Template talk:Extreme metal

Untitled section 2007

[edit]

Isn't it a bit early to use this template? My concerns:

  • This template is based on an article containing unverifiable claims and original research: Extreme metal.
  • Genres mentioned in this template are regarded extreme. The genres are connected by their extremity. How does that comply with WP:NPOV?
  • Genres mentioned in this template are regarded metal. What about grindcore, crust punk, deathcore and other metal/hardcore hybrids?
  • Unlike the f.e. the heavy metal template, sub genres and sub-sub-sub genres are mixed.
  • There are enough of these genre boxes at the bottom of the screen, some articles contain 2 or more. I feel we don't need this one.

I think we should wait; the extreme metal article is not yet reliable. Kameejl (Talk) 11:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see your problem. If the article has unverified claims I will edit the template to suit the article. I have split the fusion genres, subgenres and genres of extreme metal. I would suggest you consider other options than the removal of the template. Thundermaster367 11:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I still think this template is hugely dominated by specific POVs and doesn't reflect the general view of extreme metal and it's subgenres. The addition of fusion genres is making this template even more POV, less reliable and less verifiable. For the sake of wikipedia and extreme metal I will nominate this template for deletion. Kameejl (Talk) 12:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Format

[edit]

"v" on the template is hidden by black. Does anyone know the format to make the font all white on the first bar: extreme metal? --CircafuciX 03:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My IP changed it to red, but some idiot thought i was vandalising it. DragonDance (talk) 01:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the questions that were just asked before thats why I asked this question in the first place the v/d/e would be more viewable. See:Template:At the Gates for example. Although I tried using the format and it doesn't work with this new template so I'm asking if anyone knows how it's done. Simply put. --CircafuciX (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look what I've done. It does work. ThundermasterThundermaster's Talk 18:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one thing now, it won't collapse. I tried this: class="navbox collapsible autocollapse" style="margin:0 auto;" and replacing this to the top which didn't seem to work. --CircafuciX 08:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gothic metal

[edit]

Is a sub-genre of doom metal, therefore goes in the sub-genre list.

But is not extreme. Metalcore, groove metal, and other genres aren't featured as well. Kameejl (Talk) 18:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Groove metal

[edit]

Shouldn't we have Groove metal down here as a sub-genre of thrash metal? Ximmerman (talk) 14:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colour

[edit]

Stop changing the colour. Black is the related colour for death, black and doom metal. Thundermaster367 (talk) 09:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I love it

[edit]

I think the template looks great as it is now. Its finally correct and there should be no more edits to it, in my opinion. Also, to those who tryed adding gothic metal into the template. GET OVER IT! GOTHIC METAL IS NOT AN EXTREME METAL GENRE!!! w00t Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 18:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Navnløs, there's no need to yell. I was the one who added it as a fusion genre as it is a fusion of two ext. metal genres, death metal and doom metal, and therefore deserves metion on the template. Please don't remove it. ThundermasterThundermaster's Talk 11:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, to my knowledge gothic metal isn't a mere death/doom deriative. Gothic metal isn't a simple death/doom + genre X mix. Gothic metal might be influenced by death/doom and grown out of it but that doesn't necessarily make an extreme metal fusion genre, just like reggae isn't just a simple ska/soul fusion anymore (couldn't find a metal related comparison). Gothic metal has excepted less extreme traits and therefore has become a genre that isn't close to it's roots anymore. I'll try to look up some info any time soon.
Secondly, there is no consensus, and consensus (as in "what the majority thinks") is not enough to be on wikipedia. It also should be verifiable. Have you got sources that state gothic metal is an extreme metal genre? If so, I really would like to see them. If not, it may be removed per WP:V.
I will do some research. If I'll fail to find anything that relates gothic metal to extreme metal, and you can't provide any valuable source, I will remove gothic metal from this template. Kameejl (Talk) 14:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS. If gothic metal is mentioned then groove metal, metalcore, crust punk and whatever weird genre with some death/black/thrash influence should be mentioned, and that's not what we want, do we? Kameejl (Talk) 14:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gothic metal is part of the extreme metal group as it is a sub-genre of death/doom, an extreme metal sub-genre. And in some ways, I agree with you, if we don't find anything to prove it, we go into the whole POV about metalcore, groove metal and crust punk again. However, you don't like this template, because it's so easy slip anything in like metalcore. Still, gothic metal is a lot closer than bloody metalcore, isn't it? Metalcore has zero roots in extreme metal as it comes from hardcore punk and metal. Gothic metal comes when you fuse two extreme metal genres, death metal and doom. ThundermasterThundermaster's Talk 15:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true. When you fuse death metal and doom you get death/doom. When you fuse (I'd say dilute) death/doom with gothic rock/sung vocals/romantic lyrics/mid paced tempos/symphonic use of keyboards/consonance&harmony then I'd say all extreme elements have been filtered out. Metalcore is not only rooted in hardcore punk but also deeply rooted in thrash metal. Nowadays, many metalcore bands have a style bearly distinguishable from melodic death metal (f.e. The Black Dahlia Murder, Becoming the Archetype, Daysend, Shadows Fall). This is why I don't like this template, there are only few to no reliable sources, so most claims are original research, let alone neutral. Kameejl (Talk) 10:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now I see. If we add gothic metal, which is rooted in death/doom, we would then open the way for metalcore, which is rooted in thrash, and then groove metal, which is rooted in thrash. The worst bit is that, even me, the creator, can see the problems this template, and want it deleted. But both of us have gone through TfD with it and failed twice. So we can't add any more genres. OK, I'll remove gothic metal. ThundermasterThundermaster's Talk 12:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

changed

[edit]

My reasoning for having the template in black:

  • It is a good colour for extreme metal
  • Me with other editors, have worked hard to get the v/d/e to show in the black
  • Black has been used on other ext. metal templates.

Please feel free to discuss it below. ThundermasterTRUC 08:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about the colour but 156.x.x.x is right, heavy metal has its predefined colours. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Music genres/Colours. Kameejl (Talk) 18:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heavy metal has it's predefined colors but I don't think it can be associated here. Extreme metal doesn't have it's predefined colors yet mainly because people in the project don't exactly know about it. If it's going to be changed despite of what I said then go for a darker crimson red. --CircafuciX (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well Wikiproject Music genres is dead, according to the message left at the top. I'm a member and I have haven't really seen any activity. Maybe we should try a slightly darker red from the orginal heavy metal crimson.ThundermasterTRUC 14:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"It's a good colour for extreme metal??? = personal opinion and not the previously discussed project guideleine.
"Black has been used on other ext. metal templates" - "has" being the key word.. they've all been corrected as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Music genres/Colours.
"me and other editors" - ??? - that should have said "Other editors and I"... and is starting to shade WP:OWN.
Try to edit like it's an encyclopedia and not a grade 8 book report or fansite. Avoid the stereotype. 156.34.222.133 (talk) 14:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I changed it slightly. By the way, Wikiproject Music genres has become slightly (by this I mean very) empty. Theres no activity there. Also, you say I am violating WP:OWN. You're wrong. I am just interested in editing a template that I have created. ThundermasterTRUC 17:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Color contrast issue

[edit]

Hello. Sabrebd reverted a color contrast improvement of the Heavymetal template and Extreme metal template. The current colors (white links on a red background) do not match the guideline: Wikipedia:Accessibility#Color. Yours, Dodoïste (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wasnt a straight vevert, but an attempt to solve what I took to be the problem (blue (used link) on a red background) - was it a different problem?--SabreBD (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Template_talk:Heavymetal#Color_contrast_issue to keep the discussions in one place. Yours, Dodoïste (talk) 11:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Major changes

[edit]

Hey, I've made some major changes to the template. If you disagree with anything, feel free to change it and/or explain it here.--MASHAUNIX 03:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the derivatives section and moved Stoner and Drone to fusion genres. First, because there is a consensus in Extreme Metal's talk page that Gothic and Groove are neither extreme nor subgenres of the extreme ones, and Doom Metal article cites both Stoner and Drone as it's own subgenres. So a derivatives section is unnecessary. ABC paulista (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making the appropriate changes, I've done some minor edits on extreme metal and doom metal since but everything should be in order.----MASHAUNIX 18:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I think that's all for now. ABC paulista (talk) 18:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@ABC paulista: Just wondering, is there really "consensus in Extreme Metal's talk page that ... Groove [isn't] extreme"? I've looked through it and all I found was some claims that it can't be extreme because it's "mainstream", which is nonsense (thrash metal was just as popular back in its day, as were/are some other genres in this infobox) and wasn't really consensus. I've checked this page as well and found no consensus here either. I agree it's not really a subgenre of any of the primary extreme metal genres, but disagree that it's not extreme and think it deserves a mention in the infobox. Sepultura is a seminal groove metal band; would you say they aren't extreme? (I won't argue about gothic metal though.)----MASHAUNIX 17:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find a source that claims that Groove metal is an extreme metal genre, feel free to add it. But without any sources, you should not. We here only add the genres that are considered extreme by sources, and their subgenres and fusion genres. ABC paulista (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I'll look into that, though I think it should perhaps simply get an honorable mention in the "other topics" section.----MASHAUNIX 00:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. If Groove metal should be mentioned in the "other topics" section, so Gothic metal should be too since Groove metal is no more related with Thrash metal than Gothic metal is related to Death/Doom. Also, topics like Hardcore Punk, Punk Rock seems to be more related to Extreme metal than Grove Metal, since they are the origin of a bunch of subgenres and fusion genres. ABC paulista (talk) 01:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So couldn't we add all three of these (meaning hardcore punk, groove metal and gothic metal) into the other topics section ? I think it would be useful, since hardcore punk is both a major source of influence on some primary (thrash, death) and fusion (metalcore, grindcore etc.) genres, as well as, IMO, "to punk rock what extreme metal is to heavy metal", and groove and gothic should be mentioned since they are derivatives of primary genres (included in the extreme metal infobox). I am still especially concerned about groove metal, because I think it is related to current general understanding of extreme metal, and often referred to when the umbrella term is used on Wikipedia (for example, in the infoboxes of Meshuggah and metalcore, extreme metal is used to summarize a number of genres including groove metal).----MASHAUNIX 18:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned, yes. But there's no point in describing them since they aren't included when articles discuss extreme metal. Hardcore Punk is already mentioned enough, Groove and Gothic should be mentioned in the infobox as derivatives, but nothing more. Infoboxes like Meshuggah and metalcore are wrong if they don't cite Groove because of Extreme metal, but that doesn't seems the case for Metalcore's infobox, since nothing indicates that Groove is one of Metalcore's stylistic origins. ABC paulista (talk) 21:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah you're right about the metalcore infobox, but still, if speed metal deserves a link in the template, then IMO so do hardcore punk and groove metal. I'd like to hear what someone else thinks about this.--MASHAUNIX 00:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To tell the truth, neither NWOBHM nor Speed Metal should be on this template IMO, since they aren't present in all extreme metal genres (especially doom metal). ABC paulista (talk) 01:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this seems logical.--MASHAUNIX 02:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Industrial thrash metal

[edit]

The genre is covered in the same section as industrial death metal. ~SML • TP 16:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but unlike with the Industrial Death metal examples, the sources never treat "Industrial Thrash metal" as a complete subgenre on its own. They state that some Thrash metal bands empoyed some industrial influences in some of their music, but they never called them as Industrial Thrash bands or treat it as a full-fledged subgenre, and some eventual Industrial-influenced Thrash metal sound alone is insufficient to call it it's own subgenre. That's WP:NOTABILITY. ABC paulista (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There really is no need for all of the sub-genres to be listed, particularly if there is not enough for a stand-alone article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kinda agree, but I don't think that there is nay reason to remove them either since the template is still small-sized. ABC paulista (talk) 17:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well I agree with ABC paulista when you talk about industrial thrash metal, but I think it’s better to have all the (sourced) genres in a list in Wikipedia, not all will be listed (blackened thrash metal) because not all have realiable sources covering them. But for me, it’s better to have a (semi-) complete list one day. ~SML • TP 17:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That could be seen as Genre warring, since WP:EXPLICITGENRES state that every genre must be explicitally attibuted to artists, bands and/or scenes to start being valid, at the same time that occasional mentioning of genres don't make them reliable or notable enough to be here. For genres, it's preferable if they have multiples sources citing them, even more if discussing their traits that make them their own thing. ABC paulista (talk) 18:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Genre warring is edit warring, wich is adding and/or reverting edits for a number of times (3RR), but I only edited once, and then went to the talk page. Oh, and I never explicitly said that I’m doing that, I could theoretically just build my own website and do it. ~SML • TP 18:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was not talking about your action(s) about industrial thrash, but your idea of including all sourced genres in lists, because it open the doors for inclusion of non-notable microgenres or eventual short-lived fusions/influences, leaving the genre listing convoluted big time. Also, genre warring is similar to Edit warring in some points, but they differ a lot in terms of premisse since Genre Warring doesn't revolve around the edits themselves, but around the defense of some genres in particlular and eventual situations, be them inclusional ones or exclusional. Including situational genres cited by one person/source could be seen as genre warring. ABC paulista (talk) 18:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For me, microgenres need a spot, but since conscencus apparently doesn’t want that, then I respect that. ~SML • TP 18:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added blackened screamo, it has a section wich you can go to this link. ~SML • TP 13:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Major articles only

[edit]

I'm proposing that we only have entries for articles, not paragraphs in articles. If we still want to keep sub-sub-genres, we should add them in parenthesis behind the article in which they appear rather than giving the impression that they carry the same weight that major genres and sub-genres have. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose 1) No, just because something doesn’t have a page, it doesn’t mean it’s not notable, your not the one to decide that. 2) It’s already a good system for the page, it doesn’t create the impression of having subgenres such as electrogrind having the same weight as black metal, they have there own sections. ~SML • TP 15:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sixty Minute Limit: Usually on bigger and more notable templates, only entries with articles are added on them (See the templates for Heavy metal or Hardcore punk for example). For this one though, I think that it is well organised and concise, since it's still a small one (just like the Death metal one). Like I said earlier, I kinda see the point of having article-only entries here, at the same time I feel that it is pretty harmless the way it is now. But I am against reorganizing it, I prefer removing the paragraphs-only entries if some action is taken. ABC paulista (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    just because something doesn’t have a page, it doesn’t mean it’s not notable, your not the one to decide that. Actually, that's almost exactly what that means. But even if it is notable, navboxes aren't about the notability of topics or non-notability of topics. They're about linking between topics for established articles. I think the overall structure of the template is fine; in the case of the subgenres, having those as sublisted items in the main genres listing seems quite reasonably, actually. The listing of the fusion genres in their own section also seems quite acceptable. --Izno (talk) 18:11, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I re-performed my earlier edit on this point. We link only to articles, not to sections, because navboxes are for inter-article linking. --Izno (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pipe

[edit]

WP:PIPE is literally the most unnecessary guideline I’ve seen (in my opinion, it is, if you agree with that guideline, please don’t slam me). Why do genres such as [[progressive metalcore]] be used as [[progressive metalcore|progressive]]? I don’t think is necessary so the templates stays high-quality. ~SML • TP 00:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines are guidelines, so it must be taken into consideration. I could go even further by saying that the template should be trimmed even further per WP:EXISTING. ABC paulista (talk) 01:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think an application of piped links in this template doesn't make a whole lost of sense, unless it is in the context of a sublist of items removing some repetitive text from the head links item (i.e. metalcore and nu metalcore--> metalcore and "nu", as in the template today). --Izno (talk) 18:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblack metal and NSBM

[edit]

