This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Black metal article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 180 days |
Red And Anarchist Black Metal was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 22 June 2018 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Black metal. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
|||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
I noticed when I tried to improve this sections examples by swapping out Bathory (out of all the bad examples listed there they are undeniably the stupidest) with a band that is undeniably raw like Mütiilation it kind of provoked a a brief edit war between two other editors, mostly because one of them insisted I had a point. Ultimately Mütiilation was removed due to the source not being reliable, but here's the thing; I think all "examples" are just better off kept off not only in accordance with how the source used seems to fail WP:EXPLICITGENRE but also I think anyone who even knows that listing five of the most entry level black metal bands ("Gorgoroth, Bathory, Darkthrone, Satyricon, Bathory and Burzum) and calling them "raw" is absolutely ridiculous. It does nothing to illustrate this section. Simply put: those bands are not raw black metal. Second Skin ( talk) 23:11, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Black metal as a term and arguably as a cohesive style predates thrash and death metal. This quote feels innacurate. 45.50.22.129 ( talk) 18:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Back in February 2021, ABC paulista changed the long-standing layout of the article, moving " National Socialist black metal", "Red-Anarchist black metal", and " Christian black metal" from the Ideology section into the Stylistic divisions section. The content was split, so now these movements are discussed twice, under both Stylistic divisions and Ideology. The change was not discussed, and I see two big problems with it.
First, it over-highlights these tiny groups of Nazi or Anarchist or Christian bands. Why should these minority movements have two sections each? Surely it makes more sense to deal with these groups in the one place, instead of having the content broken up and 'scattered' over the article?
Second, having these movements under Stylistic divisions wrongly implies that they're distinct musical styles. Most sources don't treat them as such, and even the sources that call them "subgenres" (a vague term) don't say that they're musically distinct. In a
related discussion on another talkpage, ABC Paulista agreed with me on this point: "the majority of the sources in their respective articles treat them as mere ideological movements that can span multiple Black metal subgenres, and not as a subgenre themselves"
... "the majority of sources cite them as ideologies rather than subgenres"
. So why make this change and later revert my undoing of it?
I was the one who added a lot of the sources for these parts of the article, but as I haven't paid enough attention to the article for a couple of years, this change flew under my radar. – Asarlaí ( talk) 18:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Black metal article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 180 days |
Red And Anarchist Black Metal was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 22 June 2018 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Black metal. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
|||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
I noticed when I tried to improve this sections examples by swapping out Bathory (out of all the bad examples listed there they are undeniably the stupidest) with a band that is undeniably raw like Mütiilation it kind of provoked a a brief edit war between two other editors, mostly because one of them insisted I had a point. Ultimately Mütiilation was removed due to the source not being reliable, but here's the thing; I think all "examples" are just better off kept off not only in accordance with how the source used seems to fail WP:EXPLICITGENRE but also I think anyone who even knows that listing five of the most entry level black metal bands ("Gorgoroth, Bathory, Darkthrone, Satyricon, Bathory and Burzum) and calling them "raw" is absolutely ridiculous. It does nothing to illustrate this section. Simply put: those bands are not raw black metal. Second Skin ( talk) 23:11, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Black metal as a term and arguably as a cohesive style predates thrash and death metal. This quote feels innacurate. 45.50.22.129 ( talk) 18:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Back in February 2021, ABC paulista changed the long-standing layout of the article, moving " National Socialist black metal", "Red-Anarchist black metal", and " Christian black metal" from the Ideology section into the Stylistic divisions section. The content was split, so now these movements are discussed twice, under both Stylistic divisions and Ideology. The change was not discussed, and I see two big problems with it.
First, it over-highlights these tiny groups of Nazi or Anarchist or Christian bands. Why should these minority movements have two sections each? Surely it makes more sense to deal with these groups in the one place, instead of having the content broken up and 'scattered' over the article?
Second, having these movements under Stylistic divisions wrongly implies that they're distinct musical styles. Most sources don't treat them as such, and even the sources that call them "subgenres" (a vague term) don't say that they're musically distinct. In a
related discussion on another talkpage, ABC Paulista agreed with me on this point: "the majority of the sources in their respective articles treat them as mere ideological movements that can span multiple Black metal subgenres, and not as a subgenre themselves"
... "the majority of sources cite them as ideologies rather than subgenres"
. So why make this change and later revert my undoing of it?
I was the one who added a lot of the sources for these parts of the article, but as I haven't paid enough attention to the article for a couple of years, this change flew under my radar. – Asarlaí ( talk) 18:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)