Talk:2011 in heavy metal music

	Rock music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock 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.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Years

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years 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.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Metal

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.MetalWikipedia:WikiProject MetalTemplate:WikiProject MetalHeavy Metal articles

Albums in production organization

The way the "Albums in production" section is currently organized goes against a few Wikipedia guidelines and policies. First of all, by placing albums that have titles ahead of other albums within the same list, this seems to imply there are two groups of information being presented. According to Wikipedia's Manuel of Style for Lists, all lists need to have a clear and consistent way of organization. Also, by placing the upcoming albums with confirmed titles first within an alphabetically sorted list, this seems to imply an order of importance. However, this is not the case. These albums are no more important than the rest of them, and this does not adhere to Wikipedia's Policy on a Neutral Point of View. Fezmar9 (talk) 03:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one has commented or proposed an alternate solution in five days, I'll go ahead and unify the list back into a single alphabetized list. Fezmar9 (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Production section suggestion

What if the title for the "Albums in production" section was changed to "Artists with albums in production" and all occurrences of TBA were removed from the article? Having TBA next to each artist doesn't really tell the reader anything other than "we don't know what it will be titled." But why is that important? Wouldn't the lack of any title at all say the same thing? Also, I count 260 occurrences of " – TBA" in this article. Since it's still early in the year, this number will increase as more new albums are announced. According to a quick sandbox test edit, only 260 occurrences of " – TBA" equates to +2,000 bytes of information. So removing this minor detail would also help shrink the article, which is already monstrous and likely handicaps anyone with a slow internet connection. Thoughts? Fezmar9 (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one has objected to this change in 15 days I'll assume everyone is cool with it. Implementing now. Fezmar9 (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a great idea Fezmar, it does save a lot of space and looks better. I was also thinking maybe the title should be "Artists with material in production", due to the fact that some releases aren't albums, but EP's or DVD's. And would it be OK if we threw the titled albums/EP's to the top of the list? It makes it look more professional, and keeps the albums closer to release at the top of the list.Ant_smusher (talk) 12:50, 11 February 2011

I would support changing the title of the section to "Artists with material in production." However I do not support moving albums with announced titles to the top of the list. I already detailed some of the reasons for this in the above discussion citing specific policies and guidelines that also don't support this move. It's confusing for readers to see two lists within the same list. It also seems to imply that albums with announced titles are more important than ones without titles, or are "closer to release." This is completely false. It's not always going to be the case that the announcement of a title immediately precedes a release — this is only true maybe half of the time. Two current examples of this include Foo Fighters seventh studio album, which has an announced release date, track listing and upcoming radio single, but still no title; and Gold Cobra, whose album title was announced in January 2009, expected to be released by late 2010, and as of early 2011 still has no tentative or set release date. An album's release is more dependent on production work and label management than a title to establish a time frame for release — neither of these are really predictable events. Fezmar9 (talk) 15:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drowning Pool and Arizona shooting

Ant smusher, could please you elaborate on your reasons for claiming "this is not heavy metal news, just slander against a Drowning Pool song (which is quite typical of the media to exploit)"? Your logic here in this edit summary seems to be that something isn't news if it occurs regularly. Or that because the media routinely reports on something, there's no point in mentioning it. Well, the media also routinely reports on bands touring and gaining new members. It's quite typical for the media to promote these ventures. So should all instances of bands touring and gaining new members be dropped from the list as well? That would account for half of the current list. You're also suggesting that all news needs to be directly related to heavy metal. So should the Beatles cover band should be removed as well? A possible connection between this song and Loughner's behavior has been widely publicized with equal amounts of publications defending Drowning Pool, and others dragging their name through the mud. Fezmar9 (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upon recollection of the news and it's relation to the heavy metal community, i agree that this is worthy for the page. My reasoning for the removal is that the story is a blame story, one that puts the blame of a wrong-doing in society on an easy target, that had nothing to do with the crazed individual. It's like saying the terrorists who bombed the station at UK were listening to Led Zeppelin while setting up their bombs (not fact, just an example) and the news found out about that then started saying how they're responsible for the bombing. See what i mean? its a redundant story that if it was researched at all before slandering a DP, they would have seen that troops listen to it before battle and use it for torture on Muslims at guantonamo bay. I listen to it because i enjoy the song, does that make me an insane person? maybe i shouldnt listen to it then if its going to make me crazy? That's the message the news media throws out there, and that's why i decided to delete it.

But why now i agree with you Fezmar is that pathetic attempts on the metal community of slander and hate, is exactly the thing that most metal music sing about: Propaganda. So this is basically the perfect story to show the bad-assness of METAL! lool (Ant smusher) 12:47, 29 January 2011

I was five miles away from the Columbine High School massacre when that happened, and I remember parents would go apeshit if they found out their kids were listening to Marilyn Manson or Slipknot in the aftermath. With Columbine, it was kind of like profiling from the detectives that possibly heavy metal had an influence. And then it went downhill from there. But this case seemed different to me. The individual was actually disturbed and seems to me like the type of person that would misconstrue the lyrics. The blame also didn't come from police reports and investigators in this case, it came from the rest of the media including Rush Limbaugh of all people. So I feel that this is genuinely important to include on Wikipedia somewhere. For justified reasons it was removed from actual shooting's article, so I moved it here thinking it was more relevant. Fezmar9 (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lumping refs in reflist template

I understand this edit was made in good faith in an attempt to better the article, but I just do not see the benefit here. Largely because I fail to see a problem worth solving (see also Wikipedia:If it ain't broke, don't fix it). First of all, according to WP:CITE#List-defined references: "As with other citation formats, list-defined references should not be added to articles that already have a stable referencing system, unless there is consensus to do so. When in doubt, follow the referencing system used by the first major contributor to employ a consistent style." If you check at the article's list of contributors, User:Ant smusher is by far the article's major contributor, and this not his style of referencing. Unless this is something Ant smusher would find useful (I'll drop a message on his talk page), no one should be going around to Wikipedia articles and deciding what style of referencing should be used. That's really a decision up to the people who make the majority of the edits.

This article is massive (see also Wikipedia:Article size) and already takes a little bit to load on even the highest of internet speeds. Adding 46,000+ bytes of data, which doesn't result in any noticeable changes to the reader, will only hurt the article by cause longer loading times for slower internet connections (see also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility).

Also, based on what I've seen, IP editors have either conformed to current method of referencing just fine, or not provided a reference at all. I'm not seeing the frightened n00bz you speak of. Fezmar9 (talk) 22:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand completely that the page is large, and i also don't like the ramping ref list. BUT, if u take that out, then i will have to check EVERY edit on google to see if it legit... Now i have an idea, where we can delete the references after the year is up, so that the page will load better. Because once the year is done, the facts are "set in stone" per-say and the music already released. I just dont see the sense of "saving space" by adding another 55 THOUSAND bits... while the whole object was to reduce size... Now i KNOW u dont save space by adding more, so that's why im undoing these edits. Ant_smusher (talk)08:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ive gone ahead and re-cleaned up the article without the LDR. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 14:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2011 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) 21:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on 2011 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) 13:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]