Talk:Dethklok/Archive 2

Fair use rationale for Image:Nathanexplosioncropped.jpg

Image:Nathanexplosioncropped.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Note about Murderface's knife

The knife commonly carried and used by Murderface is a 1991 Gil Hibben Double Shadow. Real pic here: http://www.bkcg.co.uk/guide/hibben/1991.JPG Just FYI, guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.186.147 (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Dethklok is goin on a summer tour this year. 2008. kicks it off in Atlanta, moving it's way down to Orlando, St. Petersburg, and back up the east coast.

Weird info being added?

Ok, I just spent like an hour last night organizing the section on Pickles and I've been planning to organize the other sections when I have the time, because this page needs some serious help; it's a mess. Well, right after I updated it someone added this: "In the episode "Klokdeth," Pickles was revealed to be an alien from the planet Picklesstonisaisa, a planet comprised of weed and alcohol. He is a musical ambassador from the planet." ...What is this? I'm noticing other weird pieces of info popping up in the other sections, too, supposedly from as-of-yet unreleased episodes. I can't have possibly seen episodes that haven't been released yet so I can't verify any of it, but apparently someone has...? It's kind of hard to have a section that explains his background with his family and then suddenly say he's an alien...

...Man, maybe I shouldn't even bother with this. Maybe this page is beyond help. I'm just trying to help this page to contain actually pertinent, relevant information about the characters, but people seem to want to take every line the characters say out of context. To quote someone from another topic on this page, "It's unnecessary to list every possible attribute of each character based on one line of non-plot critical dialogue." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domorrigan (talk • contribs) 20:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been a longtime anonymous contributor to Wikipedia, but I must admit that a lot of folks like that ruin it for the rest of us. I'm sick of the rampant vandalism (get a life) and the loss of focus on many articles (its a encyclopedia, not a discussion board or place for conjecture -- and too many of these articles turn into episode recaps) /soapbox - Mike B, Lexington KY

Pickles's brother Seth

In Dethfam it clearly states that Seth is his older brother. In Dethwedding it clearly states that Seth is his younger brother. This is a blatant discrepancy within the script. Weird. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domorrigan (talk •

contribs) 23:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You ever notice... whenever Seth makes it a point to say Pickles is his brother and he loves him, it prefaces an accusation that Pickles isn't treating him right.

What has that got to do with ANYTHING?JackorKnave (talk) 22:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Nathan:XYY?

Someone added this recently: "[...] and is suspected to have the XYY genetic condition, as he matches many of its symptoms." [spell-corrected]

I hadn't thought of this before. Upon reading up on the condition, it does seem to be quite possible; however, is it substantiated enough within the content of the series to be considered encyclopedic? True, this is a line which is tough to draw with this article, but there is nothing within the article that is non-canonical, which is the important thing. They are remarkably well-developed characters in light of the nature of the series. Domorrigan (talk) 09:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is already a shit-storm in terms of Writing about fiction and attribution. I strongly suggest adding new content that contains real-world information and is entirely verifiable. Do not bother going in depth on things such as a characters speculated genetic disorders - as in-universe information like that ultimately gets this article deleted or redirected. Unless someone wishes to do so already, I'm purging/re-writing most of this article once I get a chance. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  19:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow. There is a big difference between trying to diagnose a physical medical condition in a fictional character and acknowledging factual, substantiated attributes of that character's persona and appearance. I do not find it non-canonical to acknowledge these characteristics in a series which is heavily and recurrently focused on the themes of addiction and psychological disturbance within the band. The psyches of these characters are canonical, plot-relevant information. Humor aside, at the core, this is the focal point of the series. I do understand where you are coming from and why you are peeved, as I have considered these things myself, but I'm not going to take lightly to you going through this article and raping it, either. Are you very familiar with all of the material available on the series? Can you mount a case against anything presently included in this article? Domorrigan (talk) 20:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that original research, which is what this speculation on genetic disorders is, isn't allowed by Wikipedia policy. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 21:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not the person who added this "XYY" piece of info; I am the person who removed it. For obvious reasons. Domorrigan (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I knew that matey, I was just adding my point to the end of the convo :) ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 21:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I am defensive after the statement that this page is a "shit-storm," because it was a shit-storm when I happened upon it last week. It was a disorganized, misspelled, grammatically-effed pile of crap with a lot of poorly-stated substantiation. I've never contributed non-anonymously/more than casually to Wiki before, because I've scarcely happened upon a page that was so poorly put together, and so deserving of help. I wasn't sure how to clean the mess; it already contained many bits of info which would enter into this "grey area" of discussion. I didn't want to remove everything that people apparently want to be included in this article, so I removed the things which were blatantly speculative, provided rationale and citation for the canon, and put quite a deal of time into organizing and copy-editing the information into flowing paragraphs and giving the thing some freakin' cohesion. So if this page is a shit-storm now, then damn. Domorrigan (talk) 22:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The grammar, punctuation, and overall delivery have improved, however that’s necessarily that important – articles cannot be deleted because they are poorly written. There’s are at least three major problems with this article.

