Talk:Nickelback

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Panicpack121 (talk | contribs) at 18:21, 19 April 2014 (→‎Nickelback heavy metal?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Vandalism

I came to this article to read about the notable amount of vandalism it received before being locked. I found, however, no mention of such. As this is an important part of Wikipedia's cultural history and also information relevant to the band, I expected there to be some note of that issue. 149.150.236.189 (talk) 19:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to contribute, and if I do something incorrect, I'm sorry. I got redirected here from "World Funniest Joke" page. Admittedly, I laughed since Nickelback really sucks, but however, I guess that's kind of vandalism. I like Wikipedia and just wanted to say it. Don't know if its intentional, though ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.63.38.85 (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

undo weight

The main portion of this article is a Criticism of the band ....i will be removing most soon as per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight just giving time for others to clean up first Moxy (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

I have moved this here..as we will have to trim it down due to WP:NPOV WP:UNDUE, WP:ATP.

At various points in their career, Nickelback has received widespread negative reviews from various sources. However, they are the best band ever. Review aggregator Metacritic reports that three of their six most recent studio albums since becoming a mainstream act, The Long Road, All the Right Reasons and Dark Horse, have scores of 62%, 41% and 49% respectively.[1][2][3]

They have, at times, been ridiculed for their lack of originality.. In 2001, Rolling Stone criticised the band's musical style, saying, "If you're looking for originality, you might want a full refund instead of a Nickelback."[4] Rolling Stone also said their 2003 release, The Long Road, was "[b]razenly consistent, if unimaginative", while Allmusic also stated, "Nickelback can now afford a little more time in the studio and a little more time to indulge themselves, and they turn out the same record, only slicker, which only highlights just how oppressively and needlessly sullen this group is."[1] Harmonix, developer of the video game Rock Band, gave its Rock Band Network the internal codename "Rock Band: Nickelback", "on the theory that the name of the quintessentially generic modern rock group would be enough to deflect all curiosity" according to The New York Times.[5]

In 2005, Rolling Stone said "All the Right Reasons is so depressing, you're almost glad Kurt [Cobain]'s not around to hear it."[6] Tiny Mix Tapes also expressed concern over the release; "Like all Nickelback releases before it, All The Right Reasons was made for all the wrong ones and follows all the formulas and clichés you should be bored to death of by now."[7] Stephen Thomas Erlewine of Allmusic reviewed Dark Horse, claiming that "Nickelback are a gnarled, vulgar band reveling in their ignorance of the very notion of taste, lacking either the smarts or savvy to wallow in bad taste so they just get ugly, knocking out knuckle-dragging riffs that seem rarefied in comparison to their thick, boneheaded words."[8]

In 2007, USA Today reported that "few bands inspire such intense hatred as Nickelback."[9] The article questioned whether Nickelback's commercial success made "critics wrong", and published several statements from various sources within the music industry. Nathan Brackett, a senior editor at Rolling Stone said, "There are some bands that, let's face it, are critic-proof." Both Brackett and Craig Marks, editor in chief of Blender, credit a lot of the band's success to young people who are introduced to them on the radio and "very casual music fans who don't buy a lot of CDs". Marks complimented Nickelback's popularity despite the critical response, saying "it is a tribute to their success."[9]

Despite a barrage of criticism, Nickelback has still managed to please some reviewers with each of their mainstream albums. Allmusic reviewer Liana Jones complimented Nickelback after their commercial breakthrough, Silver Side Up; "what gives the group an upper hand over its peers is intensity and raw passion... Nickelback ups the ante by offering realistic storytelling that listeners can relate to."[10] Following their 2008 album, Dark Horse, ChartAttack credited the band's success to knowing their target audience: "Chad Kroeger is a genius because he knows exactly what people want and precisely how far he can go. He turned out an extremely racy album that's loaded with songs about gettin' drunk and doin' it all without breaking any taboos, and with enough love and moral authority to grease its passage into the mainstream. Rejoice, North America. This is your world."[11] Billboard also praised the band: "The bulletproof Nickelback provides affordable fun that promises good returns in hard times."[12] Also various fellow musicians like Chris Martin of Coldplay[13] as well as R&B singer Timbaland[14] support the band, and cites Nickelback as a major influence in their music.

In 2009, The Word magazine readers voted Nickelback "Worst Band In The World", receiving 19.8% of the vote.[15]

Jam! Canoe columnist Darryl Sterdan named lead singer Chad Kroeger the second worst singer of all time, behind Taylor Swift saying: "Nickelback's frontman may not have invented that post-grunge moose-in-heat bellow he relies on, but nobody does it better than he does. And by better, I mean worse".[16]

Rock Group Link Missing

I don't know anything about editing Wikipedia, but when I looked up the list of Canadian rock groups on Wikipedia [Category:Canadian_rock_music_groups], Nickelback was not on it, even though the lead paragraph says they are a Canadian rock band. Is there some kind of link missing? Or am I missing the distinction between a band and a group? 69.231.157.55 (talk) 01:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see --->List of bands from Canada that is under Category:Canadian musical groups :) ....Moxy (talk) 01:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So why are they in the list under Category:Canadian musical groups and they are a rock band but they are not in Category:Canadian rock music groups? I spent quite a while looking through the latter list before I went on to Google... Just curious, now that I found them. :) 69.231.157.55 (talk) 01:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
good question ....i say if you wish to add it ..i dont see y not...but then again i dont deal with Categories.Moxy (talk) 01:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
why is a page on Nickelback protected of all things? i tried to edit ... 69.231.157.55 (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will ask the guy (Extra999) that takes care of cats for the music project and see what can be done...Moxy (talk) 03:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:) Solved. Added both the categories. And it is protected because there was a huge sum of vandalism last month. Thanks for telling. --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 11:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh album

Daniel Adair mentions the band's plan to make a seventh studio album after the Dark Horse tour. This interview was from earlier this year. http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/interviews/hit_the_lights/nickelback_i_guess_the_bigger_you_are_the_more_haters_you_have.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Husachi (talk • contribs) 06:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nickelback heavy metal?

Other then a poorly sourced article that happens to contradict it's self listing nickelback as pop/rock then listing nickelbacks "style" as heavy metal/grunge it doesn't make any sense.Someone care to explain what makes them "heavy metal"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalpurity (talk • contribs) 20:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They're called heavy metal here because that's what a reliable source says they are, and per the verifiability policy, that's what's added to the article. C628 (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone bothered to listen to Nickelback then compare it to an actual heavy metal band like Judas Priest, Black Sabbath, Helloween, Iron Maiden, etc...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.2.165 (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Listen to their first album Curb and tell me one song that doesn't have a heavy metal/grunge influence in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avatar Master (talk • contribs) 21:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC) I know I'm being biased here (from the majority of the people here) in the first sentence of my statement to say that, from a mainstream perspective: "they're terrible and not metal, whatever." I hate them too but it's Wikipedia, if it's listed, and it is credible, from journals, critics - then yes, they're metal on Wikipedia because of the legitimate reliability of where they got their information from. From all of us here, we'll say: "Wrong!"Italic text I feel as if they're hardly even metal, because of the vocals and the instrumentation (barely) required to such a thing. They do have some metal elements to back them up, I guess...... the only indication of the metal in their work would slightly be the instrumentation in which they do because it kind of resembles a form of alternative metal (a colloquial term to describe an alternative sound to it), or by that: 70's-80's metal influenced by Black Sabbath and a fragments of progressive rock (Rush) in their work. Otherwise, no. Biased here again: they're just a gimmicky, cliche, stereotypical pop rock with hardly indications of metal and rock, whatsoever: BESIDES THE GUITARS TO MAKE IT SO. To end it so: they're not metal. Only the guitars are metal, neither are the drums and vocals. And even if they were to be metal, it is only represented in some aspects in fragments. Actually Nickelback being labeled metal is difficult than one might think.. wow. ... panicpack121 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Omission of Criticism Section

