Talk:Iron Maiden/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

General

I'm pretty sure Magarette Thatcher, 'The Iron Maiden' had something to do with their name? Ragzouken 20:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC) Can somebody include something about the torture device? -- Zoe

Is the torture device also with dual caps? Small distinction, I know, with only two words in the title, but.... --KQ

Good point. :-) -- Zoe

I would be interested in seeing an article on the torture device, though. --KQ

Plus the rack, and other torture devices. :-) -- Zoe, being sadistic tonight.

Let's start an inquisition. I have some unfounded accusations lying around. :-) --KQ

I can have a stab at it over the weekend. This article btw belongs under Iron Maiden (band). I will move it there at the same time as I work on the real Iron Maiden. user:sjc

I just changed the bit that said 'iron maiden never partied hard' because this is clearly wrong - just watch the 'early days DVD.' They weren't insane partiers like some of the hair metal bands but they partied nevetheless. Adrian Smith was hungover as hell whilst recording his powerslave solo.

---

This bears an uncanny resemblance to parts of

• [link to copyvio website removed]
• http://www.centrohd.com/biogra/i1/iron_maiden_formed_in_london.htm
• http://www.geocities.com/Baja/9064/ironhist.html

(all of which are effectively the same text as each other) --rbrwr

The article has evolved so much now, I think it's no longer an issue --PopUpPirate 00:59, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

---

I can't believe that Bruce Dickinson doesn't get a mention - although, I couldn't write anything apart from him being a pilot nowadays. Kabads

---

I took the privilege to add the birth dates for the remainder of the group's members, and I would also like to point out that a few of the members (Nicko and Dave) originally have other names (respectively Michael Henry McBrain and David Michael Murray). I think we should add that info somehow, but keep pointing to their - eh - "artistic" names (ie. the ones they use most often these days).Toreau 22:46, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Added their real names now. How about we gather the data about the current lineup in a bulleted list? It's quite messy as it is right now. Toreau 00:44, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Go for it - for things like that you don't need to worry about asking first. All the old versions are stored in the page history, so you can easily change it back if something goes wrong. Angela

---

I added a few extra previous members along with the dates they were in the band, I think it is a complete list, the various 'family tree's' I've seen over the years are a bit confusing. But I hoping this list is farily complete/correct. Kurek

---

The German wiki has quite a bit more info on the band's history but my German is very weak so I really can't take a shot at translation. Any takers? RedWolf 16:33, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

I could give it a try. My english isn't perfect, so I could make a mistake or two though. :) --Conti|✉ 16:49, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

---

Shouldn't each year point to the year in music rather than just the year considering Iron Maiden's about music? :) I didn't want to make such a major edit to the Iron Maiden article before receiving feedback here. Check out the Bruce Dickinson page and you'll see that dates link to "in music" rather than just the year. For example, 2004 vs. 2004, the first 2004 being "2004 in music" and the second just pointing to 2004. Yes, I have way too much time on my hands. :) --Demonslave 10:59, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

---

Noticed a contradiction here, regarding who was the most punk sounding vocalist :

Original singer Paul Day was much punkier than the man who replaced him, the outlandish Dennis Wilcock, a huge KISS fan that used fire, makeup, and fake blood onstage. By 1978, Harris and Murray had estabilised the Iron Maiden line-up with the addition of drummer Doug Sampson and vocalist Paul Di'Anno.

If the band had sounded punk before, they did even more so with the arrival of the short-haired, fiery Di'Anno.

Who sounded most Punk? --PopUpPirate 00:59, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

---

I would like to suggest rewording the first line. To "Iron Maiden is a British Heavy Metal band from East London". By all means refer to them being a major player in the scene that was termed New Wave of British Heavy Metal. But as Iron Maiden are still current today the term NWOBHM is outdated, not relevant to them today and is a regarded by many observers as a bit of a joke term. NWOBHM is not a genra of music it is simply a media sound bite coined to describe emerging British Heavy Rock bands in the late 70's early eighties. The first line also does not scan well.

---

Removed the link to Blaze Bayley's website, since it's not there anymore 62.101.75.108 08:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

History

I added the history of the band. It was compeltly written by myself, so it is not copied from any site. Feel free to edit or add anything else that it's missing User: Coburnpharr04

---

Could this ever be a featured article? --PopUpPirate 12:11, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

I reckon the prose needs a good pounding for grammar and variety first, at least. I'll try to do that when I get a chance (assuming no-one beats me to it) Blufive 15:53, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'd love to see it as a featured article. --Demonslave 13:50, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

Hopefully we can get there eventually! Have added some images today, perhaps contentiously I have changed the intro from "Iron Maiden is" to "Iron Maiden are", pedantic I know, and either could be right, I think it reads better now though and follows band naming convention a bit better? --PopUpPirate 23:47, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Keep up the good work. --Demonslave 10:44, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

actually, since it's a band, and band is singular, wouldn't it be more gramatically correct to say that Iron Maiden IS a band?

"IS" only applies in American english or in article about American subjects. This article is about a band from England and uses UK English. Fair Deal

Likewise :D Think we need an additional section as well as the main history section, it doesn't tell of any wild on the road antics, like Bruce and Ozzy wanting to steal a taxi, or the Martin Birch $666 crash repair, or the mockery Maiden made when they were asked to mime Wasted Years. Perhaps "Reputation" would be a good title? And also an "Imagery" section which could mention Eddie and the associated merchandise, like the cut-to-shape picture discs, Eddies Head box set, Eddies Archive box set, etc etc etc! Just a thought, but there's so much more could go in. Also, to ever get Featured Article, we'd need to cite sources. --PopUpPirate 23:21, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

---

"Iron Maiden never sang about drugs, sex, Jack Daniel's, or women." Really? What about the song "Women In Uniform" and less so "22 Acacia Ave."? --Demonslave 13:50, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, not to mention the subtly-titled "Charlotte the harlot". "Hooks in You" is downright kinky, if you listen closely to the lyrics. Anyhow, I've tweaked the wording a bit to reflect this. Blufive 11:12, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit regarding this to clear it up. :) To further comment, on Iron Maiden's Early Days DVD#1 there's an old show where they had some woman on stage, wearing what appears to be very little, for the song 22 Acacia Ave. --Demonslave 10:44, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Not entirely comfortable with the first two paragraphs of History, think they need an overhaul, doesn't seem encylopedic and the use of the word punk / punkish is clumsy imo.... not sure how to fix tho. --PopUpPirate 23:13, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Members

An anonymous editor added a Dave Mac as a guitarist in 1977. I'm sat here looking at Pete Frame's 1996 Rock Family Tree for Maiden, and I don't see any mention of him. Can anyone back up the anonymous editor, or should I just delete it? Blufive 10:33, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No such thing. There has never been a Dave Mac in Iron Maiden. I just re-checked all the info with the official FAQ (which I'm the maintainer of). --Toreau 16:19, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

mac is mentioned on the early days dvd. He Was Hired By Steve Harris when the prievous guitarist left.

Guitar Solos

Have Iron Maiden done any songs, exclusing covers, which do not include a guitar solo?

• Genghis Khan, off Killers, doesn't, which is odd seeing as it hasn't got any vocals either! --PopUpPirate 21:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Flash Of The Blade (Powerslave) is the same really in it's more of a rhythm section / dual harmony bit, not really a solo as such. Deja Vu (S/I/T) doesn't. And Journeyman (DOD) doesn't. Four, not counting singles and B-sides! --PopUpPirate 21:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually Deja Vu does have a solo in the intro. 68.45.21.165 05:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right! Wasn't bad off the top of me head tho :D --PopUpPirate 23:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Woman in uniform (Killers) doesn't have a solo.

Neither do Running Free or Iron Maiden.76.21.69.140 02:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Virus off Best of the Beast doesn't either, just a sort of 'dual harmony bit', as PopUpPirate called it, along with some weird synth/choir stuff. --Hsheehan 16:32, 15 December 2006

Bruce's photo

It's a great photo but could it be placed somewhere other than right next to "The Decline" it doesn't seem right to have his picture near such words, despite the content. It would be better placed next to "The Golden Years". --Demonslave 11:36, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Uploaded image below to use in its place, but I like the rewording that someone did today! --PopUpPirate 23:09, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC) File:Band1.JPG

Bias

Not to knock Iron Maiden or anything, as they are the best band in the history of the universe and all (\m/), but is "The band's music was often referred to as "intelligent metal," and is often considered to be on an entirely different intellectual plane than most other metal acts of the 1980s" a bit biased?

Personally, while I love Fear of the Dark and all, I wouldn't consider Iron Maiden intellectual giants, and I'm not sure many other people do as well (especially when compared to other bands like Faith no More and Tool.) Could this at least by given a reference? Where is the music referred to as intelligent metal? Within which publications? Often considered? By who exactly?

What is intelligent metal actually? Is it considered a genre? TearAwayTheFunerealDress 15:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

A lot of the current detail is rather gushing, and need some general prose tidyup, too. As for the "intelligent" stuff - well, compared to Mötley Crüe, for instance? :-D Blufive 17:33, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Faith No More and Tool, the two bands that were mentioned, in this Bias topic, are interesting examples. Faith No More, IMO, wasn't really intelligent metal, and Tool formed in the 90's and wasn't around that I know of in the 1980s. Use the "intelligent metal" term to compare Iron Maiden to other heavy metal bands in the 1980s and examine the lyrics of others as to better gain a perspective on what "intelligent metal" could mean. How many other bands at the time were writing about historical events , spirituality (beyond mentioning Satan and demons), and other such things? Most of the others were either ranting about chicks, booze, good times, and money. To add to this: Do you understand all the lyrics behind every Iron Maiden album. Look at 7th Son of a 7th Son for example. Do you know what the title song is all about? Have you ever heard of Aleister Crowley? IMO in quite a few Iron Maiden songs they deal head on with a number of historical/intelligent as well as obscure topics whereas other bands would mention the name of an event or person and leave it at that, IMO. --[[User:Demon

slave|Demonslave]] 18:55, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Demonslave. While Maiden's lyrics may not be as intelligent as lyrics of bands like Tool, for example, they do have some very intelligent lyrics. Let's take Revelations, written by Bruce Dickinson. The lyrics are mindblowingly intelligent. This is part of an interview I found on maidenfans.com

Oh yes, absolutely. So the song is in three parts. The first one is made of the first verses from this hymn, and I chose it because there is something visionary in these verses. They were written about a century ago (Note: see text on the cover sleeve of Piece of Mind), and they describe exactly what's happening nowadays. A lot of money goes around in our society, and the more money you have, the more miserable you are, in fact. The last verse, "Take away our pride", is the centre of the whole mystical universe. The main obstacle to communication and fulfilment is selfishness and a misplaced self-esteem, and these things divide the men. The next two verses are a reference to hindu philosophy. "Just a babe in a black abyss" is an allusion to Aleister Crowley, the word "babe" refers to the human being, and "black abyss" refers to a desperate world. "No raison for a place like this" shows the nonsense of man's existence on earth if hope is no more. The second sentence in the second verse mentions the "secret of the hanged man". In popular hindu imagery, the hanged man signifies to "good luck". This is why the hanged man has a "smile on his lips", and this is basically the secret of the hanged man. Then, we get to the third verse. The most important sentence is"The venom that tears my spine". Have you ever heard of the significance of the Hindu snake called "Kundalini" in the Yogi mythology?

No.

In Yoga, there's a snake called Kundalini who is supposed to live at the bottom of the spine of each individual. During orgasm or an intense meditation, a spiritual entity called "Samadhi" is created, symbolising the transcendental union with God. Then the Kundalini is freed and goes up the spine all the way to the brain, where it releases its venom. The mixing of the venom with the brain substance create a union with God. Next verse, "The eyes of the Nile are opening", imply that a whole universe of possibilities is opening as soon as the venom is released inside of you.

So the snake has a constructive value.

Yes, absolutely. In the Bible, it's a representation of evil, whereas in Hindu philosophy, it's the symbol of creation and ecstasy. In the next verse, there's the expression "Serpent' Kiss", something Crowley discussed in length. Then, there's "The Eye of the Sun". The Sun is the symbol of the creator; it represents the male side of life. A bit further, there's the female side appearing in the term "Moonlight", where the Moon represents the woman. The verse goes, "Moonlight catches silver tears I cry"; and everything's revealed, because silver is the colour of the Sun. So, you find here the universe, with the male entity and the female entity, both being inseparable. In fact, the universe, as seen in this philosophy, is dual, binary, and any notion only exists through its opposite. In other words, there isn't any manichean separation like in the Christian way of thinking, where good and evil are dissociated while trying to eliminate evil, only the Christian system of values is monolithic. All the other great philosophies encompass this duality of notions, like the Ying and the Yang in China, or the Jewish Caballah. Well, you know, you have to be careful with all these notions because it's all very complicated.

I suppose that you gather many documents long before you start writing lyrics like 'Revelations'?

Oh, yes. I have a large library with all the main works concerning human mystic.

Don't you think that it's somehow a shame that the audience doesn't always understand what you're singing about, as the meaning is apparently only understood by very few?

No, I think that as long as there is some mental energy coming out, there's nothing to regret. Here, I'm explaining everything in detail, but if only a fraction of the lyrics stands out and touch some people, then I think I won't have wasted my time. You can't convince everyone because many notions that are not used are in fact unknown by the majority of people. What's interesting with this song is that you can take only one verse and you can reconstruct a whole new text, make a brand-new song.

And he only discussed part of the song. User:Malmsteen Maiden

External Links Funny Business

Whoever is adding the multiple links to maidenfans dot com, please stop. One link to the site is good enough. I'm sick of editing duplicate entries out every day now only to see them return. It's worse on the Bruce Dickinson page (which I explained in the talk section) (where I had to do the same thing remove duplicate links) where a user(s) were adding duplicate links to maidenfans dot com after I'd remove them over and over and now some user has been clearing the entire External Links section on the Bruce Dickinson page, which is very childish. If the vandalism continues on the Bruce page, and if the constant edits to include the duplicate links continue here on the Iron Maiden band page I will consult an admin to ban these offending IP addresses. The abuse will stop now. --Demonslave 18:37, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Discography

The previously Featured Article for the Beatles has a separate page for the discography, I personally prefer this way of doing things, it'll clean up the main article, and on the discography page, singles etc could be included. Agree / disagree? --PopUpPirate 21:03, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I'm also planning on doing this on the Megadeth page, and splitting the "Band who have covered..." section off from here. IainP (talk) 22:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

There was already a discography page, so I've merged the information (think there were one or to items not on each page) and reorganised it slightly. Removed the details from this main page and added a link to "See Also" IainP (talk) 14:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Major errors?

As I was working with the Norwegian version of the article (mostly a translation, really), I think I discovered a few, potentially major, errors. According to the Iron Maiden FAQ (which I sort of maintains, but haven't updated in years), there are some issues which we must resolve;

Soundhouse Tapes

Soundhouse Tapes wasn't recorded on New Year's Eve 1978, but the day before, ie. December 30th. According to the FAQ:

"The first 4 songs EP was recorded at Spacewood Studios in Cambridge, England. The songs were: Prowler, Invasion, Iron Maiden and Strange World. Once the band returned with more money to remix, etc., the studio had wiped the master clean, so the demo tape (which eventually became the Soundhouse Tapes) was put onto vinyl exactly as it was recorded that night. It cost them about $400 or so. They didn't even have a place to stay, and actually had to stay in the back of their van!"

This I believe to be true - the above quotation is from the 12 Wasted Years vid --PopUpPirate 00:07, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Paul Di'Annos debut with Iron Maiden (on stage, presumably) was on New Year's Eve, however;

"Paul Di'Anno's debut with Iron Maiden, at the Ruskin Arms, High Street North, Manor Park, East London, England."

In addition, Soundhouse Tapes was released on November 9th 1979, and in 5,000 copies, not 500 as stated in the Iron Maiden article.

"The Soundhouse Tapes EP was officially released (unmixed) on Rock Hard Records (Iron Maiden's own label). Only 5,000 copies were ever made."

