Talk:Nightwish

---

To do

• "Nightwish Demo" - References, pictures
• "Angels Fall First" - References, pictures
• "Wishmaster" - References, pictures, development (more info)
• "Over the Hills and Far Away EP" - Pictures

• "Century Child" - Pictures, development (more info), change of musical style
• "Planned new album" - References

- Aki (talk) 13:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Archives

Archive 1 : June 2004 – March 2007 Archive 2 : March 2007 – October 2008

Archived

I have just archived the talk page from March 2007. - Aki (talk) 11:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Planned 2009/2010 album

For eventual discussion about this part of the article, see it's own talk page. - Aki (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Holopainen's backing vocals

Is Holopainen's backing vocals worth mentioning? He performed vocals on four songs on Angels Fall First back in 1997, sure, but except that it's just two songs, one being on an EP. I'll delete it from the line-up section. - Aki (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I found a live performance of "Beauty and the Beast" in 2000, with Tuomas on vocals of course. See this video.--Nazzzz (talk) 12:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Nightwish did not pioneet Female singers in heavy metal music

Nightwish was early identified as pioneers in the field of female heavy metal vocalists, being laughed at in their early years —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.211.86 (talk) 16:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

That whole statement is a slap in the face to people such as Doro and The Gathering who were doing what Nightwish is doing now. In other words that is a false statement and discredits Doro who is the real pioneer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.211.86 (talk) 16:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't said that Nightwish was the first band with a female metal singer, ofcourse they weren't. Still, they were among the first, and they were among those who popularized female metal singers, and made it more common. Galileo Galilei wasn't the first believing the sun was in the center of the solar system, yet he was still mocked for this belief. Same thing. Also observe this is wellsourced material. From page 62 in the English translation of Mape Ollila's "Once Upon a Nightwish":

"In 1997, a female vocalist was still a curiosity [...] and crude comments like 'Metal and tampons don't mix' and 'a woman's place is in the backstage giving head' were quite common in those days. [...] Female singers were relatively uncommon and the few women that gave it a shot often were often met with prejudice and sarcasm. The best-known female-fronted band at the time was probably The Gathering from Holland."

- Aki (talk) 08:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Lita Ford need I say any more? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.211.86 (talk)

Instead of coming up with new example, read what I just wrote. - Aki (talk) 17:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The continuing post in this discussion was posted in my talk page, and that is the exact text copied in here beneath:

All I'm point out is that it's flawed in what it is saying. A lot of female fronted bands are not taking things from Nightwish. On top of that Women such as Doro, Lita Ford and bands such as The Gathering are the true pioneers of female fronted metal. Also the term female fronted is aimed at any band that plays Black, Death, Power, Prog, etc. It reads in such away that any metal band with a female is A) Gothic B) they are influenced by Nightwish and C) leaving out the fact that female fronted bands play all different kinds of metal. To-Mera for example has taken nothing from Nightwish. Arch Enemy is Melodic Death metal with a lead female.

Nightwish was early identified as pioneers in the field of female heavy metal vocalists, being laughed at in their early years as they followed bands such as The Gathering and Doro[49]. According to Holopainen, the idea of Nightwish wasn't as brilliant as it may sound - to mix styles of female operatic vocals and metals - but it was a mere coincidence as Turunen was asked into the band while they still were an acoustic project, and then things eveloped by themselves. The usage of a female vocalist has however become a sort of trademark, though less so since the outbreak of new female fronted metal bands in the mid-2000s with the popularization of bands such as Evanescence and (the later) Within Temptation, and several gothic metal bands mixing female and male vocals, such as Tristania, Epica and the early Within Temptation.>>>>

That just dose not read very well at all. I would say it would be better worded a long the lines of Nightwish helped to push Female fronted metal to the front or something like that. I would also drop the Gothic Part as being the only genre to mix the female and male vocals. Ram-Zet, and The Project Hate also mix female and male vocals. Besides that really has nothing to do with the music style at that point. It's just saying to much and then gets away from being about Nightwish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.211.86 (talk) 21:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Within Temptation did not follow Nightwish, both bands were founded in 1996. This is not to take anything away from Nightwish playing a role in how bigh Within Temptation has gotten, but to note that that street ran both ways -- and to underscore that both are part of a second wave that came a decade after women like Doro, Lita Ford, Lee Aaron, etc. pioneered female-fronted metal.- Holzman-Tweed (talk) 14:49, 13 July 2009 (EST)

I am not that into female fronted metal bands outside of the symphonic/power/gothic genres, so I would think you're a better contributer on that field than I am. The paragraph about it in the Nightwish article is actually listing EXAMPLES and not an entire world of music, but I agree that it does make it seem like the only metal bands with females vocalists are either gothic or symphonic, and that could be changed by adding the artists you wrote to me about. But still, I have barely heard of them before, so you go ahead add it. - Aki (talk) 16:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

What I'm saying is cut and down. Epica is already there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.211.86 (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Compilation albums

In the "compilation albums" field, there are two new 2008 albums, "The Sound of Nightwish Reborn" and "Annual Assault 2008". One of those is a mix of b-sides from Dark Passion Play, and the other one is a mere annual compilation with different Roadrunner artists. The Annual Assault is also proposed for deletion. I take these two away from the discography, if there is no protest. - Aki (talk) 17:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Departure/Dismissal

Resolved

This edit replaces "Dismissal" with "Departure", which is better in terms of NPOV, but is it historically accurate? If it is a better word, should we replace it throughout the article? --Northernhenge (talk) 13:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC).

I don't see why we can't use dismissal. That's what actually happened, she was fired by the other members. At least to me, departure sounds like it was her own choice, which it was not. - Aki (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. --Pstanton (talk) 04:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Genres

So here comes the discussion again, this time with opera metal. PSIMagnet17: Just read [archive]. Until consensus is reach we'll just call them "symphonic power metal". - Aki (talk) 10:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

There's that, and the fact that the terms symphonic metal and opera metal are synonymous. :P Byakuya Truelight (talk) 11:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Not really, symphonic metal has nothing to do with opera. - Aki (talk) 18:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Really? Type opera metal into a Wikipedia search, see what page comes up. :P Byakuya Truelight (talk) 07:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Opera metal is a very small subgenre in symphonic metal. As the article says, some symphonic metal singers sing operatic vocals. Some. Not all. I.e. opera metal != symphonic metal. - Aki (talk) 14:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright, fair enough. I get that. ^_^ But I may as well add to the argument about Nightwish's genre now. Considering that Anette is definitely not operatic, they can't be considered opera metal, though they still retain their symphonic elements. I think I'll make that all I have to add. :P Byakuya Truelight (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

One page that comes up is Last.fm, where it says: "We don’t have a description for this tag yet". The wider issue, of course, it that genres are very subjective. (We can, though, see the way that people tag things on sites like Last.fm and indeed Wikipedia.) --Northernhenge (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem with opera metal is that it's not a genre. Symphonic metal is a genre and you have to all at the bands. That bands that play symphonic metal the most come from power and black metal. Look at a band like Emperor they play Symphonic Black Metal. It has more to do with the sound of the music then the vocals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.211.86 (talk) 21:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• Removed "described by some people as epic metal...", because

1. There's no genre called "epic metal" (And even considering the deleted "Epic metal" page, it dealt with bands like Manowar and Manilla Road - same genre with Nightwish, are they?)
2. "some people say..." "many people say..." is a typical weasel word. Editor should have wrote "I say" )) Either we quote a magazine or person, and it is not "some people", but "magazine X, journalist Y", either we have no this phrase at all. The choise of latter seems obvious.Garret Beaumain (talk) 00:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Opera Metal is not a genre indeed, but neither Symphonic Metal for that matter, despite what wikipedia users want to believe. Symphonic Power Metal is correct for Nightwish ImaginaryVoncroy (talk) 03:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed opera metal is not a genre, but that has nothing to do with it. Some call them opera metal, that is a fact with sources. The article did not claim them to BE opera metal, merely that some people say they are. And I do think we should have a section or subsection about the genres, including what they really are, and what different people call them, etcetera. - Aki (talk) 13:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Image

Why to use a collage of low-resolution clips, cut from photos of different years, when there's a lot of good photos of the whole band? User Snow White Queen never explained the photo change, so I revert it to the original one.Garret Beaumain (talk) 11:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Tarja picture in the "Musical style" section

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nightwish&curid=83440&diff=293218462&oldid=293065138 Why the edit? Quispiam (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Genres, part 2

Okay. Here's the thing. Genres in the infobox and article main need to be backed up with reliable sources. heavymetal.about.com is not a reliable source. It's one person on an ad-supported blog. Therefore, allmusic and metalcrypt remain the best sources found so far. If you object to this, please discuss it here, not by reverting the article. tedder (talk) 13:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Yet you went and removed metalcrypt souces. and about.com and a reliable souces so is music might. I sourced all three of those about a week ago and then you and other's go and change them all. Either put it back the way it was or move on. I used metalcrypt only to have others remove it. I used it a number of times for the power metal part and yet it was removed.

http://www.metalcrypt.com/pages/review.php?revid=784 http://www.metalstorm.ee/bands/band.php?band_id=1&bandname=Nightwish musicmight, etc all have them listed as power metal, gothic metal, and symphonic metal that's it.

and instead of leaving them you people edit them for just one site. Now I know why Bardin was pissed off. --Epica124 (talk) 14:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

But what is really funny is that a site owned by The New York Times Company is not a reliable source.--Epica124 (talk) 14:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I think metalstorm and metalcrypt are reliable, but about.com certainly isn't. Look at the archives of WP:RSN, it's been discussed before. Feel free to start a new topic there to ask also- just make sure post a link to the thread here. tedder (talk) 14:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

metalstorm is user edited and even that shows them as being a Power metal band and even that is taken out. So you know what do what you want. Like I said now I know wny Bardin got pissed off and seems to have left. --Epica124 (talk) 14:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Even sties such as Metal Archives that people can't use have them listed as power metal. --Epica124 (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I used metalcrypt you guys removed it. But forget it do what ever you guys want. It does not really seem to matter what any does I could use all the top metal mags in the world and they would be taken out. So whatever I have better things to do with my time. --Epica124 (talk) 15:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I though this was already being cleared up centuries ago, anyways, as we all know Nightwish gengre has been defined by critics as "power metal", "symphonic metal", "folk metal", "gothic metal" even "thrash metal", and many more depending on the song and/or album, so we can say Nightwish gengre is not an easy one to describe with only one word, and if you ask me, when its about gengres of bands and musicians is best to talk about it for a very good time like normal persons until we have all a clear idea of what we are going to put and what not, because if we look on the internet we can find "reliable sources" that can say things like children of bodom being hawaian pop, britney spears being emo and this perfect example that is in this article, nightwish being black metal, excuse my laughts, but please...(a symphonic black metal act click here) I think I made my point very clear, its up to you if you think the same or wanna keep on this "nightwish is black metal" thing and only trust these so called "realiable sources", your call...

Another point I wanna make is about the gothic and folk metal term used to described Nightwish sound, I admmit they have some abiental-dark-gothic elements in some songs like Nemo and Bless the Child (for saying only 2), as also their folk metal elements in songs like The Islander, Last of the Wilds, Creek Mary's Blood and the Angels Fall First album (and even other songs, just cited these to make use of the wikipedia content of this article) and all this elements are included on the "Music" section, and its fine, as I already said, Nightwish sound its not an easy deal to just say "its that and that, period", but I dont think their primary gengre should be described as gothic or folk, I mean, they have that sound on some songs but its not what predominates in all of their musical style and I think things would be easier if in the gengre section we put only the one it predominates the most and then specify in the "Music" section all of the elements that can describe Nightwish sound in different albums, singles, etc (section wich by the way now is very well described).

