Talk:Nickelback

Criticism

Unoriginal lyrics + Amateur level musical ability + Recycled song format + Love of money = Nickelback. Seriously, I’m embarrassed for them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.208.6 (talk) 10:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

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. a81.179.126.207 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)

If you include digital sales, music sales in general have doubled since 1996 and cd sales have increased. Do a google search on music sales if you don't believe me. Although it's unrelated to the article, I dislike Zeppelin as much as Nickelback (in that I don't like either of their music), but I can at least see why someone would like Zeppelin. Sebastian341 (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of what you think of them, we are talking about ONE OF THE MOST CRITICALLY REVILED BANDS EVER. Not including a "Criticism" section would be like leaving Watergate out of the Richard Nixon article. (LTH, 3/19/09) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.178.151.84 (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Now, I don't mean to offend anyone, but I knew that this would be a mess of a talk-page before I even opened it, and you guys proved that on the first section. Good job, people, I'll definitely turn to you guys when I want an article's point of view neutralised. I like how this article has no "criticism" section, since it just sticks to the facts: That Nickleback are a band who have made several successful albums. None of this hateful, fanboy-esque ranting is needed in an encyclopaedic article.

Just because "acclaimed" critics do or don't like it, I don't think that matters because they're still people, and that's still their opinion. If there are other criticisms apart from personal taste, like the way some rap artists are accused of glorifying gangs, that is different, but there's no reason for your opinion to be in this article. I'm not fond of some bands, but I don't go to the Hannah Montana article and start screaming about adding stuff that is irrelevant, do I?

Please, if you're going to keep ranting about how Wikipedia is wrong because you don't agree with it, then take that to your blog and be like every other teenager who thinks they are the definition of expert when it comes to musical taste. But this isn't your blog, so keep your personal opinion to yourself and so on. Thanks.

TheDarkFlame (talk) 12:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Nickelback is the most boring band in the world. There are quite a few videos on youtube of them being booed offstage in portugal. Another one has them covering "sad but true" by metallica, and they didnt even finish the whole song. When I have grandkids I am going to tell them stories of long car trips with my mom, she would turn on the radio, and I would hear nickelback CONSTANTLY, it became so droning. So tiring. So boring that I tuned them out, I heard a song the other day and I had no clue who it was, but it sounded very familiar, and boring. Then I find out that its NICKELBACK. They had been washed into my subconscious just like a song from a mcdonalds ad. That is MY proof of why nickelback sucks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.178.72 (talk) 08:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not even going to read the above conversation, but I will add to it. I am of the opinion that this article would definitely not be a complete encyclopedic recollection of Nickelback's history if the critical response from their records was not included. You read an article like this, they have a quote from Rolling Stone, Blender, Allmusic, etc. All chronicling their negative opinions of the band (View links for their negative reviews). I skim this and people claim WP:NPOV, yes these ^^^ opinions are POV/OR, but to exclude the critical response is a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. It's excluding a widely accepted critical opinion, and the dominant/majority viewpoint. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 12:25, 20 June 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)

Pop-metal is more or less the style of Mötley Crüe/Poison/Def Leppard/Twisted Sister, etc. (don't go nuts just because one of those bands is your fave and you don't think it's pop metal, that's not the point). Whatever Nickelback are (i'd say post-grunge, but that's just my opinion), they're NOT pop metal. I mean, they're not Eighties, they're not glammed up, their lyrics are too dark (I mean, pop metal lyrics are usually VERY lightheart, party-kind), they lack the layers of synthesizers... I mean, that is what I've understood is pop-metal, so Nickelback don't fit the bill. I like pop-metal, don't really like Nickelback, but that's not the point. But listen to a Poison album (whom we must at least ALL agree are pop-metal), and then listen to Nickelback, and the difference is obvious ;) cheers62.107.24.213 (talk) 21:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I considered nickelback Hard Rock, saw them in concert, not HARD at all. Just because they say they are does not make them Hard, or Post-Grunge. Needs to be classified as Rock/Pop or Alternative! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.151.73.168 (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOR, WP:NPOV. Please don't add Original Research or your opinions to articles. We're relying on what Reliable Sources have to say on the matter, music critics and the like. --King Öomie 15:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Nickelback DO NOT 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)

The Hardest thing Nickelback plays are their covers of AC-DC. Not Hard Rock, they are alternative or pop/rock with a few "harder" songs, but that doesn't make them hard. Tupac had a few songs which were R&B but that doesn't make him an R&B artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.151.73.168 (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

We're relying on what Reliable Sources have to say on the matter, actually, not the band itself. --King Öomie 15:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You are all forgetting something important alternative rock,post-grunge, alternative metal whatever you want to call them are all sub-genres of hard rock. Besides they have loud guitars on alot of their songs and guitar solos on most. Those are things you need for hard rock. And look at all the hard rockers they have played with ZZ Top, Dimebag Darell , And Ace freakin Frehley. I dare someone to argue with me. --User:Aceman97 —Preceding undated comment added 02:11, 25 December 2009 (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)

They only played "Burn it to the Ground" at the closing ceremonies for the Winter Olympics 2010. They were originally scheduled to play a medley of both but changed.

