Talk:Gothic metal

Archives

For previous discussion, please see:

• Talk:Gothic metal/Archive 1
• Talk:Gothic metal/Archive 2
• Talk:Gothic metal/Archive 3
• Talk:Gothic metal/Archive 4

A Few Websites

http://www.metal-observer.com/articles.php?lid=1&sid=5&a=ls&s=37 (A bit mixed up with other bands, most notably bands of other genres easily mistakable for Symphonic Metal, Ie: Nightwish)

http://www.last.fm/tag/symphonic%20metal (Another site listing many Symphonic Metal bands, and proves the point that sites arent generally reliable normally, as its mixed many Power/Gothic/Gothic Doom and Evanescene into that)

http://www.magle.dk/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/4041/an/0/page/0 (Thats a forum thread on Symphonic Metal and again says what ive spent the last week saying)

http://www.epinions.com/content_4100366468 (Again listing a whole bunch of Symphonic Metal bands. Has a couple of obviously non Symphonic Metal bands in there, but the point remains)

http://www.ancientspirit.de/reviews/cdreview/m/inhalt.htm (Another band archiver, more accurate than most. Noticable how they list many Gothic Doom bands under 'Dark Metal')

http://www.discogs.com/artist/Cradle+Of+Filth (A little bio on Cradle of Filth to back up one of my points)

http://www.metal-observer.com/articles.php?lid=1&sid=5&a=ls&s=78 (Same as before, but listing Gothic Doom, managed to contradict itself and post a Symphonic Metal band or two in there, haha)

http://www.doom-metal.com/history.html (A whole site about Doom Metal)

http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/pid/3443907/a/Metal+Years:+Gothic+Doom.htm Has Gothic Meta/Gothic Doom/Other Doom and Other Genres on that cd)

http://www.earpollution.com/nov99/coolbyproxy/coolbyproxy.html (A page on all Doom Subdiversions including Gothic Doom)

Thats all ill list for now, i dont have massive amounts of time so the list is itself, only a few sites. But that should show my point, that the general consensus is in agreement with me. And that websites updated by fans, especially younger ones, are often contradctionary and wrong. ~~Leyasu

"But that should show my point, that the general consensus is in agreement with me." You are joking, right? --Danteferno 02:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)#

Well point is, your not right, and u can quote as many people who dont have anything to do with Gothic Metal as you like, the people involved will always be right. See the case of the dog again. (~~Leyasu)

If only that were true. Those websites provide no relevance to the various claims you made, i.e. the frivolous "lawsuits" against Evanescence or Metal-Archives, proof that a gothic metal band called "Sweet Nightmare" existed, evidence as to which bands began the style, "Romantaice and Fantacide", etc. It looks like a few of those sites are forums (which are not a reliable source of Wiki-information, as Idont told you.)

For the longest time, you seem to think as if this whole thing is "big, bad Dante" vs. Leyasu. Again, looking back at the discussion, several people have strongly criticized your edits and your claims, not just me. Perhaps it had to do with me being the main person reverting them, but I was not the only person to do so. Whether you're in denial of this, or didn't notice, quite funny. I thought the risk of being banned for 3RR would at least subsequently result to good discussion. Tragedy, no lire.

Actually, this whole thing is fast turning into "Leyasu vs. Leyasu". You provided a website (Metal Observer) as a good source of information - I also recall you consistently saying that Lacuna Coil is a nu-metal band. Don't look now, but Metal Observer called all 'Lacuna Coil' albums Goth(ic) Metal, (which is what they are). Oh, don't tell us - that part of the website was written by 14-16 year-olds? Stop embarrassing yourself and wasting our time.--Danteferno 18:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, the revert war didn't solve anything, and I expected that to be the case. The page protection at least got discussion to move forward and become more civil. But you're right; there does need to be a more stable consensus on which sources are good to use. --Idont Havaname 03:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Metal Observer is probably a good source of information - the links Leyasu provided just didn't provide any back-up for his outrageous claims. You will remember he called "Lacuna Coil" nu-metal - Metal Observer (a site he used as a reference) does not support his claim. He seems to be coming off as a one trick pony ("Dante, your(sic) POV and speculative, and so many things you say contradict eachother"). I don't think he knows the definitions of a lot of the terms he uses. As for deciding which sites should be used and which shouldn't, the way to determine that in "Leyasu-standards" is difficult. Supposedly, anything that he doesn't agree with is written by 14-16 year olds, and anything he agrees with don't support the claims he makes. --Danteferno 02:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I openly said that all these sites support me on some things, contradict each other on other things. Dante, your argument has also been a one trick pony, claiming non other, than everything i say is POV. I know most definations of terms i use, and you have openly admitted several times to ignoring things i say simply because its suit your argument to do so. Also, i provided you several pages that show what Symphonic Metal and several pages that show what Gothic Doom is. You then claimed i never gave u pages with those, and then refused to even read them. It is then so best, to add into part of the article about listing sites often contradicting each other due to the massive amounts of debate on the genre, like this one and having ALL of them as sources. Otherwise you will to emmit all of them, just to keep to NPOV. ~~Leyasu

---

Dante, you missed the point, again. I said the websites i got from Google, which you claimed didnt exist, are as unreliable, POV, and speculative as your own. The point was, they can favour either argument, and, often contradict each other when they agree on certain other things. That is the point. ~~Leyasu

---

And that websites updated by fans, especially younger ones, are often contradctionary and wrong. That should say enough. All the sources there, and the ones you provided are fan pages that ALL CONTRADICT each other. That was half the point, that you seem to of keenly ignored as it doesnt suit your argument. Also i said i dont have enough time and that its a few websites. Things uve complained about that im far too lazy to trawl through the internet for pages on, have been removed or reworded. Your rehasing old arguments and im seeing no1 agreeing with you other than, how did you put it, 'sock puppets'. You have also given me no reason as to how Lacuna Coil are gothic metal other than, 'i think they are so they must be', which isnt a good argument on a musical stand point. I also didnt say any of those sources were good, the point was they are all agreeing with me, and many times they contradict each other, just like yours. Please do not claim me as saying something i did not say, unless you can openly quote me saying it. Idont, i also edited the Temp page some more, and added a part, i think you should read over it and copyedit anything you think is not, well worded, shall we say. ~~Leyasu

---

http://www.metal-archives.com/

Read it. Especially the part 'Please delete my band(s) from your site. I don't want this information to appear on your website.'

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=32:amg/info_pages/a_about.html

Pretty much what the bands websites done, and is often wrong, or as they claim 'word-of'mouth', much like Dante claims most of the time as factual accuracy (its the dog again).

Thats what i got in a rush since my last post. I will find more detailed stuff that they have said before, as and when i have the time. ~~Leyasu

"Please delete my band(s) from your site" - this doesn't say anything about Metal Archive's credibility. Some bands submit their group's info to Metal Archives, then they disband on negative terms and don't want the profile there anymore - so they complain to have it removed. I would put up the same disclaimer for such stupidity.

As for Allmusic...is this what you mean:

"By word-of-mouth alone, the allmusic website has gained phenomenal popularity, developing a large and loyal following among consumers and industry professionals alike.[1]

If so, that doesn't sound damaging at all.

