Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Metal/Archive 1

message: I've started this project on Heavy metal music and it's sub-genres, to improve the standards of these existing articles and create missing articles. Join the Project by signing your name in the Participant's list.
New Rock Star 16:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

message: Somewhere far below this page, you described a fellow user as someone that has a problem with others disagreeing with him. I do not agree. IronChris was not the problem.
You are. You have been behaving in nothing short of an authoritarian manner over pages that you have been treating as your own private property.
Now, it seems to me that I was the one that sparked off the huge discussion on subgenre that had taken place in my absence. An absence that I would like to note was caused my disatisfaction of your self-appointed role here on the metal pages. I wish I had checked in on this page during that time because there is much that I would have like to contribute on. I do not know how many times I have seen someone on some page somewhere expressed a problem with you. On this page alone, one can easily find several instances. Do I need to compile a list of names and incidents? I hope not because I have better things to do with my time. Yet, you have continued to behave as if you are the dominatrix on a BDSM playground.
I would like to propose that something be done about it because I feel that you have been far more of a hindrance than a help towards improving the heavy metal pages on wikipedia. I would like to propose a vote. Specifically, I would like to ask the other members of the heavy metal project team and anyone else interested to vote on whether you should remain on the project team. But I suspect that both you and I can predict the results fairly accurately. What I would like to know is whether such a vote would even matter to you or would you still persist in treating wikipedia as your private playground? Added by user 86.132.129.13, but signed as Anarchodin 12:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, i dont care what you think of me, if you dont like working with me, avoid me. Do i act authoritarian? In the manner of demanding policys are kept to, yes. If you want a place you can violate any policy you like, try somewhere else. Im authoritarian in the sense of making sure policys are upheld. If you cannot handle policys being upheld, thats your own problem. 86.132.129.13 13:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It should be worth noting that this ENTIRE section of chat was added by one single person, and that the user in question has ALSO attempted to change his signature into that of Leyasu's. I'm not sure what's going on, but it is worth noting that it probably is not the whole truth. Sincerely, Logical2u 13:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dear Leyasu

message: The Edward the Great article under the To Do list allready exists. Should it be removed or moved to a done title? Absolute Zero 22:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edward the Great

message: Found the two missing Dokken album photos
Also, I have done a substantial amount of work on the Chuck Schuldiner page.
--Johnson542 09:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some work done

message: The Still Hungry ? article is not created. This article is of some other band. I have moved the article to the create list.
Metal Thunder मेटल थणडर|(Talk) 09:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Still Hungry

message: The List of heavy metal bands is in dire need of a clean up. As Fuzzypeg states on the talk page, "many of these band names are wikified, but the wikilinks take you to the wrong place" and many bands in the list don't have an article, some of them probably shouldn't be there anyway (no discography, etc.). It also needs a better lay out, maybe a similar one to the artist list on the industrial metal page could be used, it's very neat; apparently it's used extensively on the german wikipedia. I think it's an important page, and should be brought up to Wikipedia standards (which it certainly doesn't reach in its present state). What do you think should be done? --IronChris 02:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lets just start working. We should make articles for confirmed metal bands that come up as reds on the list, remove non-metal bands, and clean up links. I'll make it an official WikiProject Metal project. +Johnson 04:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have already done a lot of work on creating articles for death metal and doom metal bands and albums and I will go on. Natheless I agree with most of the above. Other List of * metal bands could use some work as well. Spearhead 10:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of heavy metal bands clean up?

message: See Still Hungry, and Still Hungry. +Johnson 04:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Still Hungry fixed

message: Hey, I just wanted to mention that I made a category for the metalhead subculture! If you would like to join, please go here
:Category:Metalhead Wikipedians
If this is irrelevant on this talk page then please feel free to delete. Thanks! (Wikieizor 11:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Metalhead Category

message: * Article: "is a cross-genre reference to metal bands characterized by large amounts of experimentation and by non-standard sounds, instruments, and song structures." Again, not sure, not convinced it's "core", Delete, not yet sure whether minor or cross-ref. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR="#000000">Dei</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF3300">zio</FONT> 13:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Avant garde metal]]

message: needs a complte rewrite, top to bottom. Big in albania 11:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: huh... why? It looks OK to me --– sampi (talk•contrib•email) 00:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, read my thought on the Black metal talk page. --XdiabolicalX 17:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Black metal]]

message: :: Thunder, please explain how you come to the conclusion the genre is a cross-ref? Ley Shade
I'd say this style is just a combination of Gothic rock/punk that started first with metal elements. I'd say it is as much a core genre as metalcore... which is. Daevin
: Deavin please explain how this has anything to do with Gothic Rock and/or Punk Rock. Can you please read the article on the subject matter as well. Ley Shade 08:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Gothic metal]]

message: * Keep. +Johnson 15:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Grindcore]]

message: * Article is clear as mud as to what this actually relates to. "American " and "European" power metal seem to be different sub-genres of metal. The US variant also seems to have a lot in common with "Progressive metal". <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR="#000000">Dei</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF3300">zio</FONT> 16:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Power metal]]

message: :*I notice you've just unilaterally deleted Speed metal from the template. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR="#000000">Dei</FONT><FONT
COLOR="#FF3300">zio</FONT> 17:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was done before i knew about this vote on this talk page. It can remain for now. But word of warning, if this is kept on, then ALL the Cross Genre References will have to go on. Ley Shade 18:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: *I would urge everyone to take a look at this article before voting "keep", it defines Speed metal as a crossover which is what we're trying to weed out from the core genres. Also, see next topic below. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR="#000000">Dei</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF3300">zio</FONT> 11:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One option would be to seperate crossover genres in the template. An example would probably be something like  which has regional variations on a new line. Alternativly, they could be put further down in an "Other topics" section. --MilkMiruku 01:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Speed metal]]