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)

I'll second that motion if we can extend the rule to forbid internet abbreviations... --King ♣ Talk 18:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you last two guys I don't want to be rude but you guys ae acting like kids no offense. Lets just put this behind us and just call nickelback rock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aceman97 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 25 December 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)

Chad's job at Starbucks?

I understood the "nickelback" name was from Tim Hortons not Starbucks.

~ Kristen March 18, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamaray123 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That would make sense, given the band's Canadian roots 128.223.193.97 (talk) 06:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I heard him say it was Starbucks, and in Vancouver there are more Starbucks' than Tim Hortons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.183.70.15 (talk) 05:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

altenative metal

we have to put it back in the infobox, not only because it's one of the most frequent genres in the band's catalouge, but becasue if we don't wikipedia is contradicting itself. here on wikipedia, 4 out of the six albums they have released so far are correctly listed as alternative metal, whihc constitutes majority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.163.13.236 (talk) 05:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

"4 out of the six albums they have released so far are correctly listed as alternative metal"

-'Correctly' listed? Are they sourced, or is that your opinion? And the "majority" statement is entirely irrelevant. Wikipedia governs itself by community consensus, not brute-force majority rule. --King ♣ Talk 18:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with you, although it doesnt have much sources by the look of things. They do have quite a few notable Alternative metal songs, mostly on their first album it appears and some on later albums. Although they do seem more accurately classed as the genres currently stated, Alternative metal does seem present in their music style in certain albums so it deserves to be re-added. 86.166.248.9 (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Portugal Concert

For some reason my reference to the concert in 2004 keeps getting deleted. I would not mind if it was irrelevent or non-neutral or copyright or violated some other rule, but it just gets undone without comment. Please can someone say why this concert is not worthy of mention on this page?

FWIW here is the text I inserted:

Mainstream failure: 2004

In Portugal Nickelback were part way in to their second song when the crowds started throwing debris at the stage, causing Chad Kroeger to put down his guitar and announce on the microphone "Are there any Nickelback fans in Portugal?". As this failed to elicit a positive response he added "Are you sure?". The crowd still failed to beg for more, and so Chad said "See you" before leaving the stage with one digit raised. This film has been recognised as authentic by CTV Television Network who note "A YouTube clip shows the band storming off stage in Portugal after being pelted with rocks and water bottles. The video has been viewed almost two million times".

For starters, titling it "Mainstream failure" is just going to attract removal. It should be something more neutral, under a Criticism section, sub-sectioned to "Crowd disapproval" or something. Note down this and any other incidents in there. It doesn't warrant it's own entire section, not that notable of a thing really. Plenty of bands garner a hateful crowd every now and then. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 13:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks Kiac. On reflection I can see the word failure could be inflamatory, specially when seen by hardcore Nickelback fans. The only reason I chose this word was that it complimented the success headline, but I'll accept your suggestion to make it appear less hateful. FWIW I never heard about Nickelback till I saw this video, so in a strange way it may have given them a wider exposure and even a little sympathy. No such thing as bad publicity it seems.--Tomxcoady (talk) 08:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep, they're quite well known for being hated. No reason why it shouldn't be noted in an encyclopedic article, as long as there are reliable sources. It was a rather clever name, I liked it. :) But you're right, people take offence and suddenly it disappears. I might dig a little and see if I can expand on this section. Will keep eyes on the vandal removals for you. Nice work. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 11:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Kiac - it's good to know that there is some sense here when you look for it. Of course I'll always do my best to cite reliable sources while keeping a neutral point of view. --Tomxcoady (talk) 11:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

So... what happened to this...? I went on this page to check out if this was true or not and had to dig through the discussion to find out -__- Jcmcc450 (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure. It's definitely notable, I remember hearing about it when it happened. 32.97.110.58 (talk) 17:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Neutral article or an attack on Nickelback?

