metal Archives, Taarma doesn't even have a full-length album, and I couldn't find any info on Northern Alliance's discography (either in the metal pages or on google). In fact, Taarma are from Afghanistan, not Pakistan ([3],[4]). You'll have a hard time convincing me that these bands are in any way notable.

I don't think this information should be lost, but it clearly shouldn't be here. If someone wants to learn more about black metal and visits the page, they might think that either these bands are really famous, or it is somehow a big deal that a couple of bands are recording demos in Pakistan. If someone with some knowledge of black metal visits the page, they'll just be really surprised to see such a big section on something they had clearly never heard of and will probably not hear of again unless they go to live in Pakistan. In either case it really doesn't make the article better quality. I don't suppose anyone wants to AfD the section again as it has already been done, but for my part I don't see why this can't be on a separate article and have a link on the black metal page. "

- K a s h , you seem very intent on keeping this section. Why don't you either create a page where this section belongs (Black metal regional scenes or something), or store the information on your user page until a place for it has been found? I mean, if we have a section on Pakistani BM, we'll need to have one on Indonesian BM, Chinese BM, Costa Rican BM, Nigerian BM, Alaskan BM... Unless there is something really important or unusual about the Pakistani BM scene which makes it so special, but the section about it doesn't convey this feeling at all.

And please don't call anyone ignorant, just because we haven't heard of a couple if bands that have recorded a handful of demos in Pakistan and Afghanistan. We're trying to reach an agreement here so let's be civil about it. --IronChris 17:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Brothers, don't be too harsh on - K a s h , he obviously must have listened to some of those bands and would've thought, what the heck, these are great and so they should have an article or at least a section in Wikipedia. Nothing wrong with that Kash, but there is a certain concept called Notability, which is a benchmark for Wikinclusion. Of course, these bands may be notable in their regions' underground scene, but we need to answer this simple question - Have they done anything substantial that has popularized Black Metal (in atleast that particular region ?. Once we get an answer to this question, the issue will be solved.

IronChris and others, we need to understand, that in certain third world countries, rock music may not be that much popular that it warrants a place in Google. We need to know whether the particular movement has made an impact on their domestic scene or not. They may not get international acclaim, but they may have inspired some other younger bands who may do the same tomorrow. I think, sometimes we unintentionally and subconsciously, do become Euro-centric, which is nevertheless not good for an unbiased view.

==--XylyX | (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I understand that. I didn't mean to say that this information should be lost, nor that mentionning Pakistani black metal on Wikipedia is a bad idea. Also I did not mean to be too harsh on anyone, if I appeared so I'm sorry.

Honestly, I think that a section on "cultural impact of BM around the world" or "society's perception of BM" or something of the kind is a good idea. I am aware of the difficulties BM musicians face in many countries outside of Europe and North America. So yes, it would be a great idea to write a section about this problem, and to mention bands from around the world that try to play BM music despite the restrictions. But as you say, Pakistan isn't the only place. There is a mention about black metal controversy in Malaysia, so why not make a section about "black metal controversy" and talk about this phenomenon in general terms? This section could include the problems faced by musicians from Malaysia, Pakistan and other countries, and would belong in the article about BM, unlike the present sections which are rather irrelevant. Making a list of the bands doesn't help at all anyway, except as examples.

What I really object to is : 1)the list of bands (I don't see any lists of bands from other countries here) and 2)focussing on the Pakistani scene without mentionning other countries facing the same problem. --IronChris 18:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

What I am objecting to is for members of this 'project' going around deleting articles. I believe before this section came about here it had its own article which was nominated to be deleted (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistani black metal) - so it was doing fine until members of this project nominated it, and thats why it is now on this article which I believe is not the right place for it (but again ofcourse it has to be mentioned that there is a BM movement in Asia).

Now you have also asked me why its notable? Well I can't speak for the Pakistan Metal but in Iran Rock bands do not get to do live acts and recently a friend of mine was sent to jail for a month and had to pay £2000 (Thats almost a working year's worth of money for students in Iran where it is 2,500,000 rials) for playing loud (metal) music in his car (in Iran). Now if you knew what this scene means to those people you wouldn't ask for its notability, it's almost a case of exercising human rights for some in these 'Islamic' countries.

Metal Archives lists 24 bands for Iran most being Black or death metal, and if you knew what they have to go through to release material over there, you wouldn't ask for their notibility. -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 18:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Well why don't you write something about that! The section on the BM page doesn't mention anything of it, and as such is pure useless. As I said above (if you read my message), I believe something has to be written about these bands who try their best to play the music they love, but what you mention as being so important is not even mentionned anywhere in this section. So expand it if you have anything to add (and you seem to) and then we can consider keeping it where it is. I don't know about the deletion, I wasn't aware of it, but I agree that the outcome is a bit strange. --IronChris 19:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

You are right though, I just took a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistani black metal and it is pretty ridiculous. Only 5 users voted (3 to merge with BM, one merge with Pakistani music and one keep), none of which are participating in this discussion. The proposition to merge it with Pakistani music seems to me to be the most suitable proposition, though of course a mention should be made on the BM article. Please people, voting is sometimes plain ridiculous, that's why Wikipedia is not a democracy and discussion is preferred to voting.