Why are unblack metal and National socialist black metal considered "invalid" and "not supported"? Their respective articles contain citations confirming that they are sonically (in the case of unblack), and also lyrically in the case of NSBM, part of the black metal genre. ABC paulista? --3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3family6 First of all, I don't think that this is the proper talk page to discuss it, but OK let's continue. You are trying to include both terms in an template without them being cited in the article, which is not how templates work. And when you included them on the main article, you simply included them on the infobox, neither citing them on any section nor including some sources attached to them. In both cases, it does seem that some sourced treat them as subgenres, but it seems that 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. And per WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALANCE, the majority should be more taken into account on such matters. Further, in the Black metal article neither are cited as subgenres, but rather as ideologies, and a similar process can be seen on the Heavy metal template, where both are cited on the "Controversies" group rather on the "Subgenres and fusion genres" one. ABC paulista (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You removed it from here, so this is the proper place to discuss it.
Your suggestion is not how templates work. When there is no possible way to know what it is that you want referenced it's impossible to satisfy your opinion. Do you want the fact that it is a derivative source? That is sourced in the history section of the article. If you want a specific statement or idea sourced in that article, feel free to argue for that there, but it is clear it belongs here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Walter Görlitz A template is a tool to categorize and list subjects that are pertinent and/or part of the main article, and neither Unblack metal nor NSBM are cited as part of the Extreme metal umbrella or a subgenre of any of the extreme metal genres there. On the main artcle, it was reached a consensus that only sourced subgenres should be cited there, and neither the main article, nor the Black metal one cite them as subgenres, and in both of their own articles the majority of sources cite them as ideologies rather than subgenres, so I'd like to see a sourcing that supercedes this idea before including them. ABC paulista (talk) 02:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be in an edit war. I suggest you take your concern for lack of sourcing up at the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I said that I don't think that this is the proper talk page to discuss it, but per WP:BRD he's the one that should start it, not me who reverted him. ABC paulista (talk) 04:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2021-02-05T16:17:55 2021-02-05T21:53:09 2021-02-06T01:52:16 2021-02-06T02:18:54 Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense. Perhaps 3family6 (talk · contribs) can find the source you are requesting over the next 16 hours. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Until then, as stated on WP:BRD, let's keep the article in the conditions it was before the inclusion of Unblack metal was made. Please. ABC paulista (talk) 04:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ABC paulista, what do you want?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3family6, nothing anymore. Honestly, the unwillingness to comply with WP:BRD shown here, alongside all the consequences I passed through this discussion made me totally unwilling to further discuss this matter, it's not worth the effort anymore. So, instead, I'll just make only one proposal: Let's re-add all the subgenres you removed here, also adding Unblack metal and NSBM. If you agree, I'll also do it for other articles that don't cite them as subgenres, and maybe in the future try to rework their own articles to better explicite their subgenre status. If you reject, I'll just remove these ones from the main article here, and on other articles that might cite them as subgenres. What's your opinion? ABC paulista (talk) 03:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ABC paulista: you keep harping on BRD, yet it was 3family6 who opened the discussion and both of us have asked what you want and despite the open request, you now claim want nothing.
3family6: could you please add some sources to show the position of Christian metal and unblack metal in the grand scheme of metal, and do so in the extreme metal article. I believe that is what ABC paulista initially requested. Adding something about its history to the two articles would also be appreciated. If they do not belong in this template but instead in {{heavy metal music}}, leave them there. Clearly two distinct templates for a derivative genre.
For the record, I reverted to the edit of 2021-02-04T02:09:23‎ although 2020-03-29T10:18:35‎ might have been a better starting point. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Walter Görlitz: I've already answered those questions on the start of the discussion, and I won't elaborate further because I abstain myself from the discussion, I concede to whatever you both decide. I made a proposal above, and I'll follow your decision on what fits better, and if neither of the options is accepted, I'll just leave you be. ABC paulista (talk) 13:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"could you please add some sources to show the position of Christian metal and unblack metal in the grand scheme of metal, and do so in the extreme metal article." - Thanks, Walter Görlitz, I was planning to do this but wanted to check and see what ABC paulista was asking for.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since no sources were presented, the main article don't mention these subjects and their specific articles still treat them as ideologies rather than subgenres, I'll remove them from the template for the sake of WP:COHERENCE. ABC paulista (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ABC paulista I partly refrained from any more editing because I first wanted to know if you were amenable to these articles being updated and then that reflected on the template, but you never clearly responded.