ABC paulista (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 163: | Line 163: | ||
Why are [[unblack metal]] and [[National socialist black metal]] considered "invalid" and "not supported"? Their respective articles contain citations confirming that they are sonically (in the case of unblack), and also lyrically in the case of NSBM, part of the black metal genre. {{u|ABC paulista}}? --[[User:3family6|<b style="color:navy">3family6</b>]] ([[User talk:3family6|<u style="color:black">Talk to me</u>]] | [[Special:Contributions/3family6|<small style="color:purple">See what I have done</small>]]) 23:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC) |
Why are [[unblack metal]] and [[National socialist black metal]] considered "invalid" and "not supported"? Their respective articles contain citations confirming that they are sonically (in the case of unblack), and also lyrically in the case of NSBM, part of the black metal genre. {{u|ABC paulista}}? --[[User:3family6|<b style="color:navy">3family6</b>]] ([[User talk:3family6|<u style="color:black">Talk to me</u>]] | [[Special:Contributions/3family6|<small style="color:purple">See what I have done</small>]]) 23:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC) |
||
:{{u|3family6}} First of all, I don't think that this is the proper talk page to discuss it, but OK let's continue. You are trying to include both terms in an template without them being cited in the article, which is not how templates work. And when you included them on the main article, you simply included them on the infobox, neither citing them on any section nor including some sources attached to them. In both cases, it does seem that some sourced treat them as subgenres, but it seems that the majority of the sources in their respective articles treat them as mere ideological movements that can span multiple Black metal subgenres, and not as a subgenre themselves. And per [[WP:WEIGHT]] and [[WP:BALANCE]], the majority should be more taken into account on such matters. Further, in the [[Black metal]] article neither are cited as [[Black metal#Stylistic divisions|subgenres]], but rather as [[Black metal#Ideology|ideologies]], and a similar process can be seen on the [[Template:Heavy metal music|Heavy metal template]], where both are cited on the "''Controversies''" group rather on the "''Subgenres and fusion genres''" one. [[User:ABC paulista|ABC paulista]] ([[User talk:ABC paulista|talk]]) 00:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:11, 6 February 2021
|
Untitled section 2007
Isn't it a bit early to use this template? My concerns:
- This template is based on an article containing unverifiable claims and original research: Extreme metal.
- Genres mentioned in this template are regarded extreme. The genres are connected by their extremity. How does that comply with WP:NPOV?
- Genres mentioned in this template are regarded metal. What about grindcore, crust punk, deathcore and other metal/hardcore hybrids?
- Unlike the f.e. the heavy metal template, sub genres and sub-sub-sub genres are mixed.
- There are enough of these genre boxes at the bottom of the screen, some articles contain 2 or more. I feel we don't need this one.
I think we should wait; the extreme metal article is not yet reliable. Kameejl (Talk) 11:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't see your problem. If the article has unverified claims I will edit the template to suit the article. I have split the fusion genres, subgenres and genres of extreme metal. I would suggest you consider other options than the removal of the template. Thundermaster367 11:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I still think this template is hugely dominated by specific POVs and doesn't reflect the general view of extreme metal and it's subgenres. The addition of fusion genres is making this template even more POV, less reliable and less verifiable. For the sake of wikipedia and extreme metal I will nominate this template for deletion. Kameejl (Talk) 12:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Format
"v" on the template is hidden by black. Does anyone know the format to make the font all white on the first bar: extreme metal? --CircafuciX 03:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- My IP changed it to red, but some idiot thought i was vandalising it. DragonDance (talk) 01:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- For the questions that were just asked before thats why I asked this question in the first place the v/d/e would be more viewable. See:Template:At the Gates for example. Although I tried using the format and it doesn't work with this new template so I'm asking if anyone knows how it's done. Simply put. --CircafuciX (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Look what I've done. It does work. ThundermasterThundermaster's Talk 18:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- There is only one thing now, it won't collapse. I tried this: class="navbox collapsible autocollapse" style="margin:0 auto;" and replacing this to the top which didn't seem to work. --CircafuciX 08:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Gothic metal
Is a sub-genre of doom metal, therefore goes in the sub-genre list.