I think we all agree something has to be done about this section, so let's forget the pseudo-vote and do what needs to be done. If necessary another vote can be done, in the hope that we get a little more participation. It would be great if the other people who participated in this discussion could say if they preferred the section to be :

• completely deleted
• moved to another page
• made into a separate article again
• kept and modified. --IronChris 19:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I called this article for AFD. As said above if we include this as an article we need hundreds of more articles or regional black metal, death metal, doom metal and whatever metal that have basically no content and anything far from notability. Anyway, it was voted to be merged into something, either the black metal article or pakistani music (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistani black metal). As to keep this information the BM article was chosen as a placeholder, until we decided what to do with it and this is actually precisely what we are trying to do. I don't this information is required in WP, nevertheless an article or section about the status or heavy metal music (in general, not BM otherwise, we'd have many article with pretty much the same content) describing the metal position in islamic countries or countries with a oppressive regime (eg. Heavy metal in countries with an oppressive regime or Heavy metal in Islamic countries with dozens of redirects linking such regional scenes to it). Such information is far more interesting and ecyclopedic than listing a bunch of bands that hardly anyone has ever heard of. Spearhead 20:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree totally. It would be great if someone with a bit of knowledge on the matter could do that. I'm surprised such a page doesn't already exist. --IronChris 20:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Pirate metal

• Weak delete : seems unnotable by the number of groups, though is scores more google hits than troll metal (let alone faggoth). --IronChris 21:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete does not exist Spearhead 22:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Very weak keep, I've seen enough references in at least half-decent media categorising bands as Pirate metal (it's not a genre I'm at all familiar with, so I'm pretty neutral), could be hard to keep out as there's enough of a fanbase that people will keep adding it back in. Probably best where everyone can keep an eye on it. Deizio 22:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as NN. Never heard of it except as a joke. Big in albania 15:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (Comment - Same as what everybody said) --XylyX | (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, but I wish this was a real genre. Pirates rule. +Johnson 06:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Cyber metal

• Weak keep: I think this article could be kept somewhere, though the black metal page is not the right place. The trouble is, it's very close to other genres such as industrial metal. Maybe a mention of it could be made there. --IronChris 21:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Personally, as the author of the few lines of text, I feel that this subgenre is originated by musicians from the black metal scene, but the music itself is sufficiently distinguished and evolved from the source to be mentioned separately. Also stage appearances from the artists should be considered differently than the "usual" BM artists. Also, like someone mentioned in talk:black metal, it has more Google hits than faggoth. I think cyber metal worth noting. Brynnar 12:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• delete just another load of crap.

• Merge with other cybermetal section from grindcore article and expland into an individual article. There's enough text here and there on WP to make one decent article. Big in albania 15:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge (with Grindcore or Industrial metal) --XylyX | (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

What is, and is not, metal

Please lets not get anal about it - I have a fear that we will decend into farce! --PopUpPirate 00:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Closing

As you can see I'm beginning to close the debates above. I'm starting with the ones clearly marked as Keep, as core genres. I propose leaving the others open for a further week, hence I certainly don't anticipate making any controversial decisions at this stage. Deizio 16:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Not So Closed

First off, im back, you can all worship me now xD

Second: I noticed someone setup another set of polls. Just to let you know, the polls are completely redundant. Things have been moved and merged and kept after AFD, thus you cannot 'delete' them, at all. Period. Unless you all want banning for AFD violation. That means, you can move them within reason, but NO information must be lost without very good cause. This applies to: Faggoth/Pakistani Stuff/Troll Metal/War Metal. That means, your whole voting process was made redunant.

Thirdly im moving the vote on core genres, and reopening all of them. All previous votes shall be kept and a time limit for ALL of them, will be induced. Ill also personally message every user thats part of this project to alert them of the poll.

You people just fall apart without me :P

Anything else anyone wants to ask, drop down my talk page. Literally, drop down it - its more fun than climbin up it xD Ley Shade 06:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

What to do...=

On To do list subsection Expansion Album articles Perseverance_(album) by Hatebreed is done so... DELETE it from the list, and you could add new albums to the list or... (Reply here) Death2 03:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

New members

I find it amazing the number of new members in just two weeks. As soon as we started all these hardcore changes, the membership probably more than doubled. I guess we pissed a lot of people off, and they said "if we can't beat them, we will join them!" I had to take a wikibreak there was so much anger going around. +Johnson 06:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)