Jump to content

Talk:Deftones/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Edit war over post-metal in infobox

The details contained within an infobox are meant to be more general than specific. Deftones' music has been noted to be influenced by a number of different genres over the years. Hell, the musical style section of this article lists a dozen or so different styles that Deftones have been referred to as. But the infobox should not contain all 12 of these genres. Which ones should it contain? Maybe two or three of the genres most commonly used to describe the band's sound overall. In my own research, the top two are typically nu metal or alternative metal. The sources provided in this article currently do not describe the band's overall sound to be post-metal. The Honolulu Weekly continuously being added by Trascendence does not describe Deftones' overall sound as post-metal, but merely says the band "dabbles" in various genres such as post-metal. In fact, I don't think any of the five sources in the style section say Deftones' overall sound can be described as post-metal. For these reasons, in addition to the reasons found in HrZ's edit summaries, I do not support the inclusion of post-metal into the infobox. Fezmar9 (talk) 23:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Additionally, unless I'm mistaken, aren't sub-genres not to be included within infoboxes? It's not a policy I necessarily agree with myself, but I seem to remember that being the guideline. NJZombie (talk) 01:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

-In favor of post-metal

  • I don't understand why Fezmar9 now says that don't supports it, because he is a regular editor of the article and post-metal was added when he was around [1] (see May 22 onwards, his name appears three times after post-metal was added) he was aware of the addition and seemed to be ok with it.
  • The question here rather than why post-metal must be added would be why this source [2] is enough to add "experimental rock" to the infobox, but when comes to add post-metal, using the same source, then "it's not enough". Post-metal have more sources than experimental rock has, and unlike nu-metal there are no writers and reviewers saying that Deftones was lazily/accidentaly labeled as such (that without mentioning that Deftones haven't played anything close to it in more of 10 years), wich if doing a WP:UNDUE balance, would leave nu-metal out. If anything post-metal has more supporters than any of these two and there is no real reason to leave it out at all, this looks as if other editors had some personal opinion about the band not playing post-metal or not being post-metal enough, disregarding all the sources that backs up the genre, and also ignoring that wikipedia is not about personal opinions, but verifiable sources. Trascendence (talk) 02:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Neither of your bullet points seem at all relevant, nor are your opinions backed up by reliable sources. I have 1,200+ pages on my watchlist and I also have a job and attend school. I don't have the time to check every single edit on my watchlist. My interest in this article has mostly pertained to recent events in the band's history; I really don't care about edits made elsewhere and I only stepped in because I saw an edit war beginning. Experimental rock in the infobox is an entirely different argument. This discussion is specifically about post-metal's inclusion in the infobox. Fezmar9 (talk) 05:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
My points are relevant because i have the sources to back up my statements and i'm acting accord to Wikipedia's policies. How can experimental rock and post-metal be a different argument when both appears in the same source and wikipedia criteria must remain the same for all the content included in the sources? Trascendence (talk) 04:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
The following points of yours are purely opinion and not backed up by any evidence: "Post-metal have more sources than experimental rock has," "unlike nu-metal there are no writers and reviewers saying that Deftones was lazily/accidentaly labeled as such (that without mentioning that Deftones haven't played anything close to it in more of 10 years)" and "post-metal has more supporters than any of these two and there is no real reason to leave it out at all."
Now, let me illustrate this point with a table. The following illustrates various genres Deftones are sometimes labelled as, and the number of times an article in Google News' archives associates Deftones with a given genre. It should not be assumed that the number hits directly correlates to the number of articles that actually call the band this genre, as it's entirely possible that there's an article about another band that happens to mention Deftones. However, this simple Gnews test should give a pretty rough idea of what published and authoritative sources refer to the band's genre as. Notice how post-metal, and what you claim to be a synonym of post-metal, "metalgaze," have the fewest hits? It's easy to infer from this chart that Deftones playing post-metal is a minority opinion at best. This table also suggests that your earlier points of post-metal having more supporters than experimental is invalid. Fezmar9 (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Genre Gnews hits
nu metal 686
alt metal 86
alternative metal 92
experimental 246
metalgaze 0
post-metal 8
rap metal 187
post-hardcore 133
Actually, you searched "deftones" "nu metal" for everyone of them. If you search any of the other genres, nu metal and alternative metal were the only ones that showed up more then ten times. Post-metal showed up four times and "metalgaze", zero.
