User talk:MrMoustacheMM/Archive 4

review removal

Hi there! :)

I'm pretty new to Wikipedia, at least as an author. where can I look up the guidelines for adding reviews? I didn't know that 10 is the max. LordRapture (talk) 06:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! Some useful guideline pages: WP:ALBUM/REVSIT, WP:MOSALBUM, and specifically Wikipedia:MOSALBUM#Album ratings template. Also, if you're planning on editing album articles, Template:Infobox album is a good one to look at. Template:Infobox musical artist is also good for artist/band articles. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 21:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, just a couple of things, when using italics for a wikilinked term (for example, [[Rock Hard (magazine)|Rock Hard]]), put the italic marks on the outside, like this: ''[[Rock Hard (magazine)|Rock Hard]]'', not inside the wikilink. And you can remove underscores (_) from links (so Rock Hard (magazine), not Rock_Hard_(magazine)). MrMoustacheMM (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks. :) LordRapture (talk) 00:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Defeated Sanity

Mr. Moustache, I noticed you reverted an edit which I made. On Defeated Sanity's Facebook page, under the "about" option, it clearly states they are Progressive Brutal Death Metal. Progressive is another phrase for Technical Death Metal. Also, their songs and compositions appear to conform to that style. There are elements of just plain Death Metal, but a significant portion of their instrument sound is technical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.26.184 (talk) 00:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you find an independent third party reliable source calling them this then? Their own facebook page isn't considered a reliable source for genres on Wikipedia. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 00:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, here is one: http://www.last.fm/music/Defeated+Sanity ...... On this reputable source, they are listed under a number of different genres. Technical death metal is one of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.26.184 (talk) 00:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but last.fm is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. Its information is added from users, and so does not qualify under WP:RS. Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources for suggestions of reliable sources to use to add information such as this. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 00:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Devourment

could you please create the page for Conceived in Sewage (their latest record)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.141.121 (talk) 10:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll have a look and see if I can find enough sources to write an article for it. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 01:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done See Conceived in Sewage. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 04:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Devourment fucking rocks \m/

Gojira

Hi MrMoustacheMM

I can see that it looks like I've been making spurious changes to links that are already correct, but there is actually a reason - the move request at Talk:Gojira has concluded and the consensus is to move Gojira to Gojira (band) and then move Gojira (disambiguation) to the main page at Gojira. I'm fixing all the incoming links in advance, because Gojira (band) is already a redirect, hence the changes I'm making now are not breaking anything. Then once the move goes ahead (I'll request an admin to carry that out afterwards), everything will already be in place.

Hope that makes some sense! Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I didn't see that. You should mention that in your edit summary, instead of just "fix disambig links", when it looks like you haven't "fixed" anything. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 23:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll do that in future. Thanks for pointing that out!  — Amakuru (talk) 23:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the good work! And sorry for the misunderstanding. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Metalocalypse Wikia

I don't know if you edit on wiki sites outside of Wikipedia, but I recently "adopted" the Metalocalypse Wiki and was given admin privileges. Just wanted to let you know that I'd be happy to give your Wikia account admin privileges if you're interested in editing that wiki.TheDethklokGuy (talk) 23:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer! I think for now I'm going to stick with WP, but if I change my mind in the future, I'll let you know. Good luck though, I'm sure that you'll make that wikia look great! MrMoustacheMM (talk) 15:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Trivial links

Dear MrMoustache, thank you for your work on Wikipedia. I'm afraid that any guidelines promoting the linking of trivial items in this wp:mosalbum (of which no one seems to have been aware) need to be harmonised with the rest of the site's guidelines. For many years, the wikilinking guidelines have been quite clear—linking should be done with care, and rationed to the more useful links for readers. Ohconfucius is one of our most experienced editors; he should be taken seriously. in this matter. Tony (talk) 08:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Then start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:MOSALBUM and get it changed there. Until then, Ohconfucius is going against consensus (which is not directly/explicitly contradicted by WP:OVERLINK), and I will continue to disagree with that editor's edits. I do not consider these to be "trivial", and any opinion that does needs to seek consensus for that opinion. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

