Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by VersedFenrir (talk | contribs) at 18:54, 30 December 2005 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

RE: Alternative Metal

I think you got the wrong person. If you look at the edit history of Alternative Metal, you will see that I do not appear in it. I think the user you want is AJ Ramirez (talk · contribs). The only association I have with that user is that I weclomed him back in September. Please make sure you get the right person next time, you got me worried! All the best, FireFox 09:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

No, it is perfectly fine, no harm done. Kind regards, FireFox 17:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Alternative metal

I appreciate your thoughts, and I do want to approach this subject with the most civility. Curiously, I really don't have a vested interest in the subject; it's more that so many people were debating the topic and not doing anything about it I've had to force myself into the position of implementing change (plus the grammar was generally atrocious and some sections were just pasted word for word from websites or other articles). I've had to do similar edits for Noise pop and College rock. I'm going to move to editing Nu metal in a day or two in order to clarify the difference between the two (although there is a case for a huge overlap between the two terms, since stores and music sites (including mp3.com, among others) where I've found "Alternative metal" in usage list a number (but not all) of nu-metal bands; "nu-metal" is genetrally used in the press and genre discussion for post Korn/Limp Bizkit alternative metal bands that are thoroughly mainstream, soemtimes as dinstinction and other times derisively). The thing is if anyone else has thoughts on the subject besides the two of us, they haven't really been sharing them recently (especially on the topic of a merge). I'd really like them to contribute to the discussion. Right now all I'm seeing is us going back and forth, and that certainly is not helping. WesleyDodds 15:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

More a request for greater discussion, but that involves other people getting involved, which we can't necessarily force others to do. I know what you think, and you know what I think, but for the past week or so there has been no discussion from anyone else.

Something else that should be considered is that Alternative metal survived the vote for deletion; twice, I might add. A merger would be akin to deleting it, since the page would no longer exist and any searches would under a merger redirect to Nu metal. You did propose the idea of a merge during the vote, but no one else did, and no one else concurred. Right now we need to have greater discussion on the topic of a merge before anything so drastic is undertaken. WesleyDodds 16:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually I've found sources that distinguish between nu metal and alternative metal, specifically that nu metal is the direct descendant of Korn and the Deftones rather than all so-called alternative metal bands. The important point is that both terms are used quite often; however, as our discussion have established, neither of them are used with exact accuracy and consistency as, say, something like Shoegazing or grindcore is to describe a particular distinct style. I have a couple of things to incorporate from my searches here and there, but due to personal obligations I've only slept like five hours today, so after a loooong rest I'll work on incorporating more links and sources in the articles. My first priority will be writing a proper history of nu-metal because, really, right now there's 3 sections or so detailing the trends that led up to nu-metal (alt metal, grunge, and post-grunge) without actually dealing with the subject at hand. Those will be merged together and followed up in detail. Once that's done, I'll work on the grammar, espeically rewriting sentences in both articles in order to make them both internally consistent (obviously a problem when working on something like Misplaced Pages where people add bits piecemeal). Hopefully by the time I'm done with that (or in the best scenario, before I'm done) there will be more contributions from others on both pages. That's my main concern right now, that no matter how this entire discussion turns out, once all is said and done someone chimes in to say "Wait a minute!" when it would have been more productive for everyone if voices had been raised and work done by others at this moment. WesleyDodds 02:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Gothic / Doom metal band list thingy

Hi, fella. It might be worth dropping a comment onto the Talk page of the guy who separated that list off into a separate article. Chances are he won't spot the comments you made on his edit and you could end up reverting each other's changes ad-infinitum :) IainP (talk) 12:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Within Temptation category

I removed the category Category:Symphonic metal from the article Within Temptation, since I saw no use for it. Though I will agree that symphonic metal describes their style better than gothic metal, the category for symphonic metal simply doesn't exist.. and the only band listed there is WT. -- SoothingR 12:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Well I guess it's fine then. Good luck with your cat sorting, and merry christmas. -- SoothingR 12:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Nightwish

Why did you remove the references? They may make the article look a little out of order, but they're a necessary evil. I'm trying to get this article through FA in a few days, and as you can read here, if there aren't any inline citations there is a big chance that Nightwish will not make it to featured article-status. -- SoothingR 09:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:CITE

I think you have misunderstood the point of WP:V and WP:CITE. Yes, people have said it and yes, it's therefore a fact. However, Misplaced Pages policy tells us that information in articles have to be sourced. There inline references just make it clearer to see what comes from where. It's just so the provided info is easier to verify for others. Please stop removing them. SoothingR 12:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Like I said, that's just there to make clear where those quotes and little pieces of information came from. SoothingR 12:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I do use the Notes-section, but I use those inline refs to point to that note section. So it is clear what note belongs to what part of the article. It's not all that strange. Many featured articles do that. SoothingR 14:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

That's just a matter of taste. Personally, I don't mind them. I wouldn't be able to think of a better way to implement the policy on verifiability. This is WP:CITE in optima forma. SoothingR 14:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Leyasu. I have been watching this discussion unfold, and since you are both so close to violating WP:3RR, I feel its time for me to interfere. SoothingR is fairly correct in this issue, despite the fact that you are too, to some degree. But the fact remains that inline citations have become somewhat of a standard when it comes to citing soruces for quotes or very specific facts, and those will certainly contribute for the article to reach Featured status. So if would please just let go and accept that they are needed, all would benefit. They break the flow of the sentence somewhat, true, but they should be there if the article is to pass the WP:FAC proccess. Regards, --Sn0wflake 18:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)