Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:27, 21 January 2006

A request for mediation has been made in regards to the dispute on this article.

Users involved in heavy dispute on this article have been referred to the Abbiration committe and are awaiting response. Please do not remove anything from this page.

A request for comments has been made about the dispute on this article's contents.

Archives

For previous discussion, please see:

• Talk:Gothic metal/Archive 1
• Talk:Gothic metal/Archive 2
• Talk:Gothic metal/Archive 3
• Talk:Gothic metal/Archive 4
• Talk:Gothic metal/Archive 5

List of bands should be in another article.

As many other genres i feel list of bands belongs to another article. I copied the contents from the main article to List of goth metal bands.

As mentioned before, its a list of Gothic Metal AND Gothic-Doom bands. The genre is also called GOTHIC Metal, not GOTH Metal. Rename the article appropriatly, and then the article list shall be included. At current, it undermines almost all of the article. Leyasu 14:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Both names 'Goth Metal' and 'Gothic Metal' are used in Gothic metal article refering to the same genre. I renamed the mentioned article to List of gothic metal and gothic-doom metal bands even though this name seems too clumsy to me. D0c 11:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Also read the Common Misconceptions part of the article on the negative use of the term 'Goth Metal'. Yes, it is a clumsy article to do a list of bands for. Yes, the name of the list is clumsy. But it wasnt my idea to list both articles into one. However, i have been handing out Misplaced Pages's name more regularly now, and people who have gotten back to me have said, not having to go through 100 different articles to find something is a lot more helpfull. So maybe keeping the band list on the article is helpfull as example bands, with a comphrensive, detailed list in another article? Leyasu 12:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Just put {{:List of gothic metal and gothic-doom metal bands}} in the main Gothic metal article under the header for the list. That will copy and paste the contents of List of gothic metal and gothic-doom metal bands into the article. (Though to edit the list, you'd have to go to List of gothic metal and gothic-doom metal bands. You can't edit the list directly from Gothic metal if you do it this way.) --Idont Havaname 04:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with that Idont. It makes it harder to keep track of the articles, and for editing by others it makes it a nightmare to follow all the articles. Personally i still think having 5-10 bands on a seperate list for both Gothic-Doom and Gothic Metal, and then a comphrensive list of each in seperate articles is the best way to go about it. Leyasu 04:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

That's not a good way to do it either, though. It's generally not good to pick a few items out of a list, and if you do, you might run into POV problems (or at best, you'll just be mentioning bands that the rest of the article discussed.) If the list is short, it can stay in the article. But this one seems to be long enough to justify its own article, so it would be best to keep it on a separate page. --Idont Havaname 05:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The only ptoblem is, a lot of people want things there for quick reference. I suggest waiting for more people to comment before any action is taken by either of us. Leyasu 06:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

No Concensus Reached, So Tags Shall Remain.

I have placed 3 fitting tags on the top of the article, due to the reason that reverting the article back to the original will just cause Leyasu to wage another revert war; Looking at the above notes, there was absolutely no concensus reached that Leyasu's Temp page was suitable enough to be submitted as an article; he/she basically said they would be doing it, "everyone is on my side" (who is "everyone"? It seems everyone was criticizing his/her edits) and that was that. Still several factual errors in the article, as what had already been discussed. Danteferno 15:05, 15 January 2005 (UTC)

Consenus was reached and more than one editor has reverted your tags. The argument was also abandoned by the the disagreeing half after ample warning was given to the posting of the revision unless further discussion was to be held. Further attempts at blatant vandalism, MPOV, and disrupting Misplaced Pages to prove a point will be pointed out to admins, who can then decide the best course of action. Leyasu 16:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The above is from a user (Leyasu) who has been blocked by Misplaced Pages admins for personal attacks and 3RR, a user who has been pointed out by Wikipedians as using sockpuppets, a user who continuously provides no source/references for their edits, and is now denying that any of this took place. Recently, a wikipedia admin (Sn0wflake) abandoned trying to work with Leyasu for his/her continued personal vendettas and campaigns (See Leyasu's discussion board for proof on all the above.). Very confusing, but not surprising, sadly. Danteferno 18:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

User who made accusation of Sock Puppets = Danteinferno.

Admin (Sn0wflake) quit an argument between several users, one of which was myself, and quit the argument from participating due to all users. The article in question being Grunge.

Another user also banned for 3RR was part of the argument on the Grunge article.

Dante has also broken the 3RR on this article against edits i made.

It should be taken into account, that Dante was also named for MPOV on several articles.

Another point is that Dante was also told by more than myself, that his edits are wrong, and more than one user has reverted his edits. Dante also claims vandalism on any edit that isnt his own.

I will now inform Admins about this users behaviour. Leyasu 16:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Please report me for my "behavior", Leyasu. One admin already told you that calling another Wikipedian "meglomaniacal" is namecalling and a personal attack (advised by Sn0wflake in your dispute with LGagnon, something you were blocked for, and then you threatened to report admin Sn0wflake for not siding with you.) Your presence here has been nothing but counterproductive, and there is still no evidence that the "majority is in agreement" with you in turning the Temp page (which has various errors, mentioned above) into the main article. No, everytime you're asked a question for your sources and claims, it's "harassment" against you. --- Danteferno 00:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The only user who has harrassed me openly is Danteinferno and i have made no such claims against any other users. I also never threatened to report the admin who blocked me, i asked him to explain where i made a personal attack, which in kind, he did.

This again is slander and personal attacks, claiming now im being counterproductive on Misplaced Pages and making bad faith edits. Again, personal attacks.

Also, a consensus being reached is evidence enough. As well as the Gothic Metal scene and the bands involved within depicting the genre as such. One persons defination and that of misconception with sources critcially disclaimed by many, including the scene, doesnt make a good source. Leyasu 02:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

You could say a concensus was reached as much as you want - it didn't happen.Your "friend" parasti(who also seems to be joining you in your 3RR violations on other articles) is not the main voice of Misplaced Pages, and neither or you. So where's that Misplaced Pages admin you were talking about? I think their judgment on whether a concensus was reached (and whether the tags should stay) is confirmation enough. I also think it would be good to let them know of your current 3RR violations of other articles (with other users), that the same thing happening there is happening here - and it's not a "Danteferno" problem. Danteferno 04:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Please see my "official" reply on Danteferno's talk page. That is all there is to it, basically. And for the time being check out WP:NPA. Cheers. -- parasti 00:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not all there is to it. Per your discussion page, you just registered with Misplaced Pages on December 18, so unless you have an existing username on here, you have not been here long enough to read up on the Misplaced Pages process. Danteferno 04:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining how does the time I have spent as a registered user on Misplaced Pages matter in this discussion? Here's a hint: it doesn't. Also what makes you think I have "joined" User:Leyasu in his "3RR violations on other articles", as I do not seem to recall such actions, moreover, I would surely notice if I had been blocked for 24 hours? If you bother to answer, please make sure you provide links to the exact 3RR-violating edits from my contribution history, otherwise it is to be considered a personal attack. Do not expect to be taken seriously if you cannot reasonably argue in a discussion.

