Template talk:Heavy metal music

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Metal (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
Archive
Talk archives:
*Archive 1

Color contrast - accessibility[edit]

Hi. In support of Gnevin's edit, Wikipedia:NAVBOXCOLOUR#In_navboxes states that color different than default can be used "when useful for identification and are appropriate, representative, and accessible". In this case, white on red is accessible. But it is not useful for identification nor representative. Thus the default colors can be used.

Walter Görlitz expressed the concern that blue on blue (the default colors) is not accessible. The reasoning is correct, but this default colors were carefully tested for accessibility. Testing with the tools listed at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Color provides the following result.

  • Foreground: #0945AD - Background: #D0CEFD
  • The contrast ratio is: 5.6:1
    • Text passed at level AA
    • Large text passed at level AA
    • Large text passed at level AAA
  • Contrast (Minimum): Text (and images of text) have a contrast ratio of at least 4.5:1, except if the text is pure decoration. Larger scale text (at least 18 point or 14 point bold) or images of text can have a contrast ratio of 3:1. (Level AA)

In short, this contrast is compliant to the standard level of contrast required (AA level). Cheers, Dodoïste (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. For those who don't know, the letter ratings above relate to WCAG 2.0. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Also best to remember not to color/hide the links. As per WP:COLOUR - "Links should clearly be identifiable as a link to our readers."Moxy (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Do lyrics define the genre or is it something else[edit]

A consensus was changed here here and here with the reasons: "these aren't subgenres of metal" and "these terms refer to the lyrics only". Excellent bold edit. They were reverted here. An edit war ensued without discussion. Overall this the is difference.

  • First edit is intact
    • Cello rock is piped to Cello metal
    • Crust punk is piped to Crust
    • Death-doom is no longer piped to Death/doom
    • Digital hardcore, Electronicore and Nintendocore removed
  • Christian metal, Pagan metal, Pornogrind and Unblack metal are still in the article since they have stand-alone articles. Should they be moved to a different section of the template because they don't differ radically in musical style from other music-only genres, removed completely, should they be left as-is, or something else? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't know. It's hard, because IMO a ganre can only be defined by it's aesthetics, which excludes definitions via lyrics. But still, we don't work here with opinions, but with sources. And all genres that Asarlai removed have their own article, and all of them have sources that relate them with another metal genres (even Digital hardcore and Electronicore have).
  • Christian metal seems to be some kind of an umbrella term (just like Extreme metal) for all metal with christian lyrics. So it seems to be a legit genre.
  • Pagan metal is already linked as a subgenre in the Black metal's article.
  • Unblack metal seems to have the same aesthetics as Black metal, but still it has it's own article and sources.
  • Pornogrind, alongside with Goregrind, both have a more complex situation. They seem to be part of a fusion genre known as Deathgrind, but with more focused lyrics. For me, both Pornogrind and Goregrind should be merged to the Deathgrind's article. But still, they fall on the same situation of Unblack metal, which was described above.
I wanna utilize this section to say that I have intention to add the Dark metal and Latin metal in this template, but I'm not sure of it because there's some questions about those 2 that aren't well solved, consequently, their articles aren't well established. I want your opinions about them too.ABC paulista (talk) 19:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Music genres are defined by more than lyrics alone. For that reason, I think we should keep Christian metal, Pagan metal, Pornogrind, Unblack metal and National Socialist black metal out of this template. They refer to the lyrics only; not to a particular sound or style. However, if most editors want to keep them in the template, then they should be put under "Notable scenes".
I've no problem with adding Latin metal, but I'm not sure about Dark metal as there seems to be no agreement on what it is. ~Asarlaí 20:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
As I said before, I agree with you about that when I said "IMO a ganre can only be defined by it's aesthetics, which excludes definitions via lyrics". But, the sources in their respective articles treat them as particular subgenres. I don't think we can fight against those. And no, they have nothing to do with a scene.
IMO, Pornogrind and Goregrind should be merged on the Deathgrind's article, since they refer to the lyrics only.
Unblack metal and NSBM, as I can recall, are treated as ideologies, not as subgenres...ABC paulista (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
If a genre has enough merit for an article, it should be listed. Our job is to determine the best way of presenting that information to avoid confusion. Perhaps, the Subgenres section could be broken down further so that black metal and other primary sub-genres are listed more prominently. See Template:Extreme metal for an example.
I'm biased toward Christian metal and unblack metal. They, along with pagan metal are more than just a difference of lyrics, they are also a meeting point of two cultures: metal and a belief-system. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Sure, but genres aren't defined by the lyrics or beliefs of the band members alone. If that was the case, then every topic would be its own genre: Sex Metal, Drinking Metal, Sci-Fi Metal, Mythology Metal, Socialist Metal, and so on.
Christian metal, Pagan metal, Unblack metal, National Socialist black metal, Pornogrind and (possibly) Goregrind are terms based on lyrics alone. All the other kinds of metal here are based on much more than lyrics. Thus, the two don't belong together. Christian metal, Pagan metal asf are more like 'scenes' or 'subcultures'. If we choose to keep them in the template, they shouldn't be lumped in with other well-defined genres like death metal, black metal, thrash metal, doom metal, asf. To treat them as if they're all the same is misleading. ~Asarlaí 21:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we should create another sections in the template, something that behave articles about ideologies within genres, like Unblack metal and National Socialist black metal. Also, it's hard to determine what's "primary" and what isn't... ABC paulista (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. If we're going to keep them in the template then they shouldn't be put with the rest, because they're not the same. We could put them in the "Notable scenes" section and re-name it "Notable scenes and subcultures". ~Asarlaí 23:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I really, really disagree with putting them with the scenes because they aren't a regional phenomenon or something like that. I'm more favourable to create a new, entirely different section for them. ABC paulista (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
What do you suggest we name it? "Ideologies" and "Movements" would fit for some but not for others. ~Asarlaí 02:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, all of them deal with ideologies. So, what about "Ideologies within genres"? I think that's a little bit long name. So, maybe... "subcultures"? ABC paulista (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
+1 for subcultures.
Although perhaps looking at the roots of the genres to split them up further would make sense. Which are foundational and which are derivatives? Group them together as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
No... The Heavy metal's "family tree" is giant and really, really complex. It's hard to categorize them all, since newer genres tend to take influences from various older metal genres, making hard to find their origins. Even genres like Death metal and Black metal would cause discussions since they are kinda fundational, leading to the birth of another genres. However both came from Thrash metal, which in turn arose from Speed metal, giving them the status of derivatives... ABC paulista (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I went ahead and moved those articles into a new section named "Subcultures".
I think now we should really look at merging Pornogrind into Grindcore, Goregrind into Deathgrind and Symphonic black metal into black metal. ~Asarlaí 22:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, both Pornogrind and Goregrind should be merged into Deathgrind, since they seem to be the same stuff musically. And for Symphonic Black Metal, I think that the article should be kept, since it has some content, and somehow expanded. ABC paulista (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2014[edit]

I want to add an new Metal subgenre. GUROMETAL (talk) 21:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)