Jump to content

Talk:Judas Priest

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 85.97.5.140 (talk) at 21:33, 13 July 2008 (→Opening line). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

How about...

Power metal? I mean they kinda fit the description of what early power metal was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.146.98 (talk) 00:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

agreed Haxxiy (talk) 22:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Failed "good article" nomination

Upon its review on October 25, 2007, this good article nomination was quick-failed because it:

contains cleanup banners including, but not limited to, {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{NPOV}}, {{unreferenced}}, etc, or large numbers of {{fact}}, {{clarifyme}}, {{huh}}, or similar tags

thus making it ineligible for good article consideration.

This article did not receive a thorough review, and may not meet other parts of the good article criteria. The "additional citations" tag was there before the nomination date. I encourage you to remedy this problem (and any others) and resubmit it for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Cheers, CP 22:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images

I'd like to add a few more images into this article. The cover for British Steel, maybe. The Priest Cross. Just to help make the huge blocks of text more bearable. What does Wiki think? Howa0082 06:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The NWOBHM error

NWOBHM is a music era that went from 1979-1981. An era when several notable new bands began their recording careers. Iron Maiden, Def Leppard, Saxon... etc. The tag keeps being added, incorrectly, to the this article by users who are unfamiliar with either the NWOBHM scene... or simply unfamiliar with Judas Priest. JP started as a band in 1968-69... a full decade ahead of NWOBHM. Their recording career began in 1974... 6 years prior to the peak of NWOBHM. They had a large following in Europe, Japan and Canada... and were selling a very respectable number of albums in the U.S. prior to the NWOBHM surge. It is an error that likely stems from British Steel becoming a huge hit for the band at the same time that bands like Iron Maiden and Def Leppard were starting to get some international recognition. British Steel was a hit... but it was also the band's 6th studio release... and their 7th release total (counting the live album). So the tag doesn't, and hasn't ever applied to them. They actually fall in the the "Second wave of British Heavy metal"... along with bands like Thin Lizzy, Wishbone Ash... etc.... bands that got their start prior to 1975... but after the "first wave" bands like Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath and Deep Purple. 156.34.233.42 22:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judas Priest was still a big part of the NWOBHM movement. Iron Maiden started in 1975 btw, to which you are going to point "but they didn't release their first album till 1980!"...so what? They were at least influential to a huge degree to the movement. 1979-1981 refers to the peak era, does that mean any band outside of that is not NWOBHM? Navnløs 22:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The British Steel album was caught up in the NWOBHM movement. But the band already had a very respectable career globally (including the U.S.) several years prior to the NWOBHM era. Yes, Iron Maiden started in 1975. But they didn't have a recording career or any notability outside of London until 1979. Motorhead recorded their first album in 1976. But their label refused to release it. It wasn't until the release of Overkill, Bomber, Ace of Spades... that they truly had a career beyond their local English following. So they end being one of the premier NWOBHM bands because they were completely unknown prior to 1979-1980. Saxon, Def Leppard... all pretty much the same. Excluding Motorhead, many of those bands ended up as opening acts for JP when things startedto roll for them... why?... because Judas Priest already had an established career. Pretty hard to be a part of the "new Wave" when you've already had 6 years of "waves" crashing against the world's shores. 156.34.227.140 22:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly definitive, but the documentary Metal: A Headbanger's Journey, which seems well-researched and such, lists Judas Priest as a band from the previous generation to NWoBHM. Howa0082 23:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That point was brought up earlier (although I do not hold any stock in the Headbanger's Journey doc as a ref... it does shade compliance with wp:rs)... that JP fall in with Thin Lizzy and Wishbone Ash and Uriah Heep(who themselves actually fall in between "wave 1" and "wave 2").. etc. By 1978 I had seen Judas Priest 3 times in concert and had all but the original Gull albums in my record box. 156.34.219.132 (talk) 03:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Line breaks vs commas

Ok, here's the thing. This page has historically had linebreaks between musical genres in the infobox. However, the template for said box has changed to commas. Navnlos, you want linebreaks. You seem to be the only one. We need to resolve this immediately. Personally, I think linebreaks look better. However, the community's template says commas, therefor, I believe that's how we should format it. I would like a good, honest discussion here on this topic. Navnlos, why are you so opposed to commas? It hardly benefits the article to have an edit war over three bytes of data. I urge you to just ignore that one part of the infobox if it's so offensive to you. And I'm not picking on you at all, you're just the last bastion of linebreaks. So please, tell me. What's up? Howa0082 (talk) 01:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template example shows commas and the article was corrected to match the example. It's an ongoing correction which spans across multiple Wiki-projects... not just the music project. Consensus being based ... mostly... on the neatness factor... the infobox size factor... and just plain consistency across the entire Wikipedia project. Consistency is a key formatting feature in any encyclopedia structure... Wiki is no different. Community and consensus always wins out over personal agendas on Wikipedia. 156.34.223.191 (talk) 01:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency? Look around and see that most widely used infoboxes use line breaks. The example on the template page is just an example, other examples on the page, the guidelines and many featured articles have line breaks. Line breaks were used on most band articles long before this edit war started. I see no reason to change it and I know no guideline/policy that backs up the changes. Kameejl (Talk) 10:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The example shown for editors to follow backs it up. 156.34.223.191 (talk) 11:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Other examples show a different lay out. There is no correct lay out so I prefer the original one. Kameejl (Talk) 15:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, in regards to the template saying so. And Kameejl, this article falls under WP:Music. I don't give a damn if Microsoft uses linebreaks in the infobox, because this isn't Computer stuff. If our infobox reads for commas, then we should jolly well use commas, yes? The talk page for that template is absolutely useless, and all it has is people constantly complaining about how one looks better, but no it doesn't, and blah blah blah, circular bitching, etc. Perhaps we could stay away from those idiotic arguments here? I don't care one iota about other wikiprojects, and will defend Wikiproject: Novels' ability to use linebreaks so long as that's what is in the template, if that's the standard of THAT project. But there's no edit war on the novels I watch, just here in music. If all else fails, I will hunt down an admin to arbitrate this, because I want this article to make it to at least GA, and having people screaming and freaking over THREE BYTES OF DATA is not helping. Howa0082 (talk) 14:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't overeact. I'm not the one who is using consistency as an argument to justify these kind of changes. Other infoboxes, whatever content they show, can be reviewed to see what most other wikipedians think about line breaks, commas, infobox length, etc.. It only seems to be a problem in music related articles and just the last few months people start to change articles without consensus. It might be three bite of data, but those bites are probably the most viewed bites of any band article. If you don't care about those three bites, you're a lucky person; I care and I really get tired of people who make up their own rules. Kameejl (Talk) 15:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm almost willing to bet that the only people who care about this issue are editors. Jackie Q probably doesn't even notice, quite frankly, when she's browsing music articles and one has linebreaks and another commas. I'm just mainly sick of seeing (+3) or (-3) on my watchlist every day, sometimes repeatedly throughout the day. All I want is for people to just agree to some standard, be it the commas in the template, or the linebreaks, or god, even semicolons. I've excused myself from this tiny thing, edit-wise, to concentrate on the content of the article, because that's why we're here, right? To make good articles. If nothing else, perhaps that whole "truce" thing can be declared on that issue until something can be worked out. Like, perhaps, the Metal Wikiproject's template could have linebreaks, to keep continuity, while WP:Music can keep it's commas. I just want the edit war to cease, that's all. Then, maybe, we can go back to maintaining and improving the articles, instead of fighting over whose format is more sweet? Howa0082 (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One overlooked observation on this debate... I can count the number of "speed metal" songs that Judas Priest actually recorded on one hand. The infobox genre suggestion is 'aim for generality'... and somehow... repeatedly... speed metal has been added and re-added to a band who have done les than a half dozen songs that narrowly fit that description. "Speed metal" and "heavy metal played fast" are 2 different things. Want to find a consensus for commas vs linebreaks on this article? Simple... "aim for generality"... rm speed metal... and go with the one genre that describes 99% of what the band actually plays. Just a thought. 156.34.223.191 (talk) 01:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty good point. Even on Painkiller, the alleged "speed" album, there's very few songs that match the description. A speed metal drummer does not a speed metal band make. I support removing the speed metal genre from the infobox altogether, eliminating this battle on this page, at least. Perhaps more music pages could stand for a trim on genres, too. *coughSystemOfADowncough* Howa0082 (talk) 04:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia made the huge mistake of not distinguishing between genre and style... right from the get go... so now we're stuck with infoboxes that are polluted with 'style' and not actual 'genre'. I've read some musically impaired comment somewhere that style=subgenre. Did I say misically impaired? :D . I can go ahead and rm the superfluity from the box. You can lay a wager as to how much time it will take before some peabrain will add it back in. And yes... it will be a peabrain... mark my words :D 156.34.142.110 (talk) 13:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS... another common Wiki gaff... "members" vs. "session musicians" or "temporary tour support staff". Simon Phillips was a hired hand session musician... something he's done for hundreds of artists... why is he listed as a band member? 156.34.142.110 (talk) 13:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would first like to say to Howa0082 that I am obviously not the only person supporting line breaks, and to suggest otherwise would be plain silly. On another note, I fully support the "heavy metal" label that Priest now has. Cheers to everyone for making that happen. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 22:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I said what I said, you were the only one I saw constantly reflex-reverting that to linebreaks, so my original comment stands as correct. The issue is settled on this article now, so please do not post under this topic again. Howa0082 (talk) 04:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the earlier comment that Simon Phillips was not a member of Judas Priest. He was just a session musician. I have removed him from the member list in the past but it has been put back in. He shouldn't be there. And just having heavy metal is a good idea. Fair Deal (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opening line

