Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Metal/Archives/2020/August

Request for Comment on the GWAR talk page

Hi, I got here from the section on how to publicize a Request for Comment, so I hope this is an appropriate place. There is a discussion at Talk:Gwar about how to write the name of the band's bar. It could use more opinions because there are very few people that have weighed in so far. Thank you. In loco parenti (talk) 11:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Years / decades in heavy metal

Hello. How should an article like "YEAR in heavy metal music" look like? Do you think the current format can be improved to be more appealing? I know there are always debates about the genres in heavy metal; maybe the albums released in a year should also specify the subgenre they belong to (obviously, with a source). For example, in 2020 in heavy metal music, Perdida by Stone Temple Pilots is not metal at all. As far as I know the band was never metal (I see it was considered alternative metal according to the infobox), but clearly not on this album.

Let's just assume an article of this type can become a Featured List. How would it look like? Thanks. --Acid Mammoth (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• To get to featured status it would need more prose, in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

hi!

i have similar concerns as user:Acid Mammoth concerning Perdida and some other albums.

my first try of deleting a non-metal album from the list was reverted. the reverting author does not react to my message and ping on the talk page, see Talk:2020 in heavy metal music#Guidelines?

so how can we continue here? -- seth (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Fine by me. A page like 2018 in American music I think has a very nice structure and it also mentions the genres. Of course, there would be the never ending debates about the metal genres, but references should be used for this. Since the article title says its about a particular year in metal, I think a release during this year should not be affected by anything in the history of an artist. So maybe:

• a section about Events, Deaths, Bands disbanded etc. should be allowed to take into consideration the history of an artist. For example, if Ulver disbands it is still a relevant information for this kind of article, as it once was a metal band
• a section about releases of this year should accept only heavy metal releases of this year. Again, if there's a debate about what is rock and what is metal, this should be stated in a source. If no source says that an album is metal, then it should not be included. For example, Burzum was once a well-known black metal project, but its latest 2020 release Thulêan Mysteries is some kind of ritual ambient and it's probably no debate that this doesn't resemble metal.

So what do you think about this?--Acid Mammoth (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

this sounds very reasonable to me. -- seth (talk) 20:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

today i removed 4 albums from the 2020 list -- based on the above given reasons. unfortunately user:TheSickBehemoth does not participate in the discussion but again reverted my edit.[1]

the summary suggests that TheSickBehemoth wants to list every album that is "featured on metal-based news sources" -- regardless of the album being tagged as metal. in TheSickBehemoth's opinion "[t]here shouldn't be a source for every single album to determine if it's metal; that's ludicrous".

well, i thought in wikipedia we need sources for declaring something as metal. the list is called "2020 in heavy metal music" and not "2020 in music that is mentioned in metal-based sources".

however, TheSickBehemoth is not participating in the discussion, but just reverting my edits. so what is a resonable next step to do? -- seth (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The name of the article is "2020 in heavy metal music", not "Heavy metal albums released in 2020". This means in the world of heavy metal, if there is a release pertaining to metal, whether it's a band or artist that is or at was at one point metal (in which the band or artist is SOURCED at metal on their respective pages), then it should be featured. Now, if the article was "Heavy metal albums released in 2020", I would argue removing the albums. But it's not. We also feature musician deaths, bands forming, and other news pertaining to the heavy metal world. This isn't an article strictly on albums. TheSickBehemoth (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I can also agree with you on that. But probably we can argue about this a lot and I'm not sure how this situation is usually approached on Wikipedia? Do people vote for it or how can this be controlled without editing/reverting infinitely? Anyway, I may be subjective, but as a person (not really a metal fan) who searches for "Heavy metal music in 2020", I would absolutely like to not be misguided by a release that is just remotely related to metal (I'm sorry to use Perdida as an example again). Maybe some kind of explanation that the release is not really metal, but it's relevant because the band was metal at one point?

I see what you mean. However, I don't think this is necessary because, in the case of Perdida, you can simply go to the album's Wikipedia page and under genres see what it's categorized as. If the viewer then is wondering why it's featured in the article for not being metal, simply going to the artist's Wikipedia page would list their genre as some sort of metal. This is why in these "20XX in heavy metal music" pages, we only allow bands who have Wikipedia articles; not only to help with having too many artists featured and having it be a cluttered mess, but simply that they're sourced as being metal. If the artist is not sourced as metal at all during their entire tenure, their albums are not listed. That should be sufficient enough. TheSickBehemoth (talk) 00:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Let's say we're talking about 2000 in heavy metal music. Ulver apparently released it's first non-metal album Perdition City (at least according to the article's infobox). Yes, I do think is relevant for the year 2000's metal scene. But it would be unfair for a reader to not mention the important detail that is... the real genre. Something like a sentence on "Events" section: "Norwegian band Ulver released Perdition City, their first release that departed from their usual black metal style". What do you say? I know everything is debatable, but there must be a way to balance all this.--Acid Mammoth (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

thanks for taking part at the discussion now.

if the lemma is "2020 in heavy metal music" and there is a section "albums [expected]", then a reader will surely understand: "Heavy metal albums [expectedly] released in 2020".

so the situation now is misleading. of course a reader can search the wikipedia for more information on each entry, but actually the writers should do that beforehand, such that the reader does not have to do that. otherwise we could just make a list of all music albums and say "hey, the reader can still check the other wp pages in order to find out the real genre". furthermore it's still misleading. Acid Mammoth and me are examples for readers who see this contradiction.

the proposal for guidelines made by Acid Mammoth (which would solve that problem) could be easy to use for the writers as the guidelines of TheSickBehemoth.

the marking of non-metal as such as proposed now, could also be a solution. either by marking all non-metal albums in the list or by splitting the section "albums (expected)" into two sections: 1. "metal albums", 2. "non-metal albums of metal-related artists" (maybe someone finds a better description for the second list). a problem here might be that on some not yet released albums, nobody can say whether it will be metal, but i guess this occurs really seldomly.

could this (marking or splitting) be anything, you could agree on, user:TheSickBehemoth?

maybe we should try to make a small WP:RFC? -- seth (talk) 05:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

"otherwise we could just make a list of all music albums and say "hey, the reader can still check the other wp pages in order to find out the real genre" This makes no sense. I literally just told you the page only adds artists that are sourced as being metal. If an artist added is not metal, it's deleted. This is "20XX in heavy metal music", not "20XX in music". I think even a disclaimer at the top of the page stating "Albums listed are released by artists sourced as metal" or something similar would be better than splitting up the lists between metal/non-metal albums. That will look too complicated. TheSickBehemoth (talk) 11:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

What about the list being as it is, metal + non-metal albums from current/former metal bands, but marking all these debatable albums with a character like ‡ (or something else, I don't know the rules for these in lists, sometimes I see there's also a color on that row). This would be easy to spot and a reader can also click on the band/release if he really wants to see the real genre.--Acid Mammoth (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@TheSickBehemoth: yes, of course, this makes no sense. i just wanted to show by this exaggerated example that the service for the reader would be better, if the reader would be able to see, what is metal (and what is not metal) without the need of clicking on every album/artist.

I could live with Acid Mammoths marking proposal. This would solve the main problem. Still, the list would be bigger than needed (in my opinion). But at least it would be better understandable than at present. What do you think about that, TheSickBehemoth? -- seth (talk) 20:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not completely opposed to doing something like that; however, I am not the only consistent editor on the page(s). This needs to be discussed among the other editors as well before something like this would be implemented. TheSickBehemoth (talk) 01:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

That's why we are discussing here. Or is there a better place for discussion? -- seth (talk) 08:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)