Talk:Fightstar/Archive 1

Fightstar Online

Does anyone know what happened to this site?

I agree

I have removed some lines of text that were clearly made by a fan. Adamshappy 09:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a huge amount of biased rubbish on this page, which I will remove to reinstate the page to what wikipedia should be. If it gets changed back by the fool that wrote it or anyone similar, I'll make sure it's reverted. Hate this kind of opinionated rubbish anywhere, and it's made all the more hideous in a supposedly neutral encyclopaedia. --Flamealchemist 23:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Pop!?

The genre is listed as "pop". I don't know what genre they are exactly, but they certainly aren't pop. Someone's confused these with Busted.

they are not pop at all im going to put them in rock, it can be refined as to what type of rock they are after--Childzy 20:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do here but it looks like it's going to keep on being reverted back to pop, which is def not what they are Stev87 21:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I've put a hidden message <!---Please see talk page in reference to genre---> in the article so if people keep changing it from now on they will be warned, it seems to me that it is malicious vandalism.--Childzy 15:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Fightstar are pop. It's simple. Hazy Eyes is a pure pop song. Palahniuk's Laughter is a pop hook that tries to be heavy. Waste A Moment is pure pop. Grand Unification Part 1 is indie/pop/rock. Paint Your Target is a pop anthem. Build An Army is a fun pop song that kids tend to have fun listening to. Mono is an album filler that is put into the emotional pop genre. Lost Like Tears In The Rain is a pop/rock anthem. Simple, Fightstar have enough pop songs to be classified pop!

I Disagree, fightstar may have pop influenced hooks but they are too deep in the harder mainstream genre to be pop. Just because Charlie came from Busted doesn't necessary mean his new approach to music is the same. There is no way Fightstar have any similarity to a pop band like McFly. Build an Army is not a pop song, because of the guitar and Vocals this would catagorise it as post-hardcore even with some Metalcore style agressive vocals. S Club 7 it ain't. Paladin91 20:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I would say emo/post hardcore or something... elevenzeroone^{chat / what i've done / email} 19:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, emo is used in every situation for pop-punk bands elevenzeroone (in which emo is not the same as pop-punk) so you basically just contradicted yourself. Second, no, they are not pop; their songs have melody to them, but that does not make them pop. Lastly, a band doesn't have to be "post-hardcore" or "metalcore" just because they scream in like two or three songs. I think that they should be listed as the following for now:

• Alternative metal
• Progressive metal
• Maybe even Hard rock, if that.

Though I will admit their first album had post-hardcore material, so maybe I'll put it as their older material. But that's just what I think. -Preceding unsigned comment added by RaikiriChidori (talk) 17:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Their playing style is pretty post-hardcore, as well as the singing style. "Additionally, many of these bands' vocalists were just as likely to deliver their lyrics with a whispered croon as they were a maniacal yelp." comes from the article on post-hardcore (which is really too small) and, I believe, accurately describes fightstars sound, especially on their first album. There are also many references in their lyrics to science and philosophy, an often used theme amongst post-hardcore bands. Lightweightchris (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Decision

Can someone decide on the genre of the band because it is a vital part of the article, thank you. Paladin91 20:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we will leave it as progressive metal/alternative metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.146.98 (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Google

Fightstar rock = 723,000[1]
Fightstar pop = 445,000[2]

All Music Guide

say rock [3]

So please stop changing the genre or you will be banned from editing--Childzy 16:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I think alternative metal and post-hardcore(early sound) would suit just fine. Lightweightchris (talk) 17:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Opinion

Rock/Metal in my opinion www.fightstar.com.spao.pt

---

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.22.194.118 (talk) 13:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

COMMERCIAL Rock??

I feel it highly unnecessary to say they are "commercial" rock, simply "rock" will do. *edits*

Blatant POV

I can't say I particularly like Fightstar, but as far as I'm concerned the following line is blatantly someones POV. And more like what you would see in a gossip magazine:

"Initially, the band faced heavily deserved criticism, not as much as it could, and should have been, from much of the British music press, because of Simpson's past career." Also the genre says pop rock, when already "Rock" was decided on. Ronius 01:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

its gotta be one of these

indies, punk, rock, or some of my friends say emo because the lyrics are very emotional. who cares though because whatever genre it is i still like their music. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.212.252.60 (talk) 00:09:02, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

well it is not they are progressive metal (due to varying tempos and time signatures) and alternative metal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.146.98 (talk) 22:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Grand unification.jpg

Image:Grand unification.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 15:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Metalcore?!