Also, experimental rock only showed up once, so, you should be more careful lest you want that removed. yawaraey (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I cannot account for this discrepancy. Though each link clearly has nu metal in the URL, clicking on each link correctly brings me to the proper search results reflecting the same exact data I have provided—this might be due to Google's new feature where it searches for results while you finish typing. Maybe part of the search is saved in my computer's memory, while the rest is in the URL? How did you perform your own searches? I had both the band's name and the genre in their own quotes in my search box (<"Deftones" "nu metal"> OR <"Deftones" "alt metal">), also performed a Gnews Archived search. Regular Google News only searches for results within the last few weeks, but a Google News Archive search digs up hits older than the last few weeks. Fezmar9 (talk) 00:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I just replaced "nu metal" in your search results with tags such as "alt metal", "alternative metal", etcetera. yawaraey (talk) 01:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Hm, I really don't know what to say. I just clicked on all those links using a different computer on a different network, and they worked just fine. Can someone else try clicking on the links and see if they experience the same issues as yawaraey? Alternatively, could someone pull up a Google News Archive Search (without clicking the links provided) and try to conduct the same searches? Fezmar9 (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Links all work fine with me. Also, I'm not going to reiterate what I said in my edit summaries or what I have said to Trascendence on his talk page, but I do not support the inclusion of post-metal into the infobox. On another note, with this edit Trascendence removed more of the hidden note, without explanation. HrZ (talk) 16:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I removed that part of the hidden advise because it was the same message repeated another two times. Not sure how these links works for you, but when i click into nu metal there is only 17 results, anyway, to search words is not a legit way to validate your statements or in fact anything, use articles that clearly refer to the band as nu metal, stills, there is nothing that refutes Deftones being post-metal. Trascendence (talk) 03:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure there is a reason it has been repeated, perhaps so that no one could ignore it? Anyway I could be wrong but I'm sure this discussion is wither or not there is enough for it's inclusion in the infobox as a prominent genre along with the three already there, not wither or not their music is post-metal. The source you provided states that they dabble in numerous subgenres listing post-metal among them. Doesn't say outright that they are a post-metal band. The fact that there is a source is no reason either, because a number of genres (including nu metal and experimental rock) have sources in the musical style and influences section of the article (it should be noted that the sources provided for metalgaze and post-metal in that section were deemed unreliable in a previous discussion). As Fezmar9 said, it would be ridiculous to include all of these genres in the infobox. Why should post-metal be included instead of any other genre? If the arguement is simply "it has more sources" then it would help you're arguement if you could provide them, making sure they are reliable by Wikipedia's standards. The reasons for their being sources in the infobox in the first place is due to the genre warring that happened constantly over a year ago (see this discussion). It was due to this warring that the notes stating "Discuss any changes through the "discussion" tab before making them" were added to the article. HrZ (talk) 10:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Down in the "musical style" section post-metal is the genre with more references, and from these, at least three does it fine regarding the reliable sources topic (so much that are used to back up another statements in this article). Trascendence (talk) 04:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
There are enough sources that it merits a mention in the article (which it already does) but having "more references" isn't a valid arguement seeing as how some should be removed or moved. The Honolulu Weeky merely states they have dabbled in post-metal. Straight.com states only shoegaze not post-metal. Sputnikmusic mentions post-rock, not post-metal (pretty sure I mentioned that in a previous discussion). And Thrash Hits isn't considered reliable. Creative Loathing does refer to White Pony as a "shoegaze-metal" but that leaves you with barely two sources. So why should it be included in the infobox above any other sourced sub-genre? HrZ (talk) 14:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Because if we apply the same highly demanding criteria that you're applying to post-metal any of these other genres will barely have reliable support at all. Actually Thrash hits is now borderline [3], while is prefered to keep it away in controversial topics, this is not the case, because there is another five sources (Three of them reliable) claiming the same thing. Trascendence (talk) 04:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Borderline? Now you appear to be selective; "You might be correct, if you could prove he vets every article on the site, or that he wrote the article in question. Neither of those facts is true though. Ergo, not RS" is the last reply from the editor (as of this posting, there