Talk:Godsmack/Archive 1

Grammy

When you say grammy-nominated in the intro you dont need to remind people again that they're grammy nominees in the same paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Blizzard King (talk • contribs) 22:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Go back to school idiots

I just read the intro again and the idiot used the word "and" two times in one sentence(run on sentence idiot). I'm changing alot of the intro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Blizzard King (talk • contribs) 22:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

No Hit Wonder

The begining is misleading, when I read it I thought they had real hits not moder rock hits so Im changing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Blizzard King (talk • contribs) 22:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

NEEDS EDITING

This article is written like crap and needs a huge revision.

      Then why don't you start it up, heathen.

Good to see someone's paying attention _> MonstaPro:Talk 18:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC) - P.S. have added "help me I'm broken" tags to the front of the article so hopefully some one in charge can sort this (minor) mess.

Is there a wikiproject for just for bands regardless of genre? It would help with articles like this and provide guidelines for the basic structure of a band article. Following the example of Wikiproject:Films might be a good place to start. MrMurph101 01:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC) Ok, scratch that. The article is already covered by the rock music wikiproject and that should be enough. A project on everything that can be defined as a "band" seems much too broad to cover. MrMurph101 02:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added 2 images and added a DVD section and am trying to get some info, is it looking good? --Will Scot 55 02:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Genre classification: Heavy metal band or not?

Okay...Godsmack is not a heavy metal band. bob craven sucks 23:09, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Who says?

I beg to differ. Godsmack's guitar styles are very reminiscent of classic heavy metal, and the lead singer's style is much more of a metal style of singing then alternative rock, at least in my opinion. VH1 list's Godsmack as an alternative metal band, and i think that is what we should go with. The link is right on the page. Sarcastic Avenger 22:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

but...heavy metal is a completely different animal compared to alternative metal.

Godsmack is no metal! It is not even hard rock! Alternative rock is not bad. a metal magazine put into the "heavy rock" section. You should write (like the german wiki) that gsmack is a mixture of both. you should also mention similar bands like Disturbed. I know disturbed has a very different sound, but this is one "circle". Means this band is often linked with disturbed.

dude, the wikipedia def. of heavy metal is the same as regular metal, so accept that. godsmack is metal. disturbed's music is loud, i know since i have a CD, and also metal, but the guitar riffs in godsmack's music is really low, and similar to those found in heavier metal. and i strongly disagree that disturbed is similar to godsmack. godsmack is no where as nu-metal as disturbed.Itachi1452 02:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'll settle it: why don't we say "Godsmack is a hard rock/heavy metal band..." See? a slash solves everything. Hard Rock and Heavy Metal have a blurry line anyway (just like Disturbed's classification is disputed). ChagrinRiddle 19:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

WTF?!!!

Elton John and Elvis Presley are believed to be the primary influence upon Godsmack... since when does godsmack's music sound anything like them?!! i thought the primary influence was Alice in chains. Itachi1452 01:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Alice in Chains & "the Godsmack"

On the controversy regarding 'Alice In Chains' instead of reading like this:

"It came from the lead singer insulting one of his band mates for having a cold sore on his lip."

the word 'allegedly' should be added:

"It allegedly came from the lead singer insulting one of his band mates for having a cold sore on his lip."

This way the article can become even more neutral, because both arguments have equal credibility and should be presented as sides and not necesarily facts since neither can be verified

Speaking of Neutrality, should we really describe guitar solos as "Mind-Blowing" and guitarists as "Amazing?"

• In an interview in Los Angeles based radio station KROQ, Sully confirmed the cold sore issue. Sully made fun one of the members for having a cold sore and ended up getting one himself. He callled this "Godsmack." Kind of like Karma. MrMurph101 18:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think most of the first paragraph (everything but the first sentence) should be added to a new section, perhaps "Origins," which would obviously serve the purpose to explain the band's origins. I feel the Alice In Chains rip-off contreversy should be addressed in th

I added an Alice in Chains influence section and included other influences in there citing and quoting statements made by the band in several interviews (both early and more recent).