Now, all else aside, I ask, what do you consider to be incorrect in the article and what are your suggestions for improving it aside from "this article needs a complete rewrite". If you cannot give a reasonable answer, then please stop vandalising the article, as your actions will then eventually be reported as such. -- parasti  22:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

To be brief: 1.) The article states symphonic metal was derived from gothic metal. This is untrue, and the original version of symphonic metal (before Leyasu changed it) reflects that as well. 2.) The article begins by stating that the genre started in Europe; this is also untrue; and later on, the article contradicts itself when stating that American bands from the 1980s played a part in its beginnings. Type O Negative's first album was from 1993, a few years before many well-known gothic metal bands in Europe would release their albums, and TON were also an influence for European bands. Leyasu thinks that they are "gothic doom" and belong in a separate category, but users that include myself, Idont havaname and Sn0wflake (see Leyasu's talk page) told him/her that gothic metal and gothic doom are essentially the same thing, regardless of TON'S "genre" 3.) The article reads like someone's personal opinion, is very unclear in the way things are described (no examples for claims on the way gothic metal "sounds"), and doesn't seem to be in encylopedic reading format. 4.) Moonspell are not from Scandinavia (see "Beginnings") 5.) Various Gothic Metal bands that were removed from the list by Leyasu, including Lake of Tears, Charon and TiamaT, simply because he/she does not want them there. Your two cents?--Danteferno 23:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

1. I know nothing of symphonic metal, but anyway is it even necessary to mention the origins of symphonic metal here when it has its own article? To avoid confusion at least. The "original version" was a mere 3 paragraph definition stating that symphonic metal is not a real genre, hence with no reference to its origins.
2. The Gathering released Always... in 1992, several songs from which were written and released in 1990. It's often called atmospheric death / doom metal with keyboards and Beauty and the Beast vocals, but then again that's what is commonly referred to as gothic metal.
3. No comment on this one, feel free to improve it.
4. It does not imply Moonspell are a Scandinavian band; it makes sense if you leave out the part where Scandinavia is mentioned. The way it is said could be improved though, see #3.
5. As said on the Lake of Tears article, they have a "wide range of different styles", so it seems to be more of a The Gathering case: you could name albums, but not the whole band as being gothic metal. As for my personal opinion, their sound on the album I have heard is very much similar to that of Crematory, which is in turn similar to that of early HIM (they came later though, so it's the other way around); often clean male vocals, minimal use of keyboards, simple but agressive drum beat, complex solos and verse-chorus-verse-bridge-chorus structure. While it is metal, it is definitely not gothic. No opinion on other bands, as I have not listened to them. -- parasti  22:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

1. The revised version of the article states: "A softer genre known as symphonic metal had evolved in the mid- to late- 1990s from gothic metal bearing strong similarities to its predecessor"' - this is completely untrue - symphonic metal did not evolve from gothic metal, symphonic metal is simply a style used by power metal and black metal bands that use symphonic elements. Perhaps there are gothic metal bands that use symphonic elements, but it did not "evolve" from gothic metal.

Not what the Symphonic Metal article states, which was revised with consensus. And not what a lot of sources say, which can be found in the archives, which Danteinferno provided themself.

1. The Gathering's first album was from 1992, correct, however they did not break out as a "gothic metal" band until later. The same could be said for TiamaT, who began as death metal and entered the gothic metal sort years later as well. Bottom line, TON came before both. (I was mistaken at first - Type O Negative's first release was from 1991; "Slow Deep and Hard".)

Type O Negative however, is not a Gothic Metal band. And no matter how much Danteinferno blows the whistles for them, the Gothic Metal community, and most of their fans, recognise them for their work in both the Doom Metal and Gothic-Doom scenes. Also, claiming a band is Gothic Metal because you like them, doesnt make them Gothic Metal when they are not musically Gothic Metal.

1. If I improve/reword it, Leyasu will revert it back and call it "Bad faith edit/Vandalism". See the Children of Bodom or Cradle of Filth revision history to see what I mean.

Both articles have suffered heavy vandalism, with sections behing removed and replaced with random characters or insults towards the bands. Last i checked, this is vandalism. Also, i myself will not revert an edit or call it Vandalism, unless it explicitly states something that isnt true, or relevant to the subject matter.

1. There was a great section in the original version that reflected how many death metal and black metal bands from the Scandinavian region became "gothic metal". It is erroneous to include Moonspell as they are from Portugal. It would make more sense to include the bands used before (which were removed for no reason.)

Removed for not being Gothic Metal. Bands from X place changed genre to Gothic Metal. Y Band from X Place changed their Genre to Pop. List Y band from X Place as changing their genre to Gothic Metal. Something says that isnt very enceylcopedic, or accurate, to me.

1. In agreement with Lake of Tears, however, being that Gothic metal bands progress, and use a lot of experimentation, it is sometimes hard to even judge the most comfortable bands in the genre, because they, too, will experiment. LoT's genre-labeling varies, however reputable websites for heavy metal (such as Allmusic.com and Metal Archives) have labeled LoT as Gothic Metal. Charon and TiamaT are unarguably Gothic metal bands. It should also be noted that many bands listed in the article or the band list have no Wiki-page and are probably too obscure for mentioning as "notable". --Danteferno 23:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Most of the bands listed are better known in the Gothic Metal scene and genre than either Tiamat, Charon or Lake of Tears. Also, bands often try to claim they are something they are not. Atreyum My Chemical Romance and Evanescence have all laid claim to being Gothic Metal, when they obviously are not. One band claiming they are Gothic Metal, doesnt mean they are Gothic Metal. Also, i ask Danteinferno for how these bands are Gothic Metal, other than is 'becasue i said so' argument.

1) Symphonic Metal as a genre originated from Gothic Metal. Thats as a genre. General consensus from most of the metal community reflects this. I listed over 20 sources saying this, all of which Danteinferno claimed were 'disallowed' because they didnt agree with him, even though half of them you provided by himself.