• Verifiability
• Prose
• Notability

As I pointed out that a majority of this article is missing proper citations (WP:CITE, WP:RS). All unsourced material can challenged and removed (WP:A). There is even an attribution disclaimer at the top of this discussion page that alerts editors that all speculative and unsourced material will be removed given this article’s history. You could probably have this article copy-edited by a cabal of Ivy League writers, and it would still be fodder for deletions. Above all things, this article needs more references or citations.

Next, this article is written in a prose that is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Articles about fictional subjects need to be written in present tense, and for the most part, avoid length plot summaries (WP:WAF). Rather than stating each band member’s life story, I would strongly suggest trimming the band members and history section. If at all possible, use REAL WORLD information, as opposed to centering the article on just information from Metalocalypse. Focus on their record sales, critical reception, or touring. Or, explain why Small choose the musicians he did to represent Dethklok.

Finally, for an article that allegedly claims its released the “highest charting death metal ever” the article itself does not access much notability in its current state (WP:N). Include specific examples to further reiterate what makes Dethklok so special , such as praise from critics, well-known musicians, columnists, or the sheer success of the Dethalbum.

As aforementioned, I have already began re-working this article within one of my sandboxes – so this is not a drive-by rant/tagging. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  23:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow. "If at all possible, use REAL WORLD information, as opposed to centering the article on just information from Metalocalypse." I honestly couldn't disagree more. This is an article about five characters from a television show, keywords here being "characters" and "show." Of course it is centered around Metalocalypse, as well it should be. It is not, in fact, a "real" band. There is very little information available on the "reality" of the band as there essentially is none. It is a relatively new project and there is very little to say at this point in time about the real-life counterpart to this "virtual" band.

Double-wow @ verifiability. For one, I mainly only worked on sections 2.1-2.4, so I had nothing to do with the record sales bit. I realize that I didn't use proper tags as I was unsure how, but I have noted the substantiating episodes and interviews, as well as direct word-for-word quotes from the script. I don't get it; do you not watch the show...? How can you watch the series and not be aware of these things? And why would I try to put anything into the article that isn't true? Why would I try to screw up a page about something I love? Fine, scrap any interesting or important information about these characters and their personalities from this article and throw all my time and everyone else's out the window if you're going to be that anal about this, but you seem like you're being over-authoritative about an article about an animated band. No disrespect intended. Domorrigan (talk) 23:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. "Or, explain why Small choose the musicians he did to represent Dethklok." See, now this is the kinda thing I don't think has ANY place in this article. Small and Blacha looked to a few well-known metal bands to pick out some physical archetypes to begin to build the characters after. However, their personalities and details of their features are not meant to actually "represent" these real life people. Conceptualization for the show supposedly began with the two writers/VAs playing off each other in their Scandinavian "metal airhead" voices, hence the reason why these two are more developed, and the only two characters within the band to have specific interaction with each other.

Honestly, if that's the kind of article you think this should be, you should just delete this page and the minor characters' page, too, because there'd be no point. This is a character page, not a band page. The five focal characters were moved to their own page for obvious reasons. I'm recalling all the anime characters and such with individual pages that go on for miles and miles and aren't any better formatted or referenced than this. ...These are all pretty basic observations to include in a character summary. I mean, if you're missing this content, then you're not really watching the show. I've never known Brendon Small to produce vapid, meaningless crap. He's more of an "amusing yet thoughtful social commentary" kind of guy. ...I'm too analytical to write for an encyclopedia. Nuke this article. I quit. Domorrigan (talk) 21:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Pickles' full name

In the Dethwedding episode of Metalocalypse on about Pickles' brother, Seth, getting married... his last name was said, I didn't really catch it that well, but if anyone else did, I would assume it's also Pickles' last name and add it to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.37.150.51 (talk) 04:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I bet you anything that it said Thedrummer 24.223.154.154 (talk) 02:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

regarding nathan.

i think the recent episode of dethklok really shows his thrid demension, he doesen't have trouble reading in this episode and seems to show a great intrest in the culture of his people.

this episode revealed alot of things about his personality, prehaps covered by previous episodes, but still, i think we can mention abit mroe then him pullnig a boat over a mountain.

i mean, maybe its already covered, but it still feels like this episode touched more on his hidden depth then the others.

couldn't we just add a "(such as in dethcallado)" or something?

again, maybe its really not need, but still, there could be some needed additions to his section. --Homor (talk) 09:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Massive fancrufting

This entire article reads as a fan written summary of everything revealed in all the episodes, instead of summarizing the show's concept and covering the real world responses and materials. Needs a major clean up. ThuranX (talk) 04:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to ShadowJester07 (and myself), this article's been stubbed back (removing 47K in material) to a point where it can be built again with good real world content. ThuranX (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice work! I tried to do a bit of it myself, but clearly your efforts are superior. —  X  S  G  23:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It's fine, whatever, but you should go ahead and trim up Characters in Metalocalypse, too, or delete it entirely. Minor characters like Jean Pierre and Dr. Rockzo don't need multiple paragraphs to themselves when the band members have a few sentences a piece. Domorrigan (talk) 02:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, get to it! we could certainly use some help! ThuranX (talk) 03:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Domorrigan, your message sounds a little spiteful ("whatever"). It's not my intention to criticize you for this, but instead to encourage you. The band members' summaries were trimmed back to a reasonable minimum, content to build on. Please remember that this is still Wikipedia: if there is important and citable character information that no longer exists within this article, please add it! So long as the information you add comes with a reference, it stands for discussion here rather than outright removal as fan cruft. Your contributions are as valid as anyone else's and I, for one, will support your encyclopedic additions. —  X  S  G  17:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Spiteful? No, I've only resigned to this action and have no plans to attempt to fight or argue it. My interest in this article is no more. Do what you will. I'm sitting back and watching the shakedown at this point. Domorrigan (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I found several Dethklok articles on Google News. Combined with The Reference Maker, we should be able to source this article and also find reliable real-world content. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  05:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Characters based off ???

Can we list on this page who each of the members of dethklok are based off of? I know that Toki is supposed to based on the vocalist for the band Opeth, and that Nathan is most likely based on the vocalist from Cannibal Corpse, but that leaves Pickles, Murderface, and Skwisgaar...could be just list who these characters are based on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.198.78 (talk) 19:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No. You're speculating. You're guessing on nathan, want to guess on three more, and have no source for any of that. if you find a reliable source, then you may add, but not before. ThuranX (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

There are several sources that state Nathan being based on George "Corpsegrinder" Fisher. For example: "Brendon Small, the voice of Nathan Explosion, stated that he was based upon Cannibal Corpse vocalist George “Corpsegrinder” Fisher" http://tviv.org/Metalocalypse/Nathan_Explosion

Also several blatent references in Metalocalypse document George's actions. Key among them is a quote from the first episode, The Curse Of Dethklock "Enjoy our tasty Hammer Smashed Face! Aisle three. Whoah! That's a good song title." 124.185.91.10 (talk) 12:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

First off, your opinions aren't enough. Second, that information is in the article. Third, you're replying to a months old comment. ThuranX (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Toki's appearance looks like it's based upon Varg Vikernes. http://gfx.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2003/10/26/1996.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.4.113 (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

First off, your opinions aren't enough. Second, there is a proper source identifying Mikael Åkerfeldt as the inspiration. Third, you're replying to a year old comment. -Verdatum (talk) 15:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

After all the cruft and fan writing was removed from this article, creating a stronger, more balanced article, an editor has created 5 new articles, one per character. This is highly unnecessary, as each simply restores all the fan speculation and armchair psychology seen in the old version of this article. I therefore propose that each article be redirected to the corresponding character summary here. There is no good reason to recreate all that bad material, and it constitutes a content fork. Let's avoid a long mess and redirect quickly. ThuranX (talk) 21:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

There should be a snowball redirect, so that all the character articles redirect here for now. Unless there is a substantial amount of real-world content and reliable third-part references, the articles will likely be taken to AFD, and deleted/merged/redirected. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  22:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

So now the cruft is added elsewhere, not here. Perhaps an AfD is appropriate for the characters? If not, leave them be. —  X  S  G  22:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

AFD's for fictional characters usually end in merge/redirect. It would probably be better to attempt to resolve this issue here first. See AFD for multiple articles. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  22:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they usually end in merge/redirects, and less often in outright deletes. with an album and a tour, peripheral notability arguments would support the M/D result over deletion. Let's get it done. ThuranX (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Though it's just a proposed guideline, WP:FICTION makes sense to me and would lead me to conclude that the articles for each character, as they are, will fail a notability test. Regarding resolving the issue here first, the underlying issue is that N.Flen has done something that seems to skirt acceptable practices. We removed cruft from an article and he simply moved the cruft to a new article. In my experience, the only way to deal with this situation is to force N.Flen's hand, either by getting a highly visible community consensus about what should be done or by banning him/her for his/her actions. An AfD for the character articles would be a highly visible community consensus. Until you get that, you really have no authorization to undo N.Flen's work, it's just edit warring. —  X  S  G  22:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

First, no one has gone ahead, and I think we're all patient enough to give N Flen a day to respond here. he's edited since this thread was started, but hasn't replied here. As for authorization, we don't need no stinking badgers! WP:CONSENSUS+ WP:BOLD is all that's needed, esp. to fix a FORK. ThuranX (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I have examined all five articles, and found only one valid source, which I have examined and reintegrated into this main article. Other 'sources' are the show for the overextended plot summaries, and some speculation and SYNTH. The guy from Opeth can claim whatever he wants, but he's not involved in the show, so his comments on Toki are out. Likewise, I've got a horse's mouth interview for Nathan Explosion and George Fisher now, so the blog can go; the interview doesn't explicitly state Fisher is Nathan, it says 'yeah, those two are very similar.' A couple 'sources' were so broken i can't figure them out, and that was all there was. With that done, I think it's tiem for N Flen to speak up or join in on preventing this content fork. ThuranX (talk) 22:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Look this article looked overcrowded with so much information about each character that after reading other cartoon character articles I realized that there was enough information about each one to make individual pages. So after you took care of getting that information out of the article I took care of organizing and re-writing that information in a way that was acceptable enough to stay in wikipedia. I also looked for sources that could help and I know there's more I just can't remember which websites I took them from. I know the articles still have a lot flaws. I'm not a perfect writer but the point of wikipedia is to try to improve articles so I want people to help improve them when is necessary. I think as of now the articles are good enough to stay for a few weeks. If there is no improvement whatsoever I agree they should be deleted but as of now they are acceptable. User:N.Flen

