Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Metal/Archive 2

message: Once again, someone has nominated Church of Misery for deletion here, even after I noted the notability guidelines on its talk page. Can we please take some steps to keep this article?
Also thanks to User:Prolog for the good words on the Afd. --Eastlaw 06:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like we're in the clear for Church of Misery. I posted their complete discography and found some info on their most recent Eurotour to add to the article. It has a lot more content and shouldn't be questioned again. Olliegrind 23:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AfD for [[Church of Misery]] (again)

message: Holy crap he has such a tiny article plz make it bigger for metal's sake!! Mighty Zeus 04:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Concerning Rob Halford

message: :Category:2000's Retro Metal movement, what the hell is this category for & about? Diabolical 09:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After going through the guys edits it sticks out like the standard case of My favourite bands list â€”The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.153.42.129 (talk) 13:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: This "retro metal" was deleted just two weeks ago through and Afd. It looks like the editor was not happy with that, so he re-created the article and the category under a different title. It seems to be very similar to the old article, so I tagged it with . Prolog 17:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Apart for a few bands there doesn't seem to be any main theme either, because there is nothing retro about Boris or Nocturnal Breed, especially not in the sense of the other bands such as Wig Wam or Wolfmother. Diabolical 21:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I posted on the talk page about the same thing. I don't see how you can put Boris and High on Fire in with those bands. He even had Bathory in there! I took the liberty of removing Bathory and am waiting for a reply from the creator before removing Boris and HOF. I also see someone has put it up for speedy deletion which is probably for the best. Olliegrind 23:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 2000's Retro Metal movement

message: :Category:American heavy metal musical groups This category has a few subcategories - Dark Angel (band), Louisiania heavy metal and Maryland heavy metal. I created the MD one and added it but it seems we should either split this up by state or not split it up at all. I feel the cat is pretty long and would be very long and not very useful if we put all American HM bands in. Splitting up by State seems that it would be much more useful. Any thoughts? Olliegrind 18:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, :Category:Heavy metal musical groups has a ton of bands in it and it has 2 subcats - :Category:Heavy metal musical groups by nationality & :Category:Heavy metal musical groups by genre. Shouldn't all the bands in the HM musical groups be but into the subcategory of their country and genre and be removed from the top level cat? This would be a large untaking but I feel that it would be worth it and make the categories extremely more useful. I don't want to put much effort into it until I get some more opinions.Olliegrind 01:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Category:American heavy metal musical groups

message: I just did an inactive sweep to see how much members we actually have. Members with no edits in the last 3 months(or decent amount) were moved onto the "inactive list". Half the peoples last edits were signing up to this project :|. M3tal H3ad 05:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This project is rubbish anyway - 99% of the people here add crufty rubbish to the articles, like they're masturbating over their fave metal bands. LuciferMorgan 23:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't agree with LuciferMorgan's comment. Many people help contributing, if YOU don't like the project, stay out of it --Dexter prog 01:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Insulting fellow editors is not going to improve this project, so please be civil. Prolog 03:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the project would be good, only it adds a ton of fancruft to every article. M3tal H3ad and one or two other editors actually edit metal articles without adding cruft. I'm not the only person who has commented on how awful this project is, and heavy metal's coverage on Wikipedia is in general. Typical cruft is saying X band "was influential in this subgenre and that subgenre" or this band "sounds like a cross between this band, this genre etc." - all original research without appropriate citations. Rather than add crap, add proper info, proper citations etc. - Megadeth and Slayer are examples of what Metal on Wiki can be. LuciferMorgan 00:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inactive sweep

message: The article about Meta-Metal has been created today. There is only one article that links to this page and I couldn't find any mention of it neither at Heavy metal music nor at List of heavy metal genres. Is there really such a sub-genre of heavy metal? Jogers (talk) 13:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I know of, and I have pretty good knowledge of the subgenres of heavy metal. I'm going to do some research and if I don't find anything conclusive, I'm going to put it up for deletion. Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me! â€¢ O)))) 14:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You can find the google search here with 27600 results. Most of the results talk about metal in the chemical sense of the term. After looking here, it seems to me (after very very few research, so this is just a guess), that meta-metal is used as a synonym for proto-metal, traditionnal metal, or hard rock. Could someone look into this? Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me! â€¢ O)))) 14:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be another recreation of retro metal, but with a new title this time (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Retro metal). The term is still unverifiable and non-notable, so if this article does not meet , it should be prodded or nominated for deletion. Prolog 14:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll vote to delete it. Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me! â€¢ O)))) 14:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I prodded it now. You can add  if you agree. Prolog 14:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Isn't it speediable as a re-creation of AFD'ed an article (yet under a diff name)? Spearhead 14:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It didn't seem to be very similar to the article that was deleted through Afd process, so I didn't tag it for speedy deletion. The recreation before this one, 2000's Retro Metal movement, was speedied, though. Prolog 15:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Meta-Metal

message: If anyone is a singer in a metal band, they can use the userbox  which looks like this: . Asics talk Editor review! 18:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Metal singer

