Talk:Encyclopaedia Metallum

Logo (to get a little aside from the massive arguments)

Since M-A admins/mods have been active in the discussion page, would it be ok to perhaps add the site's logo to this page at whatever permission level you want (perhaps for this article only)? Lethe 14:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as I remember, the logo used to be there. I don't know why it was removed, but feel free to add it back, we certainly don't mind. Morrigan 18:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

you forgot to add a drone doom part in excluded bands

For enciclopedia metallum, drone doom is not metal is ambient, and the bands that are there is because the band have more metal than drone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.52.48 (talk) 02:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Source

Is this site reliable enough to use as a source? My gut feeling says no. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 06:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You'd be right. It's a user edited and contributed site and cannot be used as a source. The KZA 06:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as Uncle Wiki is concerned, no. But you won't find a more reliable source on metal anywhere, just don't use it as a source for Wiki (or at least have other sources as well). Ours18 06:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

EM's info is based on user contributions, and not professional contributions. Rather than trying to be lazy, perhaps the EM lovers here can get off their arse and find infinitely better, and more reliable sources. Discographies can be sourced using official websites, and genre is merely the opinion of professional critics. Are the people of EM professional critics? No. We are trying to write an encyclopaedia here, not a second rate fanzine. LuciferMorgan 06:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the sort of thinking that's why I rarely edit anymore. EM's user database isn't professional, per se, but it is far more authoritative on the subject than All Music Guide or any nonsensical pop culture magazine (Rolling Stone, Entertainment Weekly, etc). Genre is NOT the opinion of "professional" critics, lest we forget, there's "professional" critics that think Cradle of Filth are grindcore (Revolver magazine) and there's "professional" critics that Backstreet Boys are a rock 'n' roll band (Chicago Tribune). Reliance on pop culture sources for things largely outside the domain of pop culture is one of Uncle Wiki's absolute worst flaws. EM lovers being lazy? Funny, I haven't seen EM used as a source by anyone on Uncle Wiki other than me (once) in the last six months; Wikipedia's done a very effective job at killing off one of the last few decent, mostly reliable sources on the net dealing with metal. Ours18 22:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

--Wick3dd (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC):::::I think the problem is not so much that EM can't be used as a reliable source, as it is that common reliable sources (in particular, AMG) are quite often very wrong. I've lost many a Wiki-arguementt because ultimately, it's some terrible website that is the authority on music also knows nothing about metal. The KZA 03:43, 11 October 2007 --Wick3dd (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)(UTC)

Well said. LuciferMorgan, I'm quite eager to know which websites contain professional critics on metal who are also reliable. Please enlighten me. As for the discography, it's a well known fact that many bands do not have an official website, and among those that do, lots of them are incomplete.[[User:Evenfiel--Wick3dd (talk) 03:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)|Evenfiel]] 02:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The metal archives are an unprofessional joke. The administrators themselves are rude and extremely biased. They lord metal over other genres, and constantly make fun of "mallcore" and the like. While I listen to metal myself, such a site is no more than a fan boy playground and should not be taken too seriously.--Wick3dd 18:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Saying that mallcore is not a form of metal does not constitute making fun of it. Ours18 00:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Quit being blind. --Wick3dd 18:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)--

I wasn't, and I'm not. Ours18 02:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Didn't mean to sound harsh, but that site is a sandbox of kiddies making fun of music that they think "sucks".

Oh yeah? Can you prove it? Evenfiel (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, very easily. How much of the site have you read?--Wick3dd (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite a lot, I guarantee. I'm waiting then. Evenfiel (talk) 04:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, this will come down to another argument of tone. Forget it, it is not even worth it. If you cannot tell what an author intends by their tone, or how they are trying to reach their audience, then this debate is pointless. Have a good day. --Wick3dd (talk) 04:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to remind you that the vast majority of the reviews from Encyclopaedia Metallum are positive, so I have no idea how EM can be a "sandbox of kiddies making fun of music that they think "sucks"".Evenfiel (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Check out their forums, and keep in mind that these are the people submitting bands. The site, though it has some valuable resources, is not on par with Wikipedia's standards.--Wick3dd (talk) 17:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

01. The Encyclopedia itself has little to do with what's going on in the Metal and General forums.

02. So what if those people submit bands? What does this has to do with "sandbox of kiddies making fun of music that they think "sucks""? Anyway, most bands are submitted by people who never go to the forums.

03. MA certainly has a lot more info about metal bands than Wikipedia, specially if you're into underground Metal. Evenfiel (talk) 04:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Underground metal sure, but significantly less information. If you want an easy instance of unprofessional, elitist behavior, read the trivia right here. You don't think that the whole "dursted" thing is not in any way derogatory? That site takes the typical "counter-culture" ideals of many metalheads and puts it in writing. I never said it isn't useful, I am just saying that the work many of us have put into the WikiProject Metal surpasses that, and it irks me to see people trying to cite the archives on every page. --Wick3dd (talk) 06:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the work here surpasses the work in MA. Could you show me an example, comparing the information from MA and Wikipedia on a few metal bands, and point out why the Wikipedia entry is better? Except for the biographies, I don't see how the Wiki entries can be any better. Maybe you don't like the rules of the site, but that's far from saying that it's not an useful source. Evenfiel (talk) 15:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok here is an example. Let's say you want to look up Nile. You look them up on MA, you see a little bit on them and a discography. You look them up on Wikipedia, and you get a page that tells their history, their style, and biography. Also, note the quality of the writing on both sites. Let's say you also want to know what brutal death metal is, so you click the link that Wikipedia supplies. I am just saying that Wikipedia is more in depth, as well as more accurate because of the multiple editors (in theory anyways). Maybe my "sandbox of kiddies" statement was overkill. I was frankly annoyed at some related problems at the time, so I over emphasized the problem.--Wick3dd (talk) 16:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

MA does not aim to have huge biographies and style descriptions, but accurate information on official discography, line-up and other informations about a given band, as well as a complete list of Metal bands. MA also has multiple editors, although not to the scale of Wikipedia. Also, MA has, by far, the largest collection of Metal reviews, something which is not in Wikipedia's aim. I'd say that Wikipedia and MA can complement each other. Evenfiel (talk) 18:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

True, but just as MA probably would not get the information from Wikipedia, Wikipedia users should not cite MA. --Wick3dd (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

As it happens I do find metal Archives an incredibly useful and reliable resource, largely when it comes to discographies and the like. However, as it is user edited it cannot be used as a source for Wikipedia. In fact it should be looked on in the same light as Wikipedia itself... if someone cited Wikipedia in a serious article, eyebrows would be quite justifiably raised. Whoever commented that sources commonly accepted as 'legitimate' can often be horribly wrong is absolutely correct, and that is why sources closer to their subject matter should ideally be found, i.e. if you want a source stating Band X is 'technical death metal' or whatever, I'm going to use the Terrorizer source and not the Sunday Times source. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section

Removed the recently added section. While i do agree with the author to a certain extent (see the last comment in the paragraph right above this one) the section contained only pure original research and weasel words. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 21:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The citation is proved within Wikipedia, I can cite it if you like. I just did not have the time at that moment. Please point out the "weasel words". I am involved with the WikiProject and believe this needs to be added. Please do not remove, just ask for citation. Thank you.--Wick3dd 23:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed it. There is now adequate citation. Thank you for caring, please use the standard procedure of asking for citation next time. Thank you. --Wick3dd 23:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed again, see edit summary. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 00:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding, but that was the correct link. That discussion page contains a dispute over the genre of Lamb of God, where many people blame the Encyclopaedia Metallum for misrepresenting the band. Now in my opinion, the archives were right on this one, but that is beside the point (just trying to show it is not a biased link). Just read the page and you will see the controversy. I am not going to add it again til you respond, but would you like to help me create this section? The point of it is not to show my personal preference of the archives, but rather their connection with Wikipedia.--Wick3dd 17:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no connection to wikipedia. If you can write a criticism section with references (that means reliable secondary sources, not discussions in a wikipedia project) there is no reason not to have it. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 18:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

But the criticism I am addressing is by the WikiProject Metal...--Wick3dd 20:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Your point being? ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 23:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you are understanding me. The criticism I am alluding to is within wikipedia. My citations show the criticism itself. It would be pointless to find an outside source--Wick3dd 00:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC) pertaining to this issue when I can show the issue itself. Forgive me if I misunderstand you, but it seems you just do not like my writing. I understand my first post was not acceptable, and I thank you for pointing that out, but now you are just deliberately removing something without even trying to improve it. --Wick3dd 23:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Your link to the Lamb of God talk page reveals that you are the only person there arguing against using EM as a source in the matter, this hardly constitutes a wide-spread controversy or criticism and is certainly not enough of a dispute to dedicate an entire criticism section to in EM's article. I suggest you drop it. Ours18 00:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

That just shows me that you did not read well enough. Although I do edit the Lamb of God page, my edits have nothing to do with EM. I only noticed the EM reference made by another use in the discussion and decided to check the site out. After I did that I figured that someone should probably add a section here about the enmity that exists between users here and there. If you wish, I will drop it, but I would like you to read the whole thing first. However, I still do plan to add addition complaints to this article from outside sources.

What enmity? There's none whatsoever. There's a general disregard for the reliability of Uncle Wiki's metal articles in the metal community as a whole (and rightfully so) which means people on EM are going to show this as well, but easily 70% of the users editing metal articles here consider EM a reliable source, and that's a conservative estimate. There's barely anyone who ever badmouths EM and most of those who do have a clear prejudice against the site that's usually the result of a rejected review or getting banned from there, in my experience. If Uncle Wiki's disastrous policies were altered to recognize EM's reliability as a source, every single metal article on Wikipedia would have a Metal Archives link or five as a reference. That's far from enmity. Ours18 00:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

And you are far from having an accurate view of reliable sources. I linked you the emnity, you just chose not to pay attention. Like I said, I would not add this if I had not seen emnity. You are throwing random numbers out there as if you "are the metal authority". Please leave this to me and Twsx, as you obviously lack an open mind. Thank you. --Wick3dd 01:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)--Wick3dd 01:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I paid perfectly close attention. You have not. All mentions of MA on the LoG talkpage are in a positive light except for yours. My mind may not be as open as yours, but it is apparently more capable of reading comprehension than yours. Also, please note that using Wikipedia as a source is against Wikipedia's own policies, so your efforts here are futile. Ours18 09:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Haha you are not reading the right quote. I am speaking of the metalcore quote. Read it again. You are not open minded at all. You just said "70%" of the metal community views them as valid. Where is your source? Where do you get this knowledge. I am not going to add the section again, as the talk page,as you said, is not a valid source. However, I suggest you read the article in its entirety. Also, do not insult my reading comprehension, as you know nothing of my intelligence, nor do I know any of yours. All I ask is that you do not turn this into a flame game, and bring up valid points. You did point out Wikipedia's policies, which is valid. I was under the assumption that a talk page could be used for something like this, but I was wrong. Thank you for that. --Wick3dd 18:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m292/Heresy_and_fire/stupidwikipedians.jpg

I invite everyone to look at that picture. It is what the metalcore section of the LoG talkpage looked like as of five minutes ago. This is the section that he linked to as a source in the MA article. One mention of metal-archives.com, and it was not in a negative light whatsoever (merely pointing out that it is not the only source for metal online). I rest my case.

I base the 70% figure on a year's worth of editing experience on Wikipedia. The amount of people I have seen look at Metal Archives in an unfavourable manner can be counted on two hands. I would need seven limbs to count the number of Wikipedians who hold MA in some favour. There is no widespread enmity here, and any animosity towards Wikipedia coming from MA is no greater than the animosity coming from the metal community as a whole (which is considerably large, again based on years of experience in metal).

You also have no basis for claiming I do not have an open mind. You yourself said that MA is "bogus" [1] and claimed it the opinions of a couple of people, which could not be further form the truth, so perhaps your mind is not as open as you claim it to be. Ours18 21:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I never claimed it was "widespread". I just saw a post like that and a couple of others so I figured it was worth mentioning. If you read at the bottom of that post, it says he hates the term metalcore, and he blames LoG being labeled as such on EM. I took it as negative. My issues with EM have nothing to do with that. My personal issue is the elitist attitude which is not suitable for wikipedia. I like how you labeled this "stupid wikipedians". Calm down, this is the internet. My basis for you not being open minded is saying that 70% quote. A year of editing still is no foundation for such a figure. Also, I took what you said to heart about citing wikipedia, and am not going to add the section. I do not know why you insist on blasting me. Thanks for the time. --Wick3dd 00:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, wikipedia is not a good indicator of the metal community as a whole. I am assuming you work on the metal pages? If so, you must be aware of the widespread animosity towards wikipedia on the issue. The metal community itself can hardly be taken "as whole", as it is so incredibly diverse. I challenge you to find a consensus on anything among "metalheads" --Wick3dd 00:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

M-A Down?

Starting on Christmas morning (25th) and continuing through today, M-A has been showing a "403 - Forbidden" screen when I (and at least two others) attempt to access it. Anyone aware of the problem? Seems to be universal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.237.108.32 (talk) 22:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have that problem too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.186.64.31 (talk) 23:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Down too, December 27th, 11:54 AM Iran. Life stops, sad addiction! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.165.46.143 (talk) 08:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, definetly down. Last I ever saw it up and running was Christmas day at about 6 PM Eastern Standard Time in the USA. I then left the board, only to come back to it a couple of days later and it was down. My guess is that they are redesigning the site. Anybody know anything? Bonham.45 (talk) 02:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC) (aka HighPlainsDrifter on the MA board)

Perhaps it's the fabled V 2.0 being put into place? No? Well, a man can dream... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.65.240.116 (talk) 08:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, seeing as the site has been down for 4 days so far and the MA admins do check this page (at least every now and then), I'm sure they're planning some sort of a suprise. If the site had actually shut down, they probably would have explained here on Wikipedia or on some other big site why they've shut down. MET920 (talk) 08:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Especially considering that it started on Christmas morning, yeah, it certainly seems possible they're planning some sort of surprise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.65.240.116 (talk) 09:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)