2) The genre did indeed start in Europe, and is mostly a European scene. The genre has some fans in America, but is not as intensely followed by any means as it is in Europe. Also, Type O Negative share nothing in common with Gothic Metal, apart from the Synthesise of influences in their guitarworks, which is also the same as what Gothic-Doom does. They are also highly regarded around the world as Gothic-Doom or just plain Doom-Metal with Gothic Rock influence. Irony i believe, when they are supposed to be Gothic Metal, while lacking most traits of the genre, or affiliation with it.

3) The article is better than the one Danteinferno claimed was 'his' that i had 'no right to edit'. I also, fail to see how it reads POV. If it reads POV, an explanation on how it reads POV, not just rash claim of 'This reads POV so post my POV because i said so'. Arguments such as that dont work. I was also considering RFA for the article, to see how it can be improved, much like the Nightwish article was done.

4) Im not a specialist in Geography, if there is a minor Geographical error in the argument, a minor edit from anyone can fix it. A minor mistake requirring a minor edit isnt justification to rewrite the whole article.

5) Well, according to Lake of Tears, Charon and TiamaT's articles, the bands arent Gothic Metal. Lake of Tears, could be considered Gothic-Doom on one album. On that note, that album is widely considered Folk Metal, due to its heavy folk themes, and lack of Gothic Metal and Gothic Rock elements. Tiamat, you explain how they are Gothic Metal, because making 'because i said so' arguments isnt going to work either. And Charon is hardly Gothic Metal, has no affiliation with the Gothic Metal scene, and is generally not accepted as Gothic Metal by anyone par a very small portion of the bands fans.

Taking this into account i listed some extra things to note.

6) Danteinferno abandoned this argument when he was proved wrong. The user Idonthavename left the argument, after helping in the revision of the article. Snowflake also told Dante he was wrong on a number of occasions, as can be seen in the archives, if checked.

7) Danteinferno has tried to discredit me with personal attacks of various forms and styles. This has included blatant insults in the form of such classics as 'you are an idiot'/'you are a moron', to such discredit the argument by descrediting the person as 'everyone hates you'/'you make no good edits'/'you dont know anything'. Its childlike and pathetic, it really is.

8) If the article was fine in the first place in the form Dante claimed was 'his' that i dont have 'any right to edit', then it wouldnt of needed revising. As such, it was revised, with consenus (Which i might add Dante called everyone who disagreed with him a sockpuppet). If this article was in need of a complete rewrite, then why would it of already been rewritten? Also, isnt it ironic when the person claiming it needs a rewrite, is the person who claimed ownership of rewritten article? Doesnt that some what come across as meglomanical point of view and bad faith editing?

Im going to put in a RFC, because, this is not going to get anywhere, its a circular argument thats practically unworthy of archival space. IM listing in for RFC, and if personal attacks are continued against me, i will inform the Abbirition Committe, as i have given example, and warning as to how Danteinferno is making them. Its a shame that Dante seems to feel he has to harass me and make personal attacks in this way, but that isnt the spirit of Misplaced Pages, and it doesnt warrent place here. Perhaps if Dante would prefer to use a Misplaced Pages with no rules, he should go to Anarchapedia. Leyasu 04:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Every single thing you wrote above is wrong - you haven't provided any sources to your edits - per your talk page, you REMOVED citations from other articles (and other users noted you on this). Being that each thing you say about me (or anything who disagrees with you) is a personal attack and harrassment, it seems ironic and hypocritical that you're accusing me (and others) of personal attacks and harrassment - you're baiting for such, that's for sure. It was Leyasu who got banned for personal attacks. Again, anyone can look above (and the archives) and see that everyone who participated in the discussion with Leyasu asked him/her many times to provide sources for his/her edits, in which Leyasu either refused, or simply posted website URLs that didn't have any information supporting his/her argument. It comes as no surprise that the admins Leyasu came to for help in this did not answer. If I was an admin, I would probably be hesitant as well. The only reason I'm staying is because the public should not be stuck with the flawed article that Leyasu submitted with absolutely no precedent. Danteferno 05:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Three editors (Myself, Parasti and TureMetalFan) have no all told user Danteinferno he is wrong. The claim of providing no sources for the revision, which were provided in the discussion of the revision previously, which most of the sources provided where originally sourced by user Danteinferno, is a tom-fool claim.

In the claim i removed citiations from other Articles, this was during a conflicting view on the Nightwish article on formatting. The citations, in fact, were left, however i had removed the in sentence links to them. The users involved, including me discussed this in a perfectly civilised manner, and it was explained to me that in sentence Links are considered helpfull and good for RFA, despite their formatting uglyness. I didnt contest this and the issue was laid to rest. Nothing bad there i think.

The claims that i am making personal attacks against Danteinferno, and that im harrasing him are somewhat null, when the user has periodically gone around reverting edits of mine on articles, used open inflamatory language and manner, including direct insults, and has openly claimed the original articles as his, claimed people are conspiring against him, and also has an obvious personal vendetta against me. Thus, an Admin or Meditation Committe member would be best to decide who is indeed, making the personal insults.

I was banned for making a personal attack, which at the time i didnt realise was a personal attack. Apologies were made after this, due to my intepretation of personal attacks being somewhat different to others. The issue was resolved somewhat instanteneously, with the Admin explaining how what i said could of been considered a personal attack.

Many times i was asked to provide sources, and after some time, i did. Over half of the sources i gave, had already been given by the user Danteinferno, who was the only user against the revision to what he claimed was 'his' article. The only time sources of mine were discredited, were by Danteinferno, because of such reasons as 'They arent well known enough', and 'Forums dont count'. Not reasons to discount sources by Misplaced Pages's policys, i do so believe.

I also posted to Admins, following my own inetitive that perhaps if they mediated this argument, it wouldnt become so derogatory. As such i got no replies, so instead i went to the Mediation Committe. We are currently awaiting mediation from them.

Danteinferno in this statement, 'The only reason I'm staying is because the public should not be stuck with the flawed article that Leyasu submitted with absolutely no precedent.' seems to make his intentions clear. The user seems somewhat bothered that the article was revised. I now ask this question, if the article was flawed, and the information in the original was correct, why was consensus reached that a revision should be done? And why has consensus been reached again by mostly different users, that the changes Dante is proposing are wrong? I think these questions answer themselfs.

