# Talk:The Sword

It says on the article that it's coming out Spring of '08, but their MySpace page says Winter of this year. The statement on the article also doesn't have a citation. Where did that information come from?
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.198.55.246 (talk) 01:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

"The Sword is a heavy metal/hard rock band, which strangely for a band of this genre, use high fantasy lyrics and themes in their lyrics and albums."
High fantasy lyrics aren't at all unusual for heavy metal.  Look at Power Metal for some examples.  I think this line should be removed or revised --K_R 17:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely, so I took the liberty to remove that statement. Btw, the article needs a lot of attention.. --Johnnyw talk 18:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the opening line should reflect the band's specific genre. It should just say The Sword is a Doom Metal band.75.31.192.129
Yes, someone should definitely mention the Doom Metal, because honestly, in the article there is a sense of overindulging a fan of the band, making it seem like the band is the most original thing ever and cant be categorized into other genres. I also would like to know how does the mythical lyrics fall into contributing in The Sword having an "original sound"? Do lyrics influence the sound per se? I don't think so, and its not like The Sword are the only band with these type of lyrics. Like mentioned before, power metal does it all the time. Mailrobot 02:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I simply cannot believe that there is no reference to the music's similarity to early Black Sabbath on this page. I'm adding it. The Sword is a damn Doom band, and they're a damn good one, but they're still a bit of a Sabbath rip-off Trendkill 08:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, unless you can find a surce where they actually say that, it's just your opinion and can be deleted per WP:OR The Kinslayer 16:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the musical structures are very similar to Karp, probably more so than Black Sabbath. I think that these guys main influences seem to be both Karp (musical structure) and Sleep (lyrical style). - Ron Mc

I suppose I can see where you're coming from on that. But the idea that an encyclopedia contain less information about a band because people dispute the information seems ridiculous to me. I'll cite metalarchives.com's article on them, at http://metal-archives.com/band.php?id=57071, and I'll cite bnrmetal.com's archive on them, at http://bnrmetal.com/groups/swrd.htm. If we do that, can we lock this down and stop changing/removing information?

Yeah, that'd be great. But I don't the genre debate is settled. An anon IP is revert warring at Age of Winters depsite me putting up sources to support a genre of Doom Metal. The Kinslayer 22:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

People putting unecessary text in the page. That's completley sad (especially to those violators). Please do not attempt to do something stupid like that. AKnot 10:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Kind of wild that no one put anything about their previous bands.  N0fide1ity 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If you know anything about their previous bands please add it. I have not seen anything about any of their previous bands on any sites. Olliegrind 14:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I did a basic overhaul of the page and tried to take suggestions from the talk page and the deletion page. It no longer reads like an ad. I took out references to other bands since those are just opinions (I personally don't think they sound all that much like Sabbath anyway). What's left should be the basic facts. Unfortunately, it still needs some citations, but I feel I took out most of the point of view stuff and some irrelevant stuff. Olliegrind 14:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks good as far as I'm concerned. It's marked as a stub, which will cover the lack of information, and they have enough notability thanks to Guitar Hero II to remain until more information appears, which barring a split-up, is inevitably going to turn up. The Kinslayer 13:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Now the page is protected, can Huseregrav please xplain why he insists on reverting the genre and refuses to engage in dialogue with me and the other editor involved, despite both of his having left massages on his page asking for a reason. The Kinslayer 16:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The last edit I made (earlier today) changed the genre to doom metal and cited a reputable page (BNR Metal pages). This has been changed to 'hard rock' because Huseregrav doesn't like The Sword and therefore they can not be metal. He has also gone to other pages (like List of doom metal bands and 2006 in metal) and removed any reference to The Sword. Looking at his/her conributions, it looks like every single one of his/her edits are to The Sword page or to any page that has any reference to them (and removing said reference). Olliegrind 18:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, over on Age of Winters an anoymous IP (66.90.137.157) has been removing all information about except for the track titles, and also changing the genre from Doom to Hard Rock. I suspect it is a puppet account of Huseregrav because like him, the only edits have been to that article, and lists that feature The Sword have been edited to remove them as well. The Kinslayer 18:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, to move towards resolution here is a link to the bands press page: http://www.swordofdoom.com/press.html The words 'Doom' and 'Metal' certainly crop up numerous times, and as an added bonus, this definitly counts as multiple non-trivial media mentions, so thats notability sorted once and for all. The Kinslayer 21:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Not to sound arsey or anything, but what's the point in this? The guy who keeps reverting to hard rock is blatantly not interested in anything anyone else has to say on this matter, and has yet to respond. An admin locked the page and then disappeared, meaning no-one can actually correct the page back to the correct genre, and I appear to be stuck talking to myself. The Kinslayer 10:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
You should talk to an admin yourself, if you want to get the page unprotected. If no one has responded to your comments, then I suggest that you should make a request for unprotection at Wikipedia:Requests for Page Protection, just like I did when I reported this edit war to begin with.Diez2 16:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
We can't have the page unblocked yet, otherwise the edit war is just going to continue. As is plainly obvious, the other side of this edit war has absolutely no interest in talking to anyone who disagrees with his opinion, and since he's still actively trying to remove any reference to this band being Doom Metal from other parts of Wikipedia in the meantime, it's reasonable to assume it will just start over again unless something can be sorted out here first. The Kinslayer 16:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I reported the guy for vandalism. He is not just changing the genre on this page and Age of Winters but also removing any mention of The Sword from any page (including pages such as Music of Austin that mention The Sword but make no mention of them being metal). If he is blocked then this page can be unlocked. Olliegrind 17:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The guy should be banned but The Sword is FAR from doom or heavy metal. They are stoner rock.
I would even say hard rock. Bands like Corrupted and St Vitus are doom. Bands like Judas Priest and Manowar are heavy metal. Bands like The Sword are stoner rock , plain and simple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drtuttle (talk • contribs) — Drtuttle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 