message: :: I have no intention of swaying your vote Deiz anymore past you reading the article. I do agree the article could be improved, as i originally had to do the whole article on my own with no help, so some help improving it would be much appreciated. Either way its on the List of heavy metal genres, so it doesnt matter if every genre and then some isnt on the template. Ley Shade 11:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The core genres in the heavy metal list and template will have to be coordinated. Non-core genres go to section 2, cross genre references. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR="#000000">Dei</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF3300">zio</FONT> 11:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, they wont.Core Genres and references are different things. Just sort it into Major and Minor - Major is whats on the template, Minor is everything else that is actually a genre. References are all the things already listed there. Ley Shade 11:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: So you're suggesting the list should have "major" (aka "core"), then "minor", then "cross-references"? Seems sensible, but it would have been nice to agree on this first so we could have voted major / minor / other in this poll. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR="#000000">Dei</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF3300">zio</FONT> 13:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Symphonic Metal]]

message: Building on an idea Ley Shade advanced above, is seems sensible that Template:Heavymetal will contain only the "core genres" - ie the ones "kept" from the poll, while the List of heavy metal bands should have 3 sections; Core (ie the ones on the template), minor (genres with a high degree of "distinct"-ness but not strictly core, and the cross-references, which can contain more or less anything with metal roots and a decent article behind it.
If this is acceptable, then a "keep" vote above is still for the core genres that will go on the template. It is also fine to vote "Minor" or "Cross-ref" instead of "delete", although as not everyone might feel like changing their votes we can sort out these two sections in the next stage of this process. Thoughts? <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR="#000000">Dei</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF3300">zio</FONT> 11:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Major / minor / cross

message: I am not particularly interested in music, but I've noticed a lot of switching around colors on the Infobox, and creating new, inappropriate tempaltes (such as template:Trashmetal, which I subst'ed). In any case, any change in infobox colors should be worked out with the Music genre WikiProject, which maintains a list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Music genres/Colours. Circeus 19:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct the colours then. Apologies for reverting the colour on Speed Metal, i forgot to change it to what you had when i reverted the silly anon. If you want to go back and fix it thats cool with me. Ley Shade 21:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just wanted to know if what was going on had to do with the project or random anons. thanks for confirming. Circeus 13:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What is going on with the colors?

message: Im calling attention to the above article. The article is currently the target for much vandalism, especially from the user Danteferno, who has been placed on 1R a day and has currently claimed ownership of the article and has forbiddon any and all users involved in this project from editing it. I would request that members of the project monitor this article closely for changes, and revert and clean up as and where neccesary. Ley Shade 12:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Gothic Metal]]

message: It would help greatly if new voters, particularly if new to the project, relatively new to Wikipedia and / or when voting against the "tide" of already cast votes, could give a rationale to support their vote which demonstrates understanding of what we are attempting to do with this poll and the heavy metal list and template, and the definitions of "core" (indicated by a "keep" vote), "minor" and "cross-reference". Also, it should be intuitive that participating in this poll indicates a willingness to abide by the results of consensus built by the poll. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR="#000000">Dei</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF3300">zio</FONT> 13:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The genres

message: * Strong Delete This section is plain ridiculous. It is by no means a subgenre of black metal, as the section states itself. It scores a miserable 652 hits on google, and thereby does not pass the google test. Either delete it, or prove its verifiability and notability. --IronChris 21:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Black metal#Faggoth|Faggoth]] (on the [[black metal]] page)

message: * Delete: even less hits on google than pirate metal, most of these bands (finntroll for example) can be considered as folk black metal, a widely accepted subgenre. --IronChris 21:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Black metal#Troll metal|Troll metal]] (on the [[black metal]] page)

message: * Delete: I have never heard of this subgenre, and it doesn't seem to have any clear differences from other black metal styles. The section states the controversy about this term that was made up by one band. "an audial image of war, using buzzsaw guitars, brutal blasting drums, and screeched vocals reminiscent of a war command" doesn't seem enough to justify the creation of a new subgenre. --IronChris 21:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Black metal#War metal|War metal]] (on the [[black metal]] page)

message: * Weak delete : seems unnotable by the number of groups, though is scores more google hits than troll metal (let alone faggoth). --IronChris 21:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pirate metal

message: * Weak keep: I think this article could be kept somewhere, though the black metal page is not the right place. The trouble is, it's very close to other genres such as industrial metal. Maybe a mention of it could be made there. --IronChris 21:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cyber metal

message: Please lets not get anal about it - I have a fear that we will decend into farce! --PopUpPirate 00:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What is, and is not, metal

message: As you can see I'm beginning to close the debates above. I'm starting with the ones clearly marked as Keep, as core genres. I propose leaving the others open for a further week, hence I certainly don't anticipate making any controversial decisions at this stage. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR="#000000">Dei</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF3300">zio</FONT> 16:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Closing