I believe the criticism section is quite unnecessary. It is easily the largest section on the page, as well as having the most sources (10 sources cited). Sure, the information is cited and sourced, and shows both sides of view, but honestly it isn't necessary. There are these little to mid-sized sections on their background, history, and such, but then there's this huge section on how they are criticized by critics. Call me crazy, but that doesn't seem fair and balanced. I believe it is best to omit the section altogether, because critics are irrelevant when a band is at this point of success, and are not part of the band in any way. A Thousandth Sun of a Gun (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Considering that the section you refer to has ten sources, perhaps the way to improve the article is to beef up the other sections with reliable sources and more text--that would be a good idea either way. I read the Criticism section, and it is not unnecessary or redundant or one-sided: valid points are raised from reliable sources, and that criticism is irrelevant when a band is successful, that is simply not a valid point. Drmies (talk) 21:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Never said it was one-sided, man. I said it shows both sides of view. These so called "reliable sources" do not even raise "valid points." It's all in opinion. A critic's opinion on a band does not belong to a band's biography.A Thousandth Sun of a Gun (talk) 22:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia articles are not biographies. Please keep your 'man' to yourself. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Obviously, due to your pedantic and P.C. nature this debate is going nowhere. I'm thinning out on this one, man.A Thousandth Sun of a Gun (talk) 18:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • All bands have a section on Wikipedia about their reception by both critics and the pulbic. It is not Wikipedia's fault that everyone thinks that this bands sucks. Sbrianhicks (talk) 23:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Criticism" sections are typically avoided on Wikipedia. There's got to be a more balanced way to cover unfavorable remarks about the band (which, by the way, is a group I personally dislike). WesleyDodds (talk) 14:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly guys...

Nickelback isn't a heavy metal band.

Just because the guys at Allmusic.com think they can call Nickelback heavy metal, doesn't make them so.

Please do yourselves a favour and listen to Nickelback's albums, then a few true heavy metal albums, and you'll soon notice the difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.2.141 (talk) 09:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly (in this case), wikipedia is a encyclopedia and must be able to link to reliable sources. As long as you don't have a reliable source stating the opposite, it will stay like this. -- 84.74.42.77 (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC
Sadly, you are mistaken! Wikipedia isn't "a encyclopedia", it's "an encyclopedia." - Signed by The Devil.

Nickelback isn't a metal band--but the label they're on, Roadrunner Records, is a metal record label. Honestly, I'm not sure why allmusic is considered a "reliable source" since they seem to get these things wrong all the time. 99.99.225.7 (talk) 01:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some information on identifying reliable sources. Sergecross73 msg me 01:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is your "realiable source"

This is proof that Nickelshit isn't a heavy metal band.It is a great band and has many fanns. :)


http://v2.metal-archives.com/search?searchString=Nickelback&type=band_name

Also, my ears and their expertise in the wondrous genre of heavy metal are a reliable source. Ask the millions of true metal fans out there, too! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PikkoroDaimao (talk • contribs) 08:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, none of those things qualify as a reliable sources on wikipedia... Sergecross73 msg me 22:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nickelback is definately heavy metal (atleast for some stuff), not in the 80's heavy metal, but in Enter Sandman way. Listen to their first album, mostly grunge (post-grunge) and alt heavy metal. Even listen to All the Right Reasons, some songs are even metal there. "Because of You", "Just Four (Curb version), "Where Do I Hide", and "Side of a Bullet" just to name a couple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.54.248.168 (talk) 01:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this isn't an opinion site, and just because in your opinion they are not heavy metal doesn't mean they aren't. 76.104.188.248 (talk) 07:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Musical evolution" section

There has got to be a better section title than that. Nothing in that section, or in their last album, suggests anything about evolving. "Mainstream success", "Early Years", those type I'm fine with, but this one seems like a poor choice on a number of levels. Wasn't sure what would be better though, so I thought I'd open it for discussion here. Sergecross73 msg me 13:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I'm Going To Change Nickelback's Wikipedia a Little

Ok guys I'm just wondering if I can change Nickelback's wikipeda a little and I'll start with this. "Early Years" (1995-1999), "Beginning of Mainstream Success and Mainstream Success" (2000-2002), "The Long Road, All The Right Reasons, and Continuing Mainstream Success" (2003-2007), "Recent years and Dark Horse" (2008-2010), "New album" (2011-present). Also, after the "Discography" section, I'll add Riaa for the albums and DVDS, and I'll put in the Nickelback DVDS in the Discography section and I'll put in the DVDS release dates. Lastly, I'll put in a "Recognition" section showing want Nickelback accomplished over their Mainstream Success, and you can edit the Recognition section if you have a information that Nickelback accomplished something, for example: Nickelback won a World's Music Award in 2006 for best selling rock artist beating some well-known rock artists, such as Green Day, Cold Play, etc, Reference. So, what do you guys think, oh and I'll put in a image of Chad in live 2006 Sturgis near the "The Long Road, All The Right Reasons, and Continuing Mainstream Success" (2003-2007) section, so if you guys want the page like this I'll change it but only IF YOU GUYS AGREE OK. Also, I'll tell you why this version is better than the current version, because it has more information and it has the right information, for example, Nickelback got their MAINSTREAM Success in 2001 NOT 2003. User talk:Nickelbackrules1518 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickelbackrules1518 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's review bit by bit...
  • I am okay with changing the timeframes, they were mainstream by 2001. But it needs a different title than "Mainstream" and "Continued Mainstream" like you tried before. That sounds awkward. Additionally, the "new album" doesn't need it's own section considering it only has 2 sentences.
  • Do not add the RIAA certifications. That's already listed in the discography section. You could integrate it into the paragraphs I suppose, but we don't need another chart of it. Sergecross73 msg me 21:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
pls see Wikipedia:Verifiability - WP:BURDEN - WP:SYNTH before adding anything back.Moxy (talk) 21:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still think we need the "New Album" section, think about it or just like I like to say "look at the BIGGER PICTURE", everything of Dark Horse ended so it'll be a little awkward to put stuff from the new album in it, instead of creating a new section of the new album would sound better. Also, I'm thinking of putting the video albums after the studio albums in the discography and yea I'll start a new section for the Riaa. User Talk:Nickelbackrules1518 —Preceding undated comment added 23:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I see all has been reverted again and again and again ... There are a few errors and not sure anything has changed - nor have you seemed to understand the points raised aboveMoxy (talk) 23:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely don't need a "new album" section until there's more to discuss. Too little is known about a future album to warrant it. Sergecross73 msg me 23:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Alright can I change it now, and sorry for the edit I did yesterday, I was just testing something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickelbackrules1518 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is it exactly you plan on changing? Because the answer was "no" to a lot of the things you wrote above... Sergecross73 msg me 20:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait what things, do you not want from the things I wrote above? User Talk:Nickelbackrules1518 —Preceding undated comment added 21:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