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Surprised by this edit. ABC paulista: Are you going to continue to play by your own rules? This is a template and there is no consensus that every topic here needs to appear in some article you think is the rule for inclusion. Your block was shortened because you agreed to stop edit warring. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3family6 and Walter Görlitz, that's not edit warring since the discussuion halted for a week, so it doesn't relate to the previous occurence and bold edits and reverts are not permanently prohibited. Then I went back to a previous version that complies better with WP:BRD, properly applies WP:STATUSQUO, is more consistent with the information presented on the main article and their respective articles, and with how both subjects are treated here (as ideologies rahter than subgenres, let alone extreme ones). I clearly stated my opinion before and then gave you options, to see on what you agreed on if either, and then gave you plenty of time to take actions. But on this week-span you both did absoulutely nothing to solve the problems presented here. If you guys think that I'll agree to leave it as it is by sheer inertia, I suggest you both to not count on it. I won't concede you WP:SILENCE, that's sure. ABC paulista (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did not call this recent removal edit warring.
Your actions certainly got discussion started.
YOU still have no earthly clue what BRD means, because you removed the content. 3family6 came here to discuss. I discussed, called your arrogance out and invoked STATUSQUO and then reverted.
You are still, no matter how you try to frame it, trying to apply your own standard to this template. There is WP:NOTIMELIMIT here. Feel free to keep discussion going and if CONSENSUS is reached, or we stop talking, feel free to return to your ownership of the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Walter Görlitz, per the WP:BRD cycle, after the reversion is made the dispute must be discussed and the content must be not edited until a consensus is reached, and the content that started the cycle was the inclusion of Christian metal and Unblack metal by 3family6, which I reverted. So per WP:BRD ("After someone reverts your change, thus taking a stand for the existing version or against the change, you can proceed toward a consensus with the challenging editor through discussion on a talk page. While discussing the disputed content, neither editors should revert or change the content being discussed until a compromise or consensus is reached [...] If your bold edit was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version") and WP:QUO ("if you make an edit which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit—leave the status quo up, or try an alternative way to make the change that includes feedback from the other editor") the bold edit, aka the source of discordance, must be kept out from the article until the duspute is solved, and you both are misusing them by keeping the claim on the template. Also, WP:NOTIMELIMIT has nothing to do with what's going on here since it only deals with an article's creation, deletion and merging, neither being the case here, so it's another case of guidelines misusage. But I edited based on WP:BRD and WP:BOLD, since "if you advance a potential contribution on the article's talk page, and no response is received after a reasonable amount of time, go ahead and make your contribution", which was the case with the inertia shown in this case.ABC paulista (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know English is not your first language, but you've got the process wrong. First, it's optional. Second, the process is, someone makes a bold edit, someone should consider whether or not to revert, it is only after the revert that a discussion is suggested. Discussion is not mandated after a bold edit, but it would not hurt. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's optional, but Wikipedia does encourage to its usage and, as I shown, it does strongly prefer that the author of the bold edit, in this case being 3family6, should be the one to start the discussion as he got reverted, and all edits should be halted until the dispute is over, and that was not respected. I understood just fine. ABC paulista (talk) 02:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BRD-NOT has some salient points, most notably the fact that you are a tendentious editor particularly since you have an opinion of what should and should not be here and how it should be determined, yet you cannot point to a consensus or guideline to support this position. YOU have reverted good-faith efforts to improve a template simply because you don't like the changes (that's essentially point 2). Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oho, calling me names and stating false claims about my behaviour now? WP:CIVIL on you. All I ask is that the cited articles on the template are in accord to WP:RS, WP:V and WP:COHERENCE to their own articles and other ones that are related to both subjects. All based on vigent guidelines which your good-faith edits were unable to comply with. ABC paulista (talk) 02:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And just one more thing, Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates is the guideline I am following. I appreciate your opinion that it should be included and sourced in the article, but there is no criteria for that anywhere. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Walter Görlitz If you really read WP:NAVBOX, you would see that neither of the articles satisfy the following conditions: "The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article" and "The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent". Further, WP:NAV establishes that "If the articles are not established as related by reliable sources in the actual articles, then it is probably not a good idea to interlink them", which is the case here, since their own articles and Black metal establish them as ideologies, not subgenres. ABC paulista (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stop pinging me.