He doesn't, actually. The site-wide policy is quite clear, and involves not only an avoidance of trivial common-term linking, but bunching and vagueness in linking. You seem to be conducting a crusade, but these matters were settled by the community long ago. In addition, please see the pillar, which states that WP is not a dictionary. Tony (talk) 19:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Nowhere have you or Ohconfucius shown where linking things like instruments are considered "trivial". It seems to just be your opinions that they are; can you provide some sort of backup for this opinion? A link to where "the community" "settled" this? This seems to be the crux of the issue: are these actually trivial? You say yes, I (and the consensus at WP:MOSALBUM) say no, so what is your basis for calling them trivial? Support your claims that these links are trivial. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 20:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

grindcore subject

Hi

Why did you remove my changes ? Fred — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred INHUMATE (talk • contribs) 11:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Because your information was not supported by a reliable source. On Wikipedia, we require additions to be properly sourced. You also marked the edit as "minor" when it was not, per WP:MINOR. And you appear to be affiliated with the band you were adding, which could be considered a conflict of interest. If you would like that information re-added, please bring it up at Talk:Grindcore, and editors who edit that page can discuss it. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 01:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Traitors (album) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• net/news/misery-index-new-album-title-revealed/|title=MISERY INDEX: New Album Title Revealed]|publisher=[[Blabbermouth.net]]|date=May 3, 2008|accessdate=October 9, 2013}}</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Doomstar Requiem Personnel section

Don't you think the "Additional Personnel" section should go on the right since that's the section that have the biggest list and the right side is where there's the most space? TheDethklokGuy (talk) 03:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I figured it looks better having all the performers on one side and all the production personnel on the other. This way readers can move their eyes all down one side when all they want to know is who was on the album (which I think is more often what people are looking for than "who pushed 'record' on the mixing board?"). MrMoustacheMM (talk) 07:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Dragonflame

What's the problem?Russelray (talk) 19:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

As I stated in my edit summary, see Template:Infobox album. But in summary, we only show the length of the original release in the infobox.

Additionally, please read WP:MINOR. You are marking edits as "minor" when they do not qualify as minor edits. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 20:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Then re-release bonus tracks, limited edition tracks, Japanese only tracks, and such should not be included. In any event, the listing times added up must equal the total listing time. Otherwise something is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Russelray (talk • contribs) 20:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

You are correct, album lengths shown in the infobox should not include bonus/limited edition/Japanese tracks as part of the length given. The times given in the track listing do add up to the length given at the bottom of the track listing; however, the length given in the infobox should only be the original version of the album. Again, read Template:Infobox album, and you will understand why I am making this edit.

Additionally, on Wikipedia, if someone disagrees with your edit, do not keep making the same edit. Instead discuss it, and only restore your edit if your discussion reaches a consensus to do so (per WP:CONSENSUS). I'm removing your incorrect edit again (and it is incorrect); please do not restore it. I don't want to have to take this to WP:ANI and ask for an administrator to block you. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 20:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

First, there is no total time at the bottom of the track listing. Nothwithstanding that, the times DO NOT add up to 61:06. They add up to 65:02. If you want to remove track 10 and move track 11 up to track 10, I'm agreeable to that, but then the information about the limited edition bonus track, which is relevant to music history researchers such as me, needs to be put somewhere else. Let me know what you want to do. In some form or fashion, I'm going to get even more accurate information into the page than what is already there because as it is now, it's incomplete.Russelray (talk) 22:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

What do you think?Russelray (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

My apologies, I thought the total length was given at the bottom of the template. I've fixed up your edit to fit with Template:Track listing, and removed all the extraneous unnecessary explanations from the all_music parameter. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

That I can live with. Thank you.Russelray (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Surgical Steel

Hey dude. Thanks for your work on this article. I wanted to ask if you could trim the Blabbermouth link using the "ref name" shortage. It seems I can't figure out how to do it since I haven't worked with those chart templates. And have you considered changing the genre to death metal only since the journalist from Terrorizer categorizes it there; unlike the one from Decibel who noted that the second half sounds more melodic. Cheers.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 10:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I looked at that, but I couldn't figure out how to combine the citations, because they're all internal to Template:Albumchart. For most of them I just went to the ref given without the manual citation and confirmed the numbers given, and kept the BM ref for the Australian chart (as it didn't say what the album reached there).

As for "death metal" vs "melodic death metal", that one is up for debate. Personally, I'd say the Decibel usage of "melodic" is enough to validate "melodic death metal", but if you think that isn't enough, I'm fine with just "death metal".