On the issue "is Sully less credible". I choose to state he gives an "alternative" explanation because it directly contradicts what he's stated in previous interviews.

• Can you site those interviews? Interviews before 1999? MrMurph101 21:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• the sentence that states "Many mistakenly believe Godsmack obtained their name from the Alice in Chains..." needs some work. first of all, is it proven that this is definitely NOT where the name came from? if so, then you can keep the "mistakenly" in there. if not, then it needs to come out. secondly, if you are going to say that the name is "mistaken", get right to the point and tell us the other theories directly after telling us it is "mistake". there are too many sentences about influences before getting back to the name point.Dandube 17:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• The whole section needs some work actually. Ok, maybe the "mistakenly" should be taken out and I noticed somebody took that out and took out the "many believe" part out too. Anyway, it has been cited that Sully has used the "cold sore" story. However, no one cited anywhere that the name originated from the Alice in Chains song. A cited entry should take precendence over something not cited. While there is no doubt Godsmack is influenced by Alice in Chains, it does not mean they necessarily used one of their songs to name themselves after. That would be a non sequiter. Anyway, the best thing to do is to organize the article better to address the matter much better than it is right now. MrMurph101 23:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

All of this Alice in Chains & Godsmack stuff is a bunch of crap. Both of the bands are amazing but this crap has just gone to far. EX: Facelift - Faceless that's friggen dumb that that is compared. Either this stuff gets sourced and moved to a page of its own entitled "Godsmack and Alice in Chains Compairisons" or it will get deleted for not being sourced. And I'm not finding sources because I find it all stupid. Robbie admited in the video "Smack This" that they stole it from the Alice in Chains song God Smack. If this stuff isn't sourced within a week I am deleting it for not being sourced. Skeeker _[Talk] 20:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it is really just OR. All that needs to be said is that Alice in Chains was one of their influences. No need to make all those subjective comparisons. MrMurph101 02:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop deleting sections

Since the Alice in Chains stuff is controversial, it is important for it to remain neutral and present both sides of the argument. To the person that has been trying to delete all of this, please stop. Mr. IP 142.176.111.58, 142.176.117.205, and 142.176.117.72. You already did it once and destroyed the page with your POV statements. Now, you removed the whole influence section and simply cut and pasted information that also contained POV from the Godsmack website. I understand you are a fan of the band but stop deleting others work because you don't like it.

I Stand Alone

Who and Why keeps deleting the I Stand Alone section?

Cover band

As a long-time listener of their hometown station WAAF, I remember frequently hearing advertisements of "Alice in Chains cover band Godsmack" concerts before they started recording their own music. In the tradition of The Machine, Physical Graffiti, Draw the Line and The Joshua Tree they named themselves after an aspect of the band they covered.

Unfortunately I don't have anything in the way of citations, so this wouldn't be appropriate to include in the main article. Perhaps others could find some? Ubermonkey 00:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It can be included. Usually a citation is needed if something is disputed although it is always recommended. The comparisons to Alice in Chains should have its own section though and make the top part of the article an introduction, followed by the history of the band, like what most other band articles are like. MrMurph101 00:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

"Arthur Magazine" Interview

Perhaps mention of the 'controversial' interview with Sully, re: their promotion of military recruitment. This recently featured on Australian radio TripleJ's program "Hack" on May 30th 2006. Apparently the audio recording of the interview is floating around the net. The use of their music in military recruitment advertising campaigns, on its own, likely warrants mention.

Biased article (POV issues)

I came to this article to learn more about Godsmack, and somehow all I know now is that they may have derived some parts of themselves from Alice in Chains, in my opinion that should be a small part of the article, perhaps even a section, but it definitely shouldn't start off with that. It's a very biased, poor quality article in my opinion. Avuton 20:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

it's not biased, it's purely objective. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's biased. I agree there needs to be more about the band. Unfortunately, the band hasn't done much. Do you have any suggestions to improve the content. 68.196.250.47 05:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

There is an overemphasis on Alice in Chains comparisons in the intro which can be perceived as biased. I agree with putting the comparisons to them in a seciton with a sentence in the intro that addresses it with a "see below" guiding readers to the substance of the content on that issue. MrMurph101 22:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Where's the Wicca?

