Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of folk metal bands/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted 20:12, 11 May 2008.
This list has come a long way since I first began working on it. This is the original version before my first edit. I adopted a new format for the list, using the featured list of ECW Champions as my guide. It has been also peer reviewed. Another editor on an unrelated Afd had suggested that I nominate this for featured list status and so that's what I'm doing now. --Bardin (talk) 08:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I like it, but am not ready to support. A few things:
- Žalvarinis has two references, though no genre (I'm guessing this is an error of sorts).
- The debut album column is a little cluttered with the year and title of the debut album. Maybe either split it, or remove the years (I'm not sure the years are entirely necessary, as we see them if we're interested in going into the album's article).
- "Black metal band[20] that has since moved from metal and into avantgarde music[21][8]" - All of the "notes" should end with a period or other ending punctuation. Secondly on this example, all references should be listed in sequence, so the reference that is numerised as 21 should be pushed after the duplicate reference used after, numerisaed as 8 in this case. It looks tidier and more clear that way, even though it looks odd in the code, and also though it can put the more important reference second, the important thing is that both references are there.
- "Progressive tinge". I think the word you want is "twinge", but even that's a protologism, and a very sharp slang at that. I'd suggest rewording it as "progressive elements" or "progressive instances" or... you get the idea.
- Under Angizia, you have "early" next to their name. I'd move that into the notes, as that's what they're there for: to clarify any details that can't be found by looking at the four left columns. More importantly, you can partially elaborate on it there, whereas you're unable to explain really what you mean (in this case, "Displayed folk metal early in their career, before adopting a more avantgarde, circus metal sound by the time of the The Night of Scarlet Lights' in 1997" or something to that effect).
- Address these things, and I'm sure i'll be fine, but don't hold me to that. I haven't been all that thorough. I like your use of the "legend" template, btw. Very nice. --rm 'w avu 14:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi there. Here's my response.
- The genres in the notes are only there for those bands that are known to combine folk metal with some other genre. A few bands like Zalvarinis, Korpiklaani and Raud-Ants do not have any entry in the notes column because they are not identified or known as anything other than just folk metal. In other words, these bands would not be located in any other genre categories on wikipedia whereas other bands like say Windir can be located under black metal, viking metal and folk metal.
- I think the years are pretty useful in getting a rough chronology of the genre but I'm quite willing to remove them if you think they should go. I've separated the years and album title with a column now.
- I had originally used punctuations to end each entry in the notes column but during the peer review, another editor told me that if your notes aren't complete sentences don't end them with a full stop. The missing period and insequential footnote numbering for Angizia was an oversight on my part. A phrase that was in between the two footnotes had somehow been left out. I've fixed it now.
- Progressive tinge was the exact term that the reference cited used but nonetheless I've changed it to elements now.
- I've removed the early after Angizia's name and the briefly after Moonspell's name. --Bardin (talk) 15:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi there. Here's my response.
- Comment I've been looking through your sources, and a lot of them seem to come from questionable sites. I'm pretty sure that about.com isn't useable and some look like fansites, such as cruachan.metalfan.nl and Lordsofmetal.nl. Others, like Rockdetector.com look like IMDB (which isn't a good thing because IMDB isn't useable in featured content). -- Scorpion0422 19:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry to say but I think you're mistaken. I have been very careful to use reliable sources and that's what all those sources are. Most of the references are either from professional reviews or interviews. I have no idea why you would think About.com is not useable. Chad Bowar is a professional reviewer. Rockdetector is not the same thing as IMDB. They do not rely on user submissions but a dedicated roster of staff instead. Its principal editor is also a well known author of many books on heavy metal music. Lords of metal is an ezine and like about.com and rockdetector, it too has an editorial oversight. These are not fan pages. Cruachan.metalfan.nl is used for an interview with a member of the band. It has an identifiable author named Pedro Palmares. --Bardin (talk) 02:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your assertion that Rockdetector doesn't rely on user submissions is incorrect, and I say that as a former interviewer for the site. I actually lean more towards Scorpion's assessment of the site. LuciferMorgan (talk) 11:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you provide some evidence for your assertion? I see nothing on the site for users to provide submissions. They do have a provision for artists to register as an affiliate and they also provide an email for users to send in feedback but that's about it. The site's description does not mention anything about users being able to submit information. On the contrary, it states that "artist entries are very often the result of first hand interviews conducted over many years." I have seen nothing on the site that has been credited to some anonymous user with a nickname like on the metal archives or imdb. There is no list of users, members or contributors. Only a page identifying eight different employed staff members. Where's the provision for me or anyone else to submit info and make changes to any of the entries? --Bardin (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To be frank, I find this questioning rather derogatory. I have just told you I used to be on the staff (which are not employed or paid by the way), and you're acting as if I am bullshitting. The site hasn't been updated since November 2007, so the provision to email has been taken down - information is sent to them by emailing info@rockdetector.com. Try getting an older version of their FAQ section from www.archive.org. It does say "artist entries are very often the result of first hand interviews conducted over many years, but so what? That's rubbish - people email in information, and if they make a significant contribution, they're just given an acknowledgement in one of the books. Where's a third party source saying Rockdetector is so reliable? Provide it, go on. You act as if you know so much, so perhaps you know more than a person who was on their staff for seven months (yeah, right). LuciferMorgan (talk) 13:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All I did was explain why I do not think it is a site based on user submissions. You think my mere questioning you is derogatory? I'm just looking for some explanation. I'm sorry if you think that your word is good enough but it's not. You're just another anonymous person on the internet so thanks a lot for turning this nomination into a diatribe. You say users can email rockdetector.com but as far as I tell, that is just a provision for users to provide feedback in the forms of comments or suggestions, even pointing out some errors. That's not the same thing as user submissions where anyone and everyone can create an account, log in and begin changing practically anything they see like on wikipedia or on the metal archives. What you're describing is a process that can be found across many other websites including the All Music Guide, USA Today, Popmatters, Blabbermouth, The Sun and even the BBC. All sites that are used on articles that you have helped promote to featured article status. Rockdetector is a website that has been used by its editor for numerous published books on heavy metal music. Not the sort of thing that I would assume to be an unreliable source. So please calm down and stop insulting me with snide remarks. Explain to me how rockdetector is different from all these other sites and what exactly makes them an unreliable source. --Bardin (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To be frank, I find this questioning rather derogatory. I have just told you I used to be on the staff (which are not employed or paid by the way), and you're acting as if I am bullshitting. The site hasn't been updated since November 2007, so the provision to email has been taken down - information is sent to them by emailing info@rockdetector.com. Try getting an older version of their FAQ section from www.archive.org. It does say "artist entries are very often the result of first hand interviews conducted over many years, but so what? That's rubbish - people email in information, and if they make a significant contribution, they're just given an acknowledgement in one of the books. Where's a third party source saying Rockdetector is so reliable? Provide it, go on. You act as if you know so much, so perhaps you know more than a person who was on their staff for seven months (yeah, right). LuciferMorgan (talk) 13:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you provide some evidence for your assertion? I see nothing on the site for users to provide submissions. They do have a provision for artists to register as an affiliate and they also provide an email for users to send in feedback but that's about it. The site's description does not mention anything about users being able to submit information. On the contrary, it states that "artist entries are very often the result of first hand interviews conducted over many years." I have seen nothing on the site that has been credited to some anonymous user with a nickname like on the metal archives or imdb. There is no list of users, members or contributors. Only a page identifying eight different employed staff members. Where's the provision for me or anyone else to submit info and make changes to any of the entries? --Bardin (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your assertion that Rockdetector doesn't rely on user submissions is incorrect, and I say that as a former interviewer for the site. I actually lean more towards Scorpion's assessment of the site. LuciferMorgan (talk) 11:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry to say but I think you're mistaken. I have been very careful to use reliable sources and that's what all those sources are. Most of the references are either from professional reviews or interviews. I have no idea why you would think About.com is not useable. Chad Bowar is a professional reviewer. Rockdetector is not the same thing as IMDB. They do not rely on user submissions but a dedicated roster of staff instead. Its principal editor is also a well known author of many books on heavy metal music. Lords of metal is an ezine and like about.com and rockdetector, it too has an editorial oversight. These are not fan pages. Cruachan.metalfan.nl is used for an interview with a member of the band. It has an identifiable author named Pedro Palmares. --Bardin (talk) 02:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rockdetector is user submitted, but it's just on approval of your account, though imdb is no different. That's why. And about.om for the most part is either user submitted or a wikiclone. There's not mch it has that isn't already on another site. --rm 'w avu 05:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please provide some links to demonstrate what you're saying? Where is the provision for me to set up an account on rockdetector or about.com? Where are the other sites that about.com is cloning from? Which wiki user is Chad Bowar ripping off in his reviews? Please help me because I am completely dumbfounded by all these remarks. --Bardin (talk) 07:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is there nothing on About.com about it being a wiki clone or based on user submissions? --Bardin (talk) 07:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Becuse they're in breach of GNU. It's a common fact. Go to the talk page on Wikipedia for About.com and you should find info there. As to rockdetector, the site's basically defunct, and now only offers information tat used to be there. You don't sin in to submit stuff, you e-mail the staff and they sift through it, but 99% of what's added there doesn't appear, to me, to have been screened; just dumed onto there by lazy staff members... of course, Lucifer Morgan ALWAYS checked his... LOL. --rm 'w avu 22:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry but that still doesn't help me. Other websites such as Blabbermouth and the Sun also have a provision for readers to submit news story. Popmatters also welcome submissions in the form of reviews written by just about anyone. Allmusic has a provision for readers to submit corrections and other information including production credits, track times, etc. None of these sites are unreliable sources and neither is rockdetector. They all have an editorial oversight and staff members to verify any information submitted. Do you have any evidence for your claim that 99% of what's added on rockdetector doesn't appear to have been screen other than your own personal perception? Or any evidence of the extent to which Rockdetector relies on information submitted by users? Garry Sharpe-Young is the author of many books on the subject of heavy metal music and unless there's any evidence to the contrary, I'm not going to assume that he is a lazy hack that merely relies on anything readers send him by way of email. I will also point out that there has to be something on the site in the first place before anyone would even bother to visit it and submit info. Yes, there are mistakes on rockdetector but there are also mistakes on allmusic.com and pretty much every other reliable sources out there. Nothing is perfect.
- As for About.com, the only thing that the talk page indicates is that an anonymous reader here have alleged that about.com uses wikipedia as a reference. That is not the same thing as being a wiki clone or wiki mirror. The only thing that I have ever used from about.com as a reference are the interviews and reviews by Chad Bowar so unless you can demonstrate to me that this professional reviewer with twenty years of experience in the industry is ripping off stuff from wikipedia word for word, then I see no reason to condemn his writing as an unreliable source. --Bardin (talk) 03:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Becuse they're in breach of GNU. It's a common fact. Go to the talk page on Wikipedia for About.com and you should find info there. As to rockdetector, the site's basically defunct, and now only offers information tat used to be there. You don't sin in to submit stuff, you e-mail the staff and they sift through it, but 99% of what's added there doesn't appear, to me, to have been screened; just dumed onto there by lazy staff members... of course, Lucifer Morgan ALWAYS checked his... LOL. --rm 'w avu 22:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We're not saying about the fact that it's got user submitted stuff, it's the fact that user generated versus site/journalist/staff generated information is indistinguishable, in contrast to the sun or blabbermouth, whic clearly indicates what's staff/journalist or user submitted. As to about.com, look up many albums, films and you'll see the content is directly derived from wikipedia. Not even edited. Just ccopied and pasted in lieu of writing their own article. I'm not saying this makes all of their articles questionable, but unfortunately is does mean they're not able to be deemed a reliable source, as they provide a circular sourcing paradox, i.e. i told jim who told me, so it must me true. I'm not bringing down any one article writer. I'm saying you need to use a better source to post the Chad Bower's reviews (and the ones on about.com are all sourcable from other sites. about.com's almost nothing more than wiki-lite meets google-lite. --rm 'w avu 13:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where's the distinction between user submitted and staff generated information on allmusic? You have not even established that rockdetector relies on user submissions to any great extent or that they do not verify any information submitted by users. Nobody can directly edit any entries or page on rockdetector other than the staff members. Any information submitted by users will have to go through those staff - just like on all the other sites that provide an email address for users. As far as I can see, that's the same set up on other sites like Allmusic.
