Talk:Bullet for My Valentine

individual pages for band members

I think pages for all four of the guys should be made. I think they have enough star status that it is time that they should have a page for people to get to know them individually better. I've got something for Matt agoin but it needs work. Help out if you can and if you disagree discuss it and we'll figure it out.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatguyinchair3 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

-core are genres of hardcore punk & -Metal are genres of Heavy Metal inspired by good things in life

How is Bullet for my Valentine remotely punk? The greatest difference between punk & metal music is the skill and level of the music being played. metal is played to high quality (or at least an attempt) containing lead breaks, skillful timing, technical skill whereas punk is supposed to be of an amateur level containing used mostly three-cords. The term punk came about to describe three core one off hits by amateur garage bands in the states. Punk developed into a popular music style played at an amateur level known for its "buzz" guitar blast sound. Bullet for my Valentine are skillful musicians and play too technically structured songs to fall into the punk bounderies.

From rock / hard rock rose both Heavy Metal & punk rock. From Heavy Metal came sub genres all ending in -Metal (i.e power metal, thrash metal etc etc). When punk rock began to decline, hardcore punk evolved and took punk into a newer revived realm. From Hardcore punk came also sub genres. These all ended in -core (i.e crustcore, grindcore etc).

Much metal took influence from punk music yet remain metal (i.e. thrash metal) the same way punk took influence from metal (i.e. crustcore, grindcore).

Some metal fans tried to make new genres up using the ending -core but not realising that -core was already a punk used ending. Its like making a new genre of punk and calling it 'punk metal'. To call Bullet for my Valentine as metalcore is wrong. They are an evolution of metal and not punk.

>Even if they are an evolution of metal, calling them "heavy metal" is still wrong. We can all agree they are a metal band, but I don't think heavy is the right type of metal, especially if we were to describe most songs on The Poison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.72.160.129 (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

>Bullet for my Valentine are skillful musicians and play too technically structured songs to fall into the punk bounderies.

that's hilarious. Also I really like how you keep on rehashing your little essay about the differences of punk&metal, and copypaste it to various talk pages always changing it a little bit. very cute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.61.193 (talk) 13:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

MCR

Just have to say "I brought you bullets, you brought me love"they have broken up Because I ask you a "Bullet for my valentine" hahahahahahahahahaha... Ok that was just a joke but I must say, BFMV sounds similar to MCR, and their name is like the following of "I brought you bullets bla bla bla..." so, may we write a section about the name or a comparison or something?

Disgusting,don't ever compare Bullet to my chem,there are plenty of differences.And they don't sound like em either,since when does MCR have screams and guitar solos,yeah,i didn't think so.4.235.189.149 (talk) 00:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you'll find that MCR does having screaming and guitar solos :) They're just nothing like BFMV. MCR: Alternative Rock. BFMV: Metalcore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grungedude22 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

mcr and bfmv are nothing like each other, i like both bands but i don't see how you can compare them. they are different genres of music. --78.151.148.53 (talk) 13:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I see your point, but, a similar name doesn't really mean anything, and also, yes, MCR's first album had elements of metalcore but not much. There is some post-hardcore in metalcore so, yes, it's not an invalid point. Thanks for reading. [[::User:Thundermaster|Thundermaster]] ([[::User talk:Thundermaster|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Thundermaster|contribs]]) 13:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I had post that just for the name and some similar sounds but yeah they are not that similar, Bullet resembles more to Metallica. Jak-Esz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.248.40.19 (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I understood the name thing, but comparing those two bands to each other musically is like comparing Suicide Silence to No Doubt. — GunMetal Angel 20:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

ook? BFMV are a 100% better than MCR. and they sound nothing like each other. that names crap was a load of bull shit how dare u compare them. lol but still get your facts right mate

New album

Maintains some metalcore values but it has a touch of power metal in my opinion. Should I put that in there?

Find sources saying they are power metal. Just because you think it retains elements of power metal, does not mean they do. M3tal H3ad 03:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination on hold

Leave a note on my talk page when you've dealt with the issues listed below. Dihydrogen Monoxide ^♫ 06:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• If the band formed in 1998, this should be noted in the infobox (rather than 2003).

Well BFMV formed in 2003 but i have noted when their previous band formed in the infobox

OK, that's fine.

• "Although the offer was turned down, the band secured a five album record deal with Sony BMG." - This implies that the Sony deal was unexpected after turning down the Roadrunner deal - I doubt this is the case. Perhaps reword to "The offer was turned down, and the band later secured a five album deal with Sony BMG."

Changed

• "the album has since sold 339,000 copies in the U.S. as of 8 November 2007." - Remove the "since", and be sure to update this regularly...

Changed, and will update

• Matt Tuck --> Matthew Tuck (keep it consistent throughout the article)

Done

• At the start of the history section, either have wikilinks for all instruments, or for none. At the moment, there's one wikilink for background vocals, and nothing else...

I only linked background because everyone knows what a guitar is but i linked them all for consistency

• "Playing Nirvana and Metallica songs," - Change "songs" to "covers"

Done

• "the band released a two-track CD in 2002, produced by Greg Haver called (You/Play With Me balls)" - Is the name supposed to be in brackets? Also, change "produced by Greg Haver called" to "produced by Greg Haver, and called"

Done

• wlink for Radio 1 or Newport's TJ's?