Thats nonsense, as Parasti has been here long enough to learn the Misplaced Pages Policys, by reading them. Now your making personal attacks against other users, which completely degrades your claim. You blatantly have no intrest in making this article better, and are content to simply vabdalise it, as it seems. Leyasu 16:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Danteferno the problem with the list of bands is that half the bands on the list have a female singer. Meaning that half those bands are Gothic Metal? I don't think so. One band for exmpale can no longer be called Gothic Metal that band is After Forever. There first CD my be Gothic Metal but they moved very far away from that after the first CD. Epica can be listed as a Gothic Metal band either they are adding in more then one kind of music. Nightwish is a Symphonic Metal and Power Metal band or just Symphonic power Metal/ Just because a band has a female lead singer dose not make them Gothic Metal that's way a lot of those bands should not be listed as such. Turemetalfan Jan 17, 2006

Leyasu compiled/arranged that list, not me. ---Danteferno 00:42 January 18, 2006 (UTC)

Turemetalfan is talking about the list on 'your' original article. Leyasu 03:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, he's obviously referring to the current article, which is your revision. (And the original article was not "my" article) ---Danteferno 03:50 January 18, 2006 (UTC)

Um no Danteferno Leyasu is right I was talking about the original article. There were bands listed there that were not really Gothic Metal at all. The way the bands are listed know is just fine. Though I still feel that some are not really part of the Gothic Metal that is just my opinon. Turemetalfan Jan 18, 2006 9:43 AM

I didn't compile a majority of those bands on the original article, so whoever did, you will need to bring it up with them. Please be sure to address the appropriate parties when you have a dispute. If you feel there are bands on the current page that aren't really Gothic Metal you will need to bring that up to Leyasu. Thanks, Danteferno 03:50 January 18, 2006 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of personal attacks, POV, unsourced claims, harassment, et al.

Please see this page on who's consistently doing such (and cited examples)

Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-01-16 Deathrock & Deathrock fashion

I will do my best to disregard Leyasu from now on.

For all else concerned in the matter, I am currently in the process of overhauling the gothic metal page with cited examples from reputable sources, and this should be the most comprehensive and neutral of any web reference on the subgenre. It should be done by next week. If anyone wants to see a current draft, let me know. Best, Danteferno 15:50 January 18, 2006 (UTC)

Consensus was reached that the article doesnt need changing, any change to the article with information that isnt accurate will be reverted, and the vandal will be reported to the abbirition commitee. Leyasu 19:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

RfC - Request for Comment

Hello, I thought I'd come in and take a look. Could someone please summarize in 1 or 2 sentences, what the issue is? Thanks. Elonka 03:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

This link pretty much summons it up. As well as the Gothic Metal statement on this link. Leyasu 04:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I read the dispute. It's clear that there are disagreements between a few people about the content of the page, but I had trouble figuring out just which content... Could you clarify a particular change that is in dispute? For example, should the page say "a" or "b" or "c", etc. Thanks. Elonka 06:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

To summerise it, in the A/B/C format.

• Version A) The original article.
• Version B) The revised article.
• Version C) Dante's proposed revision.

Version A was revised due to the content being incorrect and infactual about the genre of music and scene it was about. After a heavily long discussion on the talk page, which is in the archives, a consensus was reached in that a revision would take place, which several users supervised and contributed to on the since deleted temp page, and as such version B was posted at the conclusion. During this time, Danteferno was the only person who argued against the consensus, on the basis that he 'owned' the article and that he was the person who made the decisions on what was fact, based on bands he did and did not like. All of this can be seen in the archives.

Version B has since been posted for around a month now, and has recieved a much higher number of hits than the previous article. Comments have also been made about its comphrensiveness, and whenever it has found an issue with someone misunderstaning, or another article mentioning it, myself or another editor has contributed to the article to explain this. Such incidents being the problem withe term 'Faggoth', the splitting of the list of bands, and album links.

Danteferno now proposes after a lengthy absence that the article is wrong, and that only a version that he claims as 'his' was ever right. He proposes 'he' rewrites the article, to be the same as Version A. I asked Dante why we should do this, as did Parasti, and we were hurled with abuse, personal attacks, and harrasment, forcing requests for Mediation and Abbirattion. Consensus as such was reached in that Version B, although not RFA material, is actually accurate and fair, and shows what the genre and scene is. Danteferno however still proposes the version C and demanded another consensus, hence the RFC.

My question is, if version A was correct, then why has consensus been reached twice that version B should remain. And if version C is going to repeat version A, which was determined twice by conesnus as wrong, would there be any reason to post version C?

I await comments from other users on this matter, as i myself, am at a loss, and also tired of getting nothing constructive from Danteferno, hence the case of Abbirittion and Mediation. Perhaps another user will get more sense and reason from discussion with him. Leyasu 07:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the matter is that Leyasu made a revised page adding unsourced claims and info; the original had proper citations for most vital info, but to Leyasu the information and citation was "POV". He never fully explained this, and now the article is completely misleading.

Danteferno still says this despite consensus being reached twice that the current version is the factually accurate one, and that Version A needed rewriting.

To be brief (but not going over everything)

1. The article states symphonic metal was derived from gothic metal. This is untrue, and the original version of symphonic metal (before Leyasu changed it) reflects that as well.

Consensus was also reached on changing the Symphonic Metal article, using the sources Dante provided to support his argument.

2. The article begins by stating that the genre started in Europe; this is also untrue; and later on, the article contradicts itself when stating that American bands from the 1980s played a part in its beginnings. Type O Negative's first album was from 1991, a few years before many well-known gothic metal bands in Europe would release their albums, and TON were also an influence for European bands. Leyasu thinks that they are "gothic doom" and belong in a separate category, but users that include myself, Idont havaname and Sn0wflake (see Leyasu's talk page) told him/her that gothic metal and gothic doom are essentially the same thing, regardless of TON'S "genre".

This is because the genre did start in Europe. Dante, also has expressed clear regard that he doesnt care about a bands music, they are the genre they wish them to be. (See archives). Also, many genre articles mention the influences that came before the genre, that doesnt mean the genre started then.

3.The article reads like someone's personal opinion, is very unclear in the way things are described (no examples for claims on the way gothic metal "sounds"), and doesn't seem to be in encylopedic reading format.

Consensus was reached twice that this was untrue, with Dante being the only person who claims this.

4. Moonspell are not from Scandinavia (see "Beginnings")

This was copied from the original revision that Dante claimed was his. As i and user Parasti said earlier, a minor error can be fixed with a minor edit, and doesnt justify a whole rewrite. Would you rewrite a whole FA due to a spelling mistake?.

5. Various Gothic Metal bands that were removed from the list by Leyasu, including Lake of Tears, Charon and TiamaT, simply because he/she does not want them there.

This is also untrue, when the only one of these bands music im not fond of is Tiamat. This is a personal attack and by Misplaced Pages's rules, is unacceptable.

Leyasu has been doing this with other Misplaced Pages articles, and has been treating other Misplaced Pages editors with similar disrespect, and one just needs to read his talk page to see that these same problems are going on elsewhere. IMHO, Leyasu has seldom (if never) been "constructive", and there was never concensus on this discussion - users on his talk page hinted him of that as well. Danteferno 10:07 18 January 19 (UTC)

At one point, the Cradle of Filth article was deleted by an anymonous user and replaced with 'Cradle are fags!!!', which i reverted as Vandalism. Dante has claimed that me reverting such edits are me vandalising the page, when in fact im the one, who amongst other users, has reverted these forms of edits. Also, if my talk page is checked, most all of the users who have come into contact with me, of only ever differed over methods of editing, such as how to merge a page, or the way to format it. Minor issues almost all editors come into discussion about at some point.

This is a prime example of untrue personal attacks, and fits well with Dante's earlier claim during the second consensus that 'nobody on Misplaced Pages likes me'. As since, i am indeed involved in dispute over two more articles, Alternative Metal and Metal music with the perfectly good editor WesleyDodds/Aj Ramierz, with our conflict simply a differing view of how to go about things, and i dont remember us at any point flaming each other or making personal attacks, as Dante has done with me. Again, i wait for comments from other users, bearing in mind twice conesnsus has been reached against Dante's revision. And that Abbirrition and Mediation both had to be requested against him. Leyasu 17:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. My recommendation at this point is to pick one single page change that is in dispute, such as "Did the genre start in Europe", and to discuss each one individually, being sure to cite sources. For example, when on this page someone says that "consensus was reached", it would be wise to link to the page and section that proves this. I have to admit that I'm also having some difficulty telling which paragraph here is by which person, so I would recommend keeping replies short (no more than one paragraph) and being careful to sign each one with four tildes: ~~~~. Elonka 18:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

First, Elonka, I would like to extend sincere thanks for your intervention in this discussion! :)

Starting with "Did the genre start in Europe?", here is one source that talks of Goth(ic) Metal's history:

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:11955

This summary reflects that the genre started in both Europe and the U.S. almost simultaneously (but further back connections in the U.S.). In addition, it confirms Type O Negative as being a gothic metal band (not "gothic doom", or whatever) and that they belong in the gothic metal category, which was a topic of further discussion, because they were segregated in the article as being "gothic-doom" as if there was a difference (there isn't, and this had been discussed a bunch of times here.) Since the history is already discussed in the article (the article just contradicts itself at the beginning) I await feedback from others.---Danteferno 18:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is some sources that say what i have said:

• The first link
• Second link

Also, if Gothic-Doom and Gothic Metal were the same, you wouldnt have pages such as this one that list a difference. Nor would the bands work in two independent scenes, with the two fan bases and music scenes being independent of each other. Leyasu 19:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I am still trying to drill down to one of the core disagreements here. Is it correct to state that everyone agrees that "Type O Negative" is one of the originators of a goth genre of music, but that there is dispute on whether their style was "Gothic Metal" or "Gothic Doom"? Elonka 19:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

As a 3rd party to this dispute, with no personal axe to grind, I'd like to add a few words here. I would say that the problem is that Leyasu seems to be insisting that gothic metal and gothic doom are two totally distinct genres, which is clearly taxonomically unsound given the presence of the term 'gothic' in both names and the fact that 'doom' is a subset of 'metal'. The only reason that people say "gothic doom" instead of "gothic doom metal" is brevity. The only sensible conclusion is that "gothic doom" is the overlap between "gothic metal" and "doom metal", and that there is a continuum along this axis. For example, reviews on The Metal Observer classify Katatonia as , , and . Bands such as Katatonia, Anathema, Paradise Lost, My Dying Bride, Draconian, and Type O Negative cross all these boundaries, making clear delineation both difficult and irrelevant. As far as reputable sources go, had no problem in classifying Type O Negative as 'gothic metal' in its review of 90s music. (Feb 2000 issue.) It also cited The Gathering, Anathema, Paradise Lost, My Dying Bride, and Katatonia. (It also went on to cite Paradise Lost, Anathema, and My Dying Bride again in the doom section. Typically the print press, which listens to a wider range of bands than the fans, will happily acknowledge that a band is part of more than one subgenre.)

A major problem you'll get in categorising this is that while 'metal' is easy to define, 'gothic is not. Is it 'gothic' as in meaning "influenced by gothic bands" (eg. Paradise Lost, Katatonia, Charon, Poisonblack, Type O Negative), is it gothic meaning "appears to have 'goths' in it" (eg. Marilyn Manson, Evanescence), or is it gothic meaning "has female vocals and keyboards" (eg. Within Temptation, Nightwish, After Forever). The 1st meaning tends to be the one taken by the specialist press such as Terrorizer, the 2nd meaning tends to be taken by the less well-informed or the mainstream, and the 3rd meaning is just a common usage that has probably come by association, since most bands in that category started out influenced by the ones in the 1st category.

I would argue that it is surely unimportant to make arbitrary segregations: doom metal, gothic metal, gothic doom metal, symphonic metal, and doom-death metal all overlap, in much the same way that purple, mauve, violet, and lilac all have different degrees of red and blue in them. All these bands should be listed, and the confusion and overlap in terminology should be stated. Kylotan 14:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I tried to sum up the whole thing beliew in the Comment For Revision part. You pretty much repeated it lol. The scenes have different fans, and do overlap, thus is true. Perhaps you would care to read my Comment for Revision and tell me what you think of it, in case it might be vague or what not, as i realise my explaining of things sometimes leaves something to be desired. Leyasu 19:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Being that both links Leyasu provided, above, reflected Type O Negative as being either a goth/gothic metal band, I, too, am confused as to where the disagreement lies. Below, he says they have nothing to do with goth/gothic metal, yet he provided 2 pages that confirms they are. Also, there's no mention on either page that gothic metal began in Europe - The second link describes "it's true home" being in Europe, which can be agreeable to the extent that there is a bigger "scene" there, but that doesn't mean it originated there. Also nothing on either link that says anything about "gothic doom" or who/what is gothic doom. Danteferno 22:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

From link 1 Concerning Gothic-Doom and Type O:

• The style has proven to be slightly less popular Stateside, though the New York quartet Type O Negative have proven to be particularly successful at combining gothic texture with a slow, Black Sabbath inspired metallic crawl, topping it off with a dark sense of humour that is other absent from this particularly austere subgenre. This derivative of the sound (which could be referred to as 'gothic doom') has a number of practioners (such as The Sins of Thy Beloved and Poisonblack), mainly in based in Europe (especially Scandinavia).

