Talk:List of thrash metal bands

All Thrash metal Is Thrash But Not Vice Versa

May I refer you to Talk:List of thrash metal bands#Dishonest Revert. I have discussed how "Thrash" can mean any number of 5 genres of music.

Find better sources.Curb Chain (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Prior to 1984 it was not a surprise to read an article on a band like Metallica in a well known music magazine and see them referred to as power metal, speed metal... even black metal and death metal. (shame on Circus Magazine) The division between those terms was nil to none. So a reference from that era could be skewed because thrash meant speed (or power or black)... but speed did not necessarily mean thrash... especially compared to what we now know is the stylistic division between those heavy metal sub-genres. Anything after that short window from 1982 to early 1985 that is a review or band bio from a source which passes WP:RS is going to be much more defined in its use of terms. So when a source like AMG calls a band "thrash"... and they are clearly a heavy metal band... they are a thrash metal band and a reference is valid and more than acceptable on this list. If the adjective "thrash" is used without having the word 'metal' follow directly after it... it is still OK. If I see a album review from AMG that calls a heavy metal band's album "a brutal thrashing masterpiece"... that band is a thrash band (meaning they are most certainly a thrash METAL band) and can be added to this list. Hope that helps clear up your confusion. Mr Pyles (talk) 04:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Ya, Wikipedia does have shortcomings, but the rules are clear. If you can not supply the information we