Jump to content

Talk:List of thrash metal bands/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Classification of metal bands in general

I'm placing this discussion point on a number of different lists of metal bands of differing genres, because it's a general point addressing many of them as a whole. I watch a number of metal band lists, and see an awful lot of reverting back and forth, often due to debate about what genre a band is. Think of this point as a kind of appeal for sanity. If in doubt about a bands genre, check their wikipedia article. If they don't have one, either make one if you think they should, or take whatever sources (e.g. the bands homepage) you might normally use in such an article. But ultimately the point of this is the wikipedia articles are the first and usually last place of reference. If you feel the classification of a band is wrong, then take that to the article in question, do not start having revert wars on the lists, going back and forth. If you feel that a band is wrongly classified, then go and debate that on their page, where there are likely more people who have something to say on the matter, and where it will need changing anyway if at all. It's confusing if the lists give one genre and the main articles another. If you have a good case for the genre being changed, then you should be able to do so on the main article of the band, and then you'll have every right to change the list article too. If we just accept that the main articles for bands are the primary point of reference for their genre, then things become a lot simpler. Someone's removed a band from the gothic metal list and you think it's not right? Go check the article. If it clearly says they're gothic metal, even in part, at some point during their career, or have influences of that, then there you go. No one can argue with that, and if they wish to they will have to take it to the main article. The lists are there to refer people to bands based on genre, they are not the place to debate genre in the first place. There will always be basic vandalism of course, but if people take note of this point I'd hope it might lessen all this silly waring over genre. Thank you. Prophaniti 17:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


Definitely. I'm going to watch a lot of metal lists on Wikipedia and clean them up. --Dayn 07:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

trivium doesnt belong cause theyre metalcore and machine head is groove metal


Well the Trivium page cites them as metalcore AND thrash. However the Metal Archives cites them as melodic metalcore[1].

There is a [2]sub-genre debate about machine head. Weltanschaunng 19:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Some concensus is needed

Since it is clear that User:Malfunction has no qualms about violating WP:3RR and WP:OWN in order to re-add the Nu metal band Devildriver to the list. Can we please get some concensus here so that if anymore policy vios happen...we can simply ask an admin to put a perma block on the persistent POV pusher. Is DevilDriver a thrash metal band? My vote is no. Anyone else. 216.21.150.44 18:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia metallum list the band as 'Metalcore (early), Groove Metal/Melodic Death (later)'. I have not heard them. But if Encyclopaedia Metallum is correct, then i think the band should not be here. Weltanschaunng 05:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Reported user:194.144.111.210 for repeatedly reverting deletions of the 'Devildriver' reference on the main page. Weltanschaunng 15:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

username53 cited that devildriver is a thrash metal band because allmusic guide says so. I would like to bring to notice that allmusic guide does not have a tag 'groove metal'. It lists Sepultura's Chaos A.D. and Pantera's Vulgar Display of Power as thrash. So if allmusic guide is credible, pantera should be included as well, right? I rest my case. Weltanschaunng 14:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Criminal

I don't know this band, but the link given redirects to Crime. Also on the disambiguation page, there is no reference. I searched for it in wikipedia and nothing turned up. I guess there is no article on this band. Weltanschaunng 16:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Obituary

How come Obituary is mentioned here? They are Death metal.Weltanschaunng 16:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I looked up on All Music Guide and they clearly list Obituary as Death and not thrash. http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&searchlink=OBITUARY&sql=11:h9frxqw5ldfe~T0 Weltanschaunng 06:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Origins

Death metal bands should be listed because they have a closer musical and cultural connection to thrash metal than any other metal genre. I've heard many people claim that Slayer is a death metal band due to their extreme and frequent heaviness, although they are not officially recognized as a death metal band. Essentially, any death metal band spanning from thrash origins should be listed as a thrash band as well as a death band. -Libertarian92

Death metal bands have their own list here. As far as the bands who have crossed over from thrash to death are concerned, like Testament, I think it is sort of a rule to specify the albums (like early material or first n albums) that are thrash. Weltanschaunng 10:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. -Libertarian92

Atheist

I am not sure whether this band belongs here. Its death metal, but encyclopaedia metallum lists it as death/thrash metal with jazz and progressive influences. I think it should not be here. However i require a certain concensus on this.Weltanschaunng 05:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Must Missa

Must Missa is listed on Encyclopaedia Metallum [3] as Black/Thrash metal. However as it doesn't have an article on wikipedia, I am deleting it from the list. Weltanschaunng 09:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I've done a lot of edits on the page, but don't get surprised. I have restructured the page, removed the genres 'post thrash' and 'crossover', and their countries of origin specified alongside some bands. I plan to move the flag icons towards the left, so that the page is more presentable. Weltanschaunng 10:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding specialised genres

Please do not specify the genres of the bands along with their entries on the article. This is a list of thrash metal bands, so it is assumed they are thrash to start with. Specialised band genres like post-thrash, crossover, crust punk, etc are already specified on the band's own article. It is pointless to specify them here, as it makes the page more cluttered. Weltanschaunng 06:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Cities of Origin

In accord with the previous header, i am removing the cities and states (USA) of origin of several bands in the list. That info is already present on the band's own article. Weltanschaunng 11:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Putting this article up for review

Does anyone know how can one put up an article for review? Since the time the 'cleanup tag' has been put up, this article has undergone a lot of change, for the better I would say. Someone with more info on this please post here. Weltanschaunng 14:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, i think its "replace this tag" at the top of the page. but i don't know for sure only been here since sept 4th so if you don't no how would i? hehe. hope it helps a little anyways. METALFREAK04 14:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I have put up this same request at Wikiproject:Metal. Clicking 'replace this tag' is for replacing the tag with a more suitable message, and not for removing it. I think, the page needs to be reviewed again, and possible improvements should be posted here by the reviewer. Weltanschaunng 15:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, i can see no problem with it now. So, where is the review button? hehe. it would make wikipedia a better place with organisation in the reviewing the articles section, unless they have. As i said already im only 2 days old in the wiki site. hehe. And it seems you know your way around as i didnt know Wikiproject:Metal existed! METALFREAK04 15:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It was sort of 'trigger-happy', but well the message was useless anyway. If you compare this page with its version say, a month ago, the difference is noticeable. I don't know how this page can be further improved, other than updating it with thrash metal bands present in wikipedia, so any help is always welcome! Weltanschaunng 15:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, i will do my best to put all my thrash metal bands up here. like im doing to the death metal list page to. But some bands don't have articles here, so i have to like make them then add them, so i ended up only doing 2 add ons! METALFREAK04 16:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI for regular editors. IP 194.144.111.210 will rv any changes that involve the rm of Ddevildriver from the list(despite there being no valid reference for it) IP 194.144.111.210's block log is extensive and all previous blocks placed on that IP involve this article. Should that IP hamper any improvement drives to this article they can be reported to WP:ANI or WP:3RR(should they broach 3RR trying to re-add their uncited opinion) Just thought you'd like to know. Good luck with your efforts. 156.34.142.110 16:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That made no sense. 16:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by METALFREAK04 (talk • contribs)

Regarding Groove metal bands

I earlier removed Melodic Death/Groove Metal/Metalcore band Silent Civilian from the list stating it as groove metal. However, later I noticed Pantera and Sepultura in the list. Also I found that there is no list of groove metal bands on wikipedia. On this point I re-added silent civilian again. Another point, editors, please have a look at the band's article on wikipedia and on Encyclopaedia Metallum or Metal-Observer before you add them to this list. Weltanschaunng 06:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyone having opinions about this, please comment.Weltanschaunng 06:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the expandable list feature

Please comment on the expandable list feature added in the list. If anyone else has better ideas, please specify here. Weltanschaunng 12:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen that sort of expandable formatting in a list before. It's certainly unique (to me anyways) and opens up a whole new way of adding small details or even "cited notability snippets" without cluttering up the list and taking away from the "easy to read" factor. It's worth experimenting with just to see how "fleshed" out it can be without duping content thats alread available in other articles. Perhaps 1 single referenced quote from a well known publication that describes the list entry. Example: from an RS album review... "Slayer are one of the four pillars of Thrash Metal"-Rolling Stone. The Encyclopedia of Rock n Roll says "Anthrax is one of the foundations on which Thrash metal was built". In Ian Christe's book "The Sound of the Beast" he says this about Exodus: "Exodus unleashes a huge terrain of headbanger thrills designed for maximum physical reaction". that's a great line :D Maybe something like that? There are lots of directions this type of formatting could take. Many lists, including featured lists, are just boring tables. This list doesn't have to be one of those. 156.34.142.110 14:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, as for now, I have added the thrash metal albums of Megadeth and Metallica under their lists. I have no access to Metal related literature, so I don't think I am the right person for adding quotes. One thing I noticed was you have to repeat the tags for each entry. It can complicate things, if done for many bands simultaneously. I guess we have to move slowly, one band at a time, if ever it is decided what to write about. Weltanschaunng 13:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to add thrash albums of the respective bands to the list can do so using this bit of code:

<div class="NavFrame collapsed" style="padding:0;border-style:none;"> <div class="NavFrame collapsed" style="border-style:none;padding:0;"> <div class="NavHead" style="background:#EDF1F1;text-align:left;text-style:normal">

Enter Band's link here</div> <div class="NavContent" style="text-align:left;">

Enter the albums here </div></div></div> for eg: <div class="NavFrame collapsed" style="padding:0;border-style:none;"> <div class="NavFrame collapsed" style="border-style:none;padding:0;"> <div class="NavHead" style="background:#EDF1F1;text-align:left;text-style:normal"> * {{flagicon|United States}} [[Dark Angel (band)|Dark Angel]]</div> <div class="NavContent" style="text-align:left;"> * [[We Have Arrived (album)|We Have Arrived]] * [[Darkness Descends]] * [[Leave Scars]] * [[Time Does Not Heal]] </div></div></div> is displayed as:

Weltanschaunng 11:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, if we have this shouldnt we have all of them like this...not just a select few? or its favourtism...and thats not very democratic...nor respecting good and loyal bands to the genre. METALFREAK04 15:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Dude, if you find this discriminating, do some edits yourself. Weltanschaunng 11:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The bands that actually have the album feature have a smaller font size shouldn't we add this around them? For example: <font size=2>Band</font> --CircafuciX 05:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's good. But does the album font size remain the same? Weltanschaunng 17:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they will </font> prevents that. It would look like this:

Is that ok with you? --CircafuciX 20:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey you make me feel like I'm the boss around here (:P)! If you feel something is not right, go ahead and fix it. Well I used the font size already in some places and it worked. I am posting the new format after this. Weltanschaunng 07:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey I was just trying getting consensus first but you seem to be the top contributor here anyway. :D --CircafuciX 20:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Venom

Is Venom thrash? Wikipedia lists their albums as black, thrash, speed, heavy metal, Nwobhm. So this is confusing. Venom are pioneers of black metal, so I doubt whether they should be here. Weltanschaunng 12:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think they're more proto-black, I've always thought they sound like thrash...--Fukhed666 09:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like a concensus on this. Venom is not thrash, but they are not exactly black as well. They have the satanic imagery, pseudonyms and all. Weltanschaunng 11:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Venom played a mix of earlier styles of black, thrash and speed. They are usually considered black. They should be on the list, too, though, seeing as how they did play a clear mix of the afore mentioned styles.Navnløs 18:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Clearing and tags

First off, death metal bands, or any other style of metal bands should not be listed in the list unless they clearly played thrash, or a mix of thrash and another genre, at some point during their career.

Secondly, some of the bands on the list were not always thrash and they should say something like (early) or (recent) after the band's name as other lists do (just look at any of the other metal lists, like list of black metal bands. Bathory is clearly NOT a thrash band, though they did have two thrash albums, so it should say something like (mid) next to the band, as in "mid era." Also, some of these bands are a mix of styles and like the "(early)" tags should have a tag next to them. For example- Desaster (black) -as the band is clearly thrash and black metal.Navnløs 18:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, did you see the feature that is present on this article that is NOT on other articles? The expandable list feature, allows us to add related information about the bands, in this case their thrash metal albums. Bathory's thrash albums are listed. I am not familiar with the other bands you edited. The basic reason I reverted your edits was, there exists already a feature to add such info, without cluttering the page. I hope you introduce this feature to other lists. Weltanschaunng 16:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Making this article more comprehensive

I really like these little expandable lists as citation, but progress seems to be slow on applying it to all of the bands. I think that this site is a great source for what's thrash and what isn't thrash from these bands. It separates a lot of the stuff more oriented towards similar styles like groove. Adamravenscroft 18:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Copy the code from this place for adding new bands

<div class="NavFrame collapsed" style="padding:0;border-style:none;"> <div class="NavFrame collapsed" style="border-style:none;padding:0;"> <div class="NavHead" style="background:#EDF1F1;text-align:left;text-style:normal"> * flag of the band <font size =2>

Enter Band's link here</font></div> <div class="NavContent" style="text-align:left;">

Enter the albums here </div></div></div>

Weltanschaunng 07:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, just before the font size part should be the * and the flag of the band. Doing it where you have put "enter the band's link here" causes the * to appear just as an asterix and not as a bullet point. Adamravenscroft 19:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out! Weltanschaunng 17:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Impaled Nazarene?

No way are they thrash. They have some thrash influence, but they're black metal. I'm getting rid of them from this list for now. They have never played thrash in their career, either. Navnløs 18:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Flotsam and Jetsam

Can anyone do a check of the flotsam & Jetsam edit I did? I am not familiar with their music, but by searching on wikipedia and google, I have added the albums. Thank You. Weltanschaunng (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Overkill?

All of their albums are listed. Now I've only heard two of the early ones but from what I've read, they incorporated groove metal into their 90s output. Based on reading, I think these are the only thrash ones: 

   * Overkill
   * Feel the Fire
   * Taking Over
   * !!!Fuck You!!!
   * Under the Influence
   * The Years of Decay
   * Horrorscope
   * W.F.O.
   * Bloodletting
   * Killbox 13

But since I haven't listened, I'd like someone to confirm this, thanks. Adamravenscroft (talk) 22:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I added them on the basis of their genre status on their wikipedia articles, at that time. Of course, since it was wikipedia that I was referring to, it is quite possible that those albums may not have been thrash. Most pages contain thrash because someone looks up Allmusic Guide and sees its listed as thrash. What they don't see is that the album is also listed as heavy metal, sludge metal and (!)alternative metal on that very page. [4] So, if you guys find any error in the listed albums, go ahead and make a correction. I have not listened to overkill, so I cannot really make a comment whether a particular album is thrash or not. Weltanschaunng (talk) 07:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding bands with no releases

Some IP added this band Abysm to the list. Well the article is virtually non-existent. The band has two demo releases(?!), and after reading their webpage on metal archives, I gather that this is sort of a garage band or something. Plus the band is a death/thrash band, which means its mostly death. Hmm, coming to think of it, I am removing the band anyway. Anyone feeling other wise please comment. I think this might be some sort of 'free' commercial advertising strategy. Weltanschaunng 21:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well now I visited their Myspace page...and the song they have put up, sounds death to me. Weltanschaunng 21:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

description and citation

I have added a small description to the metallica entry on the article. This was because I thought that the addition of albums alone is one dimensional, and that alone cannot take this list to the featured list status (Also partly to keep this article off Afd :P). I hope you comment on it here, and tell what do you think about it. Weltanschaunng 15:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

OK people, we have to provide citations for the thrash albums. Also, if someone is adding a description, then that requires citations. I am putting up the general format for citations here.

<ref name="ADD ALBUM NAME HERE"> {{WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants cite web |title=ADD ALBUM NAME HERE |publisher=ADD SOURCE HERE |url=ADD URL HERE (WITH HTTP://) |accessdate=DATE IT WAS ACCESSED TO RETRIEVE INFO }} </ref>

Weltanschaunng 11:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, despite the subjective nature of thrash metal, I think descriptions are a bit too much. A list of albums may be fairly one dimensional, but really it's all that's needed as a quick clarification. The articles are just a click away that provide a more in depth description anyway. If anything, there just needs to be a bit more of a consensus on what constitutes thrash - i.e. to what degree black/thrash, death/thrash, speed/thrash, etc. should be included in the article. Adamravenscroft (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I get your point. But the articles (of the bands) include their entire history. Here I am trying to focus on their thrash careers. Of course there is the question of why am I doing this. Its because I hope this page is featured on some day. And as far as the second question is concerned, it is fairly simple in most cases. Death is vocally different from thrash. The 2nd generation black metal bands are not thrash. That leaves out speed metal and the likes of Celtic Frost, Venom, Hellhammer etc. I talked with user:156.34.x.x regarding that. Check this link [5]. I sort of agree with the user on this point. I hope you see light in the user's second (big) comment. Weltanschaunng 18:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If you're willing to find citations for descriptions for all of these bands, then I guess you could try your idea, it could certainly improve the list if handled correctly. And in response to classification. I definitely agree with this user's point. It wasn't entirely what I was referring to. Most of the artists from the genres peak are fairly easy to categorise, I was actually more referring to modern bands. I click on the pages for some of these bands and get "(X) is a death/thrash metal band" or whatever. Extreme/underground metal hasn't really had any clear movements, for example the original wave of thrash from c. 83-89, since the early/mid 90s (melodeath, 2nd wave black, etc.). This often makes it hard to define what category later bands fall into, it can be hard to reach a consensus on whether or not it's far enough removed from the original movement to be included. This is more what I was referring to. On that topic, I would say that only the original wave (incl. crossover) and the clearly retro bands (mostly recent stuff like Municipal Waste) should be included here. Adamravenscroft (talk) 16:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, of course, if the band is fairly recent, long enough for death and black metal to have developed differently than thrash, then its got to go. Recently I removed a 'death/thrash' band Demonoid. They had only one release which was clearly death (I listened to their 30 second samples on All Music Guide). I believe there are a few more in the list. However some are genuinely death/thrash, i.e. they have played thrash before moving on to death. Also Possessed is retained in the list, because on Seven Churches, what we hear is actually proto-death, a transition from thrash to death. Most of the genre dispute is due to non-cited genres on the band's page. Even if they are cited, they are cited using allmusic guide, a problem I have talked about. So the best way to decide would be to actually listen to the songs, atleast samples, to check whether they fit into what is known to be thrash. Weltanschaunng 07:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Wtf @ this ugliness

How come some bands have the [*] in front of them and some don't? Either they should all have it or none should have it. It looks positively repugnant. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 19:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

well, it's fixed now. Maybe it was just wikipedia Weltanschaunng 06:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess, dude. That was wierd. Are all the lists fixed? I'll have to check I guess. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 17:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

2008

Removal of Bands

There are several bands in the list which may not be thrash metal. Most of these bands are either black or death. I am posting some bands here, on whom you can comment whether they are thrash or not (genres in the brackets are what they are disputed to be).

Acid Death is death metal as per AMG. Weltanschaunng 13:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

First two albums thrash as per AMG. Weltanschaunng 12:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Later albums are thrash as per metal observer. Weltanschaunng 13:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This band doesn't seem to be death at all. Other than wikipedia, I couldn't find other sites where this band was listed as death metal.[6] Weltanschaunng 10:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

darkane seems to be more in the death/melodeath vein.[7] [8] Weltanschaunng 10:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Second album is thrash as per AMG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weltanschaunng (talk • contribs) 12:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

AMG says its hardcore punk (!). I found non-notable sources (metal observer, metal archives) saying its thrash. None, except wikipedia say it is death. Weltanschaunng 13:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

have a thrash release, as per amg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weltanschaunng (talk • contribs) 09:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Their first album has thrash elements, also it is pre-death, ie 1988. "Although their later, better known and better executed efforts, would have them remembered primarily as a progressive death metal band, Pestilence's first album, 1988's Malleus Maleficarum, found the Dutch quartet still treading what, at the time, was very much thrash metal terrain." - First line of AMG review. Weltanschaunng 13:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This band seems to be industrial metal, with thrash influences [9]. AMG lists it as industrial metal [10]. I don't think they belong here. Weltanschaunng 16:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well here is an interview of a band member [11].

Describe the sound of Stam1na to a person who hasn´t heard from you before.
Antti: Well we aren´t thrash metal. Only one song from our new album sounds a bit like thrash metal and that´s because we wanted to do a bit more "At The Gates" type of track. If I had to describe it I would say it´s experimental, new kind of approaching to metal sang in finnish.

I guess this pretty much clears out stam1na out of this list. Weltanschaunng 07:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Last two albums pure thrash per metal observer. Other sources [12] [13]. Weltanschaunng 08:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Neo thrash outfit as per AMG [14]. Thrash metal per metal observer. Other sources [15] [16]. Weltanschaunng 08:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't expect these many, well if you find some misplaced bands then add them to this list. Weltanschaunng 14:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Some just happen to mix thrash and other genres like death and black, and may play in a form of thrash. So we must decide if this list is only for true thrash metal or a fusion of other genres, but obviously where the thrash style is still played in a majority of the music. A couple sites still say they are thrash as well. It's like saying Venom are entirely black metal which they are not.
  • First I will start off with Red Harvest, they just have one thrash album because they started as a thrash band and after that they went industrial.
  • I think Archaic goes (not even listed on the metal archives is a good hint and no AMG profile).
  • The Crown are known as an extreme thrash band/melodic death later on but their early stuff are in the veins of pure death metal or the "deathrash" sound.
  • Demiricous are incorrectly defined as death they are the extreme type of thrash metal like Slayer (I find sources of them being a Slayer clone)
  • Demolition Hammer stays; incorrectly defined as death by just one source
  • Divine Empire probably goes
  • Whats Helstar doing here?? they must have crept in... they must go...
  • I don't know why Kat is labeled black on their page, they actually evolved into a thrash band actually from power/speed, so black shouldn't even be there. Just because they covered black magic topics doesn't mean they are black metal, it could be done through power metal.
  • Lyzanxia could stay, melodic thrash and some minor other elements come into play but these guys are more thrash than anything.
  • Morbid Saint are thrash with black and death influences, no source but Wikipedia states they are deathy and blackened.
  • Mortification Not always thrash but played styles of it.
  • Nevermore just has thrash influences it seems, they are a bit experimental combining different styles of metal.
  • Pestilence are one of those proto-death bands but may have been more thrashy at some point it looks like.
  • Rage shouldn't be here
  • Sex Machineguns are gone they are like X Japan
  • Skrew has thrash elements in their mid-career to the point of making it industrial thrash. I'm not so sure of them though
  • Stam1na is actually a band that fuses different styles along with thrash but some sites say they are modern thrash (not groove even) and put in these influences.
  • Stigmata may be wrongly classified but for one thing they are not thrash.
  • Terror 2000 modern thrash band that happens to play some of melodic death but the thrash elements come through more often than the death ones. Most sources say thrash some say both melodic death and thrash.
  • Witchery is a bit difficult but they are more thrash/speed with black/death influences.
  • Yyrkoon have had a changing career with genres starting with black and then into prog thrash then finally into that "deathrash" sound that most of these bands seem to resemble.
Sure some of these bands may go but see them added again maybe with a source it will be kept, also sources (not all AMG ones) would be good. If sources don't show it try listening to some and if we have no death/black defined vocals at all then it's most likely extreme thrash metal. It's also likely that some people defined them as playing death so it could be an incorrect entry (some may be current). Most of them will stay for now but later on they'll be removed but they will always remain on this talk page if anyone detests or has a source, etc. All the rest should stay for a while. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 01:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey you are right, we must define, (or at least try to) parameters on what should be included in this article. I was thinking this-

  • A band should have a thrash release

or

  • It should have released a thrash like album during a period when death metal/black metal were not yet properly defined+.

and

  • No Speed metal bands

+ This means albums before or around the first death release Scream Bloody Gore (1987) or Seven Churches (1985). The first black release could be taken as A Blaze in the Northern Sky (1992) or Diabolical Fullmoon Mysticism (1992) or Burzum (1992). Basically 1985 - 1987 for death and 1992 for black. Weltanschaunng 01:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I am removing helstar btw. Weltanschaunng 01:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Desaster have enough thrash in their sound Bloodredchaos (talk) 10:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Pestilence's first release is thrash. It's reviewed on classicthrash.com, which seems to be reliable at distinguishing thrash from groove/speed. But anyway, good work on this. Now we just need more citations for descriptions of the bands, or just simply add albums to all of the bands. Adamravenscroft (talk) 12:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think AMG is very reliable when it comes to metal genres. I mean they list Opeth as 'goth metal' and 'symphonic black metal' when they're clearly not. Metal-archives is far more reliable. Bloodredchaos (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but in this case its like I wanna know whether its thrash or not. Usually if its "thrash" tag alone, then it means pure thrash. If its death or black, they put the "death/black" tag, but not the thrash one. I know its all confusing, but with amg being peer-reviewed and widely accepted and all, I try to use it whenever possible. Weltanschaunng 19:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
AMG has a 50% chance of being accepted though, more arguments have come through for using it as a source especially for individual genres like BloodRed said for Opeth. I also heard TMO (The Metal Observer) is now accepted as a source and for album reviews but I'm not quite sure. We also have BNR metal and rockdetector (which do a better job differencing death and black than on AMG). −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 20:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Now that's something good! AMG sucks at genres. Weltanschaunng 01:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Could we...?

Could we use the albums show list as something for the readers to get information on for the best album they can get, so they can get into this band...like the best album of the band. Like Kreator's could be 'pleasure to kill'. for instance...anyone with? METALFREAK04 (talk) 10:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That is not what Wikipedia is for, and you've been told that.Inhumer (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I think something like a review proving that the album is rather their "magnum opus" would be more appropriate. We can have like one sentence of it when each band gets their descriptions. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 18:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
We can of course add info as long as it is sourced (i.e. if a valid citation exists). Adding non-sourced info will result in it's deletion. Weltanschaunng 09:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL inhumer. don't need to be like that you fag. I was suggesting, at that is what a wiki is for, if you really think aswell that I give a shit, please contact the plebianshitcom. Thanks mate, now im anrgy, I am going to kill a cow. METALFREAK04 (talk) 12:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't recommending which of a bands albums is best. Also, No personal attacks. Inhumer (talk) 07:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you attacked me first. mate. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by METALFREAK04 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This is gonna be the worst edit 'war', ever! Weltanschaunng 11:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

How did I attack you? I simply said that you were told before that this is not what wikipedia is for.Inhumer (talk) 01:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

OK well, I am actually doing something of this sort on my sandbox. Weltanschaunng 15:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Toxic Holocaust, and I have a question

I don't think I saw Toxic Holocaust on the list, don't know if someone could add them? Also, what's the difference between thrash and speed metal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.32.18.243 (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

They don't have an article. Inhumer (talk) 01:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Flag icons

There has been talk around that flag icons might go away. IMO, the flag icons, though they convey information about nationality, are pretty useless. Apart from my country, USA, UK, Canada, Brazil and France, I cannot guess a country's name by just seeing its flag. I don't know about others, but I think if we want to include information about nationality, we might as well write the country's name. Maybe we can list bands by country under a single alphabet (which I think is more appropriate), or we can do a country wise sorting (not intuitive), or we could include country info under the exp. list (lot of work). I would like to know opinions of the editors on this page, before doing anything. Weltanschaunng 17:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

By the article title. This is a list. It is for bands. And it is specifically for bands that play thrash metal. To conform with the article title and convey with the simplest purpose it was designed for... the flag is pretty much useless (as it is with all the other band list articles) Most of these lists should be deleted and replaced with a category. This particular list conveys a little more information than most. But it has ample room for improvment... minus the crufty little symbols. They are being used as a decoration and not as a resource for information. The average reader coming to Wikipedia for the first time would not likely know more than a half dozen flags without having to actually click on them to see who they belong to. If nationality is to be shown.... there are MUCH better ways to do it then the current little coloured blobs beside each entry. Lose the 'fansite' cosmetics and aim for 'encyclopedia'. There are very few Featured lists relating to music. And for the ones that are featured... no flags. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Flags add nothing to the list. Like Libs (the 156.34 IP) said, it's a list of bands by genre, not their nationality, so I don't see the need to specify which country they're from - especially with a flag icon... This is another reason why categories should be used instead of lists. Category:Black metal musical groups is a good example of how to specify a band's nationality without using crufty flag icons. Funeral 21:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree, i have dealt with this on a number of lists and believe that nationality as an attribute of a band is no more worthy of special mention than any other attribute. --neonwhite user page talk 00:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
No offense, but all of your opinions re: lists vs categories are irrelevant. Please read Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigational templates and understand that your opinion that categories are better than lists is just that: your opinion. Some prefer categories, some prefer lists, some prefer templates... just let it be. As for the flagicons, it is my opinion that they are helpful in these lists. Especially with metal, the country of origin very often directly influences the style of music. --Managerpants (talk) 11:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
No one is talking about lists v/s categories here. Weltanschaunng 12:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, 2 of the 4 people who posted above me are. --Managerpants (talk) 12:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I and CircafuciX have been working on a sort of replacement to the current format of the list. User:CircafuciX/Sandbox It looks good, the only downer being that the article length will rise to approx. thrice its current length. It would also convey a lot more info than the article currently does. Weltanschaunng 12:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't do it, then! The issue has been resolved. Flagicons are here to stay. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 19:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
No it hasn't, there a number of editors who have rightly pointed out the misuse. Your continued claims of a consensus are false and disruptive. Please discuss it properly. --neonwhite user page talk 21:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Consesnsus has been found on the Talk:List of black metal bands page. As for your claims that they will be likely be removed by admins or soemthing later on because of misuse, I only have this to say. It's happened before and our side always won. If we are to lose out now, so be it. I understand rules are rules, and what will be, will be. For now I am siding with the flagicon side and WP:CON seems to be in our favor. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 21:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
There is no consensus there, that is a false claim again. Guidelines cannot be changed on the talk pages of individual articles by editors citing nothing but personal opinions, the consensus will be decided here Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (flags)#Correct Usage of flagicons based on actual logical arguements from a wide range of editors rather than a handful of editors bashing the same tired arguements to protect their article. --neonwhite user page talk 21:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (flags)#Correct Usage of flagicons

Spread your opinion here about flagicons in the metal lists, whatever it may be. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 21:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for Weltanschaunng