While we're on the subject of AllMusic's credibility and reputation, let's see what magazines, newspapers, musicians and individuals across the world have to say about their reputation and credibility:

http://www.allmediaguide.com/media.html

Overwhelmingly positive, and understandably so. ---Danteferno 00:40 4 December (UTC)

Bands also get put on sites, with misleading information, slander, and negative comments. Also, Allmusic.com creating a site only listing the good things people say isnt everyone in the world. They fail, just like you, to ackonoledge all the bad thigns about themselfs. Its how people sell an idea to a consumer, you tell them something is so great, and emmit all the bad stuff, until they love it on the pretense its something that isnt. Yes, most of the archival sites we've listed are good for having large lists of bands. Yes, good for finding stuff you might be intrested in. But they all, including the ones you say are 'good sources' contradict each other. As i said, its best to mention it and list all of them, or not list any at all. Otherwise, your being biased and not holding NPOV. Oh, and many, many places disregard Allmusic.com. I was watching a program on CH 5 (im in England) at stupid o clock in the morning, think its called 'The Gadget Show', and they ranted on about how great Allmusic.com is for listings of bands, how poor and inaccurate it is for information on them. Listing only the good things people have said about you doesnt emmit the bad ones. ~~Leyasu

"Bands also get put on sites, with misleading information, slander, and negative comments." Not true (until you you could provide documentation or examples, which are probably not available, since the moderation of adding bands to Metal Archives is very strict - see the Wikipedia Metal Archives article). "Yes, good for finding stuff you might be intrested in. But they all, including the ones you say are 'good sources' contradict each other." No, they don't contradict eachother, and until you could provide documentation or examples, they will continue NOT to contradict eachother.

Speaking of contradictions - I noticed something when comparing the original edit and the "revised/Temp" edit - a lot of the original stuff has been included, just sloppily mixed around and moved out of chronological order. For someone who seems to think the original version is "misleading, POV, speculative (and fill in the blank of other non-elaborated criticisms)", they are not doing a very good job at not sounding contradicting themselves. --Danteferno 00:40 6 December (UTC)

Tip: Try reading the sites. They all contradict each other on the genres of bands, and agree on others. That works with all the archival sites, including ones youve claimed are good sources. Also, i tried to keep as much of the original wording as possible, as to seem like im not being a complete bitch about it. Also, i did some looking up on things, and ive actually corrected the chronological order, including the instance of Liv Kristine being the first female singer. Suggestion: Try looking things up, before assuming them as fact. ~~Leyasu

Improving the flow/readability of Gothic metal/Temp

I've noticed a few more things about the revised version that might make it more readable.

1. The mention in the introduction about crossover with other genres should still be there. It isn't in the revised version right now.
2. Header titles are somewhat better in the current revision. "Pre-Gothic metal" is awkward; I've never heard of that genre.
3. The "History" section of the current revision generally flows much better when I read it, and it seems to have more content. It's probably good to mention symphonic metal, but the Peter Steele reference is in the current version, and so is the mention of toning down the death grunts, etc.
4. Also - where is the scene currently best-developed? The current revision says Norway/Scandinavia; the rewrite says England and France. I'd say the former.
5. The gothic doom section in the rewrite should definitely stay. Flow with the rest of the article is something we can all keep working on.
6. The last paragraph of "Other gothic metal fusions" might be superfluous. I think that was already mentioned earlier, so we might not need that.

--Idont Havaname 04:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

All noted in kind. By the mentioning of crossovers, what do you mean exactly? If its the 'is a crossover between heavy metal music and gothic music itself' line, i removed it because Gothic Metal has nothing of influence from other Gothic Music, and the only parts of Gothic music i know of is in Gothic Doom.

Pre-Gothic Metal was meant to mean (Before Gothic Metal) as in, leading up to it, because Pre- means Previous (i think). How do you best think that would be changed?

The Male vocals only got toned down in Symphonic Metal, and much of what is in the current version only applys to Gothic Doom and Symphonic Metal, with little history of Gothic Metal itself. The deal with leaving out Type O Negative is because they are a Gothic Doom band, and Gothic Doom is mentioned lower in the article.

The scene is mostly developed in England and France, only due to that being where most of the bands are known, play, and where Gothic Metal is mroe common. It is true, that most of the bands come from the more Scandanvian/Norway area (i am not good with Geography). That is the reasoning for that, but, should it be said that the bands are from one place, and the core fan base in another?

The only reason for adding it was to clear up confusion over the contradictions made by places like, The Metal Archives, BNR Metal Pages, The Metal Observer - so on, so forth. I thought it best to also mention it, because more and more bands are walking the fusion orientated path. If it needs to be removed, so be it.

Thats the reason for each thing, in order. So you know the reasoning, and objective, when you make suggestions on how to change it. ~~Leyasu

Agree with most of what Idont Havaname noted.The gothic doom part is mentioned in the original version, and while it could probably be expanded on, there's definitely a lack of flow, clarity, and accuracy about it in the re-write. (Type O Negative are not a "gothic doom" band) --Danteferno 10:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

It was NOT mentioned in the original in a manner informative nor correct. You have STILL not offered any reason as to how Lacuna Coil or Type O Negative are not Nu Metal/Gothic Doom. And their isnt a lack of accuracy, when your version takes selected parts of three different forms of metal while emmiting other parts, and mish-mashes them together to create something neither informative, nor accurate. Also, if your going to claim it is 'lacking flow', please explain 'how' its lacking flow, so it can be improved, not keep piping on with the 'my version is better so dont mess with it' argument. If the currently posted version was better, it wouldnt of been revised at all. If Dante, you cannot make any contructive comments towards the revised version, other than to make your 'my version is better so dont mess with it' argument, i suggest you simply dont make any comments at all. ~~Leyasu

Leyasu, you still have not offered proof as to how Allmusic/Metal Archives were both sued and written by 14-16 year olds. There is nothing/nowhere, that backs up this claim, just as there is nothing/nowhere, that backs up claim that Lacuna Coil are a nu-metal band. The burden of proof for making these claims has always been on you, just as myself, user Idont Havaname, Arm, Ray Dassen, and more have told you. Are you in denial of this, or just here to waste people's time? What is your problem? --Danteferno 14:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

'There is nothing/nowhere, that backs up' is a foolish claim to regard 'anything'. I dont even recall use Ray Dassen even posting. Here to waste peoples time? no. Even if i havent backed up 'some' of what ive said with sites on Google, that doesnt mean 'There is nothing/nowhere, that backs up' what ive said. I also said that the average age of Metal Archives users was 14-16 as THEY posted, and if they have since retracted that statement, that is up to them, not me. I also pointed out Allmusic CLAIMS SPECULATION, which in no way, says that i said about them, what i repeated Metal Archives saying about themselfs. Also, now your claiming other users have said things they have not said. You have also offered as to no support or way on how anything i have said is wrong, except the arguments of, 'I cant find X on Google so it doesnt exist', 'He/she said this so it must be true', 'I think this so its automatically right regardless of everything', and 'your a troll because i dont agree with you' Not one single one of your arguments has been plausable, and every single one of your arguments has been turned over. Of some things youve asked, i have for sake of avoiding arguments, removed. However, your whole attitude and stand point as been childish, and unco-operative, and has mostly been personal attacks directed at me. Again, give me a reason as to how Lacuna Coil/Type O are not what ive claimed them to be, from a musical standpoint. I also await being told, 'how' the revised version 'lacks flow' so it can be improved. Once again, if you have nothing constuctive to post, dont post anything at all, as is the spirit of Wikipedia. ~~Leyasu

Yes, in the reversion history, Ray Dassen reverted your edits away twice and called them "intrusive" and made without explanation - and you still have not provided sourced explanation for them. Following in criticism or disagreement of your edits/views/terminologies includes myself, Arm, 137.186.154.255, 24.255.166.222 and Idont havaname. The only entity critical of the "big, bad Dante" or the "original edit" has been Leyasu. --Danteferno 03:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me point out two of those users are nothing more than Ip Adresses, which YOU CLAIMED user Porkchop and Flagrancy were, because they were NEW!. No offence Dante, but they could just as easily be sock puppets you made. So i will remind you, user Porkchop and Flagrancy both said you was wrong originally, and your best argument to that was the meek argument of sock puppets. Remember that argument works both ways. Also, people should expect critiscism of things when they post, as thats how articles are improved, as i read in things that IDont gave me to read. Also, Arm made comment, which since i gave reasoning since. So that point is ammited. Rehasing old points, already past, isnt going to improve your argument any, and is just showing your argument is getting old, and lacks substantioality. ~~Leyasu

So we're bringing this back, eh? Perhaps you could explain how it wasn't just me, but also Idont havaname (on your discussion page, recently) and Arm (on the 3RR report board) who said you were using sockpuppet aliases? I fail to see how your brief use of sockpuppet aliases has anything to do with the majority involved in this discussion being critical of your edits, aside from hurting your credibility. ---Danteferno 05:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Your argument that i used sock puppets originally was because people were disagreeing with you. Also, there has been no proof i used sock puppets, on the sole basis of the fact, i didnt. Again, your majority, has not been a majority saying what youve said, its been 2 other users who have contributed to the discussion, one in a paticularly educating, and constructive manner, something Dante, that you have not done. And as for keeping bringing stuff up, your the one who keeps bringing up things, that have already been turned over as wrong. ~~Leyasu

---

Aspite the recent arguments with me and Dante that just do not seem to cease over the same issue, however static or poorly argued, i have edited the temp page in a attempt to make it flow better. However as nobody told me WHY it didnt flow well in their eyes, i have had to take a shot in the dark as to why. Thus i juggled about the 'Sounds And Constructs' part and the top part. Ive deleted, minorly reworded, and slightly added to what was there. I also rearranged the order in what things come up, so it should go

• 'Sound'
• 'All Guitars'
• 'Keyboards'
• 'Atmosphere'
• 'Lyrics and Vocalists'

It should easily go from one part into the next, and link their relevance easily. Can people please next time they pick fault, explain 'WHAT' gives it that fault, thank you ~~Leyasu |

Contradictionary Sources

Dante has raised the point of a place having a good reputation among people unaffiliated with something, as being a good source on it. I would like to point out the errors in this.

A) All of the sources contradict each other. They all agree on some things, and disagree on others. All of them are openly updated by people who CLAIM speculation. All of them openly are updated by fans with BIASED POV on bands. Also, a source isnt good when it contradicts itself several times, and in itself, admits to being updated mostly by younger fans.

B) BNR and Allmusic openly admit to what they write being speculation, and POV. Metal Archives have themselfs said they list bands as what they 'think' they 'should' be playing. Goth-Metal is a fan-site community, openly run by younger fans.

C) Dante has chosen to ignore things about the sites, that are mentioned above, because they dont suit his argument. It can also be recorded, that Dante has discredited sources, because they are forums updated by fans, when in itself the sources he provided, are the exact same thing with prettier HTML.

D) I see no reason as to how one fansite which claims speculation, inaccuracy and POV, is accurate over other fan sites, that claim speculation, inaccuracy, and POV, because they dont agree with Dante.

E) The sources Dante have provided are not any more reputable than the ones i provided. And as pointed out above, Dante simply discredits them for not sharing his POV. And in the end, this is what the argument has been about, Dante's POV vs factual accuracy.

Im going to continue editing the Temp page, until the article is best it can be. And Dante's argument is no better than mine, he cant criticise someone for the argument of 'so and so told me so', when he is making the exact same argument. Dante needs to help make a better article, and stop clinging to his possesive nature of ownership. ~~Leyasu

Continue editing it, but that won't change the fact that you continue to make unsourced claims that no one (except you) believes and stands upon. Even Idont havename (who is probably the most patient of you, and that seems to be changing) has pointed out that as long as you make unsourced claims, you just dig yourself deeper into credibility debt.

Nowhere does it show those sites "openly admit speculation/POV on their page" - that's because they don't. Lies won't help you, they'll just sink you further.--Danteferno 02:14 2 December (UTC)

Alls i have to say to that, is that the user IDont can speak for himself. And if the user in question, has anything to say to me, he will leave me messages on my talk page, which he has done several times regarding things i needed council on. And again, several times you have said 'Noting/Nowhere', and 'No-one ever', and have been shown as wrong. Stop making claims yourself that are childish and foolish. Your argument isnt coming across as anything intrested in making a good article, its coming far more across as someone who is possesed with the ownership of the original, and trying to force what they want something to be, over what it is. If that is not your intention, i strongly suggest you rethink the way you make your argument. I am stumbling around learning how to improve Articles as i go to their utmost best, and you Dante, have done nothing constructive, nor helpfull, other than seemingly whine, complain and completely bitch that someone has edited an article that you wrote. I reference you to this, that IDont refrenced me to before. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles. ~~Leyasu

I don't need to be cited for "Ownership of Articles", because I am obviously not trying to claim ownership of one. Perhaps you should read what that page said again - it will definitely ring close to home based on what you have been doing for nearly a month. --Danteferno 10:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to inform you that i have not claimed ownership at any point and have asked several times for help and constructive critiscism in the revised article so it may be the best it can be. You have only made argument of 'mine is better' with bad reasoning and old points already turned over. I am in no way in owership of it, i however do expect reasoning when someone critiscises something better than 'so and so told me so' schoolyard propoganda. (Please escuse my lacking spelling abilities). ~~Leyasu

Symphonic Metal Greatly Misrepresented in Temp page

Compare the symphonic metal page to the Gothic metal/Temp, and the Temp-page is largely inaccurate. (Also note that I did not write the summary for the symphonic metal page.)

The atmosphere rarely follows the deep morbidity of doom metal unlike its origin; gothic doom, or the upbeat nature of its sister genre; symphonic metal.

Symphonic metal is not known for having an "upbeat nature", nor is it a "sister genre" of gothic metal.

A softer genre known as symphonic metal had evolved in the mid- to late- 1990s from gothic metal bearing strong similarities to its predecessor, with bands led by female singers.

Also wrong. The symphonic metal page noted that the term is not a subgenre but rather a term to describe metal with "symphonic elements". (power metal and black metal were noted as the two most known genres for using "symphonic" elements.) There are probably some instances where gothic metal "crosses over" with symphonic metal elements (mentioned in the current version) but no source will validate that it evolved from gothic metal. --Danteferno 02:45 2 December (UTC)

You should also note i was planning on changing that. And that the 'uncitied sourced' Wikipedia article doesnt outweight the 'cited sources' i gave you that says your wrong. You have still given no proof. And again made claims like 'it nowwhere says this' just like you have done with things, and then still claimed it when i gave u sources that did claim it. Your arguments are no more falable than mine. And in the end, if i have to, i will just quote the sites. In fact, ill break off what im doing to go quote them now. ~~LeyasuLeyasu

No, your "cited sources" don't do anything for your argument.

You used this page as a source above:

http://www.metal-observer.com/articles.php?lid=1&sid=5&a=ls&s=78

None of the 13 bands listed there are what you claimed in the Temp

page to be "gothic doom metal".

You also used this page as a source, correct?

http://www.metal-observer.com/articles.php?lid=1&sid=5&a=ls&s=37

Nothing on this page and nothing on the band reviews here reflect that symphonic metal was derived from gothic metal.--Danteferno 04:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

---

See the other points i made above, to go with the rest, especially the one about thigns contradicting, i also said its a few websites i got from a quick browse on google.

So heres a handfull more i just got from, browsing google.

http://www.modarchive.com/artists/cage/ http://www.magle.dk/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/5226/Main/4041 http://www.heavy-metalinks.com/official_F.html http://www.nuclearblast-musicshop.de/genres.php?genre_filter=32 http://www.metal-observer.com/articles.php?lid=1&sid=1&id=7874 http://www.metal1.info/reviews/n.php http://www.rockdetector.com/genrelocationsearch.do?genre=Progressive+Metal http://www.progressiveears.com/asp/reviews.asp?albumID=2578&bhcp=1 http://www.dealtime.com/xPR-Once_ECD_Nightwish http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/205459 http://www.metal-rules.com/zine/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=76&Itemid=54 http://www.metal-rules.com/interviews/Sascha.htm http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&hs=CcI&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&oi=defmore&defl=en&q=define:Symphonic+metal

Thats all, ill have more when i have time. ~~Leyasu

How about explaining (and citing) what segments of those pages back up your position rather than just list a bunch? We're not going to do your research for you. --Danteferno 06:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I browsed through them quickly enough. They all somewhat say the same as me, especially the last one. You emitting to read them, only shows that your avoiding the fact your wrong. 'but no source will validate that it evolved from gothic metal' is also a foolish claim in the same vein as 'Nothing/Nowehere/ and 'There is nothing on the internet about', which both have been proven wrong, time and time again. Dante needs to accept that he is wrong, and thats ok. But instead of clinging onto an article thats wrong with his possesive, and poorly masked ownership orientated argument, he should be making a better article, as is the spirit of Wikipedia. ~~Leyasu

No, that's not how it works. "I'm just going to list a bunch of websites I found" doesn't say anything. I already looked at your last sources and none of them backed up anything you said. So, explain/cite how these pages support your view. Otherwise, don't continue to waste our time (Or is that what you have been doing all along?)Danteferno 10:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

You made the comment before about there being nothing on the net about Symphonic Metal. Well most of those sites are more Band Archival sites. Again furthering the point, most agree with what ive said, and when they dont agree, they usually have conflicting arguments alike the ones ive mentioned in the revised version. Some of them have a clear defination of what Symphonic Metal is. And most all give examples clearly of bands that are Symphonic Metal, as i said, as did the first ones, as the first ones, if read, said almost the exact same thing as i did. Again, your emitting what you dont want to be there, and ignoring what is there, that doesnt agree with you, claiming it doesnt exist. Sorry, but that argument doesnt work, claiming something doesnt exist, simply because it doesnt agree with you, doesnt make it non existant. ~~Leyasu

---

I see the flow as being fine now. Ive edited the opening paragraph to cover the debates such as these further. It makes sense for that to be done, because then it shows the arguments like these that happen, and also explains the contradictions of Archival pages. I kept it 'short n sweet' as to over explain everything often annoys people. ~~Leyasu

Dante's Attitude

'First, there's control of the article. Some contributors feel very possessive about articles they have donated to this project. Some go so far as to defend them against all intruders.'

That is exactly what user Dante's arguments have come across as to me as, and as i previously mentioned, if Dante is not trying to make that view point, then he should definatly rethink his argument and the way he is projecting it.

'All contributions to Wikipedia are released under the GNU Free Documentation License (see Wikipedia:Copyrights for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it. [emphasis added]'

Dante again seems to have a problem with his, defending what he wrote against anybody editing it. Which is neither constructive nor progressive. Even trying to force no editations when his article is wrong, on the basis he wrote it. See above for suggestion on what he should do.

'Although working on an article does not entitle one to "own" the article, it is still important to respect the work of your fellow contributors. When making large scale removals of content, particularly content contributed by one editor, it is important to consider whether a desirable result could be obtained by working with the editor, instead of against them - regardless of whether they "own" the article or not. See also Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith.'

Several times i have asked Dante to help make a better article, and several times he has ignored that request, or shunned it with the attitude of 'mine is better, dont mess with it'.

Also see this link: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Megalomaniacal_point_of_view

Dante is exhibiting several of those symptoms as ive already pointed out.

From the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Words_of_wisdom

While editors' points of view are certainly welcomed, please remember that Wikipedia has a neutral point of view policy with regards to writing articles. To that effect, editors should work with other editors despite their conflicting egos and points of view. Through collaboration and presentation of either a neutral point of view or all points of view article, Wikipedia helps to illustrate good information.

Again i have asked Dante to work with me, not against me. I have asked him to explain his critiscisms, to give me reasons to how im wrong, to use his sometimes better english skills to improve upon mine. Every time, he has refused. Doesnt this somewhat conflict with the spirit of Wikipedia?

From the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Civility

Wikipedia as a whole is not especially respectful of contributions, since anyone can edit. This makes praise and criticism of edits all the more pronounced when it does occur. Many people forget that criticizing an edit is easily conflated with insulting the person who made it—and so they are unnecessarily harsh on the giving end and unnecessarily sensitive on the receiving end. What starts with one uncivil remark becomes an exchange of them, until people are no longer interested in improving articles and instead focus on "triumphing" over the "enemy". This is not what Wikipedia is about.

Again, another thing that somewhat says what ive been trying to say. I have asked several times, as already mention, for him to help. Why does it seem more like he is more focused on trumping me, than making a good article?

I think some of these things will show what ive been trying to say about Dante, and im sorry this is the only way i could make clear what i have been trying to say. I hope Dante reads the articles in question throughly and thoughtfully, and then acts on them. Until then, i will wait on Dante to be helpfull rather than unhelpfull, and to be constructive rather than possesive. ~~Leyasu

Well, we do need to make sure that everything here is factual. That's why the new message in the editing box, "Please make sure your changes do not violate any copyright and are based on verifiable sources", is there. Looking at the article's full edit history, he doesn't have very many edits to the page (save for the revert war last month). This diff is the only version of the page where he substantially changed the content. (And there, he was mostly adding content, rather than revising others' work extensively. A lot of what was added has since been changed. I don't think that he thinks he owns this article; if so, he would have reverted it back to his version.)