Linked both

• Any idea why Cradle left?

Not at the moment

• "A second EP, (often referred to as a mini album)" - We can work out what EPs are referred to by reading the EP article...

Done

• "which was only available in the United States" - Change "which" to "and"

Done

• "Decibel Magazine" should be wikilinked in the "Signed to a record label" section.

Done

• "Zombie made the band price match his merchandise ($40 a shirt), although the band were only allowed two pieces...which resulted in and Tuck referring to the headliner as "money-grabbing fucks"." - Suggest rewording too something like "Zombie made the band price match his merchandise ($40 a shirt). The band were only allowed to play two pieces...(new sentence)Because of the poor conditions, Tuck referred to Zombie as "money-grabbing fucks"." Does this make sense?

I understand and have changed this

• Refs 9 and 24 point to the same page.

Don't know how i missed that :S

• Is the "Waking the Demon" reference notable?

Nope, removed

• "we're not into that just being loud for the sake of it"[27]" - Need a full stop (.) here.

Done

• A table could be created for the awards section, or alternatively you could create the List of Bullet for My Valentine awards list. See List of Powderfinger awards for a demo.

I don't think there is enough content for a separate article at the moment, will see what happens after the next album is released.

• "Bullet for My Valentine has received coverage in music magazines including being featured on the covers of Metal Hammer and Kerrang, and stories in Revolver, Outburn, Penthouse, Rock Sound, NME, Hit Parader, Total Guitar, Guitar One, Drummer Magazine and Alternative Press.[29]" - Not sure if this is noteworthy

I think it is, plus it beefs the section up

• The discography is expanding, you could consider a Bullet for My Valentine discography (ref. Powderfinger discography) some time soon.

Will do after more singles

• Need a category for the year the band formed (eg. Category:Musical groups established in 1998). You might also want to create a Category:Bullet for My Valentine, in which all the album/song articles can be stored.

Added 2003 when BFMV official formed

Reviewed version: [1]

Cheers, Dihydrogen Monoxide ^♫ 06:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the review :). M3tal H3ad (talk) 07:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Passed :) — Dihydrogen Monoxide 00:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thrash Metal

Lol there seems to be a war at the moment. There are elements of thrash metal in their music but not enough to be classified as thrash. Especially their new stuff is not really thrashy. Although that is my personal opinion, what does everyone else think? RPI 22:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Their genre should be Hevay Metal. Thats it, Heavy. Metal. They are in no way metalcore, at all, listin to other metalcore bands. No.No.No.No. They are Metal. The End.--153.42.135.159 (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

hell no. they aren't metal, you idiot. they're metalcore, not metal. there's a fine line between the two genres. bullet is a lot more hardcore than metal, t heir music is more vocally aggressive than instrumentally agressive. besides, if they were metal, metallum would have accepted them a long time ago, rather than labeling them as one of the metalcore bands that you should never try to enter. Itachi1452 (talk) 21:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Stay WP:CIVIL in future, please. And Encyclopaedia Metallum is just an amateur fansite, what it says has no bearing whatsoever on Wikipedia. Funeral 21:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

go look on the 10 Years talk page, and look at how well that reflects on the civil. my responses were sabotaged continuously. (also, if you can, could you do that "the unsigned comment was written by soand so thing? i don't know how). but it's not just that, bfmv sounds like hawthorne heights decided to play heavier music. that's all. Itachi1452 (talk) 01:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, Metallum may not be a "professional" website, and so it's opinions should be taken carefully, but in cases it can be very useful. After all, a lot of "professional" things like certain magazines are made up of people just the same, most with no better qualifications in the subject. Indeed, I'd say the opinion of someone who knows heavy metal very well is worth far more than someone who simply happens to work on a reviewing website or magazine that sometimes ventures into the genre. Prophaniti (talk) 10:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

metalcore is a form of metal. lets call them Neo-thrashcore? did i just invent that?

Simmo Mania (talk) 17:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.53.64 (talk)

"listin to other metalcore bands."

That Bullet seem to sound an awful lot like? On The Poison and the EPs at least.

I think we could at least mention increased thrash elements in their music, it's a lot faster and somewhat less hardcore, emphasising the metal part of the sound more than the hardcore part, I still wouldn't call it thrash but it s thrashier. 62.252.193.221 (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I like to think of them as thrash metalcore,i wouldnt call em heavy metal,there guitars arent distorted enough for that,they do have the speed of thrash though,and the screaming vocals of metalcore.Or rather metalcore that's influenced by thrash,though you really can't call a band the same genre that there influenced by.After all,Pantera was influenced by glam,we all know pantera is not glam.

