Talk:List of melodic death metal bands

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

Dimension zero[edit]

dimension zero not on the list WHY???? this goes to show that this list is being edited by a bunch of incompetentsHeartcrusher (talk) 15:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ALL THAT REMAINS[edit]

why the hell ATR is not on the list,i tried adding it and it soon got removed. Their first album sounds like SOS by At the Gates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heartcrusher (talk • contribs) 15:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because you need to find a source that passes WP:RS. 16:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Added, with reliable source.--¿3family6 contribs 17:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion[edit]

He does have a point though... lists and categories can coexist. You should see Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. FireCrystal (talk) 00:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The new version of the page does not address any of the reason for deletion. Unless it is a page with content (see List of thrash metal bands) then it remains a page of subjective editor choice lacking references and easil replaced by a category. It can be re-created through the proper channels of page request. But as it stands it is simply a re-post and can be removed. Peter Fleet (talk) 00:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the speedy as I was unhappy with the use of a 20-month-old AfD in a G4 speedy delete request. I have seen many speedy requests denied when this sort of time frame is involved because consensus can change and 20-months is a significantly long time that a change in consensus could well have occured. I don't know what consensus was 20-months ago but currently consensus seems to be to keep both lists and categories and as most of the delete arguments in the previous AfD were based on the fact that the category could do the job of the list I thought a new polling of consensus was needed.
It is also my opinion that this list could be padded out with content although this would largely be a copy of information in Melodic death metal. Given wikipedia's policy on not having multiple copies of the same information this wold seem redundant. A merge with the main article page, and then a redirection, may be warranted but this still saves it from speedy delete. Dpmuk (talk) 01:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Observer[edit]

Looking at the site, it appears to be a non-professional webzine. Unless their content has been printed somewhere else by a third-party source, I fail to see how they pass WP:RS for things like genre... I mean to use interviews and the like for biographical detail about bands or the opinions of the band members, but totally worthless (as far as I can see) for using the actual reviewers opinions. If I'm wrong and there's editorial oversight from some professional (i.e. they're paid to do it for a commercial print magazine or newspaper) then fair enough, but until someone can demonstrate that, I'm removing those links as genre sources. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That was incredibly boring. However, the entire list is now sourced (I removed any entries for which I couldn't find a source on MusicMight, Allmusic or Google Books). I suggest we try and keep it so that entries with reliable sources are deleted on sight to avoid POV-pushing; obviously there are plenty of reliable sources that wouldn't have cropped up on the three I was using, but we need to avoid all webzines. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Unearth[edit]

I have added unearth to the list.Its very clear especially in "the March" that they are influenced by old In flames. I dont know which metal elitist removed them.If my memory is right then I think unearth was on the list about a year ago. Heartcrusher (talk) 09:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Darkest Hour[edit]

I see that they were removed because there were no source. Are those source reliable enough to re-add them on the list?

http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:wvfyxqtjld6e~T1 http://www.metal-archives.com/band.php?id=3484 http://books.google.com/books?id=w_kDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT44&dq=%22darkest+hour%22+%22melodic+death+metal%22&ei=DhM8SsDaE422yQTOkeC6BQ

–Nickin/ShifterBr (talk) 22:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re-added on the basis of the Revolver review, that describes them as "Gothenburg-spirited" (bit tenuous, but hey). For the record, the Allmusic biography doesn't mention the words "melodic death metal" and Metal Archives is not a reliable source. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MusicMight is even less reliable than Metal Archives yet it's being quoted. It states Atrophia Red Sun plays melodic death metal which is a nonsense (they started as a doom metal act, going industrial metal later) yet Into Eternity is described as... gothic! That's ridiculous to say the least.

Oh sure. Thanks –Nickin/ShifterBr (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Dahlia Murder[edit]

Can somebody please remove the Black Dahlia Murder from the list, they are metalcore not melodic death metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.10.54 (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah all that chugging on the chromatic scale and breakdowns and harmonized clean singing with lyrics about how she dump him... oh wait they have none of those and the only thing they DO have in common with core music is Trevor's shrieking. One musical similarity is not enough to classify them as Core when their song structure is typical Melodic Death Metal. That, and there is also a source calling them as Melodic Death Metal. You lose. 108.15.17.159 (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Album reviews, and Necrophobic's inclusion[edit]

Could someone please explain (as far as Wikipedia:reliable sources go) how album reviews would be considered reliable reference for a genre? Many genre citations on this page point to Allmusic album reviews, which are actually VERY questionable as far as credibility (for example, the website calls Static X "thrash metal" in its review of their album Wisconsin Death Trip - Huh?) Nightwish and Opeth are called "symphonic black metal" at that site. Again, huh?