Additionally, I had to undo some of your work to the personnel section. Per WP:ACCESS, we don't use fake headings with semicolon markup, and per WP:MOSALBUM, we don't make multiple columns unless the number of personnel exceeds 20. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Slick Idiot Albums

Hi, I see that you recently reverted my redirects of unreferenced Slick Idiot album stubs to the main band article. I made this change per Wikipedia:NALBUMS#Recordings, which says "album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." In any case, I've now prod'ed the articles as a first step towards potential deletion.Dialectric (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

If you had followed through and actually merged them, I wouldn't have reverted your changes. If you want to go ahead and merge them into the main Slick Idiot article, or create a discography article, please feel free to do so. In the meantime, I'll see if I can find some sort of source to keep these. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Set Teitan

"Template:Italy-guitarist-stub" does not exist. Why did you add it to Set Teitan? --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Because you removed it without any explanation in your edit summary, and it appeared to be legitimate until I restored it and saw it doesn't exist (you'll notice I then removed it again). In the future, be sure to explain your edits by including an edit summary, don't just say "{{Aborym}}" and leave it at that. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 21:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Megadeth

Greetings. Since you're mainly editing heavy metal articles, can you re-asses Megadeth? I've gone through every section of the page and I believe it satisfies the B-class criteria.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know enough about how to assess articles to feel comfortable doing that, especially for such a high-profile band. If you work on some smaller album articles, I'd be happy to try my hand at that, but someone more experienced should assess Megadeth. I would post at WT:METAL and ask for an assessment there. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you have time, you can try and assess So Far, So Good... So What!. It's been listed for over a month, and your help will be appreciated.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I wrote up an unofficial review on the talk page. Take a look, and feel free to ask questions (there) if I'm unclear or if you disagree. Again, I don't really consider myself a reviewer, so even once you're done this, I won't promote it. But hopefully when a real reviewer comes along, all they have to do is say "yep, looks good, promoted", or hopefully only have a few things to be fixed. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 00:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I see there is now a reviewer. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 23:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Just to say thanks for your input so far. I'll address some of the issues you've raised and hope I'll get the article promoted. Bye.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello mate. Interested in making a word check on Killing Is My Business? I did some editing and think the article sounds quite compelling. I'll be very thankful if you can lend me a hand on this one.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 16:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but it might take me a bit to get to, what with family during holidays and all. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, you don't have to rush. And by the way merry Christmas and everything the best.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 19:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Were you still interested in me having a look at this article? I've been pretty busy for the past month and haven't had a solid block of a few hours to sit down and go through it like I did for SFSGSW, but I think this weekend I should have some time to do so. Let me know. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please. I think the "Background" and "Release and promotion" have solid number of grammatical mistakes. If it's something small, you can correct it yourself if you want. I was going to remind you anyway, but changed my mind and decided to be less demanding to other editors. Have a good one.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem, feel free to remind me, I don't mind at all. You also have a good one, and I'll let you know when I've taken a look! MrMoustacheMM (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Decapitated revert

Just to say "thanks" for the revert. I'd not actually spotted the info in the main body of the text or I'd not have put it in the header! :) IainP (talk) 10:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem! Nothing personal of course, just trying to keep the article clean and easy to read! MrMoustacheMM (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment request

Hi. If it's not too much trouble, could you offer your two cents to this post regarding the removal of a particular source? The RfC has not generated much since it was opened, so any input would be appreciated. Dan56 (talk) 23:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 03:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Piero Scaruffi reviews

Hey there. I noticed you removed a bunch of recently added Scaruffi reviews. I know it's always suspicious when someone does a strafing run of odd sources, but I had always assumed he was reliable. He has his own article, and I've used him myself a few times. I guess it's never been clearly determined, but he is used in at least one other good article right now too. What do you think about opening a thread at WP:RSN to get some more opinions? —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

It actually was clearly determined a couple days ago, at WT:ALBUM#Piero Scaruffi - Final Verdict on using him as a source in reviews. He's not reliable, as he's not a professional writer, just a scientist who writes his own blog reviews on the side. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh cool. I'm not around as much as I used to be so I'm not keeping up with discussion very closely. Glad that's been settled. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar! I'm really happy to see that my efforts are recognized by fellow contributors. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome! You've been editing several articles I have on my watchlist, and you've been doing great work, including creating those Greymachine articles ready to go (ie properly sourced, fleshed out, not just unsourced stubs). Keep up the great work! MrMoustacheMM (talk) 20:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Hello, I believe the following discussion about template accessibility may be of use to you. Please comment if you wish at Template_talk:Infobox_album#Consistancy. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 21:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Replied. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Alternative metal on Meshuggah's Contradictions Collapse

There's an ongoing discussion as to whether this reliably sourced genre should be included on the Contradictions Collapse article. Please add your much valued input. Thanks. I call the big one bitey (talk) 03:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Problem with Lukejordan02

