Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Metal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:METAL)
Jump to: navigation, search

Wrong credits for the song "I Want to Fuck You to Death" by the band Huntress on the album Starbound Beast[edit]

Hi,

In the booklet of the album the lyrics are credited to Lemmy Kilmister but on the page of the album (Starbound Beast) all songs are to the band (except for the last one which is a cover). Also, during their performance of August 11th in Montréal, Québec, Canada, the signer, Jill Janus, stated that she asked her friend Lemmy Kilmister to write them a song and "I Want to Fuck You to Death" is the result.

Alice Cooper's Love It to Death—Featured Article candidate[edit]

I've nominated the Love It to Death article as a Featured Article Candidate. Please participate in the article's review here. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Trapped Under Ice[edit]

Please this page move discussion and related deletion discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

"Heavy metal" vs "metal"[edit]

Hey guys, do you prefer to use "heavy metal" or "metal" to summarise an artist's genre in an article's lead when the artist performs within various metal subgenres rather than within traditional heavy metal? For example, Machine Head's genres are indicated in their infobox as groove metal and thrash metal, and the lead calls them a "metal band". I would prefer to change this to "heavy metal band", as "heavy metal" and "metal" are (from what I know) assumed on Wikipedia to mean the exact same thing, and genres are usually called by their full name on first usage. Do you agree with my logic or are there upsides to simply using "metal" that I'm overseeing?--MASHAUNIX 23:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I prefer "heavy metal". I'm not a native English speaker, so I don't know how exactly people chose how to apply each term. In my native language (Portuguese), we also use "heavy metal" or "metal" (we don't normally translate them), but "metal" always sounds more informal or affectionate, like in "I'm a huge metal fan!". One of the few situations in which I would use "metal" would be, for example, if I happen to mention the band Dir en grey in a particular article. Since they have experimented with dozens of sub-genres of heavy metal and rock, I normally cite them as a "rock/metal band". If I am defining a band in the lead section of its article, I would definitely use "heavy metal", though. Victão Lopes Fala! 06:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Well Dir en grey's lead right now calls them a "metal band" rather than a "heavy metal band", do you think that's correct? If yes, why would you make an exception here?--MASHAUNIX 16:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
It's not about being "correct"; the other option wouldn't be "wrong". Dir en grey's genre has been the subject of multiple past discussions, but I guess "metal" is just a vague way of stating they play lots of different metal sub-genres, whereas "heavy metal" could possibly lead readers to think it's a traditional heavy metal band. I don't know why "metal" is being used instead of "heavy metal" in this particular case, but it sounds fair enough. Every case can be discussed if there's a disagreement. Victão Lopes Fala! 21:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I guess you're right, it should be judged individually and neither option is wrong. I just like being consistent far too much for my own good, so I guess I was looking for a definitive answer as to whether "heavy metal" or "metal" should be preferred in cases like these (Dir en grey, Machine Head etc.).--MASHAUNIX 23:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
My experience is that the general genre is either heavy metal (with emphasis on metal) or metal for short, while the original style is traditional heavy metal or classic heavy metal, or heavy metal (with emphasis on heavy), trad metal or classic metal for short. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Assessing an article[edit]

Hi there, I want an article to be assessed, in the past the band article King 810 was a stub article with very little references and information, consisting of only 3,895 bytes. (revision before my edits) Since then I have added many more sources, a photo and the bands logo, their history, a more accurate discography and such, now consisting of 23,445 bytes. So now it's definitely no stub, but I have no idea how to assess or if I even have the right to assess it anyway, can someone please guide me to do so if I have the ability? SilentDan (talk) 05:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Seduce the Heaven[edit]

This band article needs cleanup; it reads like an advertisement or promo text by the label. Is the band even notable? I've found some very favourable reviews for their debut, but the band seems to be on the edge of notability at best. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Ghosts I–IV FAR[edit]

I have nominated Ghosts I–IV for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. LADY LOTUSTALK 11:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC: AC/DC's Current Drummer[edit]

RfC: AC/DC's Current Drummer: Is the current drummer of AC/DC Phil Rudd or Chris Slade? Please feel free to go to the area on AC/DC's talk page and discuss as we would like your input. --Bark (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)