Talk:Dethklok

Character Bios

why do my additions to the character bios keep getting deleted? They are all true and not spam. what do you people have against having bios for dethklok members? other characters from the show have lengthy bios, but dethklok has pityful ones? why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.36.150.152 (talk) 05:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Because they wrongfully think we need to keep it basic. I know it sucks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.131.58 (talk) 06:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Ya, i read through some of the previous comments, holocaust of information is a very good analogy. when i want a biography for an actor i come to wikipedia, why should a cartoon character be any different. For god sakes, the minor characters have better bios then dethklok. why don't we go delete all the bios for seinfeld, simpsons and family guy characters? their bios aren't pertinent to the shows relevance in everyday life, lets delete them. the users who have been doing this are committing vandalism in my opinion 216.36.150.152 (talk) 07:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:WAF, WP:N, and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  08:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:Don't_overuse_shortcuts_to_policy_and_guidelines_to_win_your_argument I don't see why any of these policy and guidelines are means to limit the extent of biographies when much longer biographies on minor charchaters from the same series have been made. Your taking the policies and guidelines too seriously and are slaughtering the sharing of knowledge by doing so. why are you wasting your time with this?216.36.150.152 (talk) 08:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not trying to win an argument - I'm merely showing you two policies that you should probably read before going on argument. the matter of the fact is that all the previous revisions of this page (pre-July), contained too much information that merely discussed Dethklok in an in-universe and un-verifiable manner. Given that there were no third party references to support the content, it was removed, and replaced with very general information that could be verified and offered real-world information (ex commentary from Small). I, nor most of the regular editors of this article, work on the Metalocalypse Characters article (or various other character articles that contradict WP's WAF/A polices). What happens there is a separate issue, which their editors should discuss - there's no need to go on a WAF/Attribution jihad or start a new cabal. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  16:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The bios are now based on citable, verifiable information from reliable secondary sources. The show is a primary source, and is in itself unreliable, as it prompts edits like 'pickles' brother used to be his younger brother, but then was his older brother, but both times was his only brother, leading fans to wonder what they are thinking.' (actual text may vary ,but not by much). That's not encyclopedic at all. Most of the info was sourced to episodes of the show, not to any outside writers. Until that happens, WP:WAF is clear that Wikipedia isn't meant to be a fansite. ThuranX (talk) 21:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The show is the only reliable source for dethklok bio info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burnqq (talk • contribs) 06:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. Articles written about the show are the only reliable sources. The show fails because it is the Primary source, and we should be using secondary sources. I'm sorry, but what this comes down to is, you're a fan of the show, but don't understand how to write a report or article. You need to read all the policies, rules, guidelines, manuals of style and essays related to writing for Wikipedia. It's not 'write any old crap and it stays', it's the encyclopedia anyone can edit, including UNediting badly written material which violates policy or conflicts with guidelines. I have also reverted your restoration of the five sub-articles, because they rely entirely, or almost entirely, on the show. Any secondary source material in those has already been integrated into this article, making this a stronger article about Dethklok, not a weaker article. We do NOT need summaries of every episode glued together to make a 'band history', or 'character history'. ThuranX (talk) 11:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

i understand why you might say this for the page not to be created, but the page already exsists. there is no consensus on this matter thus they should stay —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burnqq (talk • contribs) 03:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Your argument here is that policy only functions proactively, and is invalid reactively. This means that if I just outright insult you, nothing could be done, but if I say I will insult you, you could have me blocked, when the opposite is how things actually happen here. Assuming we should all sit around and rampantly argue about POSSIBLE pages that MIGHT someday be made and why they shouldn't be is absurdist thinking. The only way things work is collaborative editing and peer reviewing. That only happens when the article is created and found to be lacking, as is the case with the five character pages. Most lacked any real world, and the couple that did had so little content that it was easy to integrate it into the main article in a line or two. The show is NOT a source, I must reiterate. It's a WP:PRIMARY source. ThuranX (talk) 01:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

See #Character pages, as well as much of the N.Flen argument - The result of the discussions was a conclusion that reflects Wikipedia's policies. Basically, the pages cannot be created until they contain enough real-world information and substantial references. This policy is covered in WP:WAF, WP:N, and WP:V, which revolve around specific requirements to merit the existence articles and topics about fictional subjects - otherwise articles are dragged to AFD and usually deleted by the community. For premiere examples of fictional topics, see Master Chief (Halo), Link (The Legend of Zelda) and Homer Simpson. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  05:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The lack of pages about the characters make sense. However, when it comes to the constant redaction of the character descriptions on this page, I believe that policies like WP:N "only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles". WP:OR and WP:WAF state that primary sources can be used as a source of plot, which means content need not be limited to secondary sources.