Hello. I've experienced minor problem with Lukejordan02 at Megadeth discography. He persistently removes the countries he thinks are "not that important and redundant", even though no policy explicitly advices that. Furthermore, I saw he omitted some video albums and a demo by the band which, I assume, thinks are not that important too. He has reverted me two times and continues to make unconstructive changes without consensus. Should I report this somewhere because talking to him clearly doesn't work?--Retrohead (talk) 15:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANI would be a good place to do so. Not sure how much luck you'll have, I've tried there a couple of times and the case went unresolved, but if you start a case there I'll weigh in on it. This user likes to ignore Wikipedia policies and guidelines, because they're certain they know better, so if/when an admin takes a look at the case, they might see that as well. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 00:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The user is already reported. Please leave a comment there.--Retrohead (talk) 08:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Opeth pale communion page

Stop changing my stuff back. I have references for the information I'm putting in and it's more accurate---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.88.24 (talk) 19:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The sourced information you're adding is not nearly important enough for a Wikipedia article (background of quotes, that the album release date was pushed back). But if you disagree, start a discussion on the article's talk page: Talk:Pale Communion. If other editors agree that this information should be added, then it can be re-added to the article. As for stuff like the song lengths, I have not yet seen a reliable source added that confirms these lengths; thus, this information is unsourced and will continue to be removed. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 20:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Apology

Hi, I just want to say I am sorry for any disruptive editing I have done in the past and I want a fresh start, kind regards. Lukejordan02 (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I just want to say I meant this, you never replied to me but I am sorry for the past. Lukejordan02 (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I'll assume good faith and accept it. Of course, it all hinges on how you do in the future; if you can keep from edit warring and start discussing more (as it so far appears you have been), then I see no reason not to move on and continue editing collaboratively. As you can see at Talk:Damnation (album), I'm not out to get you; when you make a valid point, and wait for discussion, I'm perfectly happy to support your point if I agree with it. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 00:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you and I am looking forward to a clean slate, by the way how do I know when a consensus has been reached on the damnation page is there a certain number of users required. Lukejordan02 (talk) 01:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Not really, it's more of a time thing. For example, right now there is not a consensus, as it's only been a couple of hours. Generally a week is a good amount of time to give before deciding if consensus is reached; some editors only edit on certain days (weekends, that sort of thing). That being said, the more editors that weigh in, the stronger the consensus is (assuming there is one). It's also not a vote; reasoning based on policies and guidelines is what determines consensus. In other words, 30 editors could say "Keep it! I like it!", but if 3 editors say "Delete it, because WP:OR says '[quote from WP:OR]'", the 3 editors saying that will have determined consensus; in this fictional example, to delete it.

Additionally, consensus can change; if someone comes along 2 weeks later, and raises valid points contesting the current consensus, it is possible that the consensus might change. It also might not. For example, consensus existed at Youthanasia about not including "thrash metal" after 3 discussions on the subject; the points you raised weren't strong enough to change that consensus. (Not trying to come down on you for that, just explaining why it didn't change).

I'm happy to see that you have accepted a voluntary 0-revert rule in order to become unblocked; I think that if you follow it, you will find people far more willing to listen to what you have to say, and you might find more of your changes being accepted after discussion. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 01:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, so if I wait until say next Thursday, will you help me to understand if a consensus has been reached or not? Lukejordan02 (talk) 01:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

(Please indent your comment from the last given comment; it's really annoying to have to jump back and forth attempting to figure out where new comments are. You can do this by adding several colons (:) in front of your comment; open this section to edit and you'll see how each reply has one more colon than the last.) Sure, I'll help you with that. Just drop me a note here or reply at that discussion asking if there is consensus yet when you think enough time has gone by (next Thursday seems reasonable). MrMoustacheMM (talk) 01:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Just a quick note to say it is Thursday the day when I said I would contact you to see if a consensus has been reached. I can see it has already been removed by another user but am just here to prove I am not back to my old crappy editing habits, thank you. Lukejordan02 (talk) 18:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks good! I'm glad the discussion worked out, and am glad that your proposal went through as discussed. Also good for you for not edit warring over that, it shows that you truly have improved your editing habits! MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment required

Hello. Can you offer your two cents on a genre debate about Youthanasia? The discussion is here.--Retrohead (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion

Hi, could I have your opinion on opeth damnation talk page please! kind regards, Lukejordan02 (talk) 23:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I see you have been editing Pale Communion, you don't know how come Martin Lopez has drummed on a couple of songs do you? Lukejordan02 (talk) 10:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

No idea. Might be worth searching Blabbermouth and other reliable sources that mention his being on the album. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Opinion?

