Talk:Folk metal

Oriental metal merger proposal

I'm proposing that the oriental metal page be merged with this one. This "genre" simply doesn't stand up and warrant a page of it's own. There are hardly any bands that could really be termed "oriental metal"; it's only real distinction from folk metal is that it has oriental influence in the sound, which is worth noting, but not worth a separate page; and it has hardly any sources. Also note for any discussion of sources: there's a difference between a source using a term and putting forth a genuine assertion of a genre.

A subgenre warrants a page of it's own when there is sufficient information about the genre, when there's too much to contain in another page. Oriental metal does not have enough distinction, enough sources or enough bands. Prophaniti (talk) 12:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Object. I am tempted to simply remove the merge proposal as I doubt it has been done in good faith. First you suggested that the oriental metal page should be deleted. Apparently, I must have convinced you that any attempt to list it for deletion will not be successful. So now you have made a merger proposal for an article you believe should be deleted. That and your words above ("worth noting, but not worth a separate page) gives me the impression that what you are simply trying to achieve here is a deletion of the oriental metal page and not a real merger. A convenient way of deleting a page without going through AFD. This folk metal page is already long enough as it is and merging the oriental metal article will only result in an unbalanced and biased page. --Bardin (talk) 14:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The reason I'm putting this forward as opposed to deletion is simply because that's what makes most sense to me, to incorporate the pieces that are worth keeping. This is not some kind of attempt to get around anything, and I do not appreciate such accusations.

Please lessen your tone. This hasn't been done with hostile, negative or bad faith intent, and accusations of that nature won't help anything. Currently you're coming across as hostile towards me as an editor, rather than addressing the issue at hand itself. Please see wikipedia's policy on personal attacks before making further replies. Prophaniti (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

You will forgive me for having doubts given your inconsistent stance on the article in question. One minute you are adamant that it should be deleted. The next you want to merge it. As far as the issue at hand, I believed I addressed it quite succintly above: this folk metal page is already long enough as it is and merging the oriental metal article will only result in an unbalanced and biased page. --Bardin (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

My stance hasn't really changed, because in truth what's the difference between a delete and a merge? In one scenario, we remove the info in an article, in another we remove the article but keep certain parts of it. My view hasn't changed, it's simply that in my experience many such deletion proposals end up becoming merge ones anyway, so this is quicker.

In truth, a lot of the info on the main oriental metal page is already contained here. Trimming things down and with careful editing, we need only add maybe an extra paragraph onto the folk metal article. That's hardly going to result in an "unbalanced and biased page".

Indeed, much of the info on the oriental metal page is, word for word, already here. I've copied and pasted into a word doc and cut what is, and all that's left is a little bit about Orphaned Land and a paragraph about Salem. Given that much of that info could also be cut (as it would be better placed on the pages of the bands themselves) there's almost nothing left to worry about. Prophaniti (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I really do not understand your stance now. Do you believe that oriental metal exists as an actual genre now? I was under the impression that you do not. Even when you initiated this merger proposal above, you saw fit to use quotation marks around the word genre in describing oriental metal. Now you seem to think that it's okay to have oriental metal in another article but not on its own. If the genre is legitimate enough to warrant inclusion in this article, then it is legitimate enough to warrant its own article. As such, I do not see what's the problem is in having a stand alone article for oriental metal. Yes, there is some overlap but there are also stuff in that article that are not in this one. Those readers who are interested in knowing more about the genre can do so by visiting that page and those readers who are not interested can choose not to. This is not a paper encyclopedia. There's no limit to how many pages we can have. Whatever your problem is with oriental metal, it is an article that is verified with reliable sources. That is more than can be said of many other subgenre articles such as neo-classical metal or melodic black metal. Yet I do not see you proposing to merge the latter into the black metal page.

There is also room for the article to expand some more. The genre is a growing one and as more bands become known in the western media, more info can be added to the article. It seems rather pointless to me to merge an article that does not need to be merged, especially when it will likely break off into a separate article once more at some point in the future. --Bardin (talk) 14:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

(indent) I shall explain further then. Firstly: "If the genre is legitimate enough to warrant inclusion in this article, then it is legitimate enough to warrant its own article." By this logic, anything and everything on wikipedia could have an article. A musical genre arises when enough bands are playing in a similar style to one another that they do not fit easily into existing genres, -and- when enough of these bands are playing in a style similarly to one another, so they could be grouped together. Example: death metal. Early death metal could be termed a particularly aggressive form of thrash metal. As the number of bands increased, and the music grew further from it's thrash metal origins, it was no longer sufficient to term it simply a form of thrash metal.

So, I would say oriental metal -is- a form of music, yes. But a genre? No, because there aren't enough bands playing in that style, and it isn't different enough to the basic template of folk metal.

It basically comes down simply to this: we don't need another article. Here's all the material that would potentially need to be transferred over:

• "Mark LeVine cites the Israeli band Orphaned Land as the founder of oriental metal "in that they were one of the first bands anywhere in the region to mix oriental, Arabic sounds into metal.

• Predating both Orphaned Land and Melechesh, Salem was formed as far back as 1985 with their first album Creating Our Sins released in 1992. They began as a black and death metal band before turning towards doom metal with their 1994 release Kaddish. That album featured a Hebrew cover version of a traditional Yiddish song S'Brent ("Haayara Boeret") originally written by the Polish Jewish poet Mordechai Gebirtig.