Since WP:N does not clearly apply here, it seems that WP:OR andWP:WAF are the best arbiter of this case. Although WP:V calls for reliable sources, "even with strict adherence to the real-world perspective, writing about fiction always includes using the original fiction itself as a source." (see WP:OR for confirmation that fictional original resources may be used to provide details of plot).

The addition of plot-related details about members of Dethklok does not contradict a stated goal of WP:WAF; the accuracy of the article. Although this information does not always come from reliable secondary sources, policies and guidelines such as WP:OR and WP:WAF specify that a fictional primary work may be used as a source for the purposes of relating plot details. (WP:N is not applicable here because I am not debating about the creation of an article.) So long as the entries do not become a plot-only description of a fictional work, I can't see why information that gives us insight into the members of the (fictional) band that is the subject of the article should be so constantly discouraged.DamionOWA (talk) 10:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Information which does not affect nor assist in giving context to the real world information is often trivia. Most of what gets added here is trivia, fan hypothesis, vandalism, or completely unimportant plot-only material. Consider the legions of editors who edit the band members names to conform to the lyrics of the song. Appropriate? no. Or the 'Fans think he looks like X, Y, or Z'. Who cares what the fans think? Did a magazine research fan theories and report on them? If so, that might be worth noting, in a general statement, such as 'THIS magazine reported on the wide number of fan theories about the figures who inspired the characters', but even then we would not list every theory. Or those who seek to insert the plots of every episode into every character's bio. Does this actually improve the page, or improve the understanding of the show for someone new to it? No. Most of what we get here are lists of this sort of stuff, or a joke or quirk of the character which is not reflected in any article written about them. If an article wrote about the 'crass humor of the show, which jokes about 'GILFs' and prehensile penises', then an editor would have a basis for the notability argument. None of the guidelines above obviate AVTRIV, and the emphasis on Out-Of-Universe writing. Finally, you are now responding to a dead section, it's over 14 months old. ThuranX (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Fan speculation is not permitted, as per WP:OR. But this isn't just about fan speculation, and it is still a live issue because editors like yourself take a strong approach to the content of the encyclopedia. At the bottom of this talk page is an exchange less than a month old about including important details about Pickles' character; unlike other members of Dethklok, he is depicted as being famous with another band prior to the group's incredible rise to fame. Snakes and Barrels are important to the understanding of a viewer of Metalocalypse, because they are a major part of the drummer's backstory and many stories have made callbacks to that. But this detail, as well as many others, are often censored from this article.

The goal of Wikipedia is to be accurate and informative, but to not become a plot-only description. It is my opinion that attempts to make this article informative and provide detail that is important to forming the understanding of a character of Metalocalypse are often hamstrung. Although some of it is certainly not important, enough important stuff is being lost. Perhaps a workable compromise is to include more informative biographies of Dethklok members in List of characters in Metalocalypse, an article whose subject is to inform readers about the series Metalocalypse that currently does not have band entries, and have more basic biographies in this article, whose purpose is solely to inform readers about a fictional band. DamionOWA (talk) 07:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Decisions on what's "Trivial" and what isn't, are very difficult, particularly so in WAF. WP:HTRIV is a good essay to look at for guidance. Another useful thing is to look not so much at WP:WAF, but at the featured articles listed towards the end of the guideline. You'll note that particularly in character articles for episodic works of fiction (Metalocalypse is episodic with an additional metaplot) there is extremely little information included regarding singular actions or fictional background history.

I understand your suggestion of adding character detail on the "Characters of" page. I'm apprehensive of such a move, as it intoduce the potential for redundant data, and possibly a WP:POVFORK.

Going into specifics, I think, particularly because of the quote from Brendon regarding Pickles' multi-talented nature, that it's appropriate to mention that pickles was the former front man of Snakes and Barrels. I edited the article with my idea, and I suggest that this might be a valid compromise. -Verdatum (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandal.

An IP keeps attempting to self-promotee, or joke with friends, about the appearance of Skiwsgaar being based on himself or his friends. He tries to attribute this to the ENinterview, but I've checked carefully ,and searched the article for the text string tristan, and no result has shown what he's doing. I'm requesting page protection. ThuranX (talk) 00:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Regrettably, multiple requests for page protection have been refused. ThuranX (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The IP's that keep adding the bullshit are all registered to Australia On Line, according to WhoIS. If the issues continues, please contact AIN and inquire about either filing a complaint with the user's ISP or blocking a range of IP addresses. WhoIs Data for reference If and when you choose to take the issue to AIN, please leave a message here. Good luck. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  02:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Not worth it. Repeated requests ignored. Unless you can give all four templates to an editor, nothing will happen. ThuranX (talk) 04:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

School of rock gig

Based on the provided reference and this interview the gig with the School of Rock appears to really be more about Brendon Small. He happens to be playing some Dethklok music, but it's not quite the same as the tour. In the interview, he specifically explains that it is not a Dethklok concert. So the paragraph may not be appropriate for this article. Could I get someone else's thoughts about this? -Verdatum (talk) 22:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense to me, move it to his article.ThuranX (talk) 23:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The epiphone revolver golden gods awards

Dethklok won an award on the golden god award show i dont remeber what it was called but it should be on wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.84.13 (talk) 02:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Tristan Petersen.

Without solid citations, this cannot go into the article. It appears to be a campaign of vandalism by a number of Australians, so unless someone can provide sources, we're going to have to work to get the page locked. ThuranX (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The vandalism continues. I've checked repeatedly for sources; there are none. This looks more and more and more like a few teenagers promoting a friend, than anything resembling actual article improvement. ThuranX (talk) 14:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Once again, reverted adding of Tristan Petersen, this time with a fake source (a search of all 4 pages didn't bring up his name). I don't understand the point of continually re-adding him, it'll be reverted almost immediately. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 21:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

A certain anon with too much time on his or hands feels the need to repeatedly blank this section. Disruptive edits will be treated as vandalism. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  03:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Lyrics

Do the lyrics really belong here? Why did those 3 songs 'make the cut'? I dont think this is the right place, because if you put lyrics for three of their songs then you have to do it for all of their songs, which would make this page bigger than it already is. I have no prob with the lyrics being on wikipedia, but maybe we should put them on a different page and just link to it? 72.12.72.138 (talk) 17:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Those lyrics were posted by an IP who clearly didn't understand that he was violating Copyright law. They have been removed, and will not return in full song form, ever. It's a violation of US law and Wikipedia policy.ThuranX (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Toki on Keyboard

I Looked in the Dethalbum II booklet and it said Skwisgaar did the all the keyboard parts, is this just on Dethalbum 2 or is there just a mistake? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.96.151 (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

On the " Extended Murderface Bass Solo", Toki plays a synthpop riff on a keyboard to back the bass, I guess that's where it stems from --A Chain of Flowers (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This is driving me insane

in the very beginning sequence to "RenovationKlok", who is that guy that seems to be in Toki's place during the flashback? 71.223.229.17 (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Given that no one's tried to add a sixth member, they must not have said. ThuranX (talk) 03:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

He appears to be an old rhythm guitarist, but since no actual info has been given for him on the show, we can't add much about him here. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I assume he'll be identified at some point. At this point he has yet to be discussed at all other than being shown in the flashback at the beginning of season 3. Be patient.--Freshfighter9 (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

According to this episode page you can see that the character's name on the record contract is likely "Magnus Hamerthan". I think this should at least be mentioned on the page. Nijyo (talk) 03:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Snakes 'N Barrels