message: First off, im back, you can all worship me now xD
Second: I noticed someone setup another set of polls. Just to let you know, the polls are completely redundant. Things have been moved and merged and kept after AFD, thus you cannot 'delete' them, at all. Period. Unless you all want banning for AFD violation. That means, you can move them within reason, but NO information must be lost without very good cause. This applies to: Faggoth/Pakistani Stuff/Troll Metal/War Metal. That means, your whole voting process was made redunant.
Thirdly im moving the vote on core genres, and reopening all of them. All previous votes shall be kept and a time limit for ALL of them, will be induced. Ill also personally message every user thats part of this project to alert them of the poll.
You people just fall apart without me :P
Anything else anyone wants to ask, drop down my talk page. Literally, drop down it - its more fun than climbin up it xD Ley Shade 06:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Redundant? What are you talkng about? The ridiculous AfD's to which about 5 people participated, simply because no one was aware of them? If you were honest you would at least admit that the discussion above shows a clear concensus on deleting most of these section. Therefore I can only question the amount to which the AfD's reflect general opinion. For the Pakistani AfD, 5 people voted : 3 to merge with BM, one merge with Pakistani music and one keep. For the Faggoth section (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faggoth), 4 people voted, including the writer of the section and someone who wanted a derogatory term to classify Cradle of Filth. Talk about being representative! 7 people voted here, unanimously to delete. Please, be reasonnable and stop hanging on. Those AfD's are not representative. As <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR="#000000">Dei</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF3300">zio</FONT> points out, you seem to take all this into your hands, but you are not the only one here. --IronChris | (talk) 00:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not So Closed

message: On To do list subsection Expansion Album articles Perseverance (album) by Hatebreed is done so... DELETE it from the list, and you could add new albums to the list or... (Reply here) Death2 03:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What to do...=

message: I find it amazing the number of new members in just two weeks. As soon as we started all these hardcore changes, the membership probably more than doubled. I guess we pissed a lot of people off, and they said "if we can't beat them, we will join them!" I had to take a wikibreak there was so much anger going around. +Johnson 06:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New members

message: After a few days away from WP I find Ley Shade has decided to reopen the closed genre debates, moved the poll to a different page and changed / created the rules. This is getting far too complicated and new people voting don't understand what they are voting for. If those who had been involved from the beginning could have reached a common position we could have tried to enforce it. 10 out of 10 for telling project members about the poll, much less for making a useful contribution.
The new poll is not linked from the project page or this discussion page, until now. The list of topics above has seen some things removed, others left, others partially removed and should have been removed completely. The idea to vote major / minor / cross ref has been unilaterally binned by Ley Shade as part of a new selection of voting rules that have appeared from nowhere. Some votes were made under the old system and don't make sense now.
"You people just fall apart without me", hmm, things might have actually started to get done without you. This could just succeed in screwing up all the work we put in, and you could be left with a template full of cross-references. Well done Ley, I look forward to seeing what kind of formula you apply when closing the debates, as I'm sure you'll be insisting on taking full control over the outcomes. Looks like some clear cut answers just turned into a lot of "no consensus" because of a flood of new voters unsure what they're voting for (check out some of the comments on the new poll). AfD standards will have to apply and everyone will be watching. This is not the time to start creating future differences of opinion, if I had been around when you decided to do this (or if you had attempted to float new ideas before plunging in) I have a suspicion things would have been better in the long run. Now we'll just have to wait and see... <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR="#000000">Dei</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF3300">zio</FONT> 23:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: sticky

message: Ok, User:Leyasu and I have come to an agreement on which we will both discuss the following articles and decide the appropriate edits necessary:
 * 18:54, 16 April 2006 (hist) (diff) The Adversary (album) (rev per leyasu)
 * 18:53, 16 April 2006 (hist) (diff) City of Evil (rev per leyasu) (top)
 * 18:52, 16 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Black metal (rev per leyasu) (top)
 * 19:52, 16 April 2006 (hist) (diff) ReLoad (album) (Rv per Leyasu) (top)
 * 19:52, 16 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Black Metal (album) (Rv per Leyasu) (top)
 * 19:52, 16 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Welcome to Hell (Rv per Leyasu) (top)
 * 19:52, 16 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Painkiller (album) (Rv per Leyasu) (top)
 * 19:52, 16 April 2006 (hist) (diff) S&M (album) (Rv per Leyasu) (top)
 * 19:52, 16 April 2006 (hist) (diff) At War with Satan (Rv per Leyasu) (top)
 * 19:51, 16 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Slayer (Rv per Leyasu) (top)
 * 19:51, 16 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Ace of Spades (album) (Rv per Leyasu) (top)
 * 19:50, 16 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Cacophony (band) (Rv per Leyasu) (top)
 * 19:50, 16 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Helloween (Rv per Leyasu) (top)
 * 19:49, 16 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Load (album) (Rv per Leyasu) (top)
 * 19:49, 16 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Metal Black (Rv per Leyasu) (top)
 * 19:49, 16 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Chimaira (Rv per Leyasu) (top)
 * 19:49, 16 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Possessed (album) (Rv per Leyasu) (top)
 * 19:48, 16 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Speed metal (Rv per Leyasu) (top)
 * 19:46, 16 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Children of Bodom (Rv per Leyasu) (top)
 * 19:46, 16 April 2006 (hist) (diff) List of heavy metal genres (Rv per leyasu) (top)
 * 19:45, 16 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Venom (band) (rv per leyasu) (top)
The reason I am posting this here is so other users can see what edits have/are being/been made. Thus allowing other users to contribute their thoughts and opinions on what should be done. I am doing this so we have more than 2 heads working on these articles, and thus everyone's views can be considered while trying to construct better articles. Thanks --Ryouga 05:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed Page Edits

message: What to do with this article Iranian metal? I copied most of the content to Heavy metal in Islamic countries; altho it barely contains any content. It went to a farce AFD (was voted keep as "if it is that hard to play metal there, it must be notalbe"). Better redirect the Iranian metal page to Heavy metal in Islamic countries. Spearhead 21:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is fine. If you think it doesn't have enough content, go and find some content and add to it. Stop your efforts against these pages, it's just frustrating. It is not "better" to redirect to it anywhere. It is not better to delete it and its not better to do anything else but to improve them. There is no such thing as a shared scene between what you call 'Islamic countries', and Metal in Iran is distinctive as its mostly inspired by Iran and Iranian history and Persian traditional music being played in a metal fashion.  - K a s h Talk | email 21:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Iranian metal]]

