Talk:Flyleaf (band): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 22:36, 7 April 2008 editTimmeh (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers14,169 edits →"Rock" in lead ← Previous edit		Revision as of 22:41, 7 April 2008 edit undoLandon1980 (talk \| contribs)Rollbackers9,403 edits →"Rock" in lead Next edit →
Line 99:		Line 99:

	::I think everyone, except Landon, agrees that rock should be in the lead. He won't give a reason why he doesn't want it there so there's no point arguing over it anymore. It's a pointless discussion. ]]] 22:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)		::I think everyone, except Landon, agrees that rock should be in the lead. He won't give a reason why he doesn't want it there so there's no point arguing over it anymore. It's a pointless discussion. ]]] 22:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

			Most all articles have the primary genre in the lead, why should it be different here? That is why I don't want it there, there are in excess of 30 sources that support alternative, just seems logical to me to put it there. You all need to quit throwing GC's name into the mix. If you will read is earlier statements he said he definitely agreed that alternative should be in the lead, he will agree to about anything just to get everyone to shut the heck up. He has to be sick of this by now, every time he thinks it is over here comes someone like Kaiba, stirring up a bunch of shit. If he/she would have left well enough alone nothing would have ever been said. ] (]) 22:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:41, 7 April 2008

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Flyleaf (band) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Biography: Musicians Start‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Low-importance).

United States: Texas Unassessed

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Texas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Texas.

Archives
Creation – April 2008

Genre dispute

It has become quite clear to me that this is not going to be solved anytime soon. As such, I have adopted the solution that was arrived upon at Anberlin, a band with similar genre conflicts. Christian rock will be listed, but it will have a tag next to it clearly stating that it is disputed, linking to the section of the article that discusses this. I will be unlocking the article; however, if edit warring continues, all participants will be blocked. Please use this talk page for reasonable discussion from here on in, no personal attacks, no name calling. Thanks. GlassCobra 07:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Just because a few ppl disagree with something that doesn't make it disputed. It is sourced info, it is not disputed. 78.129.175.213 (talk) 12:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Is everyone happy with what I have done? I sure hope so, don't want to hurt anyones feelings. 78.129.175.213 (talk) 12:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, people disagreeing over something is the definition of disputed. I've reverted your changes. GlassCobra 12:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so everywhere on Misplaced Pages if SOURCED CONTENT is added, as long as a couple people don't like the truth you are going to list disputed next to it. I do not agree with alternative rock so put disputed next to it, then link it to the moron section. 78.129.175.213 (talk) 12:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read the dispute before trying to override consensus that took over a month to reach. There are sources that can be found to say that Flyleaf is Christian rock and ones that say that Flyleaf dislike being labeled as a Christian band. Please do not edit war on the article. GlassCobra 13:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that you see it my way cobra=] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.150.73 (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOS and Genres

User:Kaiba has reverted twice citing WP:MOS. I asked the following question on his talk page but he's deleted it without comment so I'm pasting it here.

If I understand you correctly, you want to replace <br> with commas? If so, where's the discussion on this? The sample template for bands at Template:Infobox_Musical_artist#Genre has <br>. --NeilN 05:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Glasscobra

~~?Since when can admins override consensus of multiple users? Alternative Rock clearly needs to be the primary genre here, almost all the sources found support that genre.~~? Landon1980 (talk) 12:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not overriding any consensus, please read the discussion more carefully. Kaiba and Dwrayosfour were edit warring over whether alt metal or alt rock would be included in the lead sentence. I removed the genre altogether and told them that they need to discuss it here on the talk page to decide which genre should be included. However, Dwrayos continued to revert back to his version; because he was edit warring and not discussing, he was blocked. GlassCobra 13:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think GlassCobra has handled this situation well, and ought to be commended on the way he has handled this situation. Good work. Five Years 13:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

~~I hardly see edit-warring and overriding consensus commendable.~~ Strike that, I shouldn't have said that.

