Wikipedia

Talk:Metallica/Archive 7

< Talk:Metallica
Latest comment: 1 year ago by 205.155.143.66 in topic Band member timeline
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Lloyd Grant

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/guitarist-lloyd-grant-how-i-ended-up-playing-on-original-recording-of-metallicas-hit-the-lights/ 和should be listed as past member? iz it coz he black? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.81.170 (talk) 02:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

  • From the article: "Although many stories claim Grant was actually a member of METALLICA, James maintains that this single, slapdash encounter was the only time he was involved with the band." Does Grant claim to have been a member? He doesn't in the article. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Genre

Latest comment: 8 years ago12 comments7 people in discussion

I think it's too limited to call metallica just thrash and heavy metal. They actually have experimented alot and have played blues rock, hard rock, nu metal, speed metal and AOR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.107.16.119 (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

There aren't any sources stating that Metallica played any of these genres.-Teh Thrasher 14:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

oh really? What's this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_(album) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reload_(Metallica_album)

We don't need that many genres, maybe just Hard Rock should be added, but that's it. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
That's not sources. Just because the albums are hard rock, doesn't mean the band is.-Teh Thrasher 15:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Then I guess if i just delete Thrash metal from the infobox, that's okay right? After all, just cause they play Thrash metal doesn't mean they are thrash. Seriously, the infobox used to have hard rock in it, and how are those not sources? THEY'RE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES! THIS OWN WEBSITE'S ARTICLES ARE NO LONGER RELIABLE THEN?! that would explain why this band appearently never played hard rock according to you all. 99.108.198.222 (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Thrash metal's existence on the band's infobox is justified by reliable sources which state that THE BAND played this genre.

Now, as with the case of the hard rock genre, the sources on the Load/Reload articles state that THE ALBUMS are hard rock.

So, there is a difference between the BAND and an ALBUM being labeled with a genre. Also, per Wikipedia guidelines, an article cannot be used as a source in another article for obvious reasons.

With all that being said, there is definetely a reason as on why things are the way they're now.-Teh Thrasher 22:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

They have had two hard rock albums in their career. I think that justifies adding hard rock to the infobox. Yeah reliable sources state the band played thrash metal. reliable sources have also stated they have had two hard rock albums. I know metallica is more than just thrash and heavy metal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.108.198.222 (talk) 00:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Hard rock is a secondary genre because the sources don't directly refer to the band, but to the albums. So, as I said before, there is a reason why the genres are as they're now.-Teh Thrasher 09:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

sounds like some thrash fans are buthurt about metallica being hard rock — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.70.174.186 (talk) 11:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Not being butthurt about anything, just that the sources refer to the albums and not to the band. Do I need to say this all the time?-Teh Thrasher 17:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The band is called Metallica. They are not hard rock. I would put thrash metal first, and then heavy metal second. They are mainly a thrash metal band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iron Wizard13 (talk • contribs) 05:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Teh Thrasher is right. Regardless of your personal opinion, unless you have a source that refers to the band specifically as opposed to their albums, refrain from editing the genre. Robvanvee 08:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Heavy Metal navbox template

Latest comment: 8 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

There has been an edit war going on over the inclusion of this Template:Heavy metal music. Metallica is not listed in this template, and therefore the template should not be listed on the band's page. —DLManiac (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank God I'm not the only one who agrees that the heavy metal template doesn't belong in this article. EauZenCashHaveIt just seems to be obsessed with adding something that doesn't belong in an article. I keep telling him/her that it's not need in the article, but then he/she continues to revert my changes. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Agreed, it does not belong here. That is more of a general navbox. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
OK, I'll ask the inevitable question, The lead calls Metallica a "American heavy metal band" so why isn't the band listed in the template and why is the template not suitable for the article ? Mlpearc (open channel) 17:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
No bands are listed in the template at all (it would be huge!). That's why it isn't suitable in the article. WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. Nymf (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Exactly, thank you. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Metallica is American, and yes, they are a heavy metal band, but adding a template without the band's name mentioned is just pointless and it doesn't make any sense. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"Metallica is an American heavy metal band formed in Los Angeles, California. Metallica was formed in 1981 when vocalist/guitarist James Hetfield responded to an advertisement posted by drummer Lars Ulrich in a local newspaper." is the opening sentence. I would like to add the name of the newspaper.

"Metallica is an American heavy metal band formed in Los Angeles, California. Metallica was formed in 1981 when vocalist/guitarist James Hetfield responded to an advertisement posted by drummer Lars Ulrich in the classified section of American publication The Recycler"

Ryanlynn (talk) 05:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

  Not done Already mentioned in the section below, not essential to the lead section. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 05:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

new user

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

could anyone add when and why Ron Mcgovney left Metallica Metalliballz (talk) 18:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Metallica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

St. Anger

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Not all songs on this album utilize drop C tuning. Dirty Window is in drop C#, Invisible Kid is in drop G# and The Unnamed Feeling is in drop A#.

Most of them, however, do. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 23:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Good pointe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:380:A457:45A:114A:1141:881D:75B2 (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

New album article?

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Hey there. I had a question, and it might be a stupid one, I don't know. I've seen a lot of cases before where big bands have a long-awaited album or project coming up, and there is a lot of information out there about it, even if the album/project doesn't yet have a title or release date. A lot of that information finds itself onto Wikipedia, and the album/project has an "Untitled" article created for it, even though it could be a long way out from reaching the public. Because the 2011–present section contains a fair bit of information over a number of years on Metallica's tenth studio album, would it be enough to create an "Untitled" article for the album? Of course, we would be assuming that the album will be released in the next 6-12 months, but is it something worth trying? Comments from other experienced editors would be much appreciated. Thank you. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 14:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

It's not a bad idea to start a page on the album and start with a draft article for now, imo. But what to name it? "Metallica tenth studio album" or something like that? -Fnlayson (talk) 00:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Sounds OK to me, in draft space as suggested. Mlpearc (open channel) 00:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
OK, sounds good – I'll get started on one soon. I probably should have mentioned this before, I was thinking along the lines of "Untitled tenth Metallica studio album". I'll start to copy some of the information over once I have it up and running, and then look for some more. Thanks, guys. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 01:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
The link to the draft is here. Thought I'd just start with the basics, but it will be expanded over time – you guys are more than welcome to help me work on it, if any of you have the chance. Thanks. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 04:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

New lead image?

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Hey there, guys. Appreciate the help in getting the draft article up for the new album. I have another question now – having used the same lead image for a few years now, I was wondering if we wanted to use a different one, one of the band performing. I've had a look at some of the different ones that are on Commons, and I found a bunch of options:

If I had a choice, I would probably be more inclined to use the third one. Would any of you guys like the idea of changing the lead image to one of these, or would you prefer to leave it as it is? Anyway, just thought I'd ask, seeing as I was thinking of adding/changing a few images in the rest of the article. Thanks. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 04:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:BOLD, I'm throwing in the third one. I'll also add/change a few of images in the rest of the article. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 05:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Audio examples in "Style and lyrical themes" section

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think the article could use an audio example which highlights Metallica's intricate musicianship and progressive elements like harmonic and rhythmic complexity that are present on several of their early releases. These are extremely important stylistic features of the band which became especially prominent on the albums Master of Puppets and ...And Justice for All.