message: As we seem to be going through genre articles to put a bit of order at the moment, I would like to know what other people think about the article epic metal. It seems to me to be very badly written, lacks references and overlaps greatly with other genres. Something has to be done, I would even consider an AfD as the article is very confusing in its present state and doesn't seem to add much, but the result would probably be keep (as usual). What do you guys think about it? --IronChris | (talk) 03:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  When asking for the AFD, explain the purpose of the AFD, show the poll thats being run, show the List of heavy metal genres, and explain everything as IronChris has done. Then explain the aim is to merge all cross-genre references into one article. Job done. Ley Shade 15:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Epic metal]]

message: If anyone here has the time, please check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Music genres/Assessment and update it with the status of metal related genres. This is being done in conjunction with WP:WVWP to try and get genre articles up to 1.0 standards. I've made a start by adding some metal genre articles but any help would be appreciated.
P.S. You might want to look at starting your own WikiProject Metal article assessment for related articles as it's a great way to keep track of what's needing work done. --MilkMiruku 01:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having read the article, im somewhat confused on how to effectivly use it. Is there not some place that we post articles for assesment? Ley Shade 21:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Improving genre articles

message: To many articles, some one has recently been adding Metal Observer reviews in the infobox. (E.g. see Testimony of the Ancients) The site itself does not have a WP article. I think that these are link spam and hence I usually remove them. What do you think? Spearhead 17:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure myself, seems fishy, but the best option would be to see if it meets WP:WEB requirements. --MilkMiruku 21:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Metal observer isnt bad, but not brilliant. They tend to write heavily biased on their tastes, leaving all their reviews completely lacking in neautrility. However, its a known site, and has a loyal base of readers. Id say it easily meets notablity, though i do see the person adding it as probally spamming. An easy way would be to check the users contribution history to make sure they are trying to be helpfull and not just advertising. Ley Shade 15:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think such links belong in the infobox. However, I see no reason why they couldn't go in an "External Links" section. Metal Observer has a rather extensive list of reviews, many of which concern relatively underground bands and albums which are otherwise difficult to research due to the lack of information and mainstream coverage. I use it myself occasionally. Rishodi 07:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: there are 1000s of these sites.... do we want to list them all.... or jsut pick some at random? Spearhead 08:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Discretion is a must. Rather than picking album reviews at random, I would opt to select a small number of the best written ones for inclusion in an external links section. Rishodi 09:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: In much the same spirit as our last poll then, we should probally hold another. Thus gathering the most prominent databases we have from across articles, or without, and holding a poll. Gathering as many databases as we can would be good, so people can vote for the Three/Four/Five most prominent ones to include, and which to not. Of course, this would mean that the decision is carried to all metal related albums, bands, musicians, and misc articles. However, this should at least allow for an extensive cleanup, and would also allow for us to have a database of websites from the ones not included for the project members to scour when looking for sources for creating new articles for bands, albums and musicians. Ley Shade 21:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Metal observer reviews

message: ATTENTION EVERYONE: June 6, 2006 (6/6/06) is National Day of Slayer. Please plan your schedules accordingly.
Website: http://www.nationaldayofslayer.org/
--Eastlaw 22:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ill pass, i fail to like Slayer of any of their music, and has such have no respect of them whatsoever. Ley Shade 15:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Haha great stuff! --PopUpPirate 23:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: National Day of Slayer: 6/6/06

message: The poll has closed, the results are as follows:
Keep, to be listed on Template:Heavymetal;
:*Black metal
:*Doom metal
:*Death metal
:*Folk metal
:*Glam metal
:*Gothic metal
:*Grindcore
:*Industrial metal
:*Neo-classical metal
:*Power metal
:*Progressive metal
:*Symphonic metal
:*Thrash metal
Further debate required, and not to be added at this time;
:*Classic metal
Everything else has been closed as delete.
As such, the template will be edited to reflect this consensus. Items not in the keep list can be removed from the template if re-added, with the rationale:
"Removing non-core subgenre, per results of Wikipedia:WikiProject Metal/Poll. Please raise questions and suggestions at the template talk page and the WikiProject Metal talk page."
Obviously, not everyone backed every winner - we have all gained and lost genres we like in this process, which is a design feature of building consensus. Any WP:HMM member or metal contributor is welcome to put any sub-genre up for debate on this talk page, provided they have a good-faith reason to do so. A template featuring the deleted sub-genres could also be created, perhaps Template:Heavy metal sub-genres.
I would also invite contributors to add their support by endorsing the findings of the poll. Strong endorsement will aid effective enforcement, and allow us to make this process mean something. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR="#000000">Dei</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF3300">zio</FONT> 02:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of them are obvious keeps as expected (death metal, doom metal, etc) others obvious deletes. Yet some genres might need some more discussion whether to include them or not. In particilar Classic metal as you said, Glam metal, Neo-classical metal, Speed metal, Symphonic Metal - seeing some mixed reactions with some good arguments. The problem probably lies in that these genres aren't well defined enough and the articles aren't helpful at all.Spearhead 17:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, but as I mentioned there has to be some give and take in all this. At the very least, the template has been nicely trimmed, and that's a hell of an improvement from a few weeks ago when it looked like the members of this project couldn't agree on what colour to wear to a funeral. I voted to delete several of the genres that made it and therefore have personal reservations about a couple of inclusions, but that's life. The more prolific members of the project will continue to do the bulk of the editing and housekeeping, and we now have a workable process by which we can propose genres to be in- or excluded from the template. If we could address some of the other problems we have (Black metal, Troll, faggoth and the sub-sub genres, Islamic metal etc.) with anything like the same kind of authority we would really be getting somewhere. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR="#000000">Dei</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF3300">zio</FONT> 21:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Metal/Poll]]

message: * This was the only debate that really needed more attention. Please vote to keep or delete, with reference to whether or not this is a core metal genre. As the article itself is not up for deletion from WP, the "rename" option is not available as it would be in a regular AfD debate. Any proposals for "Traditional metal" to be included on the template should be made separately. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR="#000000">Dei</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF3300">zio</FONT> 02:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Classic metal]]

message: Can someone tell me what is the conventional way for writing song and album titles? Should they be in italics, quotation marks, etc.? Is there a page about this (I couldn't find one)? If not maybe we should have a section about it on the main page (and if there is a page we could add a link on the main page). Thanks. Iron C hris | (talk) 23:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Album titles are in italics, songs are in quotation marks. WesleyDodds 01:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text: *Totally agree, that's what most WikiProjects do. The WikiProject Music seems to have these sorts of guidelines, but they're kind of scattered all over the place in various descendant WikiProjects. We should summarise them to make an easier reference for all members of our WikiProject. Iron C hris | (talk) 07:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about format

message: How about setting up something alike Wikipedia:Wikiproject Horror/Collaboration of the month. Spearhead 18:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me, and it wouldn't be too difficult to do. Iron C hris | (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll start it here: Wikipedia:Wikiproject Metal/Collaboration of the month Spearhead 20:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  I did a copy, paste and edit of the horror thing - should be pretty much working, but I'm no wiki template guru, so maybe some one should look at it Spearhead 20:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Collaboration of the month

message: Has anyone here heard of these guys? If so, do you dig them as much as I do? I wrote an artcle about Mind Over Four and I would appreciate your additions/edits/feedback. --Eastlaw 05:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Mind Over Four]] (the band)

message: Who put that Nu-metal needed to be merged with alternative rock. They are most certainly not the same thing. DG X 22:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at the user's page and he seems to have an obvious bias towards the genres. I didn't remove the listing since I'm not officially a part of the project (even though I work on a lot of the pages) but I suggest that it should be. I'm working on an expansion of the Alternative rock article, and there's no way the nu metal and alternative metal pages would be merged with it, since not only are they tangentially related, but like Heavy metal music and Punk rock alternative rock is an overarching term with lots of subgenres. WesleyDodds 01:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Nu-metal]] = [[Alternative rock]]

message: Have you noticed all the metal articles being continually spammed with a link to metallian.com? Sometimes they link to a metallian page that’s actually about the band, but usually it’s just metallian.com. I have alerted an admin about this. David Hain 04:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The metallian article's been put up for deletion. David Hain 10:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spam links

message: Hi, could I have some suggestions and aid for my hard rock wikiproject. DavidJJJ 17:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hard Rock

message: I would just like to remind everybody that there has been an endeavour to start a Metal Collaboration of the Month, and for the moment very few people have voted to nominate an article. If anyone is interested, please take a look at the Nominees and cast your vote. Thanks. Iron C hris | (talk) 20:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Wikiproject Metal/Collaboration of the month]]

message: I'm dubious concerning User:Walri's recent edits to Heavy metal music, bu i know nothing of the topic, can somebody please have a look? Circeus 00:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Walri]] edits to [[heavy metal music]]

message: Man, there's alot bands there; it's a bit daunting. Maybe we could trim the list down some...to say 5 or so and create a page for what's been edited out. Then when an article gets created from the main page move it out of the list there and replace it with one from the queue on the newly created page.maxcap 18:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should rename the section to include "Notable", because I don't think a lot of those bands would pass the Wikipedia:Notability (music) test. Skeletor2112 04:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked, all the bands have at least one full length release, and so pass the notability test. It's true that the list is long, but I don't see how we can decide which to remove and which to leave, if we decide to trim it. Maybe we should just leave it as it is. Otherwise I like the idea of maxcap, even though 5 seems a bit restrictive; maybe 10 is better. Iron C hris | (talk) 20:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could just pick out a random few, or have a vote, it doesn't matter. 5 is a small number, but I think someone is more likely to create an article if we keep the list short, and we wouldn't be throwing away the rest, they'd just be on a second page. maxcap 20:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  there is already such a page, see: Wikipedia:Wikiproject Metal/Collaboration of the month. It just isn't used yet. Spearhead 20:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That page is for the best improved article of the month. I will created a /To Do article, with the list of bands to do, and keep only 10 un the main WikiProject page. --Neo139 03:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: IronChris, one full length release is not enough to satisfy the notability requirement. See Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Musicians and ensembles. The album requirement is at least two albums on a well-known record label. (There are other ways to qualify).--Srleffler 05:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: How is one supposed to do to suggest a band? I made a page for Funeral Mist but it was speedily deleted with a reference to not being notable enough. There's definitely two albums on a well known label, and Arioch aka Mortuus now sings in Marduk for example. So what's the deal? Sixhundredandsixtysix 10:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Band Articles to be created" list trim(?)

