Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:42, 26 June 2014

	Folk metal has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 31, 2008 Peer review Reviewed May 8, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
	A fact from this article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 8, 2004.
Current status: Good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Music/Music genres task force Folk metal is within the scope of the Music genres task force of the Music project, a user driven attempt to clean up and standardize music genre articles on Misplaced Pages. Please visit the task force guidelines page for ideas on how to structure a genre article and help us assess and improve genre articles to good article status.Music/Music genres task forceWikipedia:WikiProject Music/Music genres task forceTemplate:WikiProject Music/Music genres task forcemusic genre Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Metal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal music on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MetalWikipedia:WikiProject MetalTemplate:WikiProject MetalHeavy Metal Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Roots music Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Roots music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to roots, folk and traditional folk music on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Roots musicWikipedia:WikiProject Roots musicTemplate:WikiProject Roots musicRoots music Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: "Between the grooves". The Sydney Morning Herald. February 7, 2004.

Archives

/Archive 1

Oriental metal merger proposal

I'm proposing that the oriental metal page be merged with this one. This "genre" simply doesn't stand up and warrant a page of it's own. There are hardly any bands that could really be termed "oriental metal"; it's only real distinction from folk metal is that it has oriental influence in the sound, which is worth noting, but not worth a separate page; and it has hardly any sources. Also note for any discussion of sources: there's a difference between a source using a term and putting forth a genuine assertion of a genre.

A subgenre warrants a page of it's own when there is sufficient information about the genre, when there's too much to contain in another page. Oriental metal does not have enough distinction, enough sources or enough bands. Prophaniti (talk) 12:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Object. I am tempted to simply remove the merge proposal as I doubt it has been done in good faith. First you suggested that the oriental metal page should be deleted. Apparently, I must have convinced you that any attempt to list it for deletion will not be successful. So now you have made a merger proposal for an article you believe should be deleted. That and your words above ("worth noting, but not worth a separate page) gives me the impression that what you are simply trying to achieve here is a deletion of the oriental metal page and not a real merger. A convenient way of deleting a page without going through AFD. This folk metal page is already long enough as it is and merging the oriental metal article will only result in an unbalanced and biased page. --Bardin (talk) 14:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The reason I'm putting this forward as opposed to deletion is simply because that's what makes most sense to me, to incorporate the pieces that are worth keeping. This is not some kind of attempt to get around anything, and I do not appreciate such accusations.

Please lessen your tone. This hasn't been done with hostile, negative or bad faith intent, and accusations of that nature won't help anything. Currently you're coming across as hostile towards me as an editor, rather than addressing the issue at hand itself. Please see wikipedia's policy on personal attacks before making further replies. Prophaniti (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

You will forgive me for having doubts given your inconsistent stance on the article in question. One minute you are adamant that it should be deleted. The next you want to merge it. As far as the issue at hand, I believed I addressed it quite succintly above: this folk metal page is already long enough as it is and merging the oriental metal article will only result in an unbalanced and biased page. --Bardin (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

My stance hasn't really changed, because in truth what's the difference between a delete and a merge? In one scenario, we remove the info in an article, in another we remove the article but keep certain parts of it. My view hasn't changed, it's simply that in my experience many such deletion proposals end up becoming merge ones anyway, so this is quicker.

In truth, a lot of the info on the main oriental metal page is already contained here. Trimming things down and with careful editing, we need only add maybe an extra paragraph onto the folk metal article. That's hardly going to result in an "unbalanced and biased page".

Indeed, much of the info on the oriental metal page is, word for word, already here. I've copied and pasted into a word doc and cut what is, and all that's left is a little bit about Orphaned Land and a paragraph about Salem. Given that much of that info could also be cut (as it would be better placed on the pages of the bands themselves) there's almost nothing left to worry about. Prophaniti (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I really do not understand your stance now. Do you believe that oriental metal exists as an actual genre now? I was under the impression that you do not. Even when you initiated this merger proposal above, you saw fit to use quotation marks around the word genre in describing oriental metal. Now you seem to think that it's okay to have oriental metal in another article but not on its own. If the genre is legitimate enough to warrant inclusion in this article, then it is legitimate enough to warrant its own article. As such, I do not see what's the problem is in having a stand alone article for oriental metal. Yes, there is some overlap but there are also stuff in that article that are not in this one. Those readers who are interested in knowing more about the genre can do so by visiting that page and those readers who are not interested can choose not to. This is not a paper encyclopedia. There's no limit to how many pages we can have. Whatever your problem is with oriental metal, it is an article that is verified with reliable sources. That is more than can be said of many other subgenre articles such as neo-classical metal or melodic black metal. Yet I do not see you proposing to merge the latter into the black metal page.

There is also room for the article to expand some more. The genre is a growing one and as more bands become known in the western media, more info can be added to the article. It seems rather pointless to me to merge an article that does not need to be merged, especially when it will likely break off into a separate article once more at some point in the future. --Bardin (talk) 14:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

(indent) I shall explain further then. Firstly: "If the genre is legitimate enough to warrant inclusion in this article, then it is legitimate enough to warrant its own article." By this logic, anything and everything on wikipedia could have an article. A musical genre arises when enough bands are playing in a similar style to one another that they do not fit easily into existing genres, -and- when enough of these bands are playing in a style similarly to one another, so they could be grouped together. Example: death metal. Early death metal could be termed a particularly aggressive form of thrash metal. As the number of bands increased, and the music grew further from it's thrash metal origins, it was no longer sufficient to term it simply a form of thrash metal.

So, I would say oriental metal -is- a form of music, yes. But a genre? No, because there aren't enough bands playing in that style, and it isn't different enough to the basic template of folk metal.

It basically comes down simply to this: we don't need another article. Here's all the material that would potentially need to be transferred over:

• "Mark LeVine cites the Israeli band Orphaned Land as the founder of oriental metal "in that they were one of the first bands anywhere in the region to mix oriental, Arabic sounds into metal.

• Predating both Orphaned Land and Melechesh, Salem was formed as far back as 1985 with their first album Creating Our Sins released in 1992. They began as a black and death metal band before turning towards doom metal with their 1994 release Kaddish. That album featured a Hebrew cover version of a traditional Yiddish song S'Brent ("Haayara Boeret") originally written by the Polish Jewish poet Mordechai Gebirtig.

• The band has used non-traditional instruments like the darbuka."

That's it. That's all the oriental metal article has that this one doesn't and could possibly do with. Those bits above are not enough to warrant an article. You need a separate article when there is too much for the parent one. So, if more information and more bands were found, then in the future such an article could be created. But right now, there's simply not enough for it to be necessary.

I don't have "a problem" with it, but wikipedia is not about having as many articles as possible. It's about having good articles. Some things are deemed not big or important enough to need one for themselves, and this is clearly one such instance.

"it is an article that is verified with reliable sources." - Incorrect, it's an article with -one- source (i.e. one individual), who is himself questionable. That's a long way from being "verified with reliable sources".

It's also not good enough to say "Well other such articles exist, so why shouldn't this one?". That's no argument. As it happens, I don't think those examples should have articles of their own either, but that's not the issue here, so it's irrelevant. As I say, if it does expand in future, then it may be worth an article. But right now, it's not: it's got one source to back it up, and only a few scraps of info not already contained here. Just as future albums don't need articles until there's enough info available, so too is this unnecessary unless the genre, including it's sources and bands, expands in the future. Prophaniti (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You and I are two very different people. You see one source while I see twenty-six. You see only a few sentences worth merging while I see more. You come across a short article and you see deletion and merger. I come across a short article and I see promise and potential. Your understanding of what a genre is seems to be worlds removed from my own understanding. So be it. I've expanded the article further now and there's a good chance that I'll expand it even more. I've taken the liberty of removing the merger proposal. If you still have a problem with the article, I suggest you just send it straight to AFD because any further discussion between you and me is unlikely to resolve anything. --Bardin (talk) 15:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's try and clear up a few of these misconceptions you seem to have. Firstly, the article doesn't have 26 sources for the genre. It had that many citations, but the majority of those were (and still are) either not truly reliable sources (they are not professional and so cannot be used to justify a genre) or do not truly assert "oriental metal" as a genre. As such, you only had (and may still have) one good source for it.

Secondly, those few sentences -are- all that needed merging from the article. The rest was either unnecessary (which is not just my viewpoint, it's plain fact) or duplicated elsewhere.

As for "promise and potential", any article could be said to have that. But such articles should only exist when they have such information. "potential" in this context is just another term for "lacking".

Now, as it happens, the material you've added may yet make the article worthwhile. I've yet to look into it in full detail, so we'll see what happens. However, please don't remove the merger proposal simply because you don't happen to agree with it. That message is there to alert all users who wish to contribute to the discussion, and your say alone is not enough to close things off, just as mine isn't. This is supposed to be a community discussion, not simply you defending an article you believe should exist. Prophaniti (talk) 16:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

That you would confuse your subjective viewpoints as plain fact is one of the reasons why this discussion between you and I will never get anywhere. I removed the merger proposal precisely because this discussion will never get anywhere. As I've said repeatedly, if you still have a problem with the article, bring it to AFD. --Bardin (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that if anyone is confusing subjective viewpoint with objective fact, it's yourself, sorry.