If album reviews are considered to be a reliable source of information, many point to the Swedish band Necrophobic as being melodic death metal or Melodic death/black metal, particularly in regards to their recent album, "Death To All". So far, only one person (per the page history) disagrees, and there's not much justification provided as to why.--Danteferno (talk) 19:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Album reviews published by professional journalists in sources that are or have been published by independent, third-party sources clearly pass WP:RS, which is plenty of justifcation. Which other source would you recommend as an W:RS for a band's genre? An editor's opinion? A webzine? Allmusic and MusicMight have independently had content published, which is why we use them. Ouof idle curiosity, could you point me towards Allusic referring to Tool as a death metal band? I would certainly find that bizarre, but fair enough. Incidentally, I can totally buy that necrophobic are melodic death metal, but a non-webzine page needs to be found. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I should add, that the "genre box" bit on Allmusic should not be used, owing to it limited number of genres and the lack of info regarding whether a professional journalist has edited it! Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...could you point me towards Allusic referring to Tool as a death metal band? I would certainly find that bizarre, but fair enough." ...Sure: [1]. "while (Tool) simultaneously paid musical homage to the dark, relentlessly bleak visions of grindcore, death metal, and thrash.". In addition, not only are Opeth symphonic black metal at that site, but they're also "goth metal".[2]. --Danteferno (talk) 19:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first link merely suggests that they may have taken influence from the genre (which I can totally believe) and the second says nothing of the sort (I already stated the "Styles"box is not reliable, whilst the biogs and reviews are, being written by professional journalists). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, that line suggests Tool play thrash, death metal and grindcore - nowhere on the page does it state the three genres are their influences (and if they are, what bands of those three genres influenced them?) Also, again, what about the Static X review where the writer called their first album "thrash" [3]? Even fans of that band would find such a label absurd. Allmusic probably has notability in terms of mainstream recording artists, but their understanding of the extreme metal genre is not one of those notabilities, and there should be agreement on that.
Back to Necrophobic, here are links that point to the band being MDM: [4] [5], [6], [7] All of the above are little different than MusicMight, they're not blogs, user-edited zines, etc. - and again, this topic is so obvious, I can't see why it extended on for this long. --Danteferno (talk) 19:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but no. The Tool issue is clearly complex (just see their WP "musical style" section for an example), but we're getting sidetracked a bit. None of the websites you list are "reliable"... none have been published by third-arty sources, unlike MusicMight, which has had its content published by Cherry Red. This is the fundamental difference, and explains why one can be used and the others cannot. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Tool issue isn't complex, it's just you interpreting things the way you want to interpret them (just like the supposedly "reliable" Allmusic calling Opeth and Nightwish symphonic black metal. What you're basically implying is that if there's information on that site you disagree with, it doesn't count. But overall, in your view, Allmusic is a completely reliable source of information. And you still have not responded to the Static X/thrash metal bit. )
I could tell this issue was never about WP:Reliable sources - it's just you not agreeing with a band being labeled a certain genre, so any source provided is automatically unreliable. I think WP:RFC is the next step at this point. --Danteferno (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to take it to RFC, feel free. However, your last comment is totally inaccurate and unacceptable. I do not need to answer the Static X issue or any other random dozen you throw at me. Allmusic has been queried before on several occasions and consensus has always been that it is reliable as a Wikipedia source. There are plenty of list articles with entries that I may personally disagree with (the deathcore one leaps to mind), but I have often added (sourced) additions to those lists of bands I personally wouldn't have considered (see, e.g. Anal Cunt on the deathgrind list), because I use the sources, not my personal opinion. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus that Allmusic has always been a reliable source? Where? When? How? Who? I've seen many instances where their bizarre genre labelings have been brought up before, bringing that site's credibility into question. True, you don't have to explain the site's pairing of Static X to thrash - that's because there is no answer, just like there's no answer as to why the site claims Tool play death metal. Regardless of how mainstream Allmusic is, doesn't make it a 100% credible site. And since when was even Blabbermouth (as it is referenced for Dark Age) considered a reliable source of information? Blabbermouth is absolutely no different from the DeathMetal.org site at all. Both are independent metal-related media sites, yet you said earlier that only Google Books, MusicMight and Allmusic are considered accurate sources. --Danteferno (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really think the only thing that keeps allmusic from being not reliable is them the fact that their reviewers are paid for their work.--Inhumer (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's way more than that. The writers on that site have a hard time classifying genres of metal bands. In addition to what's already mentioned above, Allmusic once (and I think still) classified Pantera as "death metal" and Rammstein as "black metal". As far as melodic death metal goes, let's use another example besides Necrophobic - the band Gates of Ishtar, also from Sweden. It's completely unarguable that they ARE melodic death (some of the members went on to form (The Duskfall) but because none of User:Blackmetalbaz's preferential sites mention "melodic death", neither band belongs on the page. I could completely understand the disagreement if a band was one of those metalcore/melodeath crossover groups, but that's not the case here. And if WP:Reliable sources was really the issue here, more things would be cited in the article. Anyone notice the introduction on this page, and the caption that claims Carcass were the first Melodeath band? That's right, NO SOURCES to back these claims up. --Danteferno (talk) 16:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could I just clarify the earlier mention of Allmusic passing WP:RS. From numerous discussions at the WP:RS discussion board the consensus was that Allmusic could be used as as citation for genres. However... there is a hitch. Allmusic can be challenged as a citation if there is evidence of a long history of edit warring on the article in question. AND... if it is challenged then the debate has to come to a consensus over whether the site can be included. Consensus meaning that the debate be well-involved with lots of input by lots of editors. It can't just be a 2 to 1. If the challenge does not result in an overwhelming consensus (as descibed) then the Allmusic link can be negated from the discussion and a new reference meeting WP:RS must be found. I know that doesn't solve the subject of debate here. But it should clarify whether Allmusic can be introduced into the debate as a supporting factor for either side of the debate. I personally believe an Allmusic editor can be quoted directly in the main body of an article about a musical style. That way it puts ownership of the opinion directly to the source. If it for a simple infobox addition I am against it... usually. In some cases the simple addition of an AMG link for a genre can stomp the fire of an edit war out. Whether I agree with the AMG opinion.. if it results in ending an edit war.. the Wik wins.
That sounds fine by me, but from an independent standpoint, do you sorta see where we're getting at in terms of Allmusic's judgment in labeling bands (based on everything I mentioned above)? Per your talk page and contribution history, you appear to contribute to many band articles with affiliation to extreme metal. You probably know that the mainstream media doesn't always have a lot of experience on that topic. For instance, I've noticed In Flames being called a "Swedish rock/metal band" by a mainstream source. But that doesn't do justice in reflecting what the band plays (Whereas in sources that aren't syndicated, the band is almost always referred to as a "melodic death metal" band). I agree that WP:RS is an academic necessity when editing, but in this case, it's being pushed waaaaay too far in a direction where it doesn't belong. I could understand the need to revert if Killswitch Engage or Unearth were added to the List of melodic death metal bands, but in the case of Necrophobic, it's much, much, MUCH less contentious. Why not inclusion and a temporary "[citation needed]" listed under notes?--Danteferno (talk) 23:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I end up with many "extreme metal" articles (EESH I hate that term.. if I had my way that article would be speedy deleted out of here... with "traditional heavy metal" deleted right behind it... foolish articles... but I digress) on my watchlist usually because I have reverted vandalism on them at some point. I am not an expert. I have almost 8000 pages on my watchlist... I am a glutton for punishment. In my personal music collection I have over 9000 albums... many of them falling under your "extreme" banner. When I see certain articles enough my curiosity gets the better of me and I end up acquiring the band's entire discography just so I can "hear for myself" what all the debate is about. With all those albums I will admit right now that I have no albums (yet) from the band Necrophobic. But, when you run several libraries... as I do... acquiring music is rather easy. So I will eventually end up with some simply based on this conversation.