According to the Best of the Beast sleeve, it was released November 10th 1979. Hmm. I guess the FAQ is wrong about that one, then...? --Toreau 00:27, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

EMI

The band signed with EMI on October 24th 1979, although the deal wasn't official until December 15th the same year;

"Iron Maiden first signs with EMI records. Paul Di'Anno of Chingford (London), David Michael Murray of Clapton (London), Steve Harris of Leytonstone (London), Doug Sampson of Walthamstow (London) and Tony Parsons of Hertfordshire. The official announcement was made in December the same year."

"Official announcement of Iron Maiden signing with EMI (in the trade bible Music Week). The actual signing was done back in October, though."

Band members, and when they were members

I need to take a better look at this one and get back to you, but I'm not quite sure if the years are quite correct for all of them. No wonder, though, as the article surely states "a ridiculous number of band members throughout the 1970s". :)

--Toreau 23:44, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Dammit, they released a full family tree with a release, wonder if I've still got it? Can't remember what it came with! --PopUpPirate 00:08, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

You're right. Sadly, I can't remember it either. Could it be in the double-CD version of Best of the Beast? I have only the single-CD at hand right now. --Toreau 00:27, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

No need to remember; Google comes to the rescue! :) --Toreau 00:31, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Damn! It still says that Soundhouse Tapes was recorded on New Year's Eve. I'm almost 100 % certain that it wasn't! --Toreau 00:34, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Tales Of The Beast

Hope you like it, needs work, please be bold and edit it with force! --PopUpPirate 21:50, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to edit/remove several of these sections particularly "In Trouble..." and "Somewhere On Tour." They just don't sound very encyclopedic to me. -- MordredKLB 01:35, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Go for it! If editable, even better! --PopUpPirate 20:04, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Bibliography

I removed the redudant references in the bibliography seeing as how they were 2nd and 3rd editions and two of them didn't have dates. If you think the most recent additions should be listed instead, feel free to go ahead and add those in. Just seemed silly to have 9 listed, but only 3 different books. - MordredKLB 20:56, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

I'm a long time Iron Maiden fan from Norway, and I've also maintained their FAQ. I'm impressed by the work done with this article. I've seen it grown over time, and it's worthy a place on the Wikipedia front page anytime soon. Keep up the good work everyone, and up the irons! --Toreau 00:41, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Seconded! Think we just need references now.

---

Nicely done! This looks great. I use "Wrathchild" as my handle for video games and this article has made me want to go out a buy a couple more of their albums. Al 02:21, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Peer Review / FA

The POV issues raised at Peer Review have now been heavily edited, references have been added, images are fine, ready for FA application methinks! --PopUpPirate 23:21, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Several points...

Under "The Experimentation" it mentions the band using "keyboards" for a second time. SIT's sound is mostly derived from guitar synths - NOT keyboard synths. 7th Son, however, does have a greater use of keyboards. I didn't change the wording of this paragraph yet, but if there's no objections, I recommend we try to re-work that a bit.

"The Decline" - this section mentions the "major loss of guitarist/vocalist Adrian Smith" - Adrian was not really much of a vocalist. He did lead once, on a non-album track. I recommend we consider listing him as a back-up vocalist, or removing the vocalist wording all together. It's sort of unclear in its current state.

"The Rejuvenation" - I think the heading contradicts the text. A rejuvenation that not only met with mixed results, but had the lowest ever selling points and chart positions? What kind of rejuvenation is that? I also see that these headings come from the Iron Maiden Commentary, so perhaps we should re-think some of them to better fit the content that is at Wikipedia. EvilCheeseWedge 18:15, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Totally agree with all the above --PopUpPirate 18:43, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your notes on Decline and Rejuvenation, but I don't know enough to comment on the keyboards. -- MordredKLB 18:44, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try to get some stuff in here later today. I also have to re-do some of my edits and additions that were lost because of the vandalism yesterday. EvilCheeseWedge 13:25, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also, the article makes it looks like "The Experimentation" started with Seventh Son, when it really started with Somewhere in Time. The article talks about Piece of Mind, but doesn't say anything about Powerslave and Somewhere in Time, their two biggest albums at the height of their popularity. For Powerslave, it should say how it is Maiden's most ambitious and perhaps second greatest album, second to only The Number of the Beast. Each member was in top form and the high level of musicianship of this album was undeniable. Many fans to this day consider it to be Maiden's best album ever, containing some of the best material they've ever written, especially the songs most consider to be the stand outs of the album, Aces High, 2 Minutes to Midnight, Powerslave, and Rime of the Ancient Mariner. It should include how Maiden embarked on one of the longest tours in world history, the legendary World Slavery tour, in promotion of the release of Powerslave. Bruce Dickinson's voice was burnt out at the end of the 11.5 month tour, and it is evident on Live After Death, recorded in Long Beach at the end of the World Slavery tour, which is still one of the greatest live metal albums of all time. For Somewhere in Time, it should say how Maiden made a risky move by introduce synths to their sound, which was an idea from guitarist/back up vocalist, Adrian Smith. The synths added texture to their sound, and gave the album a futuristic vibe, which fitted the theme of time. They recieved criticism for adding synths to their sound, after Bruce previously said Maiden would never use synths, and some people accused the album of sounding too poppish because of the synths. But the album was still very successful and went on to become Maiden's highest selling album of the 80s, going double platinum in the United States. It was yet another classic Maiden album, containing classic material, much of which was contributed by Adrian Smith.

This is very relevant information to know about Maiden in the 80s and I feel it must be included in the article. User:Malmsteen Maiden

I agree with pretty much all MM has to say, though if we're adding more to the article we need to be careful of a couple of things.

Point one - the article's getting rather long and may need to be split (perhaps take the discography and "bands who's covered Iron Maiden" into separate articles?). Point two - substantiating statements. While I do agree that Powerslave is one of their best albums, I tend to rank it alongside PoM as the two came out so close together. NotB is superb, but vastly different so I like it as much but on different merits. Dance of Death is also up there with them. As is 7th Son. But those are my opinions.

The point I'm trying to make is that you can't say that "most fans think xxxx" or "one of the greatest albums" etc., as these are opinions and not fact. The article has to be objective and unbiased. Certainly, if a source can be cited (say a recent poll or chart) then yes, definitely go ahead and say these things. Otherwise we run into the danger of the article turning too "fanish" and fawning. Arguments can and will erupt, people will change things because they disagree with statements made and so forth.

Oh, MM - I've added a little link to you below what you've said. Have to say your input is very welcome, so please sign it so we know who it's from :) If you click the little signature icon above the edit window, or enter 3 or 4 tildes, the system will but a sig in for you.

IainP (talk) 09:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

IainP: You made some good points there. This has to stay objective. One source that could be used is digitaldreamdoor's greatest metal albums list, which I happen to be the editor of. Ok, so the criteria may be a bit subjective, but still... ;)

Thanks for the help =) Malmsteen Maiden 18:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Vote

Please see Talk:Iron Maiden#Vote and vote there. Thanks, Redwolf24 8 July 2005 04:35 (UTC)

Well done everyone!

Featured Article.... nice work peeps! --PopUpPirate 19:27, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Congrats and thanks for all your hardwork PopUp. Excellent job getting this one featured. -- MordredKLB 22:46, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

On the front page on 31st August --PopUpPirate 18:55, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Recent News

Apparently the band got SERIOUS jip on the last date of the Ozzfest tour - the sound was turned off several times, they were pelted with eggs, Sharon Osbourne called Bruce a prick (check Google News).

Also on a better note, the band are on the Hall Of Fame, in America, where they have left their handprints in the pavements.

Prob worth adding to the article somehow? --PopUpPirate 23:19, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Why was the rest of my text about Ozzfest removed to focus on Iron Maiden's last performance at Ozzfest? Couldn't it have just been added? --EvilCheeseWedge 19:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry - just trying to keep it of similar length to what it was before, by all means add it back --PopUpPirate 21:23, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

No problem, I was just wondering why. I have added most of the information back. Currently, there are two paragraphs about Ozzfest. Feel free to change that, I thought it just made things a little clearer, but do what you will. Also, should we link to the official statements from Iron Maiden and Sharon Osbourne in regards to "the incident"? --EvilCheeseWedge 22:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

A short sentence would be fine, so as not to dwell on current events too much - I had a go at adding them but the links seem to be live, ie, they will point to something else in a few days time? Currently thinking of what to have on my Reading T-shirt, it was going to be "Scream For Me Reading" but after the events of the past couple of days I'm taking inspiration from the IMBB! --PopUpPirate 22:36, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I just was watching a recent episode of Headbanger's Ball on MTV2, and they had a roundtable discussion with a group of metalheads who all work at MTV to decide on a list of the top 10 metal bands. Maiden came in at #4! This should get added at some point. There's something about it over at MTVnews I believe, but I don't have time right now to go investigate. So if anyone feels like it...! --Yuletide 20:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hall of Fame

I vaguely remember hearing something about them getting added to some hall of fame. Anyone know about this? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Added a bit, plus link. --PopUpPirate 10:30, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Grammar Note

• Be sure to refer to the band itself in the singular, e.g. "Iron Maiden has…" and not "Iron Maiden have…" (If one were to say, "The members of Iron Maiden have," it would be correct, but a band itself is technically a single thing.)

The "Iron maiden are a band from London" looks wrong to me too, but reading Raul's revert comment "this article consistently refers to them in the british style plural; while it grates on my ears, at least it's consistent", I believe we should stick to the plural form. But I'm sure there'll be many well-meaning people going to change this while it's featured on the main-page. Shanes 01:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

There go the English, screwing up the language again. Sorry, I didn't see any "revert comment;" I'm not really versed in the whole Wikipedia thing.

It finally got to me, so I made the switch. I think I got everything. →Raul654 01:54, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Tsk! I am so going to change this back to the plural, but don't worry, I'll wait until it's off the main page. British heavy metal band = British grammar in international encyclopedia. sjorford (?!) 18:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

• Titles of longer works, such as articles, short stories, or in this case songs are meant to be surrounded by quotation marks, not italicized. On the other hand, titles of longer works, such as magazines, anthologies, or in this case albums are meant to be italicized and not surrounded by quotation marks.

Do these lines belong in this article?

From "The Next Level" section: A group of Christian activists decided that the band's records (along with those of Ozzy Osbourne) should be destroyed - resulting in a mountain of vinyl records being burnt in a large fire. Pandemonium ensued when the activists were forced to flee the resultant fumes. It was then decided that smashing the records with hammers would be a better way to dispose of them. --Ccoll 03:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

FFS, do these people have nothing better to do..... very tiresome! --PopUpPirate 23:35, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

No. Obviously they don't. Tossers. IainP (talk) 12:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Former Members

Please see my comments on Iron Maiden band members page. Seems unnecessary to me to duplicate this info and also to have seperate wiki pages (in most cases just links) for the non-notable early members. Perhaps the detailed history should be cut down from this page, or the other page deleted? Could argue the same for the discography, but I won't :) --kingboyk 21:01, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Lucozade Advert

The article states that Linford Christie was featured in the Lucozade ad which used Phantom of the Opera. I definitely remember the advert featuring this track as being with Daley Thompson - but have a vague feeling that the Linford Christie version could have been a follow-up - so don't want to edit him out. Can anyone verify?

I swear when I read the article a while ago it said Daley Thompson, which I definitely remember. I certainly have no recollection whatsoever of Linford Christie in any Lucozade advert, let alone one featuring Maiden IainP (talk) 12:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The piece on the Lucozade advert was put in by myself. I said it was Linford Christie as I certainly remember him doing this advert. I was going to edit it back but saw your explanation. If it can be verified that LC also did the ad, then we should put both names in!

Eddie on all sleeves?

Someone recently changed the fact that Eddie was on "most" album/single sleeves to "all" (sorry, forgotten who). Is this accurate? While I'm not banging my head off a wall trying to recall which they could be, I'm sure I've seen (very very rare) covers without him in some form or other. I'm prepared to accept the thing on the front of Fear Of The Dark as Eddie! However... Virtual XI (which I thought I had, but can't find - no great loss)? I cant picture the cover at all. I'm at work at the moment so I can't look! IainP (talk) 12:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's Eddie on the cover of VXI. The only covers I can recall that don't have Eddie are the Running Free single (from Live After Death), Wasting Love single, From Here to Eternity single, and The Essential Iron Maiden. Malmsteen Maiden 19:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Um - Running free does have Eddie - he is the shadow on the wall - the figure is running away from him presumebly. picky ;-)

A-ha. So it's not "all" then? I'll change it back. Thanks for that. IainP (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Found another one - the Wicker Man single, which is the image actually used at the top of the article! IainP (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes last time I checked, Eddie was on "most" of the sleeves, not all though. So no, I don't belive it is "on all sleeves" as the misinformed user put. TearAwayTheFunerealDress 15:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Eddie is also absent from the Wildest Dreams DVD single cover & the original Live at Donington 1992.

Eddie is also not on the cover of the Soundhouse Tapes, nor Live!! + One. - GurTheFred

The only one Eddie isn't on is the Running Free single from Live After Death, which is just a picture of Bruce & Steve live.

Also, on the original cover of "Live at Donnington" Eddie is not on it (not sure if that's him on the new cover, but I think it is). Dan 14:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Umphrey's McGee

This is a very popular heavy jam band from the United States that is hugely into Iron Maiden, and they deserve to be mentioned in the introduction to show how far-reaching Iron Maiden's influence is.

Why don't we just list all bands that IM have influenced? All 300,000 of them :p Grymsqueaker

Bands influenced by Maiden

Does anyone else think this list (paragraph three of the main article) is just getting a bit unwieldy? I'm all for trimming it right down, or reducing it to "Maiden have influenced many bands in many rock and metal genres" and dropping the examples. Thoughts? IainP (talk) 08:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, nobody said "no", so I pared it off. The list just seemed like an invitation for someone else to come along and say "oh, they've not mentioned Xxxx Xxxxx who play Zzzzz Zzzzz Metal" and then add yet another one. If we really must have a list of bands who've cited Maiden as an influence, then I think it makes more sense to have it as a separate paragraph. However, as there are so damn many of them, I really doubt the use of it at all. IainP (talk) 12:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Bands who have covered Iron Maiden songs

Another suggestion. The page length is getting excessing (check the warning when you edit the main page). Would it make sense to consider splitting this ever-growing list off onto a page of its own and adding an "also see" link? IainP (talk) 12:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me Spearhead 13:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

If there are no arguments, I'll give it till Jan 1st and split into two articles then. That seems a fair length of time for objections. Similarly, it may be an idea to move the Discography off as well, again for size reasons. It's large enough to carry itself as a separate article, too. IainP (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Also add:

• Halford - Strange World (live)
• Kamelot - Flight of Icarus

I wish I still had the MP3 of Halford doing Strange World ='( Malmsteen Maiden 06:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I've added these to the Bands that have covered Iron Maiden page IainP (talk) 10:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey IainP,damn you! It seem you have deleted bands that have covered Iron Maiden page,i cant find it! brucethegreat

Children of Bodom didn't cover Fear of the Dark, they covered Aces High.

---

New Cover Artists/Songs found:

• Eternal Tears Of Sorrow - Flight Of Icarus
• Cradle Of Filth - The Trooper, Funeral In Carpathia ("Be Quick Or Be Dead" version), Fear Of The Dark
• Coheed & Cambria - The Trooper
• Children Of Bodom - Fear Of The Dark
• Helloween - Wasted Years
• Pantera - Killers
• Iced Earth - The Trooper (live)
• Metallica - Remember Tomorrow
• Angra - Wasted Years (unplugged)
• Dream Theater - The Trooper (live)
• Blind Guardian - Fear Of The Dark
• delete the songs in this list after verification!*
• Add any new ones you find here for verification by others!
• updated Jan 1 2006

---

This section has now been moved to a page of its own (Bands that have covered Iron Maiden) and I've also moved some of the above discussion to it

Hey IainP,damn you!

It seem you have deleted bands that have covered Iron Maiden page,i cant find it! brucethegreat

The Clansman

Was linked to a piece of literature about the KKK, so I unlinked it. I don't know if linking it to the Braveheart movie, or William Wallace, is a good idea, as the lyrics aren't very specific to history at all (You could interpret it as a rival Scottish clan attacking the singer's clan if you want, or a Viking invasion). Maybe another example song of their lyrical topics should be used instead.--86.130.153.125 22:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

iPod evidence

Can anyone show me evidence for this, and perhaps add a link to a website to the article?

