Jump to content

Talk:Wizard rock

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's a music genre!

[edit]

December 10, 2006

Okay, then let's merge Rock 'n Roll with Elvis.. Wizard Rock, is a music genre as is any other, there is no reason for it not to have it's own article in the format of other music genres. As stated below, 'When searched for Wizard Rock many MySpace articles appear.' Well if we simply treat wizard rock a music genre others will too.

Wizard Rock, is not only in the Harry Potter fandom, it contains many other bands, related to other books, therefore redirecting it is not the right thing to do.

I suggest an article to be formed named 'Wizard Rock' and 'List of Wizard Rock bands', as it is not right to treat this genre unfairly..

Best Regards, Hp Fan 9374 - Alex Douglas

I was a complete newbie when I wrote this almost four years ago; it's just embarrassing to read. On reflection, I believe it is suitable to create a wizard rock article; it has been covered in some very high-quality reliable sources and extensively in a number of books and films. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 03:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THis IS NOT A GENRE. !!! This deserves no mention208.118.205.78 (talk) 03:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)A[reply]

  • I'm not a wizard rock fan, but I have to agree that at this point in time, this "genre" of music has now grown so large that it warrants its own article. It's very extensive and countless hundreds of bands identifying as wrock bands. It's been gaining significant mainstream press as well. I'm no expert on it but I'm sure if someone had the resources, they'd be able to provide more than enough legitimate references and write something sufficiently detailed. I'd be hesitant to call it a genre, however, as it covers every genre of music. The only connect being that the bands all have the same subject matter. zerocity (talk), 17 July 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 14:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
This article seems to exist only to promote two bands in particular. And to that extent, its reporting that they are performing in house parties. It is highly questionable that this article exists. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 03:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pruning or merging

[edit]

I think this article could use some serious pruning, particularly the section on examples of Wizard rock bands, because these look like just a bunch of spamlinks to myspace and other personal web sites. If these bands aren't notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, they're not notable enough to have a text+link mention in this site. In other words, everything but Harry and the Potters should be removed (or at the very least, delinked).

Another definite possibility is to merge and redirect this article to Harry Potter fandom. What do you think? --Deathphoenix 14:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • I have hacked at the text, removing some blatantly biased comments not conforming to WP:NOR & WP:NPOV. Whats left is a brief introduction, which I think is perfectly adequate to describe a decidedly small limited appeal subject (the bands I mean, not HP of course :) Death Eater Dan 20:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks (did you prune the this, or the Dumbledore article?). When I have time, I plan to delete all the myspace (and similar) links and then run a Google PageRank & Alexa check on the rest of the links. --Deathphoenix 20:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yep that sounds like the best way of dealing with all the band links. I pruned this article tonight, I cleaned up the Dumbledore article last night after it had been butchered all day with some bloody awful editing. Death Eater Dan 21:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, okay. I was a little confused. --Deathphoenix 21:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hi DeathPhoenix I too am a tad confused now..... what happened to my edit? I hacked at the text and removed all the crap (as in my earlier post above on the 21st Feb) after I clicked save on my edit I came straight here to put it on the talk page. I'm now back after a 3 day wikibreak and find no sign of my Feb 21st edit in the history and therefore you ended up having to do the pruning yourself even though I had already stated I had done it (penny has now dropped why you asked what i had pruned). EH? oh well it's all sorted now and good work on the merger. Death Eater Dan 18:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with placing this as a section under fandom. Rather more reservation that no subject is worth mentioning unless it has its own article already, that seems rather a blanket ban on articles covering several topics. However, someone would need to have something interesting to say about them to make them worth a mention. Some might be included as examples of the sort of name? (but I see a couple are) Sandpiper 22:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone already completed the merge; I removed the merge tag from Harry Potter fandom. SujinYH 16:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaked text and removed external links

[edit]

To prepare for the likely merge, I tweaked the text and removed all links to the myspace and freeweb domains. In addition, I removed "The Rita Skeeters" (lolisandpotts dot com has no Alexa rank and a Google PageRank of 2/10), "Draco and the Malfoys" (evilwizardrock dot com has an Alexa rank of 4,597,651 and a Google PageRank of 0/10), and "Hollow Godric" (hollowgodric dot com has no Alexa rank and a Google PageRank of 0/10), though I've mentioned the first two in the text with no links. --Deathphoenix 16:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article for Deletion

[edit]

There has been no comment about why this article was nominated for deletion; there is no conversation on this talk page and there has been no conversation on the AFD talk page. I am therefore removing the AFD nomination. If anyone objects, just restore the AFD nomination, but please provide a reason this article should be deleted. As there is no discussion, there is no reason to have the banner. --Nick2253 (talk) 00:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine by me. I posted a message asking for reasons on the original poster's talkpage but there has been no result.--SabreBD (talk) 07:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography

[edit]

This article has a large number of books in its bibliography, but none of them are used for references in the text. Does anyone have access to these and can confirm that they mention wizard rock, or are they just lending spurious weight to the article?

Prod

[edit]

This really hasn't justified itself in its current content. Besides being a near-stub, "genre" includes much more than subject matter. "Wrock" doesn't have any stylistic ties from one band to the next: it's all subject-matter. Unless there's evidence to the contrary, this really ought to be deleted (and maybe merged into the fandom article as suggested earlier). Marking for deletion. Sehr Gut (talk) 03:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The prod template has no reason in the concern field, but I assume it is notability. Looking through the sources for this article it seems to meet the general requirements for notability, as it has "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (WP:NOTE), particularly in the references from the Washington Post and Time. Having said that, I would agree that a genre is not just shared subject matter, but at least a shared and interconnected awareness of musical form. However, if that is the case then we should probably adjust the text and remove the genre infobox. I am also open to the argument for a merge to Harry Potter fandom, but to do that we should add a merge template and have a full discussion. It may be best to resolve these issues by going to a AfD discussion, where merge, delete or keep are all options. I am removing the Prod template on these grounds. If you want to go to a merge or AfD discussion I will participate.--SabreBD (talk) 08:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Other fan rock

[edit]

I'm just wondering where the other examples of fan rock are - such as Trock (Time Lord Rock)? If they don't exist on wiki I'm not sure why this is here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.54.165 (talk) 10:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Becuase this one has reliable sources.--SabreBD (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Wizard rock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wizard_rock&oldid=1210983441"