Hi, N.Flen. I think there's been a misunderstanding. The content was removed from this article because it was unencyclopedic and generally didn't belong in Wikipedia, not because it was too large for this article. —  X  S  G  23:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Articles aren't wine, they don't improve by 'staying for a few weeks'. You took a whole lot of useless, unimportant material, all of which is 'In-Universe', and turned it into new articles after other editors removed it because it's not appropriate for Wikipedia. Moving it to a new page doesn't suddenly correct that problem. The stuff you moved is all fan based speculation, and WP:PLOT overgrowth. We pruned it back, explained the basic concepts of the characters so that anyone could read the article, then see an episode for the first time and know what they're watching. The characters do not need multi-page summaries, especially since there's little to no indication that the episodes are serialized and follow an important ordered form creating long storylines. As the articles themselves report, contradictions often occur, further indicating that details of a given episode are unimportant. Instead, we added, in the main article real world, out of universe, information about the creators and production of the show. We hope to add more. But there are no good reasons thus far to let five bloated fan-site pages stand, much less ferment and age. ThuranX (talk) 23:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok many of that stuff written is not just fan speculation it's stuff that has been explored in the series and it needs to be pointed out. Some stuff I agree can go but a lot of it useful if you want to know the characters.User:N.Flen

As I posted on your talk apge, I generally agree that this is a problem. An encyclopedia is not a data dump. An encyclopedia is not an in-universe fan guide. It is difficult to draw the line, and I generally try to stay out of it. But it seems to me that an insistence on sources is a good place to start. [1] ~ Jimbo There are plenty of other fansites on the internet that offer informatio about Dethklok's band memebers. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  23:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, it really doesn't. It's fun for fans, but it's not appropriate here. And most of it is fan speculation of different types. There are assumptions about the relationships between characters; there are assumptions about the characters personalities; there are assumptions about the meaning of comments and possible connections between episodes. Combine that with vast amounts of trivia, and you get those bloated messes. Remove all of that, and you're left with what we've got in the main article. Three editors agree that the material in those articles isn't appropriate, and in fact, it counts as a 'content fork'. In case you didn't read that link when provided, 'content fork' basically means that when one version of an article is agreed to by a group of editors, a minority of editors insist on creating a second article in which to promote their version of that article, usually one which relies on the material removed by the majority consensus. That's what's happening here. Given your use of English and your understanding of writing, I'm guessing that English is not your first language, and that you're not used to writing in a more rigorously academic style. Please see this as an opportunity to learn some new things about how to write, and improve your own writing, and writing for Wikipedia. It's clear you like Metalocalypse, and we need enthusiastic editors helping us. Please review what we've said, and hopefully you'll see why we believe what we're talking about doing will improve both the Metalocalypse articles and Wikipedia as a whole. Thank you. ThuranX (talk) 23:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Band members

Every official source(myspace page, interviews, magazine articles) will mention the Nathan, Skwisgaar, Toki, Murdeface and Pickles as the members of Dethklok. It's like other fictional bands like Gorillaz. If we have trouble then we should go back to listing the band members and the actual band members. User:N.Flen

Infoboxes about fictional subjects are not supposed to have fictional/in-universe information in their infoboxes that are meant for real-world information. See WP:WAF, specifically "Infoboxes and succession boxes" . --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  02:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

concur with ShadowJester. This article's primarily about real world content, then about the fictional band on TV which acts as the public face of the real musicians. ThuranX (talk) 02:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you can make the argument that Bryan and Mike aren't official members because they only play on tour. I think the only official member is Brendon Small since he is the only one who works on the music in all three stages(Metalocalypse, Album, Tour). Maybe Gene can be considered a member because he recorded the drums for the album.User:N.Flen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.116.21 (talk) 07:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

how bout listing "Fictional Band" then "Actual band" or vice versa —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnarcistPig (talk • contribs) 23:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

We do have that. ThuranX (talk) 23:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Character pages

Didn't each character have their own page with a lot more information than they do now? If this is already on the talk page, someone just yell at me, and I'll go look for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SirRibbit (talk • contribs) 07:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