I suggest your first sandbox should try the "by country" sub-sections. with a single line of prose detailing something to do with how each entry is important to the sub-genre. A dry list is eventually going to be deemed useless because they don't say anything. This list has the potential to be a featured candidate. The list of opera composers is an excellent model to go by. A similar structure can be used here. In the sandbox you don't need to include every single entry from this list. Just enough to experiment with the format. A good source for prose might come from an album review. Many of the bands listed started out thrash and then branched out into something less constricting. (or more constricting in some cases) In order to show some notability you may need to pull a direct quote from a respected magazine album review. DO NOT use any content from metal-archives that is just amateur spam. Kerrang, Rip, Creem, Circus, Rolling Stone, AMG... surely an editor in one of those has a decent quote that can be lifted for this page. In fact, every single entry can have a direct quote as its support prose. If enough can be found. What makes the the other featured lists like the Tele player and the Opera composers so good is that they have a clear criteria for inclusion. There are some bands that are 98% heavy/power metal but they have 2 or 3 thrash songs. Those bands do not qualify for inclusion. An undefined/unmanaged list is a prime candidate for the chop. 156.34.231.56 (talk) 22:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have a look at the metallica entry on the main page, I had already done something of that sort a while back. If its as you want it to be, then it is just a matter of finding citations. I'd say give me a week, I will get the thing ready for the big four + german three at least. Thank you! Weltanschaunng 07:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Heading in the right direction. I would move the prose out of the collapsible box. The text itself seem to focus on what makes them 'not thrash' more than what does. Metallica's place in the history of thrash is concrete. Without them the sub-genre would not exist. Their 2 so called hard rock albums still contain thrash elements and St. Anger has been labelled as a thrash album (I personally don't hear it as anything more than straight heavy metal) by many reliable sources. I have a general idea of what would sound good as a list entry (I've written many for the guitar player lists) but right now I have to go coach a hockey game. I will return later on today to offer suggestions. 156.34.231.56 (talk) 11:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah you are right...Dunno how many times I've said that to you!...I would do the new summary in relation to their influence on thrash. I've done it for the other three of the four in my first sandbox. I plan to introduce them all into the article when the new format is done. Thanks! Weltanschaunng 15:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I see what you guys are doing at User:Weltanschaunng/Sandbox and it seems like a good idea (though I woul still love to see the flagicons). However, there is one big problem. Without the flagicons, when you click "show" next to a band to see the band's albums, it all looks the same. There is an asterisk in front of everything. It's impossible to distinguish the albums with the bands below them and above them. At least with the flagicon there was never that problem. I suppose if you insist on not using a flagicon, may i suggest you use a : in front of all albums or something. At least that way you could see where the albums ended and the bands began and vice versa. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 19:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not where the work is going on...have a look at the metallica entry, libsey provided the text for that one. You will get a general idea of how the page will look like. I haven't worked on it for two days though. busy week, college work. Weltanschaunng 19:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Precisely why flagicons are unnecessary [17] Weltanschaunng 17:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Love the beginning

I like the introduction here now, but should we go on for more of a conclusion on thrash it self by decade?

So we have made a summary of the begininngs. then it should have a summary of 90's then post-thrash etc? or is that more for the main article of Thrash Metal? Just throwing ideas in here... METALFREAK04 (talk) 11:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say the history be better left off to thrash metal. I will do it better once the new format for the list gets ready. Weltanschaunng 15:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

A notice to editors

I have been working on a new format for the list since 9th March and finally it is ready. You can view it here. Here is a list of new additions:

  • Most of the major bands from the thrash metal scene have a summarized bio of their thrash careers.
  • Bands are listed country-wise, partially to address the flagicon issue.
  • The page length and size has greatly increased (40 kb to 73 kb).

I plan to introduce the format into the list at the earliest. If you have opinions about the new format, please list them here. Thank you, Weltanschaunng 09:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you've done a pretty amazing job but unfortunately, I feel obligated to rain on your parade a little. Don't take this the wrong way because I do realize how difficult and time consuming it can be to do what you've done with this list. I see two problems though:
  • You've mentioned that the bands are being listed by countries to address the flagicon issue but yet the flagicons are still there next to each country name being used as subheading. That's pretty much overkill and contrary to the guideline for the use of flagicons. Clearly, if you're going to use country names as subheadings then there's really no need whatsoever to have flagicons. Their presence contributes nothing to the article now since the subheadings clearly spell out what the country the bands are from.
  • I've noticed that some bands have a special box for a list of their albums. Why are these bands being given special emphasis over other bands? Disregard this if you already intend to create the album box for each and every band on the list.
Like yourself, I was not happy with the format that's being used on most of these lists. I browsed through some of the featured lists and decided to adopt the format that's being used on some of the featured wrestling related lists like this one. You can take a look at the result over at the list of folk metal bands. I can think of one major advantage that the format I adopted has over yours: anyone can sort the list by band name, country, date of formation and debut album with the format I used while that's not possible with yours. It's not as pretty or attractive as your format obviously but it's more functional and useful. With that in mind, I have to question why this list should permanently be sorted by country names when there's a format that we can use which allow readers to sort them in such a way only when they want to. --Bardin (talk) 10:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your first issue, yeah I logged back in to remove them.
As for the second issue, I'd say that, we had started off by listing thrash albums of key bands, but then we started covering other bands as well. Then the work got stuck as we had to address other issues like "which bands are actually thrash" and more recently flagicons. Maybe if the article gets overcrowded, we might limit them only to key bands from the thrash metal scene.
Regarding your third point - Circa and I had thought of tables, and had a promo ready for one entry. However, taking suggestion from user:156.34.142.110, I tried to model the lists with List of Telecaster players in perspective. I added a small bio to key artists from the scene ranging from 4 to 5 lines. Of course everything is cited, mostly from allmusic guide, rolling stone, while few are from nn rockdetector.com, which I will replace soon. I don't think the bios would have fit into the tables well. Sortable tables are good no doubt, but IMO they are more suitable for discography type lists. Cheers Weltanschaunng 11:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
About my answer to the second issue, I'd like to re-frame it as - As of now the priority is finding good cited text for the entries in the list. When the bio gets ready, the albums will be added to the entry. In the end, everyone gets a line or two, with a slightly larger (4-5 lines) bio for the key artists of the genre. Weltanschaunng 11:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


Yeah good job, but this is now not a list. It's a thrash metal histroy by country page...aka not a bloody list. aka this page is identical as the thrash metal page...meaning you're decribing to much of the bands and ending up having am long page full of nothing. but i like the introduction, not the new layout. ballox - FLAG ICONS RULE! METALFREAK04 (talk) 10:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to notion, this is exactly what a bands (artists) type list looks like, i.e. if you have a look at the featured music lists of the list of artists type, this is exactly what you will find. This had to be done, because the reason that list of black metal bands (and others) was brought for afd was that it conveyed no more information than its category then (unfortunately even now). Though the thrash list was above that threshold then, it was only just. I basically followed the pattern illustrated in other featured lists of this type, nothing more. The country wise arrangement was used to retain the info about nationality. Weltanschaunng 19:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Also I remember you posting here regarding best releases by a band, well I've done precisely that! Have a nice day! Weltanschaunng 12:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah...I like that...but the layout is too scrolly for me. I liked it column based sc[aine]ro.Not this histry business, it makes it look like logging-infactory or linkage overload-distrobution centre. But mmm we should try to put consistency within the metal spectrum then beyond! But i don't know how to do it..I need teaching then i can do it...have more time at the moment becuase of this fever that has struc...and I am rambling...yes go go! METALFREAK04 (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

sorry didn't really get you there! Weltanschaunng 18:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

summary of last edit: * Would like to know how to set out this article

  • I don't like the countries in this way as it's to 'scrolly' meaning you have to use the wheel for an awful long time
  • we need an organised wikiArmy to do this to other lists
  • I was rambling

