Talk:Nickelback

Criticism

As there aren't any actual criticisms in the criticism section, I renamed it to the one thing it does contain, "How You Remind Me Of Someday". Wikipedia:Criticism is not policy, it's just an essay, a personal opinion. Here's my personal opinion: you're all a bunch of pussies. "How You Remind Me Of Someday" has its notability verified a secondary source (i.e. the interviewer mentioning it and asking the band member about it). If you think that one single criticism somehow skews this article, then you're terribly insecure. Go did up some awards your band won and add them to the article, don't sit around bitching that there's a "criticism" section. 81.179.126.207 23:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Add a criticism section. Critics hate Nickelback and that should be acknowledged. Add how some feel Nickelback is ultra-generic rock music. It's a part of the band's style, to be ultra-generic so it counts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.0.16 (talk) 06:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Find some verifiable secondary sources about it. Almost all bands have critics, but to put them in the article means we're deciding the notability of those criticisms. Instead, find reliable sources which report Nickelback being criticised. Secondary sources are the key here. 81.179.65.87 01:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

As I stated before on this talk page, criticism sections are against wiki policy. Instead, a reception section may be better, highlighting both god and bad comments on the band.Purplepurplepurple 11:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh really? The why does Green Day which is listed under Wikipedia:Good articles have a criticism section?Hoponpop69 (talk) 04:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

When i googled 'nickelback are shit respected critic' it came up with 9440 results. shouldn't be too hard to find one =P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.142.9.128 (talk) 20:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

When I googled 'nickelback is godly respected critic', it came up with 13,900 results. The moral? There isn't one, except that (easily manipulated, if you know how to enter the search terms) search engine results should never be used to back up your arguments.Kyalisu 22:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Kyalisu. Google-proof makes me want to stab people in the face. 22:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.157.150.78 (talk)

The singer's voice - that's what I submit as my proof. They are the most corporate band since Boston from what I can see, except that they are more irritating because music videos exist nowadays. Rock is dead, basically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndriley97 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't care about your opinion. This is an encyclopedia. See WP:NOT. --Yamla (talk) 21:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Wiki's NPOV policy should be suspended in the case of bands that really, really suck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.250.83 (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

seriously, nickelback is one of the OBJECTIVELY WORST BANDS EVER. empirical evidence can be shown to prove this. IF you want to read a glowing review of them, go to their shitty fan page. A dictionary entry should probably atleast mention the complete lack of respect from any one but bud light drinking larry the cable guy watching 16 year old wwf fans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.214.42 (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a criticism section. You will find that most critics are highly critical of their music. Just look up any of their albums on Metacritic, and you will see. I am of the opinion that this page is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts and reads more like a fan article than an Encyclopedic one. --Marto85 (talk) 05:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering Nickelback is debatably the most criticized rock band of this decade and everybody knows it, taking out the criticism section is leaving out important details about the band. To truly complete an article about Nickelback, there MUST be a criticism section, or else it is omition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.76.152 (talk) 03:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah their albums get terrible reviews, that can be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.222.97 (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The talk page for a band should not be used as battleground WP:NOT . I agree that, (perhaps as a footnote) noteable options (both good and bad) could be mentioned.Jadedhonor (talk) 02:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Being rather appalled by how many people use this page to trash Nickelback (what's the fun in doing that in here, where nobody who cares reads it?), I still think it's worth mentioning how they are hated by critics - with good sources of course. It just shouldnt be mentioned judgementally - I mean, I think it's cool that critics used to hate Zeppelin ;) - can't say the same for Nickelback, but that's my personal opinion and thus of no value. Btw, why is this article SO SMALL? Check any other wiki page on a band that's had multiplatinum albums by the buckets, and they're much longer. Especially since Nickelback STILL get multiplatinum in an age of declining cd sales? I don't really like Nickelback, but I think any band of such commercial size deserves a more detailed article. Or are their history so uneventful and boring, that there's nothing more to write?62.107.24.213 (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Pop metal, what the hell?

