Talk:Iron Maiden/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Paul Mario Day

I am not sure, but I think there is missing Paul Mario Day in the members of Iron Maiden. --Bohemianroots (talk) 21:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

This is listed on the bottom of the infobox (link to previous members of the band). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 22:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Iron Maiden for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Iron Maiden is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at this MfD discussion page until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

"Accolades"

The "Accolades" section should be changed to "Awards and nominations" and have all the awards and nominations listed under it completely removed. There is already an article with all of Iron Maiden's awards and nominations, so this part of the article should go like this:

Awards and nominations

Main article: List of awards and nominations received by Iron Maiden

All of Iron Maiden's awards and nominations should not be listed in this article. Music2247 (talk) 17:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree entirely, to be honest. It might be good to come up with a brief prose paragraph describing some of the highlights of their awards, but I think it's generally very untidy and rather unencyclopedic to list so many minor awards, particularly when it's a band that's been around for forty years, but all the listed awards relate to the last 15-20 years because they're easier to find on the internet. They probably won all sorts of middling magazine awards in the 80s too, and they'd be just as uninteresting.

If you look at other broadly comparable metal band articles that are Featured Articles:

• Metallica lists only their Grammy nominations, with the rest relegated to the awards list article.
• Alice In Chains lists nothing, providing only a list to the awards list article.
• Opeth, though a band that has received fewer awards, just mentions them in the prose of the History section and doesn't have a separate section at all.
• Megadeth has a small, rather arbitrary selection on the page, and the rest are listed in the list article. I'm not sure I like how this article's selected the awards, but they're at least cut down.

I am personally inclined to nuke the entire section and leave it, as suggested, a link to the awards page. These are generally not major awards, and not that important in an understanding of the band. ~ mazca ^talk 17:49, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Completely agree - RnR HOF in particular appears to be ending up on pages as part of major news when in reality it isn't. PopUpPirate (talk) 09:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Heavy Metal

I used to use this page a lot but haven’t for a while, since when has the genre been changed to Hard Rock? Was this a discussion I missed or has someone took upon themselves to change it without one? Either way they are often refer to as a pioneer in the NWOBHM so I think it should be changed. Lukejordan02 (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

UPDATE Nevermind it was an unsourced change by an IP Lukejordan02 (talk) 15:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

To me, they sound like a hard rock/power metal/speed metal group and aren't really as heavy as many other metal groups from both then and now.Harry-Oscar 1812 (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Not really, but the page consensus, as well as most RS commentary, is Heavy Metal. Maiden has never been considered speed metal as such, and power metal didn't even exist as an idea when they started out. Intothatdarkness 19:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

broken english

"Finally band used bigger backdrops" -Why is this article riddled with broken english? 212.97.250.220 (talk) 19:33, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Iron Maiden (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion seems to have been closed (just checked before posting here) with no move happening, so I'll post my discussion bit here below. --Stizzleswick (talk) 02:36, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Lighting rigs

Apart from the already-noted opportunities in linguistic improvement (I intend to address some of that myself in the near future, as time permits), I note that there is a huge amount of info in the general band history on their lighting setup. This information is certainly interesting, but for the general public interested in just the general history of the band, I believe it to be information overkill in the way it is integrated now, making the article harder to read.

May I suggest creating an extra section in the article describing the development of the band's lighting rig, certainly noting the band's many firsts and so on, but extricating this rather specialised knowledge from the rest of the history? This would also be more helpful for those who are specifically interested in the lighting rigs, collecting all that data in one spot.

Just a suggestion. --Stizzleswick (talk) 02:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Michael Kenney

Michael Kenney announced in a Facebook post that he's retired. Is this a good enough source to merit inclusion? Charles Essie (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Iron Maiden discography (section)

Seems to be missing the live album Live After Death. 2600:8804:4D17:C600:64B8:6A27:46BD:9297 (talk) 06:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Only studio albums are listed in the Discography section (as labeled) as a summary. Follow the "Iron Maiden discography" and List of songs links at the top of the section for full lists. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Protecting the Iron Maiden site from vandalism

Hi! The Iron Maiden band's Wiki site is freqently the target of vandalism by so called IPers. There's a necesserity the Iron Maiden article could get semi-protection to prevent IP users from irresponsible editing. I'm not the admin with proper permissions so I'd like to ask for getting more input and support for the site's protection. On behalf of myself thanks a lot for your support! ~~ RALFFPL (talk) 09:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Language Issues

I'm seeing a sharp decline in both the grammar and use of proper language in this article. I took a stab at some of the stuff in the Media section, but errors are creeping in all over the place. Another set of eyes might be useful. Intothatdarkness 15:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I've been working through these on a section-by-section basis, but I'm concerned about the later parts of the article (basically Image and Legacy on). There's lots of what feels like trivia there, along with grammar and language issues. Intothatdarkness 14:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Band origin

Why was my edit reverted and why did I get a message saying that I was vandalizing the Iron Maiden article? Iron Maiden formed in a city, specifically London. If a band from the UK formed in a city, then it should say "*insert band name here* formed in *insert city here* in *insert year they formed in here*". Why is this change so hard to accept? 2601:407:4181:4260:B940:FADA:2EFA:275F (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Because you have not provided a source to support your claim. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

There is no need for a reliable source to say that Iron Maiden are from London. Leyton, East London is a part of the city London, and bands that have formed in cities in the UK have just the city in the first opening sentence of the article. Can you please just accept this small change? 2601:407:4181:4260:B940:FADA:2EFA:275F (talk) 23:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not sourced. There is, however, ample sourcing regarding what was already in the article. Intothatdarkness 00:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, in the first paragraph under Early years subsection. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree with this edit, but I do agree with this one. - FlightTime (open channel) 02:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Image in infobox

Can we find an image in the infobox that isn't cropped? Is there another image out there that can be used that contains all of the band members in one image instead of being cropped apart? 2601:407:4181:4260:8161:4E5A:5B10:48BD (talk) 00:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

This composite has been used for years and is frankly quite stable. I don't see any compelling reason to change it. Intothatdarkness 00:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Image and Legacy?

Since I've been working through trying to clean up prose and language, this section is really starting to concern me. Not only is it huge, it has a ton of grammar errors and other issues that are going to be a major pain to clean up. It also seems to be the one section that just keeps growing and growing. To me it's a bit concerning when the quotes from artists (some major, some not so much) who claim to have been influenced by Maiden in some way take up far more space than the discussion of the band's musical style and their own influences. Does anyone else have thoughts on this? Just cleaning up the language alone in is going to be a major lift. Intothatdarkness 20:14, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

If the Image and Legacy cruft is going to keep growing, I'd recommend it be split off into its own article. Adding every musician who claims Iron Maiden had an influence on them is bloating this part of the article in what feels like an extreme way. Intothatdarkness 16:42, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I can agree with having the Image and Legacy section be split into its own article. There is already so much text that it does take a while to load. The article is very overdue for a clean-up. HorrorLover555 (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Changes on Iron Maiden site

Hello! On the Iron Maiden website, a lot of content that interested users has recently disappeared. With reference to this situation, I have a suggestion. You could restore the entire content and move individual page sequences as separate articles. There would be a link and a short description on the main page, which can be found in a separate article. In this way, the theme and content would be preserved and the size of the homepage would be significantly reduced. I understand that it is more difficult than removing everything, however, let's respect someone's work and its results. Please consider this proposal. ~~ RALFFPL (talk) 08:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

You have been asked to participate in the GAR twice, RALFFPL. If you ignore these requests there is not much I can do. Wikipedia is not a place to store WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:TRIVIA, as you seem to think it is, nor is it a place to lie and say figures have gained consensus, when they have not. Please cease your WP:OWNERSHIP of the Iron Maiden page. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

It's not your decision, honestly. "There is not much I can do" implies you have some sort of ownership or superior position. You don't. While I find RALFFPL's additions annoying at times (especially from a linguistic and grammar standpoint), I don't doubt their good faith in making those additions. While the content wasn't necessarily always helpful (and often strays into cruft or trivia), I have noticed RALFFPL has always been reasonably responsive to input and guidance concerning sourcing, and I suspect they also misunderstood some of the discussion around album sales (which isn't always highlighted on the talk page, but often factored into reversion comments). Intothatdarkness 15:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Intothatdarkness, apologies for the confusion, but "I" was used because RALFFPL suggested on my talk page that I alone make the above changes. I do not doubt that they are acting in good faith, but if they do not make efforts in participating in discussions, there is not much I, you, or anyone can do. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. Intothatdarkness 16:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The Future

Haben Sie ihr weiteres Schicksal bedacht, Herr Satan? 2001:9E8:8A74:9000:FD1F:4352:DCCB:AB76 (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

ehile I do not know many songs, I know th song SODOM-WACHTURM.. 2001:9E8:8A74:9000:FD1F:4352:DCCB:AB76 (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Packt ihn weg, es hat kein' Zweck, meine (Vatikan-) Pornos sind mir LIEBER ! 2001:9E8:8A74:9000:FD1F:4352:DCCB:AB76 (talk) 22:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Note WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:ENGLISHPLEASE apply on Wikipedia. Regards -Fnlayson (talk) 23:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Yugoslavia behind the Iron Curtain?