message: * I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Metal/To Do to clean up the main article.
* Also i created Wikipedia:WikiProject Metal/Created to have a record of all the pages created by this project. At this moment there're only the articles that i had created.
* I checked all the contributions of all the participants and cleaned-up the ones that didn't contributed at all. (Before delete, i check every single contribution of the participant)
* I changed the order of the Articles contents. (The more importants at the beggining and the less at the bottom) For example participants was almost first, and it made people scroll to much, i moved at the bottom.
* I archived the talk of this article: Archive 1
I hope you like the new changes. --Neo139 04:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleaned up/New articles

message: Heavy metal umlaut is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 22:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Heavy metal umlaut]]

message: A user created the aforementioned genre and wants it listed in the heavy metal template. Participate in the discussion here: Template talk:Heavymetal#Hipster metal. Prolog 17:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Newly-created "[[hipster metal]]"

message: Is there a specified color for cassete tapes? like darkseagreen for a tribute album. If someone can help me out in this, post a message to my discussion page. Darksteel 13:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Black Metal Tapes

message: So, if I want to join this project, i just add my name to the list on the page?
WereWolf 13:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, as long as you make some contribution to the project, add your name and work on whatever bits you want to. Dace59 13:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Joining

message: I notice there isn't much in the way of promoting inline citations within Heavy Metal related articles, so can the Wikiproject somehow place a request for members/fans to actively add inline citations? Inline citations are important in articles and add to their credibility. Simply adding the information to the article is ok, but supporting inline citations are much beneficial. LuciferMorgan 21:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be added to do the to-do lists. Or someone could go and flag articles with the correct "needs citations" notices. Maybe notices on talk pages of the articles. Hmmm, in some cases it's the trouble of finding notable and varifable sources for Metal stuff. Maybe we should draw up a list of all the sites we can use for citations, so people can just skim those sites for info. Though other cases it simply just needs to get done. I'll admit a lot of the articles I've made probably need citations. Dace59 22:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actual music interviews with the artists in question I feel are the greatest articles to use for inline citations - I don't care much for other websites lest they contain interviews. LuciferMorgan 22:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Inline citations

message: Dream Theater is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 17:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Dream Theater]]

message: Iron Maiden is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 17:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Iron Maiden]]

message: Why do you insist that heavy metal and metal should be capitalized? I'm changing it for now. Michaelas10 12:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a member of this project, but one instance of an errant "H" does not an insistence make. Discuss. Bubba hotep 20:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Who insists and where exactly? Many users in this project, including myself, have been fixing instances of Subgenre Metal to subgenre metal, Metal to metal and so on. Prolog 21:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Exactly, there is no reason that genres need capitals -see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters). I only leave Subgenre metal as such in infoboxen. Spearhead 21:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, should the name of this WikiProject be moved to WikiProject metal? What are you suggesting to do? Michaelas10 (T|C) 00:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first letter is capitalized per Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide. Prolog 03:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitals

message: 67.185.73.31 has made a number of edits, mainly to Megadeth albums and mainly altering the track times - sometimes only by seconds, but usually quite large amounts (which are easier to spot). I have reverted some of them, but The System Has Failed is trickier because the vandalism occured a while ago and there have been several valid edits since. Thought I'd let you know. Bubba hot ep 09:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems his vandalism has gone unnoticed for a long time. I gave him a straight , so the next time he vandalizes he can be reported on WP:AIV. Prolog 16:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Widescale vandalism of Megadeth albums

message: This is a bit pompous isn't it?
"Also, first confirm that a band is really heavy metal and not hardcore, hard rock or alternative music."
Given that it's just about impossible to define these things in a way that satisfies everyone, wouldn't it be easiest to cover any loud guitar music?
I mean, some folks consider Motorhead to be hard rock, like Thin Lizzy or even early Status Quo. Lemmy himself talks about "rock" a whole lot more than he does "metal".
Just a thought. I know nothing. --kingboyk 17:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, just gotta have sources, this is wiki after all. That and there are other music projects that are there to cover bands in genres that sometimes sound like Metal. And having a loud guitar really isn't that important compared to how a band actually plays. Distorted guitar and vocals do not a metal band make. Generally they make mordern rock. But if this work is that bad, people can change it. Dace59 20:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with kingboyk - the metal/rock debate is frankly bullshit, and I'm rather tired of it. People can debate all day about what's metal and what isn't, and you can have a 100 inline cites saying someone's metal, and I guarantee another could get a 100 inline cites saying the opposite. Rather than debating over what is tedious BS, can't this WikiProject get off its ass and actually do some real work? Every damn article I see concerning Metal is riddled with possible original research as everyone here thinks they're a bloody music reviewer - NEWSFLASH - any critical comments on bands/albums must come from a reliable music reviewer and be fully cited. LuciferMorgan 21:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and removed the sentence. (We need some initiative here, dammit!!) Skeletor2112 06:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Project page

message: I think that since Pornogrind has been deleted, the these two articles should also be deleted and/or merged and redirected to Grindcore since they are even less notable than Pornogrind. Any thoughts?--Inhumer 17:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, and goregrind too Spearhead 18:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I personally think Goregrind in notable enough for its own article.--Inhumer 21:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is, unless all the articles for the subgenres of Grindcore are deleted and given a section in the main article explaining it and naming notable band of that particular subgenre.--Inhumer 21:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I too think that goregrind should stay, unless all of the subgenres are merged to main article. In terms of notability, it's in a different league than these two, which is proven by the number of Google hits. Prolog 07:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: see WP:AFD Spearhead 18:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Noisegrind & Cybergrind

message: I have done something that you posers should have done a long time ago and nominated Christian metal for deletion. Why was it allowed to stay here for so long? The Crying Orc 19:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notice

message: I could not believe no one has started an article for this excellent Japanese doom band...so I did it myself. Anyone who can provide input on Church of Misery, please do so, it would be much appreciated. --Eastlaw 06:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Update--User:Mr. Spunky Toffee has taken it upon himself to list this for speedy deletion. Please help explain why this is incorrect. --Eastlaw 07:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No doubt that was an incorrectly placed . Unsurprisingly, it came with an edit summary "die, band, die". I added a few external links to the article, as they even seemed to have an AMG page. Prolog 08:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Church of Misery