Doom metal encompasses a wide variety of bands (the page has like 16 sub-categories). If The Sword fit into any subgenre of metal I would think it would be doom (which has been cited by pages like BNR Metal). In my opinion, they aren't stoner rock - they don't sound like Kyuss, Fu Manchu, Monster Magnet, etc. I've heard many criticize them as being a rip off of Sleep's Holy Mountain, which is definitely doom. Heavy Metal encompasses an even wider variety of bands (all subgenres are still considered heavy metal). Perhaps they should be put into stoner metal, which I don't really see anyone use except on wikipedia. Olliegrind 14:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Check this guys contributions before getting too involved with trying to explain to him this stuff. The Kinslayer 14:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Why not call them just metal? I have heard them called hipsters , posers , trendy , but never doom. Just because you are a fan doesn't make you right. Just because I am not a fan doesn't make me right. Just the facts and not from some press release from the bands label trying to hype them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drtuttle (talk • contribs) — Drtuttle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 

Too bad they aren't press releases. A press release is someone describing their own product/music/service etc. What these are are multiple indenpendant verifiable third-party press reviews (not the different word, Reviews, not Releases) about the band, most of which refer to the band as Metal, Heavy Metal and Doom Metal. There's the evidence and sources to back Olliegrind and mines arguement, now wheres your evidence to back your side  socky? So far your only arguement is 'I disagree with you so we should go along with what I want' The Kinslayer 18:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Here is a direct quote from BNR Metal (an independent metal site), which pretty much sums up the debate:
"This Austin band seems to have come out of nowhere with their 2006 debut, Age Of Winters, and have drawn several rave reviews by critics declaring this band one of those Next Big Things in metal. Stylistically, The Sword isn’t doing anything new – Black Sabbath-styled riffs are all over the place, and doom is the prime style here, albeit far removed from the 80’s-styled doom bands such as Candlemass. In general the songs are rather loose, almost a garage-y feel even though the production suggests otherwise. There are clear stoner influences on some of the more uptempo numbers, though this is not a stoner band so much as a doom band with some stonerisms, somewhat in the same ballpark as bands such as Sleep or maybe Orange Goblin. The band has taken some heat from underground fans who feel that, by quickly debuting on what is essentially a major label (Kemado is an indie, but one that is major-label-financed), they haven’t “paid their dues” (really, should this matter at all?). When all is said and done, Age Of Winters may not be the ultimate masterpiece as some say, but it’s clearly a solid 70’s-influenced doom album." 
This is were the doom metal tag is coming from. It's not a huge deal either way for me (I would consider them doom personally). There are a lot of people that consider them posers or hipsters and then feel that this makes them not metal. Remember that bands like Whitesnake also fall under the metal banner.Olliegrind 18:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I hope this gets resolved and we can edit it the way it should be. Also guys watch out for a user called Noliesplease who might have the same or similar motives as Huseregrav (possibly can be the same person); also can be involved. Huseregrav says so much nonsense in a deletion page before this edit war began. He mentions that The Sword's contributions for Guitar Hero 2 and Tony Hawk's Project 8 were considered advertisment. I kept explaning him about that but still rambles on that it's advertising. Also if Age of Winters get's edited again with those genre removals and such, that should be protected (semi at the best). AKnot 06:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
The IP is a sock of Huseregrav. He's been reported to the sock board here. If you suspect User:Noliesplease of being another sock of his, please add him to the suspected puppets list there. I've requested help on 2 or 3 boards, but nothing meanigfuls really come of it. Until then we're just gonna have to keep reverting his edits. The Kinslayer 09:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Huseregrav and his puppets have been banned for a couple of days, so I requested the page be unprotected so we can undo the crap and get it back to how it should be. The Kinslayer 13:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I have blocked 66.90.137.157 (talk · contribs) for a week. Drop me a line if he comes back. Semi protecting the articles if he comes back is another option. -- ReyBrujo 19:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Noliesplease is also an account that makes derogatory comments on near;y every single Sword video uploaded to youtube. Very likely a side acct of Huseregrav.

I know that "Freya" is on GH2, but I don't remember if it is the actual song or a cover. So, if anyone knows that it's a cover, point that out in the article. --Vyran 18:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The song is from 2006 so I doubt anyone has recorded a cover yet. I don't have the game but I would be very surprised if it is not the original. Olliegrind 04:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll be damned - it is a cover. According to The Sword MySpace page (check latest blog post) it was re-recorded by the GHII folks who added a part at the end. I'll take a look and see if I can find a source from a reputable site.  Olliegrind 15:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop putting references to either, their lyrics are not unique - in fact they are completely the opposite. Viking themed lyrics are pretty trite in metal at this point (see Bathory, viking metal). Also, there is no 2000s retro metal movement. Bands have been playing this so-called retro metal since it was contemporary (see Black Sabbath, Saint Vitus, The Obsessed, Trouble, Candlemass, Spirit Caravan, Sleep, Electric Wizard, Cathedral, Witchfinder General, Pentagram, Count Raven, Boris, Greenmachine, Church of Misery, Goatsnake, Internal Void, etc). Olliegrind 04:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone think we should add a controversy section to this page? With the high amount of vandalism to this page perhaps it should be noted that their "metalness" is in question for having "sold out." Olliegrind 15:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No, the vandlism is all from the same person. Hardly a notable controversy. Have a look at what the nominator says in his first paragraph of the AfD and then take a look at the edit summary of the anon that removed the GH2 info. Remarkably similar view isn't it? It's just Huseregrav still trying his best. Unless, of course, you can find reliable sources to write a controversy section from. That would be fine then. The Kinslayer 15:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that bands keep getting added as related acts but I can find no similar members or any other relation except that they might have played a show together. Mastadon has been added a couple times. If you feel that Mastadon or any other band should be listed as related acts please post below and explain the relation. Thanks! Olliegrind 13:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Would there be any disquiet to rename and move this article to The Sword (band) and vacate The Sword for the disambiguation page KTo288 13:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)KTo288 13:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well,  what other things use the name? I can't think of anything else that is "the sword". There's just "sword" without the "the". Whiffle Ball Tony (talk) 23:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

i used to see the name of the band spelled "The sWord" with the W capitalized instead of the S. now i cant find any account of this. am i going crazy or was this the actual spelling at once? im really confused.Whitey138 (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe this was the spelling some critics like to us (along with "The S-word"). BeastmasterGeneral 19:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sludge metal has been added twice in the last day as a genre. I usually don't mess with the genres since people always want to change them but in this instance it is clearly off the mark. If you feel that the band is sludgy than please provide an cite or at least an explanation below before adding it back. BeastmasterGeneral 17:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that to prevent edit wars in the future, all the genres lists should have sources. That way, no one can delete them and say "that's not right!". dposse (talk) 11:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

There was a picture of the band on this page before. It made the article look better, but I don't see why the picture is gone. Were there copyright issues?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whiffle Ball Tony (talk • contribs) 02:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC) 

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Sword/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
Just a couple things that rub me the wrong way: two consecutive paragraphs in the History section begin with the "In [month] [year]," construction, and two consecutive sentences in the Style... section begin with "While...".
Tweaked your updated version – change "often" to "occasionally" or whatever if not accurate. —Zeagler (talk) 00:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
How are Encyclopaedia Metallum and last.fm reliable sources?
Reference #5 is a dead link.
There are inconsistencies in the accessdate formatting; I'd recommend using 'Month Day, Year' instead of ISO.