• The band has used non-traditional instruments like the darbuka."

That's it. That's all the oriental metal article has that this one doesn't and could possibly do with. Those bits above are not enough to warrant an article. You need a separate article when there is too much for the parent one. So, if more information and more bands were found, then in the future such an article could be created. But right now, there's simply not enough for it to be necessary.

I don't have "a problem" with it, but wikipedia is not about having as many articles as possible. It's about having good articles. Some things are deemed not big or important enough to need one for themselves, and this is clearly one such instance.

"it is an article that is verified with reliable sources." - Incorrect, it's an article with -one- source (i.e. one individual), who is himself questionable. That's a long way from being "verified with reliable sources".

It's also not good enough to say "Well other such articles exist, so why shouldn't this one?". That's no argument. As it happens, I don't think those examples should have articles of their own either, but that's not the issue here, so it's irrelevant. As I say, if it does expand in future, then it may be worth an article. But right now, it's not: it's got one source to back it up, and only a few scraps of info not already contained here. Just as future albums don't need articles until there's enough info available, so too is this unnecessary unless the genre, including it's sources and bands, expands in the future. Prophaniti (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You and I are two very different people. You see one source while I see twenty-six. You see only a few sentences worth merging while I see more. You come across a short article and you see deletion and merger. I come across a short article and I see promise and potential. Your understanding of what a genre is seems to be worlds removed from my own understanding. So be it. I've expanded the article further now and there's a good chance that I'll expand it even more. I've taken the liberty of removing the merger proposal. If you still have a problem with the article, I suggest you just send it straight to AFD because any further discussion between you and me is unlikely to resolve anything. --Bardin (talk) 15:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's try and clear up a few of these misconceptions you seem to have. Firstly, the article doesn't have 26 sources for the genre. It had that many citations, but the majority of those were (and still are) either not truly reliable sources (they are not professional and so cannot be used to justify a genre) or do not truly assert "oriental metal" as a genre. As such, you only had (and may still have) one good source for it.

Secondly, those few sentences -are- all that needed merging from the article. The rest was either unnecessary (which is not just my viewpoint, it's plain fact) or duplicated elsewhere.

As for "promise and potential", any article could be said to have that. But such articles should only exist when they have such information. "potential" in this context is just another term for "lacking".

Now, as it happens, the material you've added may yet make the article worthwhile. I've yet to look into it in full detail, so we'll see what happens. However, please don't remove the merger proposal simply because you don't happen to agree with it. That message is there to alert all users who wish to contribute to the discussion, and your say alone is not enough to close things off, just as mine isn't. This is supposed to be a community discussion, not simply you defending an article you believe should exist. Prophaniti (talk) 16:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

That you would confuse your subjective viewpoints as plain fact is one of the reasons why this discussion between you and I will never get anywhere. I removed the merger proposal precisely because this discussion will never get anywhere. As I've said repeatedly, if you still have a problem with the article, bring it to AFD. --Bardin (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that if anyone is confusing subjective viewpoint with objective fact, it's yourself, sorry.

Case in point: you and I may not agree on it, but as I have just said, this is not just about you and I. Your removing the merger tag is excluding any other viewpoints, an attempt, it would appear, to prevent others from taking part. You must understand that this isn't just about what you yourself think. Prophaniti (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

"Prehispanic metal"

anyone knows about this bands, i know a band called Tenochtitlan from Russia (strange that they are from russia and not from Mexico, Colmbia etc..), that incorporates music from mesoamerica with flutes, tribal percussions and other traditional american instruments and they sings in aztec, nahuatl, mayan and other languages..., anyone knows more music with this style??? is really hard to find.. maybe in the future this could be merged with this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.231.95.211 (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

"Pirate Metal"

Wasn't there a "pirate metal" bit on here before? (Albert Mond (talk) 05:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC))

At least the term 'Pirate Metal' redirects to this page. But there is not a single mention about it on the page. How sad! --EzelMannen (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

there should definitely be at least a mention on this page, if not a page in its own right, as with bands such as alestorm, scurvy, weird beard, running wild, swashbuckle and verbal deception it is a fairly established genre with a large following, and citations wouldn't be a problem with the coverage alestorm has recieved lately

I found some stuff on pirate metal if someone wants to add a section on it: http://www.metalsucks.net/2008/03/21/theres-such-a-thing-as-pirate-metal-why-of-course-there-is/ http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2009/aug/03/scene-and-heard-pirate-metal http://www.seaoftranquility.org/article.php?sid=1316 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.128.238.156 (talk) 17:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Turisas

In this article Turisas is listed as one of the bands "that supplement a folk instrument like the violin with keyboards". This is clearly false; Turisas indeed have keyboards, but also have a full time violin and accordian player. If you'd like a blatantly clear example of this, look here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BT6PX-wnLQw I will be removing them from the list of bands who use keyboards to suppliment folk instruments.--Jesse (talk) 10:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

"Supplement" means "to add to", not to replace. So to say that the keyboard in Turisas "supplements" the violin and accordion is entirely accurate.