Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of thrash 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 by Giants2008 00:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC) [1].

---

List of thrash metal bands

List of thrash metal bands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list candidates/List of thrash metal bands/archive1

Nominator(s): Retrohead (talk) 10:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a list that includes the majority of the thrash metallers who have a Wikipedia article. Most of them are sourced with Allmusic, giving due the website's large area of covering the genre.--Retrohead (talk) 10:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from XXSNUGGUMSXX

• "This list, however, also includes"..... I don't think the "however" is needed

 Fixed Agree.

• "These bands essentially played"..... "essentially" doesn't sound very encyclopedic

I think it sounds more "officially" than other alternatives such as fundamentally or basically.

• "Four American bands, Anthrax, Megadeth, Metallica, and Slayer"..... do we really need to mention nationality or the number of bands?

The reason I mentioned that is because there are these other bands (Sodom, Kreator, and Destruction) which are referred to as the "Big Three of German Thrash"

• Lead could use some expansion as paragraphs look a bit short

 Fixed I've expanded the intro with information about the history of the genre.

• About.com is not a good source

 Fixed Replaced it with an article by Joel McIver from Total Guitar

• You only need to link AllMusic in the first ref it is used for

The template I've used, Template:Allmusic, automatically links the website.

• Link Stephen Thomas Erlewine in the first ref used by him

I've tried, but the Allmusic template doesn't feature such an option.

Overall looking pretty solid. You'll have my support after these points are addressed. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 14:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Snuggums, I have completed the majority of the notes, except for the last two, which can not be fulfilled because of technical restrictions.--Retrohead (talk) 10:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

In that case, simply use the "cite web" template and insert the URL, publisher, author, and such. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 16:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Changing the format on over 180 references would be really exhausting. Leaving it this way won't change anything significant from reader's perspective.--Retrohead (talk) 20:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

No, it really wouldn't change their understanding, but that is how the refs could be more flexible. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 20:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• In any case, I now officially support. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 01:01, 19 June 2014‎ (UTC)

Comments from Sergecross73

• Support - Spot checked a bunch of entries and their sources, and they were all properly asserted by a reliable source. (Something of a rarity in my experience here on Wikipedia.) Well written intro, well organized and sourced list. I have no opposition. Sergecross73 msg me 16:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from 3family6

• I cannot support or oppose since I just added a bunch of bands, but I will comment and say that someone should check to make sure that all of the references actually support the band listed. I say this because I just noticed that Kekal was sourced to its AllMusic bio, which does not support thrash. I think at some point the original ref became a dead link, and so someone changed the reference to the AllMusic bio. I supplied a reference that actually supports the band being thrash, but this type of thing might have happened to other bands listed.--¿3family6 _contribs 00:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

3family6, I have double-checked the Allmusic references today and they classify all of the bands here as thrash acts either in the biography or in some album review. Regarding Kekal, the source you have provided is not reliable, so unless you find a better one, I'll have to omit them. About the latest additions, please consider twice before attaching bands such as Motörhead, Napalm Death, Zao, and As I Lay Dying, which have nothing in common with thrash metal. Please see Wikipedia:Truth, not verifiability. We need to summarize what the majority of the writers say, not to use some isolated or fluky mentionigs of thrash metal in the text. For example, anyone who listens to Napalm Death will be bewildered why they are grouped with these bands. Second thing about the newest additions, please keep the citing format consistent. Watch the capital letters in the titles and attribute the author using "|first=" and "|last=", not "|author=" as you did is some cases.--Retrohead (talk) 00:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for double-checking. Sorry about the inconsistency in the refs, I copy-pasted some and missed some stuff in the process. The citation generator also now produces "|first1=" and "|last1=" as a default, so that was beyond my control, though I should have gone back and changed the refs to be consistent with the rest of the list. The Kekal source is reliable, as Matt Morrow is/was a writer for HM, but I'll put in a different source, the zine Phantom Tollbooth, which while certainly not well known is reliable within the Christian music scene and referenced by other reliable sources in that scene. There is a review by HM magazine that calls the band thrash, but HM underwent a site redesign a couple years back and the weblink no longer works. As for Zao, I've done a more detailed search and the only source that really supports thrash that I can find is the one I already provided, so you can remove that one. AP2 is probably a throw-away, though I haven't looked very hard for additional sources, and thrash is only one of MANY styles tossed together on Suspension of Disbelief. I didn't add Motörhead by intention, if that band was added it was by accident. Napalm Death and As I Lay Dying have multiple sources calling them thrash. For As I Lay Dying, in addition to the AllMusic source already provided, you have you have Noisecreep, and a quote from Music Connection cited in an HM article (I don't know how to access that review directly, and I'm sure that those are not the only ones. For Napalm Death, I found the following additional sources just from AllMusic alone: [2], [3], [4], and [5]. I have no vested interest either way, just trying to be faithful to the source materials out there.--¿3family6 _contribs 01:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