I have had a quick google, and have found no evidence whatsoever of this - it seems like a very unlikely combination as Iron Maiden aren't generally the type of band apple generally approach 83.217.190.71 12:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I've had a quick look myself, and found the following story. Not directly related, but the name of the shop owner's a bit of a coincidence! www.engadget.com IainP (talk) 12:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Out Of The Silent Planet

Where the article names songs about England's Folklore, shoundn't Out Of The Silent Planet be mentioned? It's based on C.S. Lewis' book, Bruce Dickinson said so himself on an interview (I can't find any official info to prove this right now)

Also, the article mentions a DVD, Death on the Road, to be released before the end of 2005. I think it should be edited for something like "was announced to be released by the end of 2005" or something

PS: sorry if there are any mistakes but this is my first page editing :$

Tharos 23:40, 08 January 2006 (UTC)

Your editing's fine, and discussion is always a good place to start before altering a page :) I've updated both (and mentioned "To Tame A Land"). As an aside, would it make sense to maybe have a separate paragraph detailing the influences on Maiden lyrics? There are quite a few (historical events, culture, books, films) and only a couple are dealt with in depth within the article. IainP (talk) 08:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

bruce dickenson

its truly amazing how the whole article was writen and then in the discuion section about members to have someone put in nico mc brain and dave murrys real names and leave out bruce dickensons original name yes thats right its not bruce its paul , paul dickenson he uses bruce to make it harder for fans to find his personal details (whoops) but unfortunately he admited this fact in an old isue of kerrang magazine (uk) circa 1990

Link or it's BS. Grymsqueaker 10:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

According to the biography, his name is Paul Bruce Dickinson, but he goes by his middle name for no other reason than why anyone else goes by their middle name. It's not designed to through anyone off his scent or anything. -Bauulben 17:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Satanism or Anti-christianity in Iron Maiden?

I've been told that Iron Maiden have something related to satanism. Not refered to any of their songs, like Number of the Beast, but that they practise it or that they have sold their souls. Is this true? If it is, is there any proof? Thanks in advance.

I don't have any references to hand, but from bits and bobs of interviews I've read in the past, the band's overall response to questions along those lines is "bullsh*t". "NotB" decries Satanism, "Holy Smoke" doesn't attack religion so much as the idiot televangelists who take advantage of it and so on. IainP (talk) 12:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, drummer Nicko McBrain is a born-again Christian and the song "Alexander the Great" includes the line (refering to Alexander) "He paved the way for Christianity". So there you have it, various fanatics and their over-the-top theories like "Heavy Metal is satanic"... -Voievod 00:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Did the above person really just ask if they sold theit souls? Ha! Wikipedia can be a funny read at times.

Sharon Osbourne incident

I actually agree with the anonymous user who's axed a lot of the text regarding this incident. Yes, it's notable but it had as much written about it as some of the really major items. I'd recommend if anyone reckons it really is that major an incident to write the entire thing up in full and shove it in a separate article linked from this one. As it stood, it drew attention far more than it really deserved.

IainP (talk) 12:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed --PopUpPirate 12:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Fear of the Dark used in a movie?

I remember hearing a rumor that Fear of the Dark was used in a Horror flick. I couldn't find much on this anywhere. I think it may have been one in the Nightmare on Elm street series of movies. If evidence can be found for this, it should be added to the Popular culture area.

Reply : Bring Your Daughter To The Slaughter was in Nightmare on Elm Street 5 (apparently). --PopUpPirate 11:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Damn, beat me to it. I agree with "apparently" though, as I've seen the film and I don't recall hearing the song in it. Also, I don't think it's on the soundtrack album. It may have been written for the film but not used? IainP (talk) 12:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Crap I just relized this, sorry. AidanPryde 17:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Maiden tour in Romania ?

I don't remember, but did Iron Maiden ever have a concert in Romania ? I know that they even had one in Iceland during their Death on the Road tour, but I don't think they've ever visited Romania. Does anyone have any info to prove this ? -Voievod 00:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I looked on maidenfans.com and I didn't see any dates for Romania in the 80s... Malmsteen Maiden 22:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

They were in Romania in `95 with Blaze. They opened with something like "Hello Budapest!" and were boo-ed by the entire audience. :) - DarkBard 09:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ouch, that was clumsy ! X-D -Voievod 20:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Haha, I'm guessing they meant Bucharest not Budapest? That's funny... JanderVK (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

On a more positive note...

"On a more positive note, actor Patrick McGoohan was very accommodating when[...]" "On a more positive note" is probably not necessary. Seems a bit POVish, and not like an encyclopaedia.

Tenebrae (film)

hi, you might be interested to know that the above article about the early-80s Dario Argento horror film is currently a featured article candidate. as the editors of this article know what it takes to become featured, and argento's relationship with maiden is strong (e.g. Phenomena (film)), it would be interesting to have your opinions. please vote "support" or "object" with your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tenebrae (film). thx. Zzzzz 11:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

the article is now featured!! thx. Zzzzz 18:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Iron Maiden in popular culture

Just comparing with other FA and GA articles. If they include an "in popular culture" section or "trivia" section they are usually located near the end of the article. This one sticks it before the actual music and band personnel??? Any objections to sliding it down between "members" and "bibliography". Just seems to make sense that the musicians list should be a little more important than Bill & Ted saying EXCELLENT when they hear the words, Iron Maiden. Any thoughts? Anger22 00:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

iron maiden artwork

i think that there should be more pictures of the artwork used by iron maiden on the albbum covers etc. it was amazing.

Satanism

[OT] main genre heavy metal?? ahahah ridicolous...a band who made 2 nwobhm albums, and less than 10 rock/hard rock... well maybe would be an HEAVY metal band for metal hammer or metal shock...certainly not for who knows WHAT METAL IS [or maybe WAS] (nowadays...like...4/5 men in the world :) [/OT] However, Iron Maiden were said to be satanists (or simply crowley-affiliates) for the symbols on their albums (egyptians, crowleysts...) or the 666 (like on the 20-years collections) who are well-visibles and very numerous (however, i don't really think they're satanists)... --necronudist 14:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It's already been disscussed :) It's BS. Grymsqueaker 10:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Maiden are as quintessential 'heavy metal' as you can get, what are you on about? The genre of 'heavy metal' is specific, it doesn't relate to all the other genres of metal like thrash or black, which is what I think you're getting mixed up with. -Bauulben 18:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, seriously. What are you rambling on about? Iron Maiden is about as pure as you can get when it comes to Heavy Metal. As for their use of Egyptian and Crowley references, what does that have anything to do with Satanism? JanderVK (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Discography section of the article..

Steph11 has now added album pictures and live albums to the discography section of the article. Is this really necessary? I think a list of studio albums is enough, and that the pictures only clutter up the section really badly. What are your thoughts? -Zee 01:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely on the aesthetics. Inclusion of album covers, not accompanied by critical commentary, also does not qualify as fair use. ×Meegs 02:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Especially with all of the images present on Iron Maiden discography (again, on dubious legal footing) there is no reason to waste space here. ×Meegs 02:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Album covers & Timeline

I like being able to see the different album covers on the main page. Many other band entries use this feature and I think it works well, especially with a band like Maiden, whose albums are so highly identified with the artwork.

However, the timeline table, which is great, should NOT contain Smiler and Gypsys Kiss lineups. These were totally different bands and are separate from Iron Maiden, which began in December 1975 with Paul Day, Terry Rance, Dave Sullivan, and Ron Mathhews. - Onlyslighted

Great Article

Not really a discussion, just an exclamation that this article is a credit to all involved. The Eddie page could maybe do with a bit more ie how he is used on stage like the giant eddie at reading and why it is he seems to attack janick so much but not other members, is there anything in that?

I had added the BPI certification and Finland certifications of maiden albums abt a month back. Glad to the German certification. Hope someone could add the Japanese and Brazilian certifications details as well Will231982 15:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)will231982

A Classic Maiden Photo??

Anyone else think that a Maiden photo circa 1982-88 or some such would be more appropriate? I'm not saying that IM should only be associated with their past glories, but Air-Raid Dickenson with spiked armbands, hair to his waist, bathed in red light, and his foot propped up on a monitor declaiming to an arena full of screaming head bangers is how we all remember him, and the band. It can't be a copyright problem, they released lots of publicity photos and fair-use gives pretty wide leeway when using photos for things like a wiki. Besides, the current photo is a publicity shot. So how about it? Can't we do better?

Sorry... forgot to sign. It's Morgaledth 20:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC). Now, a photo??

Much more appropriate for what? Where will it be used? -Zee 00:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

So, why does Iron Maiden keep being removed as a NWoBHM band?

I even followed the edit summaries by the people who did this and I'm still blurred. Why are you removing it? — Zee 01:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I have not removed it - but suggested it was from the first line - see my point in general "I would like to suggest rewording the first line. To "Iron Maiden is a British Heavy Metal band from East London........." - so I don't repeate here.. - User:Leyasu while blocked using an anon

Because there is a principal of not listing cross-genre-terms in infoboxes. The only time it should be done if there is a specific part of the Infobox such as 'Other Genres/Scenes'. - User:Leyasu while blocked using an anon

Where can I view this said principal? By the way, please sign your comments. — Zee 15:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

There was a long discussion on the talk page about it and similar changes to how things were done after the Nightwish article went through Featured Article at WP:HMM. - User:Leyasu while blocked using an anon

That doesn't answer my question. — Zee 16:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

On the talk page of WP:HMM. Cant answer your question anymore bluntly. - User:Leyasu while blocked using an anon

I'm not gonna search through all that text. If it's an official policy (of sorts) it should be in the main article. - Zee 16:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

A user who has been blocked from editing this article (Leyasu) is removing it with anons while blocked. He is doing this after a debate regarding NWOBHM which is a style that differentiates from standard Heavy metal, thus he has taken it upon himself to remove any NWOBHM references from any band articles; Iron Maiden for example.

You are indeed correct User:Prodigenous Zee that they are a NWOBHM band, also WP:HMM is far from "offical policy", its an unoffial fan group on Wikipedia for people who like some form of metal. - Deathrocker 16:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

---

This is difficult to follow as it seems to be a discussion amongst one person. I'd like to point out when Iron Maiden went through WP:FAC it only had Heavy Metal listed as genre. All the ones that have been added very recently make the article look messy. There is no point in listing every possible genre Iron Maiden could be in..... or have influenced in the case of one. Heavy Metal is a big enough umbrella to encompass it all, including a number of changes to Iron Maiden's sound over time (There has been some changes unsurprisingly).

I also think it's a mistake to list Iron Maiden primarily as the "New Wave of British Heavy Metal" as it could easily confuse readers who don't know much about Iron Maiden into thinking they're some sort of new group, or a group that's only just "made it big". The New Wave was quite a while ago, and it's mentioned later in the article in more detail. Clearly something applying to Iron Maiden in the 70s shouldn't hold as much prominence now.

I'm restoring the genre and the first sentence to what was arguably a state, which had a clear Consensus in the community. It was approved as a Featured Article where it kept things simple and didn't list every possible genre in a summary box. The current situation doesn't hold a consensus. Claiming he/she is wrong just because he's banned for some reason is just a plain argumentum ad hominem anyway. Agent Blightsoot 17:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm certainly happy. Good work. :) - Zee 17:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think perhaps have "heavy metal" in the opening line and then NWOBHM in the info box as well, as if the reader clicks on the "NWOBHM" link it explains what that genre is..

In actuality the band are not just a "heavy metal" band. The NWOBHM bands had alot of punk influences in their music not present in traditional heavy metal (Deep Purple, Black Sabbath, et all)... Iron Maiden played NWOBHM not just standard Heavy Metal.

NWOBHM should be documented in Iron Maiden's article, just as Glam Metal is in the Poison article, and Thrash Metal is in the Slayer article.

I don't think the articles factuality should be compromised just because a user who is indefinetly blocked from editing this article is using an anon to evade such a ban, prior to a debate about NWOBHM on another article, the user had no interest in editing this article. - Deathrocker 19:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I can agree to Deathrocker's reasoning. IM are one of the definitive NWOBHM bands. I also hope that blocked user Leyassu will refrain from altering any more articles until the ban is over. 156.34.142.158 19:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The "factuality" isn't compromised as that era (Which isn't applicable to the modern group) is mentioned in detail in the article. Summary boxes should be kept simple is my argument (Read my point of view again). Keeping a banned user happy is a side effect, not a means for change. My edits have consensus by FA vote, yours do not. As a result, I'm reverting. Put this up at WP:RFC if you disagree. Agent Blightsoot 23:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

How is it no longer applicable?... Duran Duran are still considered a New Wave band despite the fact that they're not "New" anymore.

The genre debate which you propose does not have "consensus", as the previous FA votes on the article were in regards to it becoming a featured article, it was not in discussion of the bands genre. Regardless of the fact that Wikipedia is not a democracy anyway, consensus is held by me so far on this discussion page, as the user above you "agreed" with my version, and it was the previous long-standing genre before the article was defaced by a banned user.[1]

Now, If you feel the term no-longer applies to the group, then please provide a source for the claim. And if it turns out you can somehow verifiably source this then it should still contain "NWOBHM" in the box along with the years from which the term was applicable, as that is the genre of their most notable records.

As already explained to you, the group do not play and have never played just standard “heavy metal“; the group have a influences from punk music, which were not present in standard heavy metal bands such as Black Sabbath, Deep Purple and Led Zeppelin for example.

The genre term NWOBHM is still used in 2006 in relation and to promote (in festivals & shows) bands who played music in that specific style during the late 70s to 80s, a style which Iron Maiden play, regardless of the fact that they are no longer “new“. [2] Thus it is still applicable and I will add NWOBHM back in with a source.

(and several reserves if needed; [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]

[20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30], etc, etc, etc) - Deathrocker 00:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Amazing, you searched google for Iron Maiden and New Wave of British Heavy Metal. This is soooo exciting!

Firstly, you've misunderstood my point of view. Its logically no longer applicable in the sense that people don't go around saying "The New Wave Music Group Iron Maiden are bringing out a new album" (As an example). They're normally mentioned in the media and sources with something like: "The British Heavy Metal band Iron Maiden are bringing out a new album". I am big Iron Maiden fan, and I know full well that they came onto the scene in the New Wave of British Heavy Metal. But the term isn't used as often anymore than when it was at the time of the wave. Maiden are normally just referenced as a British Heavy Metal band. I've been to see Maiden 12 times over the years. I've never seen the "NWoBHM" references in any prominence. The rare mention that they came with the New Wave of British Heavy Metal is sometimes thrown in as a fact by article writers now and then, but they're clearly referenced as British Heavy Metal more than anything else. I'd use their recent appearance at the Reading Festival to highlight this.

I will also point out that if you were to go by consensus on this talk page you'd find that someone agrees with me also and so the consensus is tied. However even with your claimed consensus was accurate, you would have no merit to revert my changes as it would be the fifth revert in 24 hours, on one article over one content dispute. (I don't see how you can conclusively prove that some of these edits are from "banned users", especially as one of the IPs seems to be totally unrelated anonymous observer).

Thirdly, you haven't answered my point of view that a summary box should be a summary and that the article should go into more detail on influences and other genre issues in the article.

The community did not highlight the fact that it didn't have "NWoBHM" in the genre part of the summary box as a problem, when their New Wave routes are clearly referenced and talked about in detail in the article. Arguably that shows that there is a consensus for the article to talk about them as New Wave in the article, with the basic summary remaining just that. A basic summary.

It is patently obvious that this is just another of your attempts to battle it out with User:Leyasu over Metal articles, involving genre disputes. It is obvious to anybody that a summary box should contain a summary. For example articles on Countries inform the reader of the capital city of that country, not every city in the country.....that of course is for the detail of the article itself. To do otherwise would be messy (Which is what it looks now). Agent Blightsoot 20:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

" But the term isn't used as often anymore than when it was at the time of the wave. "

I've provided diffs to show that the term is still used to reffer to the bands from that subgenre; This is an encyclopedia, not a cutting edge music fashion magazine. The style of music the group play is known as NWOBHM and adhers to those characteristics, I've provided you plenty of diffs to show that the band are reffered to as a NWOBHM band, and that the term is still in wide use (you do realise, the term is older than the internet and yet on Google it returns over 4 millions results). Iron Maiden were one of the most prominent bands in that well established movement, Ive sourced this information its not just opinion.

If you are going to act with such an immense lack of etiquette, with immature statements such as "Amazing, you searched google for Iron Maiden and New Wave of British Heavy Metal. This is soooo exciting!", I'll wait until you apply yourself to WP:CIVIL before taking you seriously.

I used the diffs for a reason; WP:CITE, which is part of wikipedia policy, you did not. Your claim is purely unfounded and based off a presumtious opinion, I can source what I claim 348,000 times over if required.

I haven't even removed your edit which claims the band is just heavy metal, (factually incorrect) which If I wanted to push for that's removal I could, with diffs provided as to why. Though I've attempted to meet you (who strangely seem to be in support of a blocked user who is vandalising many of the metal articles while blocked, without any substatial foundation.) in the middle, while having both standard heavy metal and NWOBHM in the infobox.

For your information I am a fan of Iron Maiden, hense why I am aware of their history, you are in violation of assume good faith by presuming I'm here to argue with a blocked user; the user is blocked for 3 months, thus making it an impossibility to argue with him as he is not even allowed to edit Wikipedia at the moment.

Mötley Crüe has mention of "Glam metal" in their infobox. Metallica have thrash metal mentoned in theres, Iron Maiden can sure as hell have NWOBHM in theres, its common practice to have mention of both the wider blanket term which thety fall under and the spercific style that they play. Especially on metal related articles. Please do not removed such heavily sourced sourced info without good reason, thank you. - Deathrocker 22:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

"I've provided you plenty of diffs to show that the band are reffered to as a NWOBHM band, and that the term is still in wide use"

Websites on “NWOBHM” showing Iron Maiden as being part of that now mostly defunct era is not surprising.

Considering you found it fitting to ignore my actual position completely, I’ll be as “uncivil” as I like. Your whole argument revolves around them being part of the New Wave when that’s not what I’m arguing against. I’m arguing against more than the basics being in the summary box because the detail is clearly discussed in the article.

Am I not assuming good faith and being uncivil by suggesting that you’re heavily involved in battling to remove the edits of a particular banned user? No. Your edit summaries and your comments show that this is the case. You’ve only become interested in the box since the “banned user” decided to edit it.

“Please do not removed such heavily sourced sourced info without good reason, thank you.” I’m going to give that line the response it deserves: none.

“For your information I am a fan of Iron Maiden, hense why I am aware of their history,” If you were to read my previous comments carefully, I said the exact same thing.

I really don’t have time to have continually argue over while you continue to set up the “straw man”. Agent Blightsoot 13:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

A Matter of Life and Death

I've added a page for the new Maiden album, "A Matter of Life and Death". The details were announced today to members of the Iron Maiden Online Club. - GurTheFred

SSX On Tour

Run to the Hills was featured in SSX On Tour as one of the EA Sports Trax.-- User:Kathywimmer

Not to be rude but, so? It's already in the article. — Prodigenous Zee - 01:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

PROGRESSIVE METAL?!

i've added the genre progressive metal under genre as i feel it needs a mention, especially as NWoBHM gets a mention, as their two most recent releases are unarguably very progressive feel free to remove it if ye don't agree =)

Already did. You should take a look at the big argument up there. — Prodigenous Zee - 01:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Power Metal

i don't doubt that you think it's Progressive Metal. but this linktells me that Iron Maiden is the greatest Power Metal band (it also shows the greatest Progressive Metal bands). the selection for the best Power Metal and Progressive Metal bands are done by pro's. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wrathteen (talk • contribs) 02:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Heads up, guys. Vandalized Section.

The section titled "The Next Level" has been vandalized. My experience with Wikipedia is limited, so can someone else revert the changes?

To the joker: I appreciate the humor of "candy bar abuse", but keep it off the Iron Maiden page.

64.237.149.157 04:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Error with Rock in Rio Page.

As I was reading through the page on Rock in Rio, I was confused by this paragraph... "A widely known event occurred during the song "Revelations", when lead singer Bruce Dickinson, playing the guitar, threw his instrument up in the air which proceeded hit him on the forehead, opening a deep cut and soaking his face with blood. Dickinson went on as if nothing had happened." To my knowledge, Dickinson has never played the guitar. The paragraph even mentions him as the lead singer. I have checked Iron Maiden's website and it mentions nothing of Bruce playing the guitar. Any awnsers?

I heard that he briefly played guitar at a few concerts. Dunno how true that is. --81.111.217.235 02:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the part where his face got soaked with blood, but what is true is that Dickinson can play the guitar. In fact he is an accomplished drummer and guitarist. — Prodigenous Zee - 07:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes Dickinson can play guitar (he can also play a bit on the drums apparently), but Revelations was not performed at Rock In Rio, and Bruce did not play guitar on any songs in Rock In Rio. He has played guitar on a tour once or twice, and usually he has played the song Revelations.

On The Early Days DVD during the Piece of Mind tour you can see him play guitar during Revalations.

The Sharon Osbourne Incident

Could someone please explain what they think really happened at that festival, becasue I read the article and then in this discussion someone mentioned it being axed. Explain please.

Heavy Cleaning

Sorry boys, but I had to do a heavy cleaning, deleting "trivias" like the Dune incident, the dialogue with the Prisoner's writer, detailed news, and specially the chapter about the Ozzfest incident (How come a MINOR THING in Maiden's history have so much as space as, say, the "Golden Age" of Iron Maiden?? This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA, not a NEWS PAGE!!! 201.19.164.12 14:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Instead of removing stuff and complaining about the lack of info, why don't you add the new info in and leaving what's already in there? — Prodigenous Zee - 01:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm not complaining about lack of info. IMHO there's too much info, and I really think that copy/ pasting news pages really is totally out of Wikipedia standards. If people want to know more about Ozzfest's incident (e.g., who said what), I think that a link should be put or something, but not dedicate an whole section for it, like it was something that affected totally the band's history. I really didn't want to add more info, I think that most people are doing this job quite well. But I think that a bit of ORDER and CRITERIA should be essential to what to add and what not to add. Else it will be just a pile of information.201.19.176.32 03:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Btw I'm removing the stuff again. I was going to add the Prisoner stuff, the Ozzfest stuff to "Trivia" but seems that "Trivia" is more related to Maiden in pop culture, what's the suggestion?201.19.176.32 03:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Mine is to just leave it all there. It's not hurting that these bits of info are left in the article. — Prodigenous Zee - 16:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The Ozzfest incident did affect the band, hence the song "These Colours Don't Run" and it doesn't do any harm in it being there, if people don't want to read about it then they won't but it was a very controversial event in Maiden's history Redcoat-Mic

Well seems that organization of info isn't you guys' best feature. Well at least let me remove the quotes. An encyclopedia, let me repeat again, is not a news page, and the info should be even more objective than in news.201.19.137.96 11:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Btw, who said that "These Colors don't run" are based on the incident? the lyrics have NOTHING to do with the incident, are about war.201.19.160.163 18:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Nicko said the title of the song was inspired by Bruce's on stage ranting. It's online somewhere...if you bother you can find him in the interview. And I agree with the opinion that removing information is not the answer; adding more to the more important issues is!Lawofmetal43 15:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Gold and Platinum certification

"Actual US sales far higher. Due to change in US record label several times, certifications have not been declared." -- Does anyone have a citation for that? Also, "much higher" isn't very exact language and this doesn't add anything to the article. That sentence should probably be dropped. 142.59.153.99 04:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

PoV

Is it just me, or is some of the text here a bit too gushing for a featured article? For example:

"Iron Maiden has achieved international fame with its distinctive style. Their blend of heavy metal, highly melodic riffs and intelligent lyrics has become instantly recognizable. The band is also renowned for their down to earth and genuine approach towards their music, their impressive and energetic stage shows and their openness and dedication towards their fans."

"even Bayley's detractors tend to recognise it as a classic"

Either would probably be fine if converted to say something like "prominent critic [name] has labeled them instantly recognizable for [blah, blah and blah]. [reference]" At the moment though, it just reads like some fanboy laying on praise. For that matter, shouldn't there be a lot more referencing in this article?

I don't get why is this a featured article here either. People keep copy pasting news here all the time.201.19.137.96 11:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Its a featured article here because Iron Maiden's widely considered the 'third leg' of heavy metal along with fellow developers of the genre Black Sabbath and Judas Priest. Only Metallica, Megadeth and Motorhead can claim as much influence. And how many of them lasted what is (as of 2006) a 30 year old band with frequent releases from 1976 onwards? 1976, 80 - 86, 88, 90, 92 - 95, 98 - 01, 03, 05 - 06. No one else has released hits consistently without a major break of a few years.

I agree that the Blaze Bayley comment was stupid. I like him, but to say any of his work's really that popular among his detractor's silly. Comments on intelligent lyrics and their approach to music's based more on fanboy views and unless you are on the inside no one'll ever really know. Other than that I think its fine. (The Elfoid 18:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC))

A feature article is a well written article, not because it's about something important.

Iron Maiden - redirection - important

Please see talk:Iron maiden (disambiguation). Please vote as you see fit! Thanks. --PopUpPirate 21:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Progressive, again (from a different editor)

I'd like to see some outside sources (reviews from sufficiently big magazines, for instance) that agree with this article's claim of BNW and later albums having something of progressive metal in them. I've been an obsessive progressive metal fan for about 10 years now (and a Maiden fan even before that), but I can't hear even a hint of progressiveness in Maiden's music. It's straight-forward classic heavy metal without as much as an odd time signature or a surprising turn in melody/song structure. It's a little bit like calling Madonna Death Metal. --Bringa 09:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

To say the post-Reunion (and to an extent in X Factor too) music was prog is perhaps open to debate. But to say its far more progressive than before is fine.(The Elfoid 18:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC))

All of Maidens albums draw from progressive influences, Steve Harris and Adrian Smith are really big fans of the genre. I would say that every album from Piece of Mind through Seventh Son and then from Brave New World to the present contains some or many songs that could be considered progressive metal. I also feel they should get a mention under power metal as well. I started a new thing about that at the bottom of the page. --E tac 02:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

A MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH

I'm not exactly sure where to put this information, so I would like to ask someone to put this information where it's most appropriate: I was on Billboard.com and I came across the Independent albums chart and I happened to see A MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH IN THE #1 position. I thought you would like to know that.

Nothing about humor & jokes?

Seems like nothing is mentioned about the band's finest jokes, "Nodding Donkey Blues", "Rolling Over Vic Vella", "Space Station N°5"'s epilogue, "The Sheriff of Huddersfield" or the "Listen with Nicko Parts", or even the video for "Holy Smoke". As a non-English born I'm probably not the best person to write a short section about British humor. Any volunteer? Except Maiden and Faith No More, I dunno (or can't remember) much metal bands (80s~90s) who went that far with jokes and parody songs, that's why it should be mentioned in the article. Paris By Night 19:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Photos and some other stuff

1) The Iron Maiden logo looks a bit dull, and its a custom one that looks LIKE IM. Lets get an official one. I suggest red since that was used for the Iron Maiden/Killers/Number of the Beast/Piece of Mind/No Prayer/Best of the Beast albums - the only repeated logo. 2) The main photo has the band blurred outa little to stick Bruce Dickinson at the forefront. Lets find one that highlights all of them. 3) 'The Next Level' should probably have The Number of the Beast album cover as that was what TOOK Maiden to 'the next level' - Powerslave was part of that level once it was achieved. NOTB is also a far better known image

(00:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC))

If you include A Matter of life of death, Maiden has approximatley sold 76million albums. An admin should add them to 75 million or more best selling artists. We need some kind of proof annoyingly (The Elfoid 01:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC))

'Classic Rock 2006 - Album of the Year Award' under "A Matter of Life and Death" header

The article says 'The album also won the 'Classic Rock 2006 - Album of the Year Award', voted for by the magazine's fans, which further backs Iron Maiden's preference to do the whole album live.'

Which magazine?

MGlosenger 12:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, 'Classic Rock' IS a magazine. As you were. MGlosenger 01:53, 11

December 2006 (UTC)

Download 07 Confirmation Incorrect

It has been stated that at the Birmingham NEC 12/12/06 Bruce Dickinson confirmed that Maiden would be at Download 07. This is incorrect as he stated that they might appear at "A field in the middle of England". As there is a festival set up by Maiden rumoured to be at Donnington I think this section should be changed.

Different World Release Date

It is the 26th December so whoever keeps changing it please stop. For proof visit http://www.ironmaiden.com/

Just a side note

I noticed discussion further up about Eddie appearing on most covert art of Maiden, and the Wickeman being stated as one without Eddie. http://www.maidenfans.com/imc/pictures/pictures12_bnw/single33b_wickerman2_a_small.jpg is the cover of the Wickerman that is limited edition. Thats got eddie as the wickeman.

Maiden as Power Metal

I think that Maiden is definatley the father of power metal, and most metal fans would agree with that. One of their genres or at least some of their albums should also carry the power metal tag. --E tac 02:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

FA/Peer Review

It seems a pity that this very good article lost its FA rating. I've been doing a lot of cleaning up around the edges but don't have the expertise in the subject matter to track down citations (interest, yes; expertise, no). Can we make a concerted effort to get it to accepted FA standard again? Maybe it should go back to peer review again soon if we can improve it. Metamagician3000 11:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Further to the above, I've now applied for peer review of this article in the hope that it can be restored to its former glory. I'd be really pleased if other editors with an interest could take part there and take on board whatever advice comes out of it. Best to all. Metamagician3000 06:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

"US English-isms"

I'm slightly amused by this. Iron Maiden is a band - a single thing. Thus all verbs should be singular. It has nothing to do with US English, just with correct grammar (nouns and verbs should agree in number). There is a lot of breach of this on Wikipedia, so I'm not going to bother fixing it, but I am ... er ... somewhat surprised that someone went to the trouble of changing all the correct grammar in the article into incorrect grammar. Metamagician3000 06:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Image

The image in the infobox here has been tagged as not meeting fair use requirments, can someone provide a fair use rationale or a fair use image? --E tac 07:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

A fair use rationale wont save it, and i think you mean free image. It fails WUF #1, something like no free equivalent is available. M3tal H3ad 04:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Initial Success

There is a citation asking about references to harmonizing guitar play by Judas Priest. Just listen to the "Stained Class" album, particularly the title track, Stained Class. You see exactly where Iron Maiden's sound comes from. The harmonizing leads are there, the upbeat galloping riffs that Maiden has used so much, and the vocal style Bruce has adopted. There should really be more mention about the influence of Priest on Maiden.Devilxhlywood 20:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Influences

IIRC in early interviews Harris was always citing Tull, Priest, Sabbath, and UFO. 65.51.22.212 (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

17th century torture device??

It says under "The early days (1975–1978)" [...] and so the group was christened after the 17th century torture device.[3]

But the page for the torture device clearly states this was not invented until the 19th century??

85.165.206.77 (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the article in question is currently disagreeing on that subject. Flaminglawyer (talk · contribs) 03:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Urgent!!!please read!!!

well its not really that urgent, just a change if anyone can make it please. when you search for "iron maiden", you get taken to the disambiguation page. could anyone please change this so that when you search for iron maiden you get taken to the bands page, and then theres an option at the top of the page to be taken to disambiguation? thanks

thanks to whoever that was. btw im adilghanty

I'd like to disagree here. I feel that a search for iron maiden should go to the disambiguation page first, not to the band. If the purpose of wikipedia is to be a neutral source of information, then it should not alter search results based on personal bias. 128.12.194.20 06:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

ok see your point (adilghanty again) but honestly most people searching Iron Maiden would be looking for the metal band; unlikely that theyr looking for the others, but i could be wrong:P

I see the point. But it's easier to write "Iron Maiden (band)" than "Iron Maiden (torture device)". So In my opinion, it should go to the disambiguation page. Urik urgenturgent u suck and charleton heston and maiden rulz roflcopter carelton dude lolz--E tac 06:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

---

I don't think it is unreasonable to have the band be the first result that comes up. Just a guess, but I'm thinking that the vast majority of searches for "Iron Maiden" are for the band and not the torture device. BryanJ 03:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Maiden covers performed by other bands

Since a lot of bands seem to have covered songs by Maiden, I'd suggest a section which lists all these. A seperate article would be fine too. I guess they are very likely to increase so an a seperate article would be good.

