Jump to content

Talk:DragonForce

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Victor Lopes (talk | contribs) at 05:50, 26 June 2020 (→Speed Metal). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Genre changes

I have no idea how to revert articles (I'm notoriously bad on wikis), but recently the Genre (despite the tag saying DO NOT CHANGE) was changed to "extreme power metal". I assume from reading this talk page that this needs to be changed. Thanks. Funden (talk) 03:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well its fixed now. Thats good, im happy with the current Genre discription on this, as it goes into depth a little on "musical style". Deadagain33 (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Trees82, 24 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Please change "Steve later rejoined and left once again in December 2000," to "Steve Williams later rejoined and left once again in December 2000," or "Williams later rejoined and left once again in December 2000,", because it's not certain if it's him or Steve Scott that's being referred to.

Trees82 (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done -Atmoz (talk) 15:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax

{{Edit semi-protected}}

Please remove mentions of "El Tony Syn" from the article, someone must've recently added this stuff with no proof. Google gives zero results for the guy. --194.150.65.42 (talk) 15:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced information removed. Victão Lopes I hear you... 16:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Vocalist

{{edit semi-protected}}

Could you please add "Marc Hudson" as his new lead vocalist of the current line-up? I heard some source the singer audition is now over, so it needs to add it.

Source: http://www.dragonforce.com/2011/03/02/dragonforce-reveal-new-singer/

Thanks. --112.205.12.71 (talk) 09:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New song(s)

Recently, some videos of live performances of 2 new songs, one being "Cry Thunder" and another colloquially being referred to as "Draconian Rebirth" (which may also be the new album title) were posted to YouTube. I feel that "Cry Thunder" at least needs a mention on this page, as it is the first new song with the new vocalist to be performed in its entirety to a live crowd. Here's a link

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRyP-XPyulw&feature=watch_response — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.8.153 (talk) 22:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ZP Theart

Quite notable ex member of the band, no? I also think he's getting a new one. Someone make him a page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadagain33 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request to add genres

Seeing how they have some quite distinct influences from folk and symphonic (power) metal, I'd like to add those to the infobox or at least mention them in the musical style section.

Controversy

The 'Controversy' section has just one source, backing up a quote. The entire rest of the section has no source whatsoever, nevertheless a reliable one... Mato (talk) 01:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The unsourced part of the section should be removed, and the quote could be placed in the Inhuman Rampage (2006–2007) section, with some rewriting for context. Victão Lopes I hear you... 03:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It's been unsourced since May, 2011. It could always be put back in if there is a real citation out there. As far as the actually cited quote: Should it even really be in this article? Maybe so, but might belong more appropriately in the main Inhuman Rampage article. Not certain about that. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 04:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RPP

I have requested a page protection because there appears to be disruptions everytime I want to edit the article. Abhijay (☎ Talk) (✐ Deeds) 17:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting removal/movement of Controversy section

As stated above, the Controversy section of this article only has one source for a whole block of text. With it being largely unsources for a long time, I propose either moving it to the Inhuman Rampage article or just an outright removal from this artical altogether. Skullbird11 (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Game addition to inhuman rampage

under inhuman rampage add "Brütal Legend" to the list of games. through the fire and flames was used in this game alot. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutal_Legend also i played the game.

Xgamr85 (talk) 02:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Writing Credits

Shouldn't the article mention that Sam Totman writes the majority of their music, and a large portion of their lyrics? Seems like a pretty notable fact that I was not aware of until I visited each of the individual album articles. He's credited with solely writing the music of 65% of their studio album tracks, and is only excluded from any writing credit on 5 of their 43 album tracks. Duncan3dc (talk) 09:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Hudson

Would a Marc Hudson-based article be notable? I've been working on one in my sandbox. Also, I am concerned about copyright, for a photo of Marc [as both copyrighting and attributing are very complex on this wiki especially]. Replies would be appreciated. Please leave feedback for the article itself on its talk-page, not here. George.Edward.C (talk) 14:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be good idea to have an article for him, however you'd have to find a considerable amount of information and references to put in it if you want it to stay up. Also, my advice would be to talk to a Wiki administrator about the copyrighting - they'd probably know more about it than anyone else. Hope it works out. Regards, 4TheWynne (talk) 11:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi i am instrested on creating an Article about him. But how Can i do that? Also i am new here GogglyGlasses (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi i am instrested on creating an Article about him. But how Can i do that? Also i am new here GogglyGlasses (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline structure