- As for about.com, I really have to wonder whether we are even discussing the same site. Can you please provide some links to demonstrate what you are saying? Give me some examples of how the site rips off wikipedia because none of the reviews from Chad Bowar that I have come across are copied word from word from wikipedia. He has reviewed albums that do not even have an article page on wikipedia such as the Kvass album from Kampfar and the Kauja pie Saules album from Skyforger. I cannot find any version of the wikipedia article on Tyr's album Eric the Red that uses such terms like "dreamy ballads" or "progressive influenced mid-tempo songs" that Bowar uses in his review. There is only one single line in the wikipedia article on The Shadow Cabinet album from Wuthering Heights while Bowar's review is fairly lengthy. I can go on and provide more examples if need be but I do not think I need to. --Bardin (talk) 05:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose
- Why do we need a colour-coded table? I think can of three reasons why we should not have it coloured: 1) its completely useless to colour-blind people, 2)since genres are never fixed nor strictly defined, colouring bands on that basis is awkward to say the least, and 3)its ugly as hell.
- Plenty of unreliable sites:
- Rockdetector (its use can only be allowed for stuff non-controversial stuff like award noms etc)
- Deadtide
- Lordsofmetal
- Metalcoven
- Metal-observer
- Tartareandesire
- Metalmessage
- Why on Earth is there a debut album column? Why is it further sub-divided?
- Not sure why you would object to the use of colors when they can be found on featured lists like this, this and this. You might find them ugly as hell but other people apparently do not. The coloring scheme only apply to the three subgenres and there are sources to identify them as such. Of course, you do not approve of the sources for some reason. Can you explain why? What makes these webzines unreliable sources but not Metal-rules.com, Metal Underground, Metal Theater, Blistering.com, About.com - all sites used on the recent featured article Metallica? Or Chroniclesofchaos, Hailmetal, Metal Monarchy, Metalupdate, Metalreview - all used for the even more recent featured article Opeth? You object to the use of a mere interview from Metalmessage where the author is identifiable but you did not made any such objections to the use of an interview from Metal Underground where the author is not identifiable during the Metallica article FAC that you took part in. Where's the ruling that states Rockdetector can only be allowed for non-controversial stuff? As to the columns for debut albums, I see no reason not to have it and as for why it is sub-divided, see the comments above. --Bardin (talk) 01:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, I kinda lost track ... Are we reviewing an article called "List of folk metal bands" or are we analysing my reviews of other articles? Or instead of justifying why something is as it is, are we pointing at something else similar and going "Hey man! If that thing can look crappy, so can this!" The ruling on RockDetector is found above, when a former regular reviewer/contributor to that site himself considered it unreliable. indopug (talk) 06:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you and others have said this site and that site are reliable sources but none of you have been able to satisfactorily explain to me why that is the case when many other similar sites are used on other featured articles. I have questioned above the assessment of the individual who previously worked on the site but have received no reply up to now. Quite honestly, if I had known that this was the reception I was going to get, I would not have bothered submitting this list for featured list status. I only did it because someone else recommended that I do so. Is it too much to expect some explanation when people go around saying that this site and that site are unreliable? --Bardin (talk) 09:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, I kinda lost track ... Are we reviewing an article called "List of folk metal bands" or are we analysing my reviews of other articles? Or instead of justifying why something is as it is, are we pointing at something else similar and going "Hey man! If that thing can look crappy, so can this!" The ruling on RockDetector is found above, when a former regular reviewer/contributor to that site himself considered it unreliable. indopug (talk) 06:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure why you would object to the use of colors when they can be found on featured lists like this, this and this. You might find them ugly as hell but other people apparently do not. The coloring scheme only apply to the three subgenres and there are sources to identify them as such. Of course, you do not approve of the sources for some reason. Can you explain why? What makes these webzines unreliable sources but not Metal-rules.com, Metal Underground, Metal Theater, Blistering.com, About.com - all sites used on the recent featured article Metallica? Or Chroniclesofchaos, Hailmetal, Metal Monarchy, Metalupdate, Metalreview - all used for the even more recent featured article Opeth? You object to the use of a mere interview from Metalmessage where the author is identifiable but you did not made any such objections to the use of an interview from Metal Underground where the author is not identifiable during the Metallica article FAC that you took part in. Where's the ruling that states Rockdetector can only be allowed for non-controversial stuff? As to the columns for debut albums, I see no reason not to have it and as for why it is sub-divided, see the comments above. --Bardin (talk) 01:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.