Talk:List of black metal bands

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Metal (Rated List-class)
WikiProject icon This 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.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Black Metal (Rated List-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Black Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of black metal 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.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Impaled Northern Moonforest[edit]

Anyone else think a cut-and-dry joke/parody band does not belong on this list at all?--- Ours18

nah. Theyre not grim and frostbitten enough :P Isilioth 22:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

More genre arguments[edit]

Crade of Flith isn't a Black Metal band, even the lead singer admits it

  • they started out clearly as a black metal band. Their debut album is an obvious display of that. Many ppl (esp black metal fans) tho seem to have blocked that out considering they have cheesed out into some crappy goth band now. Spearhead 09:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
    • They did NOT start out as black metal, their first demos were death metal. As it is, their "black metal" material has always been of little consequence to the greater bm scene as a whole. --Ours18
      • They were never black metal. Stop adding them to this list. Isilioth 10:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Death metal[edit]

Krisiun and God Dethroned are death metal.

It doesn't matter, the point is that many people dispute it. Not saying so wouldn't be NPOV.

  • it is mentioned on the CoF page... doesn't have to be put here as well

It doesn't matter, the point is that many people dispute it. Not saying so wouldn't be NPOV.

I don't see how Cradle Of Filth is to be considered Black Metal when it's only their debut album that is possibly included in the genre and everything else is very obviously gothic. If a band puts out a rock album and then changes and makes their next 5 albums country, are they still to be labelled a 'rock' band? I think not. Ilyon 08:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

CoF might not be black metal (though its the best place I fnd for them) they are not gothic metal. Maybe symphonic metal, but definitely not gothic. marnues 18:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

They are closer to Black Metal then any other Genre, that is why they will be left here. ~ The Haunted Angel

I'm going to have to agree with The Haunted ANgel here abd I HATE Cof, but I think it should be noted that it is desputed on the list too.-MC John

I edited the CoF and CoB entries to better reflect the truth and general consensus of the black metal community. CoB always has been considered by the majority of both fans and haters to be a power metal band first and foremost; other than the first album, the black metal aspect only shines through in the vocals. CoF...their early demos were death metal, and the debut was barely black metal if at all (more of a bizarre gothic take on death metal and thrash metal with black vocals and keyboards thrown over everything), and anyway it's long since been established that CoF hasn't been playing anything remotely related to black metal for quite some time. I think the new entry (first album only, very debatable) is good enough for encyclopedia work. Removing both of them would be the most accurate way of doing it, but you'd better be expecting a shitstorm if you're gonna try. --Ours18

CRADLE OF FILTH are NOT closer to black metal than any other genre. They are much closer to heavy metal and gothic metal. Have you ever noticed how actual black metal listeners hate CoF? That's because they are a mediocre band labeled as bm to make them sound cool. Fuck, even Dani has said he doesnt think theyre black metal. Isilioth 10:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Most people who started listening to BM recently had first listened to CoF or Dimmu Borgir. -iopq 07:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Mercyful Fate = Black Metal?[edit]

I don't think Mercyful Fate should be mentioned here, although they were no doubt an extream influence on Black Metal, they muscilly have almost nothing in common with bands like Mayham or Darkthrone, Besides, they are already listed on the main BM page as an influnce


Well, back before there was a Mayhem or Darkthrone, Black Metal was not a genre but a term used for anti-Christian bands. Mercyful Fate's first two records were not only highly anti-Christian, but the first released album of a musician wearing corpse paint ( King Diamond of corpse ). If Celtic Frost and Venom are up there ( who also have nothing in common musically with Black Metal as it is known now either ), so should Mercyful Fate. Either add Mercyful Fate back, or take out Celtic Frost and Venom, in my opinion.

Anyone notice a pattern?[edit]

Look under the 'V' section, lol.

Mercyful Fate should stay up[edit]

How anyone can take off Mercyful Fate from this list while ignoring the 50 broken links of bands that are probobly garage or don't exist is beyond me.

Only up until Black Metal had a defined sound in the 90's, Mercyful Fate was called Black Metal. There is no arguing that, it is known throughout the metal community. Back in the 80's there was no definition of Black Metal, Mercyful Fate, Venom, Celtic Frost made up the first wave of Black Metal and you can't ignore history. Just because Mercyful Fate has nothing in common with what Black Metal is today musically, does not mean they didn't when Black Metal WAS Mercyful Fate, Venom and Celtic Frost. And besides that, everything besides the music - Mercyful Fate in the early 80's were black metal. The imagery, King's corpse paint and garments, the anti-christianity, the screeching abnormal demonic vocals ( Though in a different tone ), the muddy raw production, hailing from an obscured country, and every single song either hailing Satan, about the occult, and blaspheming Christianity except for 1 out of 22 songs. Black metal is more about the music, friends.