Hey there, sorry for the apparent misunderstanding. The way I see it, there are several ways that a timeline can be written, and there is no real consensus as to how this is so (other than that majority of screens are able to fit a width of 1000). Removing "backing vocals" might not seem like such a big deal, but it is an important part of each musician's roles, and it has been an important part of the timeline for more than a year now. And I wouldn't worry about the colours (although there is no set standard, and the current scheme, in my opinion, should be changed), the reason for this being that if it were to be changed, there are several editors out there who wouldn't like that. So there's my explanation, and my take is that the structure of the timeline should remain the way it is. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 11:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya! Here is the guideline for the width https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:EasyTimeline/syntax#Attribute_data_input_rules and https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:EasyTimeline/syntax#ImageSize_.28mandatory.29. Whilst many people have larger screens - many don't. An 800 width allows any sized screen to see the chart properly, anything larger can only be properly seen by larger screens and thus discriminates a smaller screen.
In regards to BVs, full info on a members role is listed directly above. The point of a timeline is to be simple and direct showing a members duration and their main role. Adding 'backing vocals' to every single box just fills the chart up with needless info and causes width issues if too long. However, what can be done is a foot note stating all members contribute to BVs - which would probably be better suited if you're that desperate to want to show it. Additionally by stations' Lead vocalist', this insinuates other vocals are contributed. Struggling to find the code for it though :/
I'm not worried about the colours, just matching to the other 99% of other charts - as it makes sense for the same colours to be used for the same instruments across the board.Yellowxander (talk) 11:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content

NB: All musicians contribute Backing Vocals

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on DragonForce. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Album Tease

Everybody keep your eye on the various DragonForce Facebook pages, it looks like they are revealing the next album. So far it appears to be "Reaching into Infinity." I was about to update the discography but I didn't want to be premature, so just a heads up for everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.19.98.158 (talk) 08:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SET LIST HAS BEEN RELEASED

ALBUM PAGE CAN NOW BE MADE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.95.1.130 (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you mean the track list? Anyway, that the list has been released does not mean the album is gonna get its own article. Conversely, the tracks are not essential for the article to be created. Victão Lopes Fala! 17:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

well, in years past I would have made the page itself and it would get deleted.

but one day, as soon as the songs are out, the page can be made! I know it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.19.98.158 (talk) 07:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but can somebody please explain to me exactly why a page has not yet been made for Reaching Into Infinity? Please don't link me to another page, just a simple one sentence explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.95.1.130 (talk) 14:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Genre discussion

Hey guys – in order to prevent continued genre warring, let's discuss the disputed additions to the infobox, being progressive metal and thrash metal. Keep in mind that you need to bring reliable sources to this discussion, such as reviews and articles – this does not include your own opinion, the band's opinion, or interviews with the band and/or other YouTube videos, and if any of these are brought forward, they will be ignored. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 02:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We've had a heated discussion about this in Reaching into Infinity‎ and I ended up accepting prog, heavy, thrash and death metal to be added to the genre parameter since the album does have some elements of them and there were sources for that. However, the genre parameter of the band's article should reflect their overall genre, not every genre they have ever experimented with in particular songs. In other words, even if sources specific to some songs are presented, it still won't be enough to demonstrate the overall genre of the band. Victão Lopes Fala! 07:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, if the band says they're a certain genre, and it's pretty clear when you give it a listen, what more do you need? A verified genre detection expert? In the last 2 albums they've consistently done thrashy stuff more than a few times, and pages should be relevant to what a band does now. Thrash, at least, wasn't only experimented. Thrash, at least, deserves to be there. No seriously, what more do you need other than the band confirming it? -TRMNTR, 11/08/2017 18:22 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TerminatorZXY (talk • contribs)

Several reliable sources stating as such – this isn't about what you or I think. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 23:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So if I give you "several more" interviews where the band says they're thrash, Wikipedia will allow it? Is that what you're saying? TerminatorZXY 11:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, because that doesn't constitute a reliable source. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 11:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does. The member who wrote most of their songs in the last 2 albums said it, that's more than enough. TerminatorZXY 13:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not relevant to the discussion, as the guideline refers mainly to text materials and the songs/album itself can't be used as a reputable source to prove a genre – you're going to have to bring something more to the table, as it most certainly isn't "more than enough", and I still think that a lot of this is to do with your opinion (especially considering your initial argument). Other than that, again, please stop putting in your signatures incorrectly. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 13:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on DragonForce. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on DragonForce. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Valley of the Damned demo vs. studio album