Why are Snakes 'N Barrels considered "trivia" and not worthy of mention in the Pickles section? Snakes 'N Barrels was/is a huge part of the character. Does anyone else feel that there should be some mention of this band?--Freshfighter9 (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Has there been any critical coverage of it, or is it only interesting as trivia about the character 'in-universe'? I've seen no discussion of it by reliable sources, nor any indication that it's more important than a cheap joke about 80s hair metal, useful fodder for part of one episode. ThuranX (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It's in two episodes, there's a cover of a Snakes'n'Barrels song on the first Dethalbum, and without the reunion of SnB (minus Pickles) in Season 2, Rockso wouldn't have relapsed. So yes, they are important. Nijyo (talk) 07:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Of those, only one approaches worth covering - the so-called cover, which isn't a 'cover' at all. FInd some actual critical reporting on it, and then it can be included. But Rockso's relapse? no, unimportant. ThuranX (talk) 12:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Without his recent relapse the dethmas episode or the dethklok christmas special wouldn't of happened. As he is one of the major characters in the episode and addiction causes major problems for the band. Also Snake and barrles were the first to get their own 30 minute episode in season 2, so yes they're important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.179.245.191 (talk) 03:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

hey ThuranX I think you're outvoted on this one! sounds like we have consensus. --173.212.76.92 (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I think mentioning S'n'B would all come down to the relevance of the material around it - I'd support mentioning S'n'B if you can tie it into Pickles drug problems and character development. His substance abuse problems have been a recurring theme in the series, to the point where when the shows creators gave IGN an interview, they emphasized Pickles' drug ridden past.[1] --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  09:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

See, IP hopping vandal editor? This is how you get your material into the article. You find sources supporting inclusion, and you use them. In light of the IGN article, I can support including a mention, not an extended litany, of Pickles' membership in Snakes n Barrels. ThuranX (talk) 07:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

ThuranX: Just curious.... who is your "IP hopping vandal editor" comment being directed at? Are you trying to imply that anyone who doesn't agree with you is a vandal? And who died and left you in charge of this article? I really don't care what changes you support because it isn't up to you. --Freshfighter9 (talk) 21:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

ThuranX has been correct the entire time: without reliable sources giving notability, information like that should not be in the article. Now that a reliable source has given information on SnB, it should be included. That being said, ThuranX should lay off the personal attacks, IP or no. Freshfighter9, everyone is welcome to edit and keep-up articles, no one has to die, and no one editor is "in charge" of this or any other article. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

"everyone is welcome to edit and keep-up articles, no one has to die, and no one editor is "in charge" of this or any other article." - That was precisely my point. I still want to hear ThuranX explain his "IP hopping vandal editor" comment.--Freshfighter9 (talk) 22:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

If you can't figure it out, you're clearly not paying attention. 173.xxx's first edit is here? That's an IP hopping editor clearly familiar with the page's issues. Look at what the IPs who edit this page do - they interest fannisms and trivia at best, vulgarities and vandalism the rest of the time. Couple that with his combative attitude in that comment, and I stand by my remark. ThuranX (talk) 06:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Freshfighter's concerns appear to me to be valid. I wouldn't say that this editor is "clearly not paying attention". ThuranX, your logic appears to be flawed. Please Assume Good Faith. The fact that numerous IP editors vandalize the page doesn't in any way reflect on any specific anonymous editor's character. Vandals don't make comments like the one above; they just vandalize. It's much more likely that the above anonymous editor has a dynamically assigned IP-address, and either doesn't understand the value of using an account, or simply forgot to login. -Verdatum (talk) 16:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Some people don't have accounts because they have lives to attend to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.179.245.153 (talk) 03:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, because I took the fifteen seconds it takes to make an account, I don't have a life? and neither does anybody else on this site? Dizzizz (talk) 08:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Still need tv character bios

I guess the whole first section of this discussion page is devoted to removing any character detail from this article - not that I have a problem with that. However, I'd understood there were separate articles for each character (they were linked), but now they are redirected to this article, so only one remains.

This section of the wiki manual shows examples of "good" character pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WAF#List_of_exemplary_articles Does anyone know how to find the old band member articles, if they existed? ... the pictures of each band member are still on wikipedia but not the articles. Tkech (talk) 11:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The character bios that were previously here were removed by User:Marcus Brute in this edit. It had no comment or discussion, I disagree with it, and the user is currently blocked as a suspected sockpuppet. I say restore it. In fact, I believe I will. -Verdatum (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Brute created the individual articles despite oppostion in the #Character Bios discussion. The articles he created only discuss Dethklok within the context of Metalocalypse and contain very little real world and encyclopedic information WP:WAF. They lacked proper reliable sources or critical commentary to establish any notability defined in Wikipedia's notability policy. I assumed he left the mini-bios in this article or at least the List of Metalocalypse characters. Thanks for restoring the bios. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  18:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Mayer Hamilton? Magnus Hammerstorm?