Linkin Park?[edit]

Okay, either this is a different Linkin Park or something, or this is a big mistake. Linkin Park is a Rapcore/Nu-Metal Band. It's not even listed in the right section. 'L' is not a number between 0 and 9. It's the 12th letter in the alphabet. If someone can post some evidence that Linkin Park is Black Metal Band, then I retract everything I just said (except for the part where it's listed in the wrong section).

The Wretched
Linkin Park started officialy as a black metal band. End of story.

Removed or moved bands[edit]

I moved The Kovenant to Covenant because they never released a black metal album under the name The Kovenant. 113 07:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Too many bands?[edit]

I think this should be like in other lists of metal bands; if one doesn't have a page, remove it. This is the longest list, more than thrash for example...


I Agree. Too many broken links. How do we even know if these are actual bands?

I think there are at least 300 bands with no article. Too much, so we should remove new additions with no article. If someone wants to put a link to a band which is not here, must create an article first.--85.60.128.60 14:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Children of Bodom...[edit]

should be here or not?

NO. They are a power metal with melodic death influence. Isilioth 10:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Black... or death?[edit]

Die Apocalyptischen Reiter, Witchery... their articles dont say anything about black metal

Why?[edit]

can someone answer, why the following bands are listed as "black metal"? AFAIR their lyrics have little to nothing to do with BM:

  • Children of Bodom
  • Summoning
  • Borknagar
  • Agalloch

I know that articles in Wiki and some other sources name them as BM but i still have no idea why. BTW, only Summoning is called BM on Metalarchives.Blacklake 08:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Good question. These bands aren't black metal at all (except Summoning, which first album sounds like Abigor and which still have aesthetical and atmospheric elements of black metal). Neither are Cradle of Filth (duh), Otyg (??? they're pure folk), Finntroll (!!! polka/folk), Augury (prog/death!), Asmegin (viking), Children of Bodom (hah), Bal-Sagoth, Witchery, etc etc. 69.70.27.42 17:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Go ahead and remove them if you feel like it, particularly if the wikipedia article doesn't say they're BM. For the sake of consistency though, bands which are described as BM in Wikipedia should be listed here, whatever other sources might say. This goes for Cradle of Filth, Children of Bodom and Finntroll (which is folk black metal; plain folk metal is Skyclad, Korpiklaani or, as you say, Otyg). There is huge controversy over the genre of Cradle and COB, but the articles list BM as one of the genres, so they have a place in this list. IronChris | (talk) 18:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. I don't know that Wikipedia, particularly debated, controversial Wikipedia articles, should be used as a source of justification for an edit. And Finntroll has absolutely no black metal in its sound (shrieked vocals don't count). They are plain folk (or polka folk if you want to get more specific), just like Arkona or Hantaoma (who also have growls, but no black metal influence). 69.70.27.42 20:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

If there isn't a reasonably trustworthy source to justify a genre, then the wikipedia article shouldn't include that genre. If the article does state a specific genre, then we should suppose that those who have editted that article did their homework. If you think a band is wrongfully in this list, you should consider modifying the article as well. Otherwise someone could just put the band back in the list, and you would end up with a revert war (one that you are bound to lose, if the article is against you).

As for Finntroll, I can find quite a few sources that state BM as one of its genres: metal archives, BNR metal pages, [1], [2]. What's more, if you do a google search, "Finntroll + "Black Metal"" gives you 228,000 hits and "Finntroll + "folk metal"" gives you 84,100 hits. Hell, even "Finntroll + "viking metal"" gives you 54,500 hits. But anyway, it's not me you have to convince, its the people over on the Finntroll article.

Same thing for Hantaoma; if you do a google search, "Hantaoma + metal" gets 18,900 hits, "Hantaoma + "black metal"" gets 13,400 hits (about 3 quarters), and "Hantaoma + "folk metal"" gets only 2,140 hits. But anyway, who cares, they don't have an article. IronChris | (talk) 21:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

So what? A Google search for Otyg folk metal gets 29K results, and a search for Otyg black metal gets 56K results. Obviously mere Google numbers are not very reliable - it just means that many sites are indexed with this combination of keywords on the same page. ;) Metal Archives does not list black metal in Finntroll's genre, by the way. I've changed the Finntroll article, too. And if we insist on sources, Metal Archives [3], Tartarean Desire [4], Metal Storm [5], Viking Blood [6], list them as folk metal. Others don't, but I don't think this can be solved by posting links or we'd never finish. Rather, by analyzing Finntroll's happy, upbeat music and realizing it sounds nowhere near black metal. :)

Borknagar's Self-Titled is Black Metal--Inhumer 19:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


Frankly, if their wiki article says they're black metal; we'll add it. If you want to discuss the genre, feel free to do so on their own page; this is just a list of bands that have been classified as black metal. --Dayn 13:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Dayn, why dont you fucking think for yourself. Dont just call CoF and CoB black metal because someone else thinks so.
HEY HEY ATTENTION EVERYONE
HEY HEY ATTENTION EVERYONE
HEY HEY ATTENTION EVERYONE
HEY HEY ATTENTION EVERYONE
HEY HEY ATTENTION EVERYONE
HEY HEY ATTENTION EVERYONE
Just because some people think that Children of Bodom and Cradle of Filth have black metal influence, DOES NOT MAKE THEM BLACK METAL GROUPS. I fail to see anything in their music that could possibly warrant them being labeled black metal. Just because Dani screams (yes scream. he doesnt sound like any proper black metal vocalist ive ever heard). And Children of Bodom black metal??? YOURE JOKING. I think people are idiots for calling them melodic death metal, they are just a (heavy) power metal band with unclean vocals. Absolutely nothing to warrant being called black metal. Blacklake --> Summoning ARE (atmospheric) black metal. Isilioth 10:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Folk/Viking metal[edit]

Should not be here. There is already a list of folk metal bands. As far as I'm aware, "viking" and "folk" metal (and whatever else redirects there) is similar to black metal, but they have their own pages describing them. I will remove all bands that do not list "black metal" explicitly on their pages very soon. --Dayn 07:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

While we're here, I'm keeping in "blackened death/thrash/jazz/pop/whatever" metal in, as as far as I can gather, it's a mix of the two. --Dayn 07:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Aaand I'll leave in "dark metal" bands. I've no idea what that is, so I'll leave it to someone else's discretion who has more knowledge. --Dayn 07:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Cradle of Filth[edit]

Seriously why are they on this list? I am sure everybody who has some under standing of Black Metal knows for a fact they are not Black Metal. Seriously I feel like I am kicking a dead horse here but anybody with some common sense will know they are not Black Metal and its an insult to have them here. Please somebody find a source to state that they are NOT black metal. Lord of nothing 16:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, The Principle of Evil Made Flesh, From the Cradle to Enslave, and Cradle of Filth all mention black metal. If you can get those mentions of black metal removed with others agreeing, feel free to remove it from this list; but as it is, all this page is is a list of bands that play, or have played black metal. They mightn't play it now, but they have played it; would be better suited on CoF's talk page though. --Dayn 16:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I have over 100 Black Metal albums, and I have heard all of them and I strongly disagree that they are Black Metal. According to the CoF article Dani Filth confirmed himself that CoF is not Black Metal.Lord of nothing 03:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Then you'll have to take up the argument on their pages, as for consistency this page lists bands that play or have played black metal. I don't really listen to them, I just do my best to keep this list maintained. --Dayn 04:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

CRADLE OF FILTH ARE NOT BLACK METAL. Dayn, Only The principle of evil made flesh says its black metal, but that is just some idiots opinion. Anyone who actually knows something about black metal knows that CRADLE OF FILTH ARE NOT BLACK METAL. Even if that one album was bm, it doesn't make the band black metal. They have next to nothing in common with black metal aside from distorted drumming, fast drumming, and screechy vocals...but black metal is not the only genre to have all that...death metal has all those. grindcore. speed metal. Take it from the people who are actual black metalheads. Their lyrical content has never had anything to do with black metal ideology. As someone who listens to black metal, i seriously dont see how they can be called bm. CRADLE OF FILTH ARE NOT BLACK METAL. They are only considered black metal by 16 year old boys and girls who think so because Metal Hammer tells them so. I am going to remove them once again. By readding them you show that you know nothing about black metal. Isilioth 10:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest to WP:CHILL a bit first, and then consider that not all BM is lo-fi TRVE KVLT. CoF came from a BM/DM background and on early material they are. It can't be helped that they got popular and turned in to a commercial act. Spearhead 10:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
No shit dude. It does not make them a black metal band though for fucks sake. Shit, nigga... Isilioth 23:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
How about WP:CIVIL this time? Maybe you're just too KVLT for WP huh Spearhead 23:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


I'm going to keep them off the black metal list as long as possible. I seem to remember previously deleting them from it without much arguing. Ours18 00:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
As will I. Spearhead, grow up please. Isilioth 02:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
There are many other bands on the list that are only vaguely remote black metal, like Akercocke, Belphegor, Bal-Sagoth, Dimmu Borgir, Finntroll, Falkenback, God Dethroned, Lord Belial, Mystic Circle. It's entirely POV to keep CoF off the list while keeping those on. There has been a lot of discussion regarding CoF's style on their own page. Spearhead 14:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
These band should also be removed then. Lets make an article that actually reflects it's title... Isilioth 09:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

CoF's genre it's debated. Their first album "The Principle of Evil made flesh" is their closest album to black metal...but it's more like melodic black metal. After it they have moved towards \and present are\ gothic metal and symphonic black metal with some death metal and heavy metal influences. Many people will argue with me about that I guess... However beacuse they've been labelled as melodic black metal and symphonic black metal I think they should be in the list but to be mentioned that their genre it's debated. If the article was only for true black metal why then the bands Spearhead said are included?? Xr 1 11:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep Cradle Of Filth off of this list there is nothing even remotely black metal about The Principle of Evil Made flesh the article for the album it's self doesn't list them as black metal. Cradle is not Black Metal, never was never will be. The fact they are on here is offensive. 98.229.144.21 (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Carpe Tenebrum[edit]

I changed "Carpe Tenebrum"'s country of origin from Australia to Norway, assuming this was just an accident. CT is a side project of dimmu borgir/astennu, who are clearly not from Australia.