The author of the article is stating criticism of the band along with other unfortunate mishaps (i.e. the Portugal fiasco) the band has been involved with, but the article does not mention any of the positive, charitable work the band is also a part of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.227.204 (talk) 03:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to add it yourself, be bold and cite sources. This article is being closely monitored, and all derogatory/disputable claims are reliably sourced. The incident should probably not be singled out, but this just shows how much the article has suffered in the past from vandals/fans removal of detrimental material from their favorite band's article. If you have a problem with the neutrality of the article, please read WP:UNDUE. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 05:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we can integrate at least the Portugal bit into the History section. Tubularbells1993 (talk) 23:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Allmusic genres & styles

The editors which are insisting that Allmusic are claiming these guys are Pop/Rock are dead set incorrect. The "Genre" field on Allmusic is plain and simply, a categorising tool. The "Styles" field is what we are after, if you are going to list specific genres as you have now (Hard rock, Alternative metal, etc). Now, this practice is against the "generality" that we should be aiming for, but if you insist on maintaining specifics, then you are mistaken. Allmusic also considers Lamb of God, for example, as Pop/Rock in their Genre field. It is not a critique on a band's actual musical style or actuall genre, just a general category of which that specific genre essentially belongs in. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 08:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You're argument is flawed, and essentially you're merely arguing semantics.

For starters, you cannot bring other unrelated artists in as an argument, but if you insist, I'll address this. Your view of "pop music" is so narrow minded and inaccurate that you only think Lady GaGa etc are pop, but this is false. Actually, speaking in broad terms, Lamb of God is actually pop music; if it's not classical music or art music, it's pop music. Genre warriors, who are usually adolescent males with a "tough guy" complex, just can't handle the fact that a band they like is a pop band. These people need to learn that (a)Pop is a very vast genre that encompasses many different styles and sub-genres, and (b)there is absolutely nothing inherently derogatory about the pop genre. If people could just understand these two simple facts, 99% of all genre edit-warring would not exist. Alas, it's just wishful thinking that people will ever understand something so simple, so we'll just stick to policy.

It is beyond ridiculous to assert that even though the reliable source Allmusic has plainly and clearly listed Nickelback's genre as pop rock (or "pop/rock"), that they don't actually mean the band's genre is "pop rock". For you to use the argument that "The "Genre" field on Allmusic is plain and simply, a categorising tool" is pretty damn silly considering that Genres are just that; ways of categorising music. This is simply original research, and cherry picking a source to fit a specific POV.

On Allmusic, "Genre" is a general field to refer to the broader genre that a band fits into - you know, just like the "generality" the "Template Infobox Musical Artist" is asking for. Whereas "styles' refers to the specific genre/sub-genre within the larger genre. So when using Allmusic as a source for genres, one can and should include what is under both "Genre" and "Style". But considering that you yourself have just stated that going into too much detail in the infobox is against the guidelines, we should really be removing specific sub-genres such as alt-metal, post-grunge etc, rather than the accurate but general term "pop rock".

TL;DR? - "pop/rock" is verified by a reliable source. Last I checked, Wikipedia is still based on verifiability. 124.186.246.195 (talk) 10:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how many things you accused me of, you had a very nice long rant about my issues (haha). No I'm not a fan of Nickelback, no I'm not a genre warrior (I didn't even revert this once, just observed you idiots wasting your time), yes I'm an adolescent - I edit Wikipedia regularly, definitely not claiming to be a tough guy of any sort (lol), I merely came here to point out Allmusic's intentions - if you can't see that, then that's your problem.

Your second last paragraph is what I would do, but have fun enforcing it, you just lost my help. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 11:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe you should re-read all of that. Nowhere did I accuse you of anything, rather, I pointed out why your argument was wrong, and why genre warriors do what they do. If you can't understand how Allmusic works, then you shouldn't comment on it. The fact is Genres on Allmusic are genres period, not a way to "classify their database". 124.186.246.195 (talk) 11:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Kiac. Look at Metallica's and Justin Timberlake's listings. Neither are pop rock acts; this is simply a listing on Allmusic to combine pop and rock artists.

If it listed "Pop/Rock" as a style on Allmusic (see Britney Spears), you could add that as a genre on her page. But if it's listed as a genre and not a style, Allmusic isn't calling the artist a pop rock act. D.C. Blake (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You are reffering to popular music which is diffrent from pop —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jprothro (talk • contribs) 21:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Pop Rock

Nickelback is not pop rock so stop putting that they are post grunge —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jprothro (talk • contribs) 21:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Continuing the argument about Nickelback being pop rock and allmusic's styles (I heartily agree with that it SHOULDN'T be pop rock) I have removed pop rock genre from all thier albums. Putting "Do NOT put Pop Rock here. A discussion has been finalised on Nickelback's discussion page. Pop-Metal MAY be acceptable but a discussion needs to be made." tsunamishadow (talk) 21:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

This conversation hardly constitutes any sort of consensus which would over-ride the earlier discussion and consensus. Sorry. The Real Libs-speak politely 22:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I´m completely agree. NICKELBACK IS NOT POP ROCK...Just hear the riffs...it is Hard Rock/Alternative Rock and PostGrunge. That's it! Stop writing that... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asatvolca (talk • contribs) 22:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Genres Suck

Nickelback is pop rock. I'm not a metal expert so you can say what you will about the pop-metal/alternative metal thing, but Nickelback is not alternative rock or post-grunge. Just because some "Reliable" article says something doesn't mean its true. If you don't allow hardcore music fans to have opinions than you shouldn't allow crappy magazines to either. 69.136.97.61 (talk) 01:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Here at Wikipedia, we do not care what's true; we care what's verifiable. --Evb-wiki (talk) 07:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Erm, I'm sure we do care about truth. The point of the verifiablity policy is to enable the reader to check that we're not simply making things up (or advancing our own agenda etc). It's not there so we can wilfully spread disinformation.

