Talk:List of kawaii metal musical groups
Appearance
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Add Hanabie.
[edit]Why are they not on here? 2603:9001:977F:F300:2975:8451:8788:62AE (talk) 00:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- They would need an article on Wikipedia first to be included in this list. Issan Sumisu (talk) 08:44, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
deadrhetoric.com seems like a poor quality source
[edit]A short discussion with conclusive agreement decided that it should not be stated that Band-Maid are a kawaii metal band because they were listed on one deadrhetoric.com post. It is worth noting that the webzine does not appear good quality. Measures should be taken to ensure the groups on this list are commonly considered kawaii metal, and are not simply mentioned as such here or there. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs
23:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Is that site a good reference?
- https://www.metalsucks.net/2021/05/13/a-guide-to-the-heaviest-kawaii-metal-groups-in-japan/ David Butzenbacher (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Generally not obviously terrible, but not great; if you have cause to wonder if a source is good, it probably isn't. I am bothered that their Contact / About / Advertising page was hard to find (it's not even in their most recent sitemap.xml), and that it only lists three contributors and one site editor. The site is now owned indirectly by Sony Music Entertainment, since 2022 (apparently), for whatever that's worth (not a lot). The greater issue is that any single source for a subjective overview statement such as a music group's genre is too weak. Wikipedia articles should be summaries of the common understanding of a subject, not whatever statements we choose, with whatever sources we can scrape together to support those statements. As a rule of thumb, curate the list from top quality sources and only rely on multiple lesser quality sources where those sources are in clear agreement. Even a decent bunch of quite bad sources that agree could be considered reasonable evidence of common understanding (with many caveats).
Fred Gandt · talk · contribs
16:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)- MetalSucks is listed on Wikipedia's list of reliable music sources, with a note stating to not use its satire articles, however the article linked isn't satire. This is its discussion. Issan Sumisu (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Generally not obviously terrible, but not great; if you have cause to wonder if a source is good, it probably isn't. I am bothered that their Contact / About / Advertising page was hard to find (it's not even in their most recent sitemap.xml), and that it only lists three contributors and one site editor. The site is now owned indirectly by Sony Music Entertainment, since 2022 (apparently), for whatever that's worth (not a lot). The greater issue is that any single source for a subjective overview statement such as a music group's genre is too weak. Wikipedia articles should be summaries of the common understanding of a subject, not whatever statements we choose, with whatever sources we can scrape together to support those statements. As a rule of thumb, curate the list from top quality sources and only rely on multiple lesser quality sources where those sources are in clear agreement. Even a decent bunch of quite bad sources that agree could be considered reasonable evidence of common understanding (with many caveats).