Case in point: you and I may not agree on it, but as I have just said, this is not just about you and I. Your removing the merger tag is excluding any other viewpoints, an attempt, it would appear, to prevent others from taking part. You must understand that this isn't just about what you yourself think. Prophaniti (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

"Prehispanic metal"

anyone knows about this bands, i know a band called Tenochtitlan from Russia (strange that they are from russia and not from Mexico, Colmbia etc..), that incorporates music from mesoamerica with flutes, tribal percussions and other traditional american instruments and they sings in aztec, nahuatl, mayan and other languages..., anyone knows more music with this style??? is really hard to find.. maybe in the future this could be merged with this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.231.95.211 (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

There are heaps. Check out prehispanic (Black) metal on google. Or try this link, for example: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.100.186 (talk) 12:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The first is probably Soul of Honor from Brazil.--Rivet138 (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

"Pirate Metal"

Wasn't there a "pirate metal" bit on here before? (Albert Mond (talk) 05:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC))

At least the term 'Pirate Metal' redirects to this page. But there is not a single mention about it on the page. How sad! --EzelMannen (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

there should definitely be at least a mention on this page, if not a page in its own right, as with bands such as alestorm, scurvy, weird beard, running wild, swashbuckle and verbal deception it is a fairly established genre with a large following, and citations wouldn't be a problem with the coverage alestorm has recieved lately

I found some stuff on pirate metal if someone wants to add a section on it: http://www.metalsucks.net/2008/03/21/theres-such-a-thing-as-pirate-metal-why-of-course-there-is/ http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2009/aug/03/scene-and-heard-pirate-metal http://www.seaoftranquility.org/article.php?sid=1316 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.128.238.156 (talk) 17:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Turisas

In this article Turisas is listed as one of the bands "that supplement a folk instrument like the violin with keyboards". This is clearly false; Turisas indeed have keyboards, but also have a full time violin and accordian player. If you'd like a blatantly clear example of this, look here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BT6PX-wnLQw I will be removing them from the list of bands who use keyboards to suppliment folk instruments.--Jesse (talk) 10:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

"Supplement" means "to add to", not to replace. So to say that the keyboard in Turisas "supplements" the violin and accordion is entirely accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.54.11.218 (talk) 14:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin?

LZ is not only one of the first metal bands, they also incorporated a lot of folk influences in their music. Should Led Zeppelin be included in this genre? Are they forerunners of it?Smiloid (talk) 07:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was thinking as I read this article. I mean, Zep was already there when most of these dudes were in diapers, with songs like "The Battle Of Evermore" and "No Quarter." I consider LZ to be the progenitors of this sub-sub-sub genre. I think this is splitting hairs a little too much, to actually call something "folk metal." 24.156.37.41 (talk) 09:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Prehispanic metal part2#

Hi i`m from Germany and i wrote about Folk metal-bands of North-to South America and over the Asian-Folk-metal-scene. Are you interessted, here the Names of these Interprets and you can wrote about it.

• Magane (Japan)
• Yaotl Mictlan (U.S.A)
• Guahaihoque (Colombia)
• Toccata Magna (Brasil)
• Al Namrood (Saudi-Arabia)
• Kuculcan (Mexico)
• Taripay Pacha (U.S.A)
• Shangren (Australia)--80.145.85.189 (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Removing oriental metal

After much consideration, I have decided to remove all mention of oriental metal from this article. I am the editor that re-wrote this very article into what it is today. There has not been many changes to the article since my complete overhaul. I realise now that there was never any sources, reliable or otherwise, that remotely linked oriental metal to folk metal. Only one oriental metal band has associated with folk metal, namely Orphaned Land, and from there, I erroneously extended that association to all oriental metal bands. I now realise I was wrong to do so and I am truly apologetic about that. I can only hope that all the clones of wikipedia across the web would update their copies now that I have belatedly rectified my mistake. Sorry, everyone. My bad. --Bardin (talk) 09:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Oriental metal should be there, seriously...

Okay, I know everyone says there aren't any reliable sources about oriental metal bands. But clearly, that's false; if you consider metal-archives.com for example "not reliable", that's a bit too much if you ask me. I mean, honestly, there are lots of oriental metal bands out there everywhere around the world, most are pretty underground and all, but it's worth mentioning here since it in fact seems to be gaining more popularity with bands like Shangren, Whispered, Senmuth, etc. and there are loads of underground bands (which most likely prefer to stay that way, it seems).

