Talk:Sabaton (band)

Untitled

Per WP:NMG please include chart positions, sales data or other indications of notability. Thanks - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 12:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I merely assumed that because I could buy their albums off Amazon and the website of one of the biggest supermarkets in the UK (Tesco) they would be important enough to be featured in this wiki. --Midness 21:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Updated Layout

I've changed the language to reflect on what has happened. Some parts read "In 2008, Sabaton will release" or "Sabaton will be performing at (..) in 2009". It's all fixed. In addition, I've sorted the biography after the respective albums. --79.136.5.149 (talk) 11:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Sabaton are a legitmate and professional band

Power metal doesn't make chart positions or sales records anymore. Those figures are a bad measure of importance. The power metal scene is alive and well. Sabaton are a well known band and their work has been reviewed many times in various Metal periodicals. These guys do this for a living and aren't some weekend project garage band.

Indeed, they played support for Dragonforce, 'nuff said. Robrecht 15:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

They actually played a headliner tour through North-West Europe also in August, which was then lengthened with a few extra concerts in September because of the huge success. IN A SINGLE MONTH they nearly (there was maybe a dozen tickets left) sold out the same venue (Biebob) in Belgium out twice. While Biebob isn't huge, not many bands have had more than one full hall there on such a short timeframe. -- 80.201.180.229 23:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Difference from other Power Metal bands section

This whole section seems pretty worthless. Sabaton may be doing things a little differently from most modern European Power Metal bands, but its hardly noteworthy or unique, just another style of the genre. Riff-driven, with subtle keyboards and deep vocals - could be talking about any number of bands. Radagast1983 18:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I removed some bad info from this section earlier, but you're right, the whole section is useless. AidanPryde 04:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I created that section. I would like to say if you feel that's it's useless, then delete it. The reason I but it there because I will disagree with the "Hardly" part because when I originally heard them, I wasn't sure what they would be classified as in the metal genre. And usually bands that don't sound like typical power metal bands are bands that have crossed over into other genre's as well (such as Iced Earth with thrash metal, Into Eternity for death metal but not much under power metal, Evergrey and Sypmohny X with progressive metal, Nightwish with gothic metal, and others) while Sabaton entirely soounds Power Metal pretty much, with some Heavy Metal-like songs of course but still carrying on Power Metal style, so that's what got me to add that section in. I thought it would be a interesting thing for new fans of the band who may have never heard of Sabaton and would like to hear them and such. But, if you feel the section is useless, delete it, I won't stop you. Mandilore 18:07 12 February 2007(UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Attero Dominatus.jpg

Image:Attero Dominatus.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

CD Orders

The heading describing the order their CDs were released are wrong...Metalizer was not their debut album. Someone should edit this, I'm afraid to in case it's wrong too ¬_¬ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.148.222 (talk) 13:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

If anyone knows the correct pronunciation of the name of the band, it would be nice to have it in the beginning of the article, I think. 85.146.78.111 (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's quite simple: Sah-bah-ton is the easiest way to explain it since I do not know phonetical signs. --80.216.60.117 (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Future is out of date

Virtually almost all the information in the Future section is most likely out of date by now. Probably ought to remove that entire section, or at least copypaste everything where necessary dees nuts97.71.227.210 (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.136.198.134 (talk) 07:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Group's name

the word sabaton derives from the Greek word "Σάββατο", which means Saturday — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.71.199.2 (talk) 14:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I've interviewed the band, they chose their name from the armoured boot.Yellowxander (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Heavy Metal

Pär Sundström said Sabaton is a heavy metal band, not a power metal --Antarco 19:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

They are a Swedish power metal band Someoersonyouknow (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 23 March 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

---

• Sabaton (band) → Sabaton
• Sabaton → Sabaton (armour)

– A clear case of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The band is the more important of the two topics. All of the top google results are about the band, and the band's Wikipedia page gets approximately ten times as many pageviews as the type of armour's Wikipedia page. (see this pageviews graph) Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 00:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose as proposed A clear case of the first half of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC being one article and the second half being the other. There is a tension here between Wikipedia being an entertainment blog, and pretensions to be something that would help a schoolkid do their history homework. How otherwise does anyone get to know that Sabaton (Swedish metal band) is named after Sabaton (foot armour)? In this case as the guideline stands the Swedish metal band cannot be considered to pass the second half of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. So the move has to be opposed. But, that suggests that Sabaton (disambiguation) might be the best candidate for the baseline. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment You ask "How otherwise does anyone get to know that Sabaton (Swedish metal band) is named after Sabaton (foot armour)". Wouldn't the best way to do that be to simply state in this article that the band is named after the type of armour? I don't think teaching readers about etymology should be one of the criteria for determining a primary topic!
    Also, if the article was moved but for some reason you still wanted people to know "Sabaton"'s etymology from the hatnote, then you could use the following hatnote:
    This article is about the band. For the type of armour which the band is named after, see Sabaton (foot armour).
    I also disagree with your assertion that this is "a clear case of the first half of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC being one article and the second half being the other". According to the first half of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (a topic is primary for a term with respect to usage), the band is obviously the primary topic; however, the second criterion (a topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance) is much more iffy. Does the type of foot armour really have more long-term significance than the band? I'm not so sure about that. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 16:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. The band is certainly not the primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose RECENTISM Andy Dingley (talk) 13:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose The band is here today and may be gone tomorrow. The armor has an enduring history.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 14:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. The band is named after the armor, seems like the current setup is fairly straightforward. Nohomersryan (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment The fact that something is named after something else is not relevant to what the primary topic is. After all, the Boston article is about the city in Massachusetts, despite the fact that it was named after Boston, Lincolnshire. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 02:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Well, yes, of course there are exceptions. However, Boston's long-term significance has far usurped that of Lincolnshire. That doesn't appear to be the case here. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Is there any evidence that the armour has greater long-term significance than the band? And if so, is this evidence strong enough to keep the Sabaton article about the type of armour, which would directly contravene the first criterion of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 22:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose The primary topic is clearly the armour, from which the band derives its name Monstrelet (talk) 13:11, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Album redirects

The individual pages for "Fist for Fight", "Primo Victoria", and "Attero Dominatus" need to have their individual pages restored since they are "independently notable". The majority of the other music artists on wikipedia have seperate articles for all of their albums. How are "Fist for Fight", "Primo Victoria", and "Attero Dominatus" exceptions? 2600:6C55:700A:300:3003:D983:25F2:87C1 (talk) 09:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Adding my own concern as well, as I am wondering what the heck as well, and it has caused an issue while trying to find a song of theirs while on mobile. 95.147.223.180 (talk) 13:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree that all of Sabaton's studio albums are notable, but what's required for the independent pages to exist is to establish that notability. I was able to do that with Primo Victoria, Attero Dominatus and Metalizer solely based on Swedish chart placements, so those pages are now restored. The case of Fist for Fight is trickier since it does not appear to have made it onto any national chart, but there are other criteria as seen in WP:NALBUM. If anyone can produce a case for notability, by all means go ahead and restore the page. The old content is all still there in the history of the currently redirecting page. Laanders (talk) 10:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Metal Machine

Metal Machine redirects here for some reason, but there's a band called Metal Machine, which doesn't have a page here. What would be the best way to deal with this confusion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.7.132.113 (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 29 August 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should not be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is consensus against making the band the primary topic. There is currently no consensus to move Sabaton (disambiguation) to the base name. (non-admin closure) Colin M (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

---

• Sabaton (band) → Sabaton
• Sabaton → Sabaton (armor)

– A very obvious case of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Looking at this pageviews graph, the page on the band has over 7 times more daily views over the past 3 months than the armor, and I'd be willing to be that most of the armor's pageviews came from people on the band article trying to find out more about its namesake. And yes, I know this page has been RMed before, but that was over 2 and a half years ago. This band has headlined Wacken Open Air, the largest metal festival in the world, while the armor's greatest claim to fame is being... the namesake of a band. The band has its own metal festival, its own cruise, made the soundtrack to video games, etc, and the armor has done... nothing of note. You never hear "and he would have lived, but his sabatons were crappily made" in the history books. If it wasn't for the failed RM before, I would be bold and move the pages myself. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 01:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• definitely Support 2nd per nom, and Neutral 1st. As a half-way alternative, a disambiguation page could be created at the basename, per WP:TWODABS. Paintspot Infez (talk) 02:34, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

So just to clarify, you don't support moving Sabaton to Sabaton (armor), and you're neutral about moving Sabaton (band) to Sabaton? Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 02:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Yep, I'd be down with making a disambiguation page at the basename for now, then seeing where we're at later once links are fixed. Paintspot Infez (talk) 17:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• Prefer NOPRIMARYTOPIC like Paintspot. Make Sabaton a disambig page, and after a while when all the incoming links to Sabaton are disambiguated we can consider a primarytopic takeover. Dicklyon (talk) 13:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Recentism doesn't overrule PRIMARYTOPIC.

