Talk:Devourment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleDevourment has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 14, 2007Articles for deletionKept
February 10, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
February 16, 2008Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article
WikiProject Metal (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Why it should'nt be deleted[edit]

The band is considered highly influential in the brutal death metal sub-genre. They have released two full length albums and are well known worldwide. They have over 5000 listeners on last.fm and have a page in allmusic.com. Bloodredchaos 09:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Was this page previously deleted? I seem to remember reading Devourment's article on WP. In any case, they are fairly prominent in the death metal scene, so deletion should be carefully considered. C1k3 01:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

GA on hold[edit]

  • In the infobox, the Former members should be one below the other
  • "However, the band achieved little shortly after formation" - the "shortly after formation" sounds odd here...probably better just to remove it
  • "production of Molesting the Decapitated, again produced by" - repetition
  • "Shortly afterwards, Rosas was arrested and jailed for two and a half years" - why?
    • All the sources just say because he was a "fugitive from justice". Does that mean anything specific? J Milburn (talk) 01:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "but then split up again" - any idea why?
    • There's not much written about the two little reformations in the middle- they just didn't work, I can't find any specifics. J Milburn (talk) 01:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "said it was odd that the album was self-released by the band." - why?
  • "saying-" - use a semi colon here

Leave a note on my talk page when done. Review some stuff at WP:GAN. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 01:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Passed. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 02:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

merging Devourment band members[edit]

Devourment band members can easily be turned into a chart on the main page. Anyone disagree with this course?--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It was split off after it was deemed too long during a peer review. If you want to create a table to insert, be my guest, but I am not certain it will look appropriate in the article. J Milburn (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

genre[edit]

this band is not deathgrind or any manner of grindcore. it's deathcore, and yes, there is a big fucking difference 71.56.230.48 (talk) 04:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right - Devourment is not any sort of grind - but you also clearly you have no idea what deathcore is. Devourment is brutal/slam death metal. Myrkkyhammas (talk) 05:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I really think that the fact that they're considered to be pioneers of the "slam" style of brutal death metal should be mentioned on the article somewhere. Brc2000 (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for that? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
When it comes to underground metal genres there are pretty much no reliable sources, especially when websites like AMG are considered more "reliable" than sites like Metal-Archives. The fact that slam isn't even given a mention makes absolutely no sense. Google Devourment and slam and you'll get thousands of articles and reviews referring to them as, if not pioneers, one of the most important bands in the style. Brc2000 (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
You have mistaken what reliable means here and "what you think is correct". Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
No, he didn't. He's saying that what several thousands of other people have said is reliable, and I agree with him. If you can differentiate groove metal from thrash metal, you can differentiate slam from any other kind of death metal. BakuninGoldmanKropotkin (talk) 01:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
You have also misunderstood WP:RS. Metal Archives cannot possibly pass until it has had content published by a reliable third-party source, preferably in print. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Should this article even be here, considering the majority of the claims about the band are incorrect? 75.199.138.246 (talk) 19:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not basing this on my own opinion. Slam is a style of brutal death metal with a focus on "slams" (slower "mosh" parts). The style isn't something I just made up. It's been used by users on sites like last.fm and rateyourmusic.com, as well as metal review sites like Metal-Observer. Decibel (which I've seen used as a source on a few articles here.) and Terrorizer (I can provide a scan of their Devourment article if you want) have mentioned it, anyway. I don't like either of those magazines, but there you go. All I'm asking is for a simple "their style has been described by some as "slam"", which is a fact that can't be denied. If "post-metal" and "NWOAHM" can have their own articles, I don't see why s simple mention on this page is such a big deal.
Also, as mentioned by the topic creator, this band does not play deathgrind. MusicMight/RockDetector is the only source used for that (which is generally terrible for genres). I know what reliable means, but the fact is even notable mainstream sources can get their information wrong (which is why books like Bad Science exist), even more so for something that has no strict scientific method of determination. hould we list Opeth as "symphonic black metal" and "goth metal" just because a "reliable" source like AMG says so? Brc2000 (talk) 18:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Last.fm and rateyourmusic.com are definitely not reliable sources. Neither is Metal Observer according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 31#Metal-Observer. I would agree that Decibel and Terrorizer are reliable sources, so adding that sentence you mentioned, along with a source (or preferably both, to support "some") to back it up, is not unreasonable. Past that, however, it should not be added to the infobox or inserted in the opening sentence of the lead. Ideally this would go in the Formation and Early History section (which could be renamed to "Background", so that a discussion of the band's style could logically be included).
I also agree that MusicMight is not a reliable source, and have removed "deathgrind". MrMoustacheMM (talk) 01:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Nah, I know that those sources aren't reliable. I just wanted to make a point that people do use the term. The magazines were my sources here. Brc2000 (talk) 10:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good, feel free to add your sentence and sources! MrMoustacheMM (talk) 23:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
We don't add "slam death metal" to articles as there is no evidence that the subgenre exists; ditto for "brutal death metal". The whole issue has been debated ad nauseam and consensus reached long ago over at the death metal article and associated AfD discussions. Regarding MusicMight... articles edited exclusively by Garry Sharpe-Young (username: Taniwha), the site creator, are considered to pass WP:RS as he's been independently published by third-party sources (his books containing the Rockdetector/MusicMight content were published by Cherry red). Regarding Allmusic, the biographies and reviews are reliable sources, but the genres in the genre box are not used on Wikipedia. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
How is there "no evidence" that brutal death metal exists? So all those bands playing the style don't exist? This is just silly. Yet actual non-existant subgenres like "post-metal", "alternative metal" (I dare someone to tell me what RATM, Faith No More, Jane's Addiction and Alice In Chains have in common to be their own separate subgenre), funk metal and NWOAHM have their own articles. How does "technical death metal" have it's own article when there's no evidence that brutal death metal exists? If brutal death metal doesn;t exist, neither does "djent", because both subgenres are named by the fans. I'm sure even the almighty Allmusic uses the term in their reviews.
Regarding MusicMight, as I mentioned, just because something achieves notability, it doesn't make them right. There are published books on creationism as well. How can the opinions of single person be considered "reliable"? Brc2000 (talk) 11:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
To evidence the existence of "brutal death metal", you would need to find multiple, independent sources discussing it as a legitimate subgenre... see here and here. Same goes for, say melodic black metal. That is not to say that the terms are not used, simply that they do not exist as separate subgenres. regarding MusicMight, you misunderstand both WP:RS and WP:V; Wikipedia is unintersted in "truth" as you believe it to be so, simply verifiability by reliable sources - and if you still think that reliability means something that you happen to agree with, you haven't read the policy. I'm also unsure as to why you have brought up notability... there are many notable sources that fail WP:RS. For instance, various webzines, or indeed Metal Archives may scrape notability but fail WP:RS by a country mile. Blackmetalbaz (talk)
I didn't mean "notability" in Wikipedia terms, but notability in terms of being published in the mainstream. Brc2000 (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

[undent] Frankly, I don't see the problem with adding a sentence saying they have been called "slam death metal", so long as it's sourced (in this case, two sources). If the Cephalic Carnage article can mention that they call themselves "rocky mountain hydro grind" (sourced from Decibel as well), then I don't see why this article can't mention "slam death metal". MrMoustacheMM (talk) 21:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I quite agree. But similarly we wouldn't pretend that "rocky mountain hydro grind" is a legitimate subgenre. Having taken a quick peak at the Decibel link, that actually looks interesting. Does anyone have a copy of the full article? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
My mistake, I incorrectly thought you didn't agree. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 02:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Devourment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Devourment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:40, 9 September 2017 (UTC)