Remember when Godsmack was first touring, they used to have a big pentacle flag in the background of the band. There is no discussion on the question of Sully's beliefs. I think he was into Wicca, but I don't remember. Regardless, there should be something about it here since it had to do with the band.

Sully has his own article which discusses his beliefs. It would still be good to maybe include how his beliefs are incorporated in Godsmack's music for this article though. MrMurph101 22:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Sully is a Celtic Witch, but someone keeps deleting the religion bit off his webpage. BMan1113VR 04:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that the band started to get away from the Wiccan symbolism after the first album. (I only have the first and IV, so I'm not positive, but there is nothing in IV as far as I can tell that has Wiccan symbolism in it or references Wicca in any way. So maybe it only needs to be in Sully's page and possibly on a album-by-album basis. ChagrinRiddle 19:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Musical influences: Godsmack vs. Nine Inch Nails

Okay firstly, Godsmack are not heavy metal; not every damn band with a "heavy" guitar tone doesn't make them metal, it's the way they play their music that makes them metal or not. Their music has more to do with grunge and hard rock than actual heavy metal.

Now my real discussion: Godsmack's "Time Bomb" from their debut album has been said to rip off a main riff that Nine Inch Nails used on their song "Last" from their album "Broken". If you listen to both songs, they sound very distinctivly alike. NIN released their song around 1992 or sometime around then while Godsmack released their song around 1997. Would this be or should it be necessary to include in the article, regardless if it's true or not? I think it'd be interesting to show.

I'm indifferent to whether Godsmack is considered "Heavy Metal" or not or whatever label you want. They are all subjective. They have been labeled by outside sources as metal so it's not wrong to put that label in. If you do not believe their metal you are entitled to that opinion but just leave it in since that label can be verified. As to the NIN, you just have to find whether or not Trent Reznor is doing anything about it. MrMurph101 02:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The thing is many people don't even know what heavy metal is. People say metal is Korn but it isn't... heavy metal for one is not Godsmack so yeah it's an opinion but there's a lot of basis for that. Comparing a heavy metal band and Godsmack can show that Godsmack MAY HAVE heavy metal influences but their grunge roots show more from bands like Alice in Chains and also their hard rock roots (their last full length, "Faceless" definitely has shown their hard rock influences.) But honestly, heavy metal should be taken out because, in a simple example comparison, Godsmack have more to do with bands like Staind than a band like, say maybe Judas Priest or Iron Maiden or Dio, all which are heavy metal. PS - Many channels and shows as shown on MTV and VH1 may say whatever they wish about Godsmack and other similar bands, saying they're a heavy metal band, but then again the mainstream media has a very skewed view on what metal is and not the full actual idea to what metal is so basing Godsmack being metal on shows in the mainstream isn't a great argument. (I'm not saying you said this, but I read in previous postings that people want to base Godsmack as being metal because a show said they were on VH1.)

Next, about the NIN issue, well to my knowledge, I remember that there was some controversy behind that with Trent and NIN fans against Godsmack but it wasn't any huge music news but I'll search into it more and reveal what I find.