I agree that most mainstream media do not "get it" when it comes to the subject of heavy metal. And the internet is flooded with amateur metal fansites like Encyclopedia Metallium which cater only to the lowest common denominator of retarded heavy metal fan and do not offer anything that could/should be used on Wikipedia. So where does it leave us? With not much to go on. That being said there are a handful of actual 'paper' publications that do focus on heavy metal and do tend to keep things fairly accurate. I find most of these publications still end up slipping when they try to write a decent lead-in paragraph to any of the band interview articles. But... they sometimes do OK with their album reviews. So that is about the only place you'll get a decent source for an "opinion" where your ICK! extreme tastes lie. Is it really killing anyone to include it (with a cite req'd tag)... even if only for a little while... if an editor claims that they can find a source meeting WP:RS criteria? I mean really... who's nuts are going fall off if an entry sits on this list for a week until a ref can be found? And if a ref isn't found the user who promised they'd find one has to swear that they will amputate a body part as punishment for their failure. Sorry watching Dethclok re-runs while I type The Real Libs-speak politely 00:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that no-on's nuts are going to fall off, but equally they're not going to fall off if a keen editor doesn't add their favourite band to a list for a week until they find a source. We want to avoid a situation like the list of nu metal bands, where it is now largely just unsourced (that one's a long story, but hey). Baically, no source, no inclusion, which is a core WP policy. Whether Allmusic journalists are "reliable" is also not in question, as they are professional. One recuring point of confusion appears to be that the Allmusic "Style" boxes often include spurious genres; this is true, but they cannot/should not be used for genrification as they are not ascribed to specific professional journalists. The biogs and reviews however can be used. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...Baically, no source, no inclusion, which is a core WP policy."...in that case, we should delete the written introductory content on List of melodic death metal bands (as well as most of the content on the main page, "melodic death metal") because most of the content consists of claims with no sources. Do I stand correct?--Danteferno (talk) 18:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If a statement is unsourced, it can be challenged and removed by any editor. List article are easy because it's a distinct quantity... we have, say, a band and it needs a reference for its genre by a professional journalist. Statements in the introduction are slightly more tricky, because whilst they have to be sourced we want to aoid original researh/synthesis. We also don't want to ge to pointy situations :-) Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing a bit of a double standard here: If a band is put on the list with no source, it should be reverted immediately. Yet the unsourced written material on both pages can remain in the mean time, and would do fine with just a "[citation needed]". But a band inclusion with a temporary "[citation needed]" under "notes" is a no-no. Like I said, kinda double-standard-ish, seeing how this is not a very contentious topic compared to others.--Danteferno (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point, but the difference is between particulate information (X is either A or not-A, do we hae a source?) and more general descriptive information. So, for example (if we do in fact agree that Carcass is/was a melodic death metal band), there's a big difference between saying "Carcass was the first MDM band" and "Carcass was an early example of MDM". Both should be sourced, but one is much more specific than the other. Lists are incredibly simple... inclusion is based simply around whether a professional journalist has described them as such. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's absolutely no difference whatsoever. You said for yourself (And I quote you) "no source, no inclusion, which is a core WP policy". But this only applies to bands and genres, according to you. And back to the subject of melodic death metal - in the strictest sense, it's not even an official genre, it was simply an umbrella term created by underground, unpaid, non-syndicated metal fans/critics to describe the Gothenburg sound of the early 1990s. (also very interesting how the main article doesn't go into much detail, based on what little there is mentioned). Necrophobic, Gates of Ishtar, Eternal Oath and Throne of Chaos - while not from Gothenburg - obviously use significant style/influence from the "Gothenburg" sound, and I don't think there's going to be an edit war if any of the above groups were included on the list with a temporary "[citation needed]".--Danteferno (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the Throne of Judgment[edit]

I included a reliable source[8] from MusicMight, the most common citation (other than About.com) on this page. They state that At the Throne of Judgment is in the melodic death metal group. The band has been removed from the page, and I was told by one of the disagreers to bring it here. --ҚЯĀŽΨÇÉV13 other crap 20:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kalmah and Norther[edit]

A few users added Finnish bands Kalmah and Norther to the list. I mistakenly tried to help an anonymous user without noticing that his source for Kalmah didn't explicitly state "melodic death metal" as the genre, and FireCrystal rightfully reverted my edit. So to those users: find some reliable sources that describe those two bands as "melodic death metal", otherwise please don't add them back. Thanks. Mushroom (Talk) 22:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The two sources I've found in the past were deemed unreliable. I finally found another reference for Kalmah here that specifically states "melodic death metal" in regards to the band, not the album. Is it reliable? – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 08:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whoaaah nevermind, it's almost verbatim from the Kalmah article. Sorry I didn't notice it sooner. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 08:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a reliable source? It's German, but it says it plain as day at the top. Another. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 07:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can't see their cotnt being printed anywhere, so theyre probably just webzines. If you can demonstrate otherwise, go for it. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is that what defines a reliable source, it has to be printed? – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 19:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see, your explanation on the Wintersun talk page cleared it up for me. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 21:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is Angry Metal Guy considered reliable enough for Kalmah? – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 21:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to add this legendry Melodeath band on the list: Kalmah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.98.207.134 (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's really odd that Amaranthe, a metalcore/pop band, is on the list while Norther isn't. 92.113.45.111 (talk) 01:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Showdown?[edit]