Although I understand the "good people of Misplaced Pages" (in lack of better term) don't like underground bands, it shouldn't be completely up to them to decide where the popularity of a band is enough to be mentioned in a page about a genre, if it's relevant; I agree that not every band should have their own pages, but... really? Deleting a large part of something simply because it's "not mainstream enough" is just stupid. I know this sounds hateful and all, but there's no way around it, oriental metal is rather large part of (especially) modern folk metal; it's not just a subgenre of folk metal but a subgenre of all the genres that are fused together. For example, bands like Nile, Lykathea Aflame, Shangren, Axaxination, Darkestrah, Al-Namrood, and many others are "oriental metal", while none of them are "heavy metal incorporating eastern folk instruments" but "various metal genres blended together + melodies and structures + lyrical themes of ancient eastern stuff". I know it's not a big difference, but anyone who says oriental metal isn't worth mentioning because it's simply folk metal-related, is wrong, when it comes to research and being a metalhead (especially underground).

If it wouldn't bother anyone, I could write a section about oriental metal, and then first get people to check if it's good enough and referenced well enough to be added to the page. Of course, about 90% of the references would be about underground bands, since most oriental metal bands don't have any major breakthroughs, apart from ones that push themselves on everyone's face until they get famous. :P SekoIdiootti (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Since no one else has responded to you yet, I will tackle this issue. As far as your last paragraph goes, please, feel free to do that. If you can write a section which is well sourced, go for it.

My first big point is that you mention metal-archives as a rather big crux to your argument. Well, metal-archives is not a good source at all and cannot be used as a source on Misplaced Pages. Also, as someone who has used metal-archives a lot, I can vouch for them being innaccurate. They refuse to even recognize post-rock/post-metal as a genre even though that's become such a huge movement. They list bands like Isis as experimental sludge or some crap, which is totally incorrect. They have elements of sludge, but they are a post-metal band.

Next, you mention something about people of wikipedia not liking underground music. First of all, that is a silly blanket statement to make, and frankly insulting, especially since you don't know every Misplaced Pages user. I can tell you right now, that I listen to music that is WAY more underground than your "oriental metal." For years now I've listened to genres like martial industrial, neofolk, ambient, shoegaze, indie rock, war metal, funeral doom, dubstep, breakcore and more, so I know what it is to listen to underground music.

Articles on Misplaced Pages are not deleted just because they're not mainstream enough. There's plenty of articles on Misplaced Pages about underground bands/genres. Now, personally, I think "oriental metal" is a stupid ridiculous label. I listen to some bands that get tagged as "oriental metal" like Melechesh and Rotting Christ, but the "oriental metal" label is just another supercillious made up label like "vampire metal" as far as I'm concerned. Most of those bands labeled as "oriental metal" are just folk metal bands that combine some sort of metal with some sort of middle eastern folk. That's not worthy of an entirely new subgenre. You already have folk metal bands like Eluveitie who combine melodic death metal with Irish folk or Tyr who combines progressive metal with Scandinavian folk music. Bands like Melechesh and Nile are just another such combination (black metal or death metal with middle eastern folk).

However, if you can come up with enough reliable sources backing up your claim, you could probably add it in to the article. Navnløs (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I know that they're wrong with some things, but as far as I know, references can't be directly associated with the bands, so to me that'd be one of the best places to reference stuff from, since the info around about many bands is from the band members themselves. But well, I guess it's just proof that the subgenre is too small to be even acknowledged to exist yet, by most people. But if oriental metal isn't a subgenre, then what is it? A "fusion genre"? If so, then that still should deserve to be at least mentioned, similarly to how blackened death metal is mentioned on the death metal page, since it just isn't too underground, at least shouldn't be... I mean, of course there aren't pages about stuff like "atmospheric blackened industrial drone doom metal" or something like that, but with a subgenre/fusion genre, it seems like there's always some excuse to why it isn't there; similarly to how politicians try to cover up racism in the country where it happens, which just increases it. (just in my opinion of course)

PS: and a bit off topic, I listen to almost every music genre and prefer underground bands. So you're not the only one, and I only meant the people who adminstrate Misplaced Pages, like those who say "this band hasn't had enough success to be here!". Because at least sometimes I've noticed bands used to have pages here, but then they were deleted with a statement similar to "unsigned band, never released physical albums, references are from interviews & reviews & band's website = not good enough for us" or something, I don't rememeber exactly how, but you know what I mean. Oh and if you're trying to say I don't listen underground music, you should probably look at my user page, where I have a list of some bands I like. :P

Again, I'm not trying to sound mean or anything, I just tend to sound like that... SekoIdiootti (talk) 07:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Glittertind

The information about Glittertind had two sources. The headline was "explosion" of folk metal, and I think it is important to give the information about how the Norwegian bands were doing in their home-country. Both of the sources were primary sources (not secondary encyclopedic) refering to internet pages confirming the claims in the text. The first firm refered to the official charts of Norway the week "Landkjenning" entered it, and the second to the official radio-listing of NRK the week Glittertind got listed.

I therefore not agree that the speculation of promotion is a valid argument in neglecting the validity of the important information. Check out the sources instead! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torbjosa12 (talk • contribs) 10:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Either way it is too wp:undue and promotional for the article. North8000 (talk) 12:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Two of the sources are just listing of charts (and please read what is said about primary sources at WP:PRIMARY). It is very hard to tell if these are official or reliable sources, since they are not in English and this is, please note, the English Misplaced Pages. Even if these are considered reliable they do not support the six of the other seven additions, which do not have sources and make various assertions about the band. The other bands whose names are used to support the various points made have citations to support their inclusion. The additions are also problematic in other ways and are quite poorly written. Most importantly they do not seem appropriate in the context of the article. When there is a list that just names other Norwegian bands it is inappropriate to give details about this particular band's hits and releases.

Adding a large number of mentions of a band to an existing article without sources is pretty much bound to be seen as possible promotion and if it is not, then it is still original research. However, the MusicMight reference looks like a reliable source for the existence of the band and for the point about punk being incorporated into the music. Accordingly, I have reduced the mentions down to two, using this citation to support them. If you want to include more about this band please make sure that the sources are reliable and support the points made. If you need advice, by all means bring your point here so that editors can help.--SabreBD (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Additions must also comply with due weight. This is a top level article about a genre that covers thousands of bands, about 60 with wp articles. Putting an overly large amount of material on one of them is wp:undue. North8000 (talk) 12:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for informing about primary sources and that you find it hard to verify these sources because they are in Norwegian. I was unaware that primary sources are considered as original research. However, the secondary sources you were refering to when mentioning this band is too old. The MusicMight article is from 2009, wrong informed by mentioning a wrong line-up etc. A check into http://www.glittertind.net/english/bio_english.html would confirm that the original primary sources mentioned earlier on WP were in accordance with the secondary sources at http://www.glittertind.net/english/bio_english.html. I am also Norwegian so therefore I can confirm the primary sources as accurate. You should also note that the sources were refering to the original sites of VG (biggest newspaper in Norway) and NRK (broadcasting channel). They are reliable sites. In sum, non-english editors on WP should be considered as a resource on sites such as these by adding valuable information about folk metal acts in other countries and their reception there. Torbjosa (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree on mentioning the band several places without references. That is considered poor work by me. However, under the headline "explosion" this theme were refering to the growth of these bands. I find it important to mention under such a headliner that Glittertind reached domestic charts in Norway and was playlisted by the biggest radio station. I don't know any other folk metal acts that has been playlisted on mainstream radio channels. Therefore it is important information for this article under that respective headline. If you think the language is poor, please help me out. If you think the context was wrong, please rewrite. But please let me add the point under the headline "explosion" as I find it highly relevant for this article. Torbjosa (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You have a good point there. North8000 (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

North800 - I assume you mean the point on the domestic charts? I am happy to help with the language and formatting issues and have edited the bit added to the "explosion" section to fit in with the article. My feeling is that we probably have enough of them in the article for now. As a sidenote it is a bit frustrating that a band can get to number 20 on a domestic chart, but get ignored by sources like Allmusic, but I guess they will catch up eventually.--SabreBD (talk) 07:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

My comment was at a vague/superficial level. In essence that the point of the material is "A Folk metal band charted well" rather than just promoting the band. I defer to your judgement overall on this. North8000 (talk) 10:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Golgotha was NOT a folk metal band

I own the three albums by Golgotha and leader Karl Foster never showed in interviews any interest or intention of being folk metal. The first four-song EP may have some weird instruments in the second song but also Thin Lizzy and Led Zeppelin merged such folk instruments as mandoline or buzuki with heavy metal before in songs like "Black Rose" or "The Battle Of Evermore". No proof exist that an early and obscure incarnation of Golgotha ever played those instruments live or made them part of their style. Arsenanuf (talk) 21:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Music good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages Did you know articles that are good articles
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class music genre articles
• Music genres task force articles
• GA-Class Heavy Metal articles
• WikiProject Metal articles
• GA-Class Roots music articles
• Mid-importance Roots music articles
• WikiProject Roots music articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press