Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Metal/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Suggestion

I was wanting to know if i can add album reviews from professional sites, even on albums that are already described. I would really want to do that. Tannersf 00:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You can add reviews of an album, check Reign in Blood as an example unless you mean something else as your question is unclear. M3tal H3ad 05:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Always best to add it into the infobox "Reviews" field using the following format:

*[[All Music Guide]] {{Rating-5|3}} [http:// link]

where "All Music Guide" is just an example of the reviewing site which is linked to another Wikipedia article. Change the rating number on the right hand side. Insert the web link just after the "http://" and make sure there is a space betweeen the end of the link and the word "link".

Hope this helps. Bubba HoTep 08:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking more on the lines of a word review, not a rating. Tannersf 01:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You can quote the review, with like 1 line(and reference it) but copying and pasting the whole thing will breach copyright. M3tal H3ad 01:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD for Church of Misery (again)

Once again, someone has nominated Church of Misery for deletion here, even after I noted the notability guidelines on its talk page. Can we please take some steps to keep this article?

Also thanks to User:Prolog for the good words on the Afd. --Eastlaw 06:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like we're in the clear for Church of Misery. I posted their complete discography and found some info on their most recent Eurotour to add to the article. It has a lot more content and shouldn't be questioned again. Olliegrind 23:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Concerning Rob Halford

Holy crap he has such a tiny article plz make it bigger for metal's sake!! Mighty Zeus 04:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The Eternal

I have been updating and cleaning up the article for Australian gothic metal band The Eternal with new information and to make it more relevant. It has been changed back twice saying that it was 'not helping the article' which i beg to differ as the article starts in the middle of nowhere and is out of date. Any help? Blackserenity 04:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The IP users' edits are very similar to those made by sockpuppets of Leyasu, who is banned from editing Wikipedia. Cronodevir has also reverted to edits made by Leyasu IP's on several occasions, and is currently on WP:SSP. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Leyasu (2nd). Continue your good work and revert disruption if necessary. Prolog 05:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. He/she seems to do it to a lot of my work (see also: Entwine,Rainshadow, Poisonblack, always changing the genre from gothic metal to Gothic-doom metal when none of these bands have anything to do with that genre. I appreciate your help, this guy is just really annoying the hell out of me. Blackserenity 07:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Its not just been Myself and Crono reverting these edits. Other users have as well. The Gothic Metal article explicittly says the bands are not Gothic Metal, and repeated quests for Blackserenity to work with other editors to help update the Gothic Metal article have been ignored. Also, if they had something to do with the genre, there wouldnt be sources on the Gothic Metal article and its talk page saying they did. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.157.80.136 (talk) 13:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

What requests? I am completely unaware of any request for my input into the gothic metal article. It is absolutely ridiculous to label bands like Entwine, Poisonblack etc etc as GOTHIC DOOM when NOTHING about them has any characteristics to do with the DOOM genre itself. If you check out doom-metal.com [1] the genre Gothic/Doom metal is a hybrid of both doom metal and gothic metal and as a result of that bands like Entwine, Poisonblack, Charon, Rainshadow don't fit in with that definition. Have you actually even heard any of these bands? doom-metal.com is also the largest, longest running and critically acclaimed website/database for all things to do with doom. Blackserenity 09:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I know exactly what Doom-Metal.com is. And i left yew like three messages on your talk page about this whole thing. If you also read the Gothic Metal article, youll find that Gothic Metal is a genre that uses TWO Vocalists, BLACK/DEATH style guitaring, and has NOTHING TO DO WITH Goth Rock.

If yew had also read the article, youd know Gothic-Doom ISNT just used to mean what it says on Doom-Metal.com. Its used to refer to Goth Metal (Charon, To/Die/For, Entwine, Etc) and Atmospheric Doom (Ashes You Leave, Chalice, Avrigus, Etc). Your better with the Goth Metal part than i am, im better with the Atmospheric Doom part. So again, im asking if yew wanna help me reconstruct the Gothic-Doom section to make it A) Clearer, and B) So we can list more accurate things in the Infoboxes of certain bands. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.153.42.129 (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

2000's Retro Metal movement

Category:2000's Retro Metal movement, what the hell is this category for & about? Diabolical 09:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

After going through the guys edits it sticks out like the standard case of My favourite bands list —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.153.42.129 (talk) 13:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

This "retro metal" was deleted just two weeks ago through and Afd. It looks like the editor was not happy with that, so he re-created the article and the category under a different title. It seems to be very similar to the old article, so I tagged it with {{db-repost}}. Prolog 17:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Apart for a few bands there doesn't seem to be any main theme either, because there is nothing retro about Boris or Nocturnal Breed, especially not in the sense of the other bands such as Wig Wam or Wolfmother. Diabolical 21:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I posted on the talk page about the same thing. I don't see how you can put Boris and High on Fire in with those bands. He even had Bathory in there! I took the liberty of removing Bathory and am waiting for a reply from the creator before removing Boris and HOF. I also see someone has put it up for speedy deletion which is probably for the best. Olliegrind 23:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:American heavy metal musical groups

Category:American heavy metal musical groups This category has a few subcategories - Dark Angel (band), Louisiania heavy metal and Maryland heavy metal. I created the MD one and added it but it seems we should either split this up by state or not split it up at all. I feel the cat is pretty long and would be very long and not very useful if we put all American HM bands in. Splitting up by State seems that it would be much more useful. Any thoughts? Olliegrind 18:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, Category:Heavy metal musical groups has a ton of bands in it and it has 2 subcats - Category:Heavy metal musical groups by nationality & Category:Heavy metal musical groups by genre. Shouldn't all the bands in the HM musical groups be but into the subcategory of their country and genre and be removed from the top level cat? This would be a large untaking but I feel that it would be worth it and make the categories extremely more useful. I don't want to put much effort into it until I get some more opinions.Olliegrind 01:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Inactive sweep

I just did an inactive sweep to see how much members we actually have. Members with no edits in the last 3 months(or decent amount) were moved onto the "inactive list". Half the peoples last edits were signing up to this project :|. M3tal H3ad 05:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This project is rubbish anyway - 99% of the people here add crufty rubbish to the articles, like they're masturbating over their fave metal bands. LuciferMorgan 23:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with LuciferMorgan's comment. Many people help contributing, if YOU don't like the project, stay out of it --Dexter prog 01:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Insulting fellow editors is not going to improve this project, so please be civil. Prolog 03:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the project would be good, only it adds a ton of fancruft to every article. M3tal H3ad and one or two other editors actually edit metal articles without adding cruft. I'm not the only person who has commented on how awful this project is, and heavy metal's coverage on Wikipedia is in general. Typical cruft is saying X band "was influential in this subgenre and that subgenre" or this band "sounds like a cross between this band, this genre etc." - all original research without appropriate citations. Rather than add crap, add proper info, proper citations etc. - Megadeth and Slayer are examples of what Metal on Wiki can be. LuciferMorgan 00:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Meta-Metal

The article about Meta-Metal has been created today. There is only one article that links to this page and I couldn't find any mention of it neither at Heavy metal music nor at List of heavy metal genres. Is there really such a sub-genre of heavy metal? Jogers (talk) 13:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Not that I know of, and I have pretty good knowledge of the subgenres of heavy metal. I'm going to do some research and if I don't find anything conclusive, I'm going to put it up for deletion. Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • O))))} 14:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You can find the google search here with 27600 results. Most of the results talk about metal in the chemical sense of the term. After looking here, it seems to me (after very very few research, so this is just a guess), that meta-metal is used as a synonym for proto-metal, traditionnal metal, or hard rock. Could someone look into this? Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • O))))} 14:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be another recreation of retro metal, but with a new title this time (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Retro metal). The term is still unverifiable and non-notable, so if this article does not meet {{db-g4}}, it should be prodded or nominated for deletion. Prolog 14:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll vote to delete it. Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • O))))} 14:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I prodded it now. You can add {{prod2}} if you agree. Prolog 14:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it speediable as a re-creation of AFD'ed an article (yet under a diff name)? Spearhead 14:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It didn't seem to be very similar to the article that was deleted through Afd process, so I didn't tag it for speedy deletion. The recreation before this one, 2000's Retro Metal movement, was speedied, though. Prolog 15:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I prodded it as well. Ours18 20:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Metal singer

If anyone is a singer in a metal band, they can use the userbox {{User Metal Singer}} which looks like this:

This user growls in a heavy metal band.