Okay, quick question: Should The Showdown be added to this list? I personally do not think they are melo-death, and really could care less about them, but I have found a reliable source [9] which appears to be claiming that they are. Am I misreading the review? If not, do they warrant inclusion? --3family6 (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As there has been no objection, I have added the band to the list --3family6 (talk) 13:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm.... with all the commotion over AILD, I'm amazed that no one has even touched this inclusion...--3family6 (talk) 04:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I Lay Dying[edit]

I recently added As I Lay Dying to this list, as I stumbled across this reference. Since this addition, several editors, both registered and IPs, have removed them without explanation. The late Gary Sharpe-Young was a respected heavy metal author, and is a very reliable source, so if there are objections to this listing, I request that they be made here on the talk page instead of in the form of an unexplained removal.--3family6 (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I Lay Dying are most often referred to as a metalcore/hardcore band. Their music hardly contains any elements of death metal at all. I think when people see "melodic death metal" they tend to only look at the first and last words. Are they melodic? Sure. Are they metal? Sure. Do their songs contain any elements of death metal like death growl vocals, etc...? No, they don't. Their style is most easily defined as metalcore. If you labeled every metal band that has a little bit of melody as a melodic death metal group, hell, throw Killswitch Engage, Slipknot, Korn, Avenged Sevenfold, All That Remains, etc. onto this page too.
I for one honestly thought it was intentional trolling/vandalism when I saw As I Lay Dying on this page, and deleted it immediately. I apologize for doing that since you do at least have one cited source, however the fact remains that they are not a melodic death metal band. Just let it lie.
In addition if you read the article that you posted, the first sentence starts off by describing them as "A San Diego Christian Hardcore act...." The fact that the source contradicts itself in the first sentence doesn't exactly lend to its credibility.
I am removing them from this page on the weight of these sources and, while I can't remove something just on the basis of what I feel to be common sense/common knowledge, I will add that I think most people who know anything about metal would tell you that these guys are a metalcore band in a heartbeat.

http://allmusic.com/artist/as-i-lay-dying-p513658 http://heavymetal.about.com/od/a/fr/asilaydying-thepowerlessrise.htm

99.99.166.46 (talk) 19:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you have taken this up on the talk page, but nothing in your above reply explains why a respected heavy metal writer should be doubted. To say that the band is a hardcore band is not contradictory, that is also in the list of style tags for the band biography. The other two sources only establish that the band is metalcore, which is something that the MusicMight source says as well. Just because the band is hardcore and metalcore (and also grindcore according to AllMusic), doesn't mean that they are not also melodic death metal. You could just as well say that a band cannot be hardcore and metalcore at the same time (or death metal and NWOBHM at the same time, which is what melodic death metal is). If you can show some genuine evidence that Gary Sharpe-Young was wrong, then maybe we can start moving toward a consensus for their removal. (Just so you know, while I like the band, I have no vested interest for them to be on this list other than a very reliable source.)--3family6 (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is contradictory. Metalcore and hardcore are similar enough musically speaking that to say that a band can be both isn't a contradiction. In fact since metalcore is a fusion of metal and hardcore, it makes a lot of sense to say that a band that is metalcore would also contain strong elements linking it to hardcore. To say that something is melodic death metal and hardcore, however, is a massive contradiction as both have a unique vocal style that is characteristic of the genre (i.e. "death growl" vs "hardcore scream"), as well as varying musical style in terms of breakdowns vs no breakdowns, etc. It's one or the other in this case. Not both. That's like saying eminem is a rapper, but because he uses drum beats in some of his songs, he's also a classic rock artist. It makes absolutely no sense. At some point the differences have to outweigh the similarities.
I don't doubt Sharpe-Young's knowledge in general but in this case he is in fact contradicting himself. The fact that melodic death metal is just kind of tagged on to the end of a long list of genres makes me doubt its importance and verifiability. Your source would actually be far better used as a citation that they are a hardcore band since after one passing reference to the melodic death genre (with no explanation of why he would consider them to be such, I might add) the rest of the article proceeds under the heading that they are a hardcore band.
And I don't have a vested dislike of this band, but they don't belong on this page, period. I won't edit this until I hear a consensus but I really don't see that there's any leg to stand on in claiming they are melodic death. I assume that people come to this page looking to learn a little bit about melodic death, and I'd just like to see those people be pointed in the right direction. 99.99.166.46 (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that Gary Sharpe-Young does not explain why the melo-death tag is included, but we can't say that hardcore and melo-death are a contradiction unless there is a source that says so. That said, I will give my opinion on why they might be called melo-death.
Now, what I am about to say is speculation and is not reliable, but is my personal take on why I think they are listed as such: There are many sources that mention AILD as part of the Scandinavian/In Flames-influenced metal scene, which is often referred to as melodic metalcore (there aren't enough sources yet to say that this is a genre in its own right), and as In Flames is a melo-death band, there will undoubtedly be similarities. Also, though this is a bit more of a stretch, allmusic says that the band, at least early on, included grindcore in their sound, and MusicMight (a.k.a Gary) says that Tim's voice is "Grind edged." What has this got to do with it? Well, I have been working on the melo-death article today, and I found that the Swedish and Finnish metal scene that birthed melo-death used grindcore and prog-rock influences, so the grindcore style of AILD might be another reason they're called melo-death.
Of course, this doesn't actually explain why Gary listed them as he did, but unless we can find a source that says hardcore/metalcore and melo-death can't co-exist, we don't need to know why.--3family6 (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Sigh. Only on Wikipedia can logic and facts be overruled by a passing reference on some random website.
But I guess the rules are the rules. I know for a fact that I won't be able to find a source that explicitly states that a band cannot be a hardcore band AND a melodic death metal band, even though anyone who knows anything about either genre would agree that they are mutually exclusive, not to mention the fact that I explained why in extreme detail above. So on wiki's rules alone I guess I'm going to have to give up on this one. I can't stress enough that I feel that including that band on this page is extremely and deliberately misleading and factually inaccurate, however, clearly facts and accuracy aren't what matter here, so I'll just leave it be. I've had this discussion before and it always turns out this way because Wikipedia relies on the strange fantasy logic that a claim is true until proven false, instead of false until proven true, which is the law that real logic follows.
So I will not be removing As I Lay Dying from this page out of respect for the rules of this site. I just hope people looking to learn about a great genre aren't mislead into thinking that AILD somehow represent it. They aren't necessarily a bad band, this just isn't the page for them. I'm surprised more people haven't jumped on this debate to say the same. 99.99.166.46 (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as to the debate, I'm sure someone else will jump in here soon.--3family6 (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Side comment: In my opinion, music genres, at least to a certain extent, don't exist anyway, they're just handy generalizations to denote particular techniques, methods, and/or sounds. But then again, I love pretty much any style of music or sound art on the planet, so that might skew my reasoning.--3family6 (talk) 04:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: In the case of logic and facts, the fact is that they were referred to as melodic death metal. Genres themselves cannot be facts as they are entirely subjective statements of opinion by "random" reviewers/journalists/writers.--3family6 (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Politics[edit]

