Jump to content

Talk:Megadeth

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sidriley (talk | contribs) at 10:03, 10 September 2008 (→‎Possible Slipknot reference as well?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Featured articleMegadeth is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 30, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
November 27, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
December 8, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Template:Maintained

Archive
Talk archives:
*Archive one (May 2005–May 2006)
*Archive two (May 2006–December 2007)

WTF

Why do people keep vandalising this page? It seems like it happens a lot. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 19:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because they want to? Whst the fuck do you expect, the vandals to come say why? they dislike megadeth, so they vandalise the page. common fucking sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.183.13 (talk) 14:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, pal, watch your WP:CIVIL there unlees you wanna get blocked. I do of course realize the vandals are'nt gonna talk about it. I'm not an idiot. I figured another user might say something about the why. It was basically a rhetorical question, though. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 17:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just pissed because I answered your question 3 times, and all 3 answers were erased. I thought it was you, so I decided to get pissed off. Oh, how can you block me, btw? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.192.250 (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm down. A Wikipedia talk page is not for insults and rants. You shouldn't be cussing at someone on here. He cannot block you but he can get somebody to for him due to you not being civil.
Thank you,
Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 22:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, it's been discussed. He didn't mean any harm by it. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 22:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take note:... any/all comments/edits from any 142.162.X IP don't require a response and can be deleted as they are just trolling from blocked user Mark753. Any edits by this user to any article or talkpage on Wikipedia can be removed. 156.34.222.133 (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Slipknot reference as well?

As I looked through the page for a couple of days ago, I found a text about a tribute to Megadeth in the film School of Rock, starring Jack Black, where his role figure's former band is called "MaggotDeth". However, could this also be a reference to the American nu metal band Slipknot, as well? I'm concerned that many of you metal fans know that the term for a hardcore fan of the band is nicknamed a "maggot", so... Could it be a reference, anyone? You know, like in a jokingly hating sentence like "death to the Maggots"? 84.217.18.180 (talk) 10:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)A Powerful Weakness[reply]

Oh shit, looks like the entire talk page got erased. (Not that I did it, though - What the hell would I win from doing something that extreme?!) A Powerful Weakness (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC) A Powerful Weakness[reply]

I archived the page, it was getting too long. Go towards the top of the page there is a box that says "Archive box" to see past discussions click on the links. The most recent archive says "May 2006—December 2007"
Thank you,
Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 20:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could also be a reference to the drill sgt. term "maggot" as well. There's a lot of uses for words, so it's not a reference to Slipknot per se. It would make more sense to me that it would refer to Megadeth, seeing as how there's the "deth" part in the name and the film crew isn't going to outright name the in-movie band "Megadeth", so they probably just got creative with words. --Rattlehead (talk) 10:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

missing albums

What happened to the other 3 or four albums megadeth did after countdown in the bio? did they forget. the article goes straight from countdown to the system has failed. it mentions all the albums in the discog though. i would put it in but i'm a terrible writer.--Katholmetal (talk) 02:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... Megadeth#Youthanasia, Megadeth#Cryptic Writings, Megadeth#Risk, Megadeth#The World Needs a Hero. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 02:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eras - lets bracket the years after them

I did this before twice and both times it was needlessly edited out. Bands, artists, wars, political histories....most historical things do this. I mean, it makes it easier to read the contents and that's about it. Why not change "Formation, early days" into "Formation, early days (1983-1984)" for instance? (The Elfoid (talk) 05:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Go for it, I don't think it should be deleted. I have a featured article and it has years, I also have a soon FAC with them. (Godsmack, Alice in Chains)
Thank you,
Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 06:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I was just about to when I noticed the eras got changed anyway. It would look silly if we just dated album releases. Before Early Days covered 83-85 with a section on the first album as a sub-paragraph. Having sub-paragraphs for each album, this continued with one on the band's rise to fame from 86-91, major success from 92-98, Mustaine's return to form (beginning with his failed attempt to get Capitol to release a heavier album in which led to be compilation instead) until the breakup, The System Has Failed and Blackmail the Universe, then United Abominations/recent events. That split things up nicely:

  • 1983-1985
  • 1986-1991
  • 1992-1998
  • 1999-2002
  • 2004-2006
  • 2006-present/recent events

Right now the page is horribly broken up and just a swampy mess of data. It deserves FA status I think still, but can be tightened up. (The Elfoid (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Opening of history has line-up errors

I recently read Metal: The Definitive Guide by respected author Gary Sharpe-Younge. He states that although the line-up presently listed as first came together quickly, it was not the first group Mustaine tried out; see Megadeth band members. I can get citations if required. (The Elfoid (talk) 17:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Chris Broderick?

Anyone have a source for this, nothing I have found has shown that this has actually been made official yet. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Until it is official Glen Drover should remain listed as a member.--E tac (talk) 02:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The band's official website has stated him as a member for going on a week now. Glen left Megadeth for family reasons. It's official. Dark Executioner (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Dark Executioner[reply]

I added a part about what kind of addition Dave Mustaine thinks Chris Broderick will be to the band. As far as I can tell from the concert youtube videos (as terrible quality as they are), Chris Broderick seems like he can play these solos extremely well, and Dave Mustaine thinks that it's like when Ozzy Osbourne found Rhandy Rhoads. talk § _Arsenic99_ 09:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why use remastered samples?

Hey, what's the deal with showing off how Megadeth sounded 20 years ago with having clips of the remastered versions from 2004? The remastered versions differ much from the original ones, and on So Far So Good.. the vocal is even rerecorded. Maybe I missed something? To me it seems that if this is done without any kind of copyright issue or other problem, a choice is made to have these recordings as they sound more "fresh" than the originals, thus an attempt to make it seem to a newcomer/first listener etc that they sounded better in the past than they really did. Especially as the sound clips are placed in these time period sections that most of the article consists of, making it seem more like this is how it sounded when it came out (I know it still says "remastered in 2004.. but still). And as newcomers/first listeners don't have anything to compare with, all this seems very biased as it shuns the old (maybe inferior) recordings. (WP:NPOV anyone?). I strongly object having it this way. Grinder0-0 (talk) 12:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I uploaded mostly the remasters because they are now the "official versions" - with the originals out of print. I thought that having the old ones up may cause some kind of legal issue... Dave re-recorded the vocals only on the song "Take No Prisoners" and the MD.45 album, because both vocals were missing, but not on SFSGSW. I agree that using the old version samples makes sense for the old songs, but those were what I had on hand when uploading at the time. I can try and add some of the older ones soon. Skeletor2112 (talk) 11:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying. Hmm you're probably correct about SFSGSW, but you get the point ;) Yes, it would be great if you could upload the original versions! But would it really be any difference copyright wise? I'm not an expert on copyright, but isn't both the originals and remastered ones released under Capitol Records (and Combat, don't really get that), making it no difference? Grinder0-0 (talk) 11:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hard rock should be a genre too

ever listened to risk is a hard rock album so im putting that up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.225.25.37 (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is a very minor genre, appearing only on a single album, and disgraced later... Metallica got Hard Rock on their page bacause they keep playing it for more than ten years and three albums span, but here - it's a different story. You see, many bands had releases with hundreds of subgenres, even a different genre for each song, but that rarely should be placed on their generic description page. 195.238.190.244 (talk) 12:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this doesn't happen again. May I ask, where did we decide that one album's sub-genre defined the entire fan. So Friedman played in a more pop direction for about half of a concept album? I don't understand your base. I asked for protection to keep the n00bs out, but evidently, I guess not... -MetalKommandant (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bah. So they had one not so good album in their 20-something (can't think of the exact amount currently) year career. One album out of...a lot...doesn't make a band apply under a different genre. Megadeth is metal, now and forever. --Rattlehead (talk) 10:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Album Capitalization

I noticed that several Megadeth-related articles have ellipses in them, such as Peace Sells… But Who's Buying?, Killing Is My Business… And Business Is Good!, Still Alive… And Well?, "Holy Wars… The Punishment Due" and "Never Walk Alone… A Call to Arms". Notably, these articles capitalize the words 'and', 'the', and 'a'. However, according to WP:MUSTARD, these words should not be capitalized, as there does not appear to be a rule that allows the capitalization of these words after ellipses. So, should the articles be changed to Peace Sells… but Who's Buying?, Killing Is My Business… and Business Is Good!, Still Alive… and Well?, "Holy Wars… the Punishment Due" and "Never Walk Alone… a Call to Arms"?

-Xnux the Echidna 01:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support! Burningclean [speak] 02:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the changes have been made. Yay for meticulous capitalization! Xnux the Echidna 21:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reflist

GAH! What happened the the references? Bulbous (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the movie Cape Fear when Danielle's wall is shown, she has a "Rust in Peace" album poster on her wall. I previously added this and it was deleted as unsourced. I re-added it, and cited the movie itself as the source. Sources do not have to be internet based, as books are acceptable. Since the only fact I am verifying is that the poster was shown, the movie should suffice as the source to that fact. There is no ambiguity as it was shown clearly enough to read. The poster can first be seen at 1:14:04 and is most visible at 1:14:42 JeffStickney (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Major fucking vandalism

Some little fucker changed all the band member names to swing singers so it needs a revert but i have no clue how to do that.71.17.159.25 (talk) 02:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Click the "edit this page" tab up at the top of the article, and change it in there. I thought that this was relatively simple knowledge. Guess that's what I get for thinking. --Rattlehead (talk) 10:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Albums

Somebody is editing the Megadeth albums (Notably Peace Sells and Countdown to Extincion), and saying that they were made by "Heavy metal band" Megadeth. Megadeth are definitely Thrash metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.218.17 (talk) 16:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Who is it hurting? No one. Why don't we just all not edit the genres, and say that we didn't. --Rattlehead (talk) 10:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]