You will see that many ppl will agree upon making Alternative the primary genre, and this was implied multiple times in the discussion. The edit war was clearly over between those two users, you poured fuel on the fire. You also could have discussed here first before removing something of that nature. It takes to to edit war, you were the other party here. Dwrayosrfour was not reverting to his version, he was reverting to your version that was in place directly after the article being unlocked. He felt he was enforcing a well-known consensus. Why is it that only we have to discuss changes here and not you? User Kaiba certainly did not discuss here before removing the content. Landon1980 (talk) 13:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Alternative is the primary genre, it's true -- however, the distinction between alt rock and alt metal is apparently enough to edit war over. The edit war was over between Kaiba and Dwrayos because Kaiba did the sensible thing and stopped, because he realized he was closing in on 3RR. The point is that this was in contention and should have been discussed before being added at all if it was going to be fought over. So I merely removed it in order to facilitate discussion here. Please also be aware that it was Kaiba, not Dwrayos, who was reverting back to the version from before the article was protected. GlassCobra 13:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No according to the edit history the previous version had Christian in the lead, and the other had alternative metal. I meant he dw was reverting to the version that was in place while the article was protected, minus metal and plus rock. Kaiba's version was the new one. Check the history Landon1980 (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Also I reverted my last change, I won't mess with it until something is decided upon here. Landon1980 (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

When I looked at this article after the protection was over, like most Flyleaf articles here, it stated 'Alternative metal' in the header. It was I who changed it from alternative metal to simply the word 'rock'. Consensus of the recent discussion is to list Alt. rock, Alt. metal, and Christian rock in the genre box, but I dont believe there was any formal consensus on what genre the opening line should have (the only thing close to that was someone saying "there are more refs for alt. rock, so that was consensus", which is a false interpretation of what consensus really is). Since it was an agreed consensus to add these three genres to the infobox, I believe adding a single genre to the opening sentence would violate NPOV, since it is clear from the discussion that all three are or could be percieved (in the case of Christian rock) as a genre of Flyleaf. Furthurmore, all genres that are listed, Alt. rock, Alt. metal and Christian rock, all fall under a broad category of rock music, so stating 'rock', instead of one of the three, in the lead will ultimately lead to the most neutral view point on the genre. When this dispute happened on another bands article, HIM's, at the time there were four or 5 genres in the infobox, including alt. rock, heavy metal, hard rock and gothic rock/metal and the agreed solution there was to simply put it under the term rock music since it is irrefutable and the most neutral. — Κaiba 14:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I completely disagree with the above. The primary genre needs to be in the lead sentence. Alternative was said to be the primary genre multiple times in the past discussion. Primary genres are almost always listed in the lead sentence. Furthermore, there was no conflict involving this, you assumed that. No one expressed a problem with alternative being in the opening sentence, in fact we all agreed it would be the primary genre for this band. Landon1980 (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Also alternative was in the article while it was protected, you need to discuss things like this here before you just simply edit-war to get what you want. It is your opinion none of the above should be listed, but you should also seek the opinion of others before doing something like that. You knew the genre of this band was, (is) heavily disputed. As for your other changes you kept insisting upon, policy is to use <br> tags in the infobox for bands, not commas. You should also familiarize yourself with Wp:MOS before you repeatedly try and enforce it on others. Landon1980 (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Very sad when it is decided that a single genre ripped out from the three choices is plastered in the heading and called a NPOV. I wont respond to the rest of your attack. — Κaiba 16:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It isn't sad when nearly three dozen sources support that genre, this is how it's almost always done. I am not attacking you, I am talking to you. Where did you see an attack? You saying "GET OFF MY F****NG talkpage is an attack, not my mere statement. The three genres are not the same, Christian Rock is disputed and has one or two sources that meet the criteria of WP:Source and alternative metal and rock are very similar. Using alternative rock is the logical thing to do in this case, the vast majority of our references support it. I can understand your point of view if the genres were very different, and had an equal number of references, but that is not the case at all. Landon1980 (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh did I say a bad word (and in non-caps, as you didn't imply)? Misplaced Pages is not censored for minors. And again, you cite consensus in numbers of references, I suggest you read up on what consensus really is. I also suggest you clarify what is so similar about alternative rock and alternative metal, because they are two different genres completely. Alternative rocks style origins lay with punk, post-punk and hardcore music while alternative metal evolved from alt. rock, grunge, heavy metal and prog rock. In fact, I went and looked on the alternative rock article and I couldn't easlily find a link straight to alternative metal (although if I looked at the full article I could probably find a mention of it). The only things that are similar are the names of alt. rock and alt. metal. Not only that but you stated that the primary genre is always listed in the lead? I picked three stable band articles by random to see if you have it right:

