This page is within the scope of WikiProject Black Metal, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Black MetalWikipedia:WikiProject Black MetalTemplate:WikiProject Black MetalBlack Metal articles
Here it is. It's mostly kinda minimal for now, since I've copied it all from Undeath's pages and the parent project's pages. I haven't changed the colors yet though. That may be something to do later on. = ∫tc5th Eye02:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this get's big, which if I have anything to do with it, it will, I'll branch out and make a separate wikiproject. Undeath (talk) 03:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea if we actually are, but it was the first thing that came to my mind. We can change it if we get complaints, but I hope we won't because it's petty awesome. = ∫tc5th Eye18:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is pretty awesome. J Milburn is right about wikipedia not being censored and I realize the inverted cross is actually originally a Christian symbol (and still is; though uncommon), but it's obvious we're not using it that way... Blizzard Beast$ODIN$19:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just added a handful of template. I know you guys have all added way more than me, but how could you have forgotten Mayhem and Immortal!? Or Enslaved? Or Rotting Christ? Anyways. Argh! What is this? Celtic Frost, Hellhammer and Mercyful Fate were also forgotten! And Desaster and Emperor! As well as Marduk and Gorgoroth? Why are you guys mostly focusing on small bands? We should get the biggest bands in the genre first if you want more people to join. Satyricon, Sepultura and some of the 1st wave bands like Death SS were also overlooked. Blizzard Beast$ODIN$19:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm moving through categories in an orderly fashion so as to get as many down as possible. I would have got to them eventually! J Milburn (talk) 20:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about Slayer? I was going to add the template but I was'nt sure. I know they never played the style, but they were pretty influential to it, their early stuff anyways. Blizzard Beast$ODIN$19:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work. I'd just like to add that assessment on these articles is pretty easy if the Metal project already has a template their (most, if not all, do); I've always copied the class from the HMM one to the BM one. I dunno about the importance factor; it's pretty ambiguous for now. = ∫tc5th Eye02:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah; I was just going for mass tagging here- if/when I start doing assessments, I would generally like to accompany it with a quick clean of the article. Some of them are awful... J Milburn (talk) 07:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm ... I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade but task forces are not supposed to add yet another banner to the overcrowded talk pages of articles. Instead, task forces are supposed to be integrated into the parent project banner per this. For an example of how a task force is integrated into the parent project banner, take a look at the Christian music banner at Talk:Christian metal where the Christian metal task force is integrated or better yet Talk:Demilitarisation where two different military related task forces are integrated. The WikiProject Military history apparently has the most number of task forces so perhaps we could learn some things from them. --Bardin (talk) 04:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hmmm... perhaps I should have read that before making that … I'd fix it but I'm tired of working on templates at the moment :) = ∫tc5th Eye04:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that, but I had resigned myself to the belief that we were a separate project in everything but name. Also, Christian metal still has tags everywhere. I guess we could just split off from WP:HMM, I have a few ideas about what we could do as a project that the metal project itself would struggle with... J Milburn (talk) 07:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, well, if we're going to move it, it'll be best to do it now before it gets too big. I know it's ironic considering I was the one who said it should be a task force, but what's the general opinion on moving it? J Milburn (talk) 07:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, whoever wants to coordinate that will have to move everything to WikiProject Black metal, rather than WikiProject Metal/Black metal task force, and fix the bits and bobs (userbox, talk page banner) appropriately. Remember the categories will also need renaming- do it manually and I'll delete the old ones. There's also a central list of WikiProjects somewhere, and a note on the WP:HMM page wouldn't go amiss. J Milburn (talk) 19:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll post here when I find a band that needs an article. (i have five accounts on metal archives lol) I'll scan the pages of the metal encyclopedia looking for notable bands. Here is the first one.
I'll make a deal. If someone makes a page for the band, I'll make all the album pages. (I made all of the Horna album pages as well as all the Astrofaes album pages too.) Undeath (talk) 07:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oooooooh! I like the "things to do" list. Very organized. Well I could help with the Musta Surma page, but it might have to wait a bit. I'm quite busy at the moment. Blizzard Beast$ODIN$18:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
HAIL There! Good work are doing! Someone can search for Ancestor, a Black Metal band from Cuba? Think they need an article. Three records. strong career, well known label too. Lord Dakkar (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since we have mass tagged bands, and seeing as we are growing fairly fast in relation to users and articles, I think it's time, already, to move the task force to a full blown project. I'm willing on doing the move, but I want your opinions. I think that a task force limits exposure and the formation of a new group will attract new members. Undeath (talk) 05:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Considering how I totally screwed up the formation of the task force and how it's basically a project in its own right, I don't really see why not. = ∫tc5th Eye05:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized that we don't need a consensus as this is a project and not a regular page, but, I'll wait a bit. I'll move the page when I wake up sometime within the next day or two. (I have insomnia, so when I sleep, I sleep a long time. I havn't slept in...4 days now XD) Undeath (talk) 06:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Now I can't sleep again. Time for x box and tv. I'll hopefully bore myself to sleep. Lol. I'll be back on later. More than likely tomorrow. (late tomorrow) Undeath (talk) 07:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to make the move now. If any objections ever occur, I can always move it back, but, for the time being, the move is taking place. Please notify me if a page is left unmoved, or move it yourself. Undeath (talk) 00:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wicked sweet. I hope not too many people join. That would kinda ruin it for me. I like a small group. Only for the elite. Is he joking? Is he serious? Hmmm. Indeed. Blizzard Beast$ODIN$22:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have decided to bring up this topic because I am sceptical over the decision to list Gaahl and King as the members based on a statement that was issued in December 2007. Allow me to paste here an extract from a post I made on their forums:
So, if I can comprehend the legal situation correctly:
King and Anders Odden apply for trademark in September 2007
Egil Horstad (Infernus' lawyer) warns King and Gaahl that the application was in violation of Norwegian trademark law and threatens legal action in October 2007
In December 2007, a week after Regain publicly announce their decision to side with Infernus, a statement is released saying that the Norwegian Patent Office have gone in favour of Gaahl and King.
So, I'm under the impression that after having read Horstad's letter, King did succeed in getting the trademark for Gorgoroth, but:
'§ 2. The exclusive right to a trademark may also be acquired without registration when the trademark is established by use.'
'§ 14. 7 it is liable to be confused with a trademark which someone else has started to use before the applicant, and the applicant was aware of this use when he filed his application for registration;'
Therefore, the application was considered an abrogation of the above conditions and hence illegal and so now it's going through the second office and the courts.
And if I'm correct, King and Gaahl released the statement to counter Regain's, and ensure that the masses (as exemplified by select users on youtube etc.) would ignore Infernus and flock to them.
To iterate, I am personally convinced that the article which prompted the listing of King and Gaahl as the current members really concerns itself with the possibility that the First Department of the Norwegian Patent Office gave their approval to King and Gaahl, not a court decision like King says. I believe that King is deceiving the public into thinking that a court case has closed the settlement for good in a bid to get them to ignore Infernus.
While I am aware that it has been argued that the Norwegian Patent Office has given authority to King and Gaahl, and hence they should be listed as the current members, one could also argue that due to the conditions from the Patenstyret Trademark Act I listed above, this was done in an illicit and illegal manner and hence this authority is dubious.
Therefore, I think the current revision of the Gorgoroth article is inappropriately biased and hence for the time being requires further revision in order to ensure NPOV.
As of now, the current member list is correct. Until all legal matters are resolved, when that time will be is unknown, the article will be a hard one to ensure complete NPOV. Undeath (talk) 06:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I feel that it is not neccessarily correct because the trademark was arguably acquired illegitimately, and Gaahl and King are possibly being given more credence than they deserve. I propose that both line ups should be listed on the page, while in the introduction it should be stressed that there is a legal dispute and there should be a comprehensive section on the legal dispute within the article. Dark Prime (talk) 09:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a disinterested observer who has not even heard of the band till now, it seems to me that the inclusion of this King and Gaahl as the band members has a reliable source for verifiability: the Norwegian Patent Office. Does the contention that this recognition is illicit, illegal and dubious has a reliable source for verifiability or would that be original research? --Bardin (talk) 11:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This link (in the infernus myspace blog link in this article, click 'older' to see the letter), which refers to a letter (from October 2007) by attorney Egil Horstad from Vogt & Wiig, where he warned Gaahl and King that the latter's application for the trademark back in September 2007 violated some terms from the Patenstyret trademark act. I will admit I have done original research to see if these claims were reliably cited, but at the same time I did this research based on material provided by Infernus: done in the same fashion as King and Gaahl and hence I feel for the time being Infernus should deserve as much credence as them. Because of not only this original research but also the news article relating to Infernus (e.g. employing trademark expert Kate Lohren) as well as the fact that his Gorgoroth site is still intact, I feel the current revision of the Gorgoroth wikipedia article is supporting the apparent misconception that 'the case is closed' - as according to King in the wake of a statement referring to the approval of the first dept. of the Patent Office that was released a week after Regain Records decided to side with Infernus. Dark Prime (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't this discussion be better at Talk:Gorgoroth? This page is good for drawing attention to article-specific discussions that could use further opinions, but not for actually having them. Having discussions here limits it more to WikiProject members rather than other editors who may be interested, and you can't really make article-specific edits based upon a consensus here. J Milburn (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll copy the discussion over to Talk:Gorgoroth then. I just felt that since this project was possibly becoming an assertive body then it would be ideal to take matters here. Dark Prime (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I say, notifying the project of page-specific discussions is a great idea, but discussion here should be about the project itself or to develop consensus regarding several pages. J Milburn (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just found this Wikiproject from Wikiproject Metal, and I'm interested in contributing. I'm a big black metal fan myself. It looks like you guys have done a good job starting it up. However, I think to start with we all should pick an important article and focus on it. Maybe we can focus on improving the Black metal, Mayhem, Burzum, or Immortal articles to good article or even featured article status? I believe this is the best way to get a fresh start on improving the black metal articles on Wikipedia. It's a shame to see even the most important black metal related articles as stubs. dethmetal (talk) 02:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you proposing a collaborative effort? The black metal article has a long way to go before it can get to FA class. There are a lot of paragraphs that are completely devoid of any references. There also appears to be an abundance of original research. It looks like something that needs a near complete overhaul. I say near complete because there are some bits with references that can be salvaged. If we're going to do a collaborative effort, then I'd suggest that we should discuss things over in some detail first since we might not all be in agreement as to what this black metal article should contain. Perhaps create a sandbox with an accompanying talk page where we can exchange ideas, share links and sources, experiment around with the placement of photos and samples, etc. That's what I did when I worked on the folk metal and gothic metal articles, only I was pretty much on my own in both cases. --Bardin (talk) 12:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I might have some input here, I feel that the ideology section could do with some revision. Although the opening sentence acknowledges that any attempt to try an establish an ideology is bound to generalise to the extent that certain traits are played up unfairly, I would suggest that some of the following sentences should be rewritten. The sentences imply that black metal has to be about nihilism, nationalism or individualism. While personally I agree with invidualist sentiment, it should be stressed that fundamentally black metal bands have promoted anti-Right Hand Path sentiment (particularly anti-Christian sentiment) in some way or another, and to a lesser extent misanthropy. Theistic or LaVeyan Satanists aren't Pagans or nihilists, Euronymous wasn't an individualist, Pagans aren't nihilists, there's too much inconsistencies to promote a 'coherent ideology' that goes further than anti-Right Hand Path sentiment or misanthropy. Furthermore, while select black metal musicians have been philosophically and ideologicaly inclined, they've also at times expressed disinterest in a 'coherent black metal ideology' or subculture, instead preferring to go about their own devices.
I can definitely support this idea (focusing on a single important article for a while) but I probably won't help out- I'd rather focus on categorisation and working with the smaller bands (deleting where necessary, cleaning everything else, adding a source here and there- perhaps writing up a couple) than heavy aiming-for-FA writing. J Milburn (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. A good idea however is to gather some sources first. Does anybody have any reliable sources that can be used for the article? dethmetal (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To start with, I think it would be good to account for interviews by Euronymous and Ihsahn among others as far as ideology goes, since it never really was concrete. Dark Prime (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, but don't forget, Euronymous contradicts what a lot of other black metal musicians say. Euronymous claimed that there was indeed what him and the members called 'The Inner Circle', but a lot of black metal musicians deny there ever being a cult like group. Varg, for one, denies this. If the source is reliable, however, that shouldn't be a problem. dethmetal (talk) 23:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then that should be mentioned in the article - Euronymous I believe, was a theistic Satanist, whereas most black metal musicians use Satanism as an image. Altogether, Euronymous' views were a bit different to the majority of black metal musicians. ≈ The Haunted Angel23:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are other satanist black metal musicians of Euronymous' ilk (Deathspell Omega I think, among others), and I'm inclined to believe Infernus is also a theistic satanist. However I don't think they share the same subservient sentiment that Euronymous had though. A lot of the satanist black metal musicians have different ways of going about Satanism. Fundamentally however, whereas the majority of black metal musicians seem to be individualist and somewhat anti-collectivist, Euronymous was the opposite. If I may opine, personally, I'm inclined to disagree with the idea of a coherent black metal ideology other than perhaps anti-christianity/right hand path or misanthropy. Not even the members of Gorgoroth concern themselves much with how other black metal bands go about their business. (from Dark Prime, forgot to log in, sorry) 90.196.92.177 (talk) 10:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being one of the founding members, I think it would be a great idea, instead of having a regular sign up, to have members ask to be admitted to the project. Not to sound elite (lol), but I think that members to the project should show a bit of dedication before joining. I don't like the idea of someone who joins just to put the userbox on their page. We have a small group now, but, a small group of dedicated people is better than a large group of opportunists. Please discuss. Undeath (talk) 06:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think we can allow that- I understand what you feel, but that is very much against Wikipedia's ideals. I think a reasonable compromise could be removing people from the list if they have not edited any black metal articles after having signed up (give them a few months) and/or if they are indefinitely blocked. J Milburn (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two more thoughts- firstly, why do we need to protect entry anyway? We know who's a good editor and whatnot, and there's no reason to stop people joining as a member gets nothing that a non-member doesn't- respected members can maybe expect a little more, but so can respected non-members. Secondly, if you are concerned about new members not editing the subject area, watchlist the members list and contact any new members, offering them a few things they can do for the project. If you do do that, remember to be welcoming and not too gnashy. J Milburn (talk) 18:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree with Milburn - the other idea of course, is to have an "inactive" section, so if any members don't really do much in a couple of months, then we move them to there. ≈ The Haunted Angel19:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's against any policy. It's just like trying to become an admin or have rollback features. I don't like the idea of a group of people joining that have no intention on doing anything. Undeath (talk) 21:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Follow the spirit, not the letter, of the rules. In any case, there's not really any way that you can compare this to rollback/adminship- it's not like users get any rights from adding themselves to the user list. No harm can come to Wikipedia from them abusing their position as a WikiProject Black Metal members. J Milburn (talk) 22:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are right in the fact that no harm can come, but no good can come too. Having people in the group just to say they are in the group should not be allowed. Undeath (talk) 05:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then follow one of the suggested methods above- there's a fine line between keeping the member list clean and becoming a clique, and having to go through a procedure to enter the project crosses the line. J Milburn (talk) 11:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If that was the case, then there would be no harm in removing them from the list (as long as they were given an adequate amount of time- a couple of weeks at least- to make said contributions). I've personally removed a lot of 'members' from the list on one of my other projects. J Milburn (talk) 17:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of booting them from the list, and effectivly the WikiProject, I think they should just be moved to an inactive section - lest we start to bite people. ≈ The Haunted Angel17:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, guys. I have no problem with what you've all suggested, but I was wondering something. I was one of the founding members as well (the second one to join actually) but I have been semi-retired and inactive in any editing for some time. I'm still not sure if I want to come back (wikipedia really pisses me off in a lot of ways) but I noticed I was removed from the members. I was thinking I may come back, at least to work on this project, if nothing else, so do I just join up again or what? Blizzard Beast$ODIN$17:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, join up, edit without joining up, whatever. This isn't particularly active as a project anyway. Sorry to see you go- perhaps just taking a little time off or focussing on another area of the project would be best? That's what I often do. J Milburn (talk) 17:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate it if a few people could voice their opinions at the link above so that we can get some kind of consensus regarding something that could effect a lot of our black metal categories. I'll say no more here- I'll leave your opinion to be influenced by what is said at the discussion. J Milburn (talk) 12:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think anti-Christian values are what springs to mind when one thinks of black metal. In any case, as I mentioned above, it's also a Christian symbol, so also embraces the 'Christian black metal' (if such a thing exists) bands. If you have another suggestions (an svg image of someone wearing corpse paint, perhaps?) we're all ears. J Milburn (talk) 11:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undoubtedly, anti-Right Hand Path sentiment is prominent among most black metal bands, but personally I've always taken a Tolkien-style (well, he was a Christian and Iluvatar = God and Melkor/Morgoth = Lucifer/Satan) approach to 'black metal', heh. (Dark Prime) 90.196.92.177 (talk) 12:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To Milburn, it is a paradox to have "Christian Black Metal". The two contradict themselves down to the roots. If any article here claims that, change it to unblack metal. And no, the project does not cover unblack bands. Undeath (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I put it in inverted commas. I can't see why we shouldn't cover unblack metal- it's certainly linked to black metal in the same way blackened death metal is. J Milburn (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I do agree it is paradoxical - even if there wasn't the vehement anti-Christianity - I still think that such a stance is considerably biased and unnecessarily elitist as it reflects personal opinion - although I understand that some christian or other metal projects may cover unblack metal, this is wikipedia after all. Meanwhile, Satyr from Satyricon (and yes, I know they've been walking the same path as Dimmu etc. lately) has also said that black metal 'just needs to be dark'. We shouldn't generalise just like that. 90.196.92.177 (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Satyr does not define what black metal is. Besides, most bands, especially underground ones, believe that black metal is satanist/pagan in nature. Christian metal has it's own project. This is not the place for it. Undeath (talk) 18:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most bands have different motives for their anti-christianity. Effectively, you are arguing in favour of a centralised subculture. Furthermore, it's not like any of these bands received the recognition of Venom anyway as black metal bands (even though they've all had anti-christian lyrical themes), given that they coined the term and labeled themselves black metal. If anyone is a supreme authority, it's them.90.196.92.177 (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter one way or another. The image will not move becuase it offended a christian. Unblack metal won't be included into the project because it's not black metal. Simple as that. Undeath (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Baphomet's sigil does more justice to the genre, as he was on the cover of Venom's Welcome to Hell.
Eh? I never asked for the image to be removed, and I have no objection to it. And I'm can't say I'm really petitioning for the inclusion of unblack metal either, given that it's already covered by other projects. But I'm appalled that in light of the arguments I've given you, you merely respond 'simple as that'. And btw, check out the Gorgoroth talk page. 18:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.92.177 (talk)
I respond with simple as that becuase it has no reason to be changed. Unblack metal is not even dark. Plus, if you want to have another definition of black metal, take a look at King of Hell's interview on youtube. He says, that to be truly black metal, you need to have a satanic agenda. Undeath (talk) 19:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're deciding that one person - who wasn't (at least prominently) involved with black metal until 1999 and has been involved for no longer than Satyr (sorry if I might have implied he was an authority) - can define black metal, when he can't even maintain the integrity of Gorgoroth or his own (((btw, I know that Infernus has insisted on satanism as well))). If he was that concerned about his agenda, would he be touring with a non-serious band such as Cradle of Filth? He also said in a recent interview that he did not care for how other black metal bands went about their business, just Gorgoroth (with which I agree in principle) Being an A-Level History student (and thus I would have dealt with sources since GCSE History which I did entirely outside of school other than the exam papers themselves and got an A), I'm insulted you suggest I have to adhere to a specific source.
Funnily enough, you also referred to Paganism earlier, which he said was 'no good' (though Jotunspor was described as black metal). Either way, although I myself would have considerably anti-collectivist (with religion among other things being collectivist) were I to be a black metal musician myself, it's because of the considerable lack of integrity of many and all the inconsistencies here and there as well as the opening for herd mentality that personally I reject the notion of a centralised, coherent, black metal ideology. Especially with all the fanboyism. That said (given my hostility towards emphasised subculture etc.), I can say that I would certainly not consider myself a 'fan'. At best, perhaps a third party observer in some respects. On a humourous note, I suppose this can explain some of my opinions better than I can, though I wouldn't say its absolute. Dark Prime (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that unblack metal should still be covered by this project - musically, it's still black metal, even if lyrically, it has a different ideology. Often when you listen to an unblack band, it'll still sound like black metal - there's no harm in a band being covered by both the black metal WikiProject and the Christian metal WikiProject. ≈ The Haunted Angel20:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, unblack metal still counts for the most part. And as I've said before, I only chose the original image impulsively… if someone can think of anything better, I see no reason to change it.
All this discussion is tiring, to be frank. If all of you focused your efforts on improving an article instead of all this discussion, then we'd see some results so to speak. LuciferMorgan (talk) 02:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unblack metal. Let's just take a look at the word. The prefix UN makes it the opposite. So unblack is the opposite of black metal. That being said, it should not be included in the black metal wikiproject. Also, being as unblack is christian, how much of a ruckus do you think we might stir up by placing our little template on christian talk pages lol. Undeath (talk) 06:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lucifer Morgan does make a good point. Nonetheless, unblack metal is still black metal - lyrically it may be different, but musically it is considered by the same as regular black metal. And as was stated earlier, the inverted Crucifix is in fact a Christian symbol. Even if some people take offence to it, it's not like we're putting it on the Christianity page itself - just the music pages. ≈ The Haunted Angel11:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This might sound childish, but I'll not be editing the unblack articles. It's just my stance on issues that I feel particularly strong about. This goes beyond wikipedia. (right now i'm still working on the discog. for Graveland. Undeath (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that respect, I'm actually quite concerned that you think this project should cover NSBM. As with unblack metal, I would support covering it in regards to its relationship with conventional black metal etc. but do you regard their ideas of racial superiority etc. as black metal, then? Dark Prime (talk) 18:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now here's an interestic topic: I may not agree with the theology behind NSBM, but it is still black metal, regardless. Their ideals of racial superiorty may not be black metal per se, but I can see where they are connected - NSBM draw a lot of influences from old Nordic Paganism, and the same goes with Nazism itself - and black metal's inspirations do come from all forms of paganism. So yeah, I think that even NSBM should be covered by this project, as it is still black metal. On the main article, mention could be made of national socialist traits, but only in rarer cases. ≈ The Haunted Angel18:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? Black metal started off with satanic themes. Although eventually it became just anti-right hand path or the like, the paganism wasn't so much there to start with. Just Bathory's 'Blood Fire Death' would inspire the sentiment that developed later on during the second wave. I wouldn't recognise NSBM as black metal were it not for anti-individualist black metal musicians like Euronymous. Dark Prime (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But again, all the "Satanist" themes are derrived from paganism. If you look at your history of Christianity, they persecuted the pagans for being "Satanists", which is the real inspiration behind all the left hand path religions, Satanist or otherwise (LaVeyan Satanism included). Even if you don't count Satanist elements, many black metal bands draw inspiration from the ancient pagan religions. What it comes down to is opposing Christianity - and Christianity's oldest enemy is paganism, as the pagan religions were prominant in Europe before the Abrahamic religions were born, thus, many black metal bands will in one way or another embrace elements of the pagan theologies. ≈ The Haunted Angel19:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NSBM is, sadly, black metal. National Socialist black metal. While the points and views are different, most of the members come from true black metal bands, or are related to a tru black metal band. Undeath (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A problem is occurring here, in the sense that the focus has shifted away from a project discussion towards a discussion as regards black metal. If anyone has GA or FA aspirations as concerns a specific article, I'm willing to review that article for them - I have 4 FAs under my belt which are all on music related topics, so would be more than willing to help. LuciferMorgan (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, defining black metal is essential to the project. Please mind that the project is new. Very new. We must get a good footing down before setting off. The problems need to be worked out. Undeath (talk) 03:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the definitions are pretty clear already. LuciferMorgan is right, and seems to be the most sound of mind here. We're supposed to be improving articles in general. We can do this without worrying about what things are defined as. = ∫tc5th Eye03:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either way. This is still a new project. I knew there would be some problems to work out before I propsed creating this. Anyway, a good article to work on is Horna. Just a thought... Undeath (talk) 05:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just picked an easier article. IMO, the main article needs a LOT of work done to it. We need to have a few people start helping us on it. I can help write a decent history section. We need to get the notable artists, the controversies surrounding the genre, and much more. Undeath (talk) 16:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, well we'll start with Horna, and a few other bands, then move up to the main article fairly soon. Shall we have a collaberation of the week sort of effort? As in, we go all out on one particular article every week? ≈ The Haunted Angel16:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm expanding and cleaning up Horna at the moment, BUT the album articles and navbox need a shitload of work, as they rarely follow style guidelines and the navbox is really confusing. Also, the album titles need to be decapitalized as per Finnish capitalization standards. = ∫tc5th Eye17:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I'm not seeing it. It looks fine to me- are there non-stuio albums in the studio album section, perhaps? Stylistically, it's fine, but it may need the attention of someone who knows the band better than me. J Milburn (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few non studio releases there. I'll take care of it. BTW, I added this section for convienence and reformatted the comments accordingly. Undeath (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Tartarean Desire biography cannot be deemed a reliable source. Please find reliable sources to cite the information which Tartarean Desire claims is true. LuciferMorgan (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to have lost track of their studio albums, the main page only lists (and the articles call themselves):
Here's where the controvosy is going to arise - the point is that Dimmu is still covered by this WikiProject, even if they arn't "true" black metal anymore. What I'm suggesting though, is that after we finish the collaberation on Horna, that we work on the Dimmu article. Arguably the most popular "black metal" band about, their article has become a bit of a flagship for extreme metal as a whole - and whether or not you consider them black metal at all, they do represent the genre, and by effect, this project as a whole. And so, I suggest that after the collaberation on Horna is done, we work on the Dimmu article, particuarly the genres - getting as many references and sources for them as possible. ≈ The Haunted Angel18:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh… I should have known that all this elitism about "true" black metal was going to crop up. (Not aimed at you, THA.) Yes, we should cover Dimmu Borgir, regardless of what genre they are now, since they used to be quite a traditional black metal band (in a sense). Their article does need a bit of work, especially since there is a lot of genre controversy. (Though it isn't really controversy at all—more like people who don't know how Wikipedia works adding their own misguided opinions and "facts".) = ∫tc5th Eye19:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm trying to avoid the eliteism for this point - but the Dimmu article really does need a clean up and its own MoS for the genres, at least. I'm sure you can guess, 5th Eye, that it's the IP editor on the page now that has bought my mention of this up ≈ The Haunted Angel19:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He won't give up. I've warned him again, but even with three people reverting his edits I don't think he'll stop until he's blocked. = ∫tc5th Eye19:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, a lot of people may be in breach of the 3RR there. It's not a specialty area of mine, at all, so I'll leave it to another admin to deal with. Also, 3RR reports should not be made at AIV as they are not usually that simple (as it isn't in this case). Instead, reports should be made at the three revert rule noticeboard. J Milburn (talk) 19:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I realised that we might be breaking the 3RR ourselves - but I feel that this is a time to ignore the rules to keep Wikipedia a bit neater. I didn't know bout the 3RRN though - I'm sure I've reported people to AIV in the past for 3RR and they've been dealt with from there. We'll see how it goes ≈ The Haunted Angel19:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he's been blocked now - so, now that that's cleared up, shall we go back to the discussion of making our next Collaberation of the Week being Dimmu Borgir? ≈ The Haunted Angel19:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I've added a Collaboration of the Week section to the main page. (There would probably be a better way to do it, using templates or something, but whatever.) = ∫tc5th Eye19:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dimmu is still considered symphonic black metal. Their newest cd only proves it. Songs like The Serpentine Offering fit under no other category other than Symphonic black metal. Either way, even if you all disagree, Dimmu will still be covered because they were originally a black metal band. Undeath (talk) 20:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, but the point is that we need to find reliable sources for the main page and all of the albums. Still, this is something to do next week - we'll concentrate on Horna for now. ≈ The Haunted Angel20:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Infernal hails, my black metal brethren. I've returned from my absence and I wish to be of assistance. I feel bad, having been gone for the past few weeks. After all I was the second person to join this project (at least on the original page along with Undeath, which was moved to this wikiproject) and I feel I should be doing more. As for this Deehmu Burger business, what exactly needs fixing on the article? It seems that most of the arguement is about the genres and nothing else. My opinion is that they're early stuff is symphonic black metal and their later stuff is symphonic extreme metal; same as Emperor. I suppose I could see how Dyhmoo Burger might be a "flagship" for this project (as far as mainstream popularity goes), but if there's so much controversy about the genre, they should just be called extreme metal and possibly symphonic metal. That should hopefully stop some of the controversy. A hidden message should help (it usually does) in the genre area stating that anyone who changes the genre(s) will be reverted and that they must instead discuss it on the talk page. Blizzard Beast$ODIN$17:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course - there are a few sections which perhaps need a tidy up, just to get it a bit more prestine (and hopefully up to GA status), but the genre is the main point. I do agree with what you're saying, Nav, but we'll still need all the sources and references just to secure the dispute. ≈ The Haunted Angel18:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6 refs now – however, some of them do not seem to satisfy WP:RS and should probably be removed. I would also recommend removing the refs from the infobox - looks clogged. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 19:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
#3, anus.com - in the context of sourcing the genre which seems to be in debate, this is not a reliable source.
same goes, even more, fore #2, fabchannel.com
#1, metalstorm.ee is more borderline, i guess this one can be kept without a doubt - even though i dislike pages that index kiddycore music. :-)
#5, nuclearblast.de, is a primary source.
#4, EM, we all know its importance, yet, previous discussions have led to the consensus that it is not a reliable source.
Now, i'm not going to remove anything, and i guess those refs are better than nothing. Still, that is something you could improve. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 19:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After looking through anus.com, I'd have to agree with what you said about that - the other links though, I'll give a more thourough look-through. Don't hesitate on making any edits to the article though! ≈ The Haunted Angel20:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That all sounds good and everything, but people will still war about it. I've never cared to enter that fray. The few times i ever visited the Deehmoo Burger page it had different genres every time...and I didn't care. Now if we really want to prevent warring we might just have to go for something more general. Like "extreme metal," though I must admit that is still hardly close to the truth. We could always just go with "symphonic black metal" which would appease most everyone (even though I still disagree with that label somewhat regarding their later works). We could do something like that and just put a hidden message there, as I said before, and enforce it. No one gets to change the genre unless they discuss it on the talk page and a consensus is reached. I must admit I still think "extreme symphonic metal" is the best label for them, or "symphonic metal" with black metal vocals. Blizzard Beast$ODIN$19:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, how grand were the days before labels were associated with values. While i would definitely agree with both statements – one being that they were definitely related to black metal at some point, and absolutely doing... something else at a later point – i think we should not go with what we believe or know to be right this time. For all i care, the article should state what the first reliable source we can find says, and revert whoever messes with it without providing a better one. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 19:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I guess. It doesn't really matter to me that much anyways. Heh, haven't labels always been associated with values, though? At least for thousands of years. I mean, everyone knows what rock 'n' roll is about. Sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll, right? It doesn't matter if not ALL the rock bands promote that. It's just associated. Blizzard Beast$ODIN$19:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to state to twsx that we do not all actually know the alleged importance of Encyclopaedia Metallum, as it has no importance on Wikipedia. Discographies can be cited using a group's official website, and as for the endless genre discussions, it'd be great if those clowns could actually go on music forums instead and stop wasting people's time. Like above for example; can someone please actually state why Dimmu Borgir's genre is being discussed? Please give a valid reason, and not some hogwash. What should be being discussed is how the article could be improved, and not genre discussions. Or better still, actually go and improve the article. Take the genre discussions elsewhere please - enough time has been wasted on genre discussions. Wikipedia isn't a forum. LuciferMorgan (talk) 11:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But if you'd see, Morgan, I'm not simply discussing the genre, I'm trying to achieve a consensus so that there is no more edit warring over the genre. It's being discussed because it's the main problem with the article, as it is the thing most under attack in the article itself. The valid reason is that I'm aiming to have a well sourced consensus which is in place so that IP's and other users can't push their POV onto it. I'm not stopping any other edits of the article, just trying to tackle the largest problem with it so far. ≈ The Haunted Angel12:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick question. Is blackened thrash metal, like Immortal, and blackened death metal, like Behemoth, covered in this project? dethmetal (talk) 02:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's covered. I also think that we should cover viking metal, but that's all up to you guys too. I havn't been on lately because my laptop is being repaired. (I'm on my phone right now)Undeath (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Viking and folk are both sub-genres of Heavy Metal. They are similar to black metal and melo death, but I do believe they are their own original sub-genre. Undeath (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a subgenre of black metal, it would by transition also be a subgenre of heavy metal... it could be both. Black metal is just more specific. Although, looking at List of Viking metal bands, I'm kind of thinking that, since the genres are kinda varied, that viking metal is like Christian metal—only differing in lyrical subject. But maybe that's not true. I dunno. = ∫tc5th Eye02:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We should cover Viking metal as it was created by a black metal band. Nevermind whether or not it's a subgenre of bm. However, it should not be a primary focus. As for 5theye...what are you saying? Christian metal!? "viking metal is like Christian metal" You're going to have to explain what you meant on that comment. Oh and to M2K 2/dethmetal...huh? Immortal...blackened thrash??? Maybe on, like, one album or so, but that's pure black metal right there...all the way. Timeless frost. Anyways, this project is getting many more members...how disappointing. Blizzard Beast$ODIN$16:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering what you all thought of something. The New Wave of American Heavy Metal. Do you believe it exists or not? I personally, do not. I think it's the same thing as metalcore which is where it used to redirect. User:Lykantrop sees otherwise and created the article which I am now contemplating deleting. I have made many of my arguements here on the "NWOAHM" talk page and made even more on the talk page of metalcore in the section about this "NWOAHM." I think it does not exist for many reasons and per WP:NEO and pure logic it should be deleted. Tell me what you think. If you need to here some of my arguments for why it doesn't exist feel free to ask and I'll deliver a pile of 'em. Blizzard Beast$ODIN$17:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it. It's false and un-important. There seems to be a rise in American black metal bands, but that does not have a name. Go ahead and nominate it for AfD. Undeath (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I may not have the time to delete it (we'll see) as I'm constantly busy now and am pretty sick of wikipedia, but I do wanna see that article be deleted. I hope I can count on you guys to express your opinions (w/e they may be) about this "NWOAHM" when it gets nominated for deletion.
I kinda feel bad, though, that I haven't been putting a lot of time into this project. I was the second member to join and yet I haven't even done much. We'll see what the future holds... Blizzard Beast$ODIN$18:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's 22nd June, and another collaboration has not been decided. Here are the differences that were made to Dimmu Borgir, and here are the differences made to black metal. To be frank, the above articles have added little, if any improvement at all. In fact, one editor of this project even added Metal Archives as a citation to the Dimmu Borgir article, and has done this to other articles. These are the kind of edits we 110% do not need, and actually go as far as to degrade articles instead of improve them. Such edits highlight why metal articles on Wikipedia are a major embarassment. I hope the editor responsible is taking due note. I'll state this again for the editors here which may not know; Metal Archives has been deemed an unreliable source on numerous occasions in the past (which I wholly agree with), and should not be used in any circumstances. In fact, every time I notice an editor adding Metal Archives as a citation, I intend to warn them of this. If they do not listen, I do not mind taking the issue to WP:ANI. The genre of a group is decided by reputable critics, and nothing less.
Thus far, this project has been nothing but a forum for people to discuss the genres of certain artists. While the talk page is active, mainspace editing certainly isn't. If someone nominated the project for deletion, or tagged it as inactive, I certainly wouldn't stand opposed to the editor taking such an action. I feel the same way about the metal project, which is in the same dire straits. There was the hope this project would be different, but it's not. In all honesty, I fail to understand the project's purpose. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wholeheartedly agree on the first paragraph; the amount of actual work done by this project has been poor at best, and it is indeed embarrassing to have citations to Metal Archives on these articles (I'm disappointed to see no better than metalstorm.ee and anus.com are both still there). I should have foreseen that the elite outlook most black metal (or metal in general) fans have would amount to loads of genre debates, which I feel are totally unnecessary and even childish, and give a bad impression of Wikipedia. However, I think that to best fix the problem, we need to get more people involved with improving articles, regardless of their actual interests/"expertise" (music or otherwise). = ∫tc5th Eye23:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd help more if I could. My uncle has stage 5 lung cancer and I'm trying to spend some time with him before he leaves this world. I have my laptop back now so I'll start editing furiously again. Undeath (talk) 02:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't expect people to edit whom have domestic issues, or even against their will. It's just that if people wish to edit articles, they could at least attempt to learn the ropes. LuciferMorgan (talk) 11:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ughh, i just relogged after 10 days and see some neurotic admin deleted my contributions to Xasthur's "A Gate Through Bloodstained Mirrors"
the deletion log says: "21:04, 23 June 2008 PhilKnight (talk) deleted "A Gate Through Bloodstained Mirrors" (Expired PROD, concern was: reason non-notable vanity album)"
i'm angry. seriously angry. any idea what's the best way to react? Irina666 (talk) 21:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contact PhilKnight. Explain why you believe that the article should not have been deleted, and then you and PhilKnight can discuss what can be done next. J Milburn (talk) 22:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ok, so after i left an infuriated comment on his talk page, our deletionist restored the page... so far so good. would be great if somebody could add some more references, then we could remove the "notability missing" tag. also the articles on Debemur Morti Productions and Total Holocaust Records still wait to be written... cheers, Irina666 (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable)20:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Have you noted that Finnish Wikipedia article about black metal is featured article. If there's some people speaking Finnish it would be great to see our black metal article being also featured. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetruefister (talk • contribs) 15:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I speak Finnish fairly well, but, that article, if it were on en.wikipedia, would probably not be a featured article. Just the standards here compared to the article gives me doubts. However, it does have some good things for us to put in our article. Undeath (talk) 21:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I take that back. After further reading it, I see it's a pretty damn good article. I think I might bring the ogg files over here for a start. Undeath (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, 470 articles are assigned to this project, of which 245, or 52.1%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page.
I have a real problem with unblack bands being covered by this project. For one, an unblack band is not black metal. Unblack is just a term for christian metal. I know you say that Satyr said that black metal just needs to be dark, but, bands like venom and emperor and dark funeral would say the opposite. I propose dropping christian bands from this project. When I created the project, I had no clue unblack would even be considered. (I would not care bout adding blackened death metal, or viking metal though) Undeath (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the template for chrisian metal, which is present on all unblack bands, is the cross. This accompanied by the inverted St. Peter's cross makes the talk page look a bit.....different. Undeath (talk) 22:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want to contribute to those articles, you don't have to. At the moment, this project doesn't really have much oomph anyway, so what it covers isn't particularly important. J Milburn (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, J Milburn. I was going to say that we have every reason to cover unblack metal, but if someone doesn't agree they don't have to participate/edit those articles. = ∫tc5th Eye22:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing my point. Unblack metal is not the same as black metal. It is nowhere near it. Unblack metal is also called light metal. It is the polar opposite of black metal. I don't think it should be included on the project. Undeath (talk) 01:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Depends who you talk to. I don't consider unblack metal to be a different genre from black metal (just as I don't consider Christian rock to be different from secular rock—lyrics≠music). = ∫tc5th Eye01:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I was forced to have an opinion on the issue, I'd be with 5theye, though I don't really think it matters. The very fact that there is this debate and that unblack metal is associated with black metal shows that we should be covering them whether technically they are black metal or not. J Milburn (talk) 09:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion on the matter is that it should be covered by this project. They are not "polar opposites". All Unblack metal is, is just black metal with Christian lyrics. It is still the same genre (idk why it has its own article really; it's like making an article called Christian thrash; same genre, just different lyrics). Blizzard Beast$ODIN$20:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a quote from the bm article (in reference to unblack metal) which should resolve this completely: Like National Socialist black metal, it is viewed as an ideology, not a subgenre, as there is no distinct "style" to play black metal in a Christian way. Bam, this issue is done. Blizzard Beast$ODIN$20:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree. It's done. Unblack and NSBM are not genres. They are just lyrical descriptions. I could shriek about pink fuzzy bunnies and tremolo pick on guitar and blast beat on drums and make it all sound like black metal and the lyrics wouldn't change that. It would still be black metal. If Mayhem decided to talk about how cute babies were in their songs would that make them NOT black metal? No. They'd still be playing black metal. The lyrics would be gay as fuck but musically they'd still be black metal. Lyrics don't have anything to do with genre. Vocal style might, but not lyrics. Not in the least. Blizzard Beast$ODIN$00:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm late to the party as usual, but I'd just like to say that I agree with Blizzard Beast, 5th Eye and J Milburn that unblack metal is indeed simply a form of black metal, and not a separate genre; genres are not defined by lyrics. I brought up the issue over at the List of black metal bands talk page, should anyone be interested; I'm very much of the opinion that unblack bands should be on the list in the light of the above discussion. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way that unblack bands should be covered by the black metal list, especially when unblack has a list of it's own. I still disagree with unblack bands even being remotely close to black metal though. I think that, among black metal bands, that opinion is constantly changing. One group might think they are while the other thinks the opposite. If you ask the members of Dark Funeral if they think christian unblack bands should be called black metal, I could almost bet he would say no. (followed by many curses) Undead Warrior (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact Black Metal has its own philosophy and ideology, originating from the Shock Rock scene and Hardcore Punk, that holy war in which it is about destroying the establishment and massacring the Puritans, originally Black Metal did not adopt Satanism and Thelema as a way of life rather than a mere aesthetic (the Shock Rock). Furthermore, it is possible that a certain band deals with absurdly Satanic and evil themes and its members are Christians, Black Sabbath, so much so that Rob Halford considers "Black Sabbath" the most evil song that ever existed, at the same time, Geezer said in an interview that all of Sabbath's members were Christians, and the Satanic imagery only served to frighten hypocritical flower boys and puritans. In addition, several songs by Blasphemy and Burzum do not have lyrics (an instrumental), which is evil and Satanic in a mere Instrumental compared to "Black Sabbath". I must say here that not only they but also several others, like Tom Araya and Jan Axel Blomberg, were Black Metal warriors at the same time as they were Christians (practical or declared). The Young Prussian (talk) 01:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If someone has not realised already, is that black metal started for its dark and satanic lyrics, despising the word of god. Singing about nice things is not what this is all about. Yes the way they play their instruments is different to death, trash and all other types of metal, but the whole message to the music is evil. To have Unblack bands put into this category is like spitting in all the bands who started the genre's face. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.19.214.253 (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In short, the relationship between Black Metal and anti-Christianity (and consequently Satanism) is the same as that Hardcore punk bands had with Nazism during the late 70's, purely aesthetic. Several bands of the first generation of Black metal did not have the intention of attacking the figure of Christ or Christianity itself, but used satanic figures in order to attack a very broad puritanist mass at the time, being a continuation of the Shock Rock scene of the 1960s. With the only difference that satanic images were now incorporated for the same purpose, since a mere inverted cross brought much more hysteria to a mass of closed minds that simply gore, like W.A.S.P. did.
In an interview with Venom, Conrad Lant said that the band did adopt blatantly satanic imagery in their performances, but members outside of band work didn't spend their free time around pentagrams, candles or inverted crosses, he compared that if the interviewer is interview the Dracula actor outside of his acting zone he won't be wearing fangs as he performed in the film.
The influence that Satanism and Thelema had on the early Black Metal scene was in the same vein as previous genres such as Shock Rock and Occult Rock had, inspired by novels and short stories dealing with the Occult like those by D. Y. Wheatley or H. P. Lovecraft , as similar as Black Sabbath did, considered one of the main precursors of Black Metal. In an interview with Geezer Butler about the reason for the blatant use of satanic imagery in his lyrics and performances he said that it was all aesthetics to scare and that in fact, all of its members were professedly and practically Christians, moreover, not all Black metal bands used satanic imagery, like Celtic Frost, who used dark fantasy instead, and it's unanimous that Celtic Frost is one of the top BM bands of the first generation, so it's not mandatory to use satanic imagery for a band be considered Black metal. And it continued like this until the beginning of Black Metal, with bands like Venom, Celtic frost (and Hellhammer), Bulldozer, Possessed, Slayer, among others, many of these bands having at least one Christian member or ex-member. Who came to exceed themselves was Bathory and Sarcófago, whose members were not only against Christianity but also had a deep aversion to Christian teachings and to Christ himself, this quid pro quo was what originated the Black Metal bands known for the practice of Satanism, in the second generation. However, initially, Black Metal was not against Christianity, but puritanism, which does not differentiate them from Shock Rock and Glam Rock (Metal) bands, only by the melody, which came to innovate through the tremolo picket, extreme distortions, blast beat, among other characteristics of Hardcore punk, which already dealt with similar themes. The Young Prussian (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The page on LLN is - unsurprisingly - nominated for deletion again. My brethren, join the battle to defend our grim and frostbitten history against the ignorant hordes... Any printed review or article mentioning them (inluding Mütiilation) would be a precious weapon to support our noble cause. Hailz, Irina666 (talk) 12:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Got one!..I'll write it out in sighted form, it is from a french metal magazine ( I'm taking a college course in international modern music and my Prof. is a metalhead, he had this lying around..I guess I borrowed it from him and forgot to give it back.
Hey. I need some websites to go on about DSBM to put as references when I write the article. In case you don't know, DSBM is like Xasthur. DSBM is "Depressive Suicidal Black Metal" like Xasthur or Nocturnal Depression.
So if some ov you could give me some sites to learn more about it and to put as refrences, please do. I want to have a really awesome, grim, and frostbitten article for this underappreciated subgenre of black metal.Screambloodygore667 (talk) 00:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a real subgenre. It is a description more than anything else. Just like if I said, "I like fast ambient black metal" or "I like raw thrash metal" or "I like optimistic power metal." Those aren't genres. Just descriptions. They're real descriptions and I know bands that are described by those words but they're not genres. Kreator is considered raw thrash and, yes, their brand of thrash is rawer than most, but their genre is still just thrash. Blizzard Beast$ODIN$00:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. And btw, this is coming from someone who likes DSBM. Well, I like some of it anyways. I like more old school stuff for the most part. For black metal, everything up to the mid-90's was pretty dandy. Then more and more shitty bands came, but that's another story. Blizzard Beast$ODIN$16:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot22:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've reorganised the ideology section. Some elements (individualism most notably, along with nationalism) had been overemphasised. If anyone wants to contest this, feel free to revert it and state your case on the discussion page of the article. Dark Prime (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
can someone please tell me how i can join Wikiproject black metal because i tried to put my username in the list but it was taken away.. Okram 09 (talk) 00:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although the page needs a lot of work, I had noticed that the Ancient (band) page has not been added to WikiProject Black Metal. I think it's crucial to add them, especially when many sources consider them to be stalwarts in the beginning of the second wave of Black Metal (yes, they've become "vampire fags" or whatever people call them since then, but I'm refering to their earlier work). I am a bit new to WikiProject, so I am unsure if this is the right page to bring it up. So please let me know if this needs to be brought up elsewhere.JanderVK (talk) 02:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although they have similar lyrical themes to typical black metal bands, I don't understand why Deicide is included in this project since they're a death metal band. Dark Prime (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, they shouldn't be included. They are a death metal band. Now, I have been thinking on opening up the project for "extreme" metal. (Not -core bands, but black metal, death metal, folk metal, etc... Still no unblack though.) Let me know what you guys think. Undead Warrior (talk) 05:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deicide should not be included in this project. If you're going to make an extreme metal prject don't forget thrash and doom. Also, folk metal itself isn't really an extreme metal genre unless the band fuses it with death or black metal as many of them do. But the genre itself is not extreme metal. Also, I still think unblack metal is just black metal. Lyrics have nothing to do with defining a genre. I could make black metal talking about rabbits and shit if I wanted. Unblack metal still sounds exactly like black metal and musically is no different and that's what we're talking about: MUSIC. Music, not lyrics. Blizzard Beast$ODIN$16:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few important articles on this project that really need a picture. Although they're easy to find on the internet, using them on Wikipedia may not be so easy. So if anyone is able to upload a good picture, please remember the fair use rules.
I haven't been active lately due to school, but I'm almost positive that I have pictures of Bathory live, Hellhammer, Varg Vikernes, and Dead. Undead Warrior (talk) 18:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
HAIL everybody there! I´d like to help in this project. I´ve found that Cuba have a strong underground scene and Ancestor is the most notable Black metal band there. Check out at Metallum Encyclopaedia, Metal Archives. Is a very good band with a demo, a split and a full lenght. Have a strong career and, as said before, the most known BM band from Cuba. Hope someone can help, this band needs an article. Lord Dakkar (talk) 03:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I´m sure this band does meet some of the notability guideline. Have appeared in Heavy Rock Magazine (Spain), and Rock Hard Magazine(Germany), those are well known and respectable publications. Also have appeared several times in the cuban TV in 1 hour shows(the program is also transmited outside the country). Is the most representative Black Metal band in Cuba. I think, as that is a exotic country, that a Black Metal band there is interesting for any BM fan in the world. They have a demo (relased in a bolivian label), a split (relased by a mexican label) and a CD that i´m not sure who relased it. Hope this band can get an article. Lord Dakkar (talk) 23:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was once shocked to find that Bestial Warlust didn't have an article on wikipedia. I then made the article after I got over the shock. I'm thinking about adding some more notable old and new underground black metal bands. I'm gonna start with Elysian Blaze. Australian black funeral doom that, well, rules. Blizzard Beast$ODIN$16:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another article I created about another notable band in the black metal scene. It needs some work, though. Just putting that out there so somebody might clean it up. Blizzard Beast$ODIN$04:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've been busy and still fed up with wiki in a lot of ways. I do a lot of anon editing, though. But life is just very busy right now. I'm about to get my own place and then there's school and work. Argh. 165.196.83.176 (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect (Template:BM) for the project template is now an unrelated template. I would just like to let project members know about this and reassess the many articles that need to be. FireCrystal (talk) 04:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I always used the abbreviation as BLM instead of BM, but in any case, when did the baptist one take place? Was this after the black metal template was made? Undead Warrior (talk) 18:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think so. It was originally a redirect to {{WikiProject Black Metal}} as 'someone' said above so Baptist Mission was made afterwards. Now it redirects back to the black metal template. I'm not sure if the redirect is necessary because there are two possible templates for redirect now: Baptist Mission and WikiProject Black Metal. FireCrystal (talk) 20:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, here is what I see. Our template abbreviation should still be put back in place. The Baptist people should be notified to change their template to something a bit more suiting, and something that does not clash with a previous project. Undead Warrior (talk) 03:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As it says in the subject, Is Job For A Cowboy black metal? I was told it was but on here it says it's death metal. I'm not sure and was wondering if someone could help me out on this. So, is it? Thanks in advance ~Kes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.178.133.185 (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. I think they would be more accurately classified under the death metal/deathcore genre. If you are still confused about their genre, considering creating a discussion on Job For's discussion page. -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 17:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just logged on to this project after a while of inactivity, been really busy, and I see this. 0.o JFAC is in NO WAY black metal. They aren't even real death metal. They are a modern deathcore band. (Yuck). Undead Warrior (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can anybody take a look at Dimmu Borgir article, or precisely, it's page history? User:DingirXul (contibutions) keeps on reverting without explanation in edit summary (except in one edit when I explicitly asked him/her to use the edit summary), and with this edits (s)he seems to be trying to assert that Dariusz Brzozowski (Daray) not only live member, but does not provide any reliable source that undoubtably supports this assertion. (on the other hand, Dimmu Borgir facebook page (which is linked from their official page) explicitly states that Daray is only for touring) Also, some other changes are affected by this reverts.
This is a notification of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums regarding the removal of reviews from the album infobox. The discussion has reached consensus to remove the reviews, though is still accepting further input into the matter. We are especially requiring more discussion on what steps to take next. Your input would be appreciated on what is a matter that will affect a lot of music articles. kiac. (talk-contrib) 09:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request for comment on Biographies of living people
Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:
Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, many wikiproject topics will be effected.
The two opposing positions which have the most support is:
supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect
Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.
Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced BLP articles if they are not sourced, so your project may want to source these articles as soon as possible. See the next, message, which may help.
Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people
If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here
I'm new to all this and I'm not sure if there's a different way of going about this, but the Wiki for Alcest contains the following under 'Band History':
The latest album, titled Souvenirs d'un autre monde, was released in Autumn of 2007 on Prophecy Productions, and drew comparisons with the likes of My Bloody Valentine and Jesu.
This isn't correct; Ecaille de Lune was released this year (2010) and is now the latest album. Hoping someone could update this section? Thanks and sorry if I'm doing this wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.39.137.241 (talk) 03:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Bathory article is dire need of attention. It lumps his thrash metal and Viking metal in a clump that does not reflect reality, and it has biased language. I am biased, as I am fan, so anyone with proper sources to cite would do better to rewrite and expand the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.152.238.199 (talk) 10:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello guys. Who wants to read just one page of text, and translate gibberish into good English, please start it right now : Infestum. Comments are welcome. May be I did something wrong. This is my first article in English wiki. Thanks. ~Нирваньчик~⊤άλҟ09:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like no one contributes to this anymore. Well, in case anyone sees this, I need help on an article. I just created a page for the Colombian band Parabellum, which is a little known cult underground band that should be more known by people as they are amazing, notable for a few different reasons, and are probably the most extreme sounding of the early extreme metal bands. They still are more extreme than most of the extreme metal bands today. Anyways, I need help with expanding the article and adding sources. Navnløs (talk) 05:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, this project includes an article for Chthonic (band) which was assessed as Start class some time ago. The article has since been upgraded significantly, and given my knowledge of article quality requirements from other projects (though I am not a member of this one) I have upgraded the class to C. However, you guys in the Black Metal Project may have a better handle on the assessment for importance. The band is currently listed as Low importance but if you look at the international scene they could possibly be promoted to Mid. Check it out. Sincerely, --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Urgehal Metal Mean Festival 20 08 2011 10.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on October 31, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-10-31. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng {chat} 06:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Enzifer, the guitarist of the Norwegian black metal band Urgehal. Urgehal are known for their extensive use of the traditional corpse paint and for Enzifer's striking on stage appearance, which incorporates facial spikes as well as traditional arm and body spikes. Their musical style and sound resemble that of the Norwegian black metal bands that arose in the early 1990s.Photo: Vassil
An editor raised an issue with the album The Revelation on my talk page, and this prompted me to look at the article on that album. It seemed an obvious case for merging to the original language version of the album (Zjevení), but neither article is sourced and a search didn't find much on either. Having looked the rest of the articles on the band's albums, Big Boss (musician), and Petr Hošek, they are all inadequately sourced, as is the article on the band. I wouldn't like to see all of these deleted if they can be saved, but they're not looking good at the moment, and I can't find any decent sources. As members of this project you are probably better placed than me to find sources if they exist and to advise on whether there is likely to be enough coverage to support separate articles for the albums. Thanks. --Michig (talk) 14:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not easy to find references for that band, but I can try. But it would be great if others could contribute; anything from Terrorizer magazine could help. The Big Boss article had even less references before I edited it (Legacy is a notable magazine and the interview, which is online by now, can be used to reference the band’s “cult” status), just as the Hell Symphony (second album) article. To me, at least the first two albums are definitely notable (I hardly know anything about what came after these), and probably the new one due to notable guest musicians. --217/8314:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Could some editors take a look at the Satanic Warmaster article? An editor there continues to remove any mention of the allegations that the band uses Nazi themes, apart from a graph that the band posted. I don't listen to the band, and don't know how accurate the allegations are, but I think that they deserve a mention. However, this other editor seems determined to remove any negative perspective of the band. Could someone take a look here? Thanks, --3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Should Khors be listed as a National Socialist black metal band?
Hello. WikiProject Black Lives Matter is a newly created WikiProject covering the Black Lives Matter movement. The shortcut WP:BLM was being used by this project, but I've redirected the page to WikiProject Black Lives Matter. I did raise the idea here, but I admit I should have asked here before being bold. Are editors ok with this change? Do any pages displaying this shortcut need to be updated? Thanks. ---Another Believer(Talk)22:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've created the page for this band as it has just released a masterpiece and I realised the page wasn't created yet.
Can someone help with the review process ?
Kekal has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