(To 69.136.97.61) While hardcore music fans are allowed their opinions – as are all of us – Wikipedia's current policy is to base articles around reliable, published sources. If you wish to see a change to that policy, then the proper channel would be Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Alternatively, you are free to discuss the reliability of the sources present in any article. --Dominic Hardstaff (talk) 07:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

What the album genres SHOULD be

In my opinion, these are what Nickelback's album genres should be. Im sure many Nickelback fans will agree!

Curb-Alternative metal, post-grunge

The State-Alternative metal, post-grunge

Silver Side Up-Alternative metal, hard rock, post-grunge

The Long Road-Hard rock, post-grunge, alternative metal, heavy metal

All the Right Reasons-Hard rock, post-grunge, alternative rock, alternatve metal, pop rock (maybe)

Dark Horse-Hard rock, alternative metal, post-grunge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.206.87 (talk) 22:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

No Original Research, use Reliable Sources. Don't like it? Go start a blog. When will people learn? k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 13:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes that is correct...finally someone with musical senses —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asatvolca (talk • contribs) 22:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't consider Nickelback to be any kind of Rock. I don't mind that people enjoy their music, it's their opinions, I just want to clarify that this is at best a Country-music band or maybe Pop-Rock at best. I do not personally like them. 10.18.2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.220.135 (talk) 01:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! The albums should tell the genre not the fans. God bless you. Aceman97 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aceman97 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Video showcasing every vandalism

There is a video out showing every time the Nickleback article was vandalized. Do expect a large increase in vandalism and consider having that protection tag on for a bit longer. ;)Calaka (talk) 06:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I expected better from College Humour, that was a pretty poor video - and I had to sit through that song twice over in the process. They should have used diffs!!! Then you can actually see what's been changed.. and I doubt what's in the video is even 5% of the total vandalism haha. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 07:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hehe very true Kiac. I wonder how that new system they are implementing for bios might affect article such as this (where users that have been here for a while approve articles before seeing the latest changes).Calaka (talk) 11:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Unlock the page, Nickelback is not as controversial as one might think

Nickelback is just a band. Just because collegehumor.com has a video of all the horrible vandalism edits of nickelback-on-wikipedia (see: http://www.collegehumor.com/article:1792877) is no reason to lock the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.19.217 (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I saw the collegehumor video, and the only reason I am on the nickelback page is to vandalize it because god they are awful at producing sound. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.181.56 (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why it's locked. If you REALLY want to contribute, make an account. --King Öomie 21:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, unlock the page I want to vandalize this too, I did one account just for that, it should be a right when you do an account: vandalize nickelback page Just4dlulz (talk) 00:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope your real life is more thrilling than what you do on the net. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 01:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I wish Nickelback was more thrilling then this on the net. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.97.186.106 (talk) 04:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh Vandals, your ignorance and motives never cease to amaze me.--SKATER ^Speak. 00:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be unlocked. The page is mostly a surprisingly positive critique of the band. More people hate this band than like it and I think the page should reflect this. For starters 'Nickleback' can be hereafter be referred to as 'Nickleshit'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.165.103 (talk) 00:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia relies on neutrality in its articles, and vandalizing it to show your own dislike of the band violates several of our core policies, including WP:NPOV and WP:OR. There is certainly good reason for the page to be protected. Timmeh 00:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

We could win the war on terror so quickly if we just played nickelback's photograph song over and over and over in the hills of Afghanistan. Think of the lives you could save they would all be begging to surrender. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.62.222.33 (talk) 12:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Chad/Ryan

Why does it say the Chad is the lead guitarist? Ryan is —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.183.182.143 (talk) 12:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is this page locked?

I want to tell everyone in the world that Nickelback is an awesome band which sucks so hard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.226.197.96 (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The page was protected from editing due to the frequency with which it was vandalized. To edit the page, one has to create an account. Also, despite the page being protected, it is still frequently patrolled, and any vandalism or inappropriate edits are quickly reverted. C628 (talk) 00:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has got nothing to do with awesomeness or sucking, it's only about providing accurate information. For as long as you're a Wikipedia editor, you're not a fan or a hater of anyone. ×××BrightBlackHeaven^(talk)××× 08:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't have put it better. C628 (talk) 14:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)