. Asics talk ^{Editor review!} 18:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

What about people who sing in bands who don't use harsh vocals? Inhumer 22:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I was going to ask the same question. I am a singer but I don't always growl. Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • O))))} 11:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you could say that is the common image of Metal. It certainly depends on the singer, and the style of Metal, as was said earlier. I encourage the original creator of the template to make an alternative to those who don't, "Growl". Megazodiac 15:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Make an alternative, and change that to death metal, possibly. Doppelganger E 02:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Styles inclusion

Should we extend the scope of this project to the ambient / acoustic / neofolk bands like Nest? It is listed on The Metal Archives. Óðinn 09:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that's questionable, though I understand the purpose and agree with it to some extent. I think it would be best if all nonmetal side-projects of metal bands were included in this project, rather than bands who share similar ideals and are well liked by metal listeners. IE, Lustmord should not be included simply because a substantial number of his fanbase if made up of black metal fans.

The side-project thing is tricky though, because some nonmetal bands have metal sideprojects, and therw would probably be an outcry if people found out that a member of Sum41 was included in WikiProject Metal. We'd have to have some pretty strict rules. Ours18 23:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

DragonForce Template

Michael Norkus 02:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

File:Dragonforceisawesomesonic.jpg This user can carry on Through The Fire and Flames.

I'm just thinking: how about making something with several titles inside, like: "This user can carry on through the fire and the flames of a sonic firestorm"... what do you think? Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • O))))} 19:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal Big Four Wikiproject

I have just created the Megadeth Wikiproject. But I think that the scope is too narrow (just Megadeth) and I think that the Metal Genre WikiProject is too large of a scope to handle everything. I propose that we make a WikiPrjoect Big Four, or something to that effect to cover the Big Four American Metal bands, Metallica, Megadeth, Slayer, and Anthrax. I'm eager to hear any opinions. Adumbvoget 08:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is such a good idea. I would choose to leave it in the scope of the WikiProject Metal, but it's only my opinion. Now if some people are really up for it, I wouldn't mind. Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • O))))} 20:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm up for it, but I think it would be better to have it as Wikiproject Thrash metal. Doppelganger E 02:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. We should maybe think about doing a series of WikiProjects for big subgenres. Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • O))))} 10:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying nothing, as I deem the Metal Wikiproject to be a resounding failure to be honest. LuciferMorgan 04:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Curiosity...

On an unrelated note, who's the main instigators in this Project, as I'm keen to know. Thus far, most expanded band / musician / album articles have been avoid of citations and structure, and would only be Start class at best. What plans and actions have there been to address this? What solid efforts are there so that more Metal related articles become GA / FA? It just seems that so far the Project has failed to have any direction, or to make any impact. LuciferMorgan 18:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. We should try to focus on making big bands (with big carreers and impact) go to featured status (I'm thinking of bands like Slayer, Black Sabbath, Metallica) instead of making thousands of stubs for bands that have a very small audience. I could help, but I am in fact more knowledgeable of the small underground bands ^^ Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • O))))} 19:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Slayer is already featured... Metallica's in the scope of the Big Four Project, but I've yet to see them do anything. as concerns small underground bands, you could always get one or two to GA if you were interested in doing so. That'd be cool I also wish to propose an assessment scheme per other Wikiprojects for this Project - ie. rate them Stub, Start or B, unless they've passed GA / FA. How would this be implemented? It'd be good to get that off the ground so we can assess the achievements of the Project. LuciferMorgan 19:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Scope of 2 articles

