Jump to content

Talk:2009 in heavy metal music

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

TDWP

[edit]

The devil wears prada had the same album mentioned twice in this article. can someone fix this? KezianAvenger 21:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you for pointing this out! Fezmar9 (talk) 21:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already fixed a similar problem with Austrian Death Machine. KezianAvenger 11:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quo Vadis, the Quebec version!

[edit]

Why is there no mention of Quo Vadis' new album that is due this year? Shadow of the Wind 5489 (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermore

[edit]

remember that whole fight over Nevermore? where I repeatedly told a couple of users over and over that their source never even suggested the new album was due this year?

[1] there you have it. "tenatively due in early 2010", meaning that's predicted as the earliest it will come out. so, let's not have it again until there's a source outright saying "due out 2009". 81.154.149.197 (talk) 23:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2010?

[edit]

Just wondering: when do we start up a "2010 in heavy metal music" article? Is there an accepted sort of point to do so? I'm not necessarily saying do so now, just that I've seen a few releases scheduled for 2010 (Down, Priest's next live DVD, Nevermore, some others here and there) and it got me wondering. 83.218.158.202 (talk) 12:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It really depends on how many releases that could be listed and sourced. Wikipedia has a pretty well enforced policy on future events, and a small article containing information on future releases will very likely be proposed for deletion this early. But you have a few options for getting started. A list could be started here on the talk page, or albums could be added to the non-genre specific 2010 in music. A third option would be for you, or one of the other editors on this article, to create a user subpage. A "draft" of sorts could be created on a user subpage, and later moved to wikipedia main space. Fezmar9 (talk) 13:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Fezmar :) I'll bear all that in mind, and at the least keep a personal note of releases I spot booked for 2010. 86.129.208.46 (talk) 20:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well keep a little list here of what has been spotted and so far set for 2010 in metal:

Feel free to add more of course. 86.129.205.163 (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...Godsmack isn't metal...
Good for you. Go set up your own site saying so. 87.194.171.224 (talk) 12:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously though, anyone who thinks Godsmack is metal should be slapped upside the head with the CD case for "Vulgar Display of Power" or "Heaven and Hell." 70.169.130.99 (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not the place for discussion of it. 87.194.171.224 (talk) 13:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly confusing for readers - are these all studio albums?

[edit]

With just a quick glance at this page, one might assume Pantera and Meshuggah have new albums being released later this year. But after checking the sources, Pantera is only releasing a box set of old material and Meshuggah will only be releasing a live DVD. I think most people will assume that if it is listed here it will be a studio album with new songs. Perhaps there should be a comment along the lines of "every release is a studio album unless otherwise noted" somewhere on the page, and next to all non-studio album releases there should be a note such as: Pantera – TBA (box set)[1], Meshuggah – TBA (live DVD)[2]. Fezmar9 (talk) 02:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I've thought this myself too. It's definitely still worth noting live albums/DVDs, boxed sets, etc, because they're still releases, but it would be nice if they were distinguished from the studio albums. The explanation in brackets idea sounds fine to me too. The only other idea I could think of was bolding the studio albums, but since those make up the majority of things here it would probably just look too bulky. (btw, just for clarity, this is the guy doing most all of the IP edits here for the past few months) 87.194.171.224 (talk) 12:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Same guy here. One question that does come to mind: which would this apply to? Would it be only for the "TBA" ones? Only for unknown ones? Only for ones without articles? Or for all releases? My personal inclination would be to one of the last two: I feel unless they've got an article, there's no way or knowing without looking into it deeper. And even if they have, it might still help for clarity at a glance. 86.161.179.187 (talk) 20:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I was picturing was this applying to ALL releases listed, but that is certainly debatable. The List of albums released in 2009 has a separate "notes" column for specifying different types of releases. To me, I think a whole column that is only occasionally used is a waste, and it could easily be simplified as I suggested above. By the way, have you considered making an account? Fezmar9 (talk) 20:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have, but I don't know if I want to get sucked into the site properly...I'm wary, seeing how some parts of it "work".
Back on topic, I agree, a whole column would seem a bit much, and one for "notes" sounds like it's just asking for trouble with people wanting to insert all kinds of things into it. I think including something in brackets after the names of non-studio releases, as well as that note at the top specifying that where not noted otherwise, it's a studio release, would work well. Gets my vote. 86.161.179.187 (talk) 00:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just gone through all albums included in a table with a release date and added notes where applicable. If I find time later I can go through the unknown release dates, or if someone else wants to do it now, be my guest. Fezmar9 (talk) 01:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff! I've had a bash at the unknown ones, think I got them all. 87.194.171.224 (talk) 08:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a
  2. ^ b

Another question: books?

[edit]

Another question just came to mind: should books have a place in here, if they're focused specifically on heavy metal? They're still "heavy metal releases" of a kind, still things potentially worth noting in the history of heavy metal? It came to mind when I read the update on the Cradle of Filth book.

And if they were included, would they get their own section? Or maybe they should be mentioned in the "events" section? Thoughts? 86.161.179.187 (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine there would be too many heavy metal books to add to this page, let alone enough to necessitate a new section. Just start adding what you know to the events section (with sources), and if that list starts getting lengthy a new section could be considered. Fezmar9 (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to come back to this issue: I've added a bunch I found sources for, and the total is now 11 books of various kinds within the "events" section, plus another two I didn't add because I wasn't sure if they warranted it without a section specifically for such things ("All Pens Blazing", a book about writing about heavy metal [12] and an upcoming one by The Haunted member Peter Dolving [13]). With around 13 for this year, and potentially more to emerge/be discovered, I'd again raise the question of a potential section for books. 81.155.116.86 (talk) 17:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Funeral?