PS:For those of you say there that Metalcore is NOT Metal,metalcore is considered a subgenre of metal.Now would i call every metalcore band metal?No,underoath is far from metal in my opinion.But plenty of metalcore bands could also be considered metal,lamb of god,for example.4.235.189.149 (talk) 00:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

—how about getting a verifiable source for classification? --Sloba (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

They do have speed, but speed alone doesn't quanitfy thrash metal, or even a true element of it. Thrash is more about the riffing style and song layout. Prophaniti (talk) 10:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Look guys, Scream Aim fire is defo a departure from The Pioson, they do now have some elements of Thrash, but not so much as to start calling them a Thrash Metal band, songs like Waking the Demon and Ashes of the Innocent definetly back this up, but its safe to say they are still a Metalcore band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waseyk (talk • contribs) 20:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, BFMV is not thrash metal. Period. They are metalcore (crap). They may have "thrash elements" but they are not thrash. And if you have a statement by them saying that they thrash then BFMV is lying. BFMV is metalcore. Not thrash. Get it straight people. They don't have fast speeds, don't have ultra-distorted guitars or long hair. They are thrash posers, so they're metalcore.PastramiX (talk) 21:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of crap in here: your personal feelings on Bullet and Metalcore have no bearing here. Stop it. Now, as to the actual issue: no, they are not thrash metal, and don't have enough of thrash metal to warrant the tag. This is nothing to do with how I feel about them (for the record I quite like them), they simply don't fit it. The odd element doesn't make you a band of X genre. I have listened to a LOT of thrash, and they're not among them. Unless someone can provide some proper sources citing them as thrash, I say the tag be removed, and will act on this within the next few days if not. Prophaniti (talk) 00:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

How about Thrashcore? It's thrash and metalcore. Will that stop the fighting? 96.242.38.28 (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC) Jack Bauar (I'm not registered)

You can't just make up a genre and add it, that would be original research. Keep it as metalcore, no need to add any other genres. -- FatalError 02:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

agreed, bullet is just plain metalcore. having occasional double-kicks doesn't qualify a band as thrash at all, and having occasional thrash riffs. bullet for my valentine are less thrashy than vol. 3 era slipknot for god's sake. Itachi1452 (talk) 17:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

BFMV aren't thrash in the least bit, nor are they heavy metal. Listen to this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jDIx23m59U, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jDIx23m59U, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlGPWcmdkZ4,http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzxAEYY3vY4. All these songs more or less in the same genre. Now listen to these: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T62Br1gWpbY, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUQz_eTe4kg, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prmMdI97hvQ. Unless your deaf, you can hear a huge difference. BFMV are metalcore, plain and simple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by True bacon222 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Some of you just dont fricking get it. Bullet For My Valentine is not even close NOT EVEN CLOSE to being "Thrash Metal" they are a METALCORE band! never will they be "Thrash" ive listened to thrash alot of people have listen to Thrash theres a huge diffrence between Megadeth and BFMV. i can see some people calling BFMV "Heavy Metal" after Scream Aim Fire but i wouldnt call it that. its still Metalcore and as long as BFMV plays live and records they will and always will be "METALCORE". BFMV is not like other Metalcore bands though there a heavier type of metalcore they dont sound like Devil Wears Prada, or As I Lay Dying. Overall...BFMV Is "Metalcore" FINAL! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buccaneers123 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

According to the Band's Myspace page, they are a metal band... not metalcore, not thrash, not any other genre.. it should just be that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.48.60.221 (talk) 17:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The guy above who says "not even close NOT EVEN CLOSE to being "Thrash Metal""... what are they close to then? Jazz, Medieval chant, Blue grass?... Jeez... all these pathetic genre arguments seem to be about such tiny silly wee differences, they're not differences at all. Using the extremely tight genre-splitting arguments of some folk on wikipedia I reckon you could put every Black Sabbath song into it's own genre... JSL595 (talk) 13:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

history section/nu-metal

Where it states that the band wanted to follow the nu-metal trends, the examples are Korn and Limp Bizkit. Korn should be used as a valid example as they were the ones that are renouned for starting the nu-metal genre, but also, instead of Limp Bizkit being an example, Linkin Park should be used, as they are better pioneers and the highest selling act of the genre. Furthermore, Linkin Park are currently active where as Limp Bizkit arn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.252.174 (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Linkin Park didn't even exist in 1997, so how were Jeff Killed John supposed to follow their trends? Funeral 16:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Linkin Park were formed in the spring of 1996. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.252.174 (talk) 09:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

and Hybrid theory was released in like 1999-2000? So they couldnt of set a trend in 1996-97 M3tal H3ad (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you know what nu metal is?A combination of rap and metal,linkin park doesn't use distorted guitars,a common use in metal,in my opinion linkin park is just a mainstream rap rock band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.235.191.138 (talk) 01:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Bullet for my valentine sounds so emo even though i must admit that their newest album has traces of thrash metal riffs here and there. If you listen to their earlier songs like " All these things I hate" then you will understand what i mean when i see why bullet for my valentine should be depicted as emotive as well as metalcore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waikin619 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

GetthetenyearoldsoffherePLEASE! 85.97.5.140 (talk) 11:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Capitalisation

Why is the article capitalized as "Bullet for My Valentine" when Scream Aim Fire clearly shows a capital "F" on "For". Why would they choose a capital for "My" and not for "For" if no cited explanation is available the article should be renamed to reflect the Album. Luke255 (talk) 00:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The Lyrics To The New Songs

I've noticed on Lyricsondemand.com that the lyrics to "Eye Of The Storm" are all but correct. What is up with this. Just b/c people hear the song and think they understand the lyrics are just wrong. You have to have the lyric book that comes with the CD to understand some of it. Personally I've got it and I love it, but if I want to post something about the lyrics and how they go, I've got to type them myself from my lyric book b/c some ppl just can't get them right online...but it's all good, we'll get over it, but to be honest, I love this album...