"The band visited Yugoslavia as a headliner of the Belgrade festival with 50,000 people in attendance, the first time the band played behind the Iron Curtain." While the Iron Curtain is a deliberately vague and incendiary political metaphor, Yugoslavia was a leader of the Non-Aligned movement so was no more "behind the Iron Curtain" than Switzerland or Austria. Kylebgorman (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't happen to care about the politics of the phrase, but the source used for that information can't be verified easily. I modified it to show it as being their first concert in Belgrade based on the previous source, though. Intothatdarkness 15:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Discography in Infobox

Since I've already reverted and the IP seems intent on including a link to Maiden's discography in the infobox I'm putting this here. To me it's redundant, since the table of contents directly to the left of the infobox features a link to the discography. Just because other band articles have this doesn't mean Maiden's needs it as well, and given the size of the infobox already I think it's pointless. Intothatdarkness 21:24, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

And with an edit summary like the one the IP just used, it seems discussion isn't going to happen. Clear case of NOTHERE, I'd say. Intothatdarkness 01:07, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Image in infobox

Is there a better image to use for the infobox other than a cropped image? Led Zeppelin and Queen now have images in their infobox that isn't cropped, so why can't Iron Maiden have an image in the infobox that isn't cropped? 2601:407:4181:4260:650C:4910:E909:3B32 (talk) 12:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

This image has been agreed on here for some time now. It works, it fits, and it displays all the band members in a logical way. It ain't broke, so there's no need to fix it. Intothatdarkness 19:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Mention of Ghost's song cover getting a Grammy

The Swedish band Ghost had a song cover of "The Phantom of the Opera", which received a Grammy. However, I do not feel that it is notable to include in the History section. Just because Ghost was nominated for that cover of the song does not mean it should be included in, as it feels very trivial, which I think has been already discussed before. If anything, I think it should be mentioned instead in Ghost's own article. HorrorLover555 (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree with HorrorLover555, also Maiden is an English band. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

They are considered part of the New Wave of British Heavy Metal, and are usually described as a British group in RS. If you want to change it to something else, you need to gain consensus backed by RS and not just change it based on your personal preference. Intothatdarkness 16:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Not according to many older revisions (such as this one by Binksternet). Do you have a link to the consensus discussion? or is this just your opinion? - FlightTime (open channel) 16:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I see both English and British used in reliable sources, with perhaps a greater weight of "British" in American sources.[1][2] Binksternet (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Since they're considered part of the NWOBHM I think it makes sense to leave them as British. But I also don't feel like wasting a ton of time in some pedantic discussion over the issue. So do what you will. Intothatdarkness 17:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Just because they are part of the NWOBHM, does not make them British. Perhaps an RfC should be considered. HorrorLover555 (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

A brief mention (≈1 sentence) of Ghost's version of "The Phantom of the Opera" receiving a Grammy seems acceptable to me. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Probably not in the "History" section, in my honest opinion. It hardly merits, as the nomination is for a song cover. So I'm not sure, I'll have to think about it. HorrorLover555 (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@HorrorLover555: I had the same thought, not saying this is a qualifier, but most (if not all) "over the pond" bands, regardless of a time frame are listed as English. If you do start a RfC, you got my support. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

The history section of this article would seem an inappropriate place for that to me, but it is definitely notable enough to be mentioned somewhere. I think adding a legacy section to Iron Maiden (album), where the song first appeared in their discography, would be a better solution. As for "British" vs "English", I don't think them being part of the NWOBHM automatically means they need to be referred to as "British", though if sources generally use that over "English" then I wouldn't argue against it (funnily enough, Iron Maiden (album) currently calls them an English band). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

As do the other albums and related articles. I do agree with you on adding the mention of Ghost having their cover song nominated in Iron Maiden (album), as it is more relevant there than the band's main article. HorrorLover555 (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