While it is true that we should all expect our writing to be edited mercilessly, substantial changes to the content often don't go over well. Particularly to a page with several hundred previous edits - even if they are mainly by anonymous contributors - there has been some consensus hammered out among the users who have edited the page. I apologize for not letting you know about that the first time you rewrote it. Genres of music can be particularly problematic in regards to this, just because the definitions are always vague and seem to change every several years as new artists come out; therefore, fans (especially on forums) spend a lot of time arguing about it.

I do think that some substantial progress has been made regarding the revision during the last several weeks, and our goal should be to make it so that it encompasses all major points of view regarding the issue. I found the Principled Negotiation article today, which is well worth reading. (It's linked from Wikipedia:Negotiation, which is mentioned on the Wikipedia:Resolving disputes page.) If discussions stay very heated here, I'd recommend taking a break from this page for a few days so that you can take a fresh look at it, and to perhaps go edit other pages for a while (see Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot). People who spend most (or all) of their time here on one topic tend to get burned out pretty quickly.

--Idont Havaname 15:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Exactly - there's no indication that I tried to "claim ownership" of this article, nor use copyrighted material on it. Another pathetic character attack from Leyasu that no one (but Leyasu) believes - a nonsubstantiated claim that serves no other purpose but to distract from his other non-substantiated claims.

Frankly, there's really no significant discussion here. The reason there is no significant discussion is because there's nothing to discuss - As of this writing, it will be more than a month, and Leyasu still refuses to furnish sources that back up his edits and "refute" the current edit/sources used to back it up. Asking for him to do so again will just lead to another one of his incoherent rants and a new accusation that I (and others) will debunk.This has been going on for over a month, and trying to assume good faith is becoming difficult.

You wrote in the revision history: "Also, it might be good if we edited other pages for a few days to cool off before getting back to this". Actually, I would like to take a few days off to see if my absence will shape Leyasu up into appropriately providing sources and citing references that back up his material in the Temp page. Until there is some sign of that, I will have to assume his presence is no more than a desperate cry for trolling attention. --Danteferno 00:31, 3 December 2005

I have proved Dante with a number of websites that back up what i have said. I have also pointed out, that again in this case, he is showing what Wikipedia says is megalomanical poin of view, as this link says. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Megalomaniacal_point_of_view. He openly refused, to read sources i have provided before. And openly claimed that sources i provided were not legiable, simply because they didnt agree with him. I am currently working on revising Symphonic Metal, as i see nothing more to edit in the Temp page. Dante's now accusing me of internet trolling, as a last bid resort, to give his own outlandish claims credibility. All of Dante's arguments ring true to himself, and if anyone takes care to read the whole argument through, Dante has provided no source to say im wrong, and openly made foolish, outlandish claims that have been proven wrong, time and time again. 'a nonsubstantiated claim', and to that, as ive pointed out three times now, i said that is way your argument is coming across, and if thats not your intention, you should seriously think about the way you word things. ~~Leyasu

Improving the structure of the article

An objection I've heard around here lately, mainly from Danteferno, is that the revised version at Gothic metal/Temp really jumps around. Reading through it more closely (I just did a copyedit of it a few minutes ago), I'm starting to see what he means. I think that, with regards to the history of both gothic metal and gothic doom, it's best to treat both of them as one genre (where gothic doom is a prominent subgenre of gothic metal and doom metal) and to merge the history sections together.

It's probably not clear what I mean by this, so I'll explain further. Currently the revision starts off defining the genre (good), and then it goes into two sections of history (the Gothic Doom (The Beginnings) section and Gothic Metal (History)). From there it goes into Common misconceptions, then back into more history. To make the article more readable, I suggest moving the Common misconceptions section back, so that it is just before the list of bands. So the article would then have this kind of structure... (I'll omit the actual text of the article here, to make this post much shorter.)

Sounds, constructs, and lyrics (header)

History (header)

The beginnings (1983-1993) (sub-header - use ===Title here===)

Gothic metal today (1993-present) (sub-header)

• In this section, there would be a discussion of how gothic metal got started, how that influenced gothic doom and symphonic metal, and where the scene is developing today.

Common misconceptions (header)

• This section should also have the paragraph that's currently at the end of the other fusion genres section, since that paragraph also discusses misconceptions.

List of gothic metal bands (header)

Also - and I think this goes in more to what Dante was telling me was wrong with it - the second history section ("Gothic Metal (History)...") has a discussion of symphonic metal, but then other fusion genres are mentioned later. This might be another reason why it's better to merge those sections.

--Idont Havaname 04:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

All noted in kind. Thank you for the clearish and concisish explanation. I sort of understood what u meant, kinda. So in kind i have moved the common misconeptions paragraph as you said. The rest, maybe you could do as im unsure of exactly what your enterpretation is 9Probally because its 6:15 am here and im insomanic right now, lol). (Edit) I did what i figured u were trying to say to do. The history headers look a little, unobvious (they are easily overlooked), but i see ur point. Any better? (Edit) Oh, the symphonic metal is left in BECAUSE thats the time it originated, and shows the two different paths taken, to clearly show that one genre went one way, and the other genre went another. ~~Leyasu

Further review of the revised/Temp

The beginning section opens stating that the Gothic Metal genre originated in Europe in the 1990s as an outgrowth of doom metal. This is only half right - The rest of the article reveals the early 80's as the first signs of gothic metal (Christian Death (US), Celtic Frost (CH), and Samhain (US)) and that the bands originated both in Europe and the U.S. Perhaps it is true that gothic metal has a bigger scene and is more popular in Europe, but that doesn't give excuse to say it originated there. This fallacy seems to repeat itself in the article.

Also, the bands you mentioned influenced Gothic Doom, not Gothic Metal.

Sounds, constructs and lyrics - I'm not sure this is a very good title - perhaps "Style, Lyrics, and Themes". But constructs - eh? I also think examples need to be provided for the following: New Age/Dark Ages, Victorian, Edwardian, Roman, or modern eras. Also, the genre has not been limited to these themes, a point I will get to later.

The Header sounds wholly appopriate. Also, the examples are clearly given by the articles for each. The genre has been limited to these themes. The point of bands from outside genres using different themes doesnt mean gothic metal uses those themes.

History - the beginnings (1983-1990) Moonspell are still mentioned erroneously as being a band from the Scandinavian region that progressed from death/black - all sources - including their website (heck, everyone knows) show they are based in Lisbon, Portugal, which is in Western Europe, not Scandinavia. In addition, Moonspell have stayed fairly conservative with their style - particularly the lead singer (Fernando Ribero) who still uses death grunts every now and then. Once they are removed from this section, Only Theater of Tragedy remain, and Tiamat, Lake Of Tears (and perhaps Charon (Finland) who began as death metal and turned to the gothic metal genre) would be the ones that will fit this geographic progession the most.

Moonspell being in the scandanavian region is what is copied from the article your trying to claim doesnt need editing. Tiamat, and Lake of Tears both turned to the Gothic Doom genre, as the that is what their music resembles, as it lacks most any aspect of Gothic Metal.

Also, for the Gathering section, "Mimic" should be changed to "influence". Mimic = negative.

A construtive critique, finally. This will be noted and edited duely.

Type O Negative deserve equal mention to any of the above bands. They are to America's gothic metal scene what Moonspell are to Europe's.