Here are some i could think of now:

• aces high - children of bodom
• children of the damned - therion
• Fear Of The Dark - graveworm
• Flight Of Icarus - etos
• powerslave - darkane (mistagged a lot as CoB)
• the trooper - CoF
• wasted years - helloween (couldn't confirm this)
• Entire Number of the Beast - Dream Theater

all songs from, A tribute to the beast album all songs from, The Piano Tribute to Iron Maiden album and Numbers From The Beast album

there'll definitely be lots more —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.1.192.6 (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

There already is a page dedicated to them (check the bottom of the page) -TheHande 10:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't see this seperate page you're talking about. I can only see "Numbers From The Beast" and "Piano Tribute" mentioned under "See also". IMO, there's enough Maiden covers to make a separate article for it.

Agreed. Plus Hallowed be thy Name was done by Cradle of Filth. Tom walker 10:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

If I remember well there was an article like that, but it must have got in the way of deletionists. :-( --x-Flare-x^{Talk) 18:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

What about The Trooper by Sentenced, often mistaken as being covered by Children Of Bodom Vulcan5978 19:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Vulcan5978Vulcan5978 19:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

A whole variety of stuff by some string quartet... Benhudson4 10:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I also think there is a hip-hop tribute to iron maiden

And there's “Remember Tomorrow” by Opeth --Evilone 10:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Sentenced covered The Trooper during their melodic death metal era. I have never heard of a CoF cover of that song. Zouavman Le Zouave 06:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Kerrang! magazine recently released a free tribute album (Maiden Heaven) in one of their issue's. It has covers of Maiden songs by Metallica, Dream Theater (To Tame A Land), Coheed and Cambria (The Trooper), amongst others. 09:58, 28 July 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.153.48.3 (talk)

Archived

It was high time to archive the talk page. -TheHande 10:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Logo/Band Picture

Should I add the bands previous logos and pictures of the band line-up over the years in the biography section? And shouldn't the main picture be the band's current logo and a screenshot of the band from their latest album? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Defunct Lies (talk • contribs) 22:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

News Item Inappropriately Included in Article

Why is there a press announcement under Download 2007?
"Following the official announcement this evening on BBC Radio 1's Zane Lowe show"
Can anyone confirm the actual date of this? --Chrisirwin 18:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Made In Tribute: A Tribute To The Best In A Whole Goddamn World!

http://www.discogs.com/release/384453

Shouldn't that album "Made In Tribute: A Tribute To The Best In A Whole Goddamn World!" be mentioned? It's a Maiden cover album by various death/black metal atists. I couldn't find it mentioned in the article (didn't read it all, just checked a bit). :p

2007 Tour and some other things

Figured it made sense to refer to the new tour as a tour not 'download and the odd other gig' since that's what it is and that's what Maiden's calling it.

Lets divide up history a bit better. Firstly we can slap dates on it. I think for now the basic thing ('creation' 'early success' 'golden age' 'experimentation' 'decline' 'reunion') is fine...but lets clearly divide it into eras a bit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Elfoid (talk • contribs) 00:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

Infobox image

Wheres Nicko? Hopefully a free use image can be obtained with the entire band.--E tac 11:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Or Bruce, for that matter. I'm going to see if I can find a free image to replace it. --Mark ^(Talk) 17:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Why was the old one removed? I thought that was preety fine190.48.29.68 22:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The old one wasn't fair use. A user who is currently blocked from editing Wikipedia evaded his block to try and re-insert it with a false edit summary about being administrator approved. But it was still a policy vio and was reverted. Free use images will always win out over images that are fair use. If a better pic is desired then someone will have to go out and take one themselves. 156.34.221.2 23:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

All CD's creates an artwork

Okay, my english sucks so this will maybe suck but I hope that you will understand. If you have all Iron Maiden cd's and in order so you can see the back of the record sleeves, doesn't that form some kind of artwork? --Jocke666 13:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, with the 1998 remastered editions. It's a closeup drawing of Eddie. Hardly important enough to be put into the article though. -Mark ^(Talk) 15:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It might be worth adding to the Iron Maiden discography article though, it would be better than having the Different World single cover on it on the top.--E tac 21:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Genre(s)

I think we need to have somewhat of a vote on what genres Iron Maiden fall into, as there seems to be a lot of arguing on the page. I think the three current genres sum Maiden up best - Heavy metal, NWOBHM and Hard Rock. The other ones that are repeatedly cropping up are progressive metal, classic metal, power metal and speed metal, although I especially disagree with the last two. Thoughts? --Mark ^(Talk) 15:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I go for Heavy metal and NWOBHM only. Iron Maiden have a lot of influences from other genres, and some of their songs have elements that incidentally could be labeled as progressive metal, classic metal, speed metal and Hard Rock, but those influences should stay out of a strict genre definition. Additionally, I think both terms are the universally recognised main genres where the band is usually labeled, thus being excellent candidates for consensus -- · Ravenloft · ^{· (talk) ·} 19:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

HM and NWOBHM are enough. The rest are either false or just simple superfluity. 156.34.222.15 19:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. --Mark ^(Talk) 22:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that they should also be labelled prog metal simply because their last three albums plus seventh son of a sevent son and the x factor are very proggresive.

I think Iron Maiden are heavy metal, at their core. That's the only one we NEED up there. Anything else is a nicety. Them and Def Leppard are the only real survivors of NWOBHM and both have changed hugely since then - we can't really judge if they fit any kind of mould for 'NWOBHM survivors) so they fit in there. It means I think they must have the 'classic metal' tag though too - as genre definers.

I disagree. Iron Maiden are a hard rock band. Even if they achieved their greatest success during the 80's when metal was extremely popular, they were mainly popular with (older) rock fans who didn't like trash metal and who preferred normal hard rock music. Throughout the 80's many critics thought of them (and their contemporaries Marillion) as oldfashioned and outdated who played progressive hardrock ten years after its popularity, and got away with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.109.248.173 (talk) 08:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Iron Maiden's never really done anything hard rock. Some Virtual XI could be called it, but nothing else. The album's un-characteristic sound for the band, low sales, experimental nature and the fact that it only JUST could be called hard rock means I don't think so. Speed metal too...Be Quick or Be Dead's bloody fast, but other than that, The Trooper, Aces High and Run to the Hills I can't think of any.

A Matter of Life and Death is a progressive metal album in a lot of ways. The X Factor, Virtual XI, Brave New World and Dance of Death all had elements of it too.

NWOBHM, Classic metal, progressive metal and heavy (The Elfoid 09:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC))

Infact, after more thought...let's divide it up by era. List NWOBHM/Punk-Metal (early material), classic/heavy metal, progressive metal (recent material) (The Elfoid 13:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC))

Heavy metal and NWOBHM are the only 2 genres that should be in the infobox. Technically NWOBHM isn't even a genre - it's an era, but IM are tied to it so closely that it might as well stay. Classic metal is one of those "teenage twit" genre labels invented to try and appease young people who can't grasp that heavy metal started in the 60s and not the 80s. Prog metal shouldn't be used simply because the band have never played Prog metal in their entire career. Keep it simple it's just an infobox. Heavy metal/NWOBHM and that's it. Fair Deal 14:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree with the above; keep it as Heavy metal and NWOBHM. It's template guidelines to give the most general genres and discuss others the band may be associated with in the article to avoid confusion. ĤĶ51→^Łalk 21:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Please, they are DEFINITELY prog metal. Even Nicko McBrain admitted it [31]. Matt-san 11:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

He never uses the term Progressive metal in his interview. He makes a comment about one album containing "progressive stuff" and that's it. And the album he's commenting on is not a progressive album in any way. Even with elements of, as he calls it 'progressive stuff', the album is still a straight heavy metal album. The band's first 2 albums contained "punk stuff"... but they certainly weren't a punk band. Any genre other than heavy metal and NWOBHM is just superfluity and clutter. Previous concensus is still the best way to convey the information. 156.34.142.110 12:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe their later work is very much "progressive metal" by the wikipedia definition. If Queensryche are considered pioneers of the progressive metal genre then Iron Maiden's later works fit, and they are also listed on "Progarchives"[32](One of the biggest prog sites). It would make sense to put "progressive metal" on their later albums. Zanders5k 03:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Progarchives is an amateur fansite and and does not make for a good source. Read WP:RS. Professional publications and books are good references not online fanzines and webzines which are rampant with copyright violations. 202.160.48.156 04:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned out one "term" that had been incorrectly used in the past. Like Motorhead and Def Leppard and similar acts the term is beeing identified as just that... a term. The field is for genres. I've argued for keeing it their in the past but... consensus is consensus and the term is being rm'd from every other page so I jsut made this one consistent. 156.34.216.115 (talk) 01:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I Think it does the band a disservice not to list them also as progressive. With every release since Bruce and Adrian returned they have continued in the progressive vain of SIT and 7th Son (not to mention the x factor). In countless interviews various members have emphasized the progressive nature of the band, and of course the major influences on band founder Steve Harris are early Genesis, King Crimson, etc. Sure, they are part of NWOBHM (a better and more descriptive label than simply heavy metal), but what really separates them not only from other New Wave bands like Def Leppard, but also bands like Judas Priest, Motorhead etc, is the epic/prog nature of the song structure, and the focus on issue and literature based lyrics. A lifelong fan and follower of the band, I think we should use the term progressive to describe them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.230.27 (talk) 04:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you anyway, as I don't personally think they're much of a progressive metal band. But even if their more recent albums are progressive metal, it's still not really appropriate to put the genre on the band page as that. The only term that really describes them for the duration of their career is "heavy metal" and I think that should be it. Maybe you can get a consenses to call some of their waftier albums (I'm thinking The X Factor or A Matter of Life And Death) prog metal if you really wanted to, but it's still not a great word to put on the band page since it simply doesn't describe a large amount of their material. ~ mazca ^talk 20:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Iron Maiden are british heavy metal Grandoldman (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the term Progressive Metal best reflects the band, they are not strictly heavy metal, it is such a general term that really does little to separate them from so many other band. Sound and influence (on) they have much more in common with bands like Dream Theater (who often perform thier songs) 70's Rush, Queensryche, etc then they have with say Motorhead, The Scorpions, etc. The band's own statements reflect this, and if I were to describe them to the uninitiated (as I assume wiki is supposed to do), this gives a much more vivid portrait of what Iron Maiden sound like and represent. -Will —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.230.27 (talk) 03:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem with progressive metal is that it is wrong and does not apply to them. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 09:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the first few posters, Heavy metal and NWOBHM are enough, no other tags really apply over all. Though certainly there are many stylistic elements to be found in Iron Maiden's music. 'NWOBHM' isn't actually a defined musical genre itself, but more a paticular time in English heavy metal and even hard rock and the bands associated with it, that being more or less the late 70s and early 80s. No other band aside from Def Leppard is perhaps more widely synonymous with that movement than Iron Maiden.--Spacefan75 (talk) 08:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the genre on the front page should say, "Heavy metal, Progressive metal". Iron Maiden has fourteen studio albums and six out of those are progressive metal albums (Seventh Son of a Seventh Son, The X Factor, Virtual XI, Brave New World, Dance of Death, A Matter of Life and Death - especially the last three). To not include Progressive metal under their genre would be like not including glam metal on the Scorpions page (half of their albums are glam metal and half are hard rock). The fact that only some of their albums are progressive is no reason not to include it. Only some of Metallica's albums are considered hard rock, yet I still see hard rock listed as one of their genres. Finally, to those who think New Wave of British Heavy Metal should be included, NWOBHM is a movement, not a genre. Including that would make no sense.--LeifEriksson62 ( 8:00 PM, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

For a catalog the size of Iron Maiden's they have, perhaps, 2 or 3 songs that could be compared, incorrectly, to progressive metal. But that would be an incorrect comparison as they are simply a heavy metal band and their music refects that they are a very straight forward, and very good, heavy metal band. They have no albums that could be classed as progressive metal even in the slightest. Also note that Scorpions have never released a glam metal album in their catalog. Perhaps you should review what progressive metal and glam metal are as, from your post, you appear to have absolutely no understanding of what those 2 heavy metal sub-styles are. You are correct that NWOBHM is not a genre. So at least you're not batting .000. Libs (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Too many dividers?

I think that splitting it up album by album's too much. I also think that it should be split up differently. While I am aware Dickinson's arrival was the most important lineup change, I think 'Early Days' should cover the first three albums. Following this we should have the Piece of Mind - Seventh Son lineup's albums. I know it only removes one divider, but I still think it would be a valid change.

If people approve this, perhaps others too? We could easily put Iron Maiden/Killers under one heading, Piece of Mind/Powerslave, Somewhere in Time/Seventh Son, No Prayer for the Dying/Fear of the Dark and The X Factor/Virtual XI. Why? There's few major changes during those times, particularly to the band's sound. Since the reunion is worth of it's own paragraph and the newest album (it's their most critically acclaimed since Seventh Son, and sales are the highest they've been in a long time) too I suppose Dance of Death should get one. Unless someone thinks we can stick it into the 'reunion' paragraph.

Early Days, Classic Era, Troubled Times, The Blaze Bayley Era, Reunion and A Matter of Life and Death/Recent Events as dividers?

(The Elfoid 00:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC))

Significant Edits Imminent

Just a forewarning - I'm gonna make this article less biased and more streamlined towards IMPORTANT details since it's bloated a bit. One paragraph per album is excessive given they each have their own page. (The Elfoid 19:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC))

A Matter Of Life and Death

"A successful North American and European tour followed, during which they played the album in its entirety, a first for the band. The band have announced that a live album recorded from this tour will be released" This seems a little off, as I believe Powerslave was also played in its entirety but I'm not sure. The quote is not cited anyways, just wanting some clarification. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.166.228.229 (talk) 00:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

No, Powerslave was never played in its entirety. There are a couple of songs from that album which have never been played live such as Back In The Village and Flash Of The Blade, if I remember correctly Andyjohnston.net 16:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

In my knowledge, it was the first time they played it entirely live (ie in order), however I could be wrong. Mark ^(Talk) 18:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't provide a citation, but I know the band repeatedly went on and on about the idea of playing it in entirety being a first. Maidenfans.com/imc has old setlists, go look there.

But do we need to say that a live album will be released? After Maiden got back together in 1999, they said each album tour from then on out would have an accompanying live album - which it has (Brave New World/Rock in Rio, Dance of Death/Death on the Road, A Matter of Life and Death/new live album). Given we already know that, why add this?

(The Elfoid 16:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC))

Punk overtones?

Although Iron Maiden are a heavy metal band, influenced by Thin Lizzy and Deep Purple, their earlier music had punk overtones...

I am referring to this line here. Is it really necessary? I for one do not hear their earlier music as being punk music.. — Prodigenous Zee - 15:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. The line has often confused me. Agent Blightsoot 15:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll be removing it if nobody opposes. — Prodigenous Zee - 04:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Remove! Maurauth ^{(talktome)(wha?)} 11:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The only thing that was punk about early Maiden was the vocals on the first 2 albums.--E tac 20:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

A record label approached them saying they sounded kinda punky and their singer was punky, and they'd get signed if they went "full punk". And the band mentioned how Paul Di'Anno looked and sounded very punk too. He exaggerated this later, so it probably comes through in lyrics he wrote too. Music journalists on the Early Days DVD mention them sounding punkier too. (The Elfoid 18:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC))

I see. I'll change it accordingly. — Prodigenous Zee - 08:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR unless there's a reliable source? ≈ Maurauth ^(09F9) 18:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Although Iron Maiden are a metal band Paul Dianno always said he was more into punk music rather than metal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.196.154 (talk) 21:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Question

Shouldn't the torture device get priority over the band? Don't get me wrong, I love Iron Maiden and Heavy Metal, but the historical significance of the torture device seems to outrule a band, no matter how badass...Cameron Nedland 13:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

No. The band is much more notable than the torture device, there are so many more people searching for the band when inputting Iron Maiden, than are searching for the historical torture device. ≈ Maurauth ^{(talktome)(wha?)} 13:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, searching for 'Iron maiden' gives the torture device. 'Iron Maiden' gives the band, thats how it should work giving priority to the torture device. ≈ Maurauth ^{(talktome)(wha?)} 18:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Alrighty then.Cameron Nedland 19:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

How many torture devices sell 85 million albums? :P (The Elfoid 18:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC))

After listening to their recent stuff, I'm starting to think about merging the articles. -- Stormwatch (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps going out on a lmb, but i think the first album demonstrated what happens when you combine 70's prog influences (harris) with punk attitude and energy (Dianno, Murray). Intentional or not, the first album does sound sort of punkish... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.230.27 (talk) 04:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

New Tour

Maiden have announced a new tour Matter of the beast. Combination of The Number of the Beast (25 years since release) and new album AMOLAD. Should this be added somewhere?? Vulcan5978 19:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC))

A sentence or two'll do fine (The Elfoid 22:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC))

Iron Maiden tourography

Thank you to whoever directed me to this page.