Well I hope I made my point well, and being said all that, I think the gengre that predominate the most is "Symphonic power metal" but another option if we can't decide a primary gengre for the band, then let's just put a "See below" link, like I said before, the "Music" section is very well informed and decribed.--201.208.37.93 (talk) 16:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

That's very well said but the sad part is they ask for reliable souces when you give reliable souces they now edit them out for just one. I used metalcrypt for power metal only to have it edit out. The problem is we have a few people here that want it there way or the highway. So I say let them do what ever they want and let them run it how ever they want. I mean really I find it funny that they question half the reliable sites. I mean really let's at the wall street journal what better thing to use for info about the enocmy then that paper. Oh but the site might have ads on it so never mind. --Epica124 (talk) 17:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I also find it funny that tedder is not posting anything. He is the one the brought this up. --Epica124 (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

arbitrary section break

I have several problems with the current genre classification and the sourcing of it:

• The most important one is probably writing style: if a band defies being classified under a single sub-genre listing it as an "A/B metal band" (for relevant values of A and B) would be okay. If you look hard enough and find sources listing the band under 5 different genres, calling it an A/B/C/D/E metal band is not. Pick the one or two most prominent and put the rest in the infobox.
• A reliable source would be one written by an established reviewer, not a user-submitted review on any website. And even that case you still have to be very careful with the metadata that is later added to such a review (as with the "symphonic black metal" pointed out above.) And even this would probably not lead to the intended result. Wikipedia should mention what the general opinion of all reviewers is, not what the opinion of one particular reviewer in one particular review is (especially if the review didn't explicitly try to define and discuss the genre.)
• The sources do not always back the claims made in this article: e.g. http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:dbfixqwjldhe writes that Nightwish is "Following in the footsteps of [...] goth-influenced "symphonic" metal bands with female vocalists", which is not really the same as calling it a gothic metal band.

—Ruud 19:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

And on a more constructive note: my preferences, which also seems to be the prominent opinion on this talk page, would be to call them a "symphonic/power metal band" or "symphonic/power metal band with gothic influences". —Ruud 20:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Ruud you bring up many great points and it brings to light the problem with using allmusic.com --Epica124 (talk) 21:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The irony is that I often find the crowd-sourced tag cloud at Last.fm to be a much more accurate and reliable reflection of a band's genre than the "reliably sourced" classifications in Wikipedia. Of course Last.fm cannot be used as a source, as being crowd-sourced means it's not a reliable source according to Wikipedia's definition, while the sources used at Wikipedia probably wouldn't be classified as reliable for that purposes by any crowd of people and often ultimately only reflect the opinion of a single person. That single person also being more often the last editor of the page than the author of the sources used to back that opinion. —Ruud 21:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Which in many ways hurts wikipedia. --Epica124 (talk) 22:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I think we all made our points very clear, the only thing left is that tedder say something and reach an agreement--201.208.37.93 (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Reading this talk page and it archives doens't reveal any opposition to classifying them as "symphonic/power metal". I don't even think tedder does. His argument mainly seems to rely on discounting some references as unreliable, while assigning too much to another. —Ruud 23:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Which is the whole problem to being with. I was using more then one reference. For Power, Symphonic and Goth metal. Allmusic may be good for some things but genres they are not. Emperor is Symphonic Black Metal. Nightwish is not even close to what Symphonic Black Metal is. Heck they are not even Black Metal unless they are going back the fact that Tuomas Holopainen played in a Black Metal band but he also played in a Doom Metal band as well. Heck Isaac Delahaye the new guitar player of Epica played in a Death Metal band but I would not list Epica as such not unless they start to have songs that fall into the sound that Dark Tranquillity, In Flames, and At The Gates started (that sound being Meloidc Death metal). --Epica124 (talk) 00:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Epica, Ruud, I'm not real concerned about what the genres actually are. But I'm certainly not a fan of removing sources considered reliable and replacing them with less reliable sources, or no sources at all! Here's an edit by epica124 removing all sources in the 'genre' field, and one by Ruud Koot removing all sources and including an unsourced/OR genre. Again, whatever we feel the genres are doesn't matter. It matters what the reliable sources call the band. If the New York Times wrote that they are a synthpop group, we should say so.