Thanks for catching that. I might go through the list later and see what else needs fixing. --Dayn 08:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The reason for this would be that Carpe Tenebrum appears to be a solo project of astennu, who was Australian until he moved to Norway (i think) sometime in the 90s. So i guess thats why the band "originated" in Australia. Isilioth 10:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

How about I just delete half of the bands[edit]

All the bands that say "influenced by black metal" or "a mix of black metal and x" shouldn't be listed as "black metal". Make a new damn list for bands influenced by black metal. -iopq 04:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Flag & Layout[edit]

I edited the list layout, I hope you people like it (I think it looks better), inspired by the list of avant-garde metal musical groups.

I've done it by using a macro, so if there is a consensus on this layout, I'll change the other pages too.--Emmaneul 22:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Extra tags[edit]

I've been trying to help with the lists of metal bands and I like how this list states if a band played the black metal style early or recent next to the name of the band. Should it not also state (in the same place as (early) or (recent) preferably) if the band plays a mix of styles. For example, Finntroll and Enslaved mix black metal with folk metal and viking metal (in that order). So perhaps it should say next to the name the other style. For example- Finntroll (folk) -just as it states (early) next to some bands.Navnløs 18:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Expandable list feature[edit]

I have added the expandable list feature to the list of thrash metal bands. I hope it is implemented on all 'list of x-metal bands' articles. Weltanschaunng 13:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, though the lack of uniformity (in format) of all of the "list of x-metal bands," from each other, I find disturbing.Navnløs 21:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


Woods of Infinity[edit]

I have seen / heard about much popularity with this band despite their underground nature. Wondering if anyone has enough information to start an article on them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.41.165 (talk) 07:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Do just that here. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 07:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Avant-Garde bands that incorporate strong black metal influences[edit]

Should bands like Unexpect be added for the sake that they play black metal (along with many musical styles)? −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 07:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, why not. There's a ton of bm bands that play a combination of style anyways. BM is usually into experimenting. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 21:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

King Diamond (band)[edit]

Are they actually black metal or do they just have that aesthetic/image? (King Diamond's "corpsepaint" and the band's album covers) I would like to know. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 03:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

A good question. It's definitely obvious that Mercyful Fate should be in there. I'm not so sure about King Diamond, though. I've only listened to some of his music and it's pretty dark, but is it black metal? I don't really think so. I think it has more in common with power metal. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 22:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Misused flag icons[edit]

have been removed in accordance with WP:FLAG. Do not emphasize nationality without good reason. There is no reason here. Nationality has no relevant to the criteria. --neonwhite user page talk 00:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Danger-To All Metallers Concerning The Lists![edit]

Someone's trying to change them again. We all know how that turned out last time. I do not want that shit to happen again and I'm sure no one else does. So, anyone want to tell Neon there why the list has flagicons and is formatted the way it is? Also, someone should go ahead and revert it to its last version. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 00:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

See WP:OWN. Any editor can edit an article. You do not own it. If you have a decent reason for emphasising nationality then state it here or it is violating NPOV. Do not encourage other to make disruptive edits as well, that's pretty incivil. --neonwhite user page talk 00:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. I'm not breaking WP:OWN, though. I just don't want there to be a huge edit war here like there was before. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 00:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The flagicons are important on that list to emphasize nationality so that one can see what countries those bands come from more easily. The way you formatted it make it look like a Wikipedia Category. You mentioned: Emphasizing the importance of a person's citizenship or nationality above their other qualities risks violating Wikipedia's "Neutral point of view". Where your wrong is that first off, this is not a person or even an articles about a person or persons. It's a list of bands. That does not risk any sort of neutral point of view. Besides, there are no "other qualities". No neutrality is being broken. And this already has been discussed. Those flagicons simply make it easier to see what country those bands orignate from. I think that's all justification enough. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 00:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well let us discuss it properly. Explain the emphasis on nationality, why that? why not the date they were formed? Nobody needs to know at a glance what nationality a band is. It makes no sense at all. Why are other attributes not there? it suggests that nationality has some bearing the genre of black metal. Emphasizing the importance of a person's citizenship or nationality above their other qualities risks violating Wikipedia's "Neutral point of view" is a quote from WP:FLAG. It is not neutral because you are suggesting that their nationality is of importance to their status of a black metal band. It gives nationality undue weight. --neonwhite user page talk 01:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

ARGH, I'm not discussing this with you anymore! Nationality does not break neutrality here at all! And for your information, at least with most metal fans, nationality is important, or at least of interest, but that, of course, is POV. No undue weight is being given to anything, other than the weight of your finger clicking the mouse and changing the format!!! Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 01:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I am seriously splitting hairs with this right now... I can't believe this madness... tell me when flagicons can be used because now I'm thinking they have use NOWHERE. Ok i calmed down a bit... the lists look very bare now and we worked so hard on synching lists I see no reason to remove them. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 02:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Flag Icons[edit]

I have read WP:FLAG all the way through and my conclusion is that taking the flag icon away is actually hurting the article.