may be more replies by the time you read this). And where is the five sources? Not all the sources after post-metal in the musical section are sources for post-metal, one is just for shoegaze, one says post-rock (to quote an earlier reply from you: "use articles that clearly refer to the band as nu metal." Clearly this article doesn't say post-metal) and Thrash Hits is not unreliable per your own check at the reliable sources noticeboard. Honolulu Weekly has been used more than once, I hope you are not counting that as more than one source. So again, you only really have two, Honolulu Weekly and Creative Loathing. And what about what the sources state? One album (not the band's overall sound) is labelled as shoegaze-metal while another source states they have simply dabbled in post-metal. This doesn't give the impression of a prominent genre. But what is your arguement for it's inclusion in the infobox (when it's already included in the article)? All I could gather is that post-metal has some sources but no reason as to why it should be included in the infobox. HrZ (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • As i said above if we were willing to apply the same highly demanding criteria that you're applying to post-metal any of these other genres will barely have reliable support at all. Post-metal would still among the most sourced genres, that's why, and it's a fact that Deftones music is refered as post-metal more often than experimental rock and is less debated than nu metal, if anything post metal have more weight than these two. Trascendence (talk) 04:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion we are having is wither or not post-metal should be included in the infobox, not discussing the other genres and their sources. There is no high demanding criteria, simply Wikipedia guidelines. You say there are five sources that support post-metal. However, as I have clearly pointed out, there are only two sources that support post-metal but due to what they actually state, they are pretty weak. If Deftones are referred to as post-metal more than experimental and nu metal, then I would have to assume there are more than enough sources to back up this claim. Yet, you have failed to provide anymore sources other than the ones already included in the article. HrZ (talk) 13:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  • It's not necesary for me to bring more sources to prove that Deftones is refered more often as post-metal than experimental rock because right now experimental rock has one full reliable source and post-metal has two. Also is a fact that post-metal is less controversial than nu metal because you'll never find a journalist saying that "Deftones were lazily labeled as such" Trascendence (talk) 03:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Certainly i weren't aware of those editors' opinions, they came five days later and i stoped monitoring the discussion at the time, i don't know if i have to reply something at this time. Trascendence (talk) 03:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
But it is necessary, you are the one arguing for it's inclusion based on the assumption that "Deftones is refered more often as post-metal than experimental rock" yet you fail to provide the evidence. The sources in the article do no even support your statement. You claim that the sources back post-metal up yet two of them don't even mention post-metal at all, one is unreliable per previous discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard, including a check made by you, while the other two; one states one album as "shoegaze-metal" (if we were to be picky, we can state this clearly doesn't refer to them as post-metal either) and the other merely states that they have dabbled in post-metal (same source for experimental AND nu metal, bringing nu metal's sources to a grand total of 5). In no way do either support your claim of their music being referred to more as post-metal than anything else. I should point out that there are in fact two sources in the article for experimental, the one in the infobox and in the musical style section. It certainly wouldn't be hard to find more sources either; BBC: "Experimental heavy rock band the Deftones, as an example. But the arguement, as I have stated before, is why should post-metal be included in the infobox? Not wither or not it has more sources than experimental rock (which it doesn't) or if it is less controversial than nu metal. You claimed it is refered to more as post-metal yet don't provide any source that backs this. You don't even provide more sources to make a stronger case for your claim either. If there is a problem with other genres and their sources then that is another topic for discussion altogether. HrZ (talk) 14:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Post-metal and shoegaze metal are acepted synonymous, if anything the only reazon for wich post-metal doesn't appears more often is because is a new term, but even back to 2002 there were reviewers pointing how deftones mixed metal with shoegaze, like some of the articles backing up post-metal does. Trascendence (talk) 01:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Post-metal and shoegaze are NOT synonymous at all. A band like Lush is a good example of shoegaze and none of their songs contain even a trace of any form of heavy metal. NJZombie (talk) 13:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Indeed, post-metal and shoegaze METAL are synonymous, that was pointless. Trascendence (talk) 03:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Suggestion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard: "As a DRN volunteer, I think that the infobox should only contain the most general genres, but a link to the Deftones#Musical style and influences section may be included in the infobox. Then readers may go directly to that section that has the list. Removing all the genres from the infobox and replacing them by "See #Musical style and influences" might be a solution to this. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 00:48, 29 July 2012". HrZ (talk) 15:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I've seen that measure applied to other bands, but i believe it isn't necesary here, i like to believe that deftones fan base is better than that, to do that would be a bit extreme, since the bands in which that measure have been aplied are those who have multiple editors warring, with many diferent genres in dispute, (here is only one) also, is obvious looking to that section that post-metal is more prominent that say, post-hardcore or drone rock, i will try to reach an agreement with the other editor first. Trascendence (talk) 02:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
An agreement? What the editor did was present some sort of resolution to this dispute. As NJZombie stated, post-metal and shoegaze are not synonymous. Also, sources have to be clear to anyone who checks them for verification: "All the material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." Two sources make no mention of post-metal, ergo they don't support your arguement of post-metal. Which, again leaves you with barely two sources. One constant is that you mention "reviewers" yet fail to provide evidence. HrZ (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has been going around in circles since April with no progress. There is only one editor in favor of this inclusion but a handful who genuinely don't support this. The general consensus is that post-metal does not belong in the infobox. The supporting evidence provided by Trascendence has been whittled down to nothing and no new evidence has been submitted. My own research has resulted in zero articles referring to Deftones' sound as a whole being post-metal—only casual references to individual songs being similar to, or influenced by, post-metal. I think it's way past time to close this discussion and move on.

As for the suggestion brought up in the dispute resolution discussion, while I can't find the specific discussion, I know the inclusion of an internal link to a musical style section was not well supported. This was due to the infobox being right next to the table of contents which provides the exact same link. It's also a slippery slope—many fields in the infobox could also link to relevant sections within an article such as: band members linking to a members section, associated acts linking to side projects section, origin could link to early years, website could link to external links and so on and so forth. Where is the dividing line of when it's acceptable and unacceptable to link the infobox sections within an article? Because this line is difficult to draw, perhaps it should just be avoided altogether. Fezmar9 (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Consensus is not about votes, it's about who have the better arguments and sources, and it's me: two full reliable sources for post-metal, and other two that states they mix shoegaze and metal. Trascendence (talk) 03:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
It is not you. Context in the sources is everything so you hardly have "two full reliable sources for post-metal." Per Wikipedia policy WP:V, the source should directly support the material. Only one of the sources actually states post-metal. However, the source doesn't even state it as a prominent genre, merely something they have dabbled in. The other three sources state shoegaze (from the source: "blend of skull-splitting groove metal and luscious shoegaze"), shoegaze-metal and post-rock. Enough sources for the inclusion of shoegaze and even a mention of post-rock and groove metal, but none directly support post-metal. The evidence is lacking and three editors (myself, Fezmar9, and NJZombie) agree that it shouldn't be included due to the lack of evidence, while an uninvolved editor at the Dispute resolution noticeboard agreed it should be general genres only. The only editor in favour is you and per Wikipedia policies, your arguement is weak. I feel that you are using the fact that consensus is not the result of a vote to prolong a discussion that should have ended a while ago so that post-metal will remain in the infobox. However, reading WP:PNSD: "When conflicts arise, they are resolved through discussion, debate and collaboration. While not forbidden, polls should be used with care. When polls are used, they should ordinarily be considered a means to help in determining consensus, not an end in itself." I'm not saying we should take a vote, but it is a clear that the majority of more experienced editors disagree with this. HrZ (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Ah yeah, this argument again, and then i proceed to say that experimental rock has the same if not less suport than post-metal right now but was present in the infobox and nobody was complaining so post-metal being the most prominent non-in the infobox genre and appearing in the same source that mentions experimental rock has at least the same right to be there and then the cicle will repeat. Trascendence (talk) 03:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Giving an outside perspective to all this (yet as someone who works on a lot of music pages and has written several Featured and Good articles), I would never rely on a single line in publication's "upcoming concerts" notice to establish a band's genre. That's way too tenuous. Reviews aren't good, either, as they are by their nature opinion pieces, not hard news, and should only be cited for the opinions they express. For good sourcing on genre details, biographies and in-depth articles from publications that focus on music (Guitar World, Modern Drummer, the Sound on Sound website) should be what you rely on. Also, if the genre is only mentioned in the infobox and nowhere in the article body beyond a simple "band is sometimes labeled as this genre", that's a good sign that it might be out of place. Musical style sections should never be a laundry list of genres writers throw around--convey to the reader what the band sounds like. For example, where's what I wrote for Joy Division, a Featured Article: Joy Division#Musical style. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Nice insight, however reviews and articles advertising upcoming concerts (that actually fall into the category of news) are equally situable than the publications you mention, after all, everything is opinions. Other point is that there isn't only one way to make the things right, there are multiple ways, because every band is different, I'm not familiar with Joy Division but as far as I know they have never been notable for pushing boundaries or bending genres (for wich your writing seems to fit well) that happens to be the reason Deftones are notable among other alternative metal bands, anyway if Joy Division were actively trying to mix genres to create an own style, it would be worth mentioning. Trascendence (talk) 03:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
"Nice insight, however reviews and articles advertising upcoming concerts (that actually fall into the category of news) are equally situable than the publications you mention, after all, everything is opinions". Nope. As someone who writes about music professionally, know that there's a difference between reporting and reviews/editorial. You gotta be able to spot the difference when citing--that blurb about the concert has a decidedly editorial spin to it (as many such "upcoming show" blurbs do) with elements of a review; you really do need to find a firmer, more relevant source than that (how about one that describes how Deftones's place in the development of post-metal?) . As for Joy Division, they aren't necessarily an incomparable reference point -- they pushed boundaries so hard they helped create a new one (post-punk) and set the stage for others. Anyway, my main reason for linking to that page is to show that describing a band's sound and creative process is better and more effective than citing genre-terms from reviews. Also, Deftones may incorporate elements of other genres, but a lot of bands do that, and I don't see them as any harder to categorize than other rock genre benders/dabblers like the Beatles, Led Zeppelin, The Clash, or System of a Down. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I should have been more specific in this, while they're not exactly the same, all these sources are equally acepted by wikipedia and can be used to build the article. That you consider one kind of sources better than other ones is your opinion (i personally believe that reviews are the best ones), and again, if Joy Division were notable gender-benders the way Deftones is, would be better if their article mentions that.Trascendence (talk) 02:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    • All sources aren't the same; you need to understand it. Some are more opinions than hard facts, and sometimes (shock, horror) sources can be wrong. Returning to the main point, if that blurb Honolulu Weekly is the best source you can find to source "post-metal" in the infobox (a source that says "From art rock to nu metal to drone rock to post-metal, they’ve dabbled in almost every rock subgenre under the sun", and nothing else about that genre), then I see no reason to include it in the infobox over, say nu metal--or by your logic, any of those other genres mentioned in that sentence. I mean, if "post-metal" is such a common categorization for the band (which the Google News search above demonstrates it isn't), couldn't you find something more substantial to back up your assertion, like say an article about post-metal or one about how specifically this band the Deftones trades in it? That would be more relevant, and stronger overall. As it stands I cannot support including post-metal in the infobox. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I can see what's the diference between your opinion and the policies, that's enough for me. Creative Loafing mentions "shoegaze metal" wich is a synonymous to post-metal, The Straight article mentions that they mix metal with luscious shoegaze, wich is what in the future would begin to be called shoegaze metal or post-metal. Trascendence (talk) 03:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
You're inferring too much from the Straight article and consequently distorting the meaning. The quote is "In the past the Deftones hunkered down for years inside jam spaces and recording studios to create its progressive blend of skull-splitting groove metal and luscious shoegaze." It does not say "the Deftones play shoegaze metal". I really hate to pull the "I majored in English" card, but there are two different meanings being conveyed by those sentences. Mixing metal and shoegaze is not a cast-iron formula that automatically equals post-metal--for instance, see a certain very popular alternative rock band called the Smashing Pumpkins. In short, that article does not actually back up the point you are trying to make.