Hello! I created an article on the Acid Drinkers album Amazing Atomic Activity, and it is being proposed for deletion due to "trivial sources". If you have time, maybe you could offer your opinion here on the article entry. Greatly appreciated, thank you! TheSickBehemoth (talk) 00:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure! However, I hate to be a downer, but I don't have much good to say about the article as it currently is. If you haven't already, I suggest going through WP:ALBUM/SOURCES and trying to find some better sources that demonstrate the notability of the album. Right now the sources are either blatantly unreliable, questionable (what with my lack of understanding Polish), or generally not much help (Allmusic generally needs a review to establish some sort of notability for the album, not just a page with song titles and basic information). Best of luck in finding some sources establishing its notability! MrMoustacheMM (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem, I still appreciate the feedback! Thank you! TheSickBehemoth (talk) 03:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Input needed at genre discussion

Hey there, could you give your input for the addition of alternative metal to the infobox at The Hunting Party? There's been disputes over genres lately, so I'm trying to establish a consensus for alternative metal to be listed alongside the current genres (hard rock and rap rock). Here is the thread for the poll: Talk:The Hunting Party (album)#Genre Poll Kokoro20 (talk) 09:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Question

Hi, sorry to bother you again, but I thought it was best to ask a more experienced user's advice than make a mistake. Is this link enough to serve as a source for progressive death metal on the Still Life article,
http://www.allmusic.com/album/still-life-mw0000000177. Progressive rock is mentioned and it says alternated with his ever-present death growl. Lukejordan02 (talk) 12:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so. It doesn't mention "death metal" anywhere, and "death growl" does not automatically mean "death metal" (otherwise about a million grindcore bands would suddenly become death metal). The best source would specifically say "progressive death metal", and a source that uses "progressive metal" and "death metal" in conjunction with one another would probably be acceptable. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, sorry to keep bothering you but i am trying to be a better editor by asking the advice of more experienced users such as yourself. How about this one
http://www.sputnikmusic.com/review/8345/Opeth-Still-Life/ It doesn't mention progressive as such but this time does mention death metal?

If this one doesn't fit either do you have any idea on one I could find as I am trying to find as source for the genre on Still Life as it says citation needed, thank you (and apologises for the poor wording.) Lukejordan02 (talk) 17:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

No problem, this is exactly what you should be doing to better learn how to use sources! The Sputnik review definitely supports "death metal", so while I wouldn't use it to support "progressive death metal", I think using it to support "death metal" would be perfectly fine. That would put the genres at "Progressive rock, death metal", and users can make up their own minds over whether that counts as "progressive death metal" or not.

As for other sources to look through, WP:ALBUM/SOURCES is my go-to place when I need to find support for something. I'd recommend looking through there and trying some of those sources. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

OK thank you, I will take a look. Lukejordan02 (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

OK I am going to do what you suggested, which do you think should be listed first (Death metal, progressive rock or Progressive rock, death metal?) Lukejordan02 (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't matter to me. If you put PR first, then users will see "Progressive" before they see DM, so that may help to link the two visually. But I can't see any specific reason why one should be first. Up to you. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I went with putting death metal first (1- alphabetical order and 2- you could argue it is more death metal than progressive rock) can you just check it and see if you are happy with it, thanks for your help. Kind regards, Lukejordan02 (talk) 19:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Yep, seems fine to me. I combined the reference with the already-existing ref for the same source. Generally this is done so that there aren't multiple instances of the same source in the References section. If you open the article to edit, you'll see what I did to make that change. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I see why you did it, I don't understand how you did it though, I must be dumb :) thank you for the help. Lukejordan02 (talk) 19:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Open the article for editing. If you look further down (in the Album Ratings template), you'll see there's already a reference with that same source. You'll see that instead of <ref>{{cite web....}}</ref>, it's <ref name="sputnik">. This gives that reference a name, and you can use that to re-cite the same source multiple times. All you need to do for subsequent uses of that source is type <ref name="sputnik" /> (note the slash after the name), and it will count as a second instance of the same source, instead of having a duplicate source listed. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh I get it now, sorry to be a nuisance, but I am really trying to become a great editor (I have already put a stop to my edit warring.) Lukejordan02 (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Shanghai'd in Shanghai