Sorry, but your personal opinion has no more credibility than anyone elses, the "Heavy Metal" label should stay. Whatever label has been attributed to them should stay in the infobox. Trying to delete what you don't agree with is just nit picky. MrMurph101 19:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC) For the record, I do not believe VH1 or MTV has any more credibility than anyone else either. MrMurph101 01:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This is all pointless trying to classify their genre. Furthermore, if you are going to argue that they have a more "grunge" influence than heavy metal due to the Alice in Chains influence, here's some food for thought. Alice in Chains was classified as heavy metal when Facelift came out. They reclassified themselves as "grunge" (because they were from Seattle) to cash in on the "grunge" explosion that was going on right before the release of Dirt. They flat out admit this on the Alice in Chains timeline of their Unplugged DVD. You can find references all over labeling Godsmack as Heavy Metal, Nu-Metal, Post-Grunge, Hard Rock. You aren't going to be able to say which one is right.128.6.78.50 18:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• The more accurate way to decide what they may go under is to look at similar artists and where they get their influences. Id personally put them under Alternative Metal seeing as its a huge umbrella type term that pretty much describes everything(look at the list of alt. metal bands; even Alice In Chains is on there) I do recall reading somewhere about Godsmack being an AiC cover band when they started out. If they were there is no shame in it, lots of bands start covering stuff at first. I personally love both bands and they are similar-ish. Not completely, but they do have their similarities. When I 'group' Godsmack with other bands, I normally put them in with Seether, Alice In Chains, Fuel, Bush, Flyleaf and maybe some others. Godsmack is definitely one of the more Grunge influenced bands as opposed to more metal influenced bands like Disturbed and Mudvayne. They have the whole heavy distortion thing going on. And Sully doesnt sing like Iron Maiden or Black Sabbath(what I tend to consider heavy metal seeing as they are some of the progenitors). Does anyone else agree with my comparisons? Theyre definitely seperate from other modern bands(Korn, Limp Bizkit, Chevelle, etc) and they share more traits with other bands(Fuel, Nickelback, Seether, etc). The predicament is what one categorizes such a group as. Thats why I just say Alternative Metal. It tends to make the world a happier place(i.e. less disagreements)Lamentingvampire09 12:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Genre classification: nu metal?

does anyone think they should change this ? i really don't consider godsmack to be nu metal to be honest. what do you guys think ?

• I don't see how they're simlar to any Nu-Metal bands (Linkin Park, Limp Bizkit, Korn,etc).Jason f90 04:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• they have been classified as Nu-Metal by numerous sources. They have also been classified as Post Grunge, Heavy Metal, Hard Rock etc... All very broad genre's. Rather than choose one over the other, it's better to just list them all.

• All Music Guide doesn't clasify them as nu-metal, and most of sources either, and to make for these nu-metal tagging, posers matters worse, you can't say objectively say there are nu-metal band, because of time signatures, different influences, lack of rapping and turntables, not using high-pitched shortly repeated riffs, and so on...It's so lame...Stop tagging them nu-metal! Sully already disbanded this term! Broken soul 11:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• I changed Nu-Metal be cause they have nothing Nu-Metal. No Rapping and no turntables. I would classify them as Hard Rock but I'm leaving Metal and Post-Grunge there.

there's more to nu-metal than korn, linkin park, limp bizkit etc... look, bands like staind are considered nu-metal, and for a good reason. if you listen to the part right before the guitar solo in "speak", it starts a little nu-metal sounding. plus, nu-metal is more than rapping. Itachi1452 23:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

they are nu metal. get over it.

Sure, there are a lot of bands out there that may have slight influences from nu-metal, but they aren't listed as nu-metal because of it. Is there rapping? No. Are there turntables? No. Is there any detectable funk influence whatsoever in their music? No. The only things I can find are their downtuned guitars and a few amplification techniques. So stop calling them nu-metal already!! Arkyopterix 15:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

actualy, All Music Guide does call them nu metal, but it's not an available option in the "styles" section. see? even korn isn't marked as nu metal, but if you read the album descriptions, like especially in their first album, they straight up call them a nu metal band. Itachi1452 02:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Nu-metal is such a gay fricken name and they arnt nu-metal. Skeeker 21:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Also quit adding it on there. Skeeker 01:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

they suck, so there for they are nu metal. get over it.