On going problems

We have some Wikipedia:Disruptive editing here that is not benefiting anyone. Besides the fan fare in the new section we have unsourced assertions. We need this fixed d before the material is added again. So lets break this down sentence by sentence - PS we use the word Nicklback alot in this one section that needs some grammar fix ups to (but not a concern or reason for reversal). So to be clear the removal of the section is due to verification problems as per Wikipedia:Verifiability not for grammar as per WP:IMPERFECT.Moxy (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if my changes goes against anything you were going for here. It looked like "Nickelbackrules" did all sorts of things that went against what most people wanted, so I did a big revert. He made so many poor changes, and you listed so many things here, that it's hard to tell if I messed up any of your work. It was not intentional if I did... Sergecross73 msg me 23:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Section titles

So, there's also a lot of arguing over the section titles. So here's the place to hash that out. Some points to start off with:

  • They kept on being changed to sections that have every word capitalized. You're only supposed to capitalize the first word. So, for example, if used, it should be "Early years", not the proposed "Early Years".
  • It doesn't make sense for one section to include "Mainstream Success" and the other one to be "Continuing Mainstream Success". If we're going to categorize certain time frames as the same thing, there's no reason to split them up...
  • "Recent Years and Dark Horse" also doesn't make sense. Dark Horse came out in 08, so I would assume that the Recent Years refers to the tie after Dark Horse. So the order should be reversed. That being said, it doesn't seem both are necessary to begin with... Sergecross73 msg me 03:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The editor who keeps making the changes hasn't yet come to the talkpage, but for the record, apart from the WP:MOS problems these changes clearly have very little logic and make navigation much more difficult.--SabreBD (talk) 08:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input. It's be nice to see more documentation against his changes, in addition to the fact that he refuses to discuss things here. The only valid point "Nickelbackrules" makes, in my opinion, is that it could be said that they're mainstream success started in 2001, not 2003. However, what he keeps changing it to is far worse, and he refuses to discuss any alternatives. (Or anything for that matter.) Sergecross73 msg me 12:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sections

Ok I'm want to change the timelines in Nickelback wikipedia because Nickelback didn't got their mainstream success in 2003. Ok here it is

  • Formative years (1995-1999)
  • Rise of fame and mainstream success (2000-2007)
  • Recent years (2008-present)

User:Nickelbackrules1518 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Why 1999? as a turning point? Given that Silver Side Up is the breakthrough shouldn't it be 1995-2000, 2001-7 and 2008+?--SabreBD (talk) 23:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, 1999 was not a turning point for the band. Curb, while I guess did have some singles that did well, didn't really sell all that well until the band brokethrough with Silver Side Up... Sergecross73 msg me 23:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well since the originator has now been blocked indef we are not going to get a reply, but since we have got this far why don't we go for:
  • Formative years (1995-2000)
  • Mainstream success (2001-2007)
  • Recent years (2008-present)
The last division is purely arbitrary, since they are still having mainstream success.--SabreBD (talk) 06:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I personally prefer sections that are merely titled after a major album or two of a given timeframes. It's less subjective that way, so no one argues "when being mainstream" happens. However, I usually do that to articles for bands that have only put out an album or two. I realize that that approach doesn't work as well when so many albums have been released...
My approach: Keep "Early years" section intact, section off the rest by album title, unless they're too short, where 2 could be combined (ie "Tile 1" and "Title 2")
Sabre's approach: Works fine as well. If more people agree with that, I'm fine with that as well... Sergecross73 msg me 13:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a good case for Sergecross73's approach. Creating headings tends to be a subjective process and as a result is open to arguement. If we go for album based titles some of that room for debate. To that end I will boldy edit the titles along those lines, rather than let this minor issue drag on. Obviously any disagreements can be sorted out here.--SabreBD (talk) 08:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I largely kept your changes, just altered them a little. Most notably, I made ATRR have it's own section because it seemed like there was too much going on with it being grouped with either other section. I know that leaves that section a little short, but with that being their best selling timeframe, I feel like more can be added to it too. Feel free to adjust further Sergecross73 msg me 16:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its fine by me, except that you changed the dates to full figures and the MOS says 2 digits after the dash (unless there is a change of century) - see WP:DATESNO.--SabreBD (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I've never known a policy on it one way or another, I had always done it the way I did because I saw so many other articles doing it that way. (Two instances that I'm fairly certain I'm not responsible for, for example, are Three Days Grace and Seether.) I know that what other articles do, and my personal preference, certainly don't trump policy though. Feel free to change it. Sergecross73 msg me 19:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is probably more honoured in the breach and I apologise, because now you know you will have to decide whether to implement it elsewhere everytime it comes up. I have changed them back and made some other minor MOS fixes. I also moved the Critical reception section up as it is more usual to have the lists towards the end.--SabreBD (talk) 07:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your changes to I could also revert the changes also done by User "Mad Hatter", who changed the section titles without any sort of reasoning or discussion here. Then I went back and re-did your MOS changes. I think your changes are all intact, and if they aren't, I apologize, it was not intentional, but rather, an accident. Sergecross73 msg me 12:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, for once I didn't check on the all the changes before. Its cool.--SabreBD (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Section titles and progress

I want to pinpoint as a justification that the band's recent years are more progressive and persepctive, that's why I proposed something like this. I don't think it's perfect it was outwordly reverted and I just want to say that the message of the band can't be just some titles. We have to think of the best possible way into presenting the real development this band has represented into what, their 15 years of making music and 7 albums. I don't say it is way, I just want to say that Nickelback material is relatively small and we have to be further developing further explaining the band than just stastically saying 'Good Ole Hamburgers" 15 million of records. We need more material in order to make good hm.. adjectives... good captions. "Good, good, good" That's not the way. So I once again want to say that we have to work onto making something new, more material, and more ideas... than just reverting.

Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. What's wrong with objective, title based section titles? Does that go against something in Wikiproject Music or something like that? (Not especially familiar with finer points of that project.)
  2. How do you justify some of these subjective claims you've made in your version? What makes the year 2004 fall under the claim of "Stardom" but not in "2003". Unless you've got something to back this up, there's original research problems and point of view problems that can (and have in the past) lead to arguing and edit warring. On the other side of things, there's no room for argument with the fact that Dark Horse falls under the label of 2008, for example.
Thank you this time for discussing it here though, instead of going against consensus and changing it like in the past. Sergecross73 msg me 20:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: I only object to the section titles you changed. I have no objection to the other information you introduced to the article. Re-add that if you want to. Sergecross73 msg me 20:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any particular reason why you keep removing some of these sourced quotes without explanation? Most notably, you keep removing a part where it says they had 4 songs done in February, and that a member of the band claiming that "Here and Now" would be "more organic sounding" and like All the Right Reasons. I see no reason to remove that, it's sourced and important info regarding the new album. Even if you do have a problem with it, you should be explaining why. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 02:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, to be clear, your approach this situation, was to never respond, and then try removing it again, 6 months later, without any discussion or edit summary? Sergecross73 msg me 14:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copy and pasting and fan site

I see a few problems as to why they were delete - first we cant use fans-sites for references as per WP:FANSITE - secondly you have added some quotes that were not sourced in the proper way. See also WP:QUOTEFARM as to there over uses.