How is politics relevant to this list? Take a look at WP:FLAGICON. This is just a permutation on flags, without actually using them, they are identifying the origin of the band or the origin of the majority band members, which isn't clear, because some bands have members from many different polities, in this case, using countries. How is this a defining characteristic of these bands? How is it a characteristic they have in common, if there is no standard/inclusion criteria?Curb Chain (talk) 08:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is very clearly not WP:FLAGICON. It also has nothing to do with politics. It does however at quick glance give the reader an indication of the global geographical popularity of specific musical subgenres. It is as relevant to the list as the date of formation of the bands. There has long been consensus to include nationalities on the metal music lists, so you just turning up and unilaterally deciding to overturn this consensus may be seen as disruptive, and possibly pointy. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned it is a permutation on flags. It is identical to having flags, but in a text form. It does not give a "quick glance" of "popularity" and to assert such is violating WP:HEADWP:NPOV.Curb Chain (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think "popularity" is the wrong word. The point is that specific kinds of music arise predominantly in specific geographical locations. There is nothing that contravenes WP:NPOV or WP:OR there; it's sourcable fact. It's still exactly as relevant as having "date formed"... specific kinds of music arose predominantly in specific decades or even centuries. You have still not addressed the fact that you are editing against the overwhelming consensus here. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 09:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see no overwhelming consensus. Melodic death metal does not arise from any specific geographical location/region, as had been proved previously by the flags, and infact, it arises from many different geographical areas. It is a global genre and adding flags does not make an artist distinct.Curb Chain (talk) 21:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The overwhelming consensus can readily be seen in the numerous list articles that include bands' nationalities (before you removed them unilaterally). As to the argument concerning whether there is any geographical link to the origins of melodic death metal, I suggest you read some of the sources I have already pointed you towards (Ekeroth, Purcell and the extensive articles in Terrorizer would be a good start). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 09:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to see if these sources are reliable. And if this was the case, why do we have no article on this? I'll try to fill in the blanks: You are telling me that a geographical origin will influence the genre, or the sound of the music in the genre it comes from. And you are giving me references to authors and a journal? No specific articles/citations?Curb Chain (talk) 10:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You mean like the article at melodic death metal? Or are you asking for a specific article on the Gothenburg scene? As to whether the sources are reliable, all the ones I've pointed you towards easily pass all the RS criteria; you've been linked to a specific passage in Purcell, and Daniel Ekeroth's book is devoted in its entirety to Swedish death metal (melodic and otherwise), so you'll just have to go and read it. As for Terrorizer, I have to hand their "Secret History of Death Metal" (March 2010). Pages 80-81 are devoted to the melodic death metal movement, and make it perfectly clear that whilst examples of the style can be identified all over the world, it is predominantly associated with specific regions, e.g. Gothenburg. Your repeated assertions that geography is irrelevant are simply absurd. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see, you mean those links on the deletion discussion. Sure, they mention the Sweden, but I don't see any mention of such music coming from, say, the Malay region, referring to Singapore.Curb Chain (talk) 10:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure what you're after. Sweden is well-known for its contribution to the death metal scene, with particular "subscenes" in Stockholm (Entombed, Dismember, Unleashed, Grave etc) and Gothenburg (At the Gates, Dark Tranquillity, In Flames, Dissection etc). This is all supported in the sources I have pointed you towards (a further source would be again Terrorizer 's Secret History, pages 36-39, focussing exclusively on the Swedish scene, or Allmusic - there is a specific discussion of the "Gothenburg sound" here). I am becoming slightly concerned that you are pushing a POV without bothering to actually look at/for any sources. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that the Swedish geographical area has produced music distinct from other genres. This does not explain why flags or the polity should show up on this list.Curb Chain (talk) 22:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<--Curb Chain, I have a suggestion for you: try to gain a consensus. Maybe you think the country of origin is meaningless. Great. By that same token, one wonders why the year of origin would be relevant--why didn't you remove that? The removed information is restored. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The year is POSSIBLY relevant because music elements played by the artists may be different through out the course of their playing in a year to year history. I have no problem with removing the year column too. That I will do, as it seems there is no basis for that column either.Curb Chain (talk) 05:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With this line of logic, why do we need to mention what a date building was constructed? For that matter, why bother which country it was built in either? Wikipedia policies are self-contradictory and can ultimately be used to support anything. Remember, one of the key Wikipedia pillars is Ignore all rules. That's why consensus is so important.--¿3family6 contribs 13:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
None of the other band lists have these columns: Why is this article so special?Curb Chain (talk) 13:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this works the other way as well--why don't the other articles have it? I don't see the need to remove that information, and the "politics" argument is specious. Drmies (talk) 13:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should we include columns of record labels and band members as well? Using that "specious" argument, our table would be excessively trivial.Curb Chain (talk) 05:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have reasons to include these 2 criteria/(data) columns over other characteristics?Curb Chain (talk) 05:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only problem with those is detail. Listing the current record label(s) shouldn't be a problem. I will point out that one of things your dealing with here is, we have a system that's worked for a while. I can see why you might want to change or tweak it a little, but why do just want to clear everything out? Knowing where a band comes from is important, knowing when it formed is important. I actually wouldn't mind adding the current record labels as well, as that is important information that could be mentioned without cluttering the list. It might even be possible to list current members of a band without getting too messy, unless they're a group like I'm from Barcelona.--¿3family6 contribs 10:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should we list the instruments and the producers as well?!Curb Chain (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, that would be on albums. And the consensus for discographies is that those details are better left for the article pages. I think that band members is probably too detailed as well, as band rosters can change. I think that is why generally only the country/nation of origin and the date formed are listed, as this info is static, and does not fluctuate like members rosters and record labels do. To include information that changes like that requires a lot of time and maintenance, and there are not enough editors to do so.--¿3family6 contribs 01:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had no problem either way if we retain the year information, as your static-argument is merited. The problem with the country column is that: Does it mean that 50% of the members where born in this country? Does it mean that the members lived in this country for 50% of their life? Or does it mean that they lived in the country for the majority of their life? Or does it mean the band was formed in this country? Or does it mean that the majority of their playing was in this country? Or does it mean that 50% of their playing was in this country? I don't see how this column is useful. On other articles, flags where used to identify the composition of the artist (-band), and in some cases, "world" was used. I see no usefulness of this category.Curb Chain (talk) 07:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How do we tell which country the band is from? Independent, reliable sources. This has been a source of contention in the past, and I think that the article for U2 once had a massive, pointless edit war. Basically, we go by what reliable sources say. As per MOS:FLAG which you cited, flags should not be used to identify nationality at all, and if you see pages that do use flags, go ahead and remove them and cite the manual of style. But listing the national origin of a band without using flags is a long-standing consensus across Wikipedia. If you really want to contest it, I suggest you go to an extremely high-profile artist page like The Beatles or Elvis Presley and try to establish a consensus there, as you will have plenty of editors who will quickly join the discussion.--¿3family6 contribs 14:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But do the sources indicate national origin? On those articles, they discuss in detail what the the ethnic/political/national composition of the artist and band. The flag and country represents a ethnic semantic, a political semantic because members can be citizens of one country and citizens of another via dual citizenship, and the artist\member simply identifies with a specific nationality. This column is not as useful as the year. WP:ICON states using icons, but the text also applies to using simply the name-of-the-country being used an a label. We don't need this. I don't see how this column adds information except misinformation.Curb Chain (talk) 01:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly every, if not every, band that has reliable coverage will have its national origin mentioned. I agree that every mention of country should be sourced, though it probably won't need to have a citation tag.--¿3family6 contribs 01:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, that wouldn't be a useful comparison would it?Curb Chain (talk) 04:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The national origins on the artists' own articles and infoboxes, specifically, also include the city where they are from. This, once again, oversimplification of the origination is a form of pov. If they need to know where the band originates, and TO PREVENT CONFUSION, they should go the artist's page (article). Country means nothing: Does it mean that's where the artist was formed? Or Does it mean that most of the members have citizenship of the country?Curb Chain (talk) 04:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Should The "Country" Column Be Included In This Article?[edit]