They are not nu metal. Lots of guitar solos, no funk, rap or hip hop influences so definitely not nu metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.128.225 (talk) 10:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Song info: The Enemy

I realize it may be the wrong area to put this question, but there is no article for their song The Enemy. What instruments are used to make the loud sound that is heard in the intro and throughout most of the song? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.69.91.194 (talk) 05:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

i believe it's an instrument known as drums. Itachi1452 23:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Reviews Section

Links were dead. Demantos 19:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Comparisons Section

Deleted because it was completely POV. Demantos 19:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

History, specifically Sully's

Under History:

In February 1995 Sully Erna decided to start a new band as a lead singer after being behind the drums for more than 23 years in his previous band

WTF?! I bothered to check the reference and it says Sully appeared on ONE LP. Check your facts & change it... _> MonstaPro:Talk 18:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, common sense here. Godsmack - founded 1995. 23 years playing drums before Godsmack formation. Sully born in 1968. Makes him 26, 27 when Godsmack forms, right? Yes, so...either he's been playing in bands since he was 3/4, or that whole line is ... Shatterzer0 07:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed Demantos 18:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Sections getting deleted

I made a DVD section which seems to be deleted, anyone know why? As i'm trying to improve this article let my stuff is being deleted--Will Scot 55 04:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Reversions by Godsamick and 24.187.101.85

I made a substantial edit to this article yesterday. An SPA editor Godsamick and an anonymous editor (presumably the same person) have reverted those edits. Such edits worth retaining include:

• Misspellings and poor grammar like "grammy nominated", "Heavy metal" (followed immediately by "hard rock"), "got in the studio", and the use of "you" (in a formal encyclopedia article)
• Wikifying of years, in opposition to WP:CONTEXT
• Removal of wikifying of full dates, in opposition to WP:CONTEXT
• Persistent misuse of quotation marks around songs instead of italicizing them
• Refusal to credit Erna as a vocalist (instead, he only writes the lyrics; this apparently is a band with only backing vocalists)
• Unnecessary hard returns from where material was sloppily cut-and-paste into the article
• An entire unsourced section of original research comparing the band to Alice in Chains
• Removal of an {{unreferenced}} template from the unreferenced History section
• Retention of one-line paragraphs
• Retention of a link to an interview in the "External links" section that should, at best, be used as a reference; it's more likely just link spam

Justify your reversions of these well-intentioned and absolutely necessary edits. As it stands with your reversions, this article is in very bad shape. My edits were a first attempt to clean this article up and make it something close to a coherent encyclopedia article. If there is specific material that I removed or changed to which you object, voice your objections without reverting and readding all of the problems outlined above (and many not specifically outlined). --ElKevbo 04:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No response? --ElKevbo 00:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Added a Discography and DVD section also changed tribute to VH1 Rock Honors and added some text and quotes as well as adding some text to the top --Will Scot 55 04:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Faceless cover.jpg

Image:Faceless cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Godsmack-Godsmack (album cover).jpg

Image:Godsmack-Godsmack (album cover).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 17:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Godsmack - Awake.jpg

Image:Godsmack - Awake.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 17:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

How does the page look, with my edits?

I'm a massive Godsmack fan and though this page could do with some stuff added so this is what I done i've added many References, made a Discography section and added there upcoming Box set, I also re-added the DVD's as well as the soundtracks the band has appeared on, and I changed Tribute to VH1 Rock Honors as well as adding text here and there to fill it out more

What does everyone think, as i'm new to wiki which is why the links in the references section don't look that great! so comments are welcom, Thanks --Will Scot 55 07:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of genres

There is no reason to delete genre's in the background information box. Godsmack has been categorized under a number of genre's, all of which are closely related. Some people think that it's better to stick to one over the other. Until the band decides to officially classify themselves to a specific, it's best to list the genre's they have typically been associated with. And, to Skeeker, the things you are deleting are not covered in the article. And even if they were, that's not a reason to delete them from the box. If anything, they should be in both spots. Please be more civil rather than threatening to have me blocked. There's no reason for a blocking. SisterEurope 19:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not threatening to YOU blocked I am saying I will have the page blocked, because it looks to me that you are not a registered user. Take a look at other articles with that message EX: Pantera Skeeker 20:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

