Talk:MetalSucks
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=icon}
 | Reference ideas for MetalSucks The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
External links modified (January 2018)
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on MetalSucks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120921012155/http://www.metalhammer.co.uk/news/web-of-death-awards-the-winners/ to http://www.metalhammer.co.uk/news/web-of-death-awards-the-winners/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
“Controversies”
[edit]WP:CRIT#"Controversy" section advises to treat sections like this article’s § Controversies as trivia sections, i.e. avoid having them. Thoughts? —96.8.24.95 (talk) 01:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I have some thoughts. It was poorly-sourced, and the whole section is gone now. If a reliable source says that the website took a controversial stance or said something controversial, we can report that. Otherwise, it wasn't a controversy, and it doesn't get posted here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- A lot of controversy sections on other articles seems to just be like junior high drama but in this instance I think the website single-handedly ruining the reputation of bands like Pestilence might not be too out of the question..Lil Sad Lil Happy (talk) 09:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Well, you can always write a blog about it. Until reliable sources say it's a controversy, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia, though. Wikipedia only reports what reliable sources say. It's a tertiary source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- A lot of controversy sections on other articles seems to just be like junior high drama but in this instance I think the website single-handedly ruining the reputation of bands like Pestilence might not be too out of the question..Lil Sad Lil Happy (talk) 09:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)