Talk:Black Sabbath

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleBlack Sabbath has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 20, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 2, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
April 26, 2009Good article nomineeListed
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on February 13, 2020.
Current status: Good article

Legacy[edit]

In 2014, MetalSucks polled more than a hundred of metal’s most revered musicians, critics, journalists, artists, publicists, and industry insiders to find out which 25 bands represent the very BEST in the history of metal and Black Sabbath finished at #1.

See http://www.metalsucks.net/2014/11/14/25-best-metal-bands-time-real-1-black-sabbath/


Heaven & Hell[edit]

NO MERGE:

There is no consensus to merge. While this discussion does not display much in the way of significant rationales for opposing the merge, the linked discussion does, so both discussions are worth reading in full. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I know that a discussion on merging Black Sabbath and Heaven & Hell has already been done but that discussion failed to acknowledge Tony Iommi's own thoughts on the matter.[1]

It really is Black Sabbath, whatever we do... so everyone knows what they're getting [and] so people won't expect to hear 'Iron Man' and all those songs. We've done them for so many years, it's nice to do just all the stuff we did with Ronnie again.

Charles Essie (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong opppose. These are two different bands despite having the same members and using the name of the album they recorded, while being in Black Sabbath. They distinct themselves for a reason and there is no room for personal interpretations. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't an interpretation. Tony Iommi said Heaven & Hell is Black Sabbath (per above quote). Charles Essie (talk) 21:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I can, but OK, Iommi can obviously think, say, feel or reflect about anything Sabbath, but the fact remains the industry, fans and the world sees them as two bands, and so do I. Iommi's remarks can be mentioned somewhere appropriate, but merging and deleting Heaven & Hell, No. - Mlpearc (open channel) 14:09, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2017[edit]

Pleas add: Category:English doom metal musical groups To the bottom of the page source. It will just include Black Sabbath in a larger list of English Doom metal groups.

Thank you 2.24.130.106 (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The infobox lists "heavy metal" and not "doom metal". I don't believe this has a consensus for addition. Izno (talk) 20:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please change the introduction paragraph to heavy metal band. They are possibly the most famous heavy metal band. Fipler Metalus (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Black Sabbath. 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.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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) 11:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only 3, 7 and 8 work. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Black Sabbath. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 20:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2018[edit]

UPDATE LINK FOR Reference #172 TO https://rockoverdose.gr/tony-martin-ex-black-sabbath-rockoverdoseif-iommi-wants-something-together/ Parazapant (talk) 14:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Updated reference to go to correct URL. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rock or Heavy Metal?[edit]

Ok, so Obviously they are a rock band; but why can't we be more specific? I feel like in the Header it should refer to them as a Heavy metal band, since they helped popularize the genre and all of their albums are generally considered Heavy metal. What do you guys think? Howpper (talk) 13:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You saw the hidden notes, yes? So I'm guessing that any previous discussion(s) can be found in the Talk page archive somwehere? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinevans123: from what I read, it didn't appear that a consensus was ever reached (I may be wrong). The majority of sources (by far) refer to them as a Heavy Metal Band, and the infobox only lists Heavy Metal. I honestly think it should be in the header. Howpper (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "Musical Style" section already says: "Black Sabbath were a heavy metal band, whose music has also been described as psychedelic rock and acid rock". I see also that Heavy metal music, in it's lead section, says this: "In 1968, three of the genre's most famous pioneers, Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath and Deep Purple were founded." with support from Tom Larson's 2004 History of Rock and Roll. We might want to copy that over here? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I think about it, I see why it says rock. It also says they are pioneers of heavy metal in the header; it would be redundant to say it twice. Do you think it should say Hard rock instead of Rock? Howpper (talk) 12:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No strong views either way. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it would be fine if I changed the header from Rock to Hard rock? Howpper (talk) 23:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is already stated in the "Musical style" section that "...whose music has also been described as psychedelic rock and acid rock". Hard rock is not mentioned anywhere and they were not a hard rock band so rock is used instead as it keeps the genre neutral, because Black Sabbath were also described as having played more genres, which did not exist at the time. – Sabbatino (talk) 04:51, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, it will stay the same. Howpper (talk) 06:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don not want to be the elitist right now, but the major concensus within the METAL community is that Black Sabbath was the FIRST real Metal band, their song, "Black Sabbath" from their album of the same was the first ever Metal song, and that their first two albums were almost exclusively Metal albums, with the exceptions of like one song, and their third, fourth, and fifth albums were mostly heavy Metal with some songs belonging to other genres and only the "filler songs" not being Metal. So, yes, from a Metalhead's opinion, Black Sabbath is a true "Metal band," and to call them a rock band will get much more sneers feom their true fans than agreement from general Metalheads. So I think they should not be liated as a "Rock band," but they should be granted their rightful title as "First Metal Band." NorthCentralKing (talk) 19:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be more specific in the opening genre should be heavy metal and in the infobox there should be heavy metal and doom metal since making a lot of doom metal songs, they technically made the first stoner metal album with Master Of Reality (1971). Obviously making the first heavy metal album with Black Sabbath (1970) should mean a huge indicator that Black Sabbath is heavy metal. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 22:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You could be right, But could provide a WP:RS for Doom metal? I'll remove it until you find one. Did you see the infobox hidden note there which says: "Do NOT change or add to genres without reaching consensus on the talk page first"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you really wanted to put all sub-genres that they played, you would have a very, very long list. If you even wanted to list the major genres they would play, you would have to include things such as "English Folk," and I think we can all agree that that would confuse most casual listeners. I say keep it simple and say Classic Metal. NorthCentralKing (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My source should be Encyclopedia Metallum, wich is a website souly dedicated to heavy metal. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 22:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah right, souly. You'd need to provide a full source for that. If there are any doubts about the reliability of that source, you might have to check at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:54, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Souly was a typo. And I also have as another source Loudwire and BangerTV. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 23:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is that another one, or another two? By all means copy all sources here so we can see them. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please be respectful. All the sources I’ve found that say Black Sabbth is doom metal are Loudwire, BangerTV, Encyclopedia Metallum, Ranker, and Metal Storm. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 10:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Black Sabbath* Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 10:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see. And that's great. I'm not being disrespectful. It's just policy. Please could you copy the links for "All the sources I’ve found" here, before they are added to the article? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Matt Wanat; Leonard Engel (15 May 2016). Breaking Down Breaking Bad: Critical Perspectives. University of New Mexico Press. pp. 122–. ISBN 978-0-8263-5684-0. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |trans_title=, |laydate=, |laysummary=, and |authormask= (help)--Moxy (talk) 11:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This source says Sabbath influenced Doom Metal, not that they were themselves classified as doom metal. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see someone read the source.......so Sabbath influenced Doom Metal is the most we should say.--Moxy (talk) 23:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't be loading up the infobox with a bunch of subgenres regardless—just choose one that covers it all (in this case, heavy metal), and leave the subgenres to the body. The infobox field should describe the band as a whole, not every subgenre the band touched on somewhere (just imagine what would happen to the Beatles' infobox!). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, how many links are there? Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 14:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is "all the sources you've found", yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The links to the sources I’ve found: Loudwire, Banger Films, Encyclopedia Metallum, Ranker and Metal Storm. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The link to Metal Storm is wrong, it’s not the Australian company, it is the webzine called Metal Storm. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. For future reference, you'd need to provide actual substantive links, not just links to Wikipedia articles. But in this case, I think User:Curly Turkey has summed it up above. I also read that source and came to the same conclusion. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, Loudwire says their the 1 doom metal, as well as BangerTV. Ranker puts it at number 2 and Encyclopedia Metallum puts doom metal in their genre list. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 12:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Storm puts Black Sabbath at number 1 in their doom metal list. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 12:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Might it be an idea, possibly, if you linked your sources here, instead of just reporting what you've read in them? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedia Metallum is not considered as a reliable source since people can write there whatever they want. Same goes to Metal Storm or Spirit of Metal webzine. And the lists (top 10s, top 20s and so on) in websites like Loudwire or similar also fall in that category. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you can’t use those sources, then why don’t listen to atleast three of their records. You can hear stoner metal in most of Master Of Reality you can hear the thickness of War Pigs. A lot of their songs have doom metal’s thickness in sound. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 20:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And also Encyclopedia Metallum requires an edit to be made by first writing a comment with enough proof. If the proof says to you’re correct, then it is edited. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 21:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Listening to "at least three of their records" is really not going to make any difference to this discussion, I'm afraid. Indeed, any revelatory insights or stylistic conclusions achieved from such a process would be entirely discouraged as being WP:Original research. You realise, don't you, that we all must always use only WP:Reliable sources, regardless of own own personal subjective views? If you are unable to produce one single WP:RS which describes the band's music as "doom metal" I really think it's time for you to give up here, ok? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sixty Minute Limit: You can be sure that anyone who has made their way to Talk:Black Sabbath has spent considerable time listening to at least three of Black Sabbath's records—and most likely has learned to play many riffs and memorized a large volume of Sabbath lyrics. Please read WP:RS to understand what people are saying about sourcing, then please read WP:WEIGHT. When you're done, please try to understand some of our other arguments: Black Sabbath may have played Doom Metal, but unless their œuvre is overwhelmingly Doom Metal, then we can't describe the band as a whole as Doom Metal. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should say Heavy metal not rock, this is a heavy metal group HailSabbath (talk) 02:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Occult rock[edit]

There are currently three sources that call Black Sabbath occult rock.[1][2][3] Please state your opinions of such addition with a 'support' or 'oppose' vote. ~SML • TP 23:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe pinging will help. @Martinevans123: ~SML • TP 23:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see that chicagoreader.com only have it as a "vibe", not a true genre. But we do have occult rock as a notable genre, so maybe BS also belong there. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, because the first source is a "favorite albums" list by some musician, the second source is an interview with some author, which does not even say anything about Black Sabbath being "occult rock" band, and the third source is just an introduction to some band. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That second source says: "I don’t think that Black Sabbath could be who they are without their voices – it captures their spirit" and ""What’s the pivotal occult rock record?"... Certainly Black Sabbath’s debut...". But I agree, I'm not sure that author Peter Bebergal who wrote Season Of The Witch: How The Occult Saved Rock And Roll is really notable. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Jess and the Ancient Ones Favourite Occult Rock Albums". Prog. Retrieved 16 June 2018.
  2. ^ "Season Of The Witch: The Ideas Behind Metal's Occult Revival - Decibel Magazine". 12 January 2015.
  3. ^ Kendrick, Monica. "Castle tap into the occult-rock vibe made famous by Black Sabbath".

New Sources[edit]

There are new sources available. How do I update this page to include exerpts from the recent Toni Iomi Interview? http://ultimateclassicrock.com/tony-iommi-black-sabbath-sabotage/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff Loveland 1970 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jeff Loveland 1970. This article is under something called WP:SEMIPROTECTION, but you have now made ten edits and are "autoconfirmed", so you can edit it like everyone else. Your source is probably ok, based on [2] (other people have used it quite a lot), more on that at WP:RS. Take the time to read Help:Referencing for beginners, then be WP:BOLD and see what happens. We learn WP by doing (and asking, and listening). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:03, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article so long?[edit]

Just a thought; surely most of this is unnecessary? I'm not sure an encyclopedia needs an album-through-album history of the band. 92.3.208.149 (talk) 13:24, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2019[edit]

Please change "To expand their sound, the band added keyboard player Gerry Woodruffe, who also had appeared to a lesser extent on Sabotage." to "To expand their sound, the band added keyboard player Gerald "Jezz" Woodroffe...who had toured with the band on the Sabotage tour." Iommi, Tony. 2011. Iron Man: My Journey Through Heaven And Hell with Black Sabbath. Da Capo Press. p 150. ISBN 978-0-306-82145-5. Also noted in Stolz, Nolan. 2017. Experiencing Black Sabbath: A Listener's Companion. Roman and Littlefield. Maryland. p 69. ISBN 978-1-4422-5691-0 This sentence occurs immediately after the "Technically Ecstasy and Never Say Die!" heading of the Black Sabbath main page.

Here's the cut and paste of the original text:

Technical Ecstasy and Never Say Die! (1976–1979)

Black Sabbath began work for their next album at Criteria Studios in Miami, Florida, in June 1976. To expand their sound, the band added keyboard player Gerry Woodruffe, who also had appeared to a lesser extent on Sabotage.


Please also note that Jezz Woodroofe has his own wikipedia page and if possible it should be linked.

Jezz Woodroffe was hired by Black Sabbath to tour on the Sabotage tour, to mostly play under Tony Iommi's guitar solos. He was present for the writing sessions for the Technical Ecstasy album, that was his first recording with them as well.

Liftpaintdrink (talk) 02:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC) Greg Williams Liftpaintdrink (talk) 02:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Linked to musician's page and changed to the form of the name used in that article's title. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2019[edit]

Bobzmoonz (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

it says has own pa instead of his own pa, I would like to fix it or have someone fix it.
 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. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 18:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Thanks Bobzmoonz. Yes, that quote did not really make sense. I've found a better source and corrected it. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy metal[edit]