Green Day - "Green Day is an American rock band" with punk rock, pop punk and alternative rock in the infobox

System of a Down - "System of a Down...is an American rock band" with alternative metal, experimental rock, nu metal and various others listed in the infobox (wait, alt. metal? does that mean they are alt. rock too?! By your decree, they would be)

Nirvana (band) - "Nirvana was an American rock band" with alternative rock and grunge in the infobox

Nirvana is the perfect example. Grunge is a type of alternative rock, but yet both alternative rock and grunge are listed in the infobox and lookie at the lead, it doesn't say either. I rest my case.

And Nirvana just keeps on giving, it is a featured article and look at the infobox, it lists the genres as "Alternative rock, grunge" <--Commas, no? — Κaiba 16:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be using this select few while ignoring hundreds of other articles that list the primary genre in the lead. 76.177.242.179 (talk) 17:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and how many of those are articles are controlled by their fanboys? And how many of those articles are content that is featured, or even considered a good article? My bet is not many, if any at all. — Κaiba 17:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is there always a big argument going on here? Why can't you all just leave well enough alone? This is hardly worth arguing over. Everyone has agreed that alternative be the primary genre through consensus. If you wish you can restart the debate I suppose, but I doubt many will want to join seeing how the debate ended just YESTERDAY. 76.177.242.179 (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"Everyone has agreed that alternative be the primary genre" is not what is questioned. Alt. rock, Alt. metal and Christian rock all have sources. And the issue is having a single one of those listed in the beginning sentence. — Κaiba 19:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Think about it like this kaiba, you are worried about NPOV to keep everyone happy and be fair to everyone right? Well do you realize that this entire new dispute is because of you failing to discuss what you were doing and edit warring? You could have at least waited for someone to complain, leave good enough alone. 76.177.242.179 (talk) 19:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't edited the article for the genres since last night. I have been here for the entire length today discussing it and not changing it. Shut up unless you have a valid argument. — Κaiba 20:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You people are arguing over nothing! Like Kaiba pointed out, other articles have just rock in the lead. Why are you arguing over whether to put christian rock or alt rock or whatever? Just put rock. And 76.177.242.179 (aka User:Hoponpop69), you're just escalating this. Just rock in the lead is fine and there's no reason for anyone to disagree with that, unless of course you just love edit warring and pointless discussion. Tim meh ! 21:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I just want to point out that Kaiba is on nearly ever single band article there is making these same changes. 76.177.242.179 (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you like to point out a a group of diffs of me changing a genre significantly other than this article? I did so to this article and Nickelback yesterday, but I do not recall any others, unless your seeing something I'm not. — Κaiba 05:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The ones that do not list the primary in the lead for the most part are the ones Kaiba has graced with his presence. Nearly all band articles do this, no different here. Landon1980 (talk) 00:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I was not the one who changed any of the genres in any of the articles I pointed out above. The fact I may have edited the article at all is of no relevance. WP:POINT dearly noted. — Κaiba 05:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

"Rock" in lead

Is anyone not okay with this? I'd strongly support it, if only to end this bickering. GlassCobra 14:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The only person against alternative metal is Kaiba, why are we always bending over backwards for one user and ignoring the wishes of others. I like how you will not even acknowledge making a mistake yesterday, and ignore me when I ask you about it. Kaiba was the one making the change from the version restored after and before and after the article was unlocked. DW was acting on behalf of several users, it is a shame people are treated that way on here. Kaiba was making the change, and he should be the one to had to discuss on talk first. You would think that you if anyone would have supported that consensus after witnessing and mediating a month long edit war. You could have at least told Kaiba to discuss before making a change regarding the band's genre, that is what the edit war was over you know? I would have done the same thing, I have seen TONS of cases where one user will enforce consensus when someone new is overriding it without discussing it, and they certainly were not blocked. The guiltiest party in an edit war is the one seeking the change. The fact he is blocked is a disgrace to the entire community. You should have supported that consensus yourself. You could have at least not been so careless and actually looked at the edits that were made between the users. You went on for half a day yesterday how most articles contain the primary in the lead, and that you agree one of the two should be in the lead, but that you were not going to side with metal or rock. Then told me to be aware that dw was the one making the change, well that wasn't the case and you would have known had you taken the time to actually looked.Nearly all articles contain a genre in the lead, just because one person wants to edit war over it is not a good reason to do different here. Landon1980 (talk) 15:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Another thing, what is up with the three day block? When I reported hoponpop for personal attacks, incivility, harassment, abusive sock puppetry, etc. he was only blocked for 72 hours and that made the 9th time he had been blocked for the same things, and all within not too long a period. He then made another personal attack literally minutes after the block expired, he was then reported and the admins responding failed to even warn him, one even said he was salvagable, and that he jumped the gun reporting him. I don't understand how things work around here. Landon1980 (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Although this is unrelated to this article, Hoponpop69 seems to have just gotten lucky. Admins must think that since he has had mostly good edits, he will learn from his mistakes by getting several short blocks. I think this is a serious problem. Every time he has been blocked it has only been for a few days. Almost all of his blocks are from incivility and personal attacks, yet blocking admins refuse to give him a longer block for reasons unknown to me. However, he should receive the correct number of warnings before being reported. Hoponpop seems to be addicted to edit wars and won't settle for anything other than what he thinks should be. I am having this problem with him over Sum 41 about the genres; he refuses to discuss the issue and just keeps reverting my edits. He didn't violate the 3 revert rule, and I've already reported his activities to WP:ANI, but the responding admin just told him to discuss the matter on the article's talk page rather than on mine. I am almost ready to just report him to WP:AIV for reverting my edits without explanation or discussion. However, this isn't the place to discuss this, so if you want to discuss it further, Landon or anyone, feel free to on my talk page. Tim meh ! 21:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I put "rock" into the lead not realizing there was a discussion about it. It's kinda obvious that they are rock, and its essential in the article really. Riverpeopleinvasion (talk) 21:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Landon1980, you said "The only person against alternative metal is Kaiba".. You said you wanted alternative rock in the lead paragraph.. This is only evidence that simply the term 'rock' should be in the lead which is what I supported from the beginning. So think about it now Landon, now yourself and Hoponpop69's IP are the only ones left favoring the alternative metal/rock lead, while myself, glasscobra, Timmeh and Riverpeopleinvasion all support rock in the lead. I see your so-called consensus failing. — Κaiba 22:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Either of the alternatives are fine with me, also that IP is not hoponpop's. He would be for Christian in the lead if he were still involved, trust me. Landon1980 (talk) 22:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Too bad I can't trust you. — Κaiba 22:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Why would hoponpop suddenly change over and support alternative, he hates the idea of it being in the lead, he wanted Christian in there, that was one of the things the last dispute was over. Landon1980 (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

And yes Kaiba, you are the only editor that has a problem with alternative being in the lead. The others just do not want to argue about it, anything to get us to shut up. You are the only one that cares enough to edit war over it. You are the only erson to ever complain about it being in the lead. EVER! Landon1980 (talk) 22:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Call down. Now, rock covers all the genres. Be it alternative metal or hell even christian rock. Rock works for everything and there are more people for it than against it. So consensus? Riverpeopleinvasion (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone, except Landon, agrees that rock should be in the lead. He won't give a reason why he doesn't want it there so there's no point arguing over it anymore. It's a pointless discussion. Tim meh ! 22:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Most all articles have the primary genre in the lead, why should it be different here? That is why I don't want it there, there are in excess of 30 sources that support alternative, just seems logical to me to put it there. You all need to quit throwing GC's name into the mix. If you will read is earlier statements he said he definitely agreed that alternative should be in the lead, he will agree to about anything just to get everyone to shut the heck up. He has to be sick of this by now, every time he thinks it is over here comes someone like Kaiba, stirring up a bunch of shit. If he/she would have left well enough alone nothing would have ever been said. Landon1980 (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Categories: