Talk:Deftones/Archive 10
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Deftones. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Genres in the infobox
Edit warring over genre continues to plague this article. Let's open up the discussion again, but this time let's build on past discussions.
The guideline at Template:Infobox musical artist#genre says to "aim for generality" and that two to four genres may be listed.
Past discussions of genre in the infobox have suggested:
- Seegoon said nu-metal and alternative metal.
- Revan ltrl said "experimental rock" and "nu metal (early)".
- Wisdomtenacityfocus said nu metal.
- Trascendence said post-metal but nobody else agreed.
- Talk:Deftones/Archive_3 – July 2012
- Fezmar9 said "the top two are typically nu metal or alternative metal", not post-metal.
- Trascendence wanted post-metal but nobody else agreed.
- HrZ said no to post-metal, yes to nu metal and experimental rock.
- WesleyDodds removed experimental rock for the same reasons that post-metal was removed.
- Talk:Deftones/Archive 5 – 2012
- Trascendence said no to nu metal, but nobody agreed.
- WesleyDodds said yes to nu metal, no to experimental rock.
- HrZ said that despite personally disagreeing with nu metal that it has more reliable sources than most other genres.
- Talk:Deftones/Archive 6 – 2012
- Trascendence said no to nu metal, but nobody agreed.
- Fezmar9 said nu metal should not be removed.
- HrZ said nu metal is supported by the literature.
- WesleyDodds said nu metal is in the sources.
- Talk:Deftones/Archive 7 – 2012
- (more of the same from the same participants.)
- Talk:Deftones/Archive 8 – 2013
- I call the big one bitey brought a source that denied nu metal. "Alternative metal and experimental rock best reflects their current work."
- Fezmar9 said the source acknowledges that many people think of the Deftones as nu metal.
- Stgw said yes to nu metal, post-metal, and shoegazing.
- HrZ said nu metal is supported by about 20 sources.
- Madreterra said the subgenre of nu metal should be left out of the infobox and the larger container of alternative metal put there instead.
- Drmies said "Nu metal (early), alternative metal".
- Mr Pyles added nu metal to the infobox.
- My name is not dave removed nu metal from the infobox saying there was no consensus.
After all that fuss, the infobox settled into the following pattern from April 2013 to now:
- Alternative metal, experimental rock, nu metal – Apparent consensus arrived at on talk page, implemented from time to time by Fezmar9.
- Alternative metal, experimental rock – Most constant and frequent infobox listing as defended by Trascendence, I call the big one bitey, Madreterra and Myxomatosis57.
Personally, I think that nu metal should be returned to the infobox not only because of the consensus reached on the talk page in 2013 but because there are so many explicit discussions of Deftones relation to that genre in the best quality sources. The only argument I thought worthy of opposing this suggestion was Madreterra's statement that nu metal was contained within alt metal. I understand that, and I know that the infobox guideline says "aim for generality", but the nu metal label has so much to back it up that we would be remiss not to list it up top. Binksternet (talk) 06:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I was not actively involved in the genre discussion and lost its track after a while. As the "alternative metal and experimental rock" thing was the last reached consensus that I remembered; so I continued this one. Looking now, I don't really see an actual consensus; each of the discussions seem to be discontinued and then re-started each time. Well, we can finally reach an agreement to this now and put an end to the genre problem. I'd be supportive of nu metal. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 12:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- The thing with all these genres is that they seemed to be opinions without sources. A band's style can change all the time and just listing off any genre we can find from a google search does not help anyone identify how a group or artist sounds. I'd say we start fresh and find how the band has been referred to from specific eras with sources. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- They are a nu metal band (one of of the primary bands referenced in any source material about the genre) ... the band article and associated articles for members, albums and singles have long been a battleground for removal of the term by people who are offended by it... but it's what they are and source material for album reviews and band interviews are quite abundant and include the term. For the infoboxes as long as there is any referenced prose within the article which mentions it it can be a valid inclusion in the template. It shouldn't be that difficult. But fanboys who dislike them being lumped in with other nu metal bands will always battleground the articles regardless of whether there is any consensus. By reading through all the edit histories and discussions there is already an established consensus to include nu metal in almost all the band related articles and yet it is always removed by that little minority of editors who take offence to it even if it is cited. Should it be there, yes. Should it be referenced, yes. Should editors who delete it and remove the references claiming they are not from reliable sources be blocked from editing, yes. Hopefully its a debate that will just go away. Mr Pyles (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Can't believe this discussion started over 2 years ago, crazy stuff. I'm not going to re-read the discussions, but from what I remember, reliable nu-metal sources were incredibly easy to find in abundance (hence the consensus for inclusion) while post-metal appeared to be a minority opinion with few sources. Always felt it was pretty straight forward stuff. HrZ (talk) 00:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- They are a nu metal band (one of of the primary bands referenced in any source material about the genre) ... the band article and associated articles for members, albums and singles have long been a battleground for removal of the term by people who are offended by it... but it's what they are and source material for album reviews and band interviews are quite abundant and include the term. For the infoboxes as long as there is any referenced prose within the article which mentions it it can be a valid inclusion in the template. It shouldn't be that difficult. But fanboys who dislike them being lumped in with other nu metal bands will always battleground the articles regardless of whether there is any consensus. By reading through all the edit histories and discussions there is already an established consensus to include nu metal in almost all the band related articles and yet it is always removed by that little minority of editors who take offence to it even if it is cited. Should it be there, yes. Should it be referenced, yes. Should editors who delete it and remove the references claiming they are not from reliable sources be blocked from editing, yes. Hopefully its a debate that will just go away. Mr Pyles (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- The thing with all these genres is that they seemed to be opinions without sources. A band's style can change all the time and just listing off any genre we can find from a google search does not help anyone identify how a group or artist sounds. I'd say we start fresh and find how the band has been referred to from specific eras with sources. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC)