Talk:Disturbed (band)/Archive 2

message: Wikipedia is a place for facts which can be backed up or proven, not rumors started by fans. Because of this i am removing the last sentence of the History section ("Disturbed is rumored to come out with an EP for these tracks sometime in 2007."). If someone can find an interview with the band where they state their intention to release such an EP, then by all means include the information in the article, and cite you sources (i find a release of this nature unlikely though, as all of the tracks mentioned have already been released on singles and imports).65.43.223.151 21:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually i removed both sentences concerning the b-sides and the EP. The b-sides are listed in the appropriate place in the article, and the fact that they leaked onto the internet is not something worthy of mention in an encyclopedia. If there are tracks released by a popular band, they will get leaked onto the internet eventually, regardless of how hard it is to obtain the cds which they are released on.65.43.223.151 21:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  B-side EP Rumor 

message: I changed the first sentence to say "Disturbed is an American Hard Rock band" as opposed to alternative metal; changed the list to the way it was meant to be; corrected a spelling mistake ("there" to "their"). Dan 00:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your changes are not correct and have been reverted. Read the ongoing (or, i actually hoped it was over) discussion, and talk/propose if you disagree. - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 02:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll leave that question unanswered, as i don't know if i should be angry or laugh about it. The bands music is very diverse, especially on their latest album. While there are many influences which give some of their tracks clear touches of hard rock and/or heavy metal, alternative metal is clearly the best way to describe their overall style. Calling them a plain hard rock band is rediculous. Have you ever heard someone put Disturbed in a line with AC/DC? I have not. - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 17:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That's not my part. You find a term that describes their musical style better than alternative metal (which by the way is very broad and loose term), bring it on. - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 03:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I do not agree with these definitions. Many different sources may have different definitions of the terms, but hard rock could also (by many people) be considered as the category that includes band such as Led Zeppelin or Deep Purple. I think the alternative metal term is correct enough. --Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me! • See my edits!) 10:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. The probable fact that you end up with the same words when describing Disturbed, and when describing hard rock, does not mean they are the same. Disturbed may have a hard rock influence, but are in general nothing alike bands you would consider hard rock bands. - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 01:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miscellaneous Edits 

message: Changed some stuff in the B-Sides section: "God of the Mind" is not available on MOL; "Loading the Gun" was changed to "Loading the Weapon," the appropriate name, and changed from Live Metallica Cover to Live Instrumental... Dan 23:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: New edits: Changed some stuff in the b-side section; A Welcome Burden only live on MOL; Perfect Insanity video on MOL.  Dan 19:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: More; I reworded/added some stuff in the third paragraph.  Dan 00:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: NEW: I got rid of the "Fade To Black - Live" under the B-Sides section.  It was not released in studio, and (as a previous person mentioned when he edited it) is not a b-side. Dan 03:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Edits 

message: What are the sources for The Rising EP.  I Haven't found it anywhere, I suspect this is a rumor at best and misinformation at worst. 69.112.90.243
:i have heard nothing about this and i know that awhile ago i had to edit out rumors about an EP. maybe this was added by the same person who added the original "new EP" info?65.43.214.242 10:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  i just googled it and the only places online talking about it refer to wikipedia as the source for said information. i've removed the info for the time being as all of the song titles sound to juvenile to be disturbed songs, and if it were to be a sneak peak of their new material, would it really be coming out in December of this year? if they've already headed into the studio, i highly doubt it would take them a full year to have any material ready for a "preview" EP.65.43.214.242 10:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, good call.  Unverified info doesn't belong on wikipedia. 69.112.90.243 03:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You misunderstood what that said; it said The Rising EP was a sneak peak of their upcoming album, which would be released in December.  That means that the actual album will be released in December, whereas the EP was apparently already released.  I did not add that information, by the way, I just wanted to clear that up.Dan 15:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: um... ok... that doesn't change the fact that said EP does not exist. and regardless of my understanding of it, don't you think that december is a long way off for an album that they're recording now? i understand what you are saying, but i was merely stating one of many reasons that i thought that the info was BS. i think you are the person who added the info, you just don't want to admit to it... j/k but srsly, who cares?68.255.174.138 16:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Nowhere did I say that the EP exists, I was just clearing that up, as I stated.  I agree that if they started working on this record at the end of 2006, then it wouldn't take them a year, however; I'm guessing a September release date (I believe the last two albums were released in September). Dan 03:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rising EP 

message: Just removed a couple of edits saying disturbed broke up yesterday. Since neither vh1 nor RS has anything about it, this seems to be nonsense. Of course i could be wrong, so if i am, just revert my edit and please write here where you got the info. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 01:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits about break up. 

message: Why is Disturbed listed of the "List of Doom Metal Bands"?
DemonOfTheFall27 20:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for bringing that up... I fixed that... Disturbed are nothing like doom metal... Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me! • O)))) 21:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doom Metal? 