The delay on replying was because I had to travel cross-country to get home after visiting family in the hospital. tedder (talk) 01:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

My point in removing them was that these sources are (individually) not reliable at all. —Ruud 10:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Kind of like the fact that I just point out that about.com is ran by The new your times and that I used metalcrypt for the Power metal source and yet still had it removed by you and others. In fact I had Gothic, Power, and Symphonic metal all there with a source last week only for them to all be removed. So don't tell me I'm removing sources. I sorucred them went away for a week and then come back to see ever thing I did was ruined. So all I have to say to this is Bah. Use what ever source you want. I don't really care. I'm just shocked that I sourced All three genres and many many sites agree on Power, Symphonic and Gothic yet they are removed and Heavy metal, and Symphonic Black Metal are put in there place. So I wasted time that I could have spent playing World of Warcraft to stop the editing. What a really poor way to run a site. --Epica124 (talk) 04:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that allmusic is also a site with ads and are nothing more the blogs. Case in point http://www.allmusic.com/ if you go to the front page you have ads. --Epica124 (talk) 04:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand you are a fan of about.com and not of allmusic. That's a much larger issue than this talk page, though. As I said, take that to WP:RSN and post a link here. tedder (talk) 06:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Here allmusic calls them "symphony-enhanced power metal" in the review, but with the exact same strange genres in the metadata in the sidebar as in the other review. More in this and this review. —Ruud 11:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Tedder I do not agree with your overly simple interpretation of Wikipedia policies. If we would strictly adhere all Wikipedia policies we should also explicitly attribute all opinions to the people who hold them and we would have to open this article with "Nightwish is, according to the metadata at a review by Steve Huey at Allmusic, a symphonic black metal band ....". However as this is the only time I've ever heard anyone call them a symphonic black metal band, this opinion is, by WP:NPOV, not major enough to belong in the lead. This is was my point of claiming that none of the references provided so far are reliable and removing them from the article. They were added to create a false sense of the current article text being backed by a majority opinion of reviewers and music fans, while in reality being just as (un)authoritative as any other text made up here on this talk page. What we need is a truly reliable source: one that explicitly explores the genre of Nightwish and summarizes all the major opinions on this subject. Not one single source that only ad hoc mentions some genre. Until the time such a source is found, if it exists, we should try to synthesize this information from a large number of sources and the talk page consensus seem to be that symphonic metal and power metal are used most often to describe the musical style of Nightwish. —Ruud 10:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC) No,the majority of the sources described them symphonic or gothic! for example http://www.seaoftranquility.org/reviews.php?op=showcontent&id=5780

Here's what I add sense most sites like Nightwish as a Symphonic, Power or Gothic Metal band I put those at the top of the page. I also left them in the info box. I put the Heavy metal and Symphonic Black metal parts in the sytle part of the page. If there is more then one site that ends up listing them as Symphnoic Black metal and Heavy metal I would be fine in adding them in the info box and the top of the page. I took the links out from the info box because it looks really really bad having that much stuff there. So Symphnoic Black metal and Heavy metal just in the style part. --Epica124 (talk) 23:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with what you did Epica, I only want to say one thing, if we read the music section of the article mentions as well gothic metal, but it looks it catches more atention on the symphonic and power metal part, leaving gothic metal just as some element included on their music in some songs/albums, but not a part of their main styles, so im going to take away the gothic metal gengre out of the infobox, If you do not agree with me its ok but please lets discuss things here and not do an edit-war.--201.208.37.93 (talk) 23:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you know why I moved the Symphonic Black metal and Heavy metal genres? Only one site has anything about them being in those genres. Many sites have listed them as Gothic metal. You take it out again and I will be sure to have the page locked down again. There will not be any edit war because no one will be able to edit it. --Epica124 (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey dude take it easy, I was just saying something I noticed, besides this article before had only symphonic and power metal on the infobox and was just fine until the allmusic thing came up, why are you getting so upset? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.208.37.93 (talk) 04:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