message: Should we extend the scope of this project to the ambient / acoustic / neofolk bands like Nest? It is listed on The Metal Archives. Ã“Ã°inn 09:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Styles inclusion

message: Michael Norkus 02:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just thinking: how about making something with several titles inside, like: "This user can carry on through the fire and the flames of a sonic firestorm"... what do you think? Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me! â€¢ O)))) 19:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[DragonForce]] Template

message: I have just created the Megadeth Wikiproject. But I think that the scope is too narrow (just Megadeth) and I think that the Metal Genre WikiProject is too large of a scope to handle everything. I propose that we make a WikiPrjoect Big Four, or something to that effect to cover the Big Four American Metal bands, Metallica, Megadeth, Slayer, and Anthrax. I'm eager to hear any opinions. Adumbvoget 08:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is such a good idea. I would choose to leave it in the scope of the WikiProject Metal, but it's only my opinion. Now if some people are really up for it, I wouldn't mind. Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me! â€¢ O)))) 20:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm up for it, but I think it would be better to have it as Wikiproject Thrash metal. Doppelganger E 02:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. We should maybe think about doing a series of WikiProjects for big subgenres. Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me! â€¢ O)))) 10:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm saying nothing, as I deem the Metal Wikiproject to be a resounding failure to be honest. LuciferMorgan 04:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal Big Four Wikiproject

message: On an unrelated note, who's the main instigators in this Project, as I'm keen to know. Thus far, most expanded band / musician / album articles have been avoid of citations and structure, and would only be Start class at best. What plans and actions have there been to address this? What solid efforts are there so that more Metal related articles become GA / FA? It just seems that so far the Project has failed to have any direction, or to make any impact. LuciferMorgan 18:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. We should try to focus on making big bands (with big carreers and impact) go to featured status (I'm thinking of bands like Slayer, Black Sabbath, Metallica) instead of making thousands of stubs for bands that have a very small audience. I could help, but I am in fact more knowledgeable of the small underground bands ^^ Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me! â€¢ O)))) 19:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Slayer is already featured... Metallica's in the scope of the Big Four Project, but I've yet to see them do anything. as concerns small underground bands, you could always get one or two to GA if you were interested in doing so. That'd be cool I also wish to propose an assessment scheme per other Wikiprojects for this Project - ie. rate them Stub, Start or B, unless they've passed GA / FA. How would this be implemented? It'd be good to get that off the ground so we can assess the achievements of the Project. LuciferMorgan 19:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Curiosity...

message: Recently the Project has implemented an assessment scheme to asess the quality of its articles, of which more can be explained at our assessment page. An understanding of our page should help you in understanding what this entails.
The problem at the moment is that most articles are unassessed; your assistance as a Project member in addressing this is humbly requested. Unassessed articles can be found at :Category:Unassessed Heavy Metal articles.
Another problem is that most articles within the scope of the Project remain without the  tag. In this I mean metal bands, metal musicians and metal albums / songs. If people could add the  tag to those articles in the scope of the Project and preferably an assesment rating at the same time, this would be great.
Once all this has largely resumed its course, we can then have firm confirmation of where the Project is at. Once we have that, we can then discuss and implement measures to improve the performance of the Project. Thanks for your time. LuciferMorgan 09:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly agree. Doppelganger 17:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment scheme

message: PS - One major problem of the Project is the focus on creating articles, which needs to be addressed. We need to raise articles from the level of Stubs and get them to B / GA / FA. Please review WP:GA?, WP:FA? and especially WP:CITE and WP:PR to give you tips on article improvisation. LuciferMorgan 09:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly agree. Doppelganger 17:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A certain problem of the Project...

message: Heavy metal music has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 09:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Heavy metal music FAR

message: Okay here it is:
What do you think? Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me! â€¢ O)))) 20:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-mallcore userbox

message: Hi guys, when a very good "peer review" of this nice article?? When?? --[X-S] â€”The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.55.128.111 (talk) 13:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Motorhead: Peer review and later featured article?

message: Okay, we seriously need to come up with a standard for these. Some articles for band members are titled by a person's real name (e.g. Jan Axel Blomberg), whereas others are titled by their pseudonym (e.g. ICS Vortex). There needs to be a standard already, because it's really bothering me, and it makes all the black metal pages harder to keep consistent with wikilinking. = âˆ« tc 5th Eye 17:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, personally I think that we should get the pseudonym as article title. Other artists that use pseudonyms have their stage name as their article title: James Blunt (real name James Blount), Prince, etc. However, if people disagree a lot, we could always decide that the name that gives most Google results will be used as title for the article. Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me!) 19:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After some though, I have come to agree. (The article stage name obviously supports this.) List of black metal bands would probably be a good places to start looking for names to fix. = âˆ« tc 5th Eye 21:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on what they're better known by. LuciferMorgan 22:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. In fact, this is the Wiki guideline; the title of the article should be the most notable name. WesleyDodds 04:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Band member pseudonyms for article titles