Hope that makes sense :) I type to fast to think. METALFREAK04 (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The country wise sort does seem to be problematic. If that's the case, i will return to alphabetical sorting, while retaining the new format (one column, small bio). I will retain the nationality attribute within the band header, plus years active or something like that along with it. As for other lists, I don't know how something this radical will be received there. Plus it is a lot of work (I am on a wikibreak now btw). I will try to take up some other album ready list like list of speed metal bands once this list is complete and nothing more can be done to it. Cheers, Weltanschaunng 16:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

For adding thrash albums

Copy this code while adding thrash albums
{{boxboxtop|Enter band name here (no linking brackets)|right}} <div class="NavFrame collapsed" style="padding:0;border-style:none;"> <div class="NavFrame collapsed" style="border-style:none;padding:0;"> <div class="NavHead" style="background:#EDF1F1;text-align:left;text-style:normal"> Thrash albums</div> <div class="NavContent" style="text-align:left;"> Enter the albums here </div></div></div> {{boxbottom}} * Enter band's link here
Weltanschaunng 20:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


What about the other lists, Welt? We need to make all the metal lists match. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 22:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know much dude! I am not much familiar with other genres. I might provide help with formatting, but really that's all I know. BTW CircafuciX is doing something like this in the prog metal list. I might take up speed metal list when this is done. Weltanschaunng 08:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
This is gonna be a problem. I like your list but now I think we should have kept the old ones in place at least for uniformity. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 19:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it, what old ones are you talking about? Weltanschaunng 19:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I meant the old versions, w/ the flagicons and stuff. Yay on adding Morbid Saint!!!!! They're one of my favorite thrash bands and I think they are one of the best if not THE best. Too bad they only had two releases. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 20:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Don't know about that, I have a feeling that the flagicons might be removed. Anyway, has the title of heavy metal fashion been changed? Weltanschaunng 20:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
No, lol, but I removed whole sections from it. I don't really feel like improving it, though. Other than removing more than half the article that was OR, POV or just outlandish and wrong, nothing's happened with that article. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 20:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

I know many, (if not all of you) are incredibly tired of people adding bands with no articles to these lists, especially, along with links that are blue but are disambiguation pages or something else along with not even being the "x" genre of metal it's supposed to be. I was thinking of making a rule box or something similar like a section for it, instead of it being with the context/intro. For example, bands that are added because the editor wants an article on them very badly, people who just look over our (damned) comments, the people that don't check their links for the right article and those links that lead to disamb pages that don't have the band or you would have to make a huge search for the band and the bands that are not even part of the genre. If there was a "master list" that I know of where all editors that edit these lists would see it, then it would've been better to put this there and as there are many metal lists it would be insane to put them all over which I might want to do anyway if you accept my proposal or better yet show you here and you decide how we should go along with it and to fight those that add redlinks and remove bands they dislike, etc. Something must be done and I thought those hidden comments were enough and it's clearly not. I also think this would make a good explanation to editors who do this type of thing as a warning on their talk pages which is an action we can partake. Here is my proposal below:

This will be part of the introduction to an editor for his warning:
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to add bands to this list, the last band you added was a red-link, was not the intended article or has notability concerns on it's article page. Hereby you must follow to these guidelines for band inclusion to this list:

Article rules/warning explanation:
Bands without articles will hastily be removed from these lists. This list is not merely the place for you to add bands of the style that you want an article for, this is a list of "x" bands with articles nothing more. You can do this exactly at Wikipedia:Requested articles/music/Performers and bands but they must pass WP:MUSIC to be acceptable here. Also, please click the "show preview" button next to the "save page" button to check your article links before adding them here and that you also have the right band that plays the genre. This is not of your personal opinion of what the band actually plays, the band's genre must have been approved either by verifiability with other editors or sources stated in that respective article. Also, make sure a band is notable, if a band is being questioned for notability has a notability tag at the top of the page then it should not be added to this list, wait awhile and re-add them when the notability of the band has been established. Please make sure bands are alphabetised and that the formatting is consistent with the other bands before adding them. Thank you.

I hope this proposal goes well. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 05:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yo, I like the idea man. But how is this going to trigger? is it like all HTML'd and stuff I don't understand or is it some person who catched the person themselves? I would like though, one thing, if the band added is a 'red' link and a death metal band...if that band is notable, I think we should create a 'death metal article to be made list' so that all the notable bands go on wikipedia. My last header, was saying this, I don't think we should just delete bands becuase the wikipedians before us haven't bothered to get information and make a dam article for them, do we?

Also, this way you get notable bands, becuase of wikifacists like speedy deletion service jeps the dam articles you make, just becuase you translate the biography into english and change a few sentences and that somehow interfers with G what the fuck O laws. Bullshit. Anyway, yeah nice idea, but ant going to work...you still going to have fags that think Bullet for my valentine are metal.

METALFREAK04 (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well it would be like User warning templates, if you catch them you warn them and if they persist well... I never thought of that but they would keep on being reverted until the link is blue, that's for sure. And of course, if a band is surely notable we'll have a list here (wouldn't make sense to have a death metal band article to be made list anyways (and would have to start with "Wikipedia:Requested articles/music/. . .")) for them (which I'm not sure can stay up here, as this page would need to get archived within time) and also at the request article link I provided. Also, the amount of editors we will need will be like the size of a taskforce (albeit small one) for this to be carried out well. I've been thinking I should really add this to all the other lists.
All I ask for is for people like you and everyone who edits these lists help in notifying these type of users. If that can be done then that's the least you could do for these lists. Have hope, and let's make an example for them. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 06:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm skeptical as to if it would work, but it sounds like a good idea. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 21:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Just pointing out a few thrash bands that don't appear to have their own Wikipedia page yet are very much thrash metal and have put out releases:

Mastery (Canada) [18]
Hyades (Italy) [19]
Bonded By Blood (US) [20]
Hatchet (US) [21]
Fueled By Fire (US) [22]

All of whom are worthy of inclusion on these pages, although I must point out that there's isn't a hell of a lot of information out there that you can reference to - at least not from searching around on Google.

Diet lemmingaid (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This page is +80 kilobytes long.

This article became heavy due to the fact that users are using so redundant the box that describing thrash metal albums. But there are infobox where all albums are thrash metal making this article very heavy, so I am removing a big part of these tables to reduce the size of the article. Cannibaloki 02:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The original idea was to keep them but if you wish..... −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 02:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
If I wish... WHAT? Over time when some user have the courage to edit the page will read the message: This page is 1 gigabyte long. Cannibaloki 03:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
If you think of the far future in 20+ years this article would be even larger by all the new bands forming and becoming notable so it wouldn't really matter much. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 03:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
If the world does not end until... Good luck! Cannibaloki 03:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I have a suggestion to separate it by bands that formed or the year that they started to play thrash in each decade. Like list of thrash metal bands (1980s), (1990s) and so on if it gets too big in the future. It is something to consider. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 01:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I thought on something like: List of United States thrash metal bands & List of thrash metal bands; Cannibaloki 01:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The rule for long pages doesn't apply to lists. It is only for articles. I had checked it when I made my big edit. Anyway we can always maintain a different US list and other nations list. I like your idea Cannibaloki. Weltanschaunng 07:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Cutting the blurbs?