message: Is anyone going to begin using inline citations and remove weasly statements in metal articles they edit? LuciferMorgan 20:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously nobody could care less considering nobody has replied. LuciferMorgan 12:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: I've had a friendly word with the above user about changing genres on articles. Several of the articles they have recently edited have been the subject of disagreement, and in some cases protection. As a general point, admin help regarding controversial edits can always be found at WP:AN/I for content, banned user and other general problems, WP:AIV for vandalism, and myself at my talk page. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR="#000000">Dei</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF3300">zio</FONT> talk 00:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Cronodevir]]

message: I wasn't sure how to add this to the list of metal bands we cover, they are however glam metal to the max and are covered by this project (certainly if black metal is covered i refuse to let this not be covered). I've added the tag to their talk page.--I'll bring the food 20:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Great White]]

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:
* User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
* User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
* User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
* User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
* User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
* User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
* User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
* User:Badbilltucker/Science directory
and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory.
The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters.
It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now put the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 00:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Project Directory

message: BNR Metal has been listed for AfD here. This is a great website and I think it deserves an entry in Wikipedia, so let's see if we can keep it here. --Eastlaw 00:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I listed BNR as I'm not sure it meets the WP:WEB criteria (multiple, non-trival media coverage / independent, respected award / content hosted on a notable site independent of the creators), not because it's not useful. Please make any submissions to the AfD debate relevant to the :WEB guidelines, as comments such as "It's a great site" are likely to be given less weight by the closing admin. If it can be shown to meet the relevant criteria then I'm more than happy for it to have a WP article, but remember that deletion from WP will not wipe BNR off the face of the internet. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR="#000000">Dei</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF3300">zio</FONT> talk 00:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree it's a good source and very notable within the metal scene, but as I mentioned in the Afd discussion, it doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB. I'm adding a note to the main page Deletion section. Prolog 00:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: BNR Metal

message: ...has very similar habits to User:Cronodevir. I've given them a similar note (see above). <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR="#000000">Dei</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF3300">zio</FONT> talk 19:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Cheesera]]

message: This band is listed as Gothic Doom metal and it has been changed simply to gothic metal before. This band has never ever been anywhere related to doom. While their earlier releases are my slow and atmospheric it doesn't make them a doom metal act. They are simply gothic metal and they should be listed as such. Listing them as gothic-doom is misleading and embarrasingly incorrect. Blackserenity 06:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to change it back. Bring it up again if it continues to happen. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR="#000000">Dei</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF3300">zio</FONT> talk 13:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Deiz. I have fixed it up again and I will let you know if it happens again. Thanks for your help Blackserenity 14:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Entwine]]

message: I am currently proposing to add a statement on the Disturbed article. The purpose of this statement is to aknowledge the fact that many metal fans do not regard Disturbed as a "true" metal band. I have had some trouble since some users are quite protective of Disturbed's "metal" reputation. It would be helpful if those who agree with the statement give their opinion on the discusion page of the Disturbed article.
For more information: The proposition or talk to me on my talk page.
Thanks in advance for your support,
Long live good music,
--Zouavman Le Zouave 10:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disturbed

message: How about category Heavy metal bands with female lead singers? -- Panu 23:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there is :Category:Bands with female lead singers, I guess :Category:Heavy metal bands with female lead singers could be a subcat of it. Be bold and create it. Prolog 07:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category: Heavy metal bands with female lead singers

message: This page should be protected: The citations keep being replaced with wrong genres, and the page is constantly messed up by unregistered IPs. --Ryouga 02:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I listed the page for semi-protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. In the future, anytime an article comes under fire from those unregistered IP vandals(and there are enough reverts to justify a block), you can list the article there for protection. Thanks for the heads up! Skeletor2112 07:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Semi protection has been done I'd like to consider unprotecting in week or so and see what happens Gnangarra 14:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It is a shame -- the lock was going very well, and then (I assume) an IP had made an account, and had removed "metalcore" from the genre. Yet again, they added the mislabel "death metal" without sourcing or even bothering to remove my own sourcing for the "metalcore" genre (thus making the article messy yet again). These people ignore the three sources, and keep claiming the band to the extreme metal genres without proper sourcing or discussion. I was actually hoping we could unlock the page... oh well, I don't think they'll ever accept the "metalcore" label. Reverted the page. Not too sure what to say -- I guess I'll just have to continue to watch the page, now that we have a registered account making the unsourced claims. Thanks for the lock again though -- the constant rv. wars have definitely died down. I hope this account doesn't change the page again.
In addition: it is interesting to note the same account "MetalForever" removed Lamb of God from the metalcore band page, which was reverted immediately by another user, and this makes up two of the three edits s/he made. *sigh*...It is difficult to keep the metal articles clean with users like that... --Ryouga 23:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lamb of God

message: Is there actually a such thing as the "big four of thrash metal"? A google search indicates the term was invented here on Wikipedia. I suggest removal of the term from all Metallica, Anthrax, Megadeth, and Slayer as per WP:OR. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been around for a while, and certainly wasn't created by Wikipedia. Notice how I referenced it in the heavy metal music article. WesleyDodds 20:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The term has been used for years by music critics. Certainly didn't originate on Wikipedia - it was around long before Wikipedia was. LuciferMorgan 00:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, it is a common term (for thrash fans) that originated back in the late 80's, when those bands were the biggest American thrash metal bands. Cites are available, I've seen a few from the "Clash of the Titans" 1990 tour interviews with Megadeth, Slayer, and Anthrax - I can hunt a few down if it becomes a problem. Skeletor2112 05:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Big four

message: Does anyone know what the position is with LyricWiki? I've been seeing links to the site appear on lots of bands' articles, e.g. Iron Maiden and they have boxes that make them appear as though they're part of the wikimedia foundation rather than just an external link. Is there a policy against linking to pages with song lyrics? Timkovski 14:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless they own the rights, these lyrics sites are usually guilty of copyright violation. LuciferMorgan 22:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: LyricWiki

message: Just to let you all know, the Megadeth article is now up at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Support metal! Skeletor2112 06:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed the article had alot of weasel words. I removed some, but removing them all will take awhile as the article is pretty big. Check User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a: redundancy exercises Scroll down to the boxes and see how they take words like 'both', 'has' and 'also' out to make it sound more formal. I got up to question G in Excercise 1 and about halfway removing alot of 'the's. Also maybe check User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a. Goodluck with FA :) M3tal H3ad 09:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey dude, I reverted some of your edits for reasons explained here, although I am going through and implementing the stuff you mentioned. Thanks, Skeletor2112 09:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, sorry about that :$ M3tal H3ad 09:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries, I look forward to seeing Slayer up there as a FA one day, too! \m/ Skeletor2112 10:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Megadeth]] up for Featured Article

message: Myself and Michaelas10 (Talk) have been making big improvements to this article. Added over 40 references, moved sections, deleted sections, removed weasel words etc. But the lead is still too short. To get it to FA or GA i need to improve the lead. I was thinking someone here could help me with that. There is currently 3 paragraphs and one is way too short, and the second may be too short. Any advice, ty. M3tal H3ad 01:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey dude, I started a lead paragraph revamp on the Slayer article, with more to come later. Nice work on the overall article, it is much improved! \m/ Skeletor2112 07:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for that. I moved the 'big four' thing into the other paragraph so it looks better and both are related. The only thing this article is missing is that one citation. Thanks again :) M3tal H3ad 07:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea it looks much better with that sentence moved. Also, if you can find a cite, it might be good to describe a little bit about Slayer's style in the lead, somthing along the lines of "Slayer is known for their fast tremelo picked guitar style...double bass drumming...shouted vocals" type thing. Anyway, good luck! Skeletor2112 10:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Slayer]]

message: As part of my cusade against the "genre edit wars" that plague many band articles, I have made the following proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians#Genre wars and the distinguishing of genres and styles.I would appreciate feedback on this proposal. I am going to push hard for this proposal to be put into action, and I appreciate any supporters in helping me do so. Thank you. -- Reaper  X 01:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Distinguishing genres and styles, and ending edit wars

message: I added a pic to the Nightfall page, but I am not sure if it's the right one. Could someone confirm it?Animeguy99 17:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nightfall

message: I think band lists should be semi-protected as unregistered users add bands without articles on a regular basis.Inhumer 05:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I think the list of musicians should also be protected. I have participated on the list of bass guitarists, and I don't want to generalize, but unregistered users are usually the ones who add bands/musicians without articles. Zouavman Le Zouave 10:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to disagree. I know it is annoying, and alot of anons and new users add crap but there may be the 1 addition that is good, and the user just gives up because they dont want to register or request a change. I think it is up to this project to maintain the article integrity by keeping it on watch lists, etc etc. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It is not a good idea for many reasons. See protected pages are considered harmful. Prolog 08:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Band Lists

message: Over the past month Slayer went from this to this. I'm trying to get it up to FA standards and i need your help. If someone has some spare time, giving the article a copy-edit spotting out any grammar errors and such, it would be greatly appreciated, thanks! M3tal H3ad 11:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a little proof-reading then, and changed a few minor things, if that helps. --Dayn 12:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers, I put it up for GA, then will try for A-class before an FA nomination :) .M3tal H3ad 05:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Slayer

message: Hey, no idea if nu metal should be here, but I've recently been cleaning up lists of metal bands. Removing bands if their articles don't list said genre, etcetera...
Anyway, I'd like to ask some people here about a cleanup for list of nu metal musical groups. Compare to list of black metal bands and list of melodic death metal bands.
For one, I believe that the nu metal list should be formatted in the same manner as the black metal list. Why?
* "Active" does not need to be listed; one can see on the band's article if they're active or not. It's just a list of bands, and a band's music is forever.
* "Notable albums" can be nothing but a point of view.
* "Notes" largely refers to a genre disagreement, which would be best left on the band page itself.
* Hard to navigate. Not categorically alphabetised like the other lists.
With these reasons, I'd like to change this list to the other two lists etcetera, but I'd like some opinions. I've also removed a big section on that same page about "influential" bands which do not relate to the actual page's purpose.
Any opinions please, before I overhaul the rest? --Dayn 12:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've decided to leave the list as it is; however, I removed the "bands influential to nu-metal", as such a list, if it deserves to be around, would be better off on the nu-metal page. --Dayn 03:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nu metal list cleanup

message: Here. I doubt that this genre is verifiable as existing, and before I stumbled upon it, it was heavily plagued by nü metal groups, such as Slipknot and Mudvayne. I say it should be nominated for deletion. --Ryouga
:I agree. I have redirected shock metal to shock rock, prodded desi metal, Gaelic Doom Metal and jazzmetal, and nominated baroque metal for deletion (Afd). Prolog 05:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed for shock metal + genres listed by Prolog. --Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me! • See my edits!) 11:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with all those deletions. I 'd all of the prodded articles and added them to my watch list. If the prods are contested, i will list them for afd. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I ded it as orignial research. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Shock metal"?

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia Day Awards