message: I am tried of people coming onto wiki and just cuz' they THINK that a band is one genre instead another changing stuff and all of the sudden people are having an edit war and then the article suffers. so please just leave disturbed at Nu Metal for an example look at the guns n' roses talk. thank you.GuyDoe 22:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The matter of the genre has been discussed thoroughly and the edit war is over for quite some time. What exactly is your concern? ~ | twsx | talkcont | 10:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Because that was the consensus of previous discussions. You can always propose change by making a new topic here. But if you do, i propose you do it in plain and understandable language. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 00:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sigh

message: i am sorry i didn't make myself clear, but i will try to do so now. disturbed is a nu metal band. some of there songs fall under the alt. metal genre. the article has info that is in the wrong spots. also the article's paragraphs aren't titled. i would have made the nessisary changes myself but 1.)my grammer is not all that great and 2.) thats how edit wars start. disturbed is my favorite band and i would love to see their article reach good article status. so please help me. i am not trying to dictate, i'm trying to get help.GuyDoe 23:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As twsx said, we have already had lengthy discussions about the genre.  It's fine how it is.  As for the titles for each section, I hardly think it's necessary - it's only one section, and it's the history of the band.  You may think that the article isn't good enough, but I think it's fine, and no one else seems to have a problem with it.  Dan 01:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: unclear no more

message: First it helps to have the albums placed under a main heading ex.
albums with three ='s
then put the sickness-believe-ten thousand fists.
under each put all the info that applys to the album. after albums
put band members that would be the place to put fuzzes leaving. then b-sides and covers. other than that i have no other ideas. i'm not telling you guys what to do i'm just suggesting. we could get to be good article.GuyDoe 23:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh... what? Dan 23:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Dan. Dude... wait, what? ~ | twsx | talkcont | 09:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: article improvments

message: The title's a little harsh but someone added this excellent line:
"Disturbed was also involved in an onstage fight with a band named Finch. Finch, beat their ass."
Yes, I've heard of this fight (comments off of IMDB forums), but seeing as there are no references (and what I read said that Disturbed, in fact, won) and that this comment is obviously the ramblings of some fanboy, I have deleted it.  Dan 04:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job, but it is not necessary to document every reverted vandalism on the TP. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 04:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I realize that, but I felt like "ranting" at him.  ;) Dan 14:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me!) 17:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moron's Edit 

message: I have noticed that the chart positions are often modified by new users or unregistered users. I do not know if it is vandalism, but I recommend that those positions be checked by a viable source (it shouldn't be too hard to find) in order to prevent what could be vandalism. 
Hope this might help the article be better!
Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me! • See my edits!) 17:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still the same. I suggest removing them. Sourcing this would be overkill, and the info seems irrelevant. Any objections? If not, i will remove them in a couple of days. (Or you can do it Zouave if you want :D). - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 16:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: All done. - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 21:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken the time to fully source the singles chart position table, and have placed it back into the article. -Panser Born- (talk) 10:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well then. I suggest we keep an eye on the edits, and revert any unsourced changes to the positions. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 06:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chart positions 

message: Why are all the pictures being deleted?GuyDoe 00:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the reason why that person speedy's all the images is most likely because he doesn't like the band. Nevertheless, he is right, the images are poorly described and meet the criteria to be deleted. I don't care enough right now as i am too busy, but if someone finds the time to gather sources and info to have them be kept, do it. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 08:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I'm quite a large fan of the band. =) Anyway, the reason the images are up for speedy deletion is described on their image page. -Panser Born- (talk) 16:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Now here is another question: why are the pictures still here today, 6 days after the deadline? Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me!) 17:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because there's a hideous backlog of images waiting to be deleted, and there's only so many administrators that devote time to deleting them. -Panser Born- (talk) 19:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Shouldn't we comment out the pictures, since they're deleteable? Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me!) 16:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no reason to, and this is one of your most rediculous approaches ever, Zouave. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 22:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I was just wondering. I think it looks very cheap on the article to see under each image "this image is a candidate for speedy deletion"... Oh, and you mean "ridiculous", right? I know I can be stupid sometimes, I'm sorry. :p Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me!) 23:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: why

message: I like whut youve done with the article but the link to john moyers page gos to a very unwikipedia qulity article about a comedian. this needs to be fixed and the article about the comedian like destrored cuz' its not in the right format. and if you are going to keep disturbed on a alt metal you need to remove them from the nu metal article.GuyDoe 01:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, I don't know what happened to the article. Disturbed can be on both alt metal and nu metal, it doesn't have to be in "only one category". Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me!) 09:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Someone deleted the whole article and used it for this comedian. Reverted. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 14:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: col