From link 1 conerning origins:

• A slightly awkward term, thanks mainly for the tendency for gothic rock acts to distance themselves from the term 'heavy metal' and all the tedious stigma that comes with it. Gothic metal is thus generally thought to arise from doom and death metal bands incorporating keyboard textures, female vocals, classical orchestrations or folk elements into their overall sound. Gothic metal songs typically adopt a 'metal' structure, but usually bear some form of melodic element, though it varies as to whether this comes from a guitar, keyboard or some other instrument. Keyboards are also often utilised for their atmospheric rather than melodic potential.

From link 2 conerning Type O and Gothic-Doom:

• Goth Metal - Goth metal bands derive from earlier goth rock bands such as Sisters Of Mercy, with Type O Negative one of the most well-known such bands. For some reason the Finns have taken to this style, with most of the bands in the goth category hailing from that country.

From link 2 concerning Gothic Metal:

• Gothic metal bands tend to write songs with a slightly more orchestral feel to them. Often the vocal style of such bands is a dead giveaway, with either choirs or the so-called "beauty and the beast" style (a male, death-like vocalist paired with a more angelic female voice) often employed. The vast majority of bands who feature a female lead vocalist (excepting the rare female extreme metal vocalists such as Angela Gossow of Arch Enemy and Karyn Crisis of Crisis) are usually considered gothic metal bands. Theatre Of Tragedy, in their early years, was a prime example of this style (though they have transformed into quite a different style now), with bands such as Tristania and The Gathering also releasing prototypical gothic metal albums at least at some point in their careers.

Please make claims that are accurate in future. Leyasu 23:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Type O Negative didnt originate anything to do with the Gothic Metal scene, because they are not part of it. They did heavily help contribute to part of the Gothic-Doom scene, but they are not part of the Gothic Metal scene.

The Gothic-Doom scene and the Gothic Metal scene are somewhat independent of each other. The Gothic-Doom scene is a somewhat mish mash of fans from the Gothic Metal, Doom Metal and Gothic Rock scenes, that support bands that play a combination of these three forms of music, Type O being one of them. The fans of this tend to intergrate themselfs into the three scenes, whilst not being a core part of any of them.

Gothic Metal has evolved and grown its scene completely independently, growing more in on itself in contrast to expanding its reach. Its a very specific genre, and its scene is very self centered, and disliking of the Goth Metal name often given to Gothic-Doom bands, due to the confusion it creates between itself and the Gothic-Doom scene.

Musically, the differences are explained in the article. Which clearly shows the difference between the two forms, Gothic Metal and Gothic-Doom being quite different from each other. Musical Fact says this. You wouldnt say Hip Hop and R&B are the same thing due to them having the same origins. Nor would you for any of the forms of metal.

On the subject of TON, they may have influenced some bands. However, the progenitors of the Gothic Metal genre have claimed no influence from them, and the only bands that have claimed influence from them has been the Gothic-Doom scene. As such, with the fact that the two scenes are seperate, and work mostly independently of each other apart from conjunctions in the music industry, there is no reason, or musical reasoning, behind any claim that Type O Negative are Gothic Metal, let alone them creating it. Leyasu 20:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Leyasu. Could you please also list some sources for this viewpoint? Not fansites, but actual books or articles which say this? I also recommend reading the Misplaced Pages guide on original research, to assist you when you cite sources. Thanks. Elonka 20:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

There isnt really any on the scene that havent been produced by people in the Gothic-Doom or Gothic Metal scenes. This is what i mean about the scene being so in on itself, it cuts of most media connection as well. Its true that Gothic-Doom is often seen as Goth Metal, and is a lot more popular, but that is through no fault of either scenes nor bands in either. One is outgoing, the other is introverted. Finding sources as websites for either point is hard, books and articles is almost a wild goose chase. The only thing i can really offer at hand, is the advice of immersing one's self in the two scenes for a while, as sadly, that is the only truley effective way to understand. Dont take that as me being annoying, im not, im simply stating their is a lack of sources for either argument, so, yeah. Leyasu 20:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the wikipedia policy of no original research puts a constraint on the article, as it can really only include information that has been written about elsewhere. Have you considered writing a "real" article about the Goth genres, to get published in a magazine or newspaper somewhere? Then the wikipedia article could quote your published one. Elonka 21:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be making a misconception. Gothic Metal has no connection to goth music. Its part of the cognative metal scene, its own a part of that as with all metal genres. Gothic-Doom is part of both the Goth scene and the metal one. Ive also been commisined by many of the bands in the cumulative metal scene to write the book on metal genres and what they are, though im disallowed myself as a source, so its a bit pointless.

In the end, the only information on hand is several conflicting POV with no sources to them (making them original research which is barred) or citing the facts of what the metal community and goth communitys say, the bands within the scenes say, the fans of the scene say, and the people who work in those scenes from the music industry say.

It is a problem, i know. But then again, tis similar to the Gothic Music article in its relativity, and lack of free information. There 'is' sources, however, i dont have them on hand, and most im sure i wont know about. Perhaps someone neutral in the discussion could do some searching of their own and weigh things up, such as Elonka, as both me and Dante are obviously Biased. Leyasu 21:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Creating a referenced page

I recommend doing some Google searches with appropriate terms. For example, to find out what the BBC (a reputable source) says, search on "site:bbc.co.uk goth music". That brought me to these sites:"Making the world's musical tribes" and "Goth - a lifestyle choice". Or find out where the term "goth metal" appears on CNN . Or rollingstone.com: . One potential way to resolve the dispute is to simply delete *everything* on the page, and then re-add facts one at a time, each with an inline citation showing a reference. For example: "Gothic Doom" is a cross breed of genres, and "Gothic Metal" is "Goth Rock" that is played using Metal structures and styles. Examples of Gothic Metal groups are Lacuna Coil, Type O Negative, and Tristania.. The link in brackets after the statement, shows that the information came from an outside source, and where someone else can find that source. If somebody disagrees with the referenced statement, they cannot change it unless they can find another reputable reference that says something different. If something goes in without a reference, Misplaced Pages policy is that any editor can remove it, until a reference can be found. Elonka 00:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