As earlier said, Nickelback are NOT under the genre of whatever you would call "pop metal". They have even confirmed they actually ARE a post-grunge/soft rock band, probably alternative rock/alternative metal, too, so stop changing it. Could someone find a good ref for these genre facts, cos' I suck at the techniques of referencing. A Powerful Weakness (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC) A Powerful Weakness

50 Cent could SAY he's a deathmetal group, it doesn't mean he's RIGHT. NOTHING Nickelback has ever done is "hard".

God Dammit, I had a list of genres as well as a message to warn others against chaging the genres without valid sources. When the hell is any of you going to realize that what you are doing is NOT Wikipedia Policy. 71.229.47.238 (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Bman was here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by W0lverine 2524 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Alternative? Alternative to what...good music? PeteJayhawk (talk) 00:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

They are too maintstream to be alternative metal and yeah they aren't pop metal... lmfao. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanner9461 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say that Nickelback is Buttrock. Other Buttrock bands are Daughtry, Hinder, Creed, Fuel, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.201.35.50 (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Nickelback DON'T play Hard Rock

It's Post-Grunge, a sub-genre of Alternative Rock. You have to be an idiot if you think Nickelback sounds like AC/DC, Kiss, Led Zeppelin, Van Halen ,Def Leppard, etc.

So you're saying that "Animals", and "Never Again" aren't Hard Rock? Adds more to your ignorance in music. 76.91.13.107 (talk) 04:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No... I think what he's trying to say is that Nickelback plays shitty music and some idiots try to make them seem so special by putting in the "hard rock" tag to they genre just so they'll stand out with Def Leppard, Van Halen, Black Sabbath, etc.. 66.225.14.190 (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Nickelback sure sell more records than those bands. Anyway, there are sources for hard rock so in the concerns of everyone here, the band is hard rock. Timmeh! 22:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculuos...Actually, Van Halen alone sold twice as much records as Nickelback...and Black Sabbath sold more than twice as much records as Van Halen...oO Frusciantor (talk) 14:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right, but you're getting off topic. I think this discussion is over. This was a pointless topic for discussion, and hard rock is sourced. Timmeh! 21:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Beaten, and decided to change the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.168.58 (talk) 04:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Animals and Favorite Damn Desease are Hard Rock. Plus, Def Lep is Glam Metal, Black Sabbathe is Heavy Metal, Van Halen is Classic Hard Rock... Thay are Alturn Rock Hard Rock Dudes. And don't swear. Altenhofen (talk) 23:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems someone is insisting on the genres being classed as "post-grunge" and "alternative metal". Now, post-grunge I'm not going to object to. But Nickelback are NOT alternative metal, not in the slightest. No, no, no, no, no. They are also the very definition of modern hard rock. Perhaps they don't fit in with hard rock from the 80s, but genres change over time. The point is they are most definitely not any kind of metal, even such a ridiculous genre as alternative metal, and unless someone can provide a -reliable- source for it (i.e. something other than allmusic), I'll simply dedicate my time to keeping the genres accurate. Prophaniti (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

But Nickelback is called a "Canadian alternative metal group" here. Just pointing it out. :) I'm not very familiar with music types or that stuff. --PeaceNT (talk) 19:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

True, although that particular source originates from all movie guide, another branch of the company that runs allmusic, so their reliability (which I'm working to disprove) would hinge on the same thing. Prophaniti (talk) 03:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I've removed their "alternative metal" tag. Allmusic is not really a reliable source regarding any kind of metal genre (see the current discussion on the source reliability noticeboard page), and if anyone wants a counter-source, the "Rough Guide to Heavy Metal" describes them as both rock and grunge (post-grunge will do) but never alternative metal. Prophaniti (talk) 23:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

History

At first I want to say that the arcitles about Nickelback are great but the History is horrible, for example The Long Road isn't even mentioned. So I wrote a history, but I want you to correct it because I'm Austrian and I'm don't speak as good English as you do.

Nickelback's first release was a 7 Track EP called Hesher in 1996. In the same year Nickelback recorded their first full-length album Curb. Fly was released on Hesher and Curb and was the first single ever produced by Nickelback. It didn't get any chart attention and was only played on local radio stations. Curb sold record 100,000 copies as independent record.

The following album The State was recorded in 1998 and was released as independent record in the same year. Nickelback signed a record deal with EMI and Roadrunner Records. The State was then re-released in 2000 by EMI and Roadrunner Records and featured two top 10 singles (one being Leader of Men). It was certificated Gold in Canada and the United States.

Their third full-length album Silver Side Up includes the smash hit How You Remind Me which peaked in several countries on #1 and while it topped both the Mainstream and Modern Rock charts for 13 weeks. Too Bad, the second single, was in The Guinness Book of Records for peaking more than 20 weeks on #1. The following single Never Again also hit the top of the Billboard Hot Mainstream rock tracks. Silver Side Up was certificated 6x Platinum in the United States, 8x Platinum in Canada, 3x Platinum in the UK, 2x Platinum in Australia und Platinum in four other European countries. How You Remind Me became the Billboard Hot 100 Number one single of the year 2002.