3family6, can you list here the bands you've recently attached? The diffs are somehow muddled and I can't quite read the latest additions. From what I've noticed so far, there was one band sourced with About.com, which was pointed by Snuggums as a bad reference. I would advise you not to add groups with dubious refs such as this, where the author is credited only as Matt (not Matt Morrow as written in the cite).--Retrohead (talk) 11:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I removed the one Kekal ref since its more trouble than its worth. I took out Nodes of Ranvier as the About.com ref as the other sources that I found called only a specific song by the band thrash. I cited the About.com ref because Chad Bowar is an experienced music journalist, having written for Outburn, Hails and Horns, AMP, Lollipop, and Loud Fast Rules, but since he is the only one who describes the group as (partly) thrash, he alone is not enough.

Here is the list of bands that I added, plus the sources:

• Antestor
• As I Lay Dying
• Austrian Death Machine
• The Crucified
• Deuteronomium
• Extol
• Fearscape

• Lengsel
• Mantric
• Mortal Treason
• Napalm Death
• Oil
• One Bad Pig
• Sacrament

• Sacrificium (early)
• Seventh Angel
• The Showdown
• Thanatos
• Ultimatum
• Zao

Just to reiterate, my only intention was to help populate the list, I do not have a vested interest in these bands.--¿3family6 _contribs 13:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, all of the refs clearly label these acts as thrash metal, either on albums or songs. My point was to add bands that primarily fall under the thrash metal umbrella. From these groups here, only Austrian Death Machine, The Crucified, Oil, One Bad Pig, Sacrament, Thanatos, and Ultimatum would be a sure pass. I was thinking of including bands like Vendetta, who were playing "pure" thrash. You can take a look at this website, Classic Thrash, made by some fan obviously, in order to have better navigation when searching bands.--Retrohead (talk) 20:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• Another comment - do you think the lead could be expanded to include mentions of crossover thrash and the especially the regional scenes of thrash metal? As this is a list, including the different scenes I think would be good.--¿3family6 _contribs 14:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Ritchie333

I've been asked to help review this, and while I admit that thrash is not my chosen specialist subject, I'll make comments and then determine if it meets the FL criteria.

• "Thrash metal evolved in the early 1980s from combining elements of the New Wave Of British Heavy Metal and hardcore punk" - the Music Radar source specifically states the drumming came from punk while the technical playing came from NWOBHM.

 Fixed Clarified where the music elements came from.

• "with a heavy emphasis on Satanic and occult themes" - are you sure that that label applies to the majority of bands here? Even the stereotypical "satanic" band, Black Sabbath, did "Changes", "Fluff", "Planet Caravan" and a bunch of other not-satanic-at-all themes, and I'd always believed Metallica and Megadeth's lyrics to be based on historical themes, particularly war.

This refers to the bands from the first wave of black metal such as Bathory, Venom, Raven, etc. Even though these bands are known for creating black metal, Joel McIver specifically points Venom's debut, Welcome to Hell, as the first thrash metal album. McIver also noted these bands for playing "primitive thrash".

Okay, understood. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• As Snuggums implied, I think the "big four" is okay, but for featured status you should really cement this with another source. If it's a widely known label, another good one will exist.

 Fixed Agree, supported the claim with another source.

I see the source specifically has the "big four" as its main topic - even better. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• "This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness." - this sounds like a disclaimer. Surely if this is a featured list, representing the best we can do here, it is to all reasonable purposes complete - the only exception being bands that the community has decided are non-notable or not obviously in the thrash genre.