Would the articles Korn and Lordi fall more under the scope of WikiProject Metal than the Rock music WikiProject? -- Reaper X 15:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Lordi, maybe. Korn, definitely not. Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • O))))} 17:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Inhumer 20:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, cool. We'll take Korn, but as for Lordi? I wouldn't know, never heard them. -- Reaper X 21:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying that we shouldn't take Korn in the scope of the WikiProject Metal. Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • O))))} 21:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I heavily disagree. This is Metal snobbery in my opinion - Korn is classed as founders of the nu metal genre. Just because a band is commercial metal doesn't mean it isn't under our scope. I don't like Linkin Park and Limp Bizkit, but I don't dispute it comes under the genre. I'm putting the Metal tag back per WP:BOLD. Anyone who disputes Korn falling under the Project's scope can contact me on my talk page and I'll find five reliable articles to prove Korn is classed generally as metal - one quick search finds a New York Times article which says "Korn were one of the pioneering bands of the nu metal movement". We don't decide what is and isn't metal here, we just cover whatever is classed as metal by the consensus of the media - deciding what is and isn't can be deemed original research.

Rather than debate on what is and isn't metal (which frankly I'm utterly sick of from this Project to be honest since it's been prevalent since the Project's inception), can we concentrate on improving content for a change please? Great. LuciferMorgan 22:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. -- Reaper X 16:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Understood. ^^ I'm not gonna argue about this because I doubt it will change anything (apart from bringing many mallcore kids in the debate). But I'd just like to say that some people do not group "nu metal" with metal and consider the name of the subgenre a misnomer. Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • O))))} 19:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Very true of you to say - my advice is for the nu metal fans of the Wikiproject to concentrate on improving nu metal articles, while people like yourself who dislike nu metal etc. concentrate on your own Metal interests in Wikipedia. LuciferMorgan 09:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Sorry to sound a little disrespectful, but you likely get what I'm trying to say. LuciferMorgan 17:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Metal Archives and the Heavy metal page

Apparently, as you can see from the discussion page for the article, MA fails a number of criteria for WP:EL. His reasoning is faulty on multiple accounts, and anyone who knows his editing history knows he hates any website that contradicts him. The arguments about "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" and "based on verifiable research from printed works, its just a "I like this, I don't like that" non professionally run site" are particularly flimsy, but alas I am positive he won't consider any arguments from me valid, as is his way. If anyone else cares to step in, you may do so at your own risk...whenever deathrocker is involved it never ends.

I'll reply to his non-arguments if no one else does so within three days, although I will be out of town on business starting tomorrow...I'll do my best to keep track of any harmful edits to the article. Ours18 03:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I replied as you can see, and I'm waiting for Deathrocker's arguments to develop, because as of now I do not think they are valid... Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • O))))} 21:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to metal on here, hes never had a valid argument. Inhumer 05:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't interacted with him long enough to know that, but so far, I think you're pretty much right :) Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • O))))} 10:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree he's a pain. LuciferMorgan 18:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

He is indeed impossible to work with. He is very spiteful and condescending, and when presented with facts or contradictions, he just refuses to acknowledge them. It wouldn't be so bad if he weren't such a bully, though. PhantomOTO 22:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

As Ours stated, he hate anything that contradicts what he thinks.Inhumer 03:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand how he hasn't been totally banned yet. Inhumer 20:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I've read previous debates with him (notably on the article for Encyclopaedia Metallum) and I think you're pretty much right. He seems to want to impose his views on the rest of the world. Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • O))))} 21:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what's been said about EM, but using it as an external link or as an inline citation is out of the question per Wikipedia:Verifiability. The fact it relies on user submitted info is the reason for this, and the quicker that certain people stop spamming to that site the better for these reasons. I don't see why they do spam to that site as;

1. Discographies are on official band websites. 2. Users can submit crap they want.

Anyone can say whatever they like, but EM as a source of reliable info is non-existent. LuciferMorgan 00:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying its a reliable source, I'm just questioning his reasons. Inhumer 02:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that - I haven't read into the conversation, but only spoken as regards EM, irrespective of what's been said in this chat. LuciferMorgan 04:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

First off, I want to thank you Lucifer (hur hur) for being reasonable and civil in your point; a certain other editor's lack of civility is the reason why I didn't bother responding to his points on the Heavy Metal talkpage.