- But is not extreme. Metalcore, groove metal, and other genres aren't featured as well. Kameejl (Talk) 18:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Groove metal
Shouldn't we have Groove metal down here as a sub-genre of thrash metal? Ximmerman (talk) 14:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Colour
Stop changing the colour. Black is the related colour for death, black and doom metal. Thundermaster367 (talk) 09:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I love it
I think the template looks great as it is now. Its finally correct and there should be no more edits to it, in my opinion. Also, to those who tryed adding gothic metal into the template. GET OVER IT! GOTHIC METAL IS NOT AN EXTREME METAL GENRE!!! w00t Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 18:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Navnløs, there's no need to yell. I was the one who added it as a fusion genre as it is a fusion of two ext. metal genres, death metal and doom metal, and therefore deserves metion on the template. Please don't remove it. ThundermasterThundermaster's Talk 11:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Firstly, to my knowledge gothic metal isn't a mere death/doom deriative. Gothic metal isn't a simple death/doom + genre X mix. Gothic metal might be influenced by death/doom and grown out of it but that doesn't necessarily make an extreme metal fusion genre, just like reggae isn't just a simple ska/soul fusion anymore (couldn't find a metal related comparison). Gothic metal has excepted less extreme traits and therefore has become a genre that isn't close to it's roots anymore. I'll try to look up some info any time soon.
- Secondly, there is no consensus, and consensus (as in "what the majority thinks") is not enough to be on wikipedia. It also should be verifiable. Have you got sources that state gothic metal is an extreme metal genre? If so, I really would like to see them. If not, it may be removed per WP:V.
- I will do some research. If I'll fail to find anything that relates gothic metal to extreme metal, and you can't provide any valuable source, I will remove gothic metal from this template. Kameejl (Talk) 14:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- PS. If gothic metal is mentioned then groove metal, metalcore, crust punk and whatever weird genre with some death/black/thrash influence should be mentioned, and that's not what we want, do we? Kameejl (Talk) 14:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Gothic metal is part of the extreme metal group as it is a sub-genre of death/doom, an extreme metal sub-genre. And in some ways, I agree with you, if we don't find anything to prove it, we go into the whole POV about metalcore, groove metal and crust punk again. However, you don't like this template, because it's so easy slip anything in like metalcore. Still, gothic metal is a lot closer than bloody metalcore, isn't it? Metalcore has zero roots in extreme metal as it comes from hardcore punk and metal. Gothic metal comes when you fuse two extreme metal genres, death metal and doom. ThundermasterThundermaster's Talk 15:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- That is not true. When you fuse death metal and doom you get death/doom. When you fuse (I'd say dilute) death/doom with gothic rock/sung vocals/romantic lyrics/mid paced tempos/symphonic use of keyboards/consonance&harmony then I'd say all extreme elements have been filtered out. Metalcore is not only rooted in hardcore punk but also deeply rooted in thrash metal. Nowadays, many metalcore bands have a style bearly distinguishable from melodic death metal (f.e. The Black Dahlia Murder, Becoming the Archetype, Daysend, Shadows Fall). This is why I don't like this template, there are only few to no reliable sources, so most claims are original research, let alone neutral. Kameejl (Talk) 10:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Now I see. If we add gothic metal, which is rooted in death/doom, we would then open the way for metalcore, which is rooted in thrash, and then groove metal, which is rooted in thrash. The worst bit is that, even me, the creator, can see the problems this template, and want it deleted. But both of us have gone through TfD with it and failed twice. So we can't add any more genres. OK, I'll remove gothic metal. ThundermasterThundermaster's Talk 12:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- That is not true. When you fuse death metal and doom you get death/doom. When you fuse (I'd say dilute) death/doom with gothic rock/sung vocals/romantic lyrics/mid paced tempos/symphonic use of keyboards/consonance&harmony then I'd say all extreme elements have been filtered out. Metalcore is not only rooted in hardcore punk but also deeply rooted in thrash metal. Nowadays, many metalcore bands have a style bearly distinguishable from melodic death metal (f.e. The Black Dahlia Murder, Becoming the Archetype, Daysend, Shadows Fall). This is why I don't like this template, there are only few to no reliable sources, so most claims are original research, let alone neutral. Kameejl (Talk) 10:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Gothic metal is part of the extreme metal group as it is a sub-genre of death/doom, an extreme metal sub-genre. And in some ways, I agree with you, if we don't find anything to prove it, we go into the whole POV about metalcore, groove metal and crust punk again. However, you don't like this template, because it's so easy slip anything in like metalcore. Still, gothic metal is a lot closer than bloody metalcore, isn't it? Metalcore has zero roots in extreme metal as it comes from hardcore punk and metal. Gothic metal comes when you fuse two extreme metal genres, death metal and doom. ThundermasterThundermaster's Talk 15:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
changed
My reasoning for having the template in black:
- It is a good colour for extreme metal
- Me with other editors, have worked hard to get the v/d/e to show in the black
- Black has been used on other ext. metal templates.
Please feel free to discuss it below. ThundermasterTRUC 08:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't care about the colour but 156.x.x.x is right, heavy metal has its predefined colours. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Music genres/Colours. Kameejl (Talk) 18:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Heavy metal has it's predefined colors but I don't think it can be associated here. Extreme metal doesn't have it's predefined colors yet mainly because people in the project don't exactly know about it. If it's going to be changed despite of what I said then go for a darker crimson red. --CircafuciX (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- "It's a good colour for extreme metal??? = personal opinion and not the previously discussed project guideleine.
- "Black has been used on other ext. metal templates" - "has" being the key word.. they've all been corrected as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Music genres/Colours.
- "me and other editors" - ??? - that should have said "Other editors and I"... and is starting to shade WP:OWN.
- Try to edit like it's an encyclopedia and not a grade 8 book report or fansite. Avoid the stereotype. 156.34.222.133 (talk) 14:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I changed it slightly. By the way, Wikiproject Music genres has become slightly (by this I mean very) empty. Theres no activity there. Also, you say I am violating WP:OWN. You're wrong. I am just interested in editing a template that I have created. ThundermasterTRUC 17:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Color contrast issue
Hello. Sabrebd reverted a color contrast improvement of the Heavymetal template and Extreme metal template. The current colors (white links on a red background) do not match the guideline: Wikipedia:Accessibility#Color. Yours, Dodoïste (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- It wasnt a straight vevert, but an attempt to solve what I took to be the problem (blue (used link) on a red background) - was it a different problem?--SabreBD (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- See Template_talk:Heavymetal#Color_contrast_issue to keep the discussions in one place. Yours, Dodoïste (talk) 11:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Major changes
Hey, I've made some major changes to the template. If you disagree with anything, feel free to change it and/or explain it here.--MASHAUNIX 03:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- I've removed the derivatives section and moved Stoner and Drone to fusion genres. First, because there is a consensus in Extreme Metal's talk page that Gothic and Groove are neither extreme nor subgenres of the extreme ones, and Doom Metal article cites both Stoner and Drone as it's own subgenres. So a derivatives section is unnecessary. ABC paulista (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for making the appropriate changes, I've done some minor edits on extreme metal and doom metal since but everything should be in order.----MASHAUNIX 18:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Ok. I think that's all for now. ABC paulista (talk) 18:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- @ABC paulista: Just wondering, is there really "consensus in Extreme Metal's talk page that ... Groove [isn't] extreme"? I've looked through it and all I found was some claims that it can't be extreme because it's "mainstream", which is nonsense (thrash metal was just as popular back in its day, as were/are some other genres in this infobox) and wasn't really consensus. I've checked this page as well and found no consensus here either. I agree it's not really a subgenre of any of the primary extreme metal genres, but disagree that it's not extreme and think it deserves a mention in the infobox. Sepultura is a seminal groove metal band; would you say they aren't extreme? (I won't argue about gothic metal though.)----MASHAUNIX 17:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- If you can find a source that claims that Groove metal is an extreme metal genre, feel free to add it. But without any sources, you should not. We here only add the genres that are considered extreme by sources, and their subgenres and fusion genres. ABC paulista (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know. If Groove metal should be mentioned in the "other topics" section, so Gothic metal should be too since Groove metal is no more related with Thrash metal than Gothic metal is related to Death/Doom. Also, topics like Hardcore Punk, Punk Rock seems to be more related to Extreme metal than Grove Metal, since they are the origin of a bunch of subgenres and fusion genres. ABC paulista (talk) 01:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- So couldn't we add all three of these (meaning hardcore punk, groove metal and gothic metal) into the other topics section ? I think it would be useful, since hardcore punk is both a major source of influence on some primary (thrash, death) and fusion (metalcore, grindcore etc.) genres, as well as, IMO, "to punk rock what extreme metal is to heavy metal", and groove and gothic should be mentioned since they are derivatives of primary genres (included in the extreme metal infobox). I am still especially concerned about groove metal, because I think it is related to current general understanding of extreme metal, and often referred to when the umbrella term is used on Wikipedia (for example, in the infoboxes of Meshuggah and metalcore, extreme metal is used to summarize a number of genres including groove metal).