Talk:Death (metal band)

message: I notice if you do a search for "spiritual healing" you're redirected to "Faith Healing". However, "Spiritual Healing" gets you to the album page. Would it make sense to rename the page as "Spiritual Healing (album)" or somehow alter the redirect page to a disambiguation one? These comments also added to the album discussion page. IainP (talk) 23:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: After a quick ask on the Help pages, I've instead added a note to the top of the "Faith healing" page. IainP (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Spiritual Healing'' page rename?

message: Citation or some proof of true existence needed. Otherwise, article should be deleted for irrelevance and no proof of existence. --Ryouga 01:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: never heard of it. Isn't mentioned in the liner notes of the death re-releases and Google shows no results. And it sounds terrible much like a joke to me. Delete it if you wish Spearhead 09:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death EP 

message: I found it interesting that, out of the blue, someone from the "Bay Area" (according to their IP address) edited the Death (band) page to re-write history re: John Hand. Suddenly Hand's contribution went from merely appearing in the Scream Bloody Gore album photos to 'co-writing 20 songs with Chuck and Chris'. 
This flies in the face of every, single band biography available on the net. Every fan (or student of death metal) knows that John Hand did not record or play a single gig with Death. This is not meant as a slam against Hand, but simply the correct telling of history.  Chuck often said that Hand got a 'great deal' out of his association with Death: namely, from being in the band 'two weeks' his face and name are forever associated with one of the pioneer death metal releases. The fact remains that Chuck played all guitar parts on that first Death album, and hence received the royalties and payments in perpetuity for that release.
I certainly wonder who it was from the San Francisco area that thought it quaint to sneak in and change what really happened after all these years...I'm not insinuating that it was John Hand himself, but if it was he could have the decency to come forth (finally) to dispute head-on what is accepted as the story of the band instead of (possibly) taking this back door approach...It would mean Hand challenging for the first time Chuck's contract with Combat in hopes of battling out royalties due - and that is a ridiculous notion because Hand was never due a single penny.
I don't know if this matters anymore because I have no clue when this was posted, but I went back and did some research about the "John Hand" situation. And discovered that Hand only contributed to the Scream Bloody Gore album photos. So the user above was right. I believe though that they should sight some resources so that if there is any question to whether the article is relevant or not, other people will be able to check and see for themselves.
Catherine Slaughter
XxNo.One.RunsxX 14:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Hand 

message: Isn't this where Death started being technical?
No. It started with Human.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.5.155.191 (talk) 07:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Spiritual Healing

message: I removed the line commenting that The Philosopher was written as a "lyrical slam" as someone put it against Paul Masvidal because of an ambigious reference which is basically..
"Interestingly, the lyrics on ITP were quite angry, in contrast to the gore-oriented earlier albums and more spiritual later ones. The lyrics arose from Schuldiner's frustrations with the music industry, including lack of label promotion and legal altercations with Death manager Eric Greif (who produced Morbid Saint's Spectrum of Death) and various former bandmates."
If you can find a better reference add it back in but otherwise leave it.
No lyrics written by Death would ever be a driect slam of someone they might have had more meaning to Chuck like that but they were directed at a large group becuase that is how his music was written. Songs such as "The Philosopher" are talking about people who think they are smart and know everything but in realality know nothing about what they are talking about that is true. However lyrics can be interpeted in many ways so do not put anything on the page about lyrical meanings. For further proof of how lyrics can be interpeted differently look up the PMRC and how they didn't understand the song "Under the Knife" by Twisted Sister. Metalocalypse 13:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: with all due respect, the issue is whether Schuldiner wrote The Philosopher about Masvidal, not the sexual preferences of former band members. A Sniper 19:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lyrics slam against Paul Masvidal? 