I see an even bigger problem here. We have Copyright problems. A huge amount of the text is simply copy and pasted from the fan site. So we have 2 problems first the copyright problems and secondly a Verifiability problem. I have also now reverted the additions and believe they should not be re-added as per the above concerns.Moxy (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The quote were not over use. Number 2, there was a reference on each one of them. Number 3, I see bands that they have a lot of quotes with no REFERENCES! And number 4 ok is a fan club but if you go to it is gonna show you a bio of Nickelback please understand that, that is the OFFICIAL Nickelback Fan Club which means the BAND created it. I think what's going on here is that you guys have to compare Nickelback's Wikipedia to something like Linkin Park's Wikipedia, Sum 41's Wikipedia, Green Day's Wikipedia, and then you guys will see that Nickelback's Wikipedia is more like a definition to the band while other bands just like I mention are what I called a "TRUE" Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph201 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I forgot to mention that I don't think is a copyright problem if you give a link because if you see Nickelback's wikipedia MadHatter edited it and he put this

In November of 2005, Nickelback Chad Kroeger asked that Vikedal and his production company Ladekiv Music, Inc., give all financial interest in future royalties for the songs, featuring Vikedal as drummer and return any public performance royalties earned since January 2005. Nickelback spent much of 2006 touring. Chad Kroeger was arrested in the Surrey, British Columbia in June and charged with drunken driving. His attorney entered a plea of not guilty on his behalf at a court hearing in August.

In November of 2006, Nickelback won an American Music Award for best pop/rock album, surprising the band itself. "We just kinda showed up because we were supposed to give one of these away tonight," Chad Kroeger said after receiving the award, according to the Calgary Herald . Kroeger added that he had thought the Red Hot Chili Peppers would win the award.

But he post a link on where he got it from just like what I'm doing right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph201 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because other band articles have unsourced quotes doesn't make it right, and that's not a reason to keep it in this instance. All that means is that other unsourced quotes should be removed. Saying "Well, that other article has it" doesn't make it right. That'd be like if a police officer pulled you over for speeding while driving, and you told him/her "But I broke the speedlimit yesterday on another road and I didn't get pulled over!". That excuse wouldn't fly,nor does it here. Same kind of concept.
Anways, if you're really interested in a "true wikipedia", you'd follow all the rules and notifications we've put on your talk page, and not include that information... Sergecross73 msg me 22:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, same concept applies to Mad Hatter. Just because he did it doesn't mean it was right. (No offense, Mad Hatter.) Sergecross73 msg me 22:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Dude how many times I have to tell you all my quotes were sourced, go check my latest edit of me editing the section and then you will see a quotes in a paragraph and after that you will see a link of where did I get those quotes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph201 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)How many time must you be told that fansites are not reliable sources. Beyond that, even if you could use your fansite, lets say you want to quote something from, for example "Entertainment Weekly... Reviewer Whitney Pastorek" (taken from one of your edits.) - You need a link to that specific interview, not someone else who quotes it. Please, do yourself a favor and read up some on reliable sources and WP:COPYRIGHT. Sergecross73 msg me 22:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) We cant simply copy and past web pages to here - Most of what has been added is just a copy and past from a fan site that is copyrighted - AND I am sorry my new friend but this site is not good for Wikipedia - Even the official site is not a reliable source - could we get you to read over Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Copyright problems (the latter is the biggest concern).Moxy (talk) 22:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so I wanna hear from you guys on how to EXPAND Nickelback's Wikipedia because I'm sure this is the ONLY way! A lot of bands have EXPANDED Wikipedia because of this! So if you guys have a suggestion of how to expand Nickelback's Wikipedia I would LOVE to HEAR it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph201 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I'm not sure what's wrong with how it is now, it's already plenty long, and there's plenty of extended info in the respective album articles, and the discography article. (I keep on looking at this-- have you even looked at it?)
  2. I suppose it'd be by using reliable sources (i.e. Not fansites), while staying away from copyright issues. It's silly to think that the only way to expand this article is to ignore major policies... Sergecross73 msg me 23:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Pretty long are you crazy is shorter than most INDIE bands I know!

2. Who cares about the discougraphy our albums wikipedia, are you forgetting that were working on the band's main wikipedia!

3. Let me ask you again, tell me how to EXPAND it!

4. How MANY TIMES I GOT TO TELL YOU is a OFFICIAL fan club of the band which the band created. Also, they have something called "BIO" on the top of the page which tells you about the BAND! Are you blind? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph201 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding #3 - Use Google, find some different sources, and follow the rules we've been telling you about. I don't know how to make it any more simple than that. Sergecross73 msg me 00:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

I have reverted the last set of edits. Some of it was not reliably sourced and unfortunately much of this is not in an encyclopedic style. If you want to make additions it would probably be best to do so with a small sections at a time so that other editors can easily see what is being done or to use a sandbox and invite comments. I don't want to discourage you from editing but you need to be familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines and the way in which encyclopedias are constructed. Key guidelines here are WP:NPOV and WP:WEASEL.--SabreBD (talk) 09:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to point out that he has now broken WP:3RR. In fact, it's more like 4 or 5 at this point. Stop re-adding the info as is, Joseph. Sergecross73 msg me 14:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The guitarist info is backwards in the opening paragraphs. It has Peak listed as the bass guitarist Numbat81 (talk) 23:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, the chart of the band members is backwards, claiming Ryan Peake is the bassist and vice versa. If someone could please edit this, thank you. I would also like to point out that I think the page should be a little larger, and Nickelback be made into a book. Also, Ryan Peake deserves his own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.210.143.36 (talk) 22:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 15 January 2012

Lead

Add to end of lead - Nobody has seen or heard from this Chad Kroeger since the night of the Award Ceremony in November of 2006.[citation needed][verification needed][according to whom?]

Dark Horse (2008–10)

After taking much of 2007 off to search for a new frontman, they finally found him in late 2007. Their new frontman bore a striking resemblance to Chad, with a few minor differences including eye color, nose shape, and hair.[citation needed]Shortly thereafter, the band gave this new frontman the "Chad Kroeger" title, and his true name has never been released.[citation needed] It is heavily theorized that the band is holding the real Chad hostage in an uncharted, remote prison location somewhere in Canada.[citation needed] It is believed among fans and others that the reason he was captured relates to an argument that the he had with the band in mid 2006.[citation needed] The band wanted to be more mainstream, and they intended to appeal to the people rather than their own love for the music.[citation needed] All were in favor except for Chad. He loved their old style of writing, and he believed that they could continue to write music they loved and in turn appeal to the people.[citation needed] Peake stated that this wasn't good enough, and their argument ended. Chad kept coming up with new material that would be rejected by the band. Because of this, he swore to break off and go solo, but this idea was never fully developed.[citation needed]

They vowed to continue their career with their new frontman, as he had helped them sell out and become a whole different band.[citation needed]

Cherry poppins (talk) 09:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Pls read over Wikipedia:Fringe theories..Moxy (talk) 09:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

The Reception section is overshadowed by POV presentation and phrasing. Specifically;

The first two sentences refer to "widespread negative reviews". This is backed up by cites to Metacritic that reports scores of 62, 41 and 49. Metacritic itself rates these as either "Mixed or average" and "Generally favorable". So where is the evaluation of "widespread negative" coming from? Not from these cites.

The next sentence explains where "Criticism tends to focus", and cites a single review to support this. This one source can only be used to support what one reviewer said. Any claims that this is representative of a common complaint are unsupported. Who says it is representative? How was this determined? Not by original research, I hope?

The next paragraph begins with the blatantly POV statement; "Despite a barrage of criticism Nickelback has still managed to please some reviewers with each of their mainstream albums." Not only is determining that the criticism constitutes a "barrage" plainly not neutral, it also manages to suggest that the band only "managed" to impress "some" reviewers. The clear implication is that the negative reviews are the mass majority, and the positive is merely a grudging recognition by a minority persuaded against their better judgement. If this phrase is supposed to be neutrally factual then it could equally be rephrased in the opposite POV; "A trickle of criticism aside, Nickelback delighted reviewers with each of their mainstream albums." Same facts, different spin. Far better would be to remove the POV intro completely.