What does that say? Wikipedia is based on sources not on personal opinions. There are various sources wherever that consider NIGHTWISH as GOTHIC. especially sites Germans, Scandinavians, Dutch, French and Italians!! Instead, there are not many English sources, but there are and are reliable. Then there are also musical encyclopedias or books that are printed in Europe. EPICA124 and others are right. Stop it because Wikipedia is not made only from your personal opinions, but respect those of all, and gives importance to the sources. remove sources is vandalism. do not do more please. you should respect the sources and the opinions of others!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.30.164.17 (talk) 14:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't even see Nightwish as Gothic Metal nor do I see Epica as Gothic Metal. But there are major sites that say other wise. I don't have to agree with them but it's what the major sites say. If Rolling Stone Mag came out and said Nightwish was Gothic Metal then you have to add it in. I don't agree with them but what I want is not the same as how Wikipedia wants it. --Epica124 (talk) 15:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Right! Rolling Stone is an important magazine and ,as I said before, Wikipedia gives importance to the sources.it respects the evolution of musical genres and new names. Currently the European Critical (especially the French, Scandinavian and Italian) treats them also as goth. so there's nothing to clarify. things are all too clear. wikipedia must be respected. remove sources is vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.17.209.207 (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a more recently discussion about the theme lower, please discuss there, I believe some user gave other explanations--201.208.37.93 (talk) 23:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

"Wind Emblazed"

"In the June 2009 edition of the Finnish magazine, Soundi, Holopainen stated he had started work on the new album. In October 2009, the working title of the album was revealed as Wind Emblazed."

I can't find a single source on this. a search on Google only shows one reliable site, being Wikipedia. Quispiam (talk) 15:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm deleting the whole idea of that name since the man adding it doesn't respond me, and I can't find a single source. Seems like a fake leak to me. Quispiam (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the only mentions of "Wind Emblazed/Embraced" are from Last.fm or Wikipedia. Though, from the Last.fm Nightwish shoutbox DarkSymphony500 wrote:

"I found out that Toumas Holopainen spoke about the new album in a Finish magazine and the new album title was translated from Finish. But the words got mispelt from emblazed to embraced."

VioLetJade (talk) 20:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It's still just a rumor, sort of. Quispiam (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the information on the album title but got re-reverted. Now the article says (with a reference to a blog which in turn refers to this article!):

”In the June 2009 edition of the Finnish magazine, Soundi, Holopainen stated he had started work on the new album. In October 2009, the working title of the album was revealed as Wind Embraced. The title has been translated from the original Finnish which is "Tuuli Ottaneet"”

"Tuuli ottaneet" doesn’t make any sense in Finnish but rather sounds like a machine translation of something. I checked both the June–July and October ’09 issues of Soundi and didn’t see any mention in regard to the future album title, so where did this come from? Magazine name, number of issue and page, and preferrably a scan too, please. Otherwise it will have to be reverted again, Wikipedia isn’t the right place for rumors. I don’t understand what’s the rush anyway, they won’t even start recording the album until a year from now (according to Holopainen in Soundi issue 6–7/2009). –Kooma (di algo) 14:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, there's been nothing concrete. THe album article itself can probably be deleted under DB-A9. Rehevkor ✉ 16:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Tours?

I've noticed the "main article" for the history sections are being changed from the albums to the tours. But wouldn't the tours be in support of the albums, making the albums the "main" articles? Especially considering the tour articles consist mostly of lists of tour dates with very little context? Rehevkor ✉ 22:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with you. An album is just an album, while a tour takes a large part of the band's time. An album doesn't have to be set for a specific time, but can be re-released several times. A tour can last for years, and when it's done it's done. Quispiam (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Gothic?