A quick suggestion: are the little blurbs about bands here and there really necessary? To my way of thinking, a band list should be just that: a list. It's cluttering it up and making it much longer than necessary, and it raises the issue of where we draw the line. Put simply, if people want to read about the bands here, they can simply follow the links to the articles. It just clutters up the page and adds the chore of having to keep more things updated. I suggest the little bits of info on bands are simply removed. Prophaniti (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Take a look on my sandbox. Cannibaloki 20:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Gets my vote. A list should just be what it says: a list. Prophaniti (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Not mine... Weltanschaunng did A LOT of work on this so no I seriously don't think that would be a good thing to do to this article (it was meant to be like the List of Telecaster players)..... −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 20:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
And I appreciate any work people have put into it. If any information given in the blurbs isn't simply repeating the band pages, it can be relocated to said band pages. And any that is simply repeating band pages is already contained in those. If nothing else, quote: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." Prophaniti (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The text was added to elevate the list to Featured List status. "Just a list" can be replaced by a category. And this list... minus the text... is just another AfD candidate. This is the only list of all the "List of X bands" that's even close to getting it right. The text was added and cited very well to make the list a resource companion to the main thrash metal page. Look at the Tele player list which is a Featured Article. Look at the List of Gibson players. These are stellar articles and excellent companion pieces for their main "parent" articles. The only redeeming quality of this entire page is the introductory text for the list entries... and you want to remove it??? The Real Libs-speak politely 20:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do. Being a "featured article" is meaningless and should be ignored. It should not enter into this discussion as a genuine consideration. An article's actual quality always comes first. The fact is this article doesn't need all this text. It just clutters it up. The purpose of the page is to list thrash metal bands. It's not going to be deleted now or ever, just like all the other "band list" articles aren't going to be deleted. The text is unnecessary, as it just repeats what can be seen within the band articles themselves and makes the list too long and cluttered. The place for little summarisations of bands is either in their own page's opening paragraphs, or for a more general summary of thrash metal, the thrash metal page itself. Prophaniti (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Being a featured article is meaningless??? Why are you here? The only articles on Wikipedia that have any validity are the FAs. And yes, these useless "just lists" can easily be AfD'd. Last year a large group of them were nom'd and half of them went bye-bye. THe few that stuck around only helf on by a thin ass-hair. And of all those list of X bands that went up for deletion... this list wasn't one of them. Deletion didn't even come up in a conversation. "Just a list" says nothing that a category doesn't say. And they can go on the block for just that reason. The Real Libs-speak politely 21:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Thus far you still haven't actually made any good reason why not to remove all the text. Yes, being a featured article -is- meaningless. It's a pointless little award, a little star at the top that says "This is a good article". I'm more concerned with actually improving wikipedia rather than being able to say "Look at all the nice shiny stars". Sorry, but when people argue "You can't do that, it might harm our changes of getting featured", it just comes out as "Who gives a toss about whether the article's any good or not, so long as we get a star at the top".
Now, if any of the lists get deleted, there'd have to be a good reason for it. Articles don't just vanish for no good reason. If enough people feel that the category renders the list page meaningless and that's enough to delete it, then so be it. Puffing it up with pointless chunks of text just repeating what's said on the band pages doesn't, to me, say anything good about the page. Prophaniti (talk) 06:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You're still making confusing statements? The definition of Featured Article is that they are "the best articles on Wikipedia." This article is well past B.. an easy GA candidate... really only needing better formatting to go for FA... and you want to lower its quality back down to a start class? Are you a disgruntled editor who tried to achieve FA for an article and it failed? And now you have some sort of vendetta against improving articles to that elite level? Your debate just doesn't make any sense. The goal is improve articles, not reduce them down to AfD... which is what a bare list is. Several 'list of X bands' already re-direct to their corresponding category. And you want that fate for this page too? The Real Libs-speak politely 10:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No, -your- argument doesn't make any sense. Can we just drop this whole "featured article" rubbish. Not every article on wikipedia has the potential to be "one of the best on the site". They can achieve the best an article of their type can, certainly. But many, many articles are inherently small, limited and/or functional in nature. This is one of them. What I'm suggesting is to -improve- the article. Bigger does not inherently equal better. An article's quality is not judged by it's size, it is judged by how well it achieves it's goal. The goal of this article is to list thrash metal bands in an easily readable way. The bulk of blurb text is lessening that.
Additionally, no, I'm not some "disgruntled editor", and I'll kindly remind you of wikipedia's policy regarding personal attacks. Prophaniti (talk) 11:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't a personal attack. It was the only reason I could fathom as to why you wanted to take an article that is near featured article quality and reduce it down to deletable. The purpose is to imrove not destroy and delete. It still makes no sense. The Real Libs-speak politely 11:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Well I have not been able to commit time to this since May, but I don't realize why would someone want to undo a month of work. And it is all sourced. BTW prophaniti, this work was done when list of X metal bands were being deleted left and right. And the main reason behind it was, those lists were mere duplications of categories. And the only reason this list was left unscathed because of the album lists and later, the small blurbs. I hope this turns out for the better. Weltanschaunng 15:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Now that I have read the entire argument, I'd say, Prophaniti have a look here -

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of black metal bands

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Christian metal bands

These are some of the many lists of bands that AfD'd. There were many that didn't. And the prime reason for the nomination is - "Redundant band list - content is already covered in Category: X metal groups." I hope you appreciate this point and see the blurbs in better light. Thank you, Weltanschaunng 16:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC).

I appreciate work has gone into them, I really do, and that they make this article closer to featured status. But my point is, that in of itself is meaningless. An article's overall quality always has to come first, and if that leads to it being featured, then great, but that's the bonus, not the goal.
In truth, I don't feel enormously strongly about it. I just feel that the blurbs are only serving to clutter up the article. Nothing in the blurbs cannot be found on the band article pages, or if some can't, it should be on those pages. So they're not ultimately serving any purpose. Any page can be made to seem bigger and more important by repeating information contained within other pages. Now, if this ultimately leads people to feel that this page doesn't serve any more purpose than the category page, then so be it. But bulking the page up needlessly doesn't inherently make it more worthy to exist. You could repeat lots of a band's info in each of their album pages, it wouldn't make them better.
As I see it, the purpose of this page is to list. If that makes it redundant, then I guess it's redundant. But the blurbs simply don't add anything, they just clutter. They don't actually make it a better page if they're just repeating information, or placing information that should be elsewhere. Prophaniti (talk) 08:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I state my point again - without the snippets and album lists, the list is a mere duplication of the category:Thrash metal musical groups. In such a case, the list is subject to AfD at any time.
I would like to add one more point - The snippets indicate the connection between the band and the thrash metal scene. Its not just something out of the blue. Also you talk of redundancy of category and list, but at the same time you fail to appreciate the duplication of band data on the list. Weltanschaunng 18:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Fail to understand the duplication of band data? But that's been my whole argument all this time. What I certainly don't understand is your last point there. My point is that without the blurbs it's just a duplication of the category, but with the blurbs it's just a duplication of the category with lots of little duplications of the band pages. That's still not in itself worthwhile.
Let me simply ask this: If we can agree that without the blurbs this article doesn't really add anything beyond what the category does, what does it add -with- the blurbs? How exactly does having some cluttering pieces of text, which can/should just be found within the band articles, suddenly make it a valuable article if it isn't without them? Prophaniti (talk) 07:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