The eval8 cite is a dead link. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 18:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to "criticism tends to focus", I added another source that states that these criticisms are the common ones, even while arguing that Nickelback has probably been disproportionately singled out for it due to other causes.--Louiedog (talk) 18:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In general, the band tends to get a lot of criticism directed their way, so rather than cutting it down, it seems more like more sources should be provided, and if additional sources can't be found, then the wording should be softened. If we're so concerned about POV issues, it seems like more positive aspects should be found and added in addition to the negative, verses chipping away at the negative stuff, which clearly exists, whether represented her or not... Sergecross73 msg me 18:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

POV issues are not about balancing the positive with the negative, it's about presenting both, where they exist, neutrally. Currently this section does not do that. It starts with a bold and sweeping statement that is totally contradicted by the cite on the very next sentence. Then goes on to say, in non-neutral phrasing, that reviews are a barrage of negativity, and it's a bit of surprise to find any positive ones. I don't know (or care) if reviews are so negative, but I do care that Wikipedia should not be taking a position on the subject and that what is said should be verifiable.
Removing the lead sentence from the section is not "chipping away", it's removing factually false information. If Nickelback gets widespread negative reviews then where's the evidence? Is Metacritic wrong? Says who?
It should also be kept in mind that the section is "Reception", which should concentrate on professional reviews. It's not the place for general criticism unless it's from these reviews. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then soften some of the word choices. However, I don't think it's as bad as you claim. For instance, album reviews in the 40% range are not good reviews. (Especially if you consider how reviews typically work. I mean, how many cds get 0/10 or 1/10's? Usually "you get a few points just for trying", if you know what I mean.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the simple facts of Nickelback are that they are an enormously popular band, the reception of which is split between (1) the critics who see the band as a cheap xerox machine with no soul writing music for tasteless teenagers who don't know better than to listen to them and (2) the critics who are equally disdainful of the snobby critics in the first category who think it's funny that said snobs won't acknowledge that they're simply a very popular band that continues to sell that isn't really any more worthy of hate than countless other bands that are far less hated.--Louiedog (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm commenting two years after this discussion ceased, but anyway: Escape Orbit and Loodog (Louiedog), it seems out of place to me that the criticism aspect was before the praise/commercial success aspect in the Reception section, even if Nickelback are one of the very hated bands out there. It would seem just as, or more so, out of place if the criticism came first in the WP:Lead. So, in that respect, I put the positive material first in the Reception section, as seen here and here. I don't much care if I'm reverted on this matter, but it seems POV-ish to me to begin commentary (the non-Metacritic material) in that section with information about how hated the band are. Flyer22 (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Curb - Nickelback: Genre

This album was grunge. PROOF! http://www.musicomh.com/albums/nickelback.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMetallican (talk • contribs) 23:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you giving the right link? Because that review is clearly only calling them "Post-grunge", something that's pretty well accepted. That's literally the only time the word "grunge" shows up in the article. Sergecross73 msg me 00:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly Worded

"Nickelback, confirmed their Here And Now Tour (Nickelback Tour) on January 11, 2012 they stated that they're playing with Seether and Bush (band). Since then, the band is only schedule to play on their North American leg, no word yet on the worldwide tour. The band is nominated for 4 Juno Awards in 2012, also, the band is going to perform there." Can someone edit this? Sounds very inappropriately worded to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.210.143.36 (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Band members

The legend in the diagramm (showing the current and former band members) mixed up the description of the green and blue bar, making Mike Kroeger a guitarist with backing vocals and Ryan Peake the bassist, it is the other way around. I edited the diagram and corrected it.

http://s1.directupload.net/file/d/2813/z46nm67u_png.htm

Please switch the pictures. --84.140.152.194 (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion

This Wikipedia is too short for probably the biggest band of the 00's. We need to edit these sections instead of removing some stuff on them. We can remove things later, but right now we got to focus on expanding this Wikipedia. I don't expect this Wikipedia to be long enough as The Beatles, but I know one thing, it has to be way longer than this. I know people are not going to hear me or they're going to ignore me or they're going to probably change the topic, but this Wikipedia must and will be expanded.

User:Drecool1, as you are constantly reminded on your talk page, you need to provide reliable sources to the information you add. Information keeps getting removed because it is either unsourced, or poorly sourced/biased information ripped straight from their facebook, fansites, etc. We need to work on quality, not quantity. That being said, as popular as Nickelback is, there should be no shortage of coverage of them in reliable sources, so it's possible. You just have to go about it the right way. Sergecross73 msg me 21:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Last 2 additions by this editor were simply a copy and past copyright violation. Editors has been warned.Moxy (talk) 04:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endless list of awards

Do we really need to list off all their awards so much, like done in edits like this? I feel like that's why we have articles like List of awards and nominations received by Nickelback. It makes for very dry reading, list after list of awards, and after a while, it starts to sound like a press release from the band's management, or a fansite. Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 03:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think its a little silly but its the only way to expand these short sections. A lot of bands have this like Linkin Park, Metallica, Creed (band), the lists goes on and on. Sure were not gonna put ALL THE AWARDS on there but were just gonna put the most important ones. It's just progress of the band's years. Still this is mind opinion and as long as not ALL the awards are listed on there but the most importantly ones are there and they have a SOURCE then hey I'm ok. Heck, I'm not saying to do this on all sections, in fact I was not even intending to do this on the other sections like the "Silver Side Up and The Long Road" section but the "All The Right Reasons" section and the "Dark Horse" section really need expandment. Lastly, like I said before not ALL the awards just the most relevant ones, and as you can see it said "The album has also led the band to win other several awards."

  1. You're the one doing it, so it doesn't make sense for you to say "it's a little bit silly".
  2. Futhermore, the logic "it's the only way to expand these sections" is flawed. You keep on operating on this premise of "it's quantity over quantity." There's no length requirements. We're not obligated to make this longer for the sake of making it longer.
  3. Can you point out, where, for example, in the Linkin Park article, where there is a full paragraph devoted to listing off awards? You linked to the article without point out how exactly it's similar to this situation. I don't think it is. I'm not sure any of those band's articles are relevant.
  4. Do you have any proof to such claims such as "award a" led to "award b"? Does one really lead to another like that? Sergecross73 msg me 03:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From the perspective of someone what has participated in a number of GA reviews, extensive listing of awards is something that tends to get questioned when articles are being assessed for quality. The point of having a discography or awards article is to save having to state them all in an artist's main article. Please keep it to a minimum for the sake of ease of reading.--SabreBD (talk) 08:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because I did it doesn't mean I can't say that is stupid. So your saying if you do something bad and you did it, you can't say that the thing you did was bad!? Is called "common sens"e also on the Linkin Park's wikipedia, under their "Hybrid Theory section and their "Meteora" section it shows some awards that the band won. You see that's how I want it to be instead of us arguing which can just put some awards like the Linkin Park's wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drecool1 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make sense for you to have the self-awareness to call your actions "silly", but then not have enough self-awareness to not realize why the action shouldn't be done. It comes off as sound like: you understood it was a bad idea, but then did it anyways. Furthermore, looking at the two paragraphs under "Hybrid Theory at Linkin Park, those paragraphs mention many other things beyond awards, for example, producers, songs being on movie soundtracks, a live DVD, a remix album, etc etc. It's very different from the paragraph in question here, which is just listing off award after award. It's as Sabre said above, it's okay to mention an award here and there, but you don't need to over do it and dedicate whole paragraphs to it. If you're so dead set on working on their awards, go work on improving the awards article or something. Sergecross73 msg me 22:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Music Style