How am I not a registered user? You see my name don't you. Oh, and that link you provided pertains to albums, not artists. But even if it does, it says that you can list 1 or more genre's that apply. Not just the ones you like. 68.196.250.108 22:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see your name now :), plus there is no link to your user page or talk page therefore you are not a registered user. I'm not applying just the ones I like I am applying the ones that had the most sources, and if you would have paid attention on the links it typicly says ARTIST INFO. Wikipedia states to have sourced information so I got sourced information. I happen to like bands of nu-metal and post-grunge sorts for your information, so don't get cocky with me. Thank you for wasting my time. Skeeker 04:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, edit warring and nasty comments... not the way to go. Nor does a user's status as registered user, registered user who hasn't created a user page, registered user who sometimes edits without logging in, or complete anon who has no registered account matter in the slightest. You cannot get a page semi-protected simply to keep out edits from unregistered users you disagree with. That's not what it is for - complete anons have just as much 'right' to edit Wikipedia as anyone else. In this case it also just wouldn't work given that SisterEurope IS a registered user who could bypass semi-protection just as easily as you could. Repeatedly editing a page back and forth is disruptive and likely to result in a user block for three revert violation. Looks like that has actually happened on this page already - so now would be a very good time to stop edit warring.

SisterEurope, the point about sources is valid. If this band has been classified as belonging to other genres then the best course of action would be to look up references where such is the case and cite them.

I don't see any standards on Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums or Wikipedia:WikiProject Music genres for how many genres to list or what levels of 'genre' / 'subgenre' are acceptable. That is likely something the wikiprojects should try to reach a consensus on to avoid this sort of bickering. --CBD 12:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that they have no right to edit I am saying there is more than one person who changes the infobox with stupid spin-off genres, because once you narrow crap down that much you may as well not have a genre and call the band just there name, that is why it is best to stick with the core genre. I do not know for sure if he/she is a registered user, I am assuming that they are simply because they have no user or talk page. Typically when you first strart out on wikipedia there is a welcome message on the talk page, I cannot say whether or not this is with everybody, I don't know that. The sorces are among wikipedia guidlines so I sourced the genres I found most for as well as finding a source stating one of the genres people so fondly put are wrong. Skeeker 19:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

By classifying them as "stupid spin-off genres", you don't make a point. Again, they have been classified under a number of those genre's and it would be silly to pick one over the other. As for the links you provided to prove your point in the article itself, you need to check the validity of your sources. You referenced a message board at Ultimate-guitar.com where a random user claimed "Godsmack is not nu-metal". I don't think message boards should be referenced. Also, you claimed that the band didn't list themselves under certain genre's on Myspace. Well, if you check MySpace, it wouldn't even allow them to classify themselves under a number of genres because they aren't even an option on myspace. I've properly referenced the other genre's now, so there is no reason to delete them. And FYI, I am a registered user and have been for a while. SisterEurope 18:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said I didn't know whether or not you were registered. And I don't know if you did this or not but, the proper way to classify them is to type in Godsmack to a search engine, NOT to type in "Is Godsmack NU-Metal" into a search engine, therefor if you did that you must delete those sources because i found none that said nu-metal and i was going to add alternative metal but forgot. Keep in mind I am NOT sating if you did or didn't I just didnt find any sources for nu-metal. And as for the message board I did not relize that is what it was and I am sorry. Skeeker 23:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

And please explain to me how they are Nu-metal in a detailed description, just because they came out at the rise of nu-metal doesn't mean they are.

• They don't use verse-chorus-verse as most nu-metal bands do.
• They play guitar solos, and they guitars are not tuned down.
• When has a Nu-metal band played a song like "Serenity" especially with live performances which I will see today, again.
• They have never, ever, incorperated rap vocals in their music.

Here is my point. Skeeker _[Talk] 09:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The 'Nu-metal' citation from Roxanne Blanford looks like a reasonably reliable source to me. --CBD 21:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

While I mostly agree with you, Skeeter, you aren't 100% percent correct in your first point about Godsmack not being nu-metal. In fact, the simple verse-chorus-verse[no solo] song structure usually associated with nu-metal is used quite a bit (maybe a quater to a third of the songs) on their first three albums. If you want I can get you a list of the songs that follow this structure. For no other reason but that, I would say that at least at some point(s) in their careers, Sully and the rest of Godsmack have at least flirted with nu-metal and thus deserve to have that label applied to them in this article. Nominahorn 03:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

lame

the new metallica? okay some one needs to stop reading hit parader. has anyone even listened to metallica here? geez...

