Template talk:Extreme metal

message: Isn't it a bit early to use this template?
My concerns:
*This template is based on an article containing unverifiable claims and original research: Extreme metal.
*Genres mentioned in this template are regarded extreme. The genres are connected by their extremity. How does that comply with WP:NPOV?
*Genres mentioned in this template are regarded metal. What about grindcore, crust punk, deathcore and other metal/hardcore hybrids?
*Unlike the f.e. the heavy metal template, sub genres and sub-sub-sub genres are mixed.
*There are enough of these genre boxes at the bottom of the screen, some articles contain 2 or more. I feel we don't need this one.
I think we should wait; the extreme metal article is not yet reliable. Kameejl (Talk) 11:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but I still think this template is hugely dominated by specific POVs and doesn't reflect the general view of extreme metal and it's subgenres. The addition of fusion genres is making this template even more POV, less reliable and less verifiable. For the sake of wikipedia and extreme metal I will nominate this template for deletion. Kameejl (Talk) 12:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled section 2007 

message: "v" on the template is hidden by black. Does anyone know the format to make the font all white on the first bar: extreme metal? --CircafuciX 03:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My IP changed it to red, but some idiot thought i was vandalising it. DragonDance (talk) 01:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  For the questions that were just asked before thats why I asked this question in the first place the v/d/e would be more viewable. See:Template:At the Gates for example. Although I tried using the format and it doesn't work with this new template so I'm asking if anyone knows how it's done. Simply put. --CircafuciX (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Look what I've done. It does work. ThundermasterThundermaster's Talk 18:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is only one thing now, it won't collapse. I tried this: class="navbox collapsible autocollapse" style="margin:0 auto;" and replacing this to the top which didn't seem to work. --CircafuciX 08:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format 

message: Is a sub-genre of doom metal, therefore goes in the sub-genre list.
:But is not extreme. Metalcore, groove metal, and other genres aren't featured as well. Kameejl (Talk) 18:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gothic metal 

message: Shouldn't we have Groove metal down here as a sub-genre of thrash metal? Ximmerman (talk) 14:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Groove metal 

message: Stop changing the colour. Black is the related colour for death, black and doom metal. Thundermaster367 (talk) 09:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colour 

message: Hello. Sabrebd reverted a color contrast improvement of the Heavymetal template and Extreme metal template. The current colors (white links on a red background) do not match the guideline: Wikipedia:Accessibility#Color. Yours, Dodoïste (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasnt a straight vevert, but an attempt to solve what I took to be the problem (blue (used link) on a red background) - was it a different problem?--SabreBD (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See Template_talk:Heavymetal#Color_contrast_issue to keep the discussions in one place. Yours, Dodoïste (talk) 11:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color contrast issue 

message: Hey, I've made some major changes to the template. If you disagree with anything, feel free to change it and/or explain it here.--MASHAUNIX 03:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the derivatives section and moved Stoner and Drone to fusion genres. First, because there is a consensus in Extreme Metal's talk page that Gothic and Groove are neither extreme nor subgenres of the extreme ones, and Doom Metal article cites both Stoner and Drone as it's own subgenres. So a derivatives section is unnecessary. ABC paulista (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for making the appropriate changes, I've done some minor edits on extreme metal and doom metal since but everything should be in order.----MASHAUNIX 18:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. I think that's all for now. ABC paulista (talk) 18:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just wondering, is there really "consensus in Extreme Metal's talk page that ... Groove [isn't] extreme"? I've looked through it and all I found was some claims that it can't be extreme because it's "mainstream", which is nonsense (thrash metal was just as popular back in its day, as were/are some other genres in this infobox) and wasn't really consensus. I've checked this page as well and found no consensus here either. I agree it's not really a subgenre of any of the primary extreme metal genres, but disagree that it's not extreme and think it deserves a mention in the infobox. Sepultura is a seminal groove metal band; would you say they aren't extreme? (I won't argue about gothic metal though.)----MASHAUNIX 17:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find a source that claims that Groove metal is an extreme metal genre, feel free to add it. But without any sources, you should not. We here only add the genres that are considered extreme by sources, and their subgenres and fusion genres. ABC paulista (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, I'll look into that, though I think it should perhaps simply get an honorable mention in the "other topics" section.----MASHAUNIX 00:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. If Groove metal should be mentioned in the "other topics" section, so Gothic metal should be too since Groove metal is no more related with Thrash metal than Gothic metal is related to Death/Doom. Also, topics like Hardcore Punk, Punk Rock seems to be more related to Extreme metal than Grove Metal, since they are the origin of a bunch of subgenres and fusion genres. ABC paulista (talk) 01:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: So couldn't we add all three of these (meaning hardcore punk, groove metal and gothic metal) into the other topics section ? I think it would be useful, since hardcore punk is both a major source of influence on some primary (thrash, death) and fusion (metalcore, grindcore etc.) genres, as well as, IMO, "to punk rock what extreme metal is to heavy metal", and groove and gothic should be mentioned since they are derivatives of primary genres (included in the extreme metal infobox). I am still especially concerned about groove metal, because I think it is related to current general understanding of extreme metal, and often referred to when the umbrella term is used on Wikipedia (for example, in the infoboxes of Meshuggah and metalcore, extreme metal is used to summarize a number of genres including groove metal).----MASHAUNIX 18:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