No objection to disambiguating both, although it would be to Sabaton (armour) as ENGVAR is still policy too. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• Prefer NOPRIMARYTOPIC like Paintspot and Dicklyon. And of course it has to be Sabaton (armour) as Andy noticed correctly. -- Just N. (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. Alright hang on, before we continue, please retain the British English spelling of "armour" in the disambiguator per MOS:RETAIN. It is what that article uses, and if there are no national ties, then the variety of English must not be changed. As addressed by Andy Dingley and Just N Lazz_R 17:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to me which spelling we use, as long as we have a redirect with the other spelling pointing to the article. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 19:03, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

What? My comment was not a question. The article's spelling variant needs to be used per the guideline that I linked if the article is moved -- "An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one variety of English to another" Lazz_R 09:18, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I know, I'm just saying it doesn't matter to me which spelling we use. Armor, armour, whatever. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 19:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Ahh, okay. Lazz_R 17:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. No move is necessary and no dab page either. The long-term significance criteria is designed for cases like this: the band is just not as notable as the nom thinks. It isn't like Boston, which completely eclipses its namesake. I highly doubt "the armor's greatest claim to fame is being... the namesake of a band". In any case, there are only two title matches on Wikipedia, so a dab page is just unnecessary. Srnec (talk) 00:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nobody doubts that Sabaton is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. And it is understandable to feel that an early 21st century band is more important than the 14th through 16th century armour it was named after. But this view is due to our current position in history. WP:NPOV means temporal neutrality, too; we need to balance the very tangible yet ultimately fleeting fame of a contemporary group with the importance that the original article had for people for hundreds of years. People for whom their sabatons were sometimes literally a matter of life and death.

We don't elevate Misfits (band) and Spinal Tap (band) to primary, with good reason. We could WP:NOPRIMARY like those pages, but that would degrade the experience for everyone, and there aren't enough distinct sabaton pages to warrant a disambiguation page anyway. --pmj (talk) 03:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I think there is a good argument for Spinal Tap (band) to be located at Spinal Tap, per WP:DIFFCAPS, not sure why the disambiguation page even exists._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support Per nom, also recentism isn’t a good argument, you wouldn’t move Hurricane Maria to Hurricane Maria (2017) because, while the other Hurricane Marias are notable, Hurricane Maria is more notableHelloimahumanbeing (talk) 03:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Hyper-recentism in the extreme. This is precisely 69 the reason the recentism guideline was made in the first place. The claim that "the armor's greatest claim to fame is being... the namesake of a band" is the most ridiculously navel gazing thing I've ever heard._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. I do agree that this is a very obvious case of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but that's where my agreement ends, because I would consider the long-term significance of the knight's armor to be the primary. Egsan Bacon (talk) 04:40, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. No, not at all an obvious case of a primary topic. That would be the armour as far as I'm concerned. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Heavy Metal

The genre information should be changed to "heavy metal", because:

1. The band does not play power metal. This genre is defined by the use of a high vocals and Joakim Brodén is definitely a bariton or a bass. 2. The band does not identify itself as a power metal band. 3. Metal magazines classify the band as a heavy metal band. -- Merkið (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Nearly every major source that talks about Sabaton refers to them as power metal. Guitar World, Discogs, Allmusic to name a few. Motorhead called themselves "rock and roll", but yet speed metal and heavy metal are listed because that is what most sources agree on. LABoy12 (talk) 05:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

"Power metal" does not fit the band, because Joakim Brodén is not a tenor. This should already be enough. --Merkið (talk) 12:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@LABoy12: What do you think of that? --Merkið (talk) 11:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

You don't have to be tenor to be power metal. Grave Digger, Rage, Whitesun, etc. Also, that doesn't address the main point that Sabaton are near universally accepted to at least fall into the power metal genre somewhat, hence why they are listed as both heavy metal and power metal. LABoy12 (talk) 21:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC) Also, as stated previously, just because a member or members of the band say they aren't power metal doesn't mean they aren't. AC/DC says they are just "rock and roll", but genres are more complex than that. You wouldn't just say Motorhead makes the same music as Chuck Berry because they say they do. If TOOL came out and said officially that they make synthpop and should be put next to Duran Duran, you would still acknowledge that they are stylistically more similar to another genre, while also acknowledging the band's intended genre.LABoy12 (talk) 22:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

References

New Section For Sabaton Open Air?

Should I add a new section for the Sabaton Open Air event? There is sufficient information from various websites not including Sabaton Official Website. I will be going ahead with this in some time. If anyone has any input or concerns regarding this please say so.SenatorLEVI (talk) 10:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Song "Defence of Moscow"

Are there any commentary/reviews about it? It's just defence of one totalitarian regime against another totalitarian regime. Eurohunter (talk) 17:35, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Why id thr power metal desxription lacking in article

Sabaton is mostly a power metal band,heablvy metal is the secondary genre 46.70.181.119 (talk) 23:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Sabaton Is Splitting Up Soon

I think that we should add a new paragraph to honour the band's history, while also bidding farewell to the members that are leaving the band. The band will still be around, but with new members. AverageBoredStudent (talk) 04:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Where did you get this information? AA Quantum (talk) 18:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Marco

Why is he not listed as a member? 2600:1700:18E0:9DA0:C524:D851:397E:615E (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)