I think the best way would be to change the Damage, Inc. clip to one from Kill 'em All (or possibly Ride the Lightning) which would be a better insight into their early aggressive thrash, and then add one like I mentioned above. This would not only provide one clip for each major stylistic feature of Metallica's music, but also one clip for each of Metallica's major eras chronologically. Currently the clips skip over what many consider to be their greatest and most important period, since Damage Inc., despite being on Master of Puppets, is more stylistically representative of the Kill 'em All era. Thoughts? Voyagingtalk 07:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Graphics issue

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

There is an issue with the display of the "Timeline" graphic in the article. The lines dump to the left of the members names instead of the being in straight lines to their right. This is how it appears in IE 11 in Win7. Just thought I'd mention it because I can't edit this one (I'm sure someone can).2602:306:320A:AF0:1564:6361:936A:DC18 (talk) 00:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I'm not a fan of how it's currently formatted, so I'll change/overhaul the format and the problem should be fixed. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 00:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
still not working 194.85.161.2 (talk) 19:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Problem solved. Someone just made an edit without knowing the parameters of the timeline, that's all, and left it in the state it was in, so I just went and fixed it. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 20:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Broken again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.199.254.119 (talk) 06:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Adding touring member/former roles for members

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'd like to credit Lloyd Grant with his time in the band as a session member from 1981-82 as well as James Hetfield's brief time on bass from 1981-82 before the recruited Ron McGovney. I had done this earlier today but the edit was undone, with 4theWynne claiming that "All of these are unofficial roles, and should really be discussed first." This fact is stated in numerous interviews with the band, Mr. Grant and is even mentioned in the article itself. Why am I not able to make a constructive edit to make an already phenomenal article just a tad better? YLCC23 (talk) 04:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Associated acts

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Don't Flotsam and Jetsam, Voivod and Suicidal Tendencies also belong here? Since Jason Newsted was an original member of Flotsam and Jetsam and he has also played in Voivod, and Robert Trujillo was originally in Suicidal Tendencies, I mean Ozzy Osbourne is in that list because Robert played with him, though Newsted also was in Ozzy Osbourne's band.

And now I think about it more, Kirk was an original member of Exodus so why aren't they listed?

Also, How is GNR associated with metallica? the last time I checked they absolutely hated eachother — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.210.117.83 (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The infamous 1992 stadium tour. YLCC23 (talk) 04:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Article is wrong

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Early on under "History" it says Lars placed an ad in a Los Angeles newspaper. This Tiis notrue. It was in an Irvine publication. (The Recycler is not a newspaper.) Meezus Stole My Name (talk) 07:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Metallica's new image picture is not good enough

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Metallica's new image picture doesn't show the band members faces, it's too dark and it just shows them playing but you can barely see the faces. I think their faces need to be seen, look at The Beatles or Led Zeppelin's page, the band members faces are being shown, I think the metallica page needs to get it's old picture back. ( Strangeguy91 (talk) 02:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC) )

The biggest thing here is that Metallica new image page doesn't show the band members, it's hard to see. It also describes the band members but you can't barely see them. It says the band 4 members but it doesn't really show their faces, there are other band pages were it shows the band members faces, that is why I think that the old Metallica picture was a lot better, it's not about because it was there before but rather than seeing the band member faces, when you describe something, you need to give evidence on something so it's better if the old picture comes back.( Strangeguy91 (talk) 21:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC) )

I find that hard to believe when you keep on changing the picture back without discussing properly and achieving some sort of consensus. Even more suspiciously, in your previous edit summary, you said, "The band members needs to be shown, come on guys, I already discussed this on the talk page, it's better like this, besides this picture has been here for years", which just contradicts everything that you've just said. The reason why the image was changed is because we wanted to have a recent image of all four band members performing, which is evident in the current picture. Yes, their faces might be a bit harder to see than in the previous image, but the description in the caption supports it enough, I think, that it serves its purpose. What we really need is a better example of this kind of image, but of all the images that I found on Commons (the best of which I presented in a section above), this one was the best that I could find, and that's why it was used. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 22:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Motorhead : NWOBHM?

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Since when have Motorhead been New Wave of British Heavy Metal? They were around years before that.

2A02:C7D:AA10:C900:1D75:5C04:3153:EA3 (talk) 23:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)JD2A02:C7D:AA10:C900:1D75:5C04:3153:EA3 (talk) 23:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I could not find any mention of Motorhead in the Metallica article body. Ask about Motorhead on its talk page, i.e. Talk:Motörhead, or Talk:New wave of British heavy metal instead. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I found the passage OP was referring to. "Metallica was influenced by [...] New wave of British heavy metal bands Venom, Motörhead, Saxon, Diamond Head, Blitzkrieg, and Iron Maiden — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.165.32 (talk) 00:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for find that and posting. I thought I searched for Motorhead and Motörhead in the text. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Content updates

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I believe some edits should be made to the musical style section: After the sentence that reads: The band's early releases contained fast tempos, harmonized leads, and nine-minute instrumental tracks. The bands first releases were classified as thrash metal. Also I would make an edit to she sentence: In 1991, Huey said Metallica with new producer Rob Rock simplified and streamlined its music for a more commercial approach to appeal to mainstream audiences. I would re-write and add as follows: In 1991 Metallica with new producer Rob Rock simplified and streamlined its music for a more commercial approach to appeal to mainstream audiences. At first it was thought by many producers that this shift in musical style would damage Metallica's reputation with its fans. Nickysarge (talk) 02:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)Nick Sergeant

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2016

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

5.92.108.0 (talk) 10:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

METTALICA ORIGIN IS IN SAN FRANCISCO NOT LOS ANGELES

  Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article.
In addition, please do not use BLOCK CAPITALS - Just because it is Metallica, you don't have to SHOUT - Arjayay (talk) 10:50, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Content updates after November 18th

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

On November 18th, Metallica released their 10th studio album which went on to top the Billboard 200. This is according to their (Billboard) website as well Wikipedia. It should be noted that Metallica is the first band to have five consecutive number one albums and this latest release pushed their streak to six. In the article itself, it states that Metallica's 1991 self-titled album topped the US charts and set the tone for the next 4 albums which also topped the charts, it should be made 5 now. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AliMQ92 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Hardwired debuting at #1 on the Billboard 200 is already covered in the History section. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Grammy's performance

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Should Lady Gaga be added to the associated acts list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakob9999 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

4.1 Band Timeline

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

What's with the black lines overlapping the artist names? SquashEngineer (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Some type of error. I seem to have fixed this by going back to a fixed date for end date for the timeline. But there may be a better way to fix it. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Section numbering conventions

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The Table of Contents shows numbered sections, however the article itself is not numbered. Is there a Wiki convention for this? SquashEngineer (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

That's just how the Wiki software works and similar for other articles, unless if special code is added. See Numbers in Help:Section or ask the Help desk at WP:Village pump for more. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Band members

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think you should consider adding Lloyd Grant to the list of previous band members. He played lead guitar on the first demo of Hit the Lights for the Metal Massacre compilation disc. He played lead guitar on their first released recorded work. Pthibault1984 (talk) 07:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 28 external links on Metallica. 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:

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) 04:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Metallica. 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:

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) 14:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Metallica. 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:

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) 21:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Total sales

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The given source says Metallica have sold 59 million albums in USA and 92 miillions worldwide (not apart from USA) certified. The same site says at another page they have sold 110 millions worldwide here. So it doesn't mean you should sum 59 and 92. With all respect, --HeadsOff (talk) 12:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Associated Acts