 Fixed The text was automatically set because the Template:Dynamic list was inserted. I've replaced it with Template:Inc-musong

I don't care a lot one way or the other, but I think the original notice is better - how can we ever know if we have every notable thrash band out there listed here? There are new ones coming out all the time. How do we know when we've listed them all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3family6 (talk • contribs)

You could say that about everything on Wikipedia - even your favourite featured article may have potential to address new events or reword things. I would take existing consensus and go with whatever else is on the majority of featured lists that deal with band categories. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Ritchie333 I found a featured list which uses the Dynamic list template. See List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: A. Now, whether this list of thrash metal bands falls under a dynamic list category or not, I am not sure, but I'm leaning toward the opinion that it does fall under that category.--¿3family6 _contribs 22:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll have a look at specific entries later. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, more comments. I had a look at some other featured lists, including Metallica discography, List of Megadeth band members and (for variety) Pop Idol discography, and from that I can see two obvious things that need significant improvement.

The lead is too short. Based on what I see in other FLs as an example, I think you want four paragraphs that give a thorough but concise overview of thrash metal in exactly the same way the lead on a FA quality article about thrash metal itself would look like.

The individual entries need some better presentation to compare with other FLs. For each band, I would try and see if you can put each entry as a table, and include a free picture (if one exists), years active (including reunions), labels signed to, highest album chart position and any other notes. Allmusic should give you most of this anyway. I can't find another music genre FL so I'm just guessing what I think the criteria might want to include, based on other lists I've looked at.

That sounds like a lot of work, but I tend not to do intricate table formatting so it may take ten minutes for all I know.

Also, what makes this a reliable source? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

"Might take ten minutes" - try a few days. It would be impressive if we could get all of that information on a list, but it's probably too much. Years active I think would work, and probably national/regional origin. Maybe make the list more like the List of Viking metal bands? Also, maybe major record labels and regional scenes could be included, like on the list of avant-garde metal artists. As for the source for the band Oil, see MusicMight.--¿3family6 _contribs 17:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll try expanding the intro with some information about the regional scenes, as 3family6 suggested. I'll replace the source about Oil with another one right away.--Retrohead (talk) 17:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, I see 3family6 developed the lead for me. Thanks for his help.--Retrohead (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I definitely think you want pictures (if free ones exist), nationality and years active at least. Not too worried about the other stuff. Remember this is a featured list candidate, and therefore it should be one of the best cursory introduction to all the thrash bands you know on the internet without having to click anywhere else! And I can't see a "this list is incomplete" tag on any other FL, so I think it should probably just go. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Couldn't find a credible source for Oil, so I did the easiest thing-dropped it. Referring to the inclusiveness of the list, well, it will never be complete. There are many non-English thrashers that have Wiki-articles, but lack references because they are hardly notable. Sanatorium, Dorso, and Vendetta, are the first that come to mind. Secondly, new articles are consistently being created, so that is another factor that determines the scope of this list. For example, Blood Feast's article was created two months ago. Now, speaking about the intro, I think citing bands outside the thrash metal genre is unimportant (the grindcore and crossover groups will have to go). Sure, the lead can be filled with information about the genre's lyricism, instrumentation, but remember that this is a list. The lead should be a brief introduction on what these bands play. Further information can always be found on thrash metal's page.--Retrohead (talk) 22:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

"grindcore and crossover groups will have to go" - I understand about grindcore groups, as that's its own genre, but how would crossover groups NOT warrant inclusion? To me it just seems like we're getting into original research territory if we start saying "well, this band doesn't play PURE thrash, even though they're sourced as thrash or a thrash fusion, so therefore we won't include them."--¿3family6 _contribs 22:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, never mind, I missed that you were talking about the lead. I think it's important to at least briefly mention crossover thrash, as that is a form/fusion of thrash.--¿3family6 _contribs 22:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• Is anything happening with this? There are a lot of issues outstanding, and there have been no substantial edits to the article for nearly a week. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I've done the tables as you proposed Ritchie333. I'm about to address the newest comments. Thanks for the patience though.--Retrohead (talk) 18:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Nergaal

Ok, the list seems reasonably complete and referenced, but I can't approve of a list that is just a listing of names. How about putting them in a table with a couple of extra columns: country of origin, and release of first album (and perhaps also the last). That way you can get something out of this list. Nergaal (talk) 10:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem isn't adding the information, but whether the information is related to these bands playing thrash metal. The things Ritchie333 and you pointed out, such as incorporating record labels, origin, period the bands being active, and a couple of albums, are not really connected to the topic. A great number of the bands listed here haven't played thrash through their entire career, so there is a big chance we might end listing an album not of this genre.--Retrohead (talk) 11:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't include albums. Just list the date of formation, national origin, and a field for additional notes. See List of Viking metal bands and list of melodic death metal bands.--¿3family6 _contribs 14:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, such a table would be perfectly fine. Nergaal (talk) 19:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay Nergaal, I had some off-Wiki activities. I believe I did the task as required.--Retrohead (talk) 18:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks much better, but I still prefer a single table. I remember seeing FLs where the TOC was linking to parts of a huge table. I suggest to something like that and use it as a model. Nergaal (talk) 08:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Since it's not a big change, I think the capital letters can stay. If you're done with the notes, can you leave a vote about the nomination?--Retrohead (talk) 22:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose until all my comments are addressed. Nergaal (talk) 18:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Single table, as required. Hope not too late.--Retrohead (talk) 19:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from A Thousand Doors

• The main sticking point for me is the lead – for such a broad topic, it still seems incredibly brief. Per WP:Summary style, I'd expect a bit more information describing thrash in general for the uninformed reader. I don't know much about thrash metal, and I was still left with questions after reading this article, which makes me suspect that comprehensiveness is not as high as it needs to be. For example, the decline of thrash metal is briefly mentioned in the second half of one sentence, but then not elaborated on. Which bands were affected by this decline in popularity? Did any split up? Why is the Clash of the Titans tour considered to be so important? Who played on it? The way the article reads at the moment, it makes it sound like Metallica did, but according to the Clash of the Titans article, they did not. Which were the thrash bands that emerged in the early 2000s? Have they been as popular as their predecessors? Which bands play subgenres of thrash? Have they been commercially successful? Is there a particular nation or nations that are more closely associated with thrash (can't imagine that there are all too many British thrash metal bands, for example)?
• I also agree with Nergaal that this list might be better served as a table, listing other factors, such as years active, nationality and anything else relevant that could be reliably sourced.
• Per WP:LEADSENTENCE, the article shouldn't be introduced as "This is a list of..."
• Watch out for malformed title case, e.g. New Wave Of British Heavy Metal -> New Wave of British Heavy Metal, "Thrash Is Back On The Menu With The Big Four" -> "Thrash Is Back on the Menu with the Big Four", "Japan's United To Release New Album" -> "Japan's United to Release New Album", etc.
• Agent Steel needs to be above Anacrusis.
• Similarly, Sacrament needs to be above Sacred Reich.
• Per WP:ISBN, use 13-digit ISBNs where possible (use this converter to find the 13-digit ISBNs for books with only the 10-digit numbers).
• Spaced hyphens ( - ) needs to be spaced endashes ( – ).

A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 19:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

A Thousand Doors, can you offer an example on how the opening sentence should state? I noticed that the current one isn't according to the guideline, but I'm short on ideas right now.--Retrohead (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

More from Ritchie333

I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I'm leaning towards oppose on this, though I'll wait to see if things can be improved first. I had a look at the article and it just doesn't look well presented enough yet - the table is messed up (though that presumably is a quick fix) and the pictures don't align with the individual bands depending on the resolution of your monitor. They probably want to be greatly reduced and put inline as a column. The "Notes" column looks a bit fallow, I wouldn't necessarily expect every band to have something, but some could do with particularly noteworthy stats (eg: Metallica's grammy awards). I'd go for (Picture) - Band - Years Active (to cover hiatuses and splits) - Origin - Notes. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Ritchie, when I put in the pictures I did not intend for them to line up with the band in question. There aren't enough pictures for the artists on this list to make that look pleasing. I just put them in alphabetical order, and tried to line them up according to each letter section.--¿3family6 _contribs 13:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that if you view the article on a low resolution display, such as Wikipedia's iPhone app, the images all appear first, before the text. You then have to scroll all the way past them to get to the actual list itself. That's a serious accessibility problem. I don't see a problem in leaving spaces where we don't have free images for a band - List of Red Hot Chili Peppers band members doesn't have a complete set of images, but is still a featured list. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Ritchie on this one. When you use a tablet computer, the colon of images is what shows up first. Not a very practical aspect of the page, in my opinion. But as far as the criteria goes, the number of illustrations shouldn't be a problem. Even one image will be sufficient.--Retrohead (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Withdrawing nomination—I'm leaving the nomination since the discussion carried away in an improbable direction. I think discussions such as number of images, their resolution, or whether the table should be split up or merged have nothing to do with the FL criteria. The delegates can close the candidature at any time.--Retrohead (talk) 10:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.