I just put a music style for the band because a lot of people are confused with their sound on the earlier albums to their sound of today. Tell me what you think about this? Also, if you want to improve it you can. -- User:Drecool1

The band's music styles have changed over the years, well over the early years. The band is considered to be Rock but their first album Curb (album) was their heaviest album which people considered Grunge and Alternative Metal, so people usually call it a Nirvana rip-off.[17] Their second album The State (album) had a much more mainstream sound and it was considered Post-Grunge.[18] The band's third album Silver Side Up was considered Alternative Metal with twisted guitar riffs, some people call it the Seattle, Grunge, rip-off only with out the yelling.[19] Their fortuh album, The Long Road is considered Hard Rock and Post-Grunge.[20] Their 5th studio album All the Right Reasons took the band a whole new direction and a whole brand new sound which brought them to Alternative Rock roots with the Hard Rock tunes.[21]

With songs like Bottoms Up (Nickelback song) to a softer-sound like When We Stand Together the band stated several times that they've never thought of putting 2 kind of music.[22]

So I've decided to cut and past it here because it needs a lot of work. There's a lot of typos and generalizations. Points to follow. Sergecross73 msg me 03:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The band's music styles have changed over the years, well over the early years. - I'm not sure what the part after the comma is supposed to mean...
  2. All the genres should be lower case.
  3. The band's third album Silver Side Up was considered Alternative Metal with twisted guitar riffs, some people call it the Seattle, Grunge, rip-off only with out the yelling. - Awkward wording, Grunge originated in Seatle, but isn't typically called "Seattle Grunge" like that, nor is Grunge especially known for yelling as far as I've really known.
  4. so people usually call it a Nirvana rip-off. Do people usually say that? I think that's a generalization made by one (unreliable?) source. You can't make general claims like "usually" with only one source. Same concept applies to point #3 as well
  5. Typos ("fortuh"), inconsistencies (using "third" and then "5th".)
  6. Their 5th studio album All the Right Reasons took the band a whole new direction and a whole brand new sound Lastly, this statement, and much of the paragraph in general, strikes me as a big case of WP:SYNTHESIS. You've found these different sources that make different comments on genre, but then you string them together like they're progressing so far in their music. I don't think they're music is known for "progress" or "development". Pretty sure the band themselves prides themselves in presenting "more of the same". It seems much more like they have rocking songs and soft songs on every album.

Any thoughts from other editors? Sergecross73 msg me 03:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Good idea, but I DISAGREE on the comment you stated that the band has rocking songs and soft songs on every album. I lol at that, no offense but have you heard of Curb, The State, or even Silver Side Up. This proves to me that you still did not listen to the band. But it still doesn't matter if you've listen to the band or not, the only thing that matters is that you know how to edit. Also, I seen a lot of bands Wikipedia that need fixing and all that stuff I might give you a band list soon so you can fix those Wikipedias.-- User:Drecool1

I've heard most of their albums, and the singles from all of them. (They're played all the time, how can anyone accuse anyone of not knowing what they're music sounds like?) What matters is what reliable sources say about them, and I've read a lot of articles like this one from NPR, a very reliable source, (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4258547) where it says much of their music sounds the same. Here's another one.
In short, the band definitely have a reputation for each album sounding very similar. As such, it doesn't seem right to write a paragraph that takes different sources and calls different albums different genres, and call it "progress". Sergecross73 msg me 23:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I knew you were about to say that because you haven't heard of old Nickelback listen to Curb (album) that album was not successful and is their heaviest album to date. Also, let me say it for you but when their album All the Right Reasons came out the band decided to stay with that style. That's why Dark Horse (Nickelback album) and Here and Now (Nickelback album). And yes I do agree that there recent stuff have been played a lot of times on the radio, that's why everybody thinks all their albums sound the same. Also, that's the reason why I wanted to put the music style on the band.-- User:Drecool1

Yes, many band's album before signing with a major record label sounds drastically different than the rest of their work. Getting that additional funding naturally causes a change in sound. Let's look at this differently; do you any sources that says Nickelback has changed over its many years? One source referencing their career, not multiple sources commenting on separate parts of their careers. (Which is WP:SYNTHESIS.) Sergecross73 msg me 04:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Side Projects"

It is unnecessary to list off every song every song Chad Kroger writes or sings on. This has little to nothing to do with Nickelback the band. List those things on Chad Kroger's page, not here. Sergecross73 msg me 01:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Chad Kroeger is the lead vocalist and the guitarist of the group. He makes 2/4 out of the band. Also, he was the one that made Nickelback big in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drecool1 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, that fraction makes no sense. Secondly, he has his own article, so it's obvious it makes more sense for it to be there. Thirdly, these things really aren't that much of "side-projects" to begin with. They're just one-off songs. A Perfect Circle is a side-project. Them Crooked Vultures is a side-project. Your proposed paragraph is just listing off some random unrelated songs Chad Kroeger contributed/sang in. Sergecross73 msg me 01:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, but when did Chad Kroeger became a solo artist. I know he's not a solo artist but your treating him like one.

Extensive listing of these "projects" moves into the territory of WP:Undue. The article is about the band and that really does need to remain the focus.--SabreBD (talk) 07:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At no point did I call him a solo artist, and I don't understand what you're getting at when you say I'm treating him like one. All I've said is that Chad Kroeger's side projects belong on Chad Kroeger's article. (In fact, all that information is already listed there, with less formatting errors.) Sergecross73 msg me 12:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Band members

In the section band members with the fancy timeline, Ryan Peake's and Mike Kroeger's names have switched places. Also, I have never seen Mike Kroeger do any back vocals. Yes, he might have done it once in a gig in some sort of alley, but that's not notable.

Calown (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Needless touring updates

User:Drecool1 erroneously labeled this edit as "disruptive", and keeps on reverting the edit without any actual reason as to why, so I'd start a discussion here. Here's even more details on why it needs to be changed:

  1. We don't need to update the paragraph every time Nickelback updates their tour plans. We're not Nickelbacks fansite or Twitter page or something.
  2. There's a separate article for documenting their tour here. That information belongs there.
  3. The info is sloppy. It lists Bush twice, and lazily, one time, is kept as Bush (band) instead of Bush.
  4. Some of it doesn't logically make sense. One sentence says they've only announced North American tour dates, another sentence lists off European dates.

Short version: I don't reverting the information back is warranted at all, but if it was found that it should be there, there's obvious things that would need to be cleaned up. Sergecross73 msg me 20:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No need for tour dates at all. Wiki is not a fan site nor a newspaper.Moxy (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input. It's appreciated. Sergecross73 msg me 20:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the genres are so wrong it's laughable

the only genres associated with this band should be post grunge and hard rock — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.220.148 (talk) 14:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without any sort of reliable sources, or even an explanation for your thoughts for that matter, that's not a very convincing argument... Sergecross73 msg me 14:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add something here,Nickelback is not related to metal not even in someone's wildest dreams.Playing mediocre groove based riffs don't make a band a heavy metal band,they are simply a below average pop-rock band with some elements from alternative & grunge.Allmusic source isn't helping the article,in fact it's ridiculous. Metalvayne (talk) 13:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Rate You Music" is not a reliable source, and as you can see, there's much disagreement on what their genre is, so wait and discuss and find consensus, then make changes. Sergecross73 msg me 12:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying allmusic is a reliable source.Hmm,sometimes I wonder how exactly one would abide by wikipedia policies while all the self-proclaimed several star achieved sycophants are always eager to deliver wrong information to people around the world,anyways,as you've said allmusic is a reliable source,so,why did it got removed here. Metalvayne (talk) 19:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because you didn't discuss the changes to genres first, as the edit summary pointed out.--SabreBD (talk) 14:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most definitely I've participated in the discussion before making changes,see for yourself. Metalvayne (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And did you bother to read anything people said in response to your edits? Like, per that conversation: The talk page needs to be consulted before genre changes occur, as opposed to just signalling controversial changes. Metalvayne, you're doing it incorrectly. Furthermore, there's clearly not consensus of other editors agreeing with your edits. Do you understand the concept of consensus? Sergecross73 msg me 14:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) - (Seems Sabre beat me to the punch.) Regarding the example you just offered up, there's clearly a prior consensus not to change genre unless discussion happens first. Something you failed to do there. You see, on Wikipedia, there's a balance struck between using reliable sources and following consensus. While you provided a reliable source, you went directly against consensus, and not only didn't discuss it on the talk page, but you didn't even leave an edit summary. Your edit was reverted based on that, not the reliability of the source. You really should understand these concepts by now...
  • Secondly, plain as day, a Wikiproject has found consensus that AllMusic is a reliable source, at WP:ALBUM/REVSITE. Different editors have different opinions on how to use all the genre they list in their articles, and thus, that's why discussion is supposed to ensue as well. Sergecross73 msg me 14:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

alternative rock should be replaced with just plain rock, and any mention of metal needs to be immediately removed. it's been proven time & time again that allmusic tags are not reliable, according to them deftones album adrenaline is hair metal & grunge http://www.allmusic.com/album/adrenaline-mw0000179793 which just goes to show you how random they can be when it comes to tagging artists/albums

  • If there's consensus to remove it, it's fine. I just don't like the "They don't sound metal so they aren't" arguments. That's incredibly subjective. "Metal" is different things to different people in different timeframes. I don't find Led Zeppelin fitting into my definition metal, but it does for many, and in reliable sources, so I dont fight it. Same here. I don't consider them a metal band personally, but that's not how Wikipedia works. As far as I can find, I'm not aware of any blanket-policy against using Allmusic for genre. If there is, I'd love to see it, and would gladly abide by it. But I haven't found it yet, just WP:LOCALCONSENSUS's here and there. And that's why we should find consensus here first too. Sergecross73 msg me 03:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Allmusic guide calles it "Heavy metal" because they use a rhythm and tempo that is generally characterized by short, two-note or three-note rhythmic figures... this defines Heavy metal.Moxy (talk) 17:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

well by your logic insane clown posse should be listed as heavy metal since allmusic tags them as that http://www.allmusic.com/artist/insane-clown-posse-mn0000079959, i think at times allmusic tags can be reliable but their are times when common sense has to prevail, and its common knowledge that bands like insane clown posse and nickelback aren't metal, and im sure the majority of people here would agree with me on that. their needs to be another source other than allmusic calling them heavy metal and alternative metal — Preceding unsigned comment added by I call the big one bitey (talk • contribs) 21:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The prospect of "common sense" is extremely subjective. What "makes sense" to one may not another. Since you haven't shown me a blanket-policy regarding Allmusic for genre, and just talk about hypothetical "majority of people" agreeing with you, we use consensus to decide. Sergecross73 msg me 21:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Using "heavy metal" in the infobox

There has been arguments on whether or not heavy metal belongs in the band's infobox. One one hand, Allmusic, a source that is considered reliable in a more general sense, calls them that. Others feel that they don't fit into the sound. Please include your thoughts below:

  • Undecided - While they don't fit my personal view of what "metal" is, I'm not a third party, reliable source, so my opinion doesn't matter. There's a reliable source that calls them such, so I haven't found an objective reason to remove it personally, so I probably wouldn't be for removing it unless a consensus forms in favor of removal. Sergecross73 msg me 21:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I suggest that we could use the Musicmight bio of them to avoid the kind of disputes take place in this article.If AllMusic can be considered as a reliable source I believe Musicmight is not much different from it. Bloomgloom talk 11:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I will need to find the discussion, but I believe that MusicMight is considered unreliable (I think it was due to anyone being able to edit pages much like Wikipedia) but I will have to check. I used it previously but then seen it removed from a number of pages (on my watchlist) due to a discussion. The biographies and reviews from Allmusic are considered reliable. The genre lists though are not, mainly due to them not being attributed to anyone (the bios and reviews are attributed to writers, such as Greg Pato). HrZ (talk) 14:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Musicmight doesnt have a registration/log in tab, then how can anyone edit stuffs? Bloomgloom talk 15:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't know, just saying what I remember. If I can find the discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard, I will post it. But I know it is considered unreliable. HrZ (talk) 15:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 4 September 2012

In the beginning, when Nickelback was still a cover band called Village Idiots or Point of View, it was just Chad Kroeger, Mike Kroeger, and Ryan Peake. Chad did not sing and Ryan played the trombone. After a while Chad moved to Vancouver and the band broke up. He eventually moved back and the band got back together. They called themselves Brick. Chad at this point began to sing, Ryan played guitar, and Brandon Kroeger played the drums. It was not until right before the release of Hesher that the band called themselves Nickelback. http://nickelbackgeeks.150m.com/Biography.html 75.69.13.84 (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So back in 2010...

Someone deletes the "criticism" section about Nickelback to make it balanced.

Now aside from criticism being the whole point of Nickelback, do you not realise that is the problem with Wikipedia at the moment?!?

Someone has a well-referenced section with criticism, and some dickhead removes it to "balance" the article. Turning the article into a stub!

Wikipedia - you have lost your way. 118.90.34.133 (talk) 07:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove it, but for the record, writing articles from a neutral point of view has always been part of the basic foundation of Wikipedia, and this article is most certainly not a stub, nor was it at any point in the year of 2010. Sergecross73 msg me 13:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Section Needed

Nickelback is by far the worse band in the history of "bands". There needs to be a section about this. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realperson69 (talk • contribs) 08:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add reliably sourced information to the Reception section, but adding a whole section detailing how they're "the worst" is probably going to violate Wikipedia's policy on neutrality... Sergecross73 msg me 12:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nickelback and Pop rock term

Nickelback are NOT Pop rock. Pop rock is a genre with catchy riffs and dancing pops. Nickelback music is VERY far away from that. I never heard into that was Pop rock from Nickelback. If Creed AREN'T even Pop rock then why is Nickelback pop rock? In fact both of these bands sound very SIMILAR. Nickelback ARE NOT POP ROCK. Their music genres are mostly Post-grunge and alternative rock. In fact what is Pop rock? Are you guys referring as stuff as Maroon 5? Because Nickelback doesn't even sound NOTHING like Pop rock. If you look st Matchbox twenty well you could see they are Pop rock. Their music doesn't sell to rock radios anymore. Nickelback music still sells to rock radios. Why are they label pop rock? They are not. I never heard that from any of their biographies or articles. Nickelback is a band that just put grunge music into radio friendly grunge. Term comes Post-grunge. Of course their early releases were label as GRUNGE. But their newer stuff is just Post-grunge. In fact all they play is a radio friendly style of grunge. So playing a radio friendly style of grunge makes you Pop rock? No is not. Post-grunge is influenced by GRUNGE. Is just grunge to be more on the radios. Nickelback are not this Pop rock label. I saw the pop rock Wikipedia and Nickelback AREN'T even their. Fail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.133.243.249 (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Reliable sources support the term "Pop Rock"
  2. Come on, songs like When We Stand Together or Far Away (Nickelback song) are like the definition of what pop rock is. Everything they do is extremely mainstream, radio-friendly, simple rock music, but those softer tracks definitely push them into "pop music". Sergecross73 msg me 19:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Radio friendly doesn't really mean that a song is pop rock. Sure, When We Stand Together was a little poppier than their normal stuff but you also have to look at the fact that that is really their only song that has a pop sound to it. Their other adult pop hits are ballads or songs that don't have shredding guitars on them. Pop rock is a genre for some songs, but not the band. I'd take it out. Plus there is no source there anyways. Contactman7 (talk) 22:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely has a clear cut ref in the musical style section. Definitely disagree with be rest of what you said too. Majority of their music could be argued into being pop rock, but especially their ballads. Considering WWST isn't there first or only ballad, I don't really follow you... I can dig out more sources upon request, but its pretty typically easy to prove for most bands that cross into pop/adult contempory type radio stations, which Nickelback does commonly.. . Sergecross73 msg me 02:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well radio-friendly doesn't really mean Pop rock. Nickelback are not pop rock just because they make ballads. Lots of bands do it and they don't get label pop rock. Post-grunge is a term that is used in alot of rock bands today and Nickelback is included there. Lots of post-grunge bands make soft songs and sell out to aldult and pop radios but that doesn't really mean they are pop rock. If a pop rock band makes a soft love song then it would be label as pop rock. If a post-grunge band makes one it will be just label soft rock or post-grunge. The media describes it that way. I am pretty sure Nickelback are not Pop rock. They are just a post-grunge band like Foo Fighters, 3 Doors Down, Creed, Puddle Of Mudd, Seether, The Calling, Our Lady Peace, Staind and all of those bands. Heck, Staind make soft songs in their last albums and they don't get mention pop rock? But they are not because their main style of music is post-grunge. The same thing goes to Nickelback. They are not pop rock and they shouldn't be include. Other than that I believe your source in wikipedia but the pop rock term doesn't make sense for a post-grunge band. Post-grunge bands like to make soft ballads but that doesn't mean they are pop rock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.133.243.249 (talk) 06:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - None of the band's you've just listed are "Good Articles" or Featured Articles, in fact, most of them are in pretty rough shape really, so that's not a good argument. Many of those bands could easily be called pop rock as well. 10 seconds of Google searching lead to an LA Times article labeling 3 Doors Down as "Pop Rock", for example, so the label could, for example, easily be applied to them as well.
That aside, on Wikipedia, these things are determined by what sources say. See below for a list of sources that call Nickelback pop rock, and they trump your personal opinions on this. Sergecross73 msg me 18:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources supporting "Pop rock"

More to come... Sergecross73 msg me 18:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All those articles are just news articles. Those are basically opinions from the author. Contactman7 (talk) 01:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Youre going to discount Business Week as "just a news article"? Beyond that, the rest of the refs used to source the album are the same. What exactly are you looking for? The Pop rock term is pretty common, so Im sure it can be found regardless. Sergecross73 msg me 02:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Nickelback "Pop Rock" term

Hello there, I have seen people arguing over weather they are pop rock or not. I come here to inform you guys that they are not pop rock. When people put Nickelback in that position they mean "Popular Rock" not "Pop Rock" musically. I came here to change that to "Country Rock" because they have some "Country Rock" songs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiiu91 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the fact that I'm 90% sure that you're block evading and/or a sock puppet based on your edit history, but if you were reading these conversations, you should know that 1) You need to provide sources to back what you say and 2) You need to explain yourself, not just describe what you did without any sort of insight of why. Sergecross73 msg me 01:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The source is a blog, and explicitly says that only that one song is country, and that they have no interest in pursuing a country album or sound in general. Also, its no justification for removing the "pop rock" label either. Sergecross73 msg me 02:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nickelback "Popular Rock," not "Pop Rock" musically!!!!!! READ BEFORE GOING ON AND CHANGING!

Got a link to prove it. http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/69119/for-nickelback-success-rocks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.133.243.249 (talk)

Did you actually read the article? Its Kroeger trying to "celebrate" that they're pop band, he's arguing against people who say "pop" is a bad label. It may not literally call them pop rock, but this article actually supports my argument. If no one referred to them as pop rock, then the whole premise of the entire article wouldn't make any sense. That article doesn't prove anything. Sergecross73 msg me 02:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article supports "my argument," have you read it. He's not celebrating because he didn't say, WE'RE a pop group. He just said when people refer to them as "pop" they mean "popular." Why do you have to be so stubborn? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiiu91 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. No, it doesn't. It literally starts off It's OK with Nickelback if you want to call them a pop group.. Then it just says that they're okay with the term because other respected bands are also called pop, like Tool or Slipknot. It just flat out doesn't say what you're arguing in the article.
  2. I notice you're alternating between a name and an IP. Is 50.133 and Wiiu91 one and the same? Sergecross73 msg me 02:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is somewhat ironic that topic 3 of 3 of this Pop rock series states "READ BEFORE GOING ON AND CHANGING!" due to the editor failing to read the responses here on the talk page. Sources exist stating that they are pop rock so you are continuing to remove sourcesd content. HrZ (talk) 13:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ a b "The Long Road reviews at". Metacritic.com. Retrieved 14 February 2010.
  2. ^ "All The Right Reasons reviews at". Metacritic.com. Retrieved 14 February 2010.
  3. ^ "Dark Horse reviews at". Metacritic.com. 18 November 2008. Retrieved 14 February 2010.
  4. ^ Matt Diehl. "Silver Side Up". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 7 July 2009.
  5. ^ Radosh, Daniel (11 August 2009). "While My Guitar Gently Beeps". The New York Times. p. MM26. Retrieved 3 November 2009.
  6. ^ "All the Right Reasons". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 7 July 2009.
  7. ^ "Tiny Mix Tapes Reviews: Nickelback Music Review". Tiny Mix Tapes. Retrieved 7 July 2009.
  8. ^ Erlewine, Stephen Thomas. "Review: Dark Horse". Allmusic. Retrieved 13 June 2009.
  9. ^ a b Erin Carlson (20 March 2007). "Sales can't buy love for some top bands". USA Today. Retrieved 7 July 2009.
  10. ^ "Silver Side Up". Allmusic. Retrieved 7 July 2009.
  11. ^ "Nickelback's Dark Horse For Dark Times". CHARTattack. 17 November 2008. Retrieved 14 February 2010.
  12. ^ Up for DiscussionPost Comment (14 September 2009). "Dark Horse". Billboard.com. Retrieved 14 February 2010.
  13. ^ http://www.gigwise.com/news/46479/Coldplays-Chris-Martin-Nickelback-Are-A-Great-Band
  14. ^ http://www.chartattack.com/news/78855/timbaland-is-a-nickelback-fan
  15. ^ "Nickelback Voted Worst Band In The World". CHARTattack. Retrieved 14 February 2010.
  16. ^ Jam.canoe.ca
  17. ^ http://www.musicomh.com/albums/nickelback.htm
  18. ^ http://www.allmusic.com/album/the-state-r465286/review
  19. ^ http://www.thebiographychannel.co.uk/biographies/nickelback.html
  20. ^ http://www.allmusic.com/album/the-long-road-r655233/review
  21. ^ http://www.allmusic.com/album/all-the-right-reasons-r793114/review
  22. ^ http://www.roadrunnerrecords.co.uk/artist/Nickelback
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nickelback&oldid=604909966"