text: Yeah you're right about the metalcore infobox, but still, if speed metal deserves a link in the template, then IMO so do hardcore punk and groove metal. I'd like to hear what someone else thinks about this.--MASHAUNIX 00:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: To tell the truth, neither NWOBHM nor Speed Metal should be on this template IMO, since they aren't present in all extreme metal genres (especially doom metal). ABC paulista (talk) 01:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, this seems logical.--MASHAUNIX 02:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major changes 

message: The genre is covered in the same section as industrial death metal. ~SML • TP  16:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but unlike with the Industrial Death metal examples, the sources never treat "Industrial Thrash metal" as a complete subgenre on its own. They state that some Thrash metal bands empoyed some industrial influences in some of their music, but they never called them as Industrial Thrash bands or treat it as a full-fledged subgenre, and some eventual Industrial-influenced Thrash metal sound alone is insufficient to call it it's own subgenre. That's WP:NOTABILITY. ABC paulista (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  There really is no need for all of the sub-genres to be listed, particularly if there is not enough for a stand-alone article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Kinda agree, but I don't think that there is nay reason to remove them either since the template is still small-sized. ABC paulista (talk) 17:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

text: That could be seen as Genre warring, since WP:EXPLICITGENRES state that every genre must be explicitally attibuted to artists, bands and/or scenes to start being valid, at the same time that occasional mentioning of genres don't make them reliable or notable enough to be here. For genres, it's preferable if they have multiples sources citing them, even more if discussing their traits that make them their own thing. ABC paulista (talk) 18:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Genre warring is edit warring, wich is adding and/or reverting edits for a number of times (3RR), but I only edited once, and then went to the talk page. Oh, and I never explicitly said that I’m doing that, I could theoretically just build my own website and do it. ~SML • TP  18:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I was not talking about your action(s) about industrial thrash, but your idea of including all sourced genres in lists, because it open the doors for inclusion of non-notable microgenres or eventual short-lived fusions/influences, leaving the genre listing convoluted big time. Also, genre warring is similar to Edit warring in some points, but they differ a lot in terms of premisse since Genre Warring doesn't revolve around the edits themselves, but around the defense of some genres in particlular and eventual situations, be them inclusional ones or exclusional. Including situational genres cited by one person/source could be seen as genre warring. ABC paulista (talk) 18:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: For me, microgenres need a spot, but since conscencus apparently doesn’t want that, then I respect that. ~SML • TP  18:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Industrial thrash metal 

message: I'm proposing that we only have entries for articles, not paragraphs in articles. If we still want to keep sub-sub-genres, we should add them in parenthesis behind the article in which they appear rather than giving the impression that they carry the same weight that major genres and sub-genres have. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major articles only 

message: WP:PIPE is literally the most unnecessary guideline I’ve seen (in my opinion, it is, if you agree with that guideline, please don’t slam me). Why do genres such as progressive metalcore be used as progressive? I don’t think is necessary so the templates stays high-quality. ~SML • TP  00:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Guidelines are guidelines, so it must be taken into consideration. I could go even further by saying that the template should be trimmed even further per WP:EXISTING. ABC paulista (talk) 01:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

text: I think an application of piped links in this template doesn't make a whole lost of sense, unless it is in the context of a sublist of items removing some repetitive text from the head links item (i.e. metalcore and nu metalcore--> metalcore and "nu", as in the template today). --Izno (talk) 18:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pipe