  • The icons provided information to the reader as to where the band comes from. Location is often tied with musical style.
  • The icons were no clutter on the page. The WP:FLAG states that long lists should use them if they are helpful.
  • The editor who removed the flag icons did not cite a specific part of WP:FLAG to justify his/her action.
  • Here is the exact part of WP:FLAG that I am citing for the return of the flag icon to this list. "The flag icons were created for use in lists and tables..."

I believe that the editor who removed all the flag icons did not know the entire WP:FLAG. It would have been different if this was a sports page with an infobox, but it is not. This is a list of bands. Bands come from different countries. Most people, at least most people who are into black metal, are familiar with the flags of Norway, Sweden, Finland(sometimes), the U.S.(universal), Poland, and Austria. Those countries are most often associated with black metal so the flag icons served a purpose of information to the reader.

I don't know if I should do this, but I am going to hold a vote. Editors are asked to vote on whether or not they think that the flag icons were helpful or not. Helpful would be the vote Helpful and un helpful would be Bad. Please put the number symbol before your vote. I am only doing this to see the opinion of the editors. I believe that the icons were helpful and that removing them was a bad thing to do.

  1. Helpful per my information stated above. Undeath (talk) 05:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Short answer "Bad" with an "if", long answer "Helpful" with a "but": I suggest having a look at Wikipedia:Featured lists to get some ideas about how good list articles are formatted. Right now this list is pretty much indistinguishable from a category list. A list article should contain more information than just a list of names. It needs some kind of context and commentary to merit being an aritcle of its own. For example, look at List of Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees which has information about when each of the acts was inducted and by whom. For one that uses flag icons, see Eurovision Song Contest winners. It uses the icons but also has the country name next to it, with an internal link. That' much more helpful than just the flag alone. I'm not looking to involve myself in this debate, since I only arrived at this page somewhat randomly and am not really interested in the genre in question, but I wanted to give some constructive suggestions and I think those articles are good examples to follow to develop this and similar lists into articles of value with some hope of eventually becoming Featured List candidates. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Helpful but: IMO, guessing the country from the flag should be left to quizzes and quizzes alone. Maybe we can do away with the flags but still retain the location. Weltanschaunng 13:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Dreadful article, and the flags don't help.--75.23.56.157 (talk) 17:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Helpful per Undead warrior. Thanks, btw. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 21:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  6. Helpful - Origin is most definitely relevant to the bands and the overview about them in the form of a list. Can be given in a different form than flagicons, but until such a form is given, the flags are to remain in place. ~ twsx | talkcont | ~ 23:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The flags are misused, the origin of a band is an arbitrary piece of information and no valid reason why it needs to be included has been provided. This is a breach of a guideline in that flags shouldnt be used for nationalistic pride. if you believe that catgorizes this list by country of origin rather than alphabetical is more helpful then do that but flagicons are not appropriate here. --neonwhite user page talk 00:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Neon, you seem to be the only editor who believes in your edits. That leads me to believe that the flags were not a decoration or a matter of pride, but rather a matter of education. Your edits have been undone and will remain that way, unless you can find a specific, non opinionated, rules violation. Undeath (talk) 02:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It still remains that this page is contrary to the guidelines. Wikipedia generally strongly eschews the use of images for decorative purposes, preferring those that provide additional essential information or needed illustration. the information here is of no relevance to the list and there has been no valid arguement why it is there in the first place and why it should remain. --neonwhite user page talk 21:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
This actually isn't a debate I'm particularly interested in weighing in on, but for the record the bit of WP:FLAG that Neon is probably referring to is:
Do not emphasize nationality without good reason

Wikipedia is not a place for nationalistic pride. Flags are visually striking, and placing a national flag next to something can make its nationality or location seem to be of greater significance than other things. For example, with an English flag next to him, Paul McCartney looks like an "English singer-songwriter from Liverpool who was in the Beatles"; without the flag next to him, he looks like an "English singer-songwriter from Liverpool who was in the Beatles". Emphasizing the importance of a person's citizenship or nationality above their other qualities risks violating Wikipedia's "Neutral point of view" policy.

...and presumably the repeated statements that flags in general are overused. But as I say, I have no strong feelings either way. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
that is correct. I have already told him that in this situation there is NO neutrality being broken. It's not on a person's article or even on a band's article. It's on a list of bands. It doesn't mean the bands are nationalistic, only where the band originates. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$
NPOV applies to all articles, in this case nationality is being emphasised over over everything else with any reason. --neonwhite user page talk 18:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that readers may assume a number of things from the flag icons, not just where a band originates. It could be related to the style of music they play, where they currently reside, or where the individual members were born, and this isn't even getting into issues with bands whose members are from different nations or disputes over which flag should be used. The fact is, they are overused, they do not accompany the country name, and there are legitimate grey areas in interpretation, all of which violate MS:FLAG. Wyatt Riot (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The reason is that it is helpful to people to know where a band is from. That's the damn reason. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 19:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
A band's nationality should be obvious from reading the article on that band. It really has no place in this article. I'm sorry, but the Manual of Style says they're not to be used, which really trumps any straw poll here. You can't violate Wikipedia guidelines on one page just because a handful of editors agree. Wyatt Riot (talk) 10:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I completely disagree. This consensus has alread been set, and we are not violating any guideline. The icons will stay. Anyway, the icons here serve a purpose other than decoration. A lot of editors/wikipedia visitors will visit the lists and see the flags before the article. It's easier and faster than reading through an article. The flags will stay. Undeath (talk) 13:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
How is this not violating WP:FLAG?
  • Not for use in general article prose: "If the use of flags in a list, table or infobox makes it unclear, ambiguous or controversial, it is better to remove the flags". The fact is that flags could mean a great number of things in this article, where a band originated, where the band is currently located, where the members were born or live, what style or subgenre of music a band plays (Norwegian black metal, US black metal, etc.), or even some quasi-"official band of X" status. User:Navnløs even said that the flags are supposed to mean "where the band originates" and later "where a band is from". That can and often does mean different things.
  • Do not emphasize nationality without good reason: Nationality is not "intimately tied to the topic at hand" as WP:FLAG requires for them to be used.
  • Using too many flags
  • Accompany flags with country names: "When a flag icon is used for the first time in a list or table, it needs to appear adjacent to its respective country (or province, etc.) name". Wyatt Riot (talk) 23:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
So are there still objections for removing these flags? Wyatt Riot (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

We have already been over this a few months ago. We are not using the flags as decoration, but rather as information/education. A lot of people, especially in the metal scene, know a style of playing based on the location of the band. The icons serve that purpose. Undeath (talk) 04:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't change the fact that their use on this page specifically violates WP:FLAG, whether or not they are useful, and that Talk page discussions do not trump site-wide policies and guidelines. (See Wikipedia:Consensus for more on that.) Wyatt Riot (talk) 10:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Technically, we should add country names as text to the list. However, failure to do so does not translate to a reason to remove them. The usage of flags in this article and all other music band lists is perfectly justified, and in accordance to the manual of style. I have reverted many of your edits. ~ twsx | talkcont | ~ 11:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

A debate overdue to be re-visited. The flags usage here vios what they are intended for. I support removing them from all the "List of X bands" articles. Libs (talk) 12:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You could also explain your reasoning, instead of just making inane statements. ~ twsx | talkcont | ~ 12:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
In case anyone is interested, I've started a discussion at the Village Pump to clarify WP:FLAG. Wyatt Riot (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (flags)#Correct Usage of flagicons[edit]

Spread your opinion and cast your vote here on whether or not flagicons should be used in the metal lists. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 21:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to say, if the purpose of the flagicons is to demonstrate nationality, then UK flags should unquestionably be used, rather than English. The specificity is rather unimportant; I'm sure there are many, many regional flags more specific than nationality (which in this case is British) but that's not what matters here. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. England is a big enough area to merit it's own flag. If it's some smaller, lesser known country, then the UK flag would suffice. Very, very well known bands are from England. (i.e. CoF) Undead Warrior (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
What is Wikipolicy on this though? They make rather a point about Britain/England (see WP:FLAG). I'm not convinced arguments about the size of the area or the status of the bands they produce have anything to do with it. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Silencer[edit]

Where is Silencer?? They, despite their obscurity, are well-known among black metal enthusiasts. If I recall, I tried adding them to this page before but somebody removed it.

http://www.metal-archives.com/band.php?id=8476 http://www.amazon.com/Death-Pierce-Me-Silencer/dp/B00005TZL8

There's two links to prove their legitimacy. I'm surprised nobody's mentioned this before. 70.16.195.154 (talk) 02:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)John