The case for removing the column is because:

  • This column is ambiguous as it oversimplifies the representation of these artists. It is not clear weather the artist (band) was created in that country, or simply the band members have citizenship of that country. Compare some of the entries that list 2 countries (we don't have bands that list more than that in this article). Is this useful when this does not convey information to the reader? The reader can click on the article to get more information about the origin of the artist, of that is the argument, and is more detailed and includes information on the individual band members, past and present, and future. As such, this is a WP:NPOV violation.
  • Just out of curiosity, how can an article list a future member of the band? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the article discusses there future lineup.Curb Chain (talk) 11:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The case for keeping the column is because:

  • This represents the global popularity of the genre.Curb Chain (talk) 10:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not a WP:NPOV violation. The "country" column is for the country the band was formed in, which is unambiguous, and fails to be a problem for sites like Allmusic or MusicMight. For the very rare cases where you may have, say, an international supergroup or the like, multiple countries can be listed; this is not a problem, nor has it ever been until User:Curb Chain decided he didn't like it. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's something I'm failing to understand: How is listing where a band came from an WP:NPOV violation? Where a band comes from is relevant information, and it's not like only certain bands have the info, they all do.--¿3family6 contribs 18:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't make sense: How could the band be formed in more than one country?Curb Chain (talk) 11:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you know enough about music, you will know even within a country, different genres exists, and is a political construct. Folk music such as Sorbian would not be represented correctly if the flag of Germany or "Germany" was used. Using countries is promoting a certain point of view, as you are aware of in your participation of Swedish death metal. In that example, Gothenburg and Stockholm have different genres, oversimplifying to present a certain point of view!Curb Chain (talk) 23:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, Gothenburg metal is not just limited to Gothenburg, the style was named after the city as that was the focal point of the scene.--¿3family6 contribs 23:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two immediate examples that come to mind are Altera Enigma and Solution .45.--¿3family6 contribs 18:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Misrepresenting information again after excessively lengthy discussions with you. They were not formed in any one country. They did not originate from anyone country, but the band is composed of members with apparently single citizenship from different countries. I've pointed you to WP:ICON but you have ignored it citing that there are no flags so such a protocol does not apply.Curb Chain (talk) 23:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've already replied to this. If you want to challenge the use of national origins for bands, then go to the talk page for the musical artist infobox here.--¿3family6 contribs 23:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The referenced material on those articles are more specific and more detailed. You seem to not understand what oversimplification is. We can let other editors opine.Curb Chain (talk) 00:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also noticed that our references do not come only from Allmusic or MusicMight, nor should they only come from those sources — how is this relevant?Curb Chain (talk) 11:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that User:Blackmetalbaz said like, he never claimed that they should be the only ones used.--¿3family6 contribs 18:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it relevant?Curb Chain (talk) 23:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolutley not relevant and is a bizarre attempt by User:Blackbarry to push his point of view even though he is wrong. The layout used by commercial websites is irrelevant here, regardless of whether they are reliable sources or not. It is a weak argument Syxxpackid420 (talk) 06:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep "country" column - The country information is very informative, and is encyclopedic. Artists and athletes are typically identified very strongly with their nationality. Most encyclopedic descriptions of artists and athletes identify their nationality in the first sentence, because it is considered to be a critical piece of information. In the cases where a band's nationality is ambiguous (e.g. members come from 2 or more countries) the column can include additional detail, or a footnote can be put in the column, with details in the footnote, or the column text can simply state "not available" or "uncertain". --Noleander (talk) 00:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Athletes do not actually identify with their country: it is in sporting matches that the media identifies with them that way, in fact it is only the media that labels them that way. I also do not agree that musicians identify with their country because they play music and rarely if they do mention their nationality or ethnic group or affiliation. Reliable sources would need to come up to show the media labels or identifies them in being from a certain polity. Our articles only state the facts-stated on the birth certificate. This doesn't mean that they identify with their country.Curb Chain (talk) 03:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually some Athletes do identify with a country, they represent the Ireland national rugby union team, Swim Ireland or Olympic Council of Ireland Gnevin (talk) 08:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. The issue here though is about musicians and I am concerned that only with references that mention musicians would similarly identify with their country or cite their country as identity would seem critical or crucial in including a political characteristic. Is this critical/Is it critical to include the country and does it add information it otherwise would not if the country column was not included? If it only adds the country of the band members' citizenship, is it relevant?Curb Chain (talk) 08:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree musicians don't need flags or a simple country field for musicians its to vague of an issue. Gnevin (talk) 09:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Curb: You write "Athletes do not actually identify with their country: it is in sporting matches that the media identifies with them that way." I have to disagree. First, athletes and artists do self-identify with their country (every time they join their olympic or World Cup team). Second, when you point out that the media makes the identification, that is correct: and the media are (many of) the sources WP relies on. If sources make a big deal out of nationality for musicians, then so should the WP articles. Any time any musician or band is introduced to an international audience, the first sentence invariably includes their nationalty, as in "Ladies and gentlemen, tonight we're going to hear from band ABC which comes from country XYZ...". More importantly, written sources also follow that pattern of specifying nationality. --Noleander (talk) 13:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not all athletes identify with their polity because examples include players in NHL and CFL. The majority of musicians are not introduced by performing on media such as late night shows like Late Night with Jimmy Fallon or that they do not gain notablity after playing on Top of the Pops viz they usually have gained some sort of notability before playing such music shows as Soul Train.Curb Chain (talk) 05:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I may comment here, aren't we getting a little off topic?