America's Gothic Doom scene doesnt = Gothic Metal. If they were to be mentioned, they should be done in history of Gothic Doom in a seperate article.

Note that Type O Negative is listed as gothic metal in their article. Saying that a band can't be gothic metal if they are from the US is extremely biased. Furthermore, we have already established that gothic doom should be discussed as part of this article. --Idont Havaname 04:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Then they need to have their Article changed, and ill pop over and do that in a minute. A large network of assumptions and incorrections, doesnt make them right, it makes them about all the use of using a flay swatter to fight a tiger. See below about point of nationality of bands. If they are to be mentioned in the history of Gothic Doom, then the Gothic Doom metal page would start to warrant its own page. But if they are to be mentioned here, they should be mentioned as what they are, a Gothic Doom band, and the influence they have had on the Gothic Doom bands that are alike the Gothic Rock/Doom Metal based bands of earlier (To Die For, Lacriams Profundere). Leyasu 11:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Gothic metal today (1993-present) Again, the "borrow from black metal/death metal guitar" parts is not citable and has no examples. Symphonic metal is not an outgrowth of gothic metal. Later on, the article mentions that it is indeed part of a "fusion". The symphonic metal article explains what the definition is quite well.

Examples: Trail of Tears, Keltgar - to name two. Symphonic Metal originated as a genre from Gothic Metal, clearly readable in the Symphonic Metal article.

Idont havaname brought up the fact that many bands have not stayed in the same style - the original edit describes this well, and that should remain no matter what (perhaps there could be elaboration about bands that changed to styles beyond the genre).

Therion is the only band that strikes a cord here.

Common misconceptions By saying these themes: "morbidity, religious themes, gothic fashion, vampirism, and satanism" are not a part of gothic metal bands would be invalidating nearly everything mentioned. Likewise (as I mentioned earlier) themes are not limited to a particular group.

It doesnt invalidate everything mentioned over than in your wrong, and badly assumed article. It also says bands are mistaken for being Gothic Metal if they show that sort of imagery, such as Cradle of Filth, My Chemical Romance, Evergrey. Read what the article says, not what you wish it said to suit a feather argument.

Digressing a little bit, each county/region does seem to have a distinct (but not defining) style of gothic metal. Finland seems to be more apt to progressive/power/melodic metal (evident by bands Charon and Entwine) and the German/Swiss region seems to be fond of the usage of industrial effects (Crematory, Lacrimosa, and Samael). Finally, American Gothic Metal seems to be more in tune with the sludgier aspects (Type O Negative and Christian Death). How would everyone feel if the article described each particular region, as well as its origins, progenitors, instigators, etc? --Danteferno 01:40 7 December (UTC)

Funnily, and this is the ironic bit, the gothic metal genre is the same THROUGHOUT the world. The bands listed in the revised article come from all over Europe. Crematory and Lacrimosa do not fit within the Gothic Metal genre as it is described, and that again makes your wrong. Charon, is also a case of this. Type O are Gothic Doom. Yes because they are Gothic Doom they warrent a place on the list of Gothic Doom and Gothic Metal bands. No, just because they are on that list, doesnt make them Gothic Metal.

I recognise the need for SOME edits, perhaps. But such things as Moonspell is proclaimed as Scandanaian? Last i said, the death metal and black metal were best known in Scandanvia. Any edits i see need doing of this, i will make in the morning. Leyasu 03:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

(Adding back my original response to Dante's comment, which Leyasu deleted)

Yes, please do! I also like your other suggestions; they help us counter systemic bias.

Your suggestions regarding "Style, lyrics, and themes" (which I'd agree is a better title; the sounds are discussed earlier in the revision) are also quite good. Specific examples help the article be more credible. And for this, we do need to use albums where all (or most) of the lyrics fit those particular time periods, rather than just one or two songs. In other words, we should be using something more consistent than isolated cases/incidents for backing up what is said in that section.

Also, regarding Moonspell and any other bands whose style is harder to determine, go look at their articles (not your own edits to them, keep in mind) and see what other people have said about those bands. That should make things more clear when working on the revision. --Idont Havaname 03:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Excellent. In that case, I will work on an article for this section and post it here. I will be sure to make examples and sources, unlike Leyasu. In fact, he/she just completely redid the symphonic metal page to suit his/her "revision", again not citing any sources

or examples, particularly for the claim that it was a genre that evolved from gothic metal (not true). If Leyasu thinks that re-writing articles is the best he/she could do to suit their case,

he/she has reached a brand new low. What seems to be most interesting is that this user is nominating metal subgenre articles for deletion and merging, while simultaneously claiming that "gothic doom" (really gothic metal, as you and I agreed) should have its own article. Danteferno 08:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me point out, that i edited that to be comphrensive, which it now is. Notice how now, Dante is 'working the article', which only goes to prove that he is possesed with his editations. Also, many of the articles that i suggested are merged, are because they say the exact same thing, in one parahgraph with a short list of bands found on the other article. Also, Dante openly says in his revision that it emerges from Gothic Metal. I describe the exact same thing, with one minor difference. The genres name. I also notice how Dante has placed to moving my posts down, acting as if his posts came before mine, then acting as if my argument is void on that. Childish, severly. I ask for constructive critque to the article from Dante, no, we get the attitude of 'my editations are always right'. That temp page is the revised article as of current, and as such, if Gothic Doom's history is going to be mentioned, then perhaps the History section needs severe editation. Mich to keep the Begininnings part, and then write one part for the history of Gothic Metal (which we have), and a part for what happened with Gothic Doom at this time (which would be more informative on it, and would explain the modern bands and the rootng switch). I am intrested in making a better, comphrenisve, accurate article. Dante seems like a person suffering severe Point of View. I ask for the revised version to be made better, not a trophy prize to a difference of view points. Leyasu 19:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I deleted your answer? I apologise, thats probally why this page was being funny posting =x. Using albums to highlight things is fine with me. No, being from anywhere doesnt exclude you from the genre, being Gothic Doom and lacking severe defining aspects of Gothic Metal, lacks the band being Gothic Metal. Also i already provided two links that say Type O is Doom Metal.

|This link is a brief history on Doom, from a site dedicated to it. Which is HIGHLY comprehensive when read. With this link giving a picture of what most every form of Gothic Doom is, and says their that Type O are Gothic Doom, like a number od bands Dante claims are supposedly Gothic Metal. And BOTH of them come from links ive already posted!!. This isnt about nationality, this is about what something is and isnt. When you start saying, 'Doom Metal from America counts as Gothic Metal because its American', you potentially open pandora's box to A) A lot of nationalistic, racist abuse using bands countys of origin, B) Saying any genre from anywhere counts as something else because its 'Insert Country'. As i said, if you know American bands playing Gothic Metal, put them on the list, its a Gothic Metal list. If you know bands doing Gothic Doom, put them on the list, its a Gothic Doom list. Try to claim bands from one genre are another because of their nationality? No, musically it doesnt work, and it doesnt work on a self promoting through country/belittlement of others through country, argument. Leyasu 11:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Symphonic Metal derived from Gothic Metal??