message: I, as former Manager of Death at the time Chuck drew his more streamlined band logo (prior to the release of Human), have given a fair use rationale for use of it, including the fact that we allowed anyone and everyone to duplicate it (as long as it was not involved in commercial gain), and I hereby remove the warning. Griffyguy
If anyone needs a reference for Kam Lee designing the original logo, it can be found here: http://www.voicesfromthedarkside.de/interviews/kamlee.html.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Durandal1717 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: this link doesn't work - besides, I am sure that Laurent or any of the VftD guys would say that Kam Lee's word alone on the subject of the band Death wouldn't necessarily be considered a reliable, objective source. Perhaps adding something like "Kam Lee has made the claim that...", but you'd need a decent link. A Sniper (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Death Logo.png

message: Perhaps you could come to this page before making your sweeping edits and rather non-good faith statements against the regular editors who do our best to keep this page accurate and NPOV. Best, A Sniper 15:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Death2|Death2]] 

message: All FUR templates finished for remaining Death covers that were under threat. I thereby blanked all the warnings. A Sniper 17:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationales

message: :Image:Fate The Best Of Death.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Fate The Best Of Death.jpg

message: :Image:Live in Eindhoven death.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 ensure 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Live in Eindhoven death.jpg

message: :Image:Live in LA death.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 ensure 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Live in LA death.jpg

message: I made a search for the word mantas and I was directed here. If it is a previous band, than why does it direct here? Anyway, mantas are a item woven by native tribesmen in the amazon and I wanted to see what the wikipedia article on them said. Oh well. Contralya (talk) 03:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mantas was originally the name of the band before they became Death and if what you mentioned can be notable enough that it can be verified with reliable sources then we could create a Mantas dablink that directs there or vice versa. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪  kaiden  05:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhh I don't think they even have an article on what Contralya is talking about.  I went to the Manta (disambiguation) page.  They talk about quite a few things that deal with the name Manta and Mantas, but not any item woven in the Amazon. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 22:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Of coarse, there must be a Mantas (clothing) (or w.e it is) article to begin with. That's why I said if it is notable enough for inclusion with sources, etc. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪  kaiden  22:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but the user brings up one thought.  Maybe "Mantas" shouldn't be a redirect to this page.  Maybe it should redirect to the disambig page. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 22:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I happened to just redirect it now, as it makes sense because it could be the plural for the clothing and who would happen to know the earlier name of Death, so it's just natural to redirect it to the Manta (disambiguation) page instead because they have a mention of their earlier name there anyway. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪  kaiden  21:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mantas? 

message: I regret that the above user appears to be trolling articles I've contributed to and making blanking attempts, deletions, and whatever else. This appears to be based on malicious intent (for want of any other explanation) and not on verifiability, good faith or interest in the article topics. Sooner or later this user will work his/her way from the Chuck Schuldiner article over to this page. Cheers, A Sniper (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: RE: [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|Single-purpose account]] [[User:Jackmantas|Jackmantas]]

message: should not be included in genres as it is a redirect of Technical death metal which is also a listed genre.
Agreed, but I have addded Progressive metal to the genres as this side of the band needs to be adressed. And sign your comments. Johan Rachmaninov (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Progressive death metal]] 

message: To User:A Sniper:
Hi. Almost the whole article is totally unsourced and is almost completely unverifiable. Do not understand it as an offence, but that is just a fact and the readers should be informed about it. There are some sources in the infobox, in the lead section and also in the "Memebers" section, but the Biography - the main body of the article is just simply unsourced except for one single sentence. See for example Slayer or Metallica to have a picture about how a sourced article looks like. Almost every sentence should have an inline citation.
On the other hand, I did not read the sources. If the sources cover the text in the article, just add the inline citations to the text (just like in Slayer or Metallica)! And the problem will be fixed! But if there are no inline citations, the reader does not know what is sourced and what not. So if there are sources, just use them as inline citations:
Use this once for each source:
 
And then use the source again with:

Cheers :) --  LYKANTROP  20:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are entitled to your opinion. However, since most of the unreferenced sections come directly from the source already listed (emptywords.org), the citations are both irrelevant and unnecessary. I do take your point that citations would support the accuracy, but on the other hand no user has come forward to challenge any of the information that has now been on the page for at least two years. If you have particular concerns over a specific sentence or paragraph, then discuss it.  Best, A Sniper (talk) 00:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you're right. But still I mean, an addition of one inline citation to the end of each paragraph (if it has only one source) would make it much more transparent and easily verifiable. And in the end it would also look sourced. And you could also fix the small unsourced things and add it to Wikipedia:Good article nominations, cause it is a well written article in my opinion.--  LYKANTROP  ✉  18:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently you are capable of discussing things instead of running crying to Elizabeth Bathory, et al.  The only reason I left my reasons for editing on your talk page instead of this page is because you left messages on my talk page.  Forgive me if I haven't mastered every nuance of Wikipedia.  Since you haven't obeyed the prohibition on edit warring, I think you've called the kettle black by complaining to Bathory and others about my leaving you messages on your talk page instead of here, which as far as I know, is an unwritten etiquette matter, as opposed to edit warring, which is a stated policy.  Good day.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.5.88 (talk) 03:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you're close to getting blocked. Regular editors are civil to each other. We do not attack the person - we focus on the edits. We reach consensus. I'm sure others are advising you to get yourself an account if you're serious...  A Sniper (talk) 03:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If I am close to getting blocked, that is your unjust doing.  You have repeatedly provoked me by your edit warring and accusations of vandalism.  No one can take that lying down.  And anyway, your passive aggression toward me is far worse than anything I have said to you.  Instead of engaging me in a discussion about the validity of my edits, you have just reverted them dictatorially or libeled me to your fellow sysadmins.  And even now, you're accusing me of a lack of seriousness?  How dare you?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.5.88 (talk) 03:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Lack of sources" tag 