Come on guys, it's obvious that Fightstar are not metalcore. Post-hardcore is fine, but metalcore they are not. James25402 00:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Revision on above topic

I believe i did not state that fightstar are a metalcore band, i merely stated that the song Build an Army has certain aspects of metalcore for example the harsh vocals. (quote from my statement above)" because of the guitar and Vocals this would catagorise it as post-hardcore even with some Metalcore *style* agressive vocals. S Club 7 it ain't." therefore i did not specifically say that fightstar were metalcore thankyou. Paladin91 21:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fight star.jpg

Image:Fight star.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:99.JPG

Image:99.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Progressive Metal?!?!

I have no idea who got the idea that they are progressive metal, but this is in incorrect classification. They are closer to alternative metal or post-hardcore. --80.168.174.52 (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed it, and I'm more than willing to go into an edit war with anyone stupid enough to re-add it. You better have alot of citable reliable sources if you want that utter bull up there. PEiP (talk) 02:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Images

Hello! Fair use images should not be placed in an article body unless there's critical commentary on th art work itself, I've left one because there's a reference to the Neon Genesis Evangelion influence but that is borderline itself. Album images should generally only be placed into their respective album articles. Please do not re-ad the images.. Rehevkor (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's re-add the images. Still, fair use iamges aren't appropriate. 86.135.80.62 (talk) 13:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources for Alt Metal.

Can anyone find the sources we had for Alternative metal, someone dleted them.

Genre AGAIN...

It needs to stop being wared over. Some comprimise has to be made. I'm going to state that it seems to be a general consensis that this is a post-hardcore band. Most sources also state the same. I do however think that they incorperate a lot of alternative metal and post-grunge stuff into their music. Additionally their influences are a further statement of this being Deftones (alternative metal), Thrice (post-hardcore), Silverchair (post-grunge), Metallica (metal), Judus Preist (metal), Iron Maiden (metal). Not quite sure how this band is emo at all. I can't see any singns of it in the band's music. I'd also like to say that allmusicguide is not a reliable source for genres. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.172.128 (talk) 09:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Ultimately, it doesn't really matter. Without a reliable source to back it up, there's not much can be done. Allmusic certainly isn't reliable when it comes to heavy metal genres, I know that much, but I don't know how they fare with others. But until an alternative can be found, a genuinelly reliable one, I'll simply keep it as it should be.

Also, for what it's worth, they really don't fit as alternative metal. You see, this is part of the curse of "alternative metal", in that 95% of the time band's are put into it on the basis of the deeply-flawed "Because they sound kind of like these bands that get called alternative metal" argument, rather than the much more reliable "Here's the definition of the genre. This band sounds like that" one. Alternative metal is a very vague, and frankly not entirely justified, genre. It's not good enough to say they sound somewhat like other bands accepted as part of the genre, because this ends up with you getting further and further away from any actual heavy metal sound.

They may well have a very very slight metal sound, but so do grunge bands, but we don't term them any kind of metal. Instead, they are their own genre, with acknowledged metal influence. Fightstar barely even have that. Prophaniti (talk) 22:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

--> Well could we not at least remove the Emo label, because that is one thing they are most certainly not. I think Post-Hardcore is good enough, and maybe Hard Rock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.139.234 (talk) 03:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

We can, when a decent source is found not giving it. Until then, wikipedia rules state it stays. Prophaniti (talk) 10:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I remember seeing a video on youtube showing an interview with the band where Charlie aactually said himself that they were Post-Hardcore and Post-Rock. If I could find that, surley that would be a reliable source. Much more so that allmusicguide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.139.234 (talk) 01:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. What a band says it is isn't considered reliable at all, in the same way that a band's myspace profile isn't considered a reliable source. A band can call themselves and think of themselves as anything they want, it doesn't mean they really are. Elvenking, for example, gave themselves the "death metal" tag, but they certainly aren't that. For what it's worth, I do sympathise with you, but until a genuinely reliable source can be found the "Emo" tag given by allmusic has to be upheld, because by wikipedia's rules a published source is reliable. As I say, I know allmusic is totally unreliable with, for example, heavy metal genres. I've gone to great lengths to show that myself. But since this isn't to do with metal in any way, I personally can't say how reliable or unreliable they might be, sorry. Prophaniti (talk) 10:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Style and Influences