Who is deleting the Iron Maiden tourography link, and why?

Reference: http://maidenshows.ryasrealm.com/masterlist.htm

I am a published historian who has been working on Iron Maiden's tourography for the past 2 years. In my research, I have collected and reviewed thousands of primary resources to correct commonly propagated errors about Iron Maiden's tours coming from people like Mick Wall, Paul Stenning, and Iron Maiden Holdings, LTD. I have made approximately 100 corrections regarding the dates and locations of Iron Maiden's tours. If you go to the web site, hover your cursor over any date/location listed in yellow/orange or dark orange and you will see a text box come up which shows the citation for that information. 87% of the dates/locations are substantiated by one or more pieces of primary evidence. I am still in the process of validating just over 200 dates/locations with some sort of reliable evidence. You can also read my historical evaluation of Iron Maiden-related primary sources and secondary sources at http://maidenshows.ryasrealm.com/masterlistresearchnotes.htm.

If you take the time to look at the web page, you will see that I have made every effort to make my results verifiable and reliable by using thousands of sources. I have a degree in history and next month I will have finished my graduate degree in history. My university recognizes and approves my work and findings. I am a scholar who specializes in Iron Maiden.

My link and my findings are in line with Wikipedia policy. I am a published historian who specializes in popular culture (Iron Maiden being one of my foci). My link provides valuable information relative to the topic without violating the policy.

I don't understand that with my credentials and the transparency of my work that anyone would want to delete the link. The Iron Maiden page references Mick Wall extensively, but Wall does not cite his sources (making him unreliable). He also plagiarized half of his book from Gary Bushell's "Running Free" without citing Bushell and making the same errors in the band's tour dates and locations that Bushell did. Paul Stenning does cite his sources, but he does not use any specific citations, but instead, only lists a few works cited at the end of each chapter, which is unacceptable. Neither of these authors which the page cites extensively have done any real primary research. They have merely copied from the work (and the errors) of others.

So, tell me: why cite Wall and Stenning, who have no credentials and are not even published by any serious publisher, but not allow a link to a web page that has passed university and national historical guidelines, has passed historical review, and has passed peer review by many dedicated fans (who were kind enough to contribute to my research)?

Why not? It does not violate policy, and it adds something valuable to the page.

---

I vote we keep it (The Elfoid 16:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

It isn't verifiable information... doesn't meet WP:EL requirements and should not be allowed. The link loader falls under what can best be described as "dubious Essjayitus". See any/all history behind former admin Essjay to better understand "unqualified credentials" re: expertise and reliability. 156.34.142.110 17:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good, well researched source that adds to the article, so I'm for it being linked to in the article.

Also, I fail to see what part of WP:EL it doesn't meet - on the contrary it satisfies the

"Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article"

criteria greatly, and should also be at least allowed under

"Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources"

in my opinion. Thoughts, anyone? Mark ^(Talk) 13:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, excuse me for editing this post instead of adding to it. I do not know how to add to post without making a new post with a new subject.

Mr. 156.34.142.110 - aka Peter Fleet, it looks like you are not being reasonable. You have two other people who agree with me that the link is scholarly. Markdr reiterates my point. My question to you is - what credentials do you have that give you the right to be the scholarly determinant of Iron Maiden's history? None. You are a middle-aged IT student at TriOS college, not a historian. I am. Likewise, Metal Hammer's printing that Iron Maiden will have reached its 2000th gig in June 2007 is wrong, too, because journalists are not historians. Metal Hammer did not verify its information or post any sources for it. I emailed the editor about this and got no response.

So, with 3 against 1, I believe that falls under Wiki policy that you, Peter Fleet/156.34.xxx.xxx have to leave the information there unless you want to formally take things higher. I belive that any future changes by you will be considered vandalism at this point. Do not accuse me of Essjayitus, either. http://www.wwu.edu/cms/WWU.History/Advising/teachingasst.html Notice the email address for me, Ryan LaMar, wsu@ryasrealm.com - it ends with the same URL as the Iron Maiden link I am insisiting should be added. You can contact anyone on that university list and ask them about me and my credentials (only the top graduate students can be teaching assistants).

Peter, if you want to be reasonable, then let me do the scholarly thing on the Iron Maiden page and make edits in my area of expertise - tour dates and locations. I understand your concern for the rules, but my link follows the rules and adds valuable information to the site. I will hold no ill feelings toward you if you allow honest and knowledgeable people to make Wiki a better place.

Finally, I apologize to Maurauth for thinking he was behind the insistent removal of the information I corrected. Maurauth, I am sorry for the scathing comments I made to you on another forum. darthrya 12:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it. The main page for those who haven't bothered to check states quite clearly "1. If you link my site to your site, you must link this page. This is for two reasons: I need to make sure potential traders read these rules first, and I have my stat tracker on this page. So do not link my index2.htm page!". The discog page itself makes some pretty wild claims which basically claims "Their wrong - I'm right" - We do not do "The Truth™" as I'm sure you all know.--Alf ^melmac 17:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It's very frustrating to see that a lot of people would rather assume I am wrong than investigate my work to make that decision. No historian automatically dismisses someone without making some sort of investigation. I suggest you investigate my work and tell mw where I am wrong. Email me every mistake on my site that you find at wsu@ryasrealm.com. My tourography work is about getting the right information to the fans. Also, please explain to me the issue with my parent site. I do not see how that violates Wikipedia rules. I'm not linking the parent site, just the tourography page. --Darthrya

I'll admit I'm one of Wikipedia's more forgiving members, but as someone who's been involved in a lot of debates on matters such as this I would say the information cannot be left out entirely. It's damn useful. Plus there are other sources that support this (MaidenFans.com/IMC is a very respected website for instance). (The Elfoid 21:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC))

The DMOZ link, as placed by Admin Wiki alf negates the need for all links other than the band's official website. If any tour history information needs to be linked it can be placed on the DMOZ site and it will be covered under the global DMOZ link found here. 156.34.210.243 22:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the DMOZ link is a potential solution. I will use it. However, it does not negate any of my prior arguments. 156.34.xxx.xxx, you have made no effort to refute my findings on my site. Sure, my claim to be the best source for the tourography is very audacious, but the fact is, NO ONE has been able to refute my overall findings. Occasionally, someone brings to me some evidence which suggests a particular date/location is wrong (a little less than 10% of them are still not backed up by any sort of evidence), but I use that evidence to correct the mistake - a mistake originally produced by the band. I started this project using the official tourography of the band and went down, date by date, and verified or refuted the information based on primary evidence. In my process, I've found that the information put out by the band to be very problematic. Anyone who blindly accepts any band's own version of their tour history is an idiot because most bands just look at old itineraries and print them as fact without any concern tour changes (Maiden is especially bad at this). My project is very much like Wikipedia - its accuracy is reliant upon the contribution of others. So far, thanks to the contributions of hundreds of people, it is the most accurate tourography on the web. It is recognized as the benchmark among fans at the IMOC and Maiden Fans United, and another popular site - Maidenfans.com - references my site.

Now, I challenge you to act like a gentleman and take the time to talk this out with me if you disagree. I'm tired of having to work around you because you refuse to talk directly to me. Just to let you know, I fixed the 'violation' on my parent page pointed out by Wiki Alf. It now states that anyone can directly link the tourography page without having to link the parent page. No conflict of interest there. In the future, please do not accuse me of being like Essjay - comments like that are libelous, especially when I have given you means of verifying my background. Email me at maidenshows@ryasrealm.com or wsu@ryasrealm.com. (Darthrya 09:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC))

Number of the Beast

The article says:

The tour's US leg was marred by controversy stemming from an American right-wing political pressure group that claimed Iron Maiden was Satanic because of the new album's title track

Was the tour really "marred" by that controversy? If anything it probably gave the band free publicity. thx1138 09:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Saw a documentary on the making of the album and Dickinson described how at one concert a person was walking around carrying a cross. The yanks also burned their fair share of Maiden records. However, wether that guy with a cross was just a sole incident and wether the outcry caused by the album(-cover and misunderstood lyrics) had any baring on the tour itself is difficult to say. Some references would be helpful. -TheHande 16:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Didn't really marr the tour itself - it still went ahead fine. Might have marred the feeling that followed the band, or the atmosphere. But in terms of organising and playing gigs, no (The Elfoid 19:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC))

Michael Kenney

Whoever keeps listing that Michael Kenney has been playing keyboards with Iron Maiden since 1988 STOP. He has been playing keyboards with Iron Maiden since 1990. Alterego269 23:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

That would be Mr. 156.34.xxx.xxx. He has no class or tact, and personally, I think he's a drain on the community-spirit of Wikipedia because he refuses to work with people about differences. However, he is right on this. Michael Kenney was part of the Seventh Son of a Seventh Son tour in 1988. I have several dozen bootlegs of the Seventh Tour in which Bruce introduces him to the crowd. Darthrya 23:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Alterego, the confusion may have arisen since you didn't see him on the Seventh Son album credits. Maiden played their own keyboards on the album, so someone had to have played live keyboards. Which also leads to a further question: who played keyboards during 1986/7's 'Somewhere on Tour' tour supporting the Somewhere in Time album? (The Elfoid 11:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC))

There weren't keys on the SIT tour. The band used guitar synths. Darthrya 06:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I know they did on album, wasn't sure about on stage (The Elfoid 08:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

Same on stage as on the album. Your original question had me second guessing myself! I had to confer with my fellow live show experts and review some of the videos and audio recordings in my collection. darthrya 21:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

"Bring Your Daughter..." B-sides

The article states the 'Bring Your Daughter..' was sold in multiple formats with different b-sides. To be fair this just repeats what I have read in several other places, but I am concerned it is something that has been quoted so often it has become true, despite the fact (I believe) it is not.

What is true is that the single was released in the UK in a number of different formats, 6 in total, if my memory serves me correctly (which would actually make it inelligable for the chart under today's rules). 7 and 12 inch versions, 7 and 12 inch picture discs, casette and CD. It is also true that the 7" and 7" picture discs had different cover artwork.

However there were not, as I recall, multiple B-sides. The 7", 7" pic disc and casette all had 2 tracks (B-side was 'I'm a Mover'), the 12", 12" pic disc and CD had the addition 3rd track 'Communication Breakdown'. This seems to be confirmed by the article on the single itself. In terms of the number of tracks Maiden had followed this format since the '2 Minutes to Midnight' single.

The first occurence of completely different b-sides on different formats occured with the (relatively unsuccessful) single 'From Here to Eternity'(I Can't See My Feeling was on the picture disc, but not on the CD which had 3 completely different b-sides.

I will willingly admit to being wrong if someone has a copy of the BYD single with another track on it, but otherwise this should be changed Sanctuary73 16:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm

When searching "Iron Maiden" it now goes directly to the torture device page, despite that having a) less interest in it b) not even the main name (this page isn't even "Iron Maiden (Band)". I can see why a disambiguation page may be ok for the first page when searching, but not the torture device surely? Lethesl 12:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

English English makes no sense

"Iron Maiden are a band"? No, Iron Maiden is a band, a single entity, it is something. How about fixing the article to the more logical way? I mean, "The Beatles are a band", that's right because the name is in plural, and since each member is a Beatle, together they are The Beatles; but in this case here, you can not say that each member is a Maiden (which would sound very awkward anyway). Just my 2 cents. - Stormwatch 18:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand your argument, but it's simply a convention of British English that band's are referred to as 'are'. I don't know why and how this developed, but for me, being British, this is second nature and anything else - such as the US 'Iron Maiden is...' sounds wrong to me and I expect most other Britons. And since the article discusses a British band, WP:ENGVAR dictates that British English spelling, grammar and style is used. Thanks, Mark ^(Talk) 20:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree with you, Mark. It's not an American convention, it's correct British English. It might "sound wrong" to most people, but most people aren't that hot on their grammar. Saying "Iron Maiden are a band" is like saying "red are a colour". Band = noun. A noun "is". There's nowhere in WP:ENGVAR that I can find that supports what you're saying. Cardinal Wurzel 18:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

No your example is misleading, as you are meaning "the many shades that we can call 'red', so one can say "reds are colours", which I believe is correct, at least in British-English speaking countries. A more aposite example of a phrase would be "personnel are involved". The guidance WP:ENGVAR is there for good reason, (it states "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation." I suggest taking this talk there instead of splintering opinion into individual pages editors to check the consensus on this. I also checked against a colleague for current British usage by asking him to add the correct parsing of the verb 'to be' in the sentence "Pink Floyd a band" - after some moments he replied "are" I asked him why not "is" he says "certain nouns are automatically plural"--Alf ^melmac 06:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

No, your example is misleading. "Reds are colours" is obviously correct, but that doesn't affect my previous point. But you're right, I've taken it to the talk page of WP:ENGVAR, where there is not yet any agreement... Cardinal Wurzel 11:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

we are iron maiden iron maiden are a band —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.66.110 (talk) 09:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not the british wiki though. Tabor (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. You know English originated in Britain, right? This isn't just for people who speak American English, it's used by people who speak British English, Australian English etc. - read WP:ENGVAR. Funeral 20:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a wiki editor first of all. I'm a senior in high school. I believe that my eleven years of english experience can add something though. Wikipedia itself shows that America has roughly 304,935,000 people, whereas the UK has roughly 60,975,000 people. It is therefor logical to assume that the majority of Wiki users speak in American English, and not it's British counterpart. And even though other forms of english speakers use the site, their numbers do not outweigh the americans. For that simple fact alone, the grammar should be changed all around to suit american english. It is one of those glaring mistakes in my opinion. I read it saying Iron Maiden are a band, and that just is like someone dragging nails across a blackboard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.174.26 (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

For whatever reason the US decided to dumb down their English is not for debate here. Every English speaking country in the world uses proper English. And Wikipedia is an international website not just an American one. If the US want to use "Dan Quayle" spelling and grammar then fine. But the rest of the Globe uses correct English and Wikipedia rules cater to that. WP:ENGVAR says Non-US subject=Non-US English. Iron Maiden are British. You would never say "They is a good band isn't they. And they is going on tour." A band is never an "it". A band is a group of people and people are always "they"... and for Iron Maiden... they are a band. Libs (talk) 15:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

my last edits were deleted?

Maiden's reduced success in the 90s is well chronicled. Chart positions are on Wikipedia already, grunge's dominance of the rock scene is generally very accepted. The stuff about Dickinson's voice I'm sure can be proved via citations but I'll accept as possibly dodgy. The rest though...it's all real (The Elfoid 20:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC))

The article lost its FA for not being referenced. Rather than adding huge chunks of poorly written original research the goal should be to try and reference all the poorly written original research that the article already has... in abundance. 156.34.209.108 21:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think grunge's influence on hard rock/heavy metal is pretty well chronicled though, right? (The Elfoid 03:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC))

I believe it is. But it still needs to have inline references in order to be added in otherwise its just personal opinion. The article should have the already existing content referenced first. It already reads like it was written as a book report by some slow 17 year kid. It doesn't need anymore fluff or surefluity. 156.34.212.57 04:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Satisfied now? I know the 3 links on punk are ALL from allmusic but I was in a rush. Will find varied sources later (The Elfoid 01:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC))

deleted AGAIN?