The Long Road which was released in 2003 didn't do as well as Silver Side Up. Although its second single Figured You Out topped the Mainstream Rock charts for 13 weeks. Someday was criticized to have too many similarities with How You Remind Me and didn't get such a hit single. It was certificated 4x Platinum in Canada, 3x Platinum in the US and Australia and Platinum in Germany and New Zealand.

Nickelback's fifth studio album, All the Right Reasons, has sold over 6.7 million albums in the United States and over 9.5 million albums worldwide. It is the 16th album so far in the 21st century that has reach that level. The album produced five U.S. Hot 100 top 20 singles, "Photograph", "Savin' Me", "Far Away", "If Everyone Cared", and "Rockstar", three of them being U.S. Hot 100 top 10 singles. All the Right Reasons sold more than 6.7 million copies in the US and was found again inside the top 10 of the Billboard 200 in its 99th, 100th, 101st, and 102nd weeks on the chart. The album had never been below #30 on the Billboard 200 in 110 weeks, making Nickelback the first act to have an album in the top thirty of the Billboard 200 for its first 100 weeks since Shania Twain's album, Come on Over stayed in the top thirty for 123 consecutive weeks following its release. Billboard Magazine called the album "the biggest rock album of the century so far." In the UK, the album opened it's chart run at #13 before quickly leaving the top 75 with no top 20 singles, with "Savin' Me" being their first to miss the top 75 altogether. While being their smallest-selling UK album since "Curb", it experienced, in early 2008, a resurrection due to the single "Rockstar" becoming Nickelback's highest charting single ever in the UK. The album has now outpeaked its previous peak of #13, reaching #2. . All the Right Reasons has appeared in the top 40 of the United World Chart for 89 non-consecutive weeks making it the third album to stay in the chart for so long. It was certificated 7x Platinum in the US, 6x Platinum in Canada, 4x Platinum in Australia and New Zealand, 3x Platinum in Switzerland and Platinum in Germany and the UK.

According to Roadrunner Germany the 6th studio album by Nickelback will be released in Spring 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.47.219.70 (talk) 13:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Now this looks more like a real article. Anyone object to it being copied and pasted over that fanclub press release that's there now?216.197.230.150 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well it needs links and references, but overall its a definite improvement. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 23:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yet you also fail to mention the single "Side of a Bullet" released off of All the Right Reasons. This is something that needs to be added to make it accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.242.233 (talk) 02:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Gener(s) separated by <br> tags

The example template for bands uses br tags, and commas for solo artists. I have been following WP:MOS and separating the genre(s) by line breaks. User:Timmeh reverts my edits and said this is controversial, does anyone have a problem with following the example MOS provides? Landon1980 (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Landon, please take a look at the reply on my talk page. Also, that is not MOS, it is a template. If you scroll down to the bottom of Template:Infobox Musical artist you will see that all three examples, one being a band, have their genres separated by commas. Timmeh! 22:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, although you have only been editing for a week or two, you seem to know a lot about the policies and what goes on here. Have you been using an IP to edit before creating your account? If so, may I ask what IP? I'm just curious. Thanks. Timmeh! 22:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

My IP address is none of your fucking business.75.125.166.5 (talk) 04:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Landon, I could easily take that as a personal attack. You need to be more civil. And if you don't think what you said is enough to warrant a block, think again. User:MONGO (although this is being argued over) got blocked for a week just for saying "get lost" to an admin, so I'd watch what I say in the future if I were you. Timmeh! 15:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

OK thought I was still logged in. You now have my work IP, happy? To answer your question though. NO, you cannot have the IP address to my home computer. Landon1980 (talk) 04:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, what would I do if I were blocked from editing Wikipedia? My life as I know it would be over. Please spare me, I'm begging you. Landon1980 (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Guys come on i saw thiat at WP:ANI and quite frnakly its such a trivial issue that its not worth getting into a heated arugment. a word of friendly advice -- maybe if you both took a few hours off wiki to cool off and relax then when you come back youll realize that the commas/line breaks edebate is almost completley ireelevent to your lives. its certainly nort worth getting blocked by an admin for edit-warring, especially when you bot h look like such good editors. just relax, play something else, or edit elsewehre and come back when this issue doesnt seem so dramatic after all. Smith Jones (talk) 16:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