I read NAVBOX and I see that the subject (extreme metal in this case) should be mentioned in every article. I have no problems with that, but your claim that the linked topic should be discussed in the main article is not what it says. Did you see that anywhere in that guideline? NAV supports that claim. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NAVBOX does state that "The articles should refer to each other", and the main article doesn't mention anything about either of them. I've never asked for full-blown information about them to be included into the main article (since no specific subgenre is actually discussed there), but I do ask for mentions. If their articles here in Wikipedia actually supported their supposed "extreme subgenre status", I'd already included them on there, no problems. The fact that I didn't include them show that I coudn't find such support from their sources, and that their own articles and others related to them don't support the idea of them being subgenres. ABC paulista (talk) 02:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did not call you a name, I pointed out your actions. If you can't tell the difference, you don not belong on Wikipedia. I do not think you have the ability to communicate and so I am simply going to sit back and wait until you move again, but it will not end well for you if you go against this local consensus. It's also clear that you do not understand how NAVBOXes work nor are you reading the documentation correctly. As long as an article discusses the topic of the navbox, it can be included on the navbox. For instance, most of the articles linked in Template:Prophets in the Quran do not mention one or more of the other entries. I'd love to see you take your logic to that navbox and start removing content. I suggest you ask about this particular navbox at the Wikipedia pages you repeatedly and unnecessarily link in your responses to see if your interpretation or mine is correct. IJ will not comment on your misinterpretations or misconceptions any further. I will, however, restore any links that you remove for the reason you stated. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You did call me a "tendentious editor", point. A consensus on a reverted bold edit doesn't exist, and assuming such when there's an ongoing discussion on the subject means showing behaviour of someone who's trying to impose its own WP:POV on the matter and trying to WP:OWN the template. I've never said that the entries on a template should refer to each other to validate themselves, but that the main article should refer to the entries (and vice-versa, somewhat), and looking at the example you brought, thats just what the main article does, so, yeah, another bogus argumentation from your part. By the way, even if that wasn't the case and you were right on that regard, the argument would still be bogus per WP:OSE and WP:OTHERCONTENT. You could have focused your energy in addresing the points I made, and tried to solve the problems of WP:RS and WP:COHERENCE, but the flawed and baseless argumentation shown here, combined with the unwillingness to comply with the BRD cycle, tells me that you don't seem to be that interested on "improving" the template, like you claimed before. ABC paulista (talk) 13:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The requested edits were made, hopefully this ends the argument (TL;DR on that btw).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I see two edits to extreme metal and one to unblack metal and another to the third. @3family6: I don't think you have any problem removing the Christian metal alone. Correct? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3family6 Actually, what I asked is a whole reconstruction of the Unblack metal and National Socialist black metal articles to better reflect their status as subgenres because, by my understanding as a reader on these articles, is that they aren't subgenres but rather ideologies. And that is reflected on the Black metal page, where they are placed under the Ideologies rather than the subgenre's one, and on the Template:Heavy metal music, they are both placed on the "controversies" section rather than the subgenre's too. So being treated as subgenres on some places, and as ideologies at others, is confusing to the reader, and such inconsistency on information fail WP:COHERENCE. Do you think that these points could be addressed? Edit: I see you are already starting it, so I'm content for now. ABC paulista (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those articles could use a lot of work in other ways, but that's ridiculous to insist that all that must be done before altering the templates. If you want it that urgently, do it yourself. Be BOLD (BRD, yes?).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3family6 I don't think that these changes I proposed are urgent (not that I care about these genres either, not into them), but I do think that these changes are necessary for consistency. But like I said before, I'm content with what you done now, for the time being. ABC paulista (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They could use some re-work as at least one of contributors is not the best at writing prose, but there is no need to rewrite them to reflect that they are sub-genres because they both inherit from various streams. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean with "they both inherit from various streams"? ABC paulista (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No genre lives, grows and dies on its own. For unblack metal, it was influenced by black metal, and various streams of Christian music including Christian metal and likely to some extent contemporary worship music. It makes no sense to force every article to have the same format when they all grew in different ways. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, it seems me that you're stating, or at least implying, that these characteristics "automatically" gives them the status of subgenres, am I right? If yes, I don't think I agree with this, because regional and local scenes like Swedish death metal, Les Légions Noires and Bay Area thrash metal have similar "inheritance", but they aren't considered subgenres of their own. ABC paulista (talk) 02:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then I hope that those articles have their own edit history and article form. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All these articles have the same format, using the same genre infobox and with similar sections and overall organization. What differs them is their content and sourcing. ABC paulista (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asarlaí, ready to start discussing the matter? ABC paulista (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Extreme_metal&oldid=1230697734"