Whats wrong with having this section, lots o bands do, ecpecially those like fightstar with their own or many different styles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomozaurus (talk • contribs) 03:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with having it, indeed having such a section is a good thing, it can improve an article's quality a lot. But only if it has sources. The section, as it was, may well have been accurate, but it didn't have any sources. As such, it just represented the opinion of one wikipedia editor. Prophaniti (talk) 11:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

---

METAL

Is not metal 'deathcar', 'tannhauser gate', 'damocles' for example...???--Erlandinho (talk) 14:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Metal as in heavy metal, no. Alternative metal, yes.

Which 99% of the time has nothing to do with actual metal anyway. In the term "alternative metal", the word "alternative" means, "as an alternate form of music from" :P 86.129.209.154 (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It's Alternative metal--Erlandinho (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Only according to you and two general music fansites. Neither of the sites you provide give any indication why the people who wrote "alternative metal" there are professionals whose opinions we should consider authoritative. Do you understand what I'm saying? Anyone could have written it, so it means next to nothing. Whereas something like allmusic is actually published and hires professional music critics/writers. 87.194.171.224 (talk) 12:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Spirit of metal is not made by fanatics, and tannhauser gate and damocles (and more) are pure metal.--Erlandinho (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I said fansite, not fanatics. You really need to read WP:RS, specifically where it talks about self-published sources:

"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable.

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

Random websites are self-published, and are only reliable if you can show why they are. 87.194.171.224 (talk) 07:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Images

I have removed the album cover images from the article. Mainly due to a lack for fair use rational but also because without critical commentary on the artwork itself album covers cannot be used outside their respective album articles, see WP:NFCI. Cheers. Rehevkor ✉ 01:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Genre warring

This is the place to discuss the genre issue, not countless edit summaries. Ready, set, go. Rehevkor ✉ 22:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I said up, Thannhauser gate, Damocles, Deathcar and much more are pure metal. I put a source and a guy deleted them every time.Erlandinho (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

all I've been deleting is a random review site, 411mania. As the one adding the source, the burden of evidence as to why it should be considered a good source lies with you. It's up to you to show why it's a good source and not just another self-published reviews website. As the guidelines say, anything unsourced (which this is, until 411mania is shown to be good) can be challenged and removed. Ball's in your court. 86.148.212.142 (talk) 01:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

P.S. - Eh, thinking about it seems kinda pointless to keep going back and forth...I won't change it back again, even if it's reverted again, until this thing is sorted out. 86.148.212.142 (talk) 08:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: Someone just added "symphonic rock". As far as I know, absolutepunk has been verified as a good source, so this seems fine to me. 87.194.171.224 (talk) 10:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You can see in his myspace: Rock/Progressive/Metal... Erlandinho (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Myspace isn't a good source though, because the artist itself can change it, and they're biased sources. 83.218.158.202 (talk) 15:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• In any case it's screamo, not emo. Allmusic is maybe, the worst internet page categorizing bands. Erlandinho (talk) 14:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I agree completely. But what I personally think doesn't enter into it unfortunately. 87.194.171.224 (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

If you think that they are not emo dont put it... Erlandinho (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not about what I think, it's about what good sources think. Neither you nor I are one of those. 86.146.157.42 (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

If only a single source says emo I think it'd be pretty easy to get a consensus to disregard it. Rehevkor ✉ 16:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Only one source, and a notiriously inaccurate one at that. Tomozaurus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.21.233.187 (talk) 08:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Wrong, allmusic may well be inaccurate, but here on wikipedia it's considered pretty much as reliable as sources come. 86.146.157.42 (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:UNDUE, if only a single source says emo it can be ignored. It can be outweighed by multiple reliable sources that say otherwise. Rehevkor ✉ 19:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I implore all editors to stop this edit war and instead contribute to this discussion, there has been nothing forthcoming here so far, I'd like to see further in depth discussion on the sources. Can anyone provide additional sources for the "emo" genre? Rehevkor ✉ 14:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a "consensus to disregard it". You can't disregard a source no matter how many people here want to, because this would be a consensus to disregard one of the founding principles of the entire site. Verifiability, not truth. It doesn't matter what you think, what I think, what any wiki user thinks. Every user is an anonymous individual. Allmusic is a published, third-party source. It outweighs any number of anonymous people on the internet.