message: In my opinion there doesn't need to be too much information on the two roadies that went on the tour of Europe with bassist Terry Butler and drummer Bill Andrews. Mentioning their names is by far enough weight to the story - anything else is undue. Butler and Andrews had no legal authority to undertake the tour (as Schuldiner was the proprietor of 'Death', as mentioned in almost every biography) and they were sacked from the band upon their return home. Therefore, biographical or incidental information on the two roadies is irrelevant. They literally did the tour as 'players' at the last minute, and due exclusively to their proximity to Butler and Andrews due to being band roadies. By the way: these two folks once had their own articles, but these were deleted due to a lack of notoriety. That they were once members of a defunct band is trivia and unconnected. Best, A Sniper (talk) 00:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Does that mean I like faces?    ;)  A Sniper (talk) 17:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't understand your comment, misspelling corrected months after the fact or not  ;)  A Sniper (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

text: concentrate on the article and editing - don't focus on editors and calling them names. A Sniper (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The fake Death tour of Europe

message: An online fanzine had an interview with Chuck in which, true to Chuck's nature, he stated that he didn't feel that he should take the credit for the term 'death metal'. This was Chuck being humble and modest. the user has tried to use the reference to show that, actually, the band Death were NOT death metal. The edits have been reverted. I have used the adverb 'modestly' as any reader can gather this from the reference itself - that Chuck was not wanting to lay claim to a title that has been internationally bestowed on him and one that made him feel uncomfortable yet proud. Thoughts? Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: use of such terms as back off are unacceptable. if you have a problem with an edit, then edit. I would also again suggest that you get yourself an account, as well as read up on proper citation and use of tildes, etc. for talk pages. A Sniper (talk) 06:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

text: What I am referring to isn't your use of language - it is the proper use of Wikipedia for leaving a message on a talk page. If you check your talk page, you'll see that a 'bot' has left you a message 
to this effect. A Sniper (talk) 04:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: RE: Chuck's statement about 'death metal'

message: Response to A Sniper edit from 15:33, 28 October 2008: emptywords.org/, Metal Rules, aom.dead-inside.org(altars of metal) are not reliable - they fail under WP:SPS. These sources are useless for wikipedia. I don't know about thehighhat.com (I did't check it properly). One pretty bold statement is sourced by a reference called "ibid" - what should this stay for? I am not deleting the unreliable sources only because I don't want to be a pain in the ass here.--  LYKANTROP  ✉  16:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A regularly updated eZine, with reliable references, is not self-publishing. Nor is the internationally-known European metal magazine Aardshok. Nor is the emptywords.org official Death site, which luckily catalogs almost every Death-related article ever published and is an invaluable cache of reliable sources. And Ibid is referencing shorthand for Ibidem, which refers to the previous reference - so, if you don't like that either, simply re-state the previous reference since it is (probably) what was being referred to. Best, A Sniper (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I got rid of the Ibid. use. Instead I took the lazy way and re-listed the same reference. If you want to take the extra two minutes to set up a single publication reference (so that the footnote number is re-used), please go ahead, since it now has two separate number references. Best, A Sniper (talk) 17:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Yeah, that one page is the official (I didn't see that before) but it would be great if you could provide sources for those statements about the other sources. Cheers.--  LYKANTROP  ✉  19:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for fixing the ref - I'm getting more lazy as time goes by. As for the other refs, Wikipedia policy on self-publishing really refers to folks who publish their own book, and then reference it. It doesn't imply that ongoing eZines =, no matter who publishes them, are part of the self-publishing edict. Just because one person sets up a website, conducts interviews and then puts them on the net doesn't mean we cannot use that as a source. It depends on the site itself, even if this is a subjective issue on the part of editors. Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources reliability 