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am adding the following groups to the associated acts section on the info box:

The reason for this is because these are the notable bands that all have a member in common with Metallica (listed with the band). When editing the infobox it says that bands should share two or more members, but this doesn't seem to be a requirement on any other artists page. The general consensus being that only one common member is required. At any rate, all of these bands have a better connection to Metallica than Guns N Roses (who are listed) despite the only thing they have in common is touring together in the 90's. These connections are also currently listed on the articles of the individual members. Though some members have more associations listed (Jason Newsted and Robert Trujillo in particular) I'm only adding the ones that are truly notable. Natt the Hatt (talk) 00:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2017

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Change: Metallica was ranked 42st

To: Metallica was ranked 42nd 72.251.71.15 (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Wiki markup comments

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

@Norschweden: @4TheWynne: The hidden comments on Metallica are part of Wiki markup. Please see Help:Wiki markup Invisible text (comments). 4TheWynne is correct in his edits. Hidden comments that can only be seen in the edit window are part of Wikipedia's instructions to editors. I will also leave this note on each of your talk pages. — Maile (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Metallica. 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:

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) 18:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Metallica. 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:

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) 16:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Metallica. 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:

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) 11:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Lede too long

Latest comment: 6 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

Same 'ol shit, everybody's willing to discuss, but nobody starts the discussion, why am I surprised. I am the editor that placed the maintenance tag. I think @Natt the Hatt: did a great job of cutting out the stuff that is not lede material. 70 to 80% of the information in the lede should be brought up in the body. I think this version is just fine, but I'm not going to argue further as the music articles have their own cult (of late) of editors and if they don't agree then it doesn't change. Natt the Hatt thank you again you did a great job. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 17:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the three paragraph version that you tagged was too long. Even so, the trim job performed by Natt the Hatt was also fine with me, as it focused the reader on what was important (rather than supplying details of the founding of the band given right at the beginning.) So I'm on the fence on this issue. Binksternet (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I have no objection myself, I just wanted to make sure everyone agreed. 4TheWynne seemed not to. So I reverted. I do think maybe some of it should go, but I'l leave exactly what up to you all. Danny from IP 104.39.135.32 (talk) 15:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Since I'm the one who cut it down, I'll weigh in on this. I do agree that the lead was far to long. After looking at other articles (particularly those about the other "Big 4" bands) I made the cuts. I feel that the way the lead is now is in line with those other articles. The problem with overly long leads is it makes the article look sloppy. The lead should point out the basics about what the article is about, not give the entire history of the subject.Natt the Hatt (talk) 22:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
So now all we need is 4TheWynne to weigh in and we're clear, right? dannymusiceditor Speak up! 23:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I think that the information about former members should be kept, and maybe have a somewhat shortened summary of their history (but not nothing), but the rest of it is fine. I'm not against cutting it down, but thought that this revision was a tad too much. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 01:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, since Dave Mustaine formed another Big Four band (which we should also probably prune, since it stands at 4 paragraphs), I think that would be relevant to briefly mention, but I'm going to stay neutral on the others because honestly I can't decide. Their early albums were also hugely influential records, so I would support some of that information in there. If not that, at least specify when their underground success was (1980's). The current version does not specify a time when they were, and I'm pretty sure they'd have lost their underground status by the late 80's-early 90's (I wasn't alive then, so I can't be sure). The rest I support removal of. Danny from IP 104.39.135.32 (talk) 14:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Fair point on the underground success part, and I think that should be added in as soon as the lock down is lifted.Natt the Hatt (talk) 04:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Taking the associated acts part out of it, does anyone object to this revision? It's more or less just keeping what Danny and I have suggested and leaving the rest out – I've also included the Napster incident and Hall of Fame induction (as part of the shortened summary of their history), as they were pretty significant moments in the band's history. At the moment, in my opinion, the lead is not too long and not too short. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 10:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Also, in case anyone was wondering, the end of my summary for my clean-up edit (accidentally pressed "enter") was supposed to say, '...removed "many" from Rolling Stone sentence, as the sentence only refers to one magazine'. Would probably have needed a source for that to have been kept. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 14:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Band Member Duties

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

We are now going back and forth about what James and Kirk actually do in the band. Ever since the "Black Album" came out, the credits have been listed as:

James Hetfield - Guitar, Vocals

Kirk Hammett - Guitar.

There is no "Lead" or "Rhythm" mentioned at all.

We are trying to make this article as accurate as possible, which is why we hashed out the "associated acts" section for so long. Let's keep the band members accurate as well. If "lead" needs to be added to a member, it could be Dave Mustaine, since that is all he did. We could edit the timeline to show James only playing Rhythm until 1991, but to show him as only a rhythm guitar player is inaccurate according to album liner notes. And this also includes live albums and compilations from that time forward as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UtahCountryBoy (talk • contribs) 16:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

This has been a longstanding consensus for years, and nearly all of the album articles state otherwise. You were wrong about the associated acts, and you are also wrong here – the only reason why we'd be going "back and forth" is because you decided to quickly revert a couple of times without discussing. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 00:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
That is very much not the case. As you will find by reading through the last issue on this page, you'll find that I was certainly not wrong. Same with this one. Open the CD booklets and read what they say. I'm looking at them now. What i've stated on here is exactly how it is. UtahCountryBoy (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Here is one reference to back my argument. I can produce many more if you'd like, but I think you'll find the band's own webpage a definitive resource. UtahCountryBoy (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

[1]

References

  1. ^ https://www.metallica.com/releases/albums/4214/load

Missing Songs / Subjects

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
   Since Metallica's page is locked, people can't add any important information, either if it's songs, dates, members, etc. For example, after the death of Cliff Burton, Metallica released an instrumental song to remember his memory, "To Live Is To Die", from the album "...And Justice For All"(1988). Here, we can inform the page about any missing information. Have anything you want the page to add? Just click edit and add your information about Metallica.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by METALLICAJR (talk • contribs) 21:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Associated acts discussion

Latest comment: 6 years ago20 comments6 people in discussion

None of these acts listed meet the minimum requirements. If we are going to have bands listed with a single member in common on Metallica's page, we should also be able to do it on all other band pages as well. We're not even allowed to have Tremonti and Alter Bridge listed as associated acts because Mark Tremonti is the only common member. If those two bands aren't related, than there aren't many that are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UtahCountryBoy (talk • contribs) 22:19, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

They were just bands added by a new user, and have been removed – don't look into it too much. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 02:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Since when is one common member not enough to be considered related? Throughout Wikipedia, one common member is all that is required. I find it ridiculous that the article itself talks in depth about the bands that shared members with Metallica, but for some reason someone has decided that the infobox must be kept clean. Despite this decision, Guns N' Roses remains here even though the two bands share no common members. Having a single common member is a greater association than touring with each other once 25 years ago. I feel the restrictions placed on the "Associated Acts" section of the infobox are completely arbitrary and don't have any basis in the standards used throughout the rest of Wikipedia.Natt the Hatt (talk) 04:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

See Template:Infobox_musical_artist#associated_acts – the four artists (including Guns N' Roses) currently in the infobox after I reverted back to the previous list all fit the criteria, and the rest do not. Your opinion on these "restrictions" isn't relevant to the discussion. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 05:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Guns n' Roses needs to be removed. There is nothing connecting these two bands. They may have toured together, but it was not as a single collaboration. It was two separate bands with no crossover members. There are countless band that have toured with Metallica, but none of them are listed in the associated acts section. UtahCountryBoy (talk) 14:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, opinions on these restrictions are absolutely relevant to the discussion. It's how we measure consensus. Of the four bands that currently remain in the infobox, Guns N' Roses does not fit the "criteria" (GNR toured with Metallica, but not as a single unit). Even the articles shown as an example of the infobox violate the criteria listed. The infobox shown for Audioslave lists Temple of the Dog, Soundgarden, and The Nightwatchman as associated acts, even though two of those only have one common member and The Nightwatchman is a solo project. But, all that is irrelevant as wikipedia has no firm rules. The real problem here is that these arbitrary restrictions fly in the face of Wikipedia's guidelines on common sense. By adding these bands to the infobox, it does not damage the article and in fact improves it. It is reasonable that these bands be included and it does not disrupt the flow of the article.Natt the Hatt (talk) 22:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Just because you see it at other articles, doesn't make it right. Because this article (under the current consensus) actually follows the template – which includes having Guns N' Roses, as the tour in question was a major stadium joint tour collaboration that isn't simply like any other tour the band has done with other bands – that would make it one of the better-written articles, which is to be expected of a featured article. Sure, the band might not or may never have shared any members, but a co-headlining concert tour with its own article is a fair enough exception. Of the bands that you suggested last month, Spastik Children (despite its nature and its relatively short-lived existence) is the only one that can be added to the list, as it shares three members of the band. I know exactly how consensus is measured, and that it needs to change here if the other bands are to be included. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 06:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I think you said it. "Doesn't make it right." This is something that might be in a link at the bottom of the page, but certainly not in the associated acts box. They are not, nor have they ever been "associated" with Metallica. They also played the Big 4 Festival in Sofia, which was also not like any other performance of it's kind, but they aren't "associated" with Megadeth, Anthrax, and Slayer. UtahCountryBoy (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, it's apparent that they most certainly have been. The Big Four concert is very different to the Guns N' Roses/Metallica Stadium Tour – that was just one show, as opposed to a full-length tour, so that argument's well out the window. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 15:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
G-N-R as an associated act is ridiculous, touring together is not "associated", if it was then we'd have to list associated acts by common genres, just ridiculous. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Having gone through the archives, I can't find anything that suggests that a consensus was ever reached on this issue. In fact, most of the talk about it seems to suggest that the article at one point did include all (or at least most) of the mentioned bands, that they were included at the time it was rated as a "good article", and that it was the decision of one editor to remove them. As for the GN'R association, if we are following the strict "guidelines" outlined in the template, then Guns N' Roses doesn't fit the criteria in any way. Touring together isn't enough to be considered associated, even if the bands in question were considered co-headliners. They never at any time on that tour played together as a singular unit. They never even appeared together on stage at all. Again, if Megadeth can't be considered associated with Metallica by some arbitrary rule established out of thin air, then Guns N' Roses certainly can't either.Natt the Hatt (talk) 05:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm the editor that, in August, added Megadeth, Exodus, Trauma, Flotsam & Jetsam, and Suicidal Tendencies to associated acts. 4theWynne, I'm not a "new" editor, even if I'm not the most active editor in the world. I have edited dozens of articles on music, and even created about half a dozen existing articles (for notable underground bands far, far, far smaller than Metallica). I admit that I never looked at the guidelines for associated acts in the template, but rather learned from the precedents I saw, and the smaller band's pages that I often frequent are probably less contentious. The number one criteria I have noticed over the years for "association" is two bands sharing a member, but I see that doesn't jibe with guidelines, and I will address that below. But with respect to common sense and the general understanding of the word "association", straight up or down, who is going to tell me that GN'R or Ozzy is more associated with Metallica than Megadeth is? From knowledge of Metallica, who will dispute my assertion that Megadeth is more associated with Metallica than those acts? Any assertion I make below, as I survey the topic, I can easily document with reliable sources, but for starters, I'll shoot from the hip.

For those that advocate for GN'R or Ozzy, you must be standing behind "toured with as a single collaboration act playing together". That doesn't seem to describe Metallica's tours with either artist, but rather those tours are better described as "groups that have played or toured together as separate acts", which is on the list of unacceptable criteria. By contrast, all of the members of Megadeth shared the stage every night of the Big 4 tour for the encore, along with Anthrax and Dave Lombardo. The ubiquitous Big 4 label alone, used in multiple media sources, is a strong association. If you harp on the fact that the tour featured 4 bands rather than 2 as was the case with the Guns tour, I would point out that there is a Wikipedia article about the DVD release of Bulgaria concert from that stadium tour. It was quite a notable rock event, and the fact that is called "Big 4" is all the evidence needed that each band was integral.

Mustaine also played a set with Metallica at the 30th anniversary concert. You may say "that reflects his status as a former member, not anything to do with Megadeth"; however, listen to his introduction with James acknowledging Dave's musical history. It confirms what any metal music follower knows, Dave Mustaine = Megadeth (note that, for all their alleged associations with GN'R, members of that band were not among the many guest performers that helped celebrate Metallica's career at the Met Club; indeed, in addition to the other 2 members of the Big 4 I would also argue that both Motorhead and the Misfits are more associated with Metallica than is either Ozzy or, especially, GN'R, but I will pick my battles for now).

Consider too "Some Kind of Monster"; Dave's participation was more than the return of a former band mate (note Ron McGovney was not in the movie). The text onscreen accompanying his entrance described Megadeth as a "rival band" and noted their impressive but less-than-Metallica album sales. Any casual follower of heavy metal would agree with this characterization, and it is another "association", in addition to the 2 bands association as members of "the Big 4", and the two notable live collaborations mentioned above.

Next, I point out the criteria "A group from which this group has spun off". This is not exactly a technical description, it's a bit fuzzy, but it describes Megadeth. It is well documented that right after getting the boot from Metallica Dave deliberately formed Megadeth as a response and a challenge to his old band, sticking close to the latter's genre but putting his own spin on it. In other words, Megadeth owes it's existence to Metallica (and, it can be be argued, Metallica may owe its success during its early period, in part, to Dave; along with Cliff, the band was close to a band of four equals for a year or so). Megadeth spun off of Metallica.

There are hundreds of writeups associating the two bands, and dozens of interviews in which each member of Metallica and Megadeth field questions about the other band. In conclusion, while Ozzy and GN'R are associated with Metallica inasmuch as they each were a notable tangent in the story of Metallica's history (association status = weak), Megadeth are an intrinsic part of Metallica's very DNA; you would be hard pressed to find many other examples of two large bands that have a stronger association.

The template, by the way, said "This field can include, for example, any of the following" (emphasis mine). It does not claim to be an exhaustive list of criteria, and there is room for debate. The bottom line in consensus. I can't imagine Megadeth would fail to garner consensus as an act associated with Metallica. Exodus is a rather strong case too, not only b/c of Kirk, but b/c they were the other early Bay area thrashers that helped Metallica's early fan base to take root. I also would advocate for other bands in the associated acts box, but will rest my case for now. Keithramone33 (talk) 23:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Keithramone33 on this issue, but I want to make a few points before getting into it here. Guns N' Roses isn't included in the "associated acts" part of the template on the current article. After some back and forth, a consensus was reached to remove them. However, Ozzy does belong. Not because of a previous tour, but because Robert Trujillo was a former member of his backing band. But, I definitely agree that Megadeth, Exodus, Trauma, Flotsam & Jetsam, and Suicidal Tendencies all belong in the template. The reason is because all of these bands share a common member with Metallica, and throughout wikipedia that seems to be the general requirement (not two members, as stated on this template). I think what we need to to find the current consensus on whether or not this article will accept only one common member as a requirement for being included in the associated acts section.
To which, I Agree that one common member should be enough to be included in the associated acts section. Natt the Hatt (talk) 00:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Well obviously, given my post, I agree. I was going to just fight for Megadeth for now b/c that's a no brainer (I see there's a picture of Dave with Megadeth in the artice fer cryin out loud), but I can say with certainty that the one band member in common thing is a standard that is held to on a preponderance of band pages throughout Wikipedia, and so is seemingly consistent with the sensibilities of a consensus of editors Keithramone33 (talk) 01:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
But it's not. There are countless band pages that I have tried to honestly include associated acts, and each time, within minutes, some mod is on there telling me that one member is not the way Wikipedia does it. And with Metallica being one of the biggest bands in the world, this page should be to the highest Wiki standards. One band member in common doesn't work here. So the only associated act on here should be Ozzy. With Jason/Rob having switched places for a minute. UtahCountryBoy (talk) 14:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
One member in common is not enough. The instructions at Template:Infobox_musical_artist#associated_acts say that "groups with only one member in common" are not to be listed. That's why we are not going to go there. Binksternet (talk) 15:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. But this is a problem. Siting two great examples, Metallica/Megadeth, and Alter Bridge/Tremonti. Those bands are respectively associated with each other. Even though they each only have one common band member. Maybe we can look to amend the infobox on associated acts. There isn't any reason to not include those acts with one common member. In fact, it would serve Wikipedia more, as there would be more links leading to other pages that users would visit while learning about musical artists. If we left Alter Bridge's page without the link the Tremonti, you may have hundreds or thousands of users looking up Alter Bridge, and never thinking to view Tremonti's page as well. However, if Tremonti could be listed as an associated act, having one in common member, that would then generate many more views of the Tremonti page. It only makes sense for Wikipedia to allow it. UtahCountryBoy (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Based on the responses so far (2 to 2), it doesn't look like there will be consensus on the one member standard. So I want to revert to my original points regarding Megadeth. Their case for inclusion is stronger than one member. If they are not a band associated with Metallica, why is there a picture of them in the article? Will other editors agree that whatever is decided about the one member standard, at least Megadeth should be included? Do we have to scrutinize the kind of awkward infobox template to make that decision (when the very wording of it makes clear that the list of criteria is not exhaustive), or can we just use basic knowledge and human reasoning and say "of course Megadeth is a band that is associated with Metallica"? Keithramone33 (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

So there was no response to my Oct 24 comment; no consensus, but no dissent either. The previous exchanges concerned a group of bands that shared one member with Metallica (Exodus,Trauma, etc). Ok, there is no consensus, I will leave it alone for the other bands. Megadeth are different. They are as associated with Metallica as strongly as nearly any two major bands are (their association is as strong as it would be as between Oasis and Blur if Blur were spawned from a booted member of Oasis, or the same thing occurring with Nirvana and Pearl Jam, or Zeppelin and Sabbath). They have toured together as 2 of the Big 4, and Dave has guested on the Metallica 30th anniversary shows, where his role as Megadeth frontman was announced (not that it was necessary). The label Big 4 itself is an association, written about in every major source of rock or metal journalism. Members of both bands regularly are interviewed on the topic of the other band. Mustaine was in Some Kind of Monster, introduced onscreen as both a former member of Metallica and and the founder of the "rival" (and thus associated) band Megadeth. THERE IS A PICTURE OF MUSTAINE IN THIS METALLICA WIKI ARTICLE, captioned with the term "rival band Megadeth"!! Mustaine has famously declared that the very formation of Megadeth was a response to the existence of his former band, and an attempt to outdo them. Is anyone going to say Mustaine/Megadeth is not associated with Metallica? Well, then, logically, Metallica are conversely associated with their famous-in-his-own right former lead guitarist and his band. Please, tell me how Ozzy has a stronger association with Metallica than Megadeth does! I understand the rules, but they are a guide, you don't have to be 100% anal about it if they are hindering the improving of an article... use common sense and common knowledge here!Keithramone33 (talk) 18:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Keithramone33, if your problem is with the guideline, rather than simply this article, then go to the template talk page and discuss it there instead. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 23:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Metallica. 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:

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) 13:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Lead and rhythm guitar roles

Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

This discussion is to settle the dispute between JesusFreak78 and 4TheWynne about labeling guitar roles per band preference or third party sources.

Recent band style on album liner notes is to dispense with "rhythm" and "lead" guitar and just say that the two guitarists are playing guitar. However, Wikipedia is built mainly on WP:SECONDARY sources, which may be found to describe Hetfield as the rhythm guitarist and Hammett or (earlier) Mustaine playing lead guitar: "The 10 Most Underrated Rhythm Guitarists", Gear Secrets of the Guitar Legends, "'Metallica One' – Classic Tracks", "Metallica's James Hetfield Rides the Lightning", and many more. The book Riffology of Metallica says "For the first five albums all the rhythm guitar parts as well as the harmony parts were played by James with Kirk contributing the solos. If you're trying to obtain the rhythm guitar sound from those records, keep in mind that it's the James Hetfield sound that you're trying to re-create."

This band article should be the easiest place to settle the dispute, while various album and song articles may bring up specific local differences. But let's make sure to summarize for the reader what is the consensus as found in secondary sources. Binksternet (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

On the song/album level, per WP:PRIMARY, album liner notes are perfectly acceptable to source basic facts like performance credits. We should be going by that on the sub-pages. If there are second party sources that can give more detail, with direct quotes from the band like the examples above, then there's nothing wrong with fleshing it out further though too. A hybrid approach is fine when we've got directly spelled out statements straight from band members themselves, like the examples above. Sergecross73 msg me 17:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I've been rethinking the hybrid approach, trying to imagine what would happen if we had the simple "guitar" of the liner notes but a high quality secondary source stated that a particular song had one guy on lead and the other on rhythm. In that case, the secondary source not only offers more information, but it is also a preferred source, per WP:SECONDARY. And its information adds to, rather than contradicts, the primary source. In that case the secondary source would prevail. Binksternet (talk) 04:15, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
This would be fine, but if we are using secondary sources, we don't have to look far to see James taking over more lead responsibility, and Kirk handling much more rhythm than on the first 5 albums. Since the Live box set in 1993, there have been many instances and interviews relating to such things. This is exactly why each member is listed only as a guitar player, without the lead and rhythm being compartmentalized. It would be incorrect to have the wiki pages say that James only pays rhythm and Kirk only plays lead on each album since Load in 1996. I'm only making changes here because we want to have a true account of things on Wikipedia. JesusFreak78 (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry, does DannyMusicEditor not get a mention here? I only reverted once... JesusFreak78, do you have any sources or links to these "many instances and interviews relating to such things" to back up what you've said, seeing as we apparently "don't have to look far"? The roles, as they are listed at the main band article (not at each album article, where it is more specific), represent the musicians' roles in the band, not just in the studio – Hetfield has always been rhythm and Hammett has always been lead. In the studio, Hetfield might play a solo or two, while Hammett might record some rhythm parts – don't exaggerate these facts – but live, it's clear lead and rhythm (you only need to look to their live performances for that). The consensus for years has always been lead and rhythm – obviously at the album articles, that's different, but we don't have to change anything here. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 22:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Second party sources are often less reliable than primary sources for basic facts (plot summaries being a typical example) since they are second hand information. I don't know if that would be an issue for the information discussed here but it's worth keeping in mind. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:55, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm thinking the OP is correct, and 4TheWynne, you even said it yourself. What's being corrected are the album articles. And you, the one advocate of having them say Lead/Rhythm, even admitted James plays a couple solos and Kirk contributes rhythm parts. And really, all you need to do is open up the CD booklet to see, it's says James - Guitar, Vocals, and then Kirk - Guitar, since 1996. That's the majority of the bands' existence. I think the articles should tell the truth. Each member on the albums beginning with Load, should say "Guitar," not "Lead" or "Rhythm."TremontiCreedAB (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

