Talk:Deftones

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Nu metal in the infobox

In the last discussion regarding the band's genre in the infobox (now located here: Talk:Deftones/Archive 3#Edit war over post-metal in infobox) the consensus was only to remove post-metal from the infobox. Since this discussion, Trascendence (talk · contribs) has been continuously removing nu-metal from the infobox citing this old discussion as a source of consensus.[1][2][3] Re-reading the old discussions, all I can find was the following quote from Trascendence: "...we all agreed in removing the highly disputed term "nu metal" from the infobox, that is something i wanted..." I don't actually see any editors discussing that idea or forming a consensus, just Trascendence supporting it out of the blue. And as much as I personally believe Deftones don't really play nu-metal (I personally hear a really wide range of influences), I've been highly neutral in recognizing that the band is widely, almost universally, accepted as being a nu-metal band. The sources provided to support this idea are all published books and hard to dispute—unlike some of the previous genres which where sourced to minor reviews and non-notable blogs. Fezmar9 (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Have to agree with Fezmar9, there was no discussion on nu metal, with only mentions here and there, just post-metal. In fact, the only other genre Trascendence appeared to have a problem with was experimental rock. Nu metal is well sourced and no other editor during that discussion stated that it should be removed (along with post-metal), the consensus was that post-metal should be removed, so why Trascendence decided to remove it without waiting for a reply from any of the editors, perhaps he could explain? HrZ (talk) 16:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

If you give a look to the final posts in the post-metal thread you'll found that it was discussed, it was a solution in a "middleground" way, i understand that you two aren't up to date with this, because both rarely opined in it, it was an agreement between Wesleydoods and I, as way of both of us getting something we wanted. I made it to stop a discussion that could have gone in circles forever, nu metal was out of the infobox before the post-metal thing ended, so it was deemed as a silent consensus and i just made it explicit to him. In fact there is nearly twelve years since the band stoped playing it, and most important there are reviewers that states that Deftones aren't nu metal anymore, nd others going as far as to say that they have never been, the genre deserves mention, but not in the infobox. Trascendence (talk) 01:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I've re-read much of the original discussion, I don't see an agreement between you and WesleyDodds. In fact, WesleyDodds brings up a number of published sources that support Deftones playing nu metal. Fezmar9 (talk) 01:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I've re-read the discussion, there is no such agreement between you and WesleyDodds. I should also point out that the discussion was not just between you and WesleyDodds either, other editors were involved and you can't just ignore their views to get what you want regardless of when they last replied. Stating that "we all agreed in removing the highly disputed term "nu metal" from the infobox" really did come out the blue. The discussion was about post-metal not nu metal, so why you decided to add that at the tail end of the discussion instead of starting a new one, I don't know. And I am pretty sure one editor does not get to decide when the discussion is over and what the consensus is. Also, "and most important there are reviewers that states that Deftones aren't nu metal anymore, nd others going as far as to say that they have never been" - do you have the sources that state as much? HrZ (talk) 17:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Not all editors need to discuss the same issue ten times to reach an agreement, ones even do it in an implicit way (like this case) here's my proposal [4] this is what wesley did 20 minutes later [5] removing the discuss template as a way of point that the discussion was over, also, if you were that much concerned with it's removal why didn't added it back while it was in dispute, you had two weeks to do so, you were aware it wasn't there. As for the oposition to nu-metal see: [6], [7] there are more, but i'm short of time today. Trascendence (talk) 04:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I "had two weeks" - you do know there isn't a deadline on Wikipedia right? I also have 996 articles on my watchlist (I don't always manage to check every edit), where I can only see the most recent edits, and I am not on Wikipedia every day, so please don't tell me what I am aware of in regards to this article. He clearly states "we don't need to highlight a content dispute in the article," meaing precisely that, it shouldn't have been there in the first place. He doesn't state that the discussion was over, so that is an assumption on your part. Again, the discussion was previously about post-metal, nu metal wasn't even in dispute until you mentioned it right at the end, and, based on your behaviour in this article, I can imagine any re-instating of nu metal would quickly be reverted by yourself. Also, two sources aren't enough. The reliable sources that exist stating nu metal (not just in the article, but any available) must be weighed with those that state they aren't. HrZ (talk) 16:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• The other day you were saying that you were activelly involved in this discussion too, not only Wesley and I. But now you say that you don't have time to even check the infobox of the article that you must acces first to then go to it's talk page to participe, you can't be involved and indiferent at the same time, I indeed, questioned the presence in the infobox of a genre as debated as nu metal before, nu metal in Deftones' music has detractors, the infobox must be only for the most general and less debated genres, as of now, post-metal has more right to be there, because you won't find a number of journalists saying "Deftones have been wrongly labeled as post-metal" like happens with nu metal, and is a genre that Deftones plays right now. Trascendence (talk) 03:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I do indeed support adding nu metal to the infobox. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

And I do want post-metal to be in the infobox, and it's a genre less debated and controversial with the band playing it right now, but this was supossed to be a temporal "middleground" solution, if you had a problem with nu metal being removed you should have said it, in contrast you remove the discussion template and didn't even tried to add it back nor said it here. Althought it's obvious that you just changed your instance now. Without a doubt, the biggest problem with the editors and this discussion is that they change of instance randomly and contradict themselves all the time, one day they have no problem with a change, but two days later they comeback and rant as if they were opposing from the begining, it's like i get to add post-metal to the infobox and one week later i comeback and want to remove it at any cost, from here and onwards, can all the editors here be consistent about it's instance in the infobox issue? that will give direction to this discussion. Trascendence (talk) 03:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

"And I do want post-metal to be in the infobox, and it's a genre less debated and controversial with the band playing it right now . . ." No it isn't, that's been roundly contested in the previous discussion.

" but this was supossed to be a temporal "middleground" solution . . ." No, it wasn't. Consensus was against you. You're the only one who considered it a stopgap solution.

"if you had a problem with nu metal being removed you should have said it, in contrast you remove the discussion template and didn't even tried to add it back nor said it here" I didn't discuss nu metal's inclusion because the discussion was about post-metal and I wanted to keep things focused. I had actually toyed with starting a new section to discuss the inclusion of nu metal once the previous discussion wrapped up, but passed on it to focus on other work on Wikipedia in the meantime. Me not raising an objection to something isn't silent consent--I tend to either clearly agree or disagree with something. What a lack of comment means from it is I most likely became busy elsewhere. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)