Well maybe it was because they had no article. On Wikipedia if a redlink is notable or encyclopedic enough it is kept and if it is unknown it should simply be left out. Besides this article is for bands that have articles not possibly notable ones without one, the redlink factor should be elsewhere like an album by an artist with an article that charted for example. Also, the band you mention needs two studio albums (see: WP:MUSIC), the only time bands with 1 album can be notable is if they received significant coverage from major magazines, music television airplay, charting, etc. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 02:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
He is right, though. That band is notable in the black metal underground. I've never listened to them, but I've heard a lot about them. I even have this one black metal thing (it's kind of like a magazine...but not) where is has a thing in there about them claiming that Silencer has influenced the whole newer generation of bm or something and that without them certain bands (they mentioned Xasthur) wouldn't exist. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 21:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I didn't know about this then but they still don't have an article though and there will need to be sources like the magazine thing you're thinking of. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 21:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I hear ya. I'm in no hurry, though. I'll help if someone decides to make the article, but I'm not gonna make the article. And no article on wikipedia = not being on this list, lol. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 23:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal[edit]

I know many, (if not all of you) are incredibly tired of people adding bands with no articles to these lists, especially, along with links that are blue but are disambiguation pages or something else along with not even being the "x" genre of metal it's supposed to be. I was thinking of making a rule box or something similar like a section for it, instead of it being with the context/intro. For example, bands that are added because the editor wants an article on them very badly, people who just look over our (damned) comments, the people that don't check their links for the right article and those links that lead to disamb pages that don't have the band or you would have to make a huge search for the band and the bands that are not even part of the genre. If there was a "master list" that I know of where all editors that edit these lists would see it, then it would've been better to put this there and as there are many metal lists it would be insane to put them all over which I might want to do anyway if you accept my proposal or better yet show you here and you decide how we should go along with it and to fight those that add redlinks and remove bands they dislike, etc. Something must be done and I thought those hidden comments were enough and it's clearly not. I also think this would make a good explanation to editors who do this type of thing as a warning on their talk pages which is an action we can partake. Here is my proposal below:

This will be part of the introduction to an editor for his warning:
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to add bands to this list, the last band you added was a red-link, was not the intended article or has notability concerns on it's article page. Hereby you must follow to these guidelines for band inclusion to this list:

Article rules/warning explanation:
Bands without articles will hastily be removed from these lists. This list is not merely the place for you to add bands of the style that you want an article for, this is a list of "x" bands with articles nothing more. You can do this exactly at Wikipedia:Requested articles/music/Performers and bands but they must pass WP:MUSIC to be acceptable here. Also, please click the "show preview" button next to the "save page" button to check your article links before adding them here and that you also have the right band that plays the genre. This is not of your personal opinion of what the band actually plays, the band's genre must have been approved either by verifiability with other editors or sources stated in that respective article. Also, make sure a band is notable, if a band is being questioned for notability has a notability tag at the top of the page then it should not be added to this list, wait awhile and re-add them when the notability of the band has been established. Please make sure bands are alphabetised and that the formatting is consistent with the other bands before adding them. Thank you.

I hope this proposal goes well. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 05:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yo, I like the idea man. But how is this going to trigger? is it like all HTML'd and stuff I don't understand or is it some person who catched the person themselves? I would like though, one thing, if the band added is a 'red' link and a death metal band...if that band is notable, I think we should create a 'death metal article to be made list' so that all the notable bands go on wikipedia. My last header, was saying this, I don't think we should just delete bands becuase the wikipedians before us haven't bothered to get information and make a dam article for them, do we?

Also, this way you get notable bands, becuase of wikifacists like speedy deletion service jeps the dam articles you make, just becuase you translate the biography into english and change a few sentences and that somehow interfers with G what the fuck O laws. Bullshit. Anyway, yeah nice idea, but ant going to work...you still going to have fags that think Bullet for my valentine are metal.

METALFREAK04 (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well it would be like User warning templates, if you catch them you warn them and if they persist well... I never thought of that but they would keep on being reverted until the link is blue, that's for sure. And of course, if a band is surely notable we'll have a list here (wouldn't make sense to have a death metal band article to be made list anyways (and would have to start with "Wikipedia:Requested articles/music/. . .")) for them (which I'm not sure can stay up here, as this page would need to get archived within time) and also at the request article link I provided. Also, the amount of editors we will need will be like the size of a taskforce (albeit small one) for this to be carried out well. I've been thinking I should really add this to all the other lists.
All I ask for is for people like you and everyone who edits these lists help in notifying these type of users. If that can be done then that's the least you could do for these lists. Have hope, and let's make an example for them. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 06:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm skeptical as to the effectiveness of this, but it sounds like a good idea. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 21:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Unblack bands[edit]

I appreciate that this is going to be a hornet's nest, but I'm actually pretty unconvinced by the argument that unblack bands are not black metal; it smacks of POV at the very least. At the end of the day, it is not a matter for opinion, but should be down to sources. With this in mind, if an unblack metal band turns up in things like Gary Sharpe-Young's A-Z of Black Metal, then they should be on this list. To be honest, I'd personally be happier if we had references for every band on the list, but the unblack thing is just a bit silly. Obviously if we establish a consensus against a source-based approach to the problem, fair enough, but I thought I should at least bring it up. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not think they should be allowed on this list. For one, there is already a list of unblack bands. There is no need to have the band on two separate lists. Unblack stays with unblack. The black metal list is solely for black metal bands. Undead Warrior (talk) 00:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
There is no problem with bands featuring on more than one list; the number of bands that play in so-called fusion genres makes that inevitable. And the fact remains that unblack metal is not a separate subgenre from black metal, at least as far as sources are concerned; to claim otherwise is distinctly POV (though I entirely understand the antagonism within the wider black metal scene!). Obviously, genre is a somewhat wooly term anyway, but I'm not sure to what extent lyrical content enters into it when the sound is effectively identical. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
There is no clear consensus among metal communities that black metal and unblack metal are the same or different. Yes, Garry Young might think that unblack is black, but other actual black metal artists think the exact opposite. (i.e. Dark Funeral, Gorgoroth) It is not a fact that it is not a separate sub-genre. That depends on who you ask. And let me take a look at Garry Sharpe Young. What makes his word law? He is a writer for Rockdetector and he created a book for black metal and heavy metal. I don't think that makes him an expert in the field, especially when he never played black metal. I understand that he makes many reviews, but that still does not make what ever he says the thing to be accepted. Anyways, the lyrical content seems to be a big enough gap to define the two genres. Black metal bands don't go and praise christ or god, and unblack bands do not sing about satan or other dark object. The music is similar, but far from the same. Undead Warrior (talk) 15:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I totally hear you, even if I would err on the side of inclusivity in this matter. I suppose an equivalent issue would concern an NSBM band that didn't specifically sing about anti-religious issues. Would that make them a separate genre as well? I'm not sure; my opinions are not strong on the issue. Lyrical differeces do initially strike me as an extremely subsidiary factor in deciding genre, in this case and most other genres, but I may be being naive. One final remark though... as I've said in various places elsewhere, I tend to like the use of Rockdetector as a reliable source, owing to it being fairly specialist and published in print media independent of the source, in this case books, but easily as good as commercially-published print magazines as far as reliability goes. An excellent example of a decent source for this would be a specialist extreme metal magazine (Metal Maniacs or Terrorizer, say) printing a black metal overview, and including unblack bands. The problem with statements about "unblack" or "NSBM" being separate subgenres is that they're so fringe, it is incredibly difficult to find decent sources - and primary sources, such as other bands, for instance, are not really good enough. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Look at it this way too. We already have a notification that there is a list of unblack bands already. The point of a list is to tell a list of things the fall under the category of the list. That specifically fall under that category. Unblack does not completely fall under black metal. It's even sometimes called light metal to counterbalance black metal. It has it's own list and that's not this one. Undead Warrior (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I have not come across the term "light metal" to describe unblack metal, and couldn't spot it on the unblack metal page either. I'm also not entirely sure what relevance it would have to the discussion. Also, if you start down the "things that fall entirely under the category of black metal" thing, your argument rapidly breaks down as we start excluding "blackened death metal" acts in order to create a separate "list of blackened death metal bands". Such over-genrification is simply not helpful, and in the case of unblack metal contentious as well. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I think my general point is that it would be nice to get a consensus of editors over this issue. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Large article size[edit]

It took me a long time to actually get this page loaded, and it appears that the vast number of sources from the article are to blame. I have a suggestion that we split this article, or an alternative suggestion, (though not very agreeable) is to remove these sources altogether. I mean, as long as the genre is sourced on the band's respective page, why should we even bother including it here?--F-22 RaptörAces High 06:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, If I don't get any replies objecting to this in 48 hours, I'll split the articles myself.--F-22 RaptörAces High 13:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the article should be split up but we need to get a consensus on what the best way for separating the metal lists in general is to be (as other lists have the same problem as this one). I think the sources might be better off being removed and placed on the respective band's page but if a band doesn't have a genre section it could be pretty messy since an infobox generally shouldn't have sources within it. The long running argument that might get in the way of us removing sources altogether is WP:LIST. Without sources this article is merely a list and would make most just on the verge of being deleted. They have lived in the past but they may not survive another AFD if this were to happen. The thrash metal list steered us in the right direction of what a list should incorporate but it would be hard to convert all of the lists, while staying away from partial carbon copies from the respective band page or the genre article in which the band is discussed. I think this should have a more general or "metal-wide" discussion since it applies to many more lists than this one (including non-metal ones). Perhaps this should be discussed at WP:METAL? FireCrystal (talk) 06:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

How about doing it like this.Inhumer (talk) 01:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That's perfectly fine, as long as article size is taken care of, and makes the articles more accessible.--F-22 RaptörAces High 03:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Carnifex & Kvelertak[edit]

What does Carnifex have to do with black metal? They are generic modern -core stuff. Kvelertak has some black metal riffs in it, but is about 90% 'action rock' more than anything.85.157.155.247 (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

If they have sources, they stay on the list. I'd not come accross the phrase "action rock"" before though, which gave me a giggle. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 08:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)