There were individual pages for each character that were formed from information that used to be in this article. The pages were deleted because some members made the argument that the information was not encyclopedic and no one could come up with a good argument against that. I would like them to come back some day mostly because the information we have in this article is just not enough mostly because this article tries to focus on the real members of Dethklok. Minor characters have more information written about them and I think that's just not right.User:N.Flen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.116.21 (talk) 07:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That's...really stupid in my opinion. They provided good information on the characters, and now there's NOTHING about them if you want to know who they are. There was really no point in getting rid of it. I guess if someone really wants to know, they can look it up somewhere else. SirRibbit (talk) 08:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree to an extent with both cases. I propose that the ratio of the amount of information between the virtual members and the real members should be as close to equal as possible. Dethklok could not exist without the real members, but the real members are basically real-world manifestations of the virtual members. Nathan, Skwisgaar, Toki, Pickles, and Muderface represent the visual aspect, meanwhile Brendon, Gene, and any other additional members needed when the band is performing "live" represent the auditory aspect and Brendon and Tommy represent the psychological aspect. Yet, at this time the real members have their own articles, while the virtual members (who most people are more familiar with anyway) only have a short paragraph to summarize each of them. I believe that having more information about the characters is a way to give credit to the creators for being able to conjure up characters as complex each of them are, considering that Metalocalypse has only been on the air for two years.

Before the 47kB worth of information was removed by ShadowJester07 and ThuranX, the character's bios were almost as long as the bios for the main characters in South Park, a show that has been on the air six times longer. Speaking of South Park, I was looking for some ideas from a show that has considerably more clout, and found the character pages for Stan, Kyle, Cartman, and Kenny are excellent examples that if combined into one unified template could be used for literally any fictitious character. Using the organization of Stan's content and the appropriate use of references in Cartman's article, we could easily take some (but not all) of the information in the revision before what ShadowJester07 and ThuranX did and make some informative, entertaining, and above everything else, formalized pages for the virtual members of Dethklok. With that being said, we also have to keep in mind what I said before: the ratio of the amount of information between real and virtual members should be as equal as possible. If we do this properly and consciously make the effort, we could set the guidelines for all future virtual band articles to come on Wikipedia. —Pmcginty (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is a great essay to read about your ideas. Just because the South Park WIkiproject can't maintain high standards isnt' a reason for us to lower ours here. All that stuff that was deleted was crap. It was in-universe character bio at the paragraph per episode level, with inane and sometimes contradictory details.it added nothing of serious substance to the understanding of the show. All it did, at best, is give fans a place to post all the 'coolest metalocalypse moments', and forums exist for that. There is no good reason to resurrect all that material anywhere on WP. It will rapidly be hit with the in-niverse, additional citations, cleanup and other tags.Those won't be able to be removed until the pages are deleted, because they rely on primary sourcing all the way through. There's nothing redeemable in them. ShadowJester and I kept all the real World content. If you can find more of that, add it here. ThuranX (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You completely misunderstood my references to the South Park articles. I thought they were good, but not great. Just somewhere to get some formalization ideas from. I do not believe that all of that stuff was crap. How much have the show have you actually watched? There's a lot of minute stuff that's just thrown out at you. It is true that there was definitely too much information, but some of it was pertinent to the characters and people trying to understand the show. For example, shouldn't there be something about their families, considering an entire episode was about the members being with them ("Dethfam")? How about listing the instruments for ALL the members? I'll think of more examples when I have more time. Pmcginty (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No, that stuff is not important, nor pertinent to the characters. People who want to know that much can watch the show or buy the DVD, or download episodes. Wikipedia is NOT a fan guide. All the things you're proposing are things found in forums and fan guides devoted to the show. If you want to do that somewhere on the internet, more power to ya, but Wikipedia is not the right l=place on the internet to do so. For more on the problems, look at Stan's page, and all the problem tags on it. Those are inherent problems in any character page based on them, or substantially similar, like the character pages you're proposing would be. Go look at Superman or Batman for an idea of how Featured Article character pages are done. Look at all the real world information. ThuranX (talk) 23:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay...I believe I understand what you mean now. What we need are more sources from accredited people talking about the characters, how they were developed and what influenced that development. Then briefly talk about the character's personalities. Finally, discuss the cultural impact caused by the band. It also looks to be okay (at least occasionally) to refer to episodes for certain information. Pmcginty (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You're on the right track. However, build all of that here on this page. We can splinter out pages as needed once they are too large for this page. ThuranX (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Guys, why on earth do you change Charles Foster OFFdensen's name to Ofdensen. It's not Ofdensen, it's Offdensen, they broadcast how the full name was spelled on the last show! also, it doesn't even really sound right as Ofdensen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.186.246 (talk) 08:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Guitar Hero 2?

one of their songs, thunderhorse, are on GH2. shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere? 98.15.216.208 (talk) 22:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It's mentioned in Metalocalypse#Endorsements. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  22:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot idea for editing punctuation in Metalocalypse-related articles

Click here.
Pmcginty (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Separate Character Pages

The series has really gone on long enough that the characters are well-developed enough to describe in greater detail than the blurbs listed here. The character's hometowns, families, attitudes, religious perspectives, dating histories, and so on could be fleshed out in much greater detail on separate pages.