In agreement with this idea, 100%; I'm actually in the process of creating an article that not only coincides with that referenced statement, but provides sources on how the genre is broken down on both sides of the Atlantic. This, I think, will solve the disagreements on the time-line, what influenced/influences what, etc. Danteferno 01:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Erm, i can do that WITH the current article, if you so wish Elonka. And conesnus was reached twice mi-lady that such websites are wrong. BBC and such places are not always good sources for Music information, as a place such as say The BNR Metal Pages wouldnt be a good place for sourcing Rocket Science. But still, ill get to working on the Article's citations after some sleep. (Edit) Note To Dante: If you post any article over the one there, without putting it on a temp page and letting other users go through it until a conensus is reached to post it, then it will be counted as vandalism and will be reverted. Leyasu 00:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

As Leyasu already pointed out, while you are certainly right, the criteria for choosing a reputable website is different when it comes to heavy metal music genres. For (an awkward) example, search for "gothic metal" on this same website returns pages citing Dimmu Borgir, a band from Norway, as being gothic metal, while first 10 hits for a search on "Dimmu Borgir" include well known metal-related sites that say they are black metal, and dare I say anyone editing heavy metal articles on Misplaced Pages if asked would give anything but gothic metal as an answer. I would disregard such a website altogether. -- parasti  01:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that specific circumstance has to do with Meta tags, which I assume is not what Elonka meant in searching for references (on the contrary, if you do find a bio page that actually calls Dimmu Borgir "gothic metal", in plain writing, let me know). ---Danteferno 02:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Dante, clarify what you mean by I think that specific circumstance has to do with Meta tags. As it comes across as what your saying is that sources are only allowed if they agree with you. Leyasu 02:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Interviews and Influences, Timelines, etc.

I took the time to research some bios/interviews of key bands in the genre, and although some have influences that wouldn't be expected (for example, Type O Negative cites the "The Beatles" as one) there seems to be plenty of consistencies to confirm a pattern - most of the earliest bands (progenitors) were located either in the U.S. or England, and by the time the first generation (instigators) took shape, there was water touched in Greater Europe. Most of these bands seem to share some of the same progenitors as influences. This will hopefully make the final article the most comprehensive and far-reaching for a music subgenre on the web.

Theatre of Tragedy (Interview) (biography) Influences listed: Christian Death, The Mission UK, Sisters of Mercy, My Dying Bride, Anathema, Immortal.

Moonspell (biography, press release) (interview) Influences listed: Bathory, Dead Can Dance, Celtic Frost, "metal, darkwave, and gothic music".

Type O Negative (biography, official website) (biography, Allmusic) Influences listed: Sisters of Mercy, Bauhaus, Christian Death

Paradise Lost (biography, Allmusic) (biography, official website) Influences listed: Sisters of Mercy, The Mission UK, Dead Can Dance

This seems to be the closest of the "evolution"

Progenitors:

Christian Death, The Sisters of Mercy, Christian Death, The Mission UK, Celtic Frost, Samhain, Dead Can Dance

Instigators/earliest:

Type O Negative Paradise Lost Theatre of Tragedy The Gathering Tiamat, Moonspell

Modern Goth/ic Metal,

Lacuna Coil, Within Temptation, Thy Sins of Thy Beloved, Crematory, Trail of Tears

What I'm still trying to pinpoint is the origin of gothic metal's use of classical music elements - Christian Death had two epochs - one where they were easily defined as a "goth rock" band, and the second (in or after 1985) which was more metallic, featured chants, operatic female vocals, etc. when the vocalist position switched. So far, they seem to be the main innovator in this regard. After the article intro, I think a summarized timeline would be more important to mention first before a section pertaining to "lyrics and themes", as any intro would need support. ---Danteferno 10:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Most of that is correct, except that Type O Negative, Paradise Lost, Moonspell are all counted as part of the Doom Metal scene (Either as Doom-Death, or Gothic-Doom). The problem then is that bands such as Within Temptation grew from Gothic Metal into the Symphonic Metal genre, while others bands such as Sins went into more doom styles effectivly creating the Gothic-Doom scene, with bands such as Lacuna Coil and Trail of Tears carrying on with what is Gothic Metal.

Public conception claims that all Metal is the same, or that anyone who wears black is a goth. Many websites come up with contradicting things on the net, most of which describe the Gothic-Doom scene, which also gets called Goth-Metal, in comparison to the Gothic Metal scene. BNR Metal Pages is a clear example of this. Leyasu 18:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Please cite references for the above, thank you. ---Danteferno 15:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Other than stepping outside your front door. Ill provide them later when i have time, when im not working and when im not on a break from rehersals. Leyasu 19:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment: view by Tearlach

via Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Media, art and literature

I think that viewing the article in terms of a fixed set of versions, in all of which different editors may have invested ownership, is counterproductive. I recommend going back to basics. Look at every statement and ask: "Is it encyclopedic? Is it supported by reputable published sources?"

I don't know or care who has written what, but I do support Danteferno (talk · contribs)'s suggestion that a complete rewrite is needed. Much of the article is subjective waffle...

Gothic metal is a somewhat linear genre, but due to much debate, its actual definition is not commonly known. Older fans and musicians have a firm concept of the genre having been around through its growth and evolution, having strict ideas of what bands pertain to the genre and what bands dont. Newer fans reject this categorisation as limiting, useless or wrong, often claiming bands are gothic metal that do not meet the distinct vision of the older fans.

Gothic metal is sometimes a loose genre in the way it sounds because the genre is measured by its composition of the music and the features it uses, leaving interpretation to individual bands on how they wish their instruments to sound. The overall sound in gothic metal plays a minor role to suffice only to depict between itself and other genres. It also makes unique use of dual vocalists, keyboards and acoustic guitars, giving itself identity in comparison to other metal genres.

... that conveys zero information to readers who don't know the genre. Tearlach 13:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me ask then, one question. How can this be improved? Its important to remember in a sense, that consensus was reached twice about the article that Dante wrote, needed to be revised, and due to Dante's constant refusel to help during the revision, it probally isnt now the best article it could be. If the article clearly states the differences in scenes and what is and isnt Gothic Metal, thats fine, everyone can agree. I await the temp page now, so everyone can give their comments forth on things that may be wrong, written badly, or POV. Leyasu 18:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Revision Comment

Comment to Dante: When writing the revision, ive done a bit of exploring out in the world today during rehersals, haha. I think i have found why me and you seem to be totally differing on what is, and isnt, Gothic Metal, in regards to the scenes were involved with.

Let me try to explain one at a time, as this is something that will go into the revision, and youve probally got a better hand at explaining things than me, due to my way of direct speaking.