[edit]

Should Dark Funeral's expected album be here or on the 2010 page? I just noticed Ant Smusher remove it, and I'm uncertain. In the news story in question [14], the band states that they expect to be in the studio for 4-5 weeks, which would suggest the album being done sometime in August and thus out late this year. Of course, being "in the studio" may not be the end of it necessarily, that's just how it sounds to me. Thoughts? 86.146.158.22 (talk) 22:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matter is settled, release date announced in 2009 as I suspected. 81.155.116.86 (talk) 22:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See You Next Tuesday on hiatus

[edit]

Hey, according to metalunderground.net, these guys are taking a break. Should it be mentioned here, cuz they are a deathgrind band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.169.130.99 (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They've got a page here, where they're listed with metal genres, so I see no reason why not. 86.146.158.22 (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Oliveri

[edit]

Question: should Nick Oliveri's solo album be included? It says on his page that he's mostly known for his work with Queens of the Stone Age, which isn't metal related, but he was also in Kyuss, which was. [15] Catglobal (talk) 12:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once the year rolls around...

[edit]

Another suggestion/question: We've got the 2010 article, and that's expanding nicely. We're now mid-way into August, with predictions just creeping into November. So, one thing that comes up in my head: the list of "unknown" is still pretty hefty, and I've no doubt there'll be a good number left at the end of the year. What do we do with them? Do they get carried forward automatically into the 2010 article? Or are they just to be removed until we hear something further? 86.138.89.88 (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure any remaining bands get placed in next year's article. That is, if they still are listed here on December 31, and aren't already posted on next year's article such as Avenged Sevenfold. KezianAvenger 11:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff. Should they be moved any earlier than that? I mean, we're tending to get release dates at least a couple of months ahead. If something hasn't been given a date by November time for instance, should we assume it's not going to be out until 2010 and move it there? Or would that be jumping the gun a bit? 81.155.116.86 (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, nothing should be moved without a new source stating the release has been pushed back to 2010, otherwise that would constitute as original research. We can't have a bunch of albums on the 2010 article with sources stating the album will come out in 2009. When the new year rolls around, any artists left in the "Unknown" category here should be moved to the talk page of the 2010 article, where we can generate a list of new sources to look for. Fezmar9 (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Easy now, there's no need to be hostile or anything (and if you're not, then apologies, that's just how it sounds in tone :)). I'm not looking for an argument here, just a relaxed discussion. Now, personally I don't think it'd be right to write off all the current "unknowns". It would surely depend on what the source says: if it says specifically "2009", perhaps best left until something further is announced. But I'm sure a good number will say something like "in the near future" or some such. Something which could understandably flow into 2010. In this case, wouldn't it make sense to shift them over at an appropriate time? 81.155.116.86 (talk) 22:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No hostility here :) The sources will probably have to be handled on a case by case basis, depending on what they claim. I know some even say "late 2009/early 2010" which would be fine. Common sense will certainly play a roll in figuring that out, when the time comes. It would be best if they did actually claim a 2010 release, however. To avoid any speculation or issues with WP:CRYSTAL, the sources should say something more than "the band started writing" and then we only assume it will be released in 2010. I don't know if you are familiar with Wikipedia's policy on verification, but we are claiming these albums will be released within a certain year and it would be nice for our readers to have some place to verify exactly that. Again, not hostile :) Fezmar9 (talk) 00:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha, all sounds good to me. No worries, I was just being careful, I’ve seen some bad stuff with people getting all aggressive here. So basically, once it rolls around we take a look over what we’ve still got and see what the sources say? 87.194.171.224 (talk) 10:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It won't let me add a sourced album

[edit]

Marilyn Manson's new album came out on May 20th 2009. It's a heavy metal album. It's sourced. Why won't it let me add it? DooDahDave (talk) 13:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That particular album's heavy metal status is rather questionable. The band page itself is set to default "rock" because specific genres cause so much trouble with him. Looking at the reviews for that album, there's hardly any mention of metal as a significant genre for it. Most tend to talk about it as a rock album. 86.129.193.182 (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is HUGE

[edit]

It is suggested at Wikipedia:Article size that most articles should not exceed 32KB. This article is currently 164KB long, which is HUGE (over five times the suggested maximum). The reasons for keeping articles smaller are outlined in the intro of Wikipedia:Article size and include: reader issues, editor issues, contribution issues and technical issues. I wanted to open up some discussion about the possibility of moving the list of released albums to its own page (2009 in heavy metal albums perhaps?). It should be noted that there are still several articles even longer than this one. A list can be seen at Special:LongPages. Thoughts? Fezmar9 (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is a big page. Mostly due to the citations I believe, they seem to be what take up so much space/text. Unfortunately, there's nothing we can really do about that without removing the requirement for them.
Personally, I'd think it is alright as is. It is long, certainly, but some pages have to be. The guide on article size mostly seems to talk about readable prose, which this isn't: this is just a list. Also, if the citations are what make up most of it, then surely moving all the albums would still be a hefty page? (EDIT: I just checked, it says the "albums expected" part is 139 kb long) That's my 2p anyway. 87.194.171.224 (talk) 14:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 2009 in heavy metal music. 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 to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 07:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2009 in heavy metal music. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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 01:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 173 external links on 2009 in heavy metal music. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 19:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 240 external links on 2009 in heavy metal music. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 16:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on 2009 in heavy metal music. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 00:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2009_in_heavy_metal_music&oldid=1196554475"