LilRichard23 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.206.83 (talk) 08:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting, do you know what site you're on? 85.97.5.140 (talk) 11:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent Interview

I added a paragraph with some excerpts from Padge's interview at UG but someone deleted it. I think we should at least talk about his new signature guitars??? Here is the link to the interview: HERE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.41.46.167 (talk) 12:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

His signature guitars have nothing to do with the band. Feel free to add it on his own page. M3tal H3ad (talk) 04:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

The article Matthew Tuck does not assert much notability outisde of this band, alot of the article is unsourced original research and the article contains alot of irrelevant info. Guidelines suggest band members are better contained in the main article. Are there any sources for actions outside of the band? Could it be merged here? --neonwhite user page talk 23:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I support the idea. Thanks for reading. [[::User:Thundermaster|Thundermaster]] ([[::User talk:Thundermaster|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Thundermaster|contribs]]) 13:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I personally dont support this idea. I also think there should also be pages for the other members.76.88.131.248 (talk) 06:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately notability guidelines do not allow for articles about non notable persons. --neonwhite user page talk 21:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This Is crap because it has a lot of info on the gear Matt played with so you should put it back —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.200.166.173 (talk) 09:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced and non-encyclopedic info. Wikipedia discourages trivia. --neonwhite user page talk 17:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Changed

Just Thought you guys should know, I changed Matthew Tuck To Matt, cause' he goes by Matt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.38.28 (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Which stands for Mathiew..nice job...-sarcasm- btw, who here realises that it doesn't list that Hands of Blood has a music video when it does?

Bullet For My Valentine: a singular noun

Bullet For My Valentine is a singular noun. It follows the same rules as a book title. Even though it refers to a group of people, it is to be treated as a singular noun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robojedi (talk • contribs) 02:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

STOP ADDING GENRES!!!

People have said it before and I'll say now to (again), STOP ADDING GENRES WITHOUT FUCKING DISCUSSING THEM FIRST!

I Just had to remove a genre because some fucktard thought they were Heavy Metal.

(Sorry for Vulgar language)

That is all. 96.242.38.28 (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Jack Bauar (I'm not registered)

About the genres, they are heavy metal (their newest album was) and, some of their early stuff was Nu metal. Can we agree with that? π₰Å₯ ĬLʡ$Φǚɭђµπt₴ŗ ₯Å₰π 08:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

If they're heavy metal, then they're definitely emocore, too. Actually, IMO they're just emo and not heavy metal, at all, but that's just my oppinion. anyway, I have a source that says they're post hardcore, screamo and punk metal: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.5.155.191 (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Emocore? Post-hardcore? Screamo? lol, yeah right. You obviously don't know anything about hardcore or emo.--Kmaster (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Kmaster, Bullet For My Valentine are emocore. They sound nothing like metal, so they are definitely not metalcore, they are a complete different style of music compared to Trivium and All That Remains, those two bands are REALLY metalcore. Zxcvghjk (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Allmusicguide actually says "melodic, dark rock with, well, metal tendencies" which isn't very useful. --neon white talk 21:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Should be left as metalcore IMO they aren't metal no mater what MTV tells you Killhammer (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately (I say unfortunately because I do not think Bullet are heavy metal whatsoever), there is a citation for heavy metal so it will have to stay, unless anyone can find neutral third-party sources that specifically discredit Bullet being heavy metal. James25402 (talk) 11:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure BBC know allot about metal.Killhammer (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Haha, yeah, BFMV is hardly heavy metal (even hardly a real metal/hardcore crossover, I can't hear any hardcore influence, how you can call their music? Pop Metal?) I'll see what I can do.--Kmaster (talk) 18:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

(Although I disagree) The source states they blend heavy metal with hardcore. There is no reason for a redundancy, since metalcore is heavy metal+hardcore punk--Kmaster (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The genre heavy metal is sourced. Do not remove it. Opinions matter not in these circumstances, verifiable sources do. The source clearly states that BFMV are "arguably the UK's biggest heavy metal band of the moment". You can't get clearer than that. I must urge you not to remove sourced information again. Nouse4aname (talk) 12:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, I cannot stress enough that I disagree with BFMV being a heavy metal band. To me (and probably most other people) they are simply a metalcore band, HOWEVER, that source is perfectly acceptable and so as long as heavy metal is sourced, it will have to stay.

However, I'm changing the opening sentence back to "is a metalcore band", because sources labelling them as anything other than metalcore are few and far between, so there should be little dispute over this. James25402 (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

all they r is metalcore (Seth4000 (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)) Seth4000

Just becuase some retarded magazine says they are metal means nothing, if a magazine said Blink 182 was metal and it was cited would that mean they were metal? No. The general consensus is that they aren't metal becuase they aren't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by True bacon222 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

A note on style guidelines

In british english bands are plural and common practice is to use british english not american english in british related articles such as this. --neonwhite user page talk 14:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Strating Date

Body of the article says they formed on 1998. On the other hand the table says that they are active since 1995. Can somebody with sources fix this? Thank you. 00:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe they were previously known by several different names prior to the current one. There is no real ser time when we can say the band was formed. --neonwhite user page talk 13:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction

How does this article contradict itself ? Jakisbak (talk) 18:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of "Michael "Padge" Paget" article

Since Matthew Tuck's article was even more detailed than the Michael Paget article and was merged with the Bullet article, I think it'd be beneficial just to delete Michael's article, as it serves absolutely no purpose but state the obvious. The only text entered in the Michael Paget article is "Michael "Padge" Paget is best known as the lead guitarist and backing vocalist of the Welsh metalcore band Bullet For My Valentine." It's redundant and unnecessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.255.115 (talk) 01:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Early Demos

I think that the demos should have a page. I know that demos aren't notable enough for wikipedia but couldn't there be a page for early Bullet releases all together? Give their track listings and give a lead pargraph describing how they were released when they were Jeff Killed John and the stylistic differences between the demos and newer Bullet realeases. Tell me what you think of this idea and go to my talk page to tell me if you'll do this. Jonasbrotherareterrible (talk) 14:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Add new link plz!!

I've Created a wikia about this article and i want you to put it here plz the web page is http://bfmv.wikia.com/wiki/Bullet_for_my_Valentine please add it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rokua6 (talk • contribs) 10:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Link..

{{editsemiprotected}} erm idk if its ok lol but remember the link!! http://bfmv.wikia.com/wiki/Bullet_for_my_valentine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rokua6 (talk • contribs)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —Ms2ger (talk) 12:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Genres

Can everyone please stop edit warring about genres. Your personal opinion of their style or genre of music is irrelevant. What should be stated is the genres noted in reliable sources, giving due weight to the genres, i.e. not including those from a minority viewpoint. Fences and windows (talk) 20:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

There isn't really edit warring, just several IPs (representing the same person) removing "melodic metalcore" here and at metalcore because he claims it "doesn't exist". He has been given a final warning for vandalism. Timmeh! 20:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Why are Thrash Metal and Heavy Metal listed? They are not genres of the band, and are possibly pov. All the bands songs, albums, and eps are listed as Metalcore, why is the band listed otherwise? Altenhofen 19:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see the style and influences section in the article. It has sources for those genres. Timmeh!_{(review me)} 19:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

If you mean me I don't remember getting any warning about anything. Also my arguement is that melodic metalcore is irrelevent as it directs to the same place as Metalcore, not that it doesnt exist. Hatebreed aren't listed as Metallic Hardcore so why should BFMV be listed as Melodic Metalcore? I'm really not sure they sould be listed as Thrash Metal in the info box. Styles is fine and they do have Thrashy riffs but thats part of Metalcore. plus in comparison to Thrash bands like Sodom or Slayer they really don't sound the part. Even Trivium sounds different to BFMV and they are listed as Thrash Metal and Metalcore as well! Duck610 (talk) 02:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

List nu-metal genre as old material

I saw an article of Avenged Sevenfold. The genres are Hard Rock(new) & Metalcore(old). So since Jeff Killed John play Nu Metal music, it should be added to Bullet For My Valentine's genre and write in the bracket as "(old material)" like other bands article do have. --Rimara (talk) 08:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why not. --Kmaster (talk) 20:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

If you want to add new genres, wait a bit for others to comment, and present reliable sources. Fences and windows (talk) 23:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The reference has always been there. --Kmaster (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Awards section

If you'll take a look at the awards section, you'll see a trivia tag. I think it may be more practical just to put the awards into a table, rather than having a list in paragraph form. Would anyone mind making a table for the awards? Timmeh 01:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It should be in list form.--110.159.75.57 (talk) 07:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Metalcore band vs. heavy metal band debate

Continued from previous discussion.

"Heavy metal" is refering to ALL their genres, the reader of an encyclopedia does not want to go through all these subgenres whilist observing an article. Heavy metal's general subgenres do include metalcore and thrash metal which are BFMV's genres, as to what in your words the "sources say". — Metalcore is a subgenre of heavy metal, do you get it now? • GunMetal Angel 19:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is that metalcore is not a subgenre of heavy metal. It's a fusion genre of hardcore punk and extreme metal, according to the Wikipedia article. Therefore, you cannot substitute heavy metal for metalcore or vise-versa. Timmeh 20:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Fusions genres are parts of subgenres, it's all categorized within the subgenre classification, otherwise Shadows Fall or Trvium wouldn't have their lead stated as "heavy metal" band, might I add BFMV are no different from these bands in terms of what the sources say (also come to think about it, just like Trivium, Bullet both have their lead singer play guitar and has their bassist and their lead guitarist both doing backing vocals.) • GunMetal Angel 21:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Once again, "other stuff exists" is not a valid argument. Metalcore, while being part extreme metal, a subgenre of heavy metal, is also part hardcore punk, which is not a subgenre of heavy metal. Metalcore is not a subgenre of heavy metal. Therefore, you cannot place metalcore under the heavy metal umbrella, no matter how much you want to do so or how convenient it may be. Timmeh 00:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, not to intrude or anything, I just thought that i'd toss my 2 cents in, if you guys don't mind. I personally agree with User:Timmeh. While it would be more convenient to place heavy metal as their universal genre, the article for metalcore does state that it is a fusion of hardcore punk and heavy metal, therefore it isn't really a subgenre of heavy metal, but rather a fusion of two genres. What's wrong with just keeping it metalcore?Emo777 (talk) 07:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I find myself agreeing in the same way. If we feel that a catch-all genre is required for the opening sentence; it may be necessary to resort to the classic noncommittal method of calling them "a rock band". ~ mazca ^talk 10:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not gonna put a large ammount of debate here this time, because I feel others would like to make their statements too, as for my bottom line — metalcore IS a subgenre of heavy metal you could just read the article or just look at the word - metalcore. • GunMetal Angel 20:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Your example with the word is good except it ignores the second half of the word, "core", which is derived from hardcore punk. Also, reading the article tells me it is a fusion genre like I said above, not a subgenre of heavy metal. Timmeh 21:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, I agree with User:Timmeh, if you read the article on metalcore, you'll notice it calls metalcore a fusion of heavy metal and hardcore punk, not a subgenre. If we just use "heavy metal" as the universal genre, how long before someone argues their not a metal band and wants to go to using "rock" as the universal genre? Just something to think about. Emo777 (talk) 07:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

As this all goes then how is the lead for Shadows Fall and Trivium remain heavy metal? Metalcore is metal, Bullet for My Vaentine's primary genre is metalcore, but with that stated metalcore (even on the article for it) has assured that the several groups in this generation that perform the style are refered to directly as "heavy metal" bands, as such how Unearth was continously. And even so, Unearth have ONLY been indentified as metalcore, BFMV on the other hand are metalcore and thrash metal, just like Shadows Fall and Trivium who both have their lead as heavy metal - I never ignored any sort of the other half of metalcore, but the presence of it directly is a heavy metal genre. And for the last part, fusions and subgenres are typically the same thing as to how they are sometimes refered to as "fusion subgenres". — GunMetal Angel 00:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Referred to by whom may I ask? Timmeh 00:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

But metalcore isn't a subgenre, otherwise that would make it a subgenre of hardcore punk as well as heavy metal. Fusion genres and subgenres are different. Besides that, Bullet for my Valentine aren't thrash metal, they have trash metal influence no doubt, but I still say it's a pretty long reach before you can call them thrash metal. Emo777 (talk) 09:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll walk down yet another ally, BFMV aren't even straightforwardly metalcore, they're generally melodic metalcore (melodic death metal, extreme/alternative metal and hardcore punk) and with that along with thrash metal, it's obvious that their tiny little hardcore punk influence is buried down with all the metal that is made up of the band's general style. - And plus having this conversation go this far is pointless, having the lead as "heavy metal band" is supposed to be the progression of the article — why else do you think Linkin Park, Tool, Machine Head and Shadows Fall all have their lead generic as rock band or heavy metal band? Do you want to know why? It's because these bands are classified under multiple genres, just like BFMV. — GunMetal Angel 23:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to keep repeating the "other stuff exists" argument. It's an invalid argument, and it obviously isn't advancing the discussion. Your own opinion about the amount of hardcore punk in BFMV's music doesn't matter either. The fact is, metalcore cannot be legitimately included as a subgenre of heavy metal. Unless you have some evidence, backed by reliable sources, that metalcore is a direct subgenre of heavy metal, the genre with the majority of sources will be put back into the lead per our NPOV and verifiability policies. Timmeh 00:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The reason why those pages you mention are labeled as a "universal genre" (i.e. Rock, Heavy Metal) is because no one on the talk page could reach an agreement on what to label them as because they take influence from so many types of music. BFMV is different, everyone on this page (except you, no offense) has agreed on what they should be labeled as. And, it doesn't matter if they have alot of hardcore punk influence or not, they're still metalcore. This is a pointless argument. Emo777 (talk) 07:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

So, after I've stated clearly I'd restore metalcore into the lead if Gunmetal Angel hadn't responded, it's been about two weeks and he hadn't responded. Therefore, I restored metalcore, and he quickly reverted it, saying this wasn't settled. However, he still has not responded. Does everyone else agree that consensus is to restore metalcore? If so, I'll restore it, and any unexplained removals will be considered disruption. If not, I'll invite some others to weigh in on the issue. Timmeh (review me) 22:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, metalcore is fine. This debate is getting worthy of being nominated for WP:LAME. Fences&Windows 02:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if no one wants to respond then in reality this is settled, go ahead and put metalcore back in the lead. Emo777 (talk) 14:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Timmeh is obviously just the stubborn user, I mean he has reverted my edits to such articles like Bleed It Out in which I was restoring the original genre, among other pointless reverts. And as for this he is technically ceasing the article's progression, EVERY other article that involves with music and have got an award for "Featured Article" at some point always have their lead as "rock band" or "heavy metal band" band, and eventually this article's lead will be heavy metal as well, it could be now or it could be next year, I prefer now, and if anyone disagrees, why? Are you just being as stubborn as the next person? Otherwise read every single response I have wrote here and then respond to this comment. • GunMetal Angel 23:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Call me what you will. I'd prefer to comment on content, rather than contributors with whom I disagree. The main argument for having metalcore in the lead is that, first, it is supported by a majority of sources, and second, having heavy metal in the lead would exclude metalcore because it is not a direct subgenre. In other words, metalcore as a band's genre cannot be assumed by looking at heavy metal, but heavy metal can be assumed as a band's genre by looking at metalcore. None of these points have been refuted, and therefore, with the agreement of the last major participant in this discussion, Mazca, I will reinsert metalcore per consensus and in accordance with our neutrality and verifiability policies. Timmeh (review me) 00:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Metalcore is fine. Yes, it does not describe every last iota of their output, but it's both a fairly good description of them as a band, and definitely seems to be the most common term used among reviews and other reliable-sourced coverage. Given that I feel "heavy metal" is strictly inaccurate, and "rock" is just so imprecise that it's worth avoiding wherever possible: metalcore is most certainly the most logical term to use here. ~ mazca ^talk 08:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Gunmetal Angel, I have read ALL of this discussion, and you have given no real reason as to why heavy metal should be the lead. I respect you as a fellow wikipedian, but you haven't given any reason heavy metal should be in the lead other than beacause it is on other pages. It is the lead on other pages because they couldn't settle on a genre to call it. Maybe it will be heavy metal in the future, but for now I beleave it should be just left as metalcore because it is the most used term within the sources. Emo777 (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

