Talk:Demonic (album)

message: On the new re-release of Demonic, there's a different cover art than the one from 1997. Should this be placed on the page?CultofHalls (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternate cover for 2008 re-release

message: :Image:Testament - Demonic.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Testament - Demonic.jpg

message: May I suggest that this is sent to Demonic (song) or similar facsmilie and the page Demonic itself redirected to Demon, with the page Demon displaying something like "Demonic redirects here, for the song see Demonic (song)" or reasonable facsimile.--Launchballer (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest re-direct 

message: There was a consensus for two years about the genre and now you come out of nowhere and begin changing this.  Conservoman (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The topic has never been discussed? Are you thinking of another article? This is a thrash metal album. Chuck Billy alters his vocal style somewhat to something heavier than previous albums. But, unlike death metal, his words can be understood. Not enough death to make it death metal. And no consensus for death metal in the first place. Is there a source? Peter Fleet (talk) 16:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no source that would ever pass WP:RS. And the comment about consensus was a lie. Fair Deal (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Jesus, by consensus I meant agreement. Conservoman (talk) 17:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So Peter Fleet says that even though a Death grunt is being used, if it's intelligible... It's not Death Metal yet? So in order to be Death Metal you HAVE to be unintelligible, I presume? 189.242.149.108 (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Thrash

message: One of the distribution companies went under handling this album hurting the release, maybe there's some actual newspapers stories someone can find to cite for part of that. Doubtful it will mention Testament by name but anything officially printed would help. Might add enough dated circumstantial references to help start a section about that. --West Horizon (talk) 13:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  distribution citations