----MASHAUNIX 18:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Mentioned, yes. But there's no point in describing them since they aren't included when articles discuss extreme metal. Hardcore Punk is already mentioned enough, Groove and Gothic should be mentioned in the infobox as derivatives, but nothing more. Infoboxes like Meshuggah and metalcore are wrong if they don't cite Groove because of Extreme metal, but that doesn't seems the case for Metalcore's infobox, since nothing indicates that Groove is one of Metalcore's stylistic origins. ABC paulista (talk) 21:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah you're right about the metalcore infobox, but still, if speed metal deserves a link in the template, then IMO so do hardcore punk and groove metal. I'd like to hear what someone else thinks about this.--MASHAUNIX 00:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- To tell the truth, neither NWOBHM nor Speed Metal should be on this template IMO, since they aren't present in all extreme metal genres (especially doom metal). ABC paulista (talk) 01:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Industrial thrash metal
The genre is covered in the same section as industrial death metal. ~SML • TP 16:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, but unlike with the Industrial Death metal examples, the sources never treat "Industrial Thrash metal" as a complete subgenre on its own. They state that some Thrash metal bands empoyed some industrial influences in some of their music, but they never called them as Industrial Thrash bands or treat it as a full-fledged subgenre, and some eventual Industrial-influenced Thrash metal sound alone is insufficient to call it it's own subgenre. That's WP:NOTABILITY. ABC paulista (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- There really is no need for all of the sub-genres to be listed, particularly if there is not enough for a stand-alone article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Kinda agree, but I don't think that there is nay reason to remove them either since the template is still small-sized. ABC paulista (talk) 17:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- There really is no need for all of the sub-genres to be listed, particularly if there is not enough for a stand-alone article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Well I agree with ABC paulista when you talk about industrial thrash metal, but I think it’s better to have all the (sourced) genres in a list in Wikipedia, not all will be listed (blackened thrash metal) because not all have realiable sources covering them. But for me, it’s better to have a (semi-) complete list one day. ~SML • TP 17:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- That could be seen as Genre warring, since WP:EXPLICITGENRES state that every genre must be explicitally attibuted to artists, bands and/or scenes to start being valid, at the same time that occasional mentioning of genres don't make them reliable or notable enough to be here. For genres, it's preferable if they have multiples sources citing them, even more if discussing their traits that make them their own thing. ABC paulista (talk) 18:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Genre warring is edit warring, wich is adding and/or reverting edits for a number of times (3RR), but I only edited once, and then went to the talk page. Oh, and I never explicitly said that I’m doing that, I could theoretically just build my own website and do it. ~SML • TP 18:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- No, I was not talking about your action(s) about industrial thrash, but your idea of including all sourced genres in lists, because it open the doors for inclusion of non-notable microgenres or eventual short-lived fusions/influences, leaving the genre listing convoluted big time. Also, genre warring is similar to Edit warring in some points, but they differ a lot in terms of premisse since Genre Warring doesn't revolve around the edits themselves, but around the defense of some genres in particlular and eventual situations, be them inclusional ones or exclusional. Including situational genres cited by one person/source could be seen as genre warring. ABC paulista (talk) 18:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Genre warring is edit warring, wich is adding and/or reverting edits for a number of times (3RR), but I only edited once, and then went to the talk page. Oh, and I never explicitly said that I’m doing that, I could theoretically just build my own website and do it. ~SML • TP 18:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I added blackened screamo, it has a section wich you can go to this link. ~SML • TP 13:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Major articles only
I'm proposing that we only have entries for articles, not paragraphs in articles. If we still want to keep sub-sub-genres, we should add them in parenthesis behind the article in which they appear rather than giving the impression that they carry the same weight that major genres and sub-genres have. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose 1) No, just because something doesn’t have a page, it doesn’t mean it’s not notable, your not the one to decide that. 2) It’s already a good system for the page, it doesn’t create the impression of having subgenres such as electrogrind having the same weight as black metal, they have there own sections. ~SML • TP 15:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Sixty Minute Limit: Usually on bigger and more notable templates, only entries with articles are added on them (See the templates for Heavy metal or Hardcore punk for example). For this one though, I think that it is well organised and concise, since it's still a small one (just like the Death metal one). Like I said earlier, I kinda see the point of having article-only entries here, at the same time I feel that it is pretty harmless the way it is now. But I am against reorganizing it, I prefer removing the paragraphs-only entries if some action is taken. ABC paulista (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
just because something doesn’t have a page, it doesn’t mean it’s not notable, your not the one to decide that.
Actually, that's almost exactly what that means. But even if it is notable, navboxes aren't about the notability of topics or non-notability of topics. They're about linking between topics for established articles. I think the overall structure of the template is fine; in the case of the subgenres, having those as sublisted items in the main genres listing seems quite reasonably, actually. The listing of the fusion genres in their own section also seems quite acceptable. --Izno (talk) 18:11, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- I re-performed my earlier edit on this point. We link only to articles, not to sections, because navboxes are for inter-article linking. --Izno (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your edit. WP:NAV/WP:NAVBOX should be followed. I will try to confirm that added links follow. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:57, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Pipe
WP:PIPE is literally the most unnecessary guideline I’ve seen (in my opinion, it is, if you agree with that guideline, please don’t slam me). Why do genres such as [[progressive metalcore]] be used as [[progressive metalcore|progressive]]? I don’t think is necessary so the templates stays high-quality. ~SML • TP 00:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- Guidelines are guidelines, so it must be taken into consideration. I could go even further by saying that the template should be trimmed even further per WP:EXISTING. ABC paulista (talk) 01:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- I think an application of piped links in this template doesn't make a whole lost of sense, unless it is in the context of a sublist of items removing some repetitive text from the head links item (i.e. metalcore and nu metalcore--> metalcore and "nu", as in the template today). --Izno (talk) 18:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Unblack metal and NSBM
Why are unblack metal and National socialist black metal considered "invalid" and "not supported"? Their respective articles contain citations confirming that they are sonically (in the case of unblack), and also lyrically in the case of NSBM, part of the black metal genre. ABC paulista? --3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- 3family6 First of all, I don't think that this is the proper talk page to discuss it, but OK let's continue. You are trying to include both terms in an template without them being cited in the article, which is not how templates work. And when you included them on the main article, you simply included them on the infobox, neither citing them on any section nor including some sources attached to them. In both cases, it does seem that some sourced treat them as subgenres, but it seems that the majority of the sources in their respective articles treat them as mere ideological movements that can span multiple Black metal subgenres, and not as a subgenre themselves. And per WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALANCE, the majority should be more taken into account on such matters. Further, in the Black metal article neither are cited as subgenres, but rather as ideologies, and a similar process can be seen on the Heavy metal template, where both are cited on the "Controversies" group rather on the "Subgenres and fusion genres" one. ABC paulista (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)