I think it's safe to say that Valley of the Damned – the studio album – is considered the band's debut album, and to say that the 2000 demo is a studio album that warrants inclusion on the timeline just as much as former is incorrect. TerminatorZXY, I've already explained to you enough, covering both singles and albums, as to what is considered what. Please see WP:LISTEN, stop edit warring, and discuss. I've just seen you restore the information at the demo article again. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 05:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Literally the WP:LISTEN argument can be applied to you, too. Yes, it does, because it was pivotal to the band's success, the 2000 demo was notably different from modern day demos, having a record deal (with MP3.com), having 5 tracks, being over 30 minutes in length and so on. At the time, Valley of the Damned was one of the hottest metal songs on MP3.com, surpassing Blind Guardian and Manowar in power metal section (I even remember someone on the forums pointing it out and saying how "they're gonna be a very successful band one day"), basically gave them a huge head start for something that was once a semi-serious project. I don't think you understand the importance of the demo album, which also generally regarded as an EP at the time of the release. How about the time you constantly kept removing edits which say that that Gee Anzalone does do backing vocals, despite being provided proof (not to mention that he was already credited in the 2015 "In The Line of Fire" release) - you're the one who brought up previous arguments into this. TerminatorZXY (talk) 03:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vadim leaves the band

See two instagram posts where he replies to people saying he's left and is no longer a member:

https://www.instagram.com/p/Bqj3HP7gh-n/ https://www.instagram.com/p/Bp4aAhTAbPQ/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.88.164 (talk) 14:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for some reason, Vadim is still listed as an official member in their official website, as well as in their official Facebook page. I still favor waiting for an official statement or something like that, although it's definitely worth mentioning that he's been commenting that he's out of the band. Victão Lopes Fala! 00:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vadim also just posted & pinned up a post on his Facebook page telling us that he indeed officially left the band in May of 2018. Now sounds like a good time to edit the article... Can we have that protection removed, that's caused by those StevieT trolls? --N-Reptain (talk) 11:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

N-Reptain, the protection's needed to prevent those trolls from editing the article – we don't have to remove it just to make these edits (we autoconfirmed users can make the edits instead). Victor Lopes, while I, too, understand the need to wait for an official statement of sorts, where would we have drawn the line (in terms of how long we waited if one didn't come)? I think this Facebook post is as official as we're going to get at the moment. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 14:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4TheWynne, we probably won't get any official statements from the band until the next album's released, which will be in a few months minimum, on which the new keyboardist will be officially announced then as well. I don't think we shouldn't wait until then to edit Vadim out of the current members list, when there's already an official statement from him directly available right now. I've already went ahead and edited the german, spanish and russian Wiki pages, where there's no (semi-)protection active atm (so i also had to remove the StevieT ref's there as well...). I'd be able to edit the page here, would the Wiki count in all edits i've done across all languages (esp. the german Wiki, which is my main language) towards the autoconfirmed threshold. --N-Reptain (talk) 15:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry guys, had to be kinda absent from Wikipedia in the last couple of months. Vadim's post is more than enough for me, since the band for some reason is reluctant about making it official. I support we finally make the change. Victão Lopes Fala! 19:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2019

stevie t was the triangle player in the band 174.108.37.199 (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:46, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Draconic Rebirth" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the redirect Draconic Rebirth should be deleted, kept, or retargeted. It will be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 22#Draconic Rebirth until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Regards, SONIC678 04:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speed Metal

Anyone can label any band anything (I've seen Running Wild labeled as black metal, Helloween as death metal, Body Count as speed metal, Anthrax as hard rock and Slipknot as Grindcore. And there are probably thousands of similar examples out there.). And if that information (like the aforementioned examples) comes from a professional journalist (the mislabeling of metal bands on Wikipedia due to e.g. Rolling Stone, Entertainment Weekly or - the worst of all - AllMusic are nothing but disastrous) it's regarded as sourced.

On the other hand how do you prove the non-applicability of something, i.e. in this case a musical style...?