Why is it that it says "rock" when it should be "heavy metal"? If heavy metal is their one and only genre, then why can't it go "Black Sabbath are a heavy metal band..."? Music2247 (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been discussed here multiple times. Please read this and this for starters, as I believe they cover the exact topic you're bringing up. If you look through the talk archives, there are no shortage of opinions on genre and Black Sabbath. Emphasis on the word "opinions". I think you'll find the answer to your question if you look through the archives and read the previous discussions. SolarFlash (talk) 01:31, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've always thought this is a slightly odd compromise, but it's one that makes sense. They were formed as a rock band, that helped create the slightly more specific genre, heavy metal. The majority of their output is classified as heavy metal, making the infobox perfectly valid, and "heavy metal" is dealt with in the lead section via the second sentence (Black Sabbath are often cited as pioneers of heavy metal music.). To me it would be quite inelegant to say their genre as heavy metal in the first sentence, then say "heavy metal" again in the second sentence - and I think the fact that they helped establish the genre is one of the most important factors about them, so it's very correct to have that second sentence there, so early in the lead. It would in no way be incorrect to call them "a heavy metal band" in the lead, and you can of course source that, but it's also correct to call them a rock band, and I think that gives the best compromise between specificity, and elegant lead writing. ~ mazca talk 17:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of the lead section is to "identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points". It is not intended to be anything more than a brief summary, with the infobox and prose available for editors who wish to get more specific about things like genres of music in articles such as this one. The guidelines make it clear that the subject is to be defined or identified in this part of the lead section "but without being too specific". This is why we have always used the term "rock" instead of "heavy metal" in the first paragraph. Look at similar examples here and here. Later sentences identify the band as "pioneers of heavy metal music" without clogging up the opening defining sentence with overly specific terms. The purpose of the infobox is to "summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article", and this is where we have more freedom to expand with more specific genres/subgenres of rock music, as we have always done in this article. So "rock" is correctly used in the lead, and "heavy metal" is correctly used in the infobox and later prose, and there is no need to change anything. SolarFlash (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very well put; the simple existence of all the tiresome genre wars in so many music articles really does underline how important that "without being too specific" thing is. ~ mazca talk 20:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Genre[edit]

There is a "notice" in the lead instructing editors to not make changes to the article. It claims a longstanding consensus but @SolarFlash: (who has restored the note) does not know who added the note and is not able to provide a link to the discussion. Maybe some editors who are watching the article with more knowledge can provide the link to the past discussion for editors who may be new to the article? Dartslilly (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no notice anywhere in this article stating that you can't make changes to the article. The note you have been attempting to remove [3] relates specifically to changing/deleting the genre in the lead section. And actually, it was you who restored the note. I attempted to restore it but you reverted me and then subsequently reverted yourself. The notice you're attempting to remove has been in the article long term and I doubt there's any discussion/consensus regarding it in particular, though there have been several genre-related discussions which you can find here if you take a moment to look. The discussion immediately prior to this one deals with the subject of "rock" in the lead section. As far as I'm concerned, this discussion (the one we're having right now, not the one I just pointed you towards) is less about genre than it is about your attempts to remove the notice without discussion, along with your subsequent threat to again remove it in a few days. Personally, I oppose removing any note without a clear consensus deciding to remove it. SolarFlashLet's talk about it 19:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)From digging through the article history, after a few years with "heavy metal" in the first sentence, it was changed to "rock" in 2009 by User:Wiki alf, then the first version of the note was added immediately after by User:J04n. As far as I can see from the archives at that time, this didn't come from a particular single discussion, rather it crystallised as a best compromise after endless edit warring because of all the endless genres that can be used to describe a band of such lengthy and varied output. If you browse the archives, there's at least 10 discussions about this over the years since then, but there's never been a big, watertight single discussion to link to - it's a result of many years of grumpy reversion of genre warriors. A few of the discussions were in fact linked by User:SolarFlash in the section immediately above, which also contains my views on the matter. I think there are valid arguments to be made, and perhaps a more solid consensus should be sought here, but the talk page discussions have never really attracted actual input from the drive-by genre changers that the note's actually directed at! ~ mazca talk 19:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no consensus for the current version then the note claiming there is one should be removed. The page now has some type of protection that was most likely put in place after the note was added to prevent edit warring. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that a sysop would add this type of comment with the intention to ban a certain edit indefinitely, it sounds like it was just a response to an immediate disruption.Dartslilly (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is indeed a consensus, as was just explained. It's based on a preponderance of thoughts and discussions over a period of years. SolarFlashLet's talk about it 20:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion that me and SolarFlash had in the section above is just the most recent example of one of these, yeah - that wasn't a long discussion, but I agreed entirely with the points SolarFlash made and nobody else actually bothered to participate. I'm sure there are contrary points, but the consensus, such that it is, on this page in the past seems to be primarily made up of small discussions. The big pointless arguments occur between genre warriors in edit summaries, and that's why the note's there. If we can have a nice constructive discussion about the genre on the talk page and reach a nice clear consensus we can point to, that'd be great, but it doesn't seem to be an actual thing that happens. ~ mazca talk 22:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand there is a lot of edit warring about the genre and I defer to editors more experienced with the article that it is unlikely to stop at just metal. I think the argument that metal is too specific a genre need not be repeated, it isn't - but if there is long term disruption on the article, which I have to assume there is since the comment was inserted by an administrator, I would support favoring stability by using the broadest possible genre.Dartslilly (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And as we've shown here, prior discussions have determined that "the broadest possible genre" is rock. This conforms to the guidelines by defining the subject "without being too specific". SolarFlashLet's talk about it 22:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Black Sabbath were an English rock band (...) ?[edit]