Hi MrMoustacheMM. I was wondering if you'd mind taking a look at the Shanghai'd in Shanghai article. The article is a stub which barely meets notability guidelines (if at all), and was quite correctly redirected by another editor to the proper album article back in October 2011. Another editor has recently resurrected the article and has thus far done nothing to expand it while steadfastly blocking all attempts to have the redirect restored as the guidelines for song notability dictate be done. If you'd care to give it a look it would be appreciated. Cheers. Caper454 (talk) 12:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Help with starting discussion

Hi, I know you are probably busy but when/if you get some spare time could you help me to start a discussion about In Flames - Clayman. I think heavy metal should be removed from the infobox as it mentions only metal and heavy metal these days refers to original metal (Sabbath), none of their other albums have this label and yet there early albums are all of the same style, the purpose of an infobox is to summarise key facts and this isn't one, thank you. Lukejordan02 (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I'll have a look later today. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I looked at the given source, and it only called the band "metal", not "heavy metal", so I changed it to correctly represent what the source says. I don't see a reason to remove it, as it is reliably sourced, but at the same time, the lack of "heavy" means it won't be misconstrued as meaning Black Sabbath-style heavy metal. Not sure a discussion is really needed; doesn't look like there's a lot of editing activity there anyway. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, looks OK now it was just the heavy metal but because of its association with classic metal such as (Sabbath, Priest.) Hope you think I made a good point and thank you for looking in to it, I find it useful to have more experienced users like yourself to look to for help when needed. Lukejordan02 (talk) 23:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, when I see "heavy metal" I too immediately think of the early 70s bands that pioneered metal, not "metal" bands of today. So yes, you made a good point, you're welcome for the help, and I'm glad I was able to help you! MrMoustacheMM (talk) 23:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Carcass Wikipedia

Hello,

I hope you are well. My name is Bill and I play guitar in a band called Carcass. It appears you have taken it upon yourself to edit our Wikipedia page, even going so far as to undo any recent attempts on our part to correct the numerous mistakes that are present. Now, while we do appreciate that there may be good intentions at work, the bottom line is that someone we have never even met has decided that they know more about our band's history than we do. And that is annoying, to put it mildly.

If all of this was done from a fan's perspective and a genuine (if misguided) desire to set the record straight, I must thank you for your efforts. In many ways I can relate to that position as I still consider myself a fan of music first, a musician second. But I also know I wouldn't ever have the nerve to try and govern any of my favourite bands' Wikipedia pages.

Given that this is the insane world of the internet, I won't make the rash assumption that you are actually an admirer of our band. This wouldn't be the first time that someone who dislikes us has chosen to spread misinformation online. But in the (perhaps unlikely) event that you are interested and prepared to listen, let me know and I will explain which details are wrong, and why. There are quite a few and in all honesty I don't want to waste my time going through all of this unless you are genuinely concerned.

All the best,

Bill SteerAncientnorthern (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I am indeed a fan of the band. I would love to believe that you are indeed Bill Steer; however, I'm sure you can understand that due to the anonymity of the internet, I can't just assume that's true (it would be very easy for anyone to sign up and leave me a message claiming they are someone famous when they are not). And because we can't verify that editors are who they say they are, this encyclopedia (like all encyclopedias) instead has to rely on what reliable sources say. A reliable source would include things like newspaper articles or articles in magazines like Terrorizer, or things like audio/video interviews with the band (including, say, the Pathologist's Report DVDs). Currently the Carcass article is lacking in some areas for sources (which is in and of itself a problem), and the introduction of more unsourced information is problematic. It's not that I think I know more than you, or that I think you're wrong; it's that Wikipedia can only accept referenced information from reliable sources.

If you have changes you wish to see added, I recommend starting a discussion at Talk:Carcass. This way you can explain what changes you think should be made, and can hopefully provide some sources for said changes. If you don't have a source handy, still talk about what you want changed; there are many editors who work on the Carcass article with access to books, old magazines, interviews, etc, and they may be able to find some reliable source that supports the changes you want made. If you see information that is not supported by any reference, and you think it is wrong and should be removed, talk about that too. I'm quite willing to accept the removal of unsourced information. Discussing everything on the talk page will mean that we can avoid things like changes to the article being reverted, and can instead improve the article overall. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 23:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Carcass Wikipedia page

Mr Moustache, The automated filter will not allow me to send the response I have written to you. This seems a little odd as it does not contain any swearing or abuse. If you'd care to email me so that we can discuss this, my address is: billsteer@hotmail.co.uk. WGSAncientnorthern (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)