All we need is a third opinion. Do you think the genres should stay as they were before Landon changed them? That's the only logical thing to do since there is no consensus on how to separate genres. Timmeh! 18:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Landon, please see Template:Infobox Musical artist before you revert my edit again. It says in plain print that they can be separated by either commas or line breaks. Since there's argument over which to put, the one that was used originally should be used, and that's comma separation. You should know that I am absolutely not for all genres to be separated by either commas or line breaks. You have to use your judgement with these kinds of things. What you definitely should not have done is cite WP:MOS for your change because that template is not part of MOS. And you can't just use an example that happens to be separated by line breaks as a substitute for the template directly stating it. You shouldn't imply for unstated rules on guidelines or policies. I hope you understand now what I'm trying to say. Timmeh! 01:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

quite frnakly this whole debate is totally immaterial. EITHER option is perfectly accetpible under the laws of wikipedia. there is no need to have an edit war over this. one of you needs to be more mature and back down over this issue to avoid winding up in the wikipedias lamest edit war convention for this. I am personaly okay with the version currenlty on the page, and I see no reason for a continued protracted edit war or another WP:ANI case over this. I dont want to see either of you getting blocked so I realy advise you to let this issue drop for now and move onto something else more importajt. Smith Jones (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose adding references is "controversial" in the great Timmeh's eyes, so I better bring it here to discuss. Does anyone have a problem with content in this article being cited with a reliable sorce? Timmeh says it is cluttered to use sources for genres, so I guess if anyone out there wishes to add "Flintstone Rock" hell just add it, no need for the claim to be confirmed. Landon1980 (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Reliable citations throughout the article are great, the more the better, however I don't feel that they should be in the sidebar. The sidebar is just there to list some really basic information about the band, and such basic information should not need to be cited. As for vandals adding random genres, thats why we are here; put the page on your watch list if it is not already there, and correct any vandalism that occurs.Purplepurplepurple (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Seriousness

I am new here, but anyway, the tone of this article does not fit in with almost any other Wikipedia article that I've seen. It reads like a (very badly written) advertisement for the band. There are far too many positive adjectives for it to be an honest description of Nickelback. Incidentally, the above discussion where a Nickelback fan tries to suggest that the band is somthing other than a simple Pop band is quite amusing.

gracias Redemption Face (talk) 23:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

They are as far from Pop as Linkin Park and thats pretty Far. Wheezer and Avrile Lavigne are pop. They are a Hard Rock (Sometimes) and Altern Rock Band. Altenhofen (talk) 23:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone's obviously fixed this which is nice. Thankyou for your input, 'Altenhofen'. I'm going to assume you are being ironic when you say Linkin Park are any distance from being Pop, seeing as they are one of the most prominent bands guilty of making commercial Pop-Metal. If you are being serious, please avoid editing music pages. Incidentally, there's nothing wrong with Pop music per se, it can be both good and bad. Also, it's kind of making a mockery of the word 'Alternative' when it's attached to a group like Nickelback who sell millions upon millions of records. Redemption Face (talk) 17:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we please keep the musical elitism off of Wikipedia please? kthxbai --TwilightDuality (talk) 07:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarised History

if you have a look on http://www.nickelback.com/new/bio, you'll see that the History section of the Nickelback article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickelback) has been copied almost word-for-word. I honestly think someone should try rewriting this section.

Bc.cho (talk) 10:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, placed copy-paste template, it's directly copied from http://www.nickelback.com/new/bio#tabset-1 - how come no one reverted the edit that copied that in at the time? kiac (talk) 07:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:FORUM

Since everyone feels the need to trash Nickelback in the discussion, I'd like to point out WP:FORUM. Also, see the top of the talk-page, this is not for discussing the subject of the article. /End Rant. --Joseph Leito (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Alternative Metal

I am new in this discussion! Nickelback is Alternative metal band!Alternative metal songs are:Flat on the floor,Because of you,Saturday night alraigh for fighting,Figured you out!Nickelback is post-grunge,alternative metal,Hard Rock band! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grungi17 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I also think we should add Alternative metal to the infobox because there's a good source:[1].