What the...? I've given much reason more than you can possibly imagine, rather it being directly or looking at it from more than 5 different views, everything I have gathered up and given examples is all stated, that comment really made no sense. • GunMetal Angel 20:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I have restored metalcore to the lead per my interpretation of consensus and per the policies I referenced above. Gunmetal Angel, if you disagree with this change, please do not revert my edit but discuss it here instead. Timmeh (review me) 22:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Music videos

I don't think this section is at all notable or necessary. Only a list of studio albums by the band is really notable for the band article. Music videos should be saved for the main discography article. See AC/DC and Nirvana (band), both featured articles. If anyone has objections to the removal of the list of music videos, please voice them here. Timmeh 15:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. If you think there should only be studio albums listed, then create a separate page for BFMV's DVDs, EPs, and music videos. If you don't, then leave the videos. They are part of the band's works. hsxeric(talk) 15:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

There isn't currently a discography page, is there? I'm fairly neutral on the argument of including music videos, but either way I rather think the discography section is getting long enough to warrant splitting it into a separate article. Any objections to this? ~ mazca ^talk 19:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

A separate discography article would be nice. I probably should not have assumed BFMV already had one. You can go ahead and create it if you want, and then we can remove all the extra stuff in this article. Timmeh 21:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

For anyone else following this discussion; a discography page has now been created at Bullet for My Valentine discography. The article does look tidier with all those tables split out, I think. ~ mazca ^talk 17:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Here Comes The Storm

Are we sure that this is the title for the new album? It's not sourced or anything and Matt Tuck said in an interview on the second day of Mayhem Fest that they didn't have a title for it yet. I need confirmation of this title to believe it. KezianAvenger (talk) 12:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not the title. If you see it mentioned in the article, it should be removed immediately. I don't know why, but this seems to happen with almost every upcoming album I encounter. A rumor gets spread around so widely across non-reliable sites that you see dozens of fanboys rushing to add a speculated title based on what another fan said on a message board. Timmeh 19:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, nothing anywhere says Matt Tuck is recording vocals now. It says that 17 days ago he planned on recording them soon, but nothing more. KezianAvenger 02:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts...

Right, I'll obviously do this more in depth later but had a glance first.

• Images are fine and GA-suitable. But I'm wondering why the body photo is not in the infobox. I know it doesn't have all the members but it's way nicer and more professional. I thought it was a copyrighted thing from Guitar Hero or something when I first saw it. Consider swapping the photos.

More to come... Rafablu88 11:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done Timmeh (review me) 14:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Lead is CEd. Links and infobox seems fine. Add band members + common instruments, and musical style in the lead. I've set it up. Rafablu88 22:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Seems a bit thin on refs. I know GAs don't have to be ridiculously cited, but opinion must always have a ref:
  • "Jeff Killed John's members wanted to follow the nu metal trend set by bands such as Korn and Limp Bizkit and played what they thought record labels wanted to hear."
  • (maybe) "Roadrunner Records showed interest at one of Bullet for My Valentine's shows in London and offered the band a deal."

• Should go on the album page: "Critical response to the album was mixed. Stylus Magazine editor Dom Passantino commented the band's contribution to the world of music is "basically a slightly uglier, yet similarly polished take on their genre than Lostprophets", awarding a C- grade. Blabbermouth.net reviewer Scott Alisoglu stated Bullet for My Valentine "is fairly good at what it does and at least half of the songs are better than average", although commented that the album "follows with several 'hey, it's predictable, but pretty rocking' moments". Decibel Magazine contributor Kirk Miller commented, "There’s zero in the originality department here," but he praised the band's synchronised song structures compared to other bands."

Back later... Rafablu88 23:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• NEEDS A DATE: The band's performance at the Brixton Academy in London was filmed for their first DVD, The Poison: Live at Brixton.
• NEEDS 1-2 REFS: During June 2007, Tuck suffered from laryngitis which led to a number of shows being postponed until early January 2008. A tonsillectomy was scheduled in mid-July, although it was brought forward at the last minute at the advice of Tuck's doctor.

Reflist:

• 3 italics on pub. and link
• 5 dates
• 8 unabbreviate RIAA
• 16 Billboard and link
• link 17, 19, 20, 21 (LiveDaily)
• 22 publisher is in author
• 23 Metal Hammer and link
• 24 no CAPS and link
• link? 25, 26

• Pick a dating convention and stick to it.