How about: "Black Sabbath was an English rock band (...)" ? 85.193.242.185 (talk) 11:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Though you will indeed see "was" as opposed to "were" in some articles, it has long been established here that musical bands/groups are not treated as a single entity, but rather as a plural entity. Bands are regarded as a group of people as opposed to a singular thing, so that's why we prefer "were" as opposed to "was". This article is no exception. See other examples here, here, and here. I think it's probably wise to simply keep things the way they are in any article, as it's kind of a nitpicky thing and I think most would agree that it's not worth the editing disputes that will arise if you decide to go around changing verbs for no good reason other than your personal opinion. SolarFlashDiscussion 22:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Black Sabbath" Stand[edit]

I'm wondering if I can add a reference to a character in the manga "Jojo's Bizzare Adventure: Golden Wind". The character is named after the band in this article. This addition will go in the "Legacy" section.

M0ntenegro (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is a "stand"? I'm not familiar with this. SolarFlashDiscussion 15:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2021[edit]

Please change “Black Sabbath were...” to “Black Sabbath was...”

Black Sabbath is singular and the use of “was” would be grammatically correct.

In cases of band name plurality such as The Beatles, the use of “were” would be correct. Hattrick58 (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: I think this is an WP:ENGVAR thing, where "was" is American English and "were" is British English. See e.g. Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd (English bands, using "was") and Nirvana and R.E.M. (American bands, using "were"). Black Sabbath were an English band, so it should stay with British English and use "were". ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 19:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Osborne's band" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Osborne's band. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 24#Osborne's band until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 23:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2021[edit]

Black Sabbath were a English heavy metal band 87w (talk) 17:53, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The description of "rock band" causes too much controversy and must be simplified to either "metal band" or "band" to eliminate further confusion and altercation.[edit]

The subject of Black Sabbath's classification and genre has been a long disputed one and has started many edit wars. To avoid this problem, we must change the description to either "metal band", or simply "band" as neither of those descriptors spark too much controversy, as most of those that classify Black Sabbath as a rock band also classify them as a heavy metal band and believe that heavy metal isn't a separate genre and is a type of rock music. By doing this, we eliminate the cause for further editing of the band's description and promote peace onto the long and grueling genre edit-war on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.113.23 (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Fenholt[edit]

The text reads "One vocalist whose status is disputed, both inside and outside Sabbath, is Christian evangelist and former Joshua frontman Jeff Fenholt. Fenholt insists he was a singer in Sabbath between January and May 1985. Iommi has never confirmed this. Fenholt gives a detailed account in Garry Sharpe-Young's book Sabbath Bloody Sabbath: The Battle for Black Sabbath", but Iommi speaks about Fenholt in his autobiography, on page 246, at the start of the chapter called "Twinkle Twinkle Seventh Star", he acknowledges recording demos with him, how NYTimes tried to play out the Satanist aspect of Black Sabbath when he became a TV evangelist, etc., so Iommi fully confirmed Fenholt being in Black Sabbath for a time. Trucoto (talk) 19:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the RRHOF with Black Sabbath[edit]

This Article incorrectly states that Dio was inducted into the RRHOF with Black Sabbath. He was not. 2601:982:8300:4FF0:559:57DE:6E9:14A3 (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!! 🙏[edit]

To whoever changed the genre in the lead from rock to heavy metal: THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!! ☺️🙏 KevinML (talk) 02:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2023[edit]

Please add the "Dio" template, since Dio is a spinoff of Black Sabbath. 2601:407:4181:4260:6590:35CC:EAD1:E4DC (talk) 15:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 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. M.Bitton (talk) 16:37, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "Dio" template should be added because Dio is a spinoff of Black Sabbath, and spinoffs should have their accompanied template added to the band's article that is a spinoff or a spinoff of a band. Just look at Heaven & Hell. They are listed in the "Spinoffs" section in the infobox and have their accompanying template in the article as well. I don't know why making this edit is so complicated. 2601:407:4181:4260:6590:35CC:EAD1:E4DC (talk) 20:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Black_Sabbath&oldid=1210066675"