No, there's allmusic, which is not even remotely a good source, not when it comes to metal genres. They're about as unreliable as they come for that. Unfortunately, most wikipedia editors seem too stupid to realise this. Prophaniti (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

As "unreliable" as allmusic is, it's still more reliable than you. Not saying i condone it, but it's better than you adding your own thing there. If people stopped arguing about such a pissant issue and spent their time contributing to the actual article - rather than 3 lines in the infobox - then maybe it wouldn't be such a crap article. Goodnight. kiac (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to change anything here, because I know that, as I say, most editors are too stubborn to see how things are. And as it happens, actually I am a lot more reliable than allmusic. Many, many times more reliable. But I haven't been published yet, so I don't count. Prophaniti (talk) 16:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

And that is why you're not more reliable than AMG. Reliability and accuracy are not the same thing, you're getting them confused. AMG is reliable because it will give similar information on similar bands and it can be relied upon to gain important information - it is a source readily there to give information. You, on the other hand, are not, so you can argue until you're blue in the face that AMG gives wrong information (which is in fact impossible, as genres are not factual anyway), but it will continue to be used because it is reliable. Not necessarily accurate, but reliable. James25402 (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

No, you're confusing actual reliability and wikipedia reliability. Wikipedia reliability is what is dependant upon being published or not. Actual reliability is how much something can be relied upon to be factually correct. Incidentally, a common mistake is the notion that genres are in no part factual. They are in fact a mix of subjective opinion and objective information. There -are- definite things in genres, so yes, allmusic can be wrong, and indeed it is, many times.

However, I don't know why people are arguing over this with me. As I've said, I'm not going to attempt to change this article, because the alt. metal genre tag is perfectly in keeping with wikipedia's rules, however ridiculous such rules may be. Prophaniti (talk) 21:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Your definition of 'actual reliability' is actually what is known as 'validity'. Wikipedia reliability and reliability are essentially the same thing - the knowledge that all results will consistently appear to be the same over and again. One thing I have noticed is that AMG labels all metalcore bands as 'alternative metal'. This could be argued as being invalid as these bands are not strictly speaking 'alternative metal' (as an umbrella term perhaps), however it is reliable as you can check all metalcore bands and they will all be labelled in the same way.

Also, I'd strongly disagree that genres are factual. The only way to factually claim a band is a particular genre is to look at the criteria for it and deduce that the band fulfills all criteria for that genre and none of any other genres. If it is possible for anyone to disagree that this criteria has been entirely fulfilled, then it will become subjective. It's a matter of opinion how much criteria needs to be fulfilled in order for a band to fall under a genre. For example, power ballads are not considered a part of heavy metal music. Metallica have a song called 'Nothing Else Matters', therefore it could be argued that Metallica are not a heavy metal band. Admittedly this would be a pretty stupid argument as it's obvious Metallica are a metal band, but nonetheless a small amount of doubt could be placed upon it. It would be perfectly logical to make this argument - obviously in the real world this argument would never hold up as it is common opinion that Metallica are a metal band, but if it weren't, it is possible this claim would hold some weight.

Bottom line is, if it can be argued against (i.e. cannot be proven beyond all doubt), it is not factual. Genres cannot be proven beyond all doubt, even in the most clear cut cases, which is why most band Discussion pages have genre arguments. James25402 (talk) 23:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

All I'll say in response is while genres certainly aren't truly "factual", there are many points in between "entirely objective" and "entirely subjective". But despite the urge to continue with this discussion, I think we've strayed well beyond the bounds of what this originally was, and into an area not relating to the article. Prophaniti (talk) 01:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Very true. While I was arguing that AMG is a reliable source, I'm not necessarily fussed if alternative metal is listed in the infobox or not as I feel that Nickelback's catalogue in general is not alternative metal, but if it stayed I wouldn't argue against it either. James25402 (talk) 12:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The argument "better than you" is a loaded argument. All music guide is pretty bad at it, it has no credentials other than being a site. Look at the "about us" or whatever section there are no credentials. Anyone can make a site -.- there are bands I like they get completely wrong, and I refer to older genres that they use to classify new groups because they feel they capture the "style" so right there it often confuses style with substance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.76.60.163 (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Unfortunately AMG is accepted on wiki: it's published, and has hired "experts". Of course, these are the same "experts" who claim Nightwish are symphonic black metal. AMG is one of the absolute worst sources for heavy metal genres: if there's a patent mistake on wikipedia, I can guarantee you AMG will be at the root of it. But alas, there's nothing to be done about it. Wikipedia just reports such mistakes. Prophaniti (talk) 10:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

New tour

Does anyone know whose supporting them on their newest tour for europe. I've also noticed this page hasn't got a lot written on it. And there is nothing about their tours. Despite them playing around the world. - Delete this if you like. I was just wondering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.111.228 (talk) 15:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Apparently I'm not yet an established user, so I can't add the template I'm supposed to add. But anyway I think the Dark Horse Tour article should be merged into this article, if not deleted outright, because the article is just a commercial message, not suitable for an encyclopedia. Brazillion (talk) 21:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)