And I'm done... It's a nice GA. Try and source as many sentences as you can, especially to shut up the vandals. Rafablu88 01:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll get to fixing those refs tomorrow. Thanks a bunch for taking some time to look over the article. :) Timmeh (review me) 02:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

No probs. Also forgot to say that Billboard have sorted out their website and collated EVERY single detail, esp charts, into one single flash beta page for every artist. It might be wise to remove all the ones used here and cite just one page. Rafablu88 08:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Bad Picture

Hey, I'm new here, but I've been here before, and the picture for the band had most of the members, and the new one only has two. Shouldn't the old one be put back up? User:Fatguy 983 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatguy983 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

See the section above this for why this photo was put in the infobox. Timmeh (review me) 13:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Judas Priest infuence

Listen to 'Scream Aim Fire' and you'll hear 'Over the Top' sounds like 'Breaking the Law' by JP —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moltenrock (talk • contribs) 06:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Reference no. 32 has been vandalised by the inclusion of 'PENIS' in the hyperlink, I'd change it but it's semi-protected

Fixed. Thanks. ~ mazca ^talk 09:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Matt Tuck

Is it true that he was taught by that crazy woman on the XFactor, Ariel Burdett (formerly Amy)? --Scythre^Talk_Contribs 17:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Frigging vandals... oh wait

A link at the bottom says that stuff about being commercial, haircuts and makeup. Fucking Viking metal fascist vandals.

five albums or five years?

In the lead, it mentioned the band secured five album deal but in the record deal section, it mentioned five year record deal.--Rimara (talk) 10:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The source cited by the second mention seems to suggest it is in fact five albums, I've changed the text. ~ mazca ^talk 12:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

list for awards

In the awards section, we should list the awards they won instead of just write it in paragraph form.--Rimara (talk) 10:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

confusing

It's kinda confusing me while reading the article. It stated that You/Play With Me was released in 2002 and Nick Crandle left the band on the eve of entering studio to record it. But in members list, it shows that Nick Crandle was the band member until 2003. If he left before the recording session of You/Play With Me, then it means he left in 2002, not 2003. Also the article is not chronologically clear. In the first paragraph, it wrote about the release of the EP while the next paragraph, it wrote about event prior to the release of the EP.--Rimara (talk) 05:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Michael Paget's page

Since Paget now has his own DVD released, doesn't it worth to create his own wiki page? Beside the release of the DVD never mentioned in Bullet's article.--Rimara (talk) 04:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

new info about the new album

i cant edit the page because of vandels but a new interview with matt says the album will come out late april and will be more like the poison and have no ballads

http://www.rocksound.tv/news/article/bullet-for-my-valentine-talk-new-album —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickyoung667 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

and here is another article confirming the date http://www.theprp.com/2010/01/21/news/bullet-for-my-valentine-plan-april-release-for-new-album/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Nickyoung667 (talk) 01:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for posting the link. I've added the info to the article. Timmeh 01:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Glad the new album's gonna sound more like The Poison. Not that i didn't like Scream Aim Fire, just preferred the "raw emotion" in the previous. 90.194.175.121 (talk) 22:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Matt Tuck (whilst speaking to Zane Lowe live on Radio One) said the new album will be released 26/27 April depending where you live. As it has no source, what do we do with that info? Newsteadgirl (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You can use the {{Cite episode}} template for radio broadcasts. Timmeh 22:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've done that. Hope its ok, only problem is that the link isn't permanent and then it really will be unsourced. Newsteadgirl (talk) 21:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

New album release date

The new album "Fever" has been confirmed to be released on April 27. The date needs to be edited on the page and I have not been confirmed yet so I can't edit it myself. Here's a link to the announcement. [2] Alinton4343 (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)andrew

I've changed it. Timmeh 22:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Release Date For Single Wrong

'Your Betrayal' was said on your page to come out as a single on March 9th. It came out today (March 2nd).

Here's a link; just in case: http://www.bulletformyvalentine.com/us/music/your-betrayal-digital-45 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ammccoy (talk • contribs) 22:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed Festival in Germany

Hey I just wanted to ask if somebody may add that Bullet For My Valentine are playing on the famous german festival 'Rock am Ring' this year. Here you can see the line-up to confirm it: http://www.rock-am-ring.com/ 93.131.227.33 (talk) 10:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It's already on there. I did it a few months ago. Newsteadgirl (talk) 21:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Missing an album

ur missing their first album which isnt The Poison it is Hand of blood. The poison came after it i mean no affence or anything but whoever wrote this page knows nothing about bullet and i cant write about it because i have too much time on my hands as it is now would someone get it right or i might just eat someones face *OM NOM NOM NOM* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.36.248 (talk) 03:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

hand of blood was a promo EP and was their second. their self titled was first. and besides extended plays arnt albums.Jonjonjohny (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Your Betrayal page

why isn't there a wiki page for Your Betrayal?David1287 (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

header paragraph Vandalism, 25 june 2010

correct info is available in body of text

Edit request from Kratos1909, 23 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Kratos1909 (talk) 05:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Feinoha ^{Talk, My master} 19:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)