Who the hell added gothic tag, based on some fan sites? It should be removed as not relevant. Wikipedia's reputation is declining from such a "popular identifications" with goth and emo tags used for everything. As it was previously done with HIM and Marilyn Manson, contraversional tags should be left aside of intro and box, and only listed under "some critics also called the band...". Garret Beaumain (talk) 04:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Neither site is a fan site. Do what you are doing here using the talking page. Don't just edit out things that have a ref tag to it. I don't agree with Gothic Metal either. --Epica124 (talk) 22:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Only this of your links leads to a review which considers Once a goth metal (although author just obviously didn't knew that Symphonic metal exist). This is a minority opinion and it is enough to mention it in music style section, not in the band's infobox. Additionally, Sonic Cathedral is not a published media and just a webzine. I'm removing goth metal from infobox and intro, it can stay in the Musical style section along with "Heavy metal" and other tags applied at least once. Garret Beaumain (talk) 05:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sonci Cathedral is one of the biggest sites on the net that deals with female fronted metal. I'm also going to point out that the site has had many interviews with the bands. They also sell a lot of music on there site. It's not just a simple webzine. The have major writers on the subject. Lords of Metal is also a majore site. You also have http://www.revelationz.net/index.asp?ID=2401 http://www.chartattack.com/news/44704/finnish-gothic-metallers-nightwish-want-to-grow-their-north-american-cult http://www.popmatters.com/music/reviews/n/nightwish-once.shtml

That's more then just a few sites and it's not in the minority. Again I don't agree with them being Gothic metal at all. But a lot of major reviews sites do see them as Gothic Metal. --Epica124 (talk) 23:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Sonci Cathedral is still just a webzine, "simple" or not. As well as with Marilyn Manson and HIM, goth tag is misused by webzines, and it may be mentioned in music style section with attribution as "certain webzine label band as...", but never in intro, which says "the band IS". Intro shoud contain only the general and undisputed information about the subject, all points of view belong to their sections with attribution.

Please stop adding it to infobox. This point of view is already covered in the section it does belong to. Not for the infobox and intro, which should contain only general and undisputed information about the band.Garret Beaumain (talk) 08:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

All of that was already done. Ever part of it and it was agreed to have Gothic Metal there. But you know what do what you want. I don't care I have better things to do with my time. --Epica124 (talk) 00:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Symphonic Power Gothic Metal

sonuds absolutly rediculus. Perhaps it sould just state "Nightwish is a heavy Metal band..." and state specific subgenres in the infobox. the way it is looks dumb. Ducky610 (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. While I cannot comment on the genres themselves, it seems to be common practice to keep the genre in the lead generic, as you suggested. I'd go with "metal" myself. Then keep specific genres (sourced) in the info box and or main body of the article. Rehevkor ✉ 01:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd go with simply "symphonic metal", because I don't think anyone argues that. And then in the infobox as well as the musical style-section it can be discussed further. Quispiam (talk) 01:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

ok, I've changed it to say "Nightwich is a metal band...", I think this is more apropriate as be it symphonic, power or gothic they still play metal. How does this sound? Ducky610 (talk) 12:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

No it's not ok because you took out thigns that have sources to them. --Epica124 (talk) 17:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait what? You can't erase anything sourced now? I think you misunderstood some of Wikipedia's basic rules. The text Ducky610 erased was irrelevant, no matter if it was sourced. If I added fifty lines about Nietzsche by the end of the Nightwish article, would you not be able to erase it even if it's sourced? Quispiam (talk) 03:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, I erased it because saying they are a symponic power gothic metal band is rediculus when it can just be stated that they are a metal band with specific subgenres listed in the infobox and musical style sections. I wasn't trying to remove information that I don't agree with. If need be can the sources not be added to the musical style section which goes deeper into the subgenres?? Ducky610 (talk) 06:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I checked through the musical style-section and it has a pretty okay description, but as we have noticed the band is called different genres by different sources, something that we could throw in a whole paragraph about. I don't really want to do that right now, but if anyone wants to, feel free. Quispiam (talk) 02:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Style of writing in "history" section non-formal?

I think the history section is written in more of a narrative style than a formal style. Have tagged it with a story template. Thedeepestblue (talk) 21:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

New album

To all,

I suggest that you take a look at this. It contains information about the new album:

Anette Olzon's Official Blog

Peter88823 (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Section headings

The heck, guys. "Conagration"? That's not even a word, and it's been in the section heading for a couple weeks. I don't even know what word it's going for

Anyway. I think I like the old section headings ([[1]]) better than the current ones, but I don't want to change them back in case there was a good reason for the change. Twilight Realm (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)