--¿3family6 contribs 11:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are definitely welcome to comment, but no we are not offtopic.Curb Chain (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that why are we haggling over what the consensus for athletes should be, when it is music artists that are in question? I also have created a section on the Template talk:Infobox musical artist as that template is relevant to the discussion.--¿3family6 contribs 15:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see this comment is kind of pointless now, except for my mention of the template talk.--¿3family6 contribs 15:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "introducing musicians and mentioning nationality": When a musical group is performing outside their home country, the introductory comments (both verbal, and - if there is a programme - written) invariably mention the nationality of the group. As in "The Mainly Mozart quartet, from Austria, has been performing since 1994 ...". This happens 100% of the time. WP is an international encyclopedia, and the bands discussed here come from many different countries. Informing readers of the nationality of bands is a good thing, and consistent with what the sources do. --Noleander (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, we don't have the programs, or any sources of how the musicians are presented when performing outside the country. And this list, List of Christian rock bands, and List of Christian metal bands are the only articles to include the country. This is not harmonized with the genre musician lists.Curb Chain (talk) 16:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What if the column was renamed to country formed ? Gnevin (talk) 09:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So are you asking if the column listed where the band was formed? I could accept that. Would need references though.Curb Chain (talk) 10:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That shouldn't be hard. The band article should have those sources.--¿3family6 contribs 11:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that {{Infobox musical artist}} say origin maybe this would be better Gnevin (talk) 12:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They should, but sometimes they don't. Also, they may have claims of the individual member's ethnicity or citizenship. The column may have many blank spaces, or it may be so dearth that it should not be included at all.
If it says origin, it still has to be cited, as origin is ambiguous/vague.Curb Chain (talk) 17:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we use origin, we have to have to define it simply as what nationality a band is described as, i.e. "a US band" or "Swedish group." Otherwise, very few bands will actually be sourced directly as "originating from," and there is no point having the column, or even a mention on the infobox for most bands.--¿3family6 contribs 02:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, the column had bebeen removed, but you insisted on having it. If there is no information on the origin of an artist, that field is usually left blank in an infobox. Do you mean to change the infobox so it havehas possibility of adding this field's-information?Curb Chain (talk) 03:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was not the only one who insisted on having it. Everyone has insisted on having it except for you. Origin = nationality in sources, unless noted otherwise by the source. Kekal was formed in Indonesia, it's Indonesian; Metallica was formed in the United States, it's US. The reason for changing the column name to "country formed" was not so that any band that doesn't have a source explicitly saying "this band was formed here" can be removed, it was because a few editors thought "country" was a little vague and confusing. Actually, there was never a consensus on "country formed," there was a consensus on origin. You changed the term because you felt it was too nebulous (which I don't mind), but then you started removing a sourced nationality mention of a specific band (when the rest of the list was unsourced) because the source didn't fit the new narrow definition that you created without consensus. So, either a) "country formed" is what nationality the artist is described as (i.e. where they are coming from); b) change the column name back to "origin"; or c) change the column back just to "country."--¿3family6 contribs 10:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If I could make a suggestion? The article for List of post-hardcore bands doesn't use a table and no country of origin is used. This would be a soloution to the both the use of a origin section and the sheer length of this table when it could be made easier to edit. Perhaps a re-structuring of this article? Jonjonjohny (talk) 11:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Me and others are fine with the state of the article as is. Nationality ≠ origin.Curb Chain (talk) 16:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why it is a table. Generally, lists in table format are discouraged.--¿3family6 contribs 00:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where?Curb Chain (talk) 10:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These three links: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Tables, Wikipedia:When to use tables#When tables are appropriate, Wikipedia:When to use tables#When tables may not be appropriate.
They don't seem to apply here.Curb Chain (talk) 13:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: (From Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Tables) "Although the use of tables to display lists is discouraged—because they provide low-quality accessibility and have a more complex notation that hinders editing—there are some instances where they can be useful, such as when three or more columns are required. see Wikipedia:When to use tables." And with an article that lists atleast 60 bands it does both hinder navigation and editing, in a way the year formed and the origin of the band can be just as redundant as eachother, you might as well just list the band name accompanied by the source(s) rather than have a table. Jonjonjohny (talk) 20:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's also this from When to use tables: "Tables should not be used simply for layout, either. If the information you are editing is not tabular in nature, it probably does not belong in a table." This list only has three types of info (or two, if we get rid of country), and the only way it is being used on this list is for layout.--¿3family6 contribs 20:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This position has been tried but you reverted it. I don't care weather or not the table stays, but the way you edit is disingenuous.Curb Chain (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think my reasoning for the revert was because it removed the country and date formed, not because it was a table. I admit I made a mistake with that edit.--¿3family6 contribs 01:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deuteronomium[edit]

I've reverted the addition of Deuteronomium because the sources was unreliable, concurring with User:Blackmetalbaz. I mean to type "hearsay" in my edit summary.Curb Chain (talk) 07:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, credentials for Johannes Jonsson: Journalist for HM Magazine: [10], [11], [12], [13]; also a member of the Heaven's Metal editorial staff on page 4, top. He also organized a Metal Bible project, and that and his website have been noted and discussed in depth by Marcus Moberg in his research on Christian metal (note: these are not simply Master's Thesis, but major presentations at world conferences and a book based off these presentations) [14], [15], [16]. Further, Jonsson's website is recommended by About.com, which calls it one of the best Christian metal sites on the internet: [17]. And Jonsson is also part of Sanctuary Sweden: [18]. Now, I understand that self-published sources are not good for statements about living persons. While the members of Deuteronomium would fall under this category, the band itself would not. What is being sourced here is a statement about (in this case a listing of) the band, not any of the members.--¿3family6 contribs 12:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Agonist[edit]

Easily sourced as a melodeath band via [1]. I do think this raises reg flags regarding some of the other deletions (I like the Agonist's breakdown heavy form of the genre but not a fan of any of the other deletions) but I expect it will some itself out. Some of them were in red ink, which means they don't exist outside of local pubs. Syxxpackid420 (talk) 11:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • So go and find some reliable sources then! They weren't deleted because there are no sources, they were deleted because the sources provided at the time of editing failed WP:RS! The burden of evidence is on the claimant. No source, no inclusion. Blackmetalbaz (talk) Shouldn't you at least be doing the diligence of checking out the band's own pages before deleting them. This behaviour would often be asscosiated with Genre Warriors. I am not very good at identing which is why I reversed the change even though some of it had validity. Syxxpackid420 (talk) 14:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, that is not the behaviour of a WP:GENRE WARRIOR - that would be someone that constantly alters the genres of band article pages. No "due diligence" is required for the list pages. The rules have been very simple for a very long time - if a reliable source is provided then the band remains on the list article, regardless of personal opinion; if no such source is provided it gets deleted until such source has been provided. The burden is on the editor wishing inclusion of the band, not those maintaining the lists. I'm not familiar with any of the bands I removed, so I have no horse in this race, but it's not my responsibility to be doing sourcing for you. I spent a lot of time sourcing the lists in the first place, regardless of my familiarity with their music. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting bands is a path of maintaining the lists, and the action of deleting a huge amount of bands from a lists of bands considered practitioners of a certain style is almost certainly an action a WP: GENRE WARRIOR would take. You do not need to source the lists, only suggesting cursory checks may be useful if major changes are necessary. I realise also it is not clear from the conversation but I have found a reliable source. Familiarility with the bands is not needed as that would be original research and render you a biased editor. Syxxpackid420 (talk) 15:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • You do not need to source the lists - wrong. All WP material should be sourced. There is very long-standing consensus on sourcing list articles. Not sourcing the lists leads inevitably to WP:OR, one of our core principles. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree, and sorry can see the comment was misleading. "I spent a lot of time sourcing" this was an unnecessary remark as the quality of the article should not be dependant on one editor. Syxxpackid420 (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a side comment, Blackmetalbaz keeps watch over almost all the heavy metal list article - they aren't singling out this one in particular.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/the-agonist-to-release-the-escape-ep

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on List of melodic death metal bands. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 10:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_melodic_death_metal_bands&oldid=1207797189"