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
For a short article like this, I wouldn't be a good reviewer if I didn't verify that you've mined every available tidbit of information that's notable.  Just tell me a little about how and where you searched. :)
How do you mean? Andre666 (talk) 07:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Did you find your information through Google searches?  Sites that you already knew?  The Internet Archive for links that were dead?  Print sources from your local library's (online) collection? —Zeagler (talk) 00:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Mainly sites that I knew, e.g. the official site; allmusic, etc.; everything is listed in the references section.
In looking through those sites, it seems you've condensed the information more than necessary.  You could probably double the length of the article just from the Cronise interview.  Also, I found numerous articles on the band through a Factiva search.  If you don't have access, send me an email and I'll hook you up with the articles. —Zeagler (talk) 13:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
A little more depth is required for a good article (when the info is out there), but it'll take some time to work up to that, so I'm going to fail the article for now.  When you renominate, send me a message and I'll expedite the process. —Zeagler (talk) 13:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Anyone agree with this? I certainly don't, may as well call Pantera alternative metal too. They're really a mix of doom, traditional heavy/speed, and occasionally a bit of a stoner sound  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.100.220.226 (talk) 03:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC) 

allmusic defines them as alternative metal, and per WP:ALBUM, allmusic is a reliable source. Andre666 (talk) 10:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
allmusic is a reliable source...but allmusic's definition of alternative metal is much wider than Alternative Metal.  Is there some way we can acknowledge that without listing The Sword (or Pantera for that matter) as Alternative Metal? marnues (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Why have you brought up Pantera? That's just random, and the two bands are entirely different. I personally think The Sword are alt metal, and allmusic defines them as such, so for now it will remain. What is your opposition against this? Andre666 (talk) 21:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
You nerds know nothing about genres. Get rid of alternative metal as The Sword are NOT alternative metal.

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Sword/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Zeagler (talk) 11:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Here's your expedited review...a month and a half late (sorry!)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 
– Some of the myspace links are dead.
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 
– The last sentence of the lead suggests that being on a major record label and having commercial success are usual prerequisites to critical praise and touring slots with high profile bands.  That seems to be a stretch; it's uncited regardless.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 
– The "Warp Riders" section is unfocused in a subtle way: the focus of many of the statements is an announcement.  For example, "On August 19, 2009, the band reported...", "The blog entry also revealed...", "The band issued a further update in December 2009, stating...", etc.  We don't care that an announcement was made (and certainly not when it was made), we just care what happened in the end.  This section would read much better if the information about what actually occurred were synthesized into the story of the album's creation, e.g. Writing for the band's third album was nearly completed by the end of 2009[citation] and recording began with producer Matt Bayles in early 2010[citation], etc.
– This section is improved, but the issue remains.  It would be great if there were more synthesis to obviate making a significant event out of announcements and reports: "The Sword spent (much of / mid-)2009 writing 'a concept album centered around an original science fiction narrative'..."
– Similarly, mentioning when the album title/song titles/album cover/single release dates/music video plans/tour dates became known doesn't really do anything to further our understanding of the band.
– "Just five shows into the opening leg of the Warp Riders Tour..." --> "...original drummer Trivett Wingo left the band, forcing the cancellation of the remainder of the tour."  No need to convey tension by relating the effect before the cause, even if that was the order in which fans received the news.  Just keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia, an as such is supposed to lean towards dispassionate relating of the facts.  (In fairness, though, you do a fine job of that everywhere else in the article.)
– The six-sentence quote from the band about Wingo's departure could probably be condensed to three without losing any of the meaning, and doing so may make a fair use issue less likely to come up.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 
– Don't tell the reader that the band has or has not achieved "success".  That's subjective.  Just present the evidence to let the reader decide for himself, e.g. "The band's second album, Gods of the Earth, was released two years later and gave the group its first experience of chart success" --> "...gave the group its first Billboard 200 chart entry."
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

Reviewer: Zeagler (talk) 11:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


### Comment
There are dab links to be fixed and also two dead links. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Taken care of. —Zeagler (talk) 18:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Sword. 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:

Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.billboard.com%2F%23%2Fartist%2FRihanna%2Fchart-history%2F658897%3Ff%3D793%26g%3DSingles&date=2011-10-02 to http:///
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) 12:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)