Has there been any other source for the name of the character seen in Renovationklok aside from a nigh-illegible signature? Unless there is, I think it should be noted that any name attributed to him is speculative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.115.31 (talk) 05:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

And now that we know who Magnus Hammersmith is, who the hell is his voice actor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.79.38 (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I would say Marc Moron but thats just a guessDavidravenski (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Theres no such thing as "Brutal Death metal"

I've read the source article, and it nowhere mentions that "brutal death metal" is a genre. They meant that the album itself is brutal, all death metal bands and fans would agree that the genre is "brutal". So the article is false, Brutal death metal isnt real. And i refuse to let that genre stay on the page! Even if the article did say that the genre was real, you shouldnt belive everything on the internet. you've got to use logic, so please don't accuse me of vandilizing the page, I'm a huge dethklok fan and want to do my best to improv the page properly. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.157.199.176 (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it's debatable as to whether or not there is such a thing as 'brutal death metal' or not. Previously someone started a page on one, but it was redirected back to the main death metal page. Regardless though, it is clear from reading the source that the reviewer was talking about a 'death metal album that is brutal' as opposed to a '"brutal death metal" album, so the removal shall stand as far as I'm concerned. --L1A1 FAL (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.157.199.176 (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It's clearly spelled out in the source: "this is a brutal death metal album". I'm not sure how much more obvious it can get. Anyway, we'll wait to remove it until more people have commented on the issue. If someone wants to start a request for comment, go right ahead. I'm willing to remove it, should consensus agree it should be removed (or should the source prove unreliable, which could be found out at WP:RSN if someone wants to go ahead on that route). MrMoustacheMM (talk) 02:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Your miss reading the article! Think about it!

What does that even mean? English much? Again, the article states it plainly, as I quoted above. Don't remove this sourced information unless consensus agrees it should be removed. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you must be stupid if you can't realize what the author of the article was talking about. He clearly was talking about a death metal album that was "brutal". Maybe you don't know anything about music and metalocalypse but at least read the article and realize that your wrong. What if the author wrote "this is a good death metal album", would you assume that "good death metal" is a genre?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.157.199.176 (talk) 17:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPA: personal attacks should be avoided. Keep your discussion civil. Your personal interpretation of the source could be just as wrong as you think mine is. Again, I've given you ways, following Wikipedia policy, to potentially remove this information. Why haven't you tried one of them? As I've said, if one of these methods results in the information and source being removed, I will have no problems complying. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Alright, sorry about the insults I was just speaking out of frustration. It's true that you know more about the policies, sorry about my ignorance. I'm not gonna remove the genre, I'll just look into a better way of getting it removed. This is just something I feel is incorect 99.157.199.176 (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I've sent the author of the article an email about our dispute on whether or not the genre is real and what he meant. If and when he writes back I'll be happy to forward the email to you. 99.157.199.176 (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

[undent] I totally understand. I hope you understand that my issue is not with the genre itself, but simply that it appears sourced, and we keep sourced information on Wikipedia so long as it follows Wikipedia policy (which it still may not). Unfortunately, emailing the author and posting that email here isn't reliable (we have no way of verifying that any emails are in fact real). In the interest of good faith, I'll start up an RFC for this. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Sourced (?) genre addition

Alright, there's some debate over whether the genre "brutal death metal" belongs here or not. It has a source, http://www.unratedmagazine.com/bios/_artists.cfm?band_id=1620, which says at one point (quote): "this is a brutal death metal album". I feel this is a reliable source, that (in my opinion) pretty obviously supports the genre "brutal death metal", however others claim that I am misinterpreting the article (which is entirely possible). So this RfC is twofold: is this source reliable (I checked WP:RSN, and couldn't find it listed there, but that doesn't mean it's automatically reliable); and is the quote given supportive of adding the genre?

For the record, I'm not involved in this debate because I believe unequivocally that "brutal death metal" should be kept, but simply that it is information that appears sourced. If I'm wrong (again, totally possible here), then I have no issues with removing it. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe by "brutal death metal album" he meant a death metal album that was brutal. 99.157.199.176 (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I know Metal Archives is not considered a RS by Wikipedia's standards, but it does classify some bands as "Brutal / Technical Death Metal." I have never heard of a Brutal Death metal before, but that does not mean it does not exist. I hope the author of the article gets back to you guys so we can resolve this issue. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  18:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment: There is no genre "Brutal Death Metal", as such, in Wikipedia's entry for Death Metal. There's only one mention of the term, in the "Subgenres" section of the article. ("[Melodic death metal] songs are typically based on Iron Maiden-esque guitar harmonies and melodies with typically higher-pitched growls, as opposed to traditional death metal's brutal riffs and much lower death grunts.") Now, it might be obvious to editors who know their metal music that this or that music is "brutal death metal", but, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, the term can only be used if supported in reference to this or that piece (or body) of music by third-party, reliable sources.-The Gnome (talk) 10:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

the author never wrote me back, so I think its clear that the majority feel that "brutal death metal" isn't a real genre. So until theres real evidence, i think the genre should be removed. Davidravenski (talk) 05:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

In fact, there is real evidence: the source given on the page. Not to mention that an email still wouldn't justify the removal of the content (that's hardly a reliable source). At this point, it might be worth your time to bring this up on WP:RSN and find out if the source used is in fact a reliable source or not. Until then, it's sourced, and shouldn't be removed. Keep in mind, Wikipedia is not a democracy, and there's not much of a "majority" here (I see you, and your un-logged-in IP address, and one other person), so I see 2:1 (the other two comments don't seem to go one way or the other, other than suggesting that the genre be supported by a reliable source, which for now it appears to be). MrMoustacheMM (talk) 00:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

If that one article is your only proof of an entire genre then it's obivous that the genre isn't real. The article gives no other evidence or facts about the genre, except for saying "this is a brutal death metal album". Which you could've misinterpreted.Davidravenski (talk) 01:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not proof of an entire genre, it's proof that this album (and therefore this band) have been referred to as "brutal death metal". Why don't you try doing this the right way, and see if WP:RSN can support its removal? Your opinion about whether a genre exists or not is not reliable, and your continued removal is simply being disruptive. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 01:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

And what will WP:RS do for me? is it the same thing as this "Rfc" that is just us debating about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidravenski (talk • contribs) 01:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Try clicking on the link: WP:RSN. It should be pretty self-explanatory. But for a start: "Editors can post questions here about whether particular sources are reliable, in context, and editors interested in sourcing issues will answer." MrMoustacheMM (talk) 01:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I posted on it.Davidravenski (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Remove BDM genre - I did some research on Google, and it appears that "brutal death metal" is indeed a genre of music, see e.g. [2], [3] , [4]. The term seems to date back to 2007 or 2008. WP may not yet have an article on that genre, but it does exist, although it is not widely discussed. Turning to the question of whether Deathklok belongs to that genre, I see a couple of sources that use the phrase "brutal death metal" in relation to them, but it is ambiguous: it could be parsed to simply mean they are in the "death metal" genre, and are brutal. The sources are not explicit enough. Since the genre is appearing in the article's infobox, which has special significance to readers, any material in the infobox must be 100% reliable. The sources are not strong enough to support Deathklok's inclusion in that genre. --Noleander (talk) 20:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Alright, that's probably the first reasonable argument given here to remove it. Based on the sources not being considered strong enough reliable sources, I'll remove the info. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - As far as I'm concerned there is no such music style named Brutal Death Metal. BDM is not a genre itself, but a style variation, it is simple a interpolation of heavy metal into death metal or vice-versa, to be considered a genre, it needs to be well established, there must be media havoc uppon it, defining it, also there must be artists which are purely with this kind of music, otherwise, it is not a genre. So with all said the info on the article's infobox should not be modified by putting bdm as one variation of its music style; Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 05:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Creating articles for each dethklok member

I know that wiki pages for the band members were made before and removed, but I see alot of animated series characters getting their own pages. I think that they don't have their own pages because there wasn't enough information? Maybe this has changed with season 3? I think it would be a good idea to maybe create them now. Or rather wait until season 4 finishes? I'd love to here anyone elses opinion on this. Davidravenski (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

If enough information on these characters can be found from reliable sources establishing their notability, then they could be re-created. But up until now they have been pages with almost nothing but trivial details/WP:FANCRUFT, unsourced speculation/original research, haven't followed WP:WAF ("Wikipedia articles should describe fiction and fictional elements from the perspective of the real world, not from the perspective of the fiction itself."), etc. But currently, the articles are (were) woefully under-sourced: four of them only have one or two sources (most of which supported a very basic description of the character), and while William Murderface has a couple more (not counting all the episode citations), there really isn't all that much there to support his notability in a real-world perspective (he was on the cover of a magazine, which is maybe notable enough to mention in the main Dethklok article).

So yeah, if enough reliable sources establishing their notability can be found, then articles can be re-created for them. Until then, they'll just be turned into redirects (or deleted if necessary). MrMoustacheMM (talk) 23:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't the episodes themselves be considered a source? Davidravenski (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

How do the episodes establish the notability of the characters? And how do they discuss the characters from a real-world perspective? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 01:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

What would qualify as a sourced trustworthy real-world perspective? Davidravenski (talk) 02:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Interviews, reviews, commentaries, ect that discuss character's musical style, depiction, character growth, themes, or impact on popular culture. These sources must be reliable, in the sense that they come from well respected sources (not fan blogs or forums). Homer Simpson is a good example for a fictional/cartoon character subject. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  16:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Another question, has anyone ever created wiki pages for the metalocalypse seasons?(not individual episodes, I know those use to be around) I think that might also be a good idea considering that the DVD's/blu ray come with tons of bonus clips. How do any of you feel about that? Davidravenski (talk) 18:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, if there is enough information given in secondary reliable sources to show the notability of individual seasons, then articles could be warranted. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Dethkloks "virtual" break up

I know that pickles left that band, and now they've broken up. But idk if that should really be reflected in the infobox, maybe a note of it can be made in the "fictional background" section. But lets be smart here, Brendon Small obviously isn't ending the band, and Dethklok will eventually get back together. If i recall correctly, in fatherklok skwisgaar left the band breifly. I just want to get some other editors opinions on this.Davidravenski (talk) 01:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Season 4 has ended so all character boxes should be updated as such. The band is still 'broken up', so to speak, but during the end credits Offdensen/the Black Klok priest strongly hint at a Season 5 where they must write a song/album to save the world. Since the band is seen leaving together (minus Toki/Abigail), I'm not sure how that will be reflected during Dethklok's live concerts. Safe to say they're still together unless Brendon Small gives us a hint outside of the episodes. 67.87.235.137 (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Heavy TO

The lineup on the Heavy TO website does not mention the band. I've also been told the first concert since the last tour would be at Heavy MTL the same weekend. Can someone confirm if they played or not in Toronto on the 11th ? zubrowka74 23:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

You're right, it seems that they've been dropped from heavy TO, MTL, and both days of knotfest. Probaly because of the lamb of god thing, i'm unsure if they'll be re-added when the tour is re scheduled but i'll go edit the page.Davidravenski (talk) 04:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually they did drop the whole tour with Lamb of God. Someone had told me the first concert was Heavy MTL but it seems that the tour started on the West Coast in early August. I can't access Cartoon Network' or Adult Swim's website here but there was a communiqué somewhere in there. zubrowka74 17:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Magnus

I think the section of Magnus should be moved over to the "dethklok" section on the "list of metalocalypse characters" page because he's such a minor character and doesn't really "deserve" a prime spot on this page. Davidravenski (talk) 05:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. I say go for it. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dethklok. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605103016/http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/interviews/interviews/dethkloks_brendon_small_this_show_is_for_guitar_geeks.html to http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/interviews/interviews/dethkloks_brendon_small_this_show_is_for_guitar_geeks.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Mordhaus listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussions for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mordhaus. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:33, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Fictional discography?

The series revolves around a fictional rock band that has its own (fictional) discography. Shouldn't it be listed on the page, since other details about the fictional band already are? If I remember correctly, one of the fictional albums was Blood Ocean, there were even episodes featuring it.--87.255.89.160 (talk) 09:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Dethklok in the Brutal Legend promo-short

Dethklok were featured in Brutal Legend's promo-short video as a band that Eddie Riggs (BL's protagonist) was working for, and saved from some demons (or just Hair Metal Militia's "employees", can't remember exactly). I think it should be mentioned somewhere.--87.255.89.160 (talk) 09:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

"Totally Awesome Sweet Alabama Liquid Snake" listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussions for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Totally Awesome Sweet Alabama Liquid Snake. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 21#Totally Awesome Sweet Alabama Liquid Snake until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Jontesta (talk) 17:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)