RfC on band's origin in lead section

In the lead section of the article, should the band be referred to as English or British? HorrorLover555 (talk) 08:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• English Each of the members are born in England, so I think it makes more than enough sense to refer to the band as English. HorrorLover555 (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
• Close and discuss There's no WP:RFCBEFORE and just a couple of editors reverting each other. This isn't something that needs more community input. The status quo is fine FWIW. Nemov (talk) 15:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
• I already said do what you will and disengaged. An RFC just feels like posturing at this point.Intothatdarkness 16:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
• Speedy close The discussion above is less than 48 hours old. See WP:RFCBEFORE. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
• Comment I've removed the {{rfc}} tag, but refrained from closing this thread. Discussion may continue, just not as a full-blown thirty-day formal RfC, because it's a long way from being necessary. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

English: As I said above, unless we find consistent use of "British" in reliable sources, it seems the grounds to use that over "English" which have been offered so far are inappropriate for basing this decision on, and the members' shared nationality would make the most sense. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Iron Maiden

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Some issues fixed, but violations of 1a) and 3b) remain. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

At the time of this article's 2011 listing, it had 7000 words of prose. Now it has over 22,000, a clear failing of GA criterion 3b) and WP:PAGESIZE.

The image and legacy section is one of the best (or worst) examples of indiscriminate trivia sections I have ever read, while there have been comments on the talk page about incorrect grammar and spelling. This article doesn't need a trim to remain a GA-it needs a chainsaw! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I raised the question about the Image and Legacy cruft section above, and so far it's been ignored. I've worked through a chunk of the article making grammar and language corrections, but it's hard to keep up with the cruft that is being continually added. Intothatdarkness 18:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

This page should be restored to , January 22, 2023 before all the junk was added. Moxy- 19:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I've been too busy fixing the actual functional part of the article to get into the cruft in a serious way. Adding every single mention of every single musician who ever mentioned Iron Maiden adds nothing to the article at all. I see no good reason why this section should be so much longer than, say, the actual section about Maiden's own music and influences. Intothatdarkness 19:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

@Moxy and Intothatdarkness: that version is hardly better—21,000 words, with every person of some notability given an entire paragraph for their quotes. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

This is a collaborative process, so we need a solid starting point to work from. I'd actually prefer using what we have now, simply because I've cleaned up earlier parts of the article. It's the one section that has been and remains seriously problematic, although there are issues (mainly a fixation with stages and lighting rigs) in the other parts. Intothatdarkness 20:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. Speaking of collaboration, even though I've already notified RALFFPL on their talk page, I thought it best to do so again, so any undiscussed reversions become a conduct issue. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:10, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I've been working through the article in sequence, and had made it to the last album section before the reassessment was launched. During that time users have been continually adding content of uneven quality to the Image and Legacy section (cruft, stuff with grammar and spelling issues, and so on). I'd suggest everyone STOP adding content until we determine a way forward here. For my part, I think most of the Image and Legacy section should either be moved to its own article or deleted. You don't need to list everyone who's ever worn a Maiden T-shirt or listened to one of their songs. Intothatdarkness 20:01, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

A lot of it is pretty obvious WP:TRIVIA. I think I'll remove the section about celebrities who wore t-shirts if I don't see a policy-backed response in 24 hours or so. ~UN6892 ^t_c 23:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I have begun removing huge amounts of cruft and trivia, in addition to unused references. Just wanted to note that if anyone worries about those comments which say that "these figures have been agreed on the talk page, don't change them" or some such bullshit nonsense, it turns out that RALFFPL added them in edits like this without any talk page discussion at all. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:39, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

You might want to moderate your language a bit. Intothatdarkness 16:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to stop making grammar and language corrections until there's a stable version of the article in place. It's annoying to fix stuff in a section and then come back and find it's been removed. That's part of the reason I stayed away from the Image and Legacy section...it's such a dumpster fire I didn't want to waste time on it until something had been decided. Intothatdarkness 16:46, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I think I've used enough of the chainsaws and hedge trimmers on the article, Intothatdarkness if you want to start fixing/copyediting. I apologise for the language, but fabricating consensus or the words of other editors is one of the worst things you can do on Wikipedia, and were it not for the fact that I think the editor is just about acting in good faith, I would have called in an administrator immediately. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I'll start back in within the next couple of days, just in case there's another flurry of activity. And to be clear, I don't think the other editor was fabricating consensus as much as they misunderstood the difference between talk page discussion and notes added to reverts. There was a flurry of these maybe a year or so ago, and the majority as I recall related to album sales figures. For some reason that seems to be a hot button thing in this article. Intothatdarkness 16:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can see, no flurries have happened Intothatdarkness. Do you want to get back in? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I'll start back in when I have some free time. Maybe this week. Intothatdarkness 11:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.