message: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/arts/music/15rubi.html
What about these guys?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.96.83 (talk) 05:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm sure there are other 'Death' bands out there. However, this band seems notable to me. You can create the article as Death (rock band) or something along those lines, though before you do this, please read WP:BAND. If you do happen to create it and it doesn't get deleted, I will add a hatnote at the top of the page here. FireCrystal (talk) 05:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind this now. It looks like the band's link was found as Death (punk band) and added at the top of the page. FireCrystal (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another death 

message: I'm bringing this uh, "debate" to the talk page. Read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive133#Associated Content.2C gettin.27 paid to spam and Talk:Associated Content#Spam filter. Associated Content fails WP:RS and WP:SPS. Dom Coccaro does not appear to be "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". The genre already includes three citations, so this really shouldn't be an issue. APK straight up now tell me 19:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I couldn't care less whether the Coccaro quote is removed. However, the reason there are a number of references is that an editor insisted that the genre was inaccurate to describe the band, hence several references to support the claim.  Best, A Sniper (talk) 02:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Then what was the point of reverting my edit? I'm removing the reference. APK straight up now tell me 03:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It was reverted for the very reason I mentioned - the more citations to bolster the genre reference, the better. However, there are enough to easily trump any attempt at removing the inclusion of the genre so it makes little difference whether it is removed. A Sniper (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using Associated Content as a source 

message: User:A Sniper and I have been have a disagreement over the use of certain sources on this page to support statements that Death are a tech death band. The problem is that neither of the first two sources explicitly state that this band is a tech death band within the body of the articals. The third, BNR metal, is a clearly unreliable resources, run by one man, as can be seen hear. The first of the three sources, from empty words, does have the term in its title, but the reliability of said website is qurstionable at best. 75.159.22.63 (talk) 20:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, IP user: this is your opinion but that doesn't make it so. The fact other editors besides me have reverted your edit shows that your opinion is simply your opinion.  I also find your negative view of emptywords undermines your own credibility, since it is the official Death repository of international articles and bona fide references. A Sniper (talk) 04:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Tech death issue

message: There is a move afoot right now to delete the pages of the Possessed and Death demos.  Please take the time to add some references as to their notability. Many thanks. Best, A Sniper (talk) 05:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Purging demo articles

message: A significant contributer to this article, User:A Sniper, claims a close connection to the band: "I am the copyright owner of this demo & cover, as successor-in-interest to Charles M. Schuldiner and grant use)". Over the next few weeks, I'll be going through this article to try to clean up any problems, firmly establish neutrality and reference as much as possible. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Show some good faith instead of attacking an editor based on no more evidence than someone you do not know making a flippant remark in an edit memo for which you cannot verify, for an article I knew was already deleted - I knew you'd go for this bait, since you've been trolling through all of these demo articles without making a single constructive edit (you haven't actually written anything yourself, really).  Time for an ANI for you? I thought we'd been civil, but I knew you'd eventually become somewhat obsessed with my edits and follow me around. A Sniper (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: My above statement is not meant as an attack on SummerPhD - I was just shocked.  Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: COI

message: Hi, if anyone is wondering why I removed the Live in Japan release from the discography, it is because the release is canceled <http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=148406>.69.110.78.11 (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Live in Japan released canceled. 

message: I added the reason why Chuck named the band Death and added a citation.69.110.78.11 (talk) 06:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for band name Death 