Once again, why to you does post-metal need to be displayed in the infobox above all those other genres listed by the Honolulu Weekly, which is what you are using to justify its inclusion? As it stands, Deftones being labeled "post-metal" is being given undue weight. Also note that currently you are the only person here pushing for its inclusion there, and currently consensus is against its inclusion. (Also, for what it's worth, I own Ian Christe's Sound of the Beast, a pretty thorough history of heavy metal. The Deftones are only mentioned once in the entire book--as part of a list of definitive nu metal albums). WesleyDodds (talk) 09:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
you missed creative loafing, and being post-metal a new term there is really a hint on writers saying that they mix metal with shoegaze, also something as broad as that book covers only the most famous bands right (Sabbath, Motorhead, Metallica etc.) giving to Deftones only one mention just proves that the writer don't cares about the band at all and didn't made a proper research about it, articles that are only about Deftones are better than sources that are so broad that don't gives them the atention they deserve, also wikipedia does not care if you are a proffesional. The try to get advantage claiming that you own "x" title is against wikipedia policies. Trascendence (talk) 04:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Creative Loafing isn't what you are citing in the infobox--Honolulu Weekly is. "also something as broad as that book covers only the most famous bands right (Sabbath, Motorhead, Metallica etc.) giving to Deftones only one mention just proves that the writer don't cares about the band at all and didn't made a proper research about it . . ." Have you read the book? There's chapters on alternative metal and nu metal--bands like Faith No More, Korn, and Slipknot get plenty of coverage. The author and the book itself is a pretty reliable source. Also, me being stating I am "professional" was me actually explaining to you given my education why you misinterpreted the source you wished to cite.
At this point, editor consensus is overwhelmingly against you, so I'm going to be bold and remove post-metal from the infobox. I'll also remove "experimental rock", since it's inclusion seems to be a related issue to you. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

i agree that experimental rock should be removed, since alternative metal already covers that genre — Preceding unsigned comment added by I call the big one bitey (talk • contribs) 02:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Hold on Wesley, WP:Consensus states that consensus is not about votes, but the one who has the best sources (who is me), don't make such drastic changes to the infobox until were done here, it's not WP:BOLD, and it's a violation to WP:Civil (why do i have to remind you that?) you say that post-metal isn't correct in the infobox because i cite "Honolulu Weekly", fine, i'll cite "Creative loafing" then.