On the origin of the band

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I'd remove the origin of the band from the infobox as the band moved to San Francisco before the release of their debut album. Emphasizing their Los Angeles origin is misleading. RF354 (talk) 13:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

RF354, just because the band's been based elsewhere for most of its career, doesn't mean that the origin should be removed from the infobox. It's not placing an emphasis on the origin – that's just something that should always be there, and I certainly don't see how it's "misleading" (even to include both). 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 22:51, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
The origin in the infobox is simply misleading as they moved to San Francisco BEFORE the release of their debut album. (The article is about the band, not only indiviuals.) You also overemphasize their formation in Los Angeles in the lead when they are generally referred to as a "San Francisco metal band".
Using a primary source in this case is more than acceptable. RF354 (talk) 11:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
So what if the band moved to San Francisco before the release of Kill 'Em All – how does that make the origin misleading? The band still formed in Los Angeles, and the current wording details this while still emphasising that the band has been based in San Francisco for most of its career (it also reads better than other versions that have been presented). To be clear, the fact that the band relocated is not being disputed here, so extra sources aren't required. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 13:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Per WP:Primary primary sources are tolerated when only referencing facts, not interpretations, which is the case here.
  • You keep writing: The band is from Los Angeles. This is NOT true. Even if we write "formed in LA", we should explain in the same sentence that they are a band actually from San Francisco. Your wording is not readable, rather confusing.
  • As this is a debated issue (see your own behavior), we need at least two references. We still have a misleading hidden warning in the infobox! RF354 (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Fine, I moved the LA text to the next sentence about formation. Hidden notes are just notes, not warnings per se. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Lead guitarist vs Rhythm guitarist

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

That James is the rhythm guitarist just because he is the lead vocalist is completely opinionative, just as much as it is incorrect. James and Kirk often share solo duties, hence why they are listed simply as "guitar", rather than one being lead guitar and the other being rhythm guitar. Hafiq Noordin (talk)(contribs) 14:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2018 (two broken links)

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There are articles for Metallica's "... And Justice for All" and "Hardwired... to Self-Destruct" albums, however both links have been mistyped in the Discography section of this page. It should be wiki/...And_Justice_for_All_(album) not wiki/..._And_Justice_for_All_(album), and wiki/Hardwired..._to_Self-Destruct instead of wiki/Hardwired_..._to_Self-Destruct. These two links are also mistyped in their album's respective sections wiki/Metallica#..._And_Justice_for_All_and_Metallica_(1988–1993) (First paragraph) and wiki/Metallica#Metallica:_Through_the_Never_and_Hardwired_..._to_Self-Destruct_(2012–present) (Fifth paragraph) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arucardu (talk • contribs) 06:57, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Hmains (and not unknowingly, as it has been brought up several times at their talk page) adds spaces before ellipses in their general fixes/punctuation edits, and doing it here – where there are links to two album articles with ellipses in their titles – just causes problems, so I've reverted the edit. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 08:11, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2018

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Change "In late 1982, Ulrich and Hetfield attended a show at the West Hollywood nightclub Whisky a Go Go" to "In late 1982, Ulrich and Hetfield attended a show at the West Hollywood nightclub Troubadour"

Here are some sources: 1) Metallica mentor and Metal Blade CEO Brian Slagel also remembers the show being at the Troubadour: https://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/rock/7934137/metal-blade-founder-metallica-bassists-exclusive-book-excerpt 2) Previous bass player Ron McGovney remembers the show: https://www.iheart.com/content/2018-07-18-first-metallica-bassist-recalls-being-replaced-by-cliff-burton/ 3) Trauma seem to have played the Troubadour on Oct 28, 1982, which is right in the time frame where it could have happened (https://www.setlist.fm/setlist/trauma/1982/troubadour-west-hollywood-ca-bc9cd86.html). No mention of a Trauma show at Whisky-A-Go-Go in 1982 (e.g. here https://www.setlist.fm/search?query=whisky+a+go+go+1982).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallica#Formation_and_early_years_(1981–1982) Leimsen (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

  Not done: These sources confirm the statement - [1][2][3] -- Flooded with them hundreds 18:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Timeline

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I do not understand why these edits cancel. Than they harm?--Jimi Henderson (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

4TheWynne continues to undo normal changes in the timeline under the pretext:"not an improvement"! Need to stop it--Jimi Henderson (talk) 09:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
These timeline changes are unnecessary – the timeline has been formatted this way for years, and it doesn't need to be over-complicated by separating into individual instruments. If all of the band's lead guitarists and bassists have performed backing vocals, then you only need to have bars for "Lead guitar, backing vocals" and "Bass, backing vocals", and if Hetfield is the only member to have performed lead vocals and rhythm guitar, then the instruments don't need to be separated. I honestly don't see how separating into individual instruments (when it isn't necessary) is an improvement. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 10:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Add to the section on the reception of the band, "Metallica has received praise even from those critical of modern pop music, such as the philosopher Roger Scruton[1][2][3] 86.139.100.144 (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

  Not done. There is no section on the reception of the band. Also, the first source is inaccessible (it times out), and I don't know if that's temporary or not. I'm not sure the sourcing here is up to snuff anyway, and it seems like a passing statement, and not an in-depth analysis. Finally, there's a lot in what you want to add that doesn't even seem to be supported by the remaining source. So I'm marking this fairly stale request closed. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.philosophersnet.com/magazine/article.php?id=1066
  2. ^ https://thequietus.com/articles/00428-metallica-s-intimate-o2-gig-reviewed-and-photo-gallery
  3. ^ https://twitter.com/scruton_quotes/status/943119210716200965?lang=en-gb

Untitled eleventh album draft

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey everyone. I recently created the draft for Metallica's upcoming studio album (Draft:Untitled eleventh Metallica studio album) – feel free to contribute (constructively)! 4TheWynne (talk • contributions) 15:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

John Marshall

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I just wanted to bring this up and settle it once and for all so that there's no ambiguity or confusion – what's the go with John Marshall? I was under the impression that he was not to be included in the band members section because he wasn't an actual touring member and was just the band's guitar tech who filled in for a handful of shows, but it's a bit harder to prove given that it's probably explained better in older edits than in archived talk page discussions (that I can find, anyway) – surely there are other editors who have been editing this particular article for longer than I have who can explain further? Thanks. 4TheWynne (talk • contributions) 23:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