If you compare the promoting text for each entry you will find that much of it doesn't actually appear in the main band pages. This page was built toward featured status independent from the main pages. Also, for many of these list entries the style of prose used here is actually better than the writing style used in the band articles. It is a companion resource to the main thrash metal article. Like a proper list should be. That's why it is a 'near to' featured list. Which is the aim for all Wikipedia articles... and the goal of all good Wikipedia editors. The Real Libs-speak politely 13:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, my aim is to improve wikipedia. Featured status is, and always should be, a secondary consideration, a bonus if you will. If the information in the blurbs isn't included in the main band pages, then clearly it should be. So my argument still stands. Prophaniti (talk) 15:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, you mean to say that blurbs add no value, so do you have thoughts about anything that can? Its just an innocuous question, no sarcasm here. Weltanschaunng 06:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
The blurbs-idea, along with the thrash albums idea, was an attempt to aggrandize the list. If you have anything in mind, other than undoing the work done so far, now would be the time to state it. In the end, all that matters is, how much subjective information he takes with him when he navigates away from this page. Weltanschaunng 06:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm not going to push this. I'm not setting out to get the page actually deleted. I just felt it was a point I needed to make and get across. As it happens, in terms of what to actually do here (assuming the blurbs aren't being removed), I wondered if the band names themselves could somehow be made to stand out more. My main issue with all this is that the band names themselves are getting lost amid all the mass of text. Is there any way, like an increasing font size or something, we could make the bands stand out more?
P.S. Should that be "objective information"? Or have I misunderstood that line? Prophaniti (talk) 10:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I meant subjective, in the sense that when a user reads that bit about the band, he understands the impact that band has had on the thrash metal scene in general. No POV, all cited text.
As far as the visibility of band names is concerned, yeah, maybe you can make them bold. Anyway the band name is pipelinked, so it is blue. Have a look at List of Telecaster players article, try to use it as a benchmark (its a featured list and of the same type as this list). I noticed that the album lists were removed. Now that I think of it, they were bit redundant, and non-cited. If you were the one who removed them, remove them all for the sake of uniformity. Also remove the reference to the list of albums from the intro. Yeah, that's about it. Weltanschaunng 17:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Nope, wasn't me, sorry. The Telecaster list is indeed impressive, cheers. See below for a couple of suggestions that pop to mind. Prophaniti (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Question... I agree that the collapseable discogs were a bit of overkill. But I note that most of the major "blurbed" acts have new and improved (and in some cases Featured list status) discography articles. Perhaps a link to these excellent discog pages might be a worthy substitute to the original format. Eventually every entry should have a short/referenced 'blurb". I think back to our original "build it and they will come" discussions where we said that the 'major players' should have 3-4 lines... while the minor support players would each get one line. The Real Libs-speak politely 18:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Aye, links to the discogs could work well, certainly I'm not a fan of the collapsing boxes scattered around. I also agree that if we are keeping the blurbs, 3-4 lines for major bands and just the one summary line for minor ones sounds good.
Alright, well I can here with the intention to improve matters, so here are a couple of general suggestions/questions:
1.) Maybe doing away with the nationality dividers and instead ordering it simply by name, as in the Telecaster players list? We could potentially add flag icons beside names to still distinguish. This would, to me, seem a bit cleaner, but just a suggestion.
2.) Cut down on the wikilinks within the blurb text. It seems to detract from the band names themselves, and while some make sense, others seem a little frivolous.
I don't feel particularly strongly on either of them, just a couple of suggestions. Prophaniti (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
If you had visited this page this time last year, you would have seen that it was alphabetically arranged, with flagicons. But there is some issue with using flagicons rampantly, as you see in other lists. Read wp:mosflag for details. There was a huge debate on the flagicons on nearly every list. And since I was trying to improve things here, I tried to make a compromise, which involved removal of flagicons, but retention of nationality. If you go through the flagicon related topics on this page, you might have some insight into this situation.
Wikilinks, well its upto you. Weltanschaunng 15:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I support the blurbs and the thrash albums thing. The list with some extra information gives the reader much more information. What is list such as the List of death metal bands actually good for? Who reads that? The thrash list gives a great overview.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 13:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope we don't have to re-visit the useless flag issue again. It was one of the first things to be cleansed from this list. Hopefully... someday soon... they will be removed from all lists for reasons noted earlier. Getting flags and logos removed from the infoboxes last year was one of the greatest triumphs for "encyclopedia vs fancruft". The reasons for removal in that debate hold just as true for lists. Lets not go back to the making these pages look like school-boy book reports. The Real Libs-speak politely 14:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
What's actually -wrong- with them though? Prophaniti (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
check WP:MOSFLAG for details. The way flagicons are used in lists is inappropriate as per that guideline. Weltanschaunng 15:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't see where in there it specifically says using them in this case would be inappropriate (which isn't me fecitiously saying it doesn't, merely that I can't see anywhere in there where it says such). Prophaniti (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
The icons themselves don't convey the information that they are intended to. Example... If a band in a list is from Australia... and the next band in the list is from New Zealand... look at their flags. Australia - New Zealand. Can you quickly identify which flag goes with which country? If you are from either of those countries then... yes you probably can... but if not... it becomes cumbersome for the reader to determine and they have to surf away from the page they started at to determine the bands origin. Wikipedia articles are not written to cater to people who are familiar with the subject they are actually reading about. Wikipedia is written to provide information to someone about a subject they know nothing about. Yes... you can just hold your cursor over the flag and wait for the popup to tell you what it means. But that assumes that the reader is I.T intuitive. Again.. Wikipedia never assumes that the reader is comfortable with using a PC... it is written so that anyone can get access to its information in the easiest possible way. Wikipedia never discriminates its knowledge from anyone. The entire debate around using flags as decorations was that... for the easiest overall usage of Wikipedia... between using flag decorations or using "real" words/simple text... the text always wins out over the crufty flags. That's why logos were banned... the argument was simple... in the battle between "free-use" vs "fair-use"... the "free-use" must win everytime... and there is nothing more "free-use" than plain text. And a flag icon can be replaced with text... or in situtation like this article... the list entries can be separated into groups. The Real Libs-speak politely 15:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I do see your point, but I still think it's very easy to tell which is which simply by hovering. Plus, as it says in the guideline article itself, flags should always be accompanied by text at least once anyway, handling the problem. I just feel ordering by name (as in the Telecaster list) with flags beside would look better. Or simply leave out country altogether. Especially if we're keeping the blurbs, which should state the country within. Prophaniti (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah the country wise sort was implemented basically to address the flag issue. If the nationality can be mentioned implicitly, then I don't see why a country wise sort is to be used. Anyway, it would make the drop down contents longer, which is not as per norm. Weltanschaunng 08:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent) Do you mean not sorting by nationality would make the contents longer, or doing so makes the contents longer? If we're keeping to the telecaster player list as a basis (which seems good), how about this: we stick to the nationality sort for now, and work on improving the lines/blurbs for the bands. Once there are enough done, and to a high enough standard (including the nationality of the band within), we could order it by name as in the telecaster list, where the contents is only 4 sections, then citations and references. Prophaniti (talk) 12:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts precisely. In fact I had covered most of major bands then, so there is no need to worry about the 3-4 liners, maybe a touch up here and there. Most of the one-liners would be only slightly influencing the thrash scene, or they may play a mixture of thrash/death/black or even x-core. I had listed a large number of bands with arguable genres on this talk page (see above). If you think that a band doesn't belong, remove it.
Sort by country makes the contents longer.

Weltanschaunng 15:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well I for one will start trying to aid in some of the existing ones (bits and pieces) and adding in summaries for bands that don't have them. I'll also try to make good use of what published books I have available regarding thrash, looking at the references section the article does seem to rely a bit heavily on allmusic (which isn't exactly the best of sources when it comes to heavy metal anyway, even if it is by the technical definition a reliable source). Prophaniti (talk) 02:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Removed the album lists. I guess its pretty much clear then. Weltanschaunng 08:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Just as well. They can be a bit subjective. Some bands are easy... like Slayer or Exodus... they're all thrash. But is every Anthrax album thrash? Metallica took a long hiatus from thrash and then went back to it. Megadeth hasn't made a proper thrash album since 1990... Stick to making good blurbs. It's still a good list. Still an FL candidate. The Real Libs-speak politely 13:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_thrash_metal_bands/Archive_1&oldid=1058124459"