Since I have no idea how to do that, here are a few examples why DragonForce are not a speed metal band by any means:

1. Wikipedia's definition of speed metal

2. Martin Popoff's definition of speed metal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgBg7p8_Eig&t=234 and his opinion on DragonForce: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgBg7p8_Eig&t=2671

3. Databases, e.g. Encyclopaedia Metallum https://www.metal-archives.com/bands/DragonForce/2289 or Rate Your Music https://rateyourmusic.com/artist/dragonforce

4. Reviews, e.g. from Rock Hard (magazine): "The music ranges from the fast-paced power metal, for which the band has been known since its early days..." https://www.rockhard.de/reviews/dragonforce-maximum-overload_407076.html Roland Lehner (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your concerns are fair, but verifiability takes precedence over accuracy around here. I mean, if sources said DF was a freakin' reggae band, we would have to stick to that, as absurd as it sounds. Anyway, most sources I know of and the article itself put power metal as the main genre, speed metal being just a secondary label, so I see no big deal here. Also, Encyclopaedia Metallum and Rate Your Music don't count as sources because they are user-generated, just like Wikipedia. Victor Lopes Fala!•C 15:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Final thoughts...
The problem ist not - well, it is, but to a far lesser degree - that this one band is labeled as speed metal, but the implications of the guidelines Victor Lopes mentioned.
Basically it's the same old story. Information on popular music has always been regarded as second-rate information (probably third- or fourth-rate when it comes to heavy music) and Wikipedia carries on that "tradition".
Let's just assume some fashion magazine would call Beethoven a jazz musician just because some journalist read somewhere that he was a good improviser and an editor would add the (now) sourced information ("Beethoven was a jazz musician.") to the article...
This example is a bit extreme and rather absurd? Maybe, but it follows the exact same logic that Wikipedia applies to popular music, i.e. if some journalist from EW - the disastrous mislabeling of metal bands on Wikipedia is mainly based on information from journalists who have nothing to do with this kind of music at all - hears fast music with distorted guitars he thinks he listens to speed metal. And if he writes it down, this suddenly qualifies for source for Wikipedia-articles.
And then you can't get rid of this "information", no matter how wrong it is (basically the need for proof of non-existence). And this serves as a perfect example:
1. Martin Popoff (see the links above) gives a perfect description of speed metal and he explains why DragonForce don't fall into that category. Youtube video -> no valid source.
2. Let's say Mr. Popoff writes an encyclopedia about heavy metal and he labels DragonForce (only) a power metal band. -> certainly not enough to compensate for the three sources (see the references), i.e. not enough to be able to delete the speed metal label from their Wikipedia page.
3. Let's say many other articles / reviews / encyclopedias also label them a power metal band (and nothing else). -> Would there be a chance to be granted a permit to delete the speed metal label if there were just enough of these sources? Probably not...
4. The only chance: Many of these sources would have to do what Mr. Popoff has done in the video, i.e. they would have to explain (in written form) why DragonForce is not a speed metal band. And that would, of course, never happen (Why would someone do that?)...
A few solution proposals:
I don't see any problem if all the different labels are listed in the Musical style section. Information like "The band has also been labeled as a speed metal band." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DragonForce#Musical_style is pretty useless, but why not...
On the other hand the infobox should only contain correct information, which brings me to the already mentioned quality of sources:
a) Non-allowance of sources that are alien to the genre, even including (see above) Rolling Stone and Allmusic when it comes to heavy metal.
b) Exceptions, i.e. allowance of particluar (because 100% reliable) user-generated databases, in this case the Metal Archives -> Of course only necessary unless (a) becomes effective. Roland Lehner (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I agree that mainstream media is clueless when it comes to assigning genres to metal bands, we don't actually have to stick to them if we have more specific and reliable sources like Metal Hammer, Brave Words, Loudwire, etc.
Also, we're not here to instruct people on anything. We gather information from diverse reliable sources, and that's all. And who ever said a YouTube video is not a valid source? If Martin Popoff can be considered a reputable source, his contents will be of help regardless of where or how they were published.
Your proposed solution sounds great. Musical style sections have precisely the purpose of discussing the artist's sound. And we should always try to attribute opinions, i.e., instead of "DragonForce has elements of speed metal", we go with "DragonForce has been considered speed metal by a number of sources". Finally, I insist that UGC is not acceptable as a source, for their very nature. Victor Lopes Fala!•C 05:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:DragonForce&oldid=964552304"