How could that be? I don´t think that symphonic metal was derived at all from Gothic Metal. When symphonic metal cames to my mind, I don´t know why, there comes a band along with it named Therion :-). Therion was a Death Metal band, and is to me THE representative symphonic metal band. Allright, many bands that are called symphonic metal bands (because symphonic elements are so prominently used in their songs) are from the Gothic Metal subgenre. It doesn´t make valid any claim that Symphonic Metal was derived from Gothic Metal in my humble opinion. The symphonic metal has another meaning for it, and do not treat it as a subgenre of metal (although, in the case of Therion, I would label them a Symphonic Metal band. Contradction? You bet!). regards Loudenvier 20:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The origins are two fold. One is due to bands such as Therion, as you said, which the history of the genre segment SHOULD say it came from (Therion was at one point a part of the Gothic Metal genre). The bands in the Symphonic Metal genre ARE NOT part of the Gothic Metal genre, and it is actually the point of how easily younger fans and people with little expertise or experience of metal music or community, label metal with atmospheric, orchestral, moody or otherwise non anarchistic/rebelious keyboarding as Gothic Metal that causes the confusion. As link will say in its FAQ under, 'What is the difference between Doom-Metal and Gothic?'.

""Alongside the aforementioned confusion between Gothic and Doom-Metal there also exists some confusion as to what Doom-metal and Gothic-metal actually are, a problem not helped by the ease with which all atmospherically-influenced metal is so readily labelled as Gothic-metal. Gothic-metal depicts a more mellow, melodic and romantic side of metal, often incorporating female vocals alongside male ones, in the vein of "beauty and the beast" metal. In general these acts have nothing to do with either Doom-metal or the Gothic genre, with the exception perhaps of a distant romantic and mellancholic feel. Musically they share nothing more with Doom-metal than, for example Thrash-metal does.""

The genre of Symphonic Metal is also called Orchestral Metal by some people. And as such both genre names mean the same thing. The genre originates in Gothic Metal with help from power metal to define itself. The Symphonic Subgenres are openly devolped completely seperatly, as is mentioned in the revision. Thus anyone with more knwoledge on the delopment of the use of symphonic elements in other genres could highly contribute to the Symphonic Subgenres part of the article. Leyasu 21:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Well said, Loudenvier, well said. I don't know how many people it will take to make Leyasu realize that his/her claims have no ground to stand on. Comically, the user cited me for having a "Meglomaniacal Point of View". (But what does one call disregarding or haranguing anyone who doesn't share your mindset?) Danteferno 22:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

He gave is opinion, he didnt say i was wrong. Remember that. He also has to make his own reply to what i say, you do not speak for others. You need to stop assuming everyone supports your claims, when they dont. Leyasu 23:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

It´s funny to see how this matter of where Symphonic Metal came from can cause so much convulsion!!! I do not think Symphonic Metal came from Gothic Metal. I think Gothic Metal tends to use Symphonic elements on their songs more often than other genres. I think that regarding Therion as a Gothic band is a mistake. People tend to regard (wrongly) Symphonic-based bands as Gothic bands. I think this could be the reason behind all this debate. I think we should reflect this in the article itself, if we could not get to an understading of where really Symphonic Metal came from. I´m more inclined to regard Symphonic Metal not as a stand-alone metal subgenre (I really do not think a band with almost only symphonic elements could really be called a metal band. Just because there is a downtunned guitar playing in a melodic-minor key in the background doens´t it make a metal band, or it does?). I can propose a research line though: we must list almost every (preferably ancients) bands that could be regarded Symphonic. As symphonic metal is not a well defined subgenre (IMHO), we could then list those bands actual metal subgenre, and then reach a conclusion of which subgenre, or subgenres, helped defining Symphonic Metal. I think that more than one subgenre were really responsible for the "creation" of symphonic metal. All we have to do is to find them (easy?). I just don´t want to state that symphonic metal came from gothic metal simply because gothic metal bands tend to be "more" symphonic. In the end, perhaps, with the evidence found, we could "discover" that symphonic metal came indeed from Goth, or even the opposite. Regards. Loudenvier 13:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I only know the history of the female led genre which is usually mistaken for Gothic Metal. I did try to include the fact that Symphonic elements in other genres were around long before the genre itself, and as such, has grown independently from the symphonic metal genre. I couldnt tell you the history of other genres using symphonic elements, however. Research needs to be done into who outside of the female led genre did what. Leyasu 17:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Doom metal ??

Considering this section, I think it is incorrect: "In the 1990s, a group of young bands in Northern England borrowed from the early gothic metal sound of the 1980s and incorporated it with the slow, downtuned guitar dirges of Black Sabbath. Gothic Doom, or DoomDeath, as it was often called, would be regarded as a second stage of the subgenre. Bands most notable for this style included Paradise Lost, My Dying Bride, and Anathema."

True, many goth metal bands probably have been influenced by doom death metal bands, esp Paradise Lost's Gothic album is often mention. Nevertheless, Neither Paradise Lost, not Anathema can ever be considered gothic metal. MDB have in the past included some gothic elements in their music, but to call them gothic metal would be overstated. Also the term gothic doom is not associated with doom/death metal. Spearhead 08:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

This is included in both versions of the editing process. Many sources on the web do point to these bands as being Gothic Metal, if not a complete influence for the genre (they would abandon the "doom/death" elements on later albums). Since there seems to be a third (and different) opinion, now, what is your assessment as to how the GM genre started and evolved? Danteferno 11:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I just realised a typing error, and so have toddled off to fix it. Does Doom/Death still profiliate in the same manner as it started as? In which case, would it be better to rewrite the history to be;

• The Beginnings (Doom Death)
• Gothic Metal (History/Path Taken 1)
• Gothic Doom (History/Path Taken 2)

This includes the history of Gothic Doom, as to make easy comparison of the genre with Gothic Metal's evoloution. Also, it would work to show the two different ways things went, and the similarites they shared. (Edit) I actually just went to the temp page, accesable from the Gothic metal page, and, i had already corrected that =x. Leyasu 18:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Problem with Gothic Metal

To many bands that have a lead female singer a listed as Gothic Metal bands when in many case they are not Gothic at all. Bands such as Lunatica, Visions of Atlantis, Nightwish, and Edenbridge have never really had any thing to do with Goth Metal at all. A band such as Leaves` Eyes is more Folk Metal then Gothic do to what the songs are about.

Please realise that this is the reason for the revision of the article. A revised version is currently located here. If you have any comments on how the revised version could be made better, please state them here. Leyasu 01:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Best way to do it. Look at more then just the words and the music. A band such as Leaves Eyes well there music may sound gothic but if you really look at the subject matter it falls into Folk Metal. There first CD is and 2nd CD have to do with many myths and true story of there homeland. Also bands such as Epica are listed right a long side Cradle Of Filth and Type O Negative. Epcia does not even have the same sound. That I believe is the one problem with the Goth Metal part is that to many of the bands don't really either have the same sound or lyrics at times. It would be best if really for Bands such as Epica, After Forever, The Sins Of Thy Beloved, Trail of Tears, Tristania, etc be listed as BnB Metal bands then Gothic metal. One good reason is for that is also because Tristania as really changed there music. Same with After Forever and even Trail of Tears. There are few other bands I don't know if you have hear of the band Ram-Zet adds in ever gerne of metal you can think of so many gernes that they can't be list under just one other then maybe BnB Metal. Another thing to look at is what it says

• lyrics focus on a variety of subjects: religion and God, heaven and hell, romance, (gothic) horror, depression, bereavement, emptiness, and death. Typically, the subjects are set in a pre-20th century environment.

