Talk:Mudvayne

Archives (Index)

1 2

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Genre Field

Before you remove the genre field check Template: Infobox musical artist, it basically states there should be a genre field on all music related articles. I know there is a lot of genre warring going on here so i'll put opinion aside and add the four most heavily sourced genres ordered from most sources to least sources/alphabetically. Four is generally considered the highest number of genres you should have in a genre field.

--I call the big one bitey (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• When people keep making unjustified additions to the genre list, that's a problem. ProgGuy (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

So justify these edits please? Removing the genre fields goes against what is spelled above, there's no consensus to remove it. Why remove the nu metal category? There are multiple sources for nu metal. Яehevkor ✉ 19:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The sourcing for "nu metal" is unjustified, absurdly allocated and quite frankly, cherry picked. The removal of the genre field was based in a consensus previously reached after edit wars. There are more sources for progressive metal than nu metal (see archives). This is a dead issue, please stop trying to refuel a fire that died down ages ago. You cannot argue with what the sources say. ProgGuy (talk) 19:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I can favour the removal of genre fields if it is prone to causing problems among editors. However, I can't see an actual consensus anywhere on genre removal and there is no new consensus yet. You're acting alone here. Also note that there are more sources for nu metal than progressive metal; none are cherry picked or unjustified. (See archives) Myxomatosis57 (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

What consensus is there to remove the genre field at this point, I looked in the archive and couldn't see it? Can you Explain how "nu metal" is unjustified? It's strongly sourced as far as I can see, if this genre is cherry picked then they all are. Яehevkor ✉ 20:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

There's clearly more sources for progressive metal. Nine are on the talk archives and several more on the main article. More can be found. The sources claiming Mudvayne as nu metal are insignificant and run towards promotional articles, fanboyism, and cherry picking. Look at the quality of the sources. Several significant heavy metal sites and music experts have classified this band as progressive metal. If I have to explain how sources work, then what is the purpose of this site? Maybe we should just get rid of the entire site if we're not going to operate within the way it was originally intended? Maybe the genre field should be deleted from the template if users are not going to use it correctly. I fail to understand why the uncyclopedic approach is frequently taken towards music articles when rock and metal bands can easily be approached in a correct way, and yet we continue to not take this approach when the information is staring right at our faces. You have a raging edit warrior who repeatedly adds and removes genres without logic and reason, calling himself "Son Of Plisskin" acting as if he's acting based on consensus and musical authority, when, in fact, he's simply vandalizing multiple articles without purpose, including the anonymous edits adding "death metal" to the genres section on the infobox for the article Mr. Bungle despite the fact that it is unsourced. Is this an encylopedia, or a source of fanboyism? Please leave your personal opinions for Wikia sites, or else Wikipedia should just be renamed "Wiki Site" because this is NOT how an encyclopedia operates. ProgGuy (talk) 19:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)