I cited sources from allmusic.com. allmusic is used to help in writeups on albums, describing their reception from the expert musical press. If they're not reliable as a source of information, who the hell is? Descriptions of Iron Maiden's style are hard to find and I found several on the sitehttp://www.apple.com/ Apple that gave some. (The Elfoid 04:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC))

Allmusic.com is definitely not authoritative. Quote books, magazines or real music press, please. No real expert would ever say that Maiden had anything to do with punk when punk was clearly the enemy back then. Please check the biographies in the list, both official or unofficial and you'll find exactly these considerations. Trencacloscas 04:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Allmusic's referred to repeatedly throughout articles within the scope of wikiproject metal (at least 3 links on the heavy metal page alone) actually. And I referred to a book in my last edit too. Steve Harris also mentions how Paul was fairly punkie in the Iron Maiden early years DVD and thatthe press picked up on it. Punk was an "enemy"? What? They bore similarities to punk being part of the NWOBHM which was spawned by similar situations to punk rock. They didn't have any personal feelings towards punk, that I can tell. It was just a genre.

And the phrase 'pretend to' is just...ridiculous. At least allow that to say 'perceive' please. Why would anyone think to themselves "hehe I'm gonna say this is like punk"? It's not really a lie I think anyone would justify making. It's not like you can profit from it, or promote the band or anything. No one pretended anything - just cuz an opinion is controversial doesn't make it a lie.

(The Elfoid 14:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC))

Iron Maiden always had more to do with progressive music than with punk, there are recognized influences in their music, so why not put that instead? Anyway, Steve Harris statement: "I would never cut my hair and go punk, it would be against my religion" when punk was the hype thing and nobody wanted heavy metal acts around should be enough to avoid any doubts. Trencacloscas 20:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Punk took rock music back to the streets. OK so it was more complicated, but that's it at it's most basic explanation. NWOBHM did for heavy metal what punk did for rock (which was mostly arena rock at the time). NWOBHM was metal's punk as punk was arena rock's punk if that makes any sense to you (badly worded I know). That's where the similarity came from. Also, Paul Di'Anno had never heard or liked any heavy metal before he met Steve Harris. (The Elfoid 21:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC))

Sorry, I don't agree at all. Punk destroyed the spirit of good, well-crafted rock and roll. NWOBHM tried to recover the spirit of Purple, Sabbath and Zeppelin, but there is a million miles of difference between a "punkier feeling" and saying that punk rock had anything to do with NWOBHM or Iron Maiden. Anyway, it shouldn't be even mentioned at the head of the article. That's the reason why I will erase it, just to avoid mention also the progressive element right away. Please feel free to place it anywhere else and I will do the same.Trencacloscas 19:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I know it is possible that my next comments could in some instances be better suited to Trencacloscas' Talk Page but I am hoping if any third party opinion is presented, it could help end an argument which I feel is not going to solve itself without external assistance between myself and Trencacloscas.

Wikipedia is not your private work you're in total control of. I've found substantial evidence (i.e. allmusic.com and a published book - both of which that are used throughout wikiproject metal) to suggest NWOBHM music fused elements of punk with heavy metal. On re-watching the BBC's TV show Seven Ages of Rock I can tell you that that program, produced by highly capable professionals at the BBC also coroborates with my statement. Stuff that appears on the BBC has to go through strict quality control, allmusic.com is written by a huge group of editors and the book I mentioned was published as an authentic guide. The sources together make it undeniable that the NWOBHM had punk influences.

Upon further searching I have found a fourth source - as well as a published book, a professional critic group's website and a TV show, Amazon.co.uk (another very well known website) states similar. "This opening sonic salvo from Steve Harris's East End stalwarts pretty much defined the late 1970's post-punk rebirth of rock traditionalism known as the New Wave Of British Heavy Metal." in an Amazon.co.uk review (reviewed by the company, not by a user). In a review for the band's second album it says "KILLERS is based on more straight-ahead heavy metal, departing from Iron Maiden's 1980 self-titled debut, which had more of a punk edge". Many other websites selling Iron Maiden products sell the same (http://www.7digital.com/artists/iron-maiden, http://cd.ciao.co.uk/Killers_Remastered_ECD_Iron_Maiden__40102). Punk is not very in right now - kids listen to smooth pop punk not stuff like the Sex Pistols, so saying it's punklike is not something they'd obviously say as a lie for commercial reasons. Steve Harris has also said that the press frequently saw them as punky.

The heavy metal article on Wikipedia itself agrees, as does the one on NWOBHM and several others I have found. You're in disagreement with a LOT of pages on this here encyclopedia. I've found in a quick search a total of 35, and I remember seeing more in the past, that rely on allmusic.com as a reliable source. The ideology and aesthetics of taking rock music back to the street came from punk. The rougher approach taken as a result lead to the same rough "homegrown rock" feeling that punk gave off.

Steve Harris' songwriting was not heavily punk influenced, I accept this. Dave Murray/Adrian Smith who also recorded with Paul Di'Anno are the same. They can't have ignored it 100% since it was so big at the time, but it wasn't really their thing. But Paul Di'Anno's voice was suited to punk stylings, and Steve Harris himself has said that when Paul realised his punkier voice annoyed the rest of the band he played it up and sounded punkier. He wasn't a metal vocalist - he wasn't into metal until he joined Iron Maiden.

Your comments on the progressive elements I never had a problem with - the band frequently refer to it as such. You're attempting to cut some kind of "delete my comment, delete yours, everyone's happy" approach and that's somewhat petty. As is telling me what will be deleted - you get banned from Wikipedia for reverting an edit three times in quick succession. Neither of us is allowed to do that.

So in summary this is what I present as evidence:

• Numerous music selling websites (run by professionals)
• Allmusic.com (run by professional critics) - [33]
• A book (written by a professional, published after going through strict editing)
• A BBC TV show (that has been through numerous quality control groups and features interviews with lots of important members of the music industry)
• Quotes from Steve Harris and Dave Murray about the press of the day calling them punky and saying Paul Di'Anno had a punkier style than the rest of the band
• Paul Di'Anno's statements that the early albums had a punkier sound (which he does on the Early Days DVD in reference to how the cover art for the albums is appropriate for the punky style [Eddie looks like a punk on the first album cover] they used at the time)
• The work of numerous wikipedians to put punk's influence on NWOBHM on the map (it's mentioned on heavy metal, NWOBHM, thrash metal, a load of other NWOBHM band pages)
• My opinion as an individual and a fairly long term member of Wikipedia

And that's not convincing enough ("Quote books" - done. "magazines or real music press" - cyber-based press is still the press since it's profit making written content (allmusic makes money from the advertising banners on the website - it's not a free resource) and Iron Maiden themselves make reference to the press of the time) What do you have to counter my numerous sources with? Your own opinion. You can't just delete things freely like that. While an issue like this is in discussion you should leave a page as it was originally rather than play with it, to avoid an 'Edit War'. If an Edit War begins, everyone gets in trouble.

If you continue to cause a problem I shall notify an administrator of an 'Edit War' where they can see my points and compare them to yours. I note on your discussion page you have had similar troubles with multiple users, involving you making edits they disagreed with without ample discussion or appropriate behaviour:

• User:Anger22
• User:TheologyJohn
• User:Denstat
• User:Redvers clearly had difficulty with your understanding of the rules also

This difficulty in getting along with other users, and applying your personal judgement as if you can make the decisions about what happens on Wikipedia is both unfair and against policy. Please accept my points, or come up with a VERY suitable argument to counter it (you asked for books as sources, I gave you one, you ignored it? I don't think you're even respecting my opinion at all with behaviour like that and it makes it very difficult to respect yours.

Thank you. (The Elfoid 14:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)).

Given your level of hostility, I won't answer you or your ridiculous threats. You can quote hundreds of sources about your beloved punk rock, I can do just the same quoting hundreds of sources denying any punk influences, including direct declarations of members of the band. The case is that your claims are not suitable for the head of the article. I can also quote hundreds of sources asserting the progressive influences in Iron Maiden including direct declarations of the members of the band but, as I pointed before, I don't think the head of the article is the proper place to mention them. That's why I suggested you to put it elsewhere in the article. There is only one undisputed truth: Iron Maiden is a heavy metal band, and that's what the article should intend to reflect in the first place. Any other influences can be mentioned later in the article. If you wanna "notify the administrators", go ahead, who's holding you? Trencacloscas 01:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears I misunderstood you, I apologise. I can put it further down in the article and you don't mind, provided it is not in the head of the article? "That's the reason why I will erase it, just to avoid mention also the progressive element right away. Please feel free to place it anywhere else and I will do the same". I thought "I will do the same" meant you would do what you had done so far - delete it - wherever it was.

I do believe that some mention to both the progressive references and to the NWOBHM-flavour of the music should be in the header though. Iron Maiden's music is pretty distinctive, I've even had people ask me what genre it qualifies as, or had metalheads tell me it's not metal at all. The only major surviving NWOBHM bands are Iron Maiden, Saxon (who've faded almost into utter obscurity) and Def Leppard (who became a pop rock band in the last 15 years). So the punkier, rougher, simpler approach to music that may confuse people should be referred to. The same is true of progressive influences. I think however, only a sentence on each would be required. Something about how the changing of tempo and multiple time signatures - along with guitar harmonies, bass-led songs, gallops, Bruce Dickinson's operatic style (and I guess you could argue about the other vocalists being particularly unusual in style too), it is one of the band's distinctive features. A long sentence mentioning both punk influences via the NWOBHM and Di'Anno and progressive influences because Harris wanted the music to be more sophisticated would be good.

Infact, an entire paragraph in the head about the various features of their sound would be good. Would you help me to write this?

Sorry about the confusion in my last comment.(The Elfoid 03:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC))

No problem. But I still disagree. Iron Maiden never had that "punkier, rougher, simpler approach" you suggest. It is way on the contrary; not punkier but classier, not rougher but heavier, not simpler but more elaborated. It's the sheer difference between their music and the punk rock element current on their days what captured and recaptured metalheads attention back then. And that's also the core of the NWOBHM sound: if a NEW Wave of British Heavy Metal was born, it means that the purpose was recapturing the "heavy" side of it all. Recapturing from who? From punk rock, who was the trendy thing at the moment. Anyway, as you mentioned, it is debatable, and that's the reason for not putting it right at the beginning where it can mislead people not familiar with the band. Jethro Tull, Genesis and the whole progressive element is far way more recognizable in Iron Maiden music (even through the election of covers) than punk but I'd rather not put that in the forefront of the article. Hope we can find some middle ground about the whole thing so the article may look better. Trencacloscas 17:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

My point was more the sound the band produced than the songwriting, in terms of punk influence. Anyway, we can draft it on here (I'll start a new paragraph) and then add source citations later.

Iron Maiden Sound Description Paragraph

Features in almost all Iron Maiden music

• Guitar harmonies
• Progressive elements (time changes, tempo movements, complexity of compositions etc)
• Unusual strength of bass (almost like a lead instrument)
• Operatic vocals (Bruce Dickinson-era only)

Bah! I object to the term "operatic". Seems it's applied to any heavy metal singer who can hold a note for more than 3 seconds. Bear in mind I think Bruce is one of metal's best vocalists and Maiden has been my favorite band for over 20 years, but the term is just asinine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.58.248.33 (talk) 18:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Features in some Iron Maiden music

• Progressive elements (In 'epic' songs it becomes much more apparent)
• Punk influences (Paul Di'Anno-era only)
• 'Live sound' (mention how well known the band are for frequent live releases or something?)
• Triple live guitars (1999-present only)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iron_maiden_%28torture_device%29#Requested_move

Editors may wish to comment above, the intention of that article is to move Iron maiden (torture device) to Iron maiden, and move Iron Maiden to Iron Maiden (Heavy metal band). ≈ Maurauth ^(Ravenor) 09:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, the move never mentioned to move the band if the brackets were to be removed. Reginmund 06:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Somewhere Back In Time

The last paragraphs referencing the new tour are not very faithful to what Iron Maiden official page says. I think it should be revised. 80.28.202.37 10:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Ambiguity is handled by dablinks at the top of the page, and there are strong indications that this is the primary use of the capitalized search term. Dekimasuよ! 02:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Iron Maiden → Iron Maiden (band) — An earlier request to move "Iron maiden (torture device)" to "Iron maiden" was voted down because of the ambiguity with "Iron Maiden" (note the capitalisation of "M" in "Maiden"). To make these two less ambiguous, WP:PRECISION reccommends: adding a parethical (bracketed) disambiguator to the page name: for instance when both spellings are often or easily confused. —Reginmund 17:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support - as nominator. Reginmund 17:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - There's no need to move this page, just leave well alone. ≈ Maurauth ^(Ravenor) 14:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - I say we just leave it as it is now. Zouavman Le Zouave 15:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support - it's no different than Foreigner, Journey, Boston, Chicago, Soil or Slipknot. If there is a common word that matches a band name, then the article name should be "Band (band)". It's standard Wiki practice. Peter Fleet 15:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• It's very different from your examples. None of those bands are the primary meaning for their respective search term, but this one is. See my comment below for more. Prolog 17:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support - The band are named after the torture instrument, and the two names are somewhat ambiguous; people may well be searching for the band under "iron maiden" and "Iron maiden" MorkaisChosen 15:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't really care if iron maiden is a dab page or redirects here, but this move would be wikilawyering at the cost of other content guidelines and the group of people we write this encyclopedia for; the readers. A very large majority of readers will be looking for this band when searching "Iron Maiden" (WP:DAB#Deciding to disambiguate: Ask yourself: When a reader enters a given term in the Wikipedia search box and pushes "Go", what article would they most likely be expecting to view as a result?). WP:DAB#Primary topic also comes into play per Google results and per the fact that this article is linked from over 1,000 pages in mainspace, while the torture device is the second most common and has less than 50 wikilinks. Prolog 17:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support - iron maiden should be a dab, and Iron Maiden should redirect to the dab, since both of these uses will be common search targets. Chubbles 18:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support per above reasons. Clearly there is confusion at the current location. If moved, lave and protect the redirect since I expect that consensus here could be reverted without discussion in the future. Vegaswikian 19:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Ghana is named after the important Ghana Empire but has eclipsed it in importance by contemporary reckoning. Much as some may be loath to admit it and even allowing for bias and recentism, so has Iron Maiden its namegiver. —  AjaxSmack  21:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support I think it's impossible to know what people or the majority of people will be looking for when they search for "iron maiden". We can speculate, but I don't think anyone really knows and there's no way to prove it. Ask a metalhead and a professor of medieval history and you will get two very different opinions, in all probability, since everyone thinks the things they are interested in are most prominent in everyone else's mind. This page should be a DAB page with disambiguators used for both the band and the torture device, as well as the other usages on the current DAB page. Snocrates 01:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Very weak support. On the one hand, I feel it is more likely that someone would be searching for content relating to the band, and think it more likely that someone would link to them. However, there is no way a conventional encyclopedia would put a heavy metal band before the torture device, especially as the band was named after the device. Another argument worth considering is one that I think it was me who made in the past, although don't hold me to that, in relation to Trivium. In 100 years, what are people going to be searching for? A heavy metal band, or a term which has survived the time test and is still wide known? To be quite honest, I doubt many people will have heard of Iron Maiden in 100 years' time, yet I know that every gory-minded schoolboy will still know what an Iron Maiden is. These arguments would tot up to supporting the move reasonably strongly on my part- the only thing I worry about is someone having to change all the links to the right place. That would have to be done through AWB, would it not? Is there a faster way? Exactly how many links are we talking about here? J Milburn 15:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Prolog. Surely it's adequate to have Iron Maiden link to the far more popular meaning of the term (i.e. the band) and have the current disambig links at the topo for those users looking for the torture device or, in other cases, other uses? Mark ^(Talk) 20:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support, per above reasons. Funeral 20:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Prolog's rationale, we write this thing for the readers and we a re not a convential encylopedia so I don't see why we should *fall into the same traps/follow their excellent example * delete as appropriate to your philosophy.--Alf ^melmac 08:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• OPPOSE [Thanks to an "anonymous" tipster that pointed out my tyop] That's just silly. Iron Maiden is far more well known than the torture device. Scarian ^Talk 08:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support Master Redyva (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

When making requested moves, inform the Metal Project's talk page. We cannot keep tabs on over 4000 pages, so please have the courtesy to notify us. LuciferMorgan 15:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. J Milburn 15:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I agree too--E tac 07:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Even though, I do not believe in the evil King Odmontius, I do believe that Iron Maiden Will rule the world of heavy metal for 3000 years. Master Redyva (talk) 19:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, lol. But it was still vandalism and had to be removed. Also, why isn't this article a featured one anymore and what would need to be done to turn it back into one? Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 19:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Charlotte The Harlot. - Number of Installments?