That can be said about all metal bands. Otep and Arch enemy get into some of the same themes as Type O Negtive or Epica would. But they are cleary not goth metal. The best thing to do would be to start Beauty n Beast metal genra and take out many of the bands that use both male and female singers.

If i missed answering this before, i suggest the person who wrote this looks at the article again. Leyasu 04:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Revised Article

More and more people are now posting, backing up the points i have made several times. As such, i made a final edit to the revised temp (anyone want to copyedit it?) in which ive tried to increase the flow of the article with the layout of the history section, and tried to add a little history of Gothic Doom in there. I also changed a few things, due extra research i did, and based on popular view of some things, as to avoid arguments. I intend at the end of the week, to post the revised edition, unless others have any other reasonable edits to be made to it. If not, due to the increasing number of people complaining, the article having warrented a 'needing attention' label, and the fact this argument has gone on long enough, i will post it on Monday The 19th.

If there is anymore comments and suggestions for the revised version, or editations people would like to make, please do so during this time, so a polished and good prose version of the article can be posted. Leyasu 05:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

List of bands should be in another article.

As many other genres i feel list of bands belongs to another article. I copied the contents from the main article to List of goth metal bands.

As mentioned before, its a list of Gothic Metal AND Gothic-Doom bands. The genre is also called GOTHIC Metal, not GOTH Metal. Rename the article appropriatly, and then the article list shall be included. At current, it undermines almost all of the article. Leyasu 14:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Both names 'Goth Metal' and 'Gothic Metal' are used in Gothic metal article refering to the same genre. I renamed the mentioned article to List of gothic metal and gothic-doom metal bands even though this name seems too clumsy to me. D0c 11:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Also read the Common Misconceptions part of the article on the negative use of the term 'Goth Metal'. Yes, it is a clumsy article to do a list of bands for. Yes, the name of the list is clumsy. But it wasnt my idea to list both articles into one. However, i have been handing out Wikipedia's name more regularly now, and people who have gotten back to me have said, not having to go through 100 different articles to find something is a lot more helpfull. So maybe keeping the band list on the article is helpfull as example bands, with a comphrensive, detailed list in another article? Leyasu 12:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Just put {{:List of gothic metal and gothic-doom metal bands}} in the main Gothic metal article under the header for the list. That will copy and paste the contents of List of gothic metal and gothic-doom metal bands into the article. (Though to edit the list, you'd have to go to List of gothic metal and gothic-doom metal bands. You can't edit the list directly from Gothic metal if you do it this way.) --Idont Havaname 04:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with that Idont. It makes it harder to keep track of the articles, and for editing by others it makes it a nightmare to follow all the articles. Personally i still think having 5-10 bands on a seperate list for both Gothic-Doom and Gothic Metal, and then a comphrensive list of each in seperate articles is the best way to go about it. Leyasu 04:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

That's not a good way to do it either, though. It's generally not good to pick a few items out of a list, and if you do, you might run into POV problems (or at best, you'll just be mentioning bands that the rest of the article discussed.) If the list is short, it can stay in the article. But this one seems to be long enough to justify its own article, so it would be best to keep it on a separate page. --Idont Havaname 05:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The only ptoblem is, a lot of people want things there for quick reference. I suggest waiting for more people to comment before any action is taken by either of us. Leyasu 06:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

No Concensus Reached, So Tags Shall Remain.

I have placed 3 fitting tags on the top of the article, due to the reason that reverting the article back to the original will just cause Leyasu to wage another revert war; Looking at the above notes, there was absolutely no concensus reached that Leyasu's Temp page was suitable enough to be submitted as an article; he/she basically said they would be doing it, "everyone is on my side" (who is "everyone"? It seems everyone was criticizing his/her edits) and that was that. Still several factual errors in the article, as what had already been discussed. Danteferno 15:05, 15 January 2005 (UTC)

Consenus was reached and more than one editor has reverted your tags. The argument was also abandoned by the the disagreeing half after ample warning was given to the posting of the revision unless further discussion was to be held. Further attempts at blatant vandalism, MPOV, and disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point will be pointed out to admins, who can then decide the best course of action. Leyasu 16:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The above is from a user (Leyasu) who has been blocked by Wikipedia admins for personal attacks and 3RR, a user who has been pointed out by Wikipedians as using sockpuppets, a user who continuously provides no source/references for their edits, and is now denying that any of this took place. Recently, a wikipedia admin (Sn0wflake) abandoned trying to work with Leyasu for his/her continued personal vendettas and campaigns (See Leyasu's discussion board for proof on all the above.). Very confusing, but not surprising, sadly. Danteferno 18:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

User who made accusation of Sock Puppets = Danteinferno.

Admin (Sn0wflake) quit an argument between several users, one of which was myself, and quit the argument from participating due to all users. The article in question being Grunge.

Another user also banned for 3RR was part of the argument on the Grunge article.

Dante has also broken the 3RR on this article against edits i made.

It should be taken into account, that Dante was also named for MPOV on several articles.

Another point is that Dante was also told by more than myself, that his edits are wrong, and more than one user has reverted his edits. Dante also claims vandalism on any edit that isnt his own.

I will now inform Admins about this users behaviour. Leyasu 16:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Please report me for my "behavior", Leyasu. One admin already told you that calling another Wikipedian "meglomaniacal" is namecalling and a personal attack (advised by Sn0wflake in your dispute with LGagnon, something you were blocked for, and then you threatened to report admin Sn0wflake for not siding with you.) Your presence here has been nothing but counterproductive, and there is still no evidence that the "majority is in agreement" with you in turning the Temp page (which has various errors, mentioned above) into the main article. No, everytime you're asked a question for your sources and claims, it's "harassment" against you. --- Danteferno 00:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The only user who has harrassed me openly is Danteinferno and i have made no such claims against any other users. I also never threatened to report the admin who blocked me, i asked him to explain where i made a personal attack, which in kind, he did.

This again is slander and personal attacks, claiming now im being counterproductive on Wikipedia and making bad faith edits. Again, personal attacks.

Also, a consensus being reached is evidence enough. As well as the Gothic Metal scene and the bands involved within depicting the genre as such. One persons defination and that of misconception with sources critcially disclaimed by many, including the scene, doesnt make a good source. Leyasu 02:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

You could say a concensus was reached as much as you want - it didn't happen.Your "friend" parasti(who also seems to be joining you in your 3RR violations on other articles) is not the main voice of Wikipedia, and neither or you. So where's that Wikipedia admin you were talking about? I think their judgment on whether a concensus was reached (and whether the tags should stay) is confirmation enough. I also think it would be good to let them know of your current 3RR violations of other articles (with other users), that the same thing happening there is happening here - and it's not a "Danteferno" problem. Danteferno 04:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Please see my "official" reply on Danteferno's talk page. That is all there is to it, basically. And for the time being check out WP:NPA. Cheers. -- parasti 00:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not all there is to it. Per your discussion page, you just registered with Wikipedia on December 18, so unless you have an existing username on here, you have not been here long enough to read up on the Wikipedia process. Danteferno 04:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)