message: I noticed some fighting in the lead about Death's genre and decided to add this discussion here if anyone wants to talk about it. As far as I'm concerned Death, while definitely influential to metal music as a whole. played in the style of death metal, and hundreds of sources could be easily found to support that. Even if Schuldiner described them as something else, that doesn't really matter. Plenty of musicians say they play all kinds of different things, including made up genres. Lemmy from Motorhead says they play "rock 'n' roll" and refuses any other labels. Doesn't change what they actually play, which in this case is death metal. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 01:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My original reason for having what is there now - writing metal but linking it specifically to death metal - was that it could be more general in the lede, but for those who click through, they could pinpoint the specific genre.  There is of course the argument to be madethat Chuck grew as a musician, lyricist & songwriter, and that the DEATH of Symbolic and The Sound of Perseverance was beyond the death metal of his earlier work, but actually that wasn't my motivation for why it is the way it is.  I did mention Chuck's quote only to accentuate that he viewed his music overall as being metal, for the reasons that he didn't want to claim ownership of the genre name and also as he saw what he was doing as just an extension of the brutality of the bands that came before him.  However, I would certainly not argue that Chuck and DEATH wasn't death metal - I just felt, in the lede, that I wanted to be a generalist :)  Best, A Sniper (talk) 03:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, when you put it that way, I really have no problems with that whatsoever. Especially since their later albums were a lot more prog metal. If anyone else does have a problem they can talk about it here. PS It's nice to hear from you, Sniper. It's been a long time. Hope all is well. Navnløs (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genre edits in lead 

message: Just a reminder:
*2. Edit 2
**2a. WP:NOTPROMOTION. Although it might not have been the intent, it reads as a promotional piece. 
**2b. It was not from the band and doesn't deserve prominence over any other given write up, book, tribute, documentary, etc about the band.
Cptnono (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it does. The book doesn't seem that important. But even if it does deserve some mention it should not be a subsection of the Logo section and it does not even deserve to be a subsection anywhere. I am going to move it for now but still believe it should be removed altogether. The most it deserves in my opinion is a link in the See also section.Cptnono (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because it over burdens the article with something of relatively little importance in the overall history of the band. The fact that it gets any mention at all already gives the book more prominence than it might deserve.Cptnono (talk) 20:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Book

message: Should we add this DVD in the "Video albums" section? It was filmed in 2007 in Quebec City and released as a DVD in 2010. Feature many official Death musicians (except of course, Chuck).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunge (talk • contribs) 22:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No - it is merely a tribute, and only features a couple of ex-members. Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symbolic - The Ultimate Death Tribute 

message: Marrow of the earth - Opeth
Heritage - Opeth
Jazz fusion
Death=death metal and tech-death. They sound nothing soothing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMetallican (talk • contribs) 23:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  DEATH IS NOT JAZZ FUSION 

message: Should the new Mantas compilation be added to the compilation albums section? It is coming out in June.
http://www.relapse.com/mantas-preorder
69.225.82.64 (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: My two cents is that it should indeed be added to this article, unless someone starts a Mantas page.  Mantas is eseentially Death anyway, as the line-up was the same within the two weeks between the name change from Mantas to Death. Best, A Sniper (talk) 02:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  new Mantas release 

message: This post on Facebook mentions 1982 as the year Mantas was founded.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151590396423662&set=pb.396088683661.-2207520000.1363847387&type=3&theater
Should the info in the article be changed?
David O. Johnson (talk) 06:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No - it is incorrect.  Chuck & Rick didn't even meet each other for the first time until the end of 1982 (Rozz states this in the liner notes to Relapse's Mantas CD).  Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mantas foundation date 

message: What year was Death dissolved? This section  has it at about 2001,though the last time the band actually released new material was in 1998, according to . Should live albums count as the band being active or should 1999 be the ending date for the final line-up in the musicians section?
ThanksDavid O. Johnson (talk) 22:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think 2001 is the proper date and used almost universally as the end of the band. Despite Chuck turning his attention to the Control Denied project by 1999, his cancer diagnosis changed things, and the next two years were dominated not by his music career but fighting the losing battle against his disease. There is no way to know if Chuck would have recorded another Death album if he had lived, and since he continued to surround himself with the same bunch of musicians in both projects, it is fair to say that Death had not been formally dissolved at the time Chuck failed to recover from his last treatments before he died. Best, A Sniper (talk) 07:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year Death was dissolved? 

message: Recommend merging Scott Clendenin article with Death (metal band). Quis separabit? 13:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposal

message: Vague disagreement on this. I personally don’t think this should be in the infobox, so let’s discuss. ~SML TP  00:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's two very reliable sources stating that, at one point in their career, they played melodic death metal. I think it's pretty hard for anybody to believe that The Sound of Perseverance isn't a melo death album, because it like sounds like a more progressive Heartwork-era Carcass, and Symbolic is also very melodic in places, and the sources back this up. Issan Sumisu (talk) 08:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Melodic death metal