• Scene 1: Gothic Metal (The Beauty And The Beast).

• This is attributed by the article in its current state. It fits exactly what is said in the article in its current state. This scene is pretty in on itself, cutting itself off from most large scale promotion and media, somewhat like a 'members only' club. Its the largest, but deepest one of the Scenes, being the most wide spread and known off, yet its bands and fans being somewhat quiet instead of promoting itself. Its also heavily rooted in the metal scene, and is heavily populated by purists like me. It also gets knocked by Goth's a lot, due to it having Gothic in its name, yet having no connection to the Goth scene. Somewhat better described in the Gothic music article.

• Dissassociation of Gothic Metal with the goth subculture.
• Has a defination of Gothic Metal on there
• Clicking the Gothic ticket will take you to the genre description

• Scene 2: Goth Metal (The Gothic-Doom Scene)

• Musically this is best described in the Gothic-Doom section of the current article. This scene involves a lot the Goth's and Doom Metaller's, and bands associated with them. The term Goth Metal for this comes from these bands using a lot of influence from Goth Rock, and being intergrated into the Goth subculture. These bands are mostly, and are almost always indepenent of the Beauty And The Beast scene, the scenes rarely coming together in any form. The distinguishment musically and scene wise is a large gap, and the only relation they have to each other is the similar names (Goth Metal - Gothic Metal). (Edit) This however is partially untrue, with 'some' bands being intergrated into the Gothic Metal scene, but its general core isnt. Its a somewhat scene divided in two, while being the same at the same time. Similar to how the article will be in explaining the different scenes associated with the whole Gothic Metal triad.

• Goth Metal (Gothic-Doom)(Look under the Goth Metal section)
• Gothic Doom
• Gothic Doom (Its on there, but sight is in flash so a direct link cant be made)

• Scene 3: Symphonic Black Metal (Extreme Gothic Metal)

• In the case of Extreme Gothic Metal, this tends to be mostly a term used by Black Metal fans. Mainly it seems to apply to Symphonic Black Metal bands, inferring they are Gothic Metal. This is rejected by the Gothic Metal scene, due to the bands lacking key elements, such as Dual Vocalists, and Lyrical themes. What happens musically here is that several Black Metal bands, either through commercilisation or their own choice, walk a path of including a lot of Symphonic Metal and Gothic Metal elements into their music. The best example at hand is the highly controversial Cradle of Filth. It is true, that, Cradle of Filth take heavy influence from the Gothic Metal genre. It is also true they have progressed into using more Gothic Metal mechanizations, such as instrument usage. Cradle of Filth however, root themselfs into Black Metal with their image, band associations, fans, and core musical aspects. Corely, they are Black Metal, what can be said, is that they include influence of Gothic Metal on all of their black metal aspects. The same argument can be applied however, to most all Symphonic Black Metal bands. Thus, due to the disassociation from Black Metal with its more purist and neoglistic fans, it gets called Extreme Gothic Metal. The name coming from Gothic Metal due to its influences, and Extreme due to its roots in Black Metal. The other minor name commonly used for it by the same scene is Gothic-Black, where as the whole scene as a whole is called Symphonic-Black Metal.

• (Struggling to find sources, it seems its a very minute few fan groups, apparantly Metal-Archives has even dropped the label due to complaints and attacks at the site)

• Scene 4: Symphonic Metal (The Opera Metal Genre)

• This is the bands you discount as being Symphonic Metal. These bands again, work in their own scene, independent of either Gothic Metal or Goth Metal. They are musically described by the Symphonic Metal article's genre part. It is true, a lot of them grew from Gothic Metal, some from Power Metal, and most from a combination of the two. The genre has ive been exploring isnt just led by female fronted bands, its just mostly led by female fronted bands. Battlelore and Apocolyptica apparantly make work into the genre as well. I have been noticing however, its become a somewhat mixture of Classical Music, Gothic Metal and Power Metal, with some fan groups reffering to it as Gothic-Power. These bands 'sometimes' work with bands of the Gothic Metal genre directly, but only normally through record labels or personel friendships. Something else i also noted was that due to the genres high accesablity and commercilisation (Not from the bands but from record labels and such) its been easily accepted, and many younger fans are assuming its Gothic Metal for reasons explained below, where as metal purists and long time metal fans, and heavily intergrated people such as myself, are calling it Symphonic Metal.

• Some Symphonic metal bands
• Click the symphonic tab to get a view that represents yours
• a brief Google defination

• Scene 5: Association (Assosciation)

• A lot of bands are claimed as Gothic Metal on the basis they are from Finland, or share Gothic Fashon, are psuedo-Goth Rock/Gothic Metal influenced, or a myriad of other non subsequent reasons. This includes bands such as Sentenced, HIM, 69 Eyes, Evanescence, Slipknot, Marilyn Manson and a whole host of others. In the case of most bands in this form, Media misconception and general public assumption is that anyone wearing Gothic Fashon or sharing themes associated with depression, morbidity, vampirisim, etc is automatically Goth Rock or Gothic Metal. In this case, this is wrong, and is a simple misconception by most. However, a small scene has built up around these bands, most commonly known as Mall Goth's, and/or other derogatory terms. This is worth mentioning in connection with the Goth Metal scene, as most bands such as these (Him, My Chemical Romance, 69 Eyes) are media associated with the Goth Metal scene, which has on several occasions openly and freely rejected them.

Ok, having kept them in one summary paragraphs each, i thought that might help when you draw up the revision to put up the temp page. Also, the old one was deleted, so youll have to create a new one, but im sure thats well in your abilitys. And it would also be nice, if for once, you worked with me, rather than against me, hence the summarys above to help you with the sketch of revision. Hopefully, if we work together on this, perhaps the article might just get to FA stature. Leyasu 02:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Whether I agree or disagree with any of the above, there needs to be sources to back everything up. For instance, I also do not think HIM and those other two bands are goth/ic metal, but I haven't found enough discussion anywhere on the internet where a significant number of people would think otherwise. The Misplaced Pages article for the band calls them alternative rock, and there is nothing in the band's Talk page where gothic metal was mentioned, or that there was even disagreement about their genre to begin with - so why even bring them up in the article? Also, I am still looking for "Gothic doom" and haven't found any info that it would be a separate genre. This term seems to be applied to bands like Katatonia and October Tide, much like "Goregrind" being applied to Cannibal Corpse or Exhumed. At the end of the day, each pair has an original genre. Danteferno 15:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• I added some sources to each on a quick look from Google, that should justify including all of them, and should give your template something to help build on. Leyasu 22:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)