TerminatorZXY, seeing as this discussion's begun, care to weigh in/explain the rationale for your edits? 4TheWynne (talk • contributions) 13:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, Bob Rock was already the producer of St. Anger, and they couldn't find a bass player during the recording so he played it. He literally only played in one show and that's it. Whereas Marshall played in far more. It seems unfair that Marshall who filled in for James (during the infamous fire injury era of the band no less) far more than Bob Rock did doesn't get a mention. Yeah, sure, he was a tech, but he filled in and actually played on stage, the separates him from all other guitar techs. TerminatorZXY (talk) 14:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
This isn't about Bob Rock (who played in multiple shows, not just one, by the way), nor is it about how many more shows one person played than another. Marshall wasn't a proper touring member of the band, he just filled in – otherwise, why don't we include Dave Lombardo, Joey Jordison and Flemming Larsen the drum tech, who filled in for Ulrich at the 2004 Download Festival? None of these guys played with the band for an entire tour or multiple tours (hence touring member). 4TheWynne (talk • contributions) 14:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I looked up, you're right about Bob Rock playing in more than one show. That said, John Marshall played for a major part of the tour in quite an infamous period of the band. He played for the entirety of the remainder of the 1992 tour and I believe he deserved a mention. Either way, you've proved your point here and you're right. TerminatorZXY (talk) 01:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Not to put another layer of combustible on this topic, but the band (specifically James) is well documented to have viewed Bob *not* as a member of the band in any fashion, but part of the "business side of the operation" (quoting-from-memory a scene in Some Kind of Monster). That probably might be given some weight as to what role we determine Rock to have had, given what view the band members viewed him as having. I think I would argue that -- if Rock is considered a "sessions/touring member", then Marshall is at least on equal stature there, essentially 'filling in where there was a gap in the lineup for a few shows' (Rock did not fill in "an entire tour", either, so they're on equal footing there as well). But -- honestly -- I don't think either of them should be in that status. DBalling (talk) 22:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

S&M2

Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

(Not sure why this needs to be a talk item first, honestly, but since it was reverted...)

The band appear to officially refer to the Chase Center show as S&M2.[1][2] We should probably do the same, except where quoting a source which has used the (simpler, but less accurate) S&M2 parlance. DBalling (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.metallica.com/news/2019-03-18-s-and-m-2.html
  2. ^ https://www.metallica.com/news/2019-07-30-bringing-s-m-2-to-the-big-screen.html
DBalling, Wikipedia doesn't always format titles the same way that bands/artists do (an example specific to Metallica would be Hardwired...To Self-Destruct vs Hardwired... to Self-Destruct). It's not "simpler, but less accurate", it's just easier to read, hence why just about every news article, website, etc. uses S&M2. If it were to have its own article (which is likely), its title would be S&M2 – the opening sentence could read "S&M2 (stylized as S&M2)...", but other than that, it's just easier to format it that way, especially as it would be consistent with what normally happens on Wikipedia. There's no reason why this didn't need to be discussed. 4TheWynne (talk • contributions) 00:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
4TheWynne, but isn't that factually inaccurate? It would be more accurate to say "S&M2 (often stylized as S&M2 for simplicity)..."? As for the news media and reporting, I think it's also because 2 is easier for them to use in that 2 will often get munged in their systems or cause them technical issues. But Wikipedia doesn't suffer that technical limitation, so in the interest of accuracy, we should not take it upon ourselves to change historical facts to suit anyone's personal "readability" preferences.
As for pre-discussing, this is literally the first time in over a decade of editing Wikipedia pages where (seemingly) every change needed to be "pre-approved" by the Talk-Cabal. It seems counter to the usual norms. DBalling (talk) 07:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
What's "factually inaccurate" about it? Once again, Wikipedia doesn't always format titles the same way that bands/artists do, and I'm just trying to give you a reason as to why that might be (for the record, I have never seen a single Wikipedia article open with "often stylized as _______ for simplicity"). This isn't about something being "pre-approved"; you made an edit, someone disagreed and reverted, it gets discussed – what's so unusual about that? 4TheWynne (talk • contributions) 08:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm confused by your question. It's axiomatically correct that the title of the project is S&M2, since the artist is the ultimate arbiter of the nature of their work, not the media or a wiki editor. So saying "it's called S&M2" is just straight-up factually-inaccurate. It might be fair to say "It's called S&M2, but frequently referred to (for ease) as S&M2," or something like that, but neither you nor I get to determine the title of the work. DBalling (talk) 09:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

You are mistaken. It's not axiomatically correct, and the artist is not always the ultimate arbiter of the nature of their work, and the media is, in some cases, like this one. In regards to titles, depending on what stylization is most widely used by media publications, Wikipedia will correspond. dannymusiceditor oops 18:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

That is like, literally, the height of arrogance, for anyone but the artist to think they can decide the title of an artist's work. But I've lost interest at this point. Idiotic shit like this is why it's hard to take Wikipedia seriously, and makes it easy to see why it has no real credibility outside its own bubble. DBalling (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Suit yourself. dannymusiceditor oops 19:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Lloyd Grant

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

He was a member in 1982, and played on first recording 'Hit the Lightning' as guitarist, should be listed as a former member. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.208.237.104 (talk) 05:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Please take new conversations to the bottom of a talk page as per this policy. Lloyd was never a member but is mentioned in the article as having played lead guitar on the song. Given his contribution, I'd say the mention he receives is adequate. Robvanvee 05:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Deluxe Editions

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Kill 'Em All, Ride the Lightning, Master of Puppets and ...And Justice for All has have all been released in multi-disc Deluxe Editions. But their respective articles include nothing about them (such as their exclusive tracks). This needs to be addressed. Charles Essie (talk) 03:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Charles Essie just added this section to ...And Justice For All, please let me know if this is up to standard. I understand the "collapsed" parameter has been deprecated on Wikipedia, so it feels a bit lengthy, but it is accurate. --D1119 (talk) 23:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  • The link above is to the disambiguation page, not the album article, here. Listing all 100+ songs seems excessive to me. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oops sorry about that ! Fixed my link. Is there a way to maybe summarize the track listing somehow, maybe just listing a summary of what each CD contains (B-sides, live performance at..., home recordings, etc.)? Or maybe make an entirely separate page for the deluxe box sets? Just throwing ideas out. --D1119 (talk) 13:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Summarizing the deluxe songs at ...And Justice for All (album) would probably be best. Maybe list a few notable songs as examples. An updated album does not seem to warrant a new article, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Gray background bars in the Timeline

Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

@ARMcgrath: The gray background bars in the Timeline don't seem necessary in the case of Metallica's band members. There aren't that many people. Background bars are more appropriate when there are long band hiatus gaps or several people in and out of the band. For example, reviewing Santana, the background does help since there are 60+ members on the timeline and several gaps in the same member's bars throughout. Or, with Whitesnake, there are three big hiatus gaps with the previous members not always returning to the band after the hiatus. In this case, the background does help with reading the chart. CYAce01 (talk) 13:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the gray bar background. It makes the graph easier/faster to read. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
@Fnlayson: In almost 39 years the band has been around and have only 8 member bars, the chart really isn't that hard to read to begin with. The bars are progressively down a list, no major breaks, etc. CYAce01 (talk) 13:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Nowhere did I say or suggest it was hard to read without the bars. Only it was faster or easier with. Regards, -Fnlayson (talk) 13:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
FWIW, I agree that it it's a little easier to read. It's not hard without them, but easier with. I don't see the harm to leaving them there. DBalling (talk) 14:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
I tend to lean more towards what CYAce01's saying – I know it's only a minute detail that really has no bearing on the article whatsoever, but I also don't understand why one editor has fought so hard for the bars to be included when there are only eight bars in the timeline. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 14:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
The sample shown in the style guide here reads easy/fast, too. No gray backgrounds there, either. CYAce01 (talk) 14:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Bring back article ...And Justice for All (song)

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This article should be brought back: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...And_Justice_for_All_(song)&oldid=956553871 .its a promo single and we have an extra secion for that, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Metallica Literally cant name a single reason why it should be deleted. the fact that there were tries to bring the article back by other users (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...And_Justice_for_All_(song)&diff=641145590&oldid=580815701&diffmode=source) shows that there was never a consensus to delete it either. If "Better than You" warrants its own page, then this one does tooUrgal (talk) 01:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Urgal, "I don't see why it should be deleted", "someone else also tried to restore it" and "if __________ has an article, then so should this" are very thin arguments. There isn't enough material for the song to warrant its own article as it is, and if you take away all of the unsourced content, there is even less reason to have an article. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 03:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
how do we not have enough material, have you even looked at the article? its more stuff than most articles for other songs. also please explain how it being a promo single doesnt warrant an own page?? again, we have an extra section for promotional songs, that alone is enough of a reason. its weird asf how badly you want this page gone, it doesnt even make sense. 03:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
the song has as an article in 13 other languages wikipedia btw
I agree with 4TheWynne, not extensive or even notable enough to warrant an article of its own. Your arguments for, are as 4TheWynne says, rather thin and having an article in 50 other languages is still not a good reason imo. Robvanvee 06:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2020

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Tulski (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Metallica was created on October 28. Please add the exact date. It is written on their website.

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP (talk • contribs) 18:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Genre addition

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I believe that speed metal should be added to the Metallica genres as per this source. JJPMaster (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Added where? To the infobox or elsewhere in the article? SolarFlashDiscussion 22:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
The infobox. JJPMaster (talk) 18:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Well, does the article state clearly that Metallica is "speed metal", anywhere in the prose? If it does, and it's reliably sourced, you are free to add the genre to the infobox. If it doesn't you can't. I should also point out that the guidelines require us to "aim for generality" when adding infobox genres, and I think "heavy metal" and "thrash metal" cover the band well enough without disregarding the rules just to add a sub genre. SolarFlashDiscussion 19:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
That Britannica article states "developed the subgenre speed metal" in the first paragraph, then never mentions speed metal again. It does mention heavy metal and thrash metal later. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
No, this article, not the Britannica source. Does this Wikipedia article about Metallica state clearly anywhere in the prose that Metallica is "speed metal"? I'm pretty sure it does not. Read my above comment if you need any clarification. SolarFlashDiscussion 21:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Is Metallica a thrash metal band?

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

At the first sentence of this article, is it okay if I change “heavy metal” to “thrash metal”? I ask this because Metallica is considered to be one of thrash metal’s “big four” bands; therefore, I want to change the link, but I want some permission first. KevinML (talk) 03:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I'd leave it as it is, their style has changed over the years so they're not really thrsh any more. The fact they're one of the big four is mentioned later in the lede anyway. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Dylanfromthenorth! I was checking to see if my suggestion was valid KevinML (talk) 19:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Halo on Fire

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Good morning everyone. Just to let you all that I removed "Halo on Fire" as a single in every related article, because according to the Metallica official website is not listed. No radio dates found either on AllAcess.com. --94.36.133.246 (talk) 10:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

please change "Metallica is an American heavy metal band." to "Metallica is an American thrash metal band." 159.86.135.5 (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2021

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Add Joey Jordison to Touring Members. He replaced Lars for their show at the Download Festival in 2004 after Lars fell ill and could not play drums that night. 47.37.232.134 (talk) 04:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  Not done – he filled in for one show, and that's it. Touring members refer to people who have filled a position for an entire tour, sometimes several. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 05:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Addition to Legacy and influence section proposal.

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello! I'd like to add some text to the Legacy and Influence section about Metallica's Archival endeavors. The information comes from a interview from Revolver Magazine with Lars Ulrich I believe it would fit well after the paragraph on Guitar Hero and before the paragraph on working with whiskey distiller Dave Pickerelle


Text to be added:

In 2013, master archivist Bob Pfeifer was retained to supervise the creation of an extensive archival vault. In a 2017 Revolver Magazine interview, Lars Ulrich said, “We actually have a person who works for us, Bob Pfeifer, whose full-time job is to travel the world in solitude and try to unearth Metallica tapes and Metallica first-generation masters and that sort of stuff.”[1]

Hi! Sorry, but I don't really think that this, at least as written, is really is all that directly about Metallica's legacy and influence. Perhaps the name Bob Pfeifer could be tacked onto same text about archives of Metallica's works for extra context (I'm not really sure how much it would add), but as a standalone statement it does seem a bit out of place. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.revolvermag.com/music/metallicas-lars-ulrich-master-puppets-cliffs-final-show-unearthing-rarities Revolver Magazine with Lars Ulrich

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2021

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

change heavy metal to thrash metal because Metallica makes comeback in thrash metal with new albumhttps://www.trtworld.com › Arts & Culture states that Metallica is thrash metal 47.33.215.43 (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Also, it's not clear what you want changed - both heavy and thrash are mentioned throughout the article. Are you requesting that every instance of "heavy" be changed to "thrash"? If so, I disagree Cannolis (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Heavy metal is a broad genre and the lead genre is supposed to be broad. Thrash metal is listed in Metallica's infobox. That is good enough. Bowling is life (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

"adding more bands Metallica has been influenced by"

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

How long is this list going to get? I think it was too long as it was. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's not enough bands or "too long" in your case. Check Iron Maiden's page as an example of this, their page lists more than enough bands they are influenced by or bands who have cited Maiden as an influence. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 22:06, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Adding Ozzy to Associated acts list

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The band toured with him in 86, they played a song or two with him in the 2000s, and Robert and Jason both played bass in his band.BoxxyBoy (talk) 05:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Touring together is not associated - FlightTime (open channel) 02:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Genres

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

i dont know if it is accurate to include "hard rock" as a main genre. when was the last time they released a hard rock album? "Load" and "Reload" in the mid 90s? and these were the only ones. the infobox should only contain main genres and i feel its misleading to label them a hard rock band --FMSky (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

What do reliable sources say? - FlightTime (open channel) 18:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Band member timeline

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Trujillo didn't join the band until AFTER St. Anger was recorded. I know he officially joined the band before the album was released, but the timeline makes it seem like he played on the actual album. Not sure how best to approach this. Geoffhunt3 (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Marcus Ramsden, was actually Metallica's first bassist. The band met him in Santa Monica, where he worked in an Army surplus store. They rehearsed for some time, before Ramsden quit, because he didn't like the music. 205.155.143.66 (talk) 00:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Metallica/Archive_7&oldid=1151425236"