The FotD section claims that "From Here to Eternity" is the fourth installment in the Charlotte the Harlot saga. I challenge this claim.

"Hooks in You" is not part of the saga. Other than a reference to "number 22" there is no relation to Charlotte. Furthermore, the line "I got the keys to view at number 22" indicates a real estate viewing of an empty house. Even if it is a reference to 22 Acacia Avenue, Charlotte is long gone. The song is certainly not part of a saga, but merely an oblique reference.

This would make "From Here to Eternity" the THIRD installment of the saga. At least here she's mentioned by name. Wcudmore (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

All the above is true. Can't remember the source, but Bruce himself said in an interview that "Hooks in You" isn't about Charlotte, but instead about a piece of real estate that had a lot of chains and S&M fixtures. Ynot4tony (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

QUESTION about "Influence"

Should the "Influence" portion of the article be deleted? The language of the section leaves a little something to be desired (esp. for an encyclopedia) and the lack of sources make it look like a paragraph in a "bottom shelf" metal magazine at the local convenience store. It's just a laundry list of metal bands. Master Redyva ♠ 19 December 2007.

---

I deleted the entire "Influence" section for two reasons:

1. It was not well documented and contained some non-factual information.

2. It was not well written.

Mikepope (talk) 02:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Agreed. Unless a band member cites a reference, it should not be listed here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynot4tony (talk • contribs) 19:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Album sales

I see there is a reference, and I've read it, and it says more than 100 million albums, but that seemed waaay too much, and I think it is actually an overstatement. This source for example: http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003684293 says it is approx. 70 million albums. And it is dated to December 12, 2007, so quite a fresh source. Gocsa (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Those sources are based on old information. About 2 1/2 years ago the BBC were stating 80 million albums. The 70 million was popularly touted when they re-united in 1999 and figures don't get revised too often - it's hard work! I put in the 100, if it does get removed, at least put in the 80 since the BBC IS a credible source.(The Elfoid (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC))

Oh, I see. Ok then.:) I've never thought they sold that many records.:) Gocsa (talk) 22:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No, a hundred million is way exaggerated even though there's a source claiming it. There are definitely more sources stating that Maiden have sold round 60 million Albums, so please correct that :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.61.216.234 (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Reason for relplacing the original lead singer

I just watched a special on VH1, 1/25/08, about 9pm cst. It was a 4 part series on the History of heavy metal. I believe I was watching Part II which contained info on Iron Maiden. They gave the reason for the original singer's replacement as a result of his lack of abilities*--vocal range, showmanship, etc.-- rather than his cocaine use/abuse. I don't even remember them saying anything about his use of cocaine.

If I missed this info in the Wikipedia article, I apologize for not reading more deeply.

This post is not associated with an edit/change to the subject page. I am not an editor. I just wanted to propose the inclusion of this particular viewpoint-which inspired me to listen to the band more than any other influence.

• I don't see this as "negative material about living persons." I am more interested in how many different views of "the facts" there are.

75.133.168.137 (talk) 08:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• I can not remember which documentary I saw, I think it was Wasted Years, but it seems the cocaine use was brought up. I need to see if I can find it.

Master Redyva ♠23:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Grammar Police!

Come on, people! Did none of you pass to second grade? Everywhere on this article, lines say things like "Iron Maiden are" or "Iron Maiden think" when (since pronouns that represent a group of people/things, such as band or class or cult, are considered to be singular) those lines should be saying things like "Iron Maiden is" and "Iron Maiden thinks." Could someone who has some time on their hands go in and correct this? Flaminglawyer (talk · contribs) 03:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Iron Maiden can be treated as either singular or plural. English, thankfully, doesn't have any offical body, like the Académie française, regulating usage, vocabulary, and grammar. If that's what you want, then move to Paris.

That's the British style, and since it's a British band that's why it is kept. Personally (being from Canada) I agree with the style you mentioned but this is wikipedia's policy. Dan (talk) 04:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:ENGVAR British subject=British sp./gr. . Contrary to the previous post... most Canadians using the proper "international" English version as well. Which means we pluralise our group nouns and we use correct spelling for words like humour, honour, colour, centre, recognise, socialise, enterprise and such n such. If a band is from the United States.. "It is a band" (or was)... if they are from anywhere else in the world(incl. Canada) "They are a band"(or were). 156.34.216.55 (talk) 11:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The OED, Britain's preeminent dictionary, prefers the ending -ize to -ise: "[...] some have used the spelling -ise in English, as in French [...] But the suffix itself, whatever the element to which it is added, is in its origin the Greek -izein, Latin -izare; and, as the pronunciation is also with z, there is no reason why in English the special French spelling should be followed, in opposition to that which is at once etymological and phonetic. In this Dictionary the termination is uniformly written -ize."

Painbearer's/Mad Hatter's changes

This space is reserved for Painbearer's rationale on why the IM article should be changed as drastically as he is recommending. Once we have that rationale we can, as a community, decide via WP:CONSENSUS on whether or not those changes will be advantageous for the article. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 15:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

If I may add a comment. My personal POV is that A) the removal of all the album title sub-headers was a good thing. B) Moving the peacock praisings and accolades up into the lead section was not a good thing. I have no opinion on the removal of the "album related fine details"... they were cited content and cited content has some weight BUT... it may have been content better suited for the album articles and not the band article. Someone else may comment on that. All those sub-headers and sub-sub-headers... that edit did not offend me any at all. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 16:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I am waiting and I will be waiting for 2 more days before anyone makes some kind of contradictory statement. If that doesn't happen, then we will do it my way. Mad Hatter (talk) 11:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Your way? As someone who is just passing by (after reading some comment about Iron Maiden and Wikipedia), I wonder where consensus is with your comment (anyone who comes by here and finds no discussion about what you are referring will likely think the same). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Painbearer/Madhatter please do not set ultimatums. That is not the way things work here at Wikipedia. They're incredibly unconstructive. I may opt for a WP:RfC because of your behaviour citing this instance as an example. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 03:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for acting this way, but I do a lot of work on Iron Maiden page. So, I made some major changes. Before deciding to revert them, let's first discuss them. I got the impression that: A) The removal of the title sub-heads is a GOOD thing. B) Anything else has to be discussed. We can pass without revert at least this time.

Regards: Mad Hatter (talk) 07:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

New Wave of British Heavy Metal

New Wave of British Heavy Metal is a genre. Michael Kenney appears to be more than a hired hand, as he has worked on mutiple albums (since since 1988) and has been the live keyboardist since Brave New World. Please see pages for NWOBHM and Michael Kenney. Master Redyva ♠

NWOBHM is a term not a genre. Try adding it to the Motorhead article and see how fast Admin Wiki alf removes it. The page itself makes no claim at being a genre. It was an era of time (1979-1981) when many British "heavy metal" bands came to prominence. They weren't playing a new or unique style of music. They were playing just plain ol' heavy metal. NWOBHM is a term. And Kenney, long term employee or not, has never been recognised as an actual "member". 156.34.220.124 (talk) 17:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

"Although genres are not precisely definable, genre considerations are one of the most important factors in determining what a person will see or read. Many genres have built-in audiences and corresponding publications that support them, such as magazines and websites." "Genre is a common concept that has great commercial and aesthetic importance, but it also continues to frustrate fans, artists, composers, and critics who don't want to be pigeonholed, for instance. There is always disagreement about the definition of a genre, and it is impossible to list all genre categories in existence. For further examination of these general issues, see Negus 1999 and Holt 2007. (Also see Music genre.) It really appears that NWOBHM is a sub-genre of Heavy Metal music. I wonder why you dislike the term and why you dislike Michael Kenney? I also noticed under Members, it lists Mr. Kenney as "Michael Kenney (Only live)". ("NWOBHM is a term." I wonder if this is sound. "Genre" is a term. ) Master Redyva ♠ 17:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing against Kenney. But the field is for band members and he isn't a band member. And NWOBHM is not a musical genre. It is not a musical style. It is an era describing a group of bands from England. No different than British Invasion. You won't find that "term" in The Beatles, Stones or Kinks infoboxes... because it isn't a genre. You won't find arena rock listed as a genre anywhere either. The field is defined as a field for musical genres. And these terms do not, or should never appear in these boxes. 156.34.220.124 (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

"What Is New Wave Of British Heavy Metal?" (Please see: http://heavymetal.about.com/od/heavymetal101/a/top_nwobhm.htm, http://en.allexperts.com/q/Heavy-Metal-2854/New-Wave-British-Heavy-1.htm http://germany.real.com/music/genre/New_Wave_of_British_Heavy_Metal/) (Also see Music genre.) Master Redyva ♠

About.com??? See WP:RS. Chad Bowar???? see WP:NN and then read WP:RS again. 156.34.220.124 (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Allexperts.com??? better read WP:RS again. Essentially a blog site that pages heavy metal experts most impressive credentials are that he has been to a lot of heavy metal concerts???... it's almost funny. An English entry by who??? on a german website for real player software. It might as well be Amazon.com. And before you start reading low quality amateur fansites like metal-archives.com... don't. Those websites are aiming low for readership since the only ones who are regular viewers are level four basket weavers. 156.34.220.124 (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

"level four basket weavers," this is your arguement? (Are you serious?) You are very kind. There are a lot of people who believe NWOBHM to be a musical genre. Those three sites are examples of people who support this idea. It also appears that users on Wikipedia believe the same thing (ie the minor "edit war"). I am also lead to believe this is going to be an ongoing issue and undoing edits is only a short term (very short) fix. Also : "Although genres are not precisely definable, genre considerations are one of the most important factors in determining what a person will see or read. Many genres have built-in audiences and corresponding publications that support them, such as magazines and websites." "Genre is a common concept that has great commercial and aesthetic importance, but it also continues to frustrate fans, artists, composers, and critics who don't want to be pigeonholed, for instance. There is always disagreement about the definition of a genre, and it is impossible to list all genre categories in existence. For further examination of these general issues, see Negus 1999 and Holt 2007. (Also see Music genre.) It really appears that NWOBHM is a sub-genre of Heavy Metal music. Master Redyva ♠

The above reasoning is more than valid. It is not a genre anymore than New wave of American heavy metal is. No different from Brit Invasion or Arena Rock. It specifies a span of years or a timeline for heavy metal music. But is not a different style of music itself. Fair Deal (talk) 21:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Kenny's an off-stage touring musician. See The Who and Rolling Stones for the best explanations of why he's not REALLY in Iron Maiden.

Now, NWOBHM. Motorhead's not a good example; from what I saw on the talk page, it had nothing to do with it being a genre or not. He made no mention of that. Arena rock and British Invasion were vague umbrella terms - British Invasion for a period when British bands became huge in the USA, arena rock for a type of commercial yet heavy rock music. NWOBHM had a characteristic look, style and sound that was unique. To say it was an era not a genre is like calling the punk bands from 76-79 (or whenever you think punk started and finished) a "movement" and "era of music" just because it was so unique to the period. And I defy anyone who says punk is not a music genre.

However, 156.34.220.124 is a well respected/popular editor who I've seen in a number of discussions (most of which I avoided, but that was since I didn't know enough to take part) win arguments because he's smart enough to construct a better argument than other people, whether he's right or wrong. As he did with me on the AC/DC talk page, he'll somehow manage to convince you you can't stop him. When I had a discussion with him on that page...my argument was that we cannot claim AC/DC are heavy metal. I was supported by 6 reliable sources highly respected within the area (some of which are frequently cited accross Wikipedia to an almost worrying degree) that agreed with me, along with 2 quotes from AC/DC themselves, and I still couldn't rally enough support to get anywhere. I had AllMusic.Com, respected authors Garry Sharpe-Younge, Sleazegrinder, Ian Fortnam and Sian Llewelly, 2 members of AC/DC themselves (both a founding member and one who joined later) and a quote from the SeattleWeekly website (not a strong enough source to claim a point on it's own, but another one to add to a hefty pile). I also had a majority of past opinions agreeing with me. I think he had a quote by Christe implying they were metal (despite a quote from me where he specifically states without a doubt they are not) and another by Garry Sharpe-Younge which I had a more clearly defined quote of a similar nature to counter with. Somehow, despite me saying "we can't call it heavy metal point blank, though we can say it is debated" and him saying "we can say it IS heavy metal as a plain statement of fact in the infobox, you just mention how some people disagree", he managed to beat me into submission. And I don't give up arguments without a big fight. So I know for a fact that whatever supporting evidence anyone finds, 156.34.220.124 has won the argument and we should give up. I've made my stand with some above statements, so I'll put that edit on, now I see who the opposition is though, I wouldn't have typed it had I known. (The Elfoid (talk) 02:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC))

Heavy metal music

"Heavy metal has long had a worldwide following of fans known as "metalheads" or "headbangers". Although early heavy metal bands such as Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, and Deep Purple attracted large audiences, they were often critically reviled at the time, a status common throughout the history of the genre. In the mid-1970s, Judas Priest helped spur the genre's evolution by discarding much of its blues influence. The New Wave of British Heavy Metal followed in a similar vein, introducing a punk rock sensibility and an increasing emphasis on speed." This is from the Wikipedia page Heavy metal music. I hope this helps. 66.162.207.31 (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

A) That text says nothing about it being a genre and... more importantly.. B) Wikipedia can never be used as a citation for itself. Along with WP:RS try reading WP:CITE and WP:V. 156.34.220.124 (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

"Wasting Love"

The power ballad comment/line might need a citation, as well as the fourth installment of the Charlotte saga (Charlotte is mentioned by name in 'From Here to Eternity') , but is that ground enough to delete? Master Redyva ♠ 19:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

So, the policy is, "When in doubt, let it stand?" Nah...when it doubt, something should be removed.

C'mon..."is perhaps one of the band's only power ballad"... I repeat, "IS PERHAPS ONE OF...".

Doesn't such weak wording, coupled with a vague (and subjective) term like "power ballad", convince you that this "fact" should just be scrubbed?

Is the lack of citation about the "4th installment" enough to merit deletion? OF COURSE! If it is in dispute AND can't be cited, it should be deleted.

However, I'll meet half-way on these points and do a little re-wording. See if that's agreable? Ynot4tony (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I reworded the section, but it sounds a bit wordy, like a run-on sentence. The more I think about it, the more I advocate removing the reference to "Wasting Love." It hasn't been played live since the FotD tour, and therefore seems to lack relevance today. Then again, it was released as a single, so I'm not entirely rigid on its removal. Your thoughts? Ynot4tony (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Looks much better. Kudos. The wording is much better . Master Redyva ♠ 16:27, April 16, 2008 (UTC)

Someone added, "...the only one to be classified as a ballad." Classified by whom, I ask? Where is this invisible authority on what rocks and what is wussy? And for the record, "The Journeyman" fits the definition of ballad far, far more accurately than "Wasting Love", for cripe's sake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.58.248.32 (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You mean that you've never heard of the International Ballad Classification Service?! But seriously, I was wondering the same thing. I certainly see no reason there should be a mention of it being "classified as a ballad" without there being a source, as that's just an editor's opinion. ~ mazca ^talk 22:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Tours?

Shouldn't there be articles on the bands tours? Escpically For somewhere back in time?

What, such as Somewhere Back In Time World Tour, Brave New World Tour, World Slavery Tour? They're there already! ~ mazca ^talk 22:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Years active

I noticed that someone has edited "years active" to: "Last Thursday - present" Is it someone who's joking about it, or have I missed something?--80.203.75.2 (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

History of Rock

Paragraph 2 in the "History of Rock" section is a very large, impenetrable block of text. Good for hitting someone over the head with, but difficult to read. I strongly suggest that someone who actually knows what they're talking about when it comes to Iron Maiden (in other words, someone who isn't me) edits/rewrites this textual roadblock. --MQDuck 17:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)