message: I feel a lot like deleting that section. Anyone to disagree? Reason is, it is completely redundant. I'm sure it has been in even way more TV shows than are listed, even if it was only for a moment in a scene. But what does it matter? In a TV show, you often get to hear numberous music tracks in just one episode, just as some kind of "background" to the scene, or even less than that. It has no value to the article or the band whatsoever. Asdf! ~ | twsx | talkcont | 10:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah. It's just information relating to a band, mate so it's neither here nor there whether you delete it or not. Anyway, there's probably a few fans that would be delighted with any reference to their favourite artists. I'm sure you know what people can be like with their favourite "thing". Just look at Trekkies. No offence to any Trekkies, mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.107.84 (talk • contribs) 
Sorry for not signing that last post dude. I'm kind of new here. Didn't think it mattered that much. IronHead42 20:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I was actually going to propose this, then realised you'd already done so. =) I think it should be deleted as well – it's just excess non-notable information. Not to mention the fact that it's completely unreferenced. -Panser Born- (talk) 10:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My GOD, since when has info like that been irrelevant? A LOT of bands on Wikipedia have those sections. There's a reason for that, since it shows that the band is popular enough for their songs to be used somehow. Are we supposed to say that such people never USED the music? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darkpower (talk • contribs) 21:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it's not that notable pretty much any band on a major label that's sold more than 250,000 albums is going to have their merch worm its way into visual media. also the argument of "several other wikipedia pages have similar lists" is not a good one. just because all of those articles have them, doesn't mean that they should, and i've seen a couple articles where the lists got pulled cuz really, it doesn't have anything to do with the band.68.255.173.144 12:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: 2 user votes for, 1 anonymous vote against. Any more? ~ | twsx | talkcont | 08:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we need to achieve any kind of consensus - the list appears to be against WP:UNENC anyway. -Panser Born- (talk) 11:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Aye, it is settled then. Removed the list. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 11:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TV shows 

message: Hi it's me again. just readin though and the last sentence in the 3rd paragraph says the band started music as a weopon. shouldn't it be then the band started ect.GuyDoe 21:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could fix the grammar yourself. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 23:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Fixed, thanks for pointing that out. If you notice any other problems, feel free to correct them. =) -Panser Born- (talk) 14:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: i don't trust my grammer skills enough to fix most of them but the simple stuff is cool.GuyDoe 21:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: grammer

message: :Image:Disturbed - The Sickness.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 Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Disturbed - The Sickness.jpg

message: Where in the blue blazes did the pictures go? There were two pictures here at one time, one main picture, and one of the band live, where did they go and why, after so much time, have they not been replaced?--Revrant 13:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I nominated them for deletion because they had no fair use rationale. Presumably they haven't been replaced because no one has found a free image of them yet. -Panser Born- (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that's just wonderful, I'd give the effort but even legitimate rationale probably wouldn't do it, as seen in the above comment, I suppose one would have to take the pictures themselves or find freely available promotional shots...Oddly enough, the exact kind that was once their main picture.Revrant 01:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: i don't know if you guys watch spike tv but there is this new show/awards cereimony that is featureing disturbed. the show is guys choice and the catigory is ballsyest band. its disturbed vs. lamb of god. i have more info i wanted to check with u guys first before i put it into the article.GuyDoe 19:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I posted the update, but someone deleted it.  I don't see why.  25,000 people voted on it/ it was broadcast internationally/ The band itself accepted live/ they discussed dedicating to members of the military and major newspapers deemed it worthy to cover.  I think it should be re=added Frog47 15:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Let's see. First, because it's not an award? Merely a meaningless title given by a random show. For that matter, best it deserves would be a sidenote. Secondly, it's importance sums up to zero? If you we're able to find good and strong references, probably, but you did not. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 18:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Though I agree that the award is not that important, it still does deserve some sort of mention.  References shouldn't be too hard to find, couldn't you just go to the show's website? Dan 18:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The small section is without any meaning, and the award seems to be totally worthless. No reliable source telling otherwise is given. Bring up something, or i will remove it in a couple of days, and take it to WP:AN if needed. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 07:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The award is not without meaning; if nothing else the fact that Disturbed won an international poll is notable.  Further, a simple google search of Spike TV Guys choice awards brings up many refs.  The band itself thought it worthy enough that they all showed up to accept it, then dedicated it to another group of people.  Viacom, which owns Spike TV also owns MTV and puts on the MTV music awards and MTV movie awards.  The Mtv awards are sourced all through wikipedia. Frog47 15:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: awards

message: This entire article needs sourcing.  I've gone through and marked specific unmarked claims and will begin sourcing them one by one shortly. Frog47 15:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: if this is a part of wiki project metal then should't it say so in the top of this page? just wondering. and just for the record i think the mantlers/award should be in the articleGuyDoe 02:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does say so at the top of this page. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 05:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: start class?