well the metllica thing is gone now. i'll have to agree with you on this one. it was biased and obviously put there by a fan of the band, not some one who wanted to better the article. this is why children need to stay off wikipedia and leave it for the grown ups to edit. and for the record, not once have i heard godsmack being called "the next metallica". Crownofworms 19:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed references

Demantos 18:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Added some and fixed others. Skeeker _[Talk] 22:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The AiC comparison

The comparison to Alice in Chains has been removed from the introduction; which is good, as it was unprofessional and biased to have that in the introduction of the article. However, some users insist on removing and/or shrinking the AiC comparison section - this is wrong and biased. I have re-added the bulk of the comparison section, but under a new title, "Influences". If any one can add other influences to Godsmack, then please write about it in this section. But do not remove this section as it currently presents both sides of the Godsmack/Alice in Chains story. Oh yeah, and if anyone accuses me of re-adding this section because I hate Godsmack and love Alice in Chains, they are sadly mistaken, as I own Godsmack, Awake, The Other Side, and IV. - Alice Mudgarden 07:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The Discography page should be merged into this one. Discuss Demantos 19:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Why? I have been at work on that page, it should not be merged. Skeeker _[Talk] 22:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you mean just the talk page or the article? Skeeker _[Talk] 22:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The Discography page should be merged into the main page. It is pointless to have it separate. Both are good articles and would be better if combined. According to the merger proposal page, there are several good reasons to merge a page including:

• Overlap - There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap
• Context - If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it.

The Discography article overlaps with the main article and the context requires background knowledge from the main article. And besides, just because you have been at work on one page does not mean it can/should be considered a stand alone page when the information could be better used elsewhere. I am a YES for merger Demantos 12:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I say NO. I am still working on the article, it does not need to be merged at all. Godsmack would be that much longer, and any substatial famous band has a discography page. And Godsmack has enough music to warrent one. You shouldn't be the one putting merge proposal templates either. Skeeker _[Talk] 01:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually anyone can propose a merger. But since the consensus is no, proposal failed. Demantos (talk) 12:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It's quite common to split discographes from the main article if the main article becomes too long. Once this is done, all the main article needs is a link to the discography page and to list the artist's studio album. Please see the Featured Article Nirvana (band) and the Featured list Nirvana discography for comparison. A lot of imformation can make up a discography page. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I am modeling Godsmack discography after Nirvana discography, but Godsmack does not have as much of a history as Nirvana so it will not be as long. Skeeker _[Talk] 02:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually they've been together longer than Nirvana had been. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Taken from the same comment I left on Demantos's page: I'm on disagreement with the merge of the Godsmack discography and the main Godsmack article itself. While it's not said in any Wikipedia guidelines to do so, any artist with a wide range of singles and album information should have a separate page for their full discography listing, while their main article should only include their full-length studio albums as basic reference. This styling is used on multiple artist wikis, and a good example of this would be the Korn wiki. Although Godsmack's catalogue isn't quite as extensive as a band like Korn's, there is just enough info in the discography to keep it separate from the main article without throwing everything together into one cluster of an article. —Vanishdoom (talk) 02:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I also disagree with the merge, if it was merged half of the Godmsack article would be full of tables and lists where if it is separated it is organized. M3tal H3ad (talk) 02:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• I too, oppose the merge. When a list of one's releases and published works becomes too long, it's absolutely fine to split it into a separate page. Check out Category:Discographies. I suppose if Godsmack had only released one studio album and a couple of EPs or a single, and have no plans to continue releasing material, then I suppose it's fine to leave the discography as a part of the main article. I honestly see no valid reason to merge the two. Spebi 04:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think there is enough consensus here to refute any merging. Scarian^Talk 11:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there does not appear to be consensus to merge, and personally feel that merging is a poor idea for the simple reason that the discography article contains information which is relevent, but which if merged here would make this article too long. J Milburn (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)