However, I must dispute the supposed lack of reliability of Encyclopaedia Metallum. You say that users can submit any crap they want; this is only somewhat true. I have been using and adding info to that site for over a year now and I still can't edit certain parts of a band's or album's page. I cannot, for example, edit the "Additional Notes" section of a band page, or the corresponding (unlabeled) section for an album page. If I wanted to add whatever crap I wanted there, I would have to click "report a mistake on this page" and someone else---a mod or admin---would have to approve it. I'm not a mod there so I couldn't tell you with certainty, but I think that is a very effective defense against the "HEY LETS SUBMIT INFORMATION CALLING THE BAND A BUNCH OF STUPID RAPPERS HUR HUR" syndrome that seems to plague all other user-submitted info sites.

Speaking of banning, that is the most crucial thing there: if you get banned YOU GET BANNED. They don't dodge around the issue by giving the internet equivalent of a time-out like the admins do here---no 24-hour bans, no 48-hour bans. If you are banned it is permanent, which means no one adds useless crap and then gets to do it again (the primary reason Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source by most academic types). Sources are provided at the bottom of a band's page.

Lastly, this isn't really an argument against yours as I realize this is official policy, but by Uncle Wiki's own logic, if sources that have user-submitted info are considered unreliable, that means Wikipedia is condemning itself as unreliable---essentially calling itself worthless. Doesn't this mean Uncle Wiki is a walking contradiction? Ours18 19:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I can understand what you're saying, but honestly I don't understand why people link to EM. Someone tried telling me EM is more reliable about discographies than a band's official website, which I 110% dispute. This in itself stops the need to put a link to EM in an album article - and if the info you wish to cite for an album article isn't there, cite the liner notes of the album like I did with Christ Illusion. If EM is verified like you say, that means there are primary sources - ie. interviews / official websites etc. - so why can't we cite from the primary sources? On an unrelated note, what do you make of the new assessment scheme of the Project? Fancy lending a hand? LuciferMorgan 01:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Assessment scheme

Recently the Project has implemented an assessment scheme to asess the quality of its articles, of which more can be explained at our assessment page. An understanding of our page should help you in understanding what this entails.

The problem at the moment is that most articles are unassessed; your assistance as a Project member in addressing this is humbly requested. Unassessed articles can be found at Category:Unassessed Heavy Metal articles.

Another problem is that most articles within the scope of the Project remain without the {{HMM}} tag. In this I mean metal bands, metal musicians and metal albums / songs. If people could add the {{HMM}} tag to those articles in the scope of the Project and preferably an assesment rating at the same time, this would be great.

Once all this has largely resumed its course, we can then have firm confirmation of where the Project is at. Once we have that, we can then discuss and implement measures to improve the performance of the Project. Thanks for your time. LuciferMorgan 09:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

A certain problem of the Project...

PS - One major problem of the Project is the focus on creating articles, which needs to be addressed. We need to raise articles from the level of Stubs and get them to B / GA / FA. Please review WP:GA?, WP:FA? and especially WP:CITE and WP:PR to give you tips on article improvisation. LuciferMorgan 09:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree. Doppelganger 17:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Heavy metal music FAR

Heavy metal music has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 09:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Anti-mallcore userbox

Okay here it is:

This user enjoys listening to real metal.

What do you think? Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • O))))} 20:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Motorhead: Peer review and later featured article?

Hi guys, when a very good "peer review" of this nice article?? When?? --[X-S] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.55.128.111 (talk) 13:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Band member pseudonyms for article titles

Okay, we seriously need to come up with a standard for these. Some articles for band members are titled by a person's real name (e.g. Jan Axel Blomberg), whereas others are titled by their pseudonym (e.g. ICS Vortex). There needs to be a standard already, because it's really bothering me, and it makes all the black metal pages harder to keep consistent with wikilinking. = ∫ _t^c 5th Eye 17:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, personally I think that we should get the pseudonym as article title. Other artists that use pseudonyms have their stage name as their article title: James Blunt (real name James Blount), Prince, etc. However, if people disagree a lot, we could always decide that the name that gives most Google results will be used as title for the article. Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me!)} 19:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

After some though, I have come to agree. (The article stage name obviously supports this.) List of black metal bands would probably be a good places to start looking for names to fix. = ∫ _t^c 5th Eye 21:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Depends on what they're better known by. LuciferMorgan 22:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep. In fact, this is the Wiki guideline; the title of the article should be the most notable name. WesleyDodds 04:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)