Gramatically, should it be "Judas Priest are", or "Judas Priest is"? The word "priest" is singular, so it seems like it should be "is". Zchris87v 08:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:ENGVAR. A quick way to better understand proper grammar is to simply substitute any band name for the word they. A band is a group of people so "they" are a "they". And does it sound right to say They is a British band??? The United States is the only English speaking country that uses the singular to describe a group. All other countries use the plurual. On Wikipedia, as per WP:ENGVAR if the subject of the article is American... use American English form. For subjects originating from anywhere else... or subjects that are international (not just in music)... then use the internal form of English for both spelling and grammar. 156.34.208.51 (talk) 13:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this discussion on numerous band pages. I'm a Flemish Belgian myself, so English is not my mother tongue, but the fact that a band is a group of people doens't seem all that relevant to me, regardeless of the language used. A band name is still a NAME, even a brand name, just like Coca Cola. Does the number of people that hide behind that name really matter? Look at the word "band": that's also singular, making "the band is touring Europe" much more correct than "the band are touring Europe". Even when the band name looks like a plural, like "The Beatles" or "Guns 'n Roses" for exemple, a plural verb seems more logical indeed (also in Dutch) but whether it's grammatically correct is another thing. Would you say "The Sopranos start at 11" or "The Sopranos starts at 11"? I sure would use the singular form, both in English and in Dutch, because The Sopranos is the NAME of a tv-show... 81.88.110.49 (talk) 10:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been discussed before. 156 IP man is right. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 22:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The easiest way to think of it... for every band that isn't American.... replace the band name with the pronoun "they". And band is always a "they" and never never ever never an "it"... after all... we're talking about people not an inanimate object. If you were going to talk about Judas Priest and touring or recording you would NEVER say "They is going on tour in 2008 to support its new album" or "They has been recording its new album since early 2007". You would correctly say "They are going on tour in 2008 to support their new album" or "They have been in the studio recording their new album since early 2007". Judas Priest are a band. Every country in the world, minus the United States, uses this pluralisation of group pronouns. Annihilator are a band, AC/DC are a band, Scorpions are a band, Celtic Frost are a band, WarCry are a band, In Flames are a band, Dimmu Borgir are a band... pick any country other than the U.S. and "X are a band". If the band is American... then... say... Metallica is a band would be correct because the U.S. has its own "Dan Quail" version of English that the rest of the planet doesn't use. Hope that helps. 156.34.231.56 (talk) 00:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a band is and it. The comprising memebers are a they. It's quite simple. American English isn't the fucked-up version. A group is, after all, a singular object. That said, 156 is correct -- it is general practice on Wikipedia to go by the grammar of each band's nationality.

For anyone who missed it the first time it was eliminated see December 18. 156.34.226.197 (talk) 03:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's totally gay that retards try to impersonate famous people on myspace. I mean myspace is pretty gay already, but that's still fucked up and wrong. Those people should get beaten. In the even that no legal actions can be taken against them they should be spammed! Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 18:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That other Priest

Looking at the article, we have the band listed as beginning in '68, which it did not. If we want to claim this incarnation as beginning two years before it did, we should put in a blurb about Al Atkins' old band, from whence the name came. But since that's an entirely different band, we shouldn't do that at all. So I'm changing the dates to reflect 1970 as the start date. Howa0082 (talk) 12:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Judas_Priest&oldid=225471042"