  • I have a solution that will fix all this for now: Deftones have an album coming out in Octuber, if once that the album came out there aren't articles or reviews calling it post-metal then it and experimental rock will be removed from the infobox leaving "alternative metal" alone. Until that, i'll put a "discuss tag" next to post-metal in the infobox. that must be enough for now, if not let me know. Trascendence (talk) 03:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Trascendence, even if we weren't counting votes (which we aren't) you are clearly in the minority here. You are the only person who insists on Post-metal being in the infobox when at least four people have disagreed. Also, WP:CIVIL is evoked when people are using personal attacks. Has anyone attacked you? Though people disagree with you here, I think everyone has been never treated you any less than fair. Your claim of having "the best sources" is tenuous, as there is wide disagreement about that so far here. Not to mention that WP:Consensus definitely does not say it's about "the one who has the best sources". What it does say is "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. This means that decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms." Finally, Fezmar9 didn't revert my removal of the genres from the infobox, and he could've if he disputed my statement that we have a consensus. Remember, consensus doesn't mean every single person has to agree. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I have to correct you in some things, first, to revert without a clear consensus (and while a discussion stills open) is a violation against WP:Civil, second a change that was up for less than 24 hours and with only one edit from a passive editor can't be considered a silent consensus, if I or the editor who brought post-metal to the infobox were been the ones bypassing your edit then it would implied aceptation, the silent consensus to keep post-metal lasted more than six weeks with previous oppositors acepting it and many edits over it, that's a real consensus and is the one stablished until we resolve this. You been here enough time to know that, and i know that i don't have why to remind you because you already know it, what you are doing right know is childish. And you don't even replied to my proposal of a provisional solution. Trascendence (talk) 03:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
The consensus is clear—you just don't agree with it. Note that consensus is not the same as unanimity. WP:Civil is about communicating with editors, not reverting. WesleyDodds has been perfectly civil and levelheaded throughout the duration of the discussion. Fezmar9 (talk) 03:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • While this is 2 vs 1 this is not the kind of discussion where the majority automatically gets consensus, what changes the things here is that I have two sources that are perfectly situable for post-metal, and when there are sources present, usually the user who shows these is the one who gets the consensus. Show two sources that says that Deftones isn't post-metal and then both points of view will weight equally. Trascendence (talk) 03:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
To follow up with what Fezmar9 said, your comment that "the silent consensus to keep post-metal lasted more than six weeks with previous oppositors acepting it and many edits over it, that's a real consensus and is the one stablished until we resolve this" is inaccurate, as consensus can change--and has. As it stands, you're the odd man out. My removal of post-metal (and experimental, for that matter, which another editor concurs with on this talk page) was a bold effort to try and move us past this discussion deadlock. Ideally I'd like us all to see eye to eye and concur on the same point of view, but that appears to be unlikely. As for your proposal, I don't see it as workable, as it is based on the retention of "post-metal" in the inbox against the greater consensus until the criteria you have established is met. And it's shaky criteria, anyway--it's not out of the ordinary to find the odd review that labels a band with a genre they are not typically categorized as. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Mind you, "no one removing the genre from the infobox before others removed it and the topic was discussed" is not a solid consensus. In this discussion where we've explained our positions, analyzed sources, and formed a new consensus, everyone has explained repeatedly why it doesn't belong. By all means more participants are welcome. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Trascendence ignored previous discussions and consensus (that he was also involved in), as well as the warning note to discuss any changes first, when he added post-metal. In the previous discussion on post-metal, he also assumed that Fezmar9 had agreed to some new consensus before he had time to reply (much like what he is doing with this "solid consensus"): "the other user in the discussion (Fezmar9) already acepted the new consensus." I didn't even notice it for a while, but when I did, I reverted. He has two sources, but they do not directly support post-metal as a prominent genre but this has been said before. I think it would be best to remove the other genres and leave alternative metal then perhaps try and improve on the musical style section so it is more than just genre lists. "i'll see if i can found more back up in the next days." What do you mean by this exactly? Are you searching for sources to back up your claim (as you should have done quite a while ago)? HrZ (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • The two sources on wich i'm leaning directly supports post-metal (one says shoegaze metal but that is a synonymous)anyway, giving a look to this discussion it seems that it can last forever, anyway, it's not a stale discussion at all, we all agreed in removing the highly disputed term "nu metal" from the infobox, that is something i wanted, so, to be fair i'll take out post-metal from now, but if when the new album came out there is critics saying that the band plays that genre then i'll put it back, thoughts? Trascendence (talk) 03:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
"Dabble in post-metal" and one source about White Pony doesn't give the impression of a prominent genre in their career. Anyway, it would be best to discuss it when the album is released, and reviews and such are available, rather than coming to an agreement now. Remember "consensus is assumed when there's no evidence of disagreement." With this topic, there is definitely disagreement and a consensus on post-metal. Discuss first before making changes again to genres. HrZ (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

This section is massive and at this point seems pointless. Is this discussion in any way on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring? With all due respect, but Trascendence is not getting it. This has been going on for a month and a half, give me a break... Lighthead...KILLS!! 02:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deftones/Archive_3&oldid=1053816480"