Wikipedia uses reliable sources, not random people on the internet. Say we do disregard this because some wiki users don't like it. How would that be any different to using the genre tags on last.fm or rateyourmusic as reliable genre sources? 86.146.157.42 (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

There is an important policy here, that is a policy on consensus, it's one of the five pillars and can override a lot of things. Things like this need to be discussed, not edit warred ad nauseum. And no, it doesn't matter what I think, I don't even care about the genre, I do care about is getting this edit war resolved. As you have not brought forth any additional sources as requested and reverted on the page again, I will be requesting page protection. Rehevkor ✉ 19:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, consensus is important, but it can't overrule sources on it's own. Wikipedia is all about sources. Where sources are unclear or there's room for debate, then editor consensus is important. Likewise, if you want to legitimately challenge the reliability of allmusic, then consensus could be used. But some anonymous people on the internet do not outweigh a reliable source. I refer you to this part of the consensus page:

"Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right."

This above is exactly what you are suggesting. The core policy on sources represents an over-arching consensus: i.e. that sources are important, not editor opinion. You cannot use a consensus here to overrule that. 86.140.75.17 (talk) 20:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

What I'm suggested is we stop this pointless edit war. Rehevkor ✉ 21:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd be very grateful for that, I'm tired of it too! 86.140.75.17 (talk) 21:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

So, can you address the valid concern of WP:UNDUE? Rehevkor ✉ 21:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: Emo is sourced in body of the article. It is currently supported by only one source suggesting it is not a majority view. How about we keep it in the body, but out of the infobox, which is for well supported genres? Rehevkor ✉ 21:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I firmly support WP:UNDUE, the principle that you shouldn't give too much weight to a single source in face of numerous others. The only thing I'd say is that, as the moment, it's not really giving it much undue weight: looking at the styles section, we only have about 3 or 4 good genre sources. Personally, I'd propose that if another few good sources can be found that don't mention the emo side, then I'm happy for it to come out of the infobox. 86.140.75.17 (talk) 21:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I will go-a source hunting tomorrow and see what comes up. Rehevkor ✉ 22:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The article is now fully protected, this should help a achieve a consensus. I have informed as many as the involved editors as I can. Apologies if I did so to editors already discussing. Currently, collecting reliable sources on all genres seems to be the most productive step. Cheers. Rehevkor ✉ 02:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Some to throw in:

• Allmusic: alternative rock, post-hardcore, emo
• Musicmight: alternative rock
• 411mania (not sure if this one's reliable or not but it's in currently): "from pure metal to alternative rock to bordering on emo", also mentions progressive, acoustic and the orchestral elements.
• Absolute Punk (again, don't know if this is reliable or not): alternative rock
• Kerrang!: Influences from post-rock, heavy metal and hardcore punk. First album "post-hardcore"
• BBC: Post-hardcore

Based on those, most agree on alternative rock and post-hardcore, and we've also got varying mentions of emo, metal, orchestral rock, post-rock and hardcore punk. Personally (allowing for further sources of course) I'd say the opening line/infobox should only really have alternative rock and post-hardcore, with the others being mentioned in the appropriate sections/album pages. 86.140.75.17 (talk) 07:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Genre war over Alternative metal and Emo

neither are required in the info box to describe Fightstar's sound. Post-hardcore, Alternative rock and Symphonic rock justify them nicely. the musical styles section should be improved over the consideration of emo and alternative metal as cited genres just not necessary in the info box. Please don't just revert it and discuss. Jonjonjohny (talk) 16:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Alternative Metal

Many of the songs in the first 2 LPs are Alternative Metal. That should be up there in the genre section, especially when very few bands in the UK tackle the genre any more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.217.132 (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Any sources for this genre? Or is this just your own opinion? User options cannot be reflected in articles we need reliable sources instead. Rehevkor ✉ 15:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

His opinion? "Tannhauser Gate", "Deathcar", "Damocles", "Colours Bleed to Red"... Erlandinho (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Those are just names of songs. "User options cannot be reflected in articles we need reliable sources instead." Rehevkor ✉ 17:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming the reason you posted song names and ended with "..." is that you agree that they are alternative metal? To repeat Rehevkor, per WP:V, a reliable source must be provided for the genre. HrZ (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)