All of those things are unimportant. They change from episode to episode, and have no bearing on the notability of the show/band. We write articles about the real importance of a thing, not about the hundreds of minutes of 'in-universe' stuff(the stuff we hear about in an episode). ThuranX (talk) 23:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

change from episode to episode? what are you even talking about? --Homor (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I meant exactly what I said. Someone was here asking about one of the character's brother being older or younger and why did they change it between two episodes. Favorite foods, family member names and all sorts of other stuff falls through the cracks in Production. It's all completely unimportant. What's important are the effects of the show on the real world in terms of critical review, awards, money earned in various ways, and so on. If you want to write a full biography of each character based on what's presented in each show, go for it. Just don't do it on Wikipedia. ThuranX (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If you have watched the show recently you know that the characters personality changes from episode to episode. Just look at Toki. The fact that everyone he loves dies has finally caused him to violently snap. That's something important for the character specially since it was mentioned that that would happen in a previews episode.

I would also like to point out Venture Bros has articles all over wikipedia that have been there forever and are not any better than the ones I wrote. N.Flen (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

So... other crap is out there is your defense? No. Go shave those articles down. Or check if they're supported by real sources. If not, cut them down. ThuranX (talk) 03:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

thuranX, wikipedia is an INFROMATION SITE not a "basic idea site" if that were so then we have to cut down the simpsons articels, family guy articels, and get rid of thousand of pages of content, it would be a holocaust of infromation, and it would strongly cut down on our userbase.

also, if we were only suposed to cover basics, maybe we should cut down articels on presidents and countries to the very basic concepts they're based on.

not to mention that would mean that we'd have to cut down on movie articels reverse years of hard work and research by the userbase and replace them with dreak you could find anywhere on the internet.

i really hate the idea of butchering our content and moving it all to basic ideas and concepts.

i don't read wikipedia for basic concepts, i could go to a website and find that out, i come here for infromation, and if we cut down on information, i, and many more people, have no reason to even be on here anymore. --Homor (talk) 23:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand Wikipedia. We are concerned not with 'every tidbit from every episode', which is trivia, but with Notability, which is established by the Real World effects of a concept or idea. The article currently reflects a lot more of the real world content, instead of pages and pages of trivia which changes from episode to episode, and which aren't interesting to anyone who isn't already an extreme fan. For those extreme fans, there are always fan sties, which Wikipedia is not. Please read WP:NOT for more. ThuranX (talk) 03:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

okay thruanX i'll take that but listen, just because there was one mistake in one episode regarding the age of a brother DOES NOT MEAN THAT EVERYTHING CHANGES FROM EPISODE TO EPISODE. the more you say that the more of a jerk you make yourself look like, not that you are one, you look like one.

i'm sorry, i know thats not relevent, so lets just drop it.

also, i think that a little more detail wouldn't hurt this article very much, but thats just me, i also am in favour of the idea of a dethklok-wikia if it really has to come down to that. --Homor (talk) 19:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

So the logical conclusion ThuranX has come up with is we should go delete every page regarding a character from a work of fiction. so everyone, go delete everything about the characters from The Great Gatsby, James Bond, Seinfeld, The Godfather. etc. go destroy wikipedia people, ThuranX thinks you should —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burnqq (talk • contribs) 06:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Tantrum time, I see. Please read WP:NPA, and strike out your above comments. ThuranX (talk) 11:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not a personal attack, I'm just reiterating your words that i should go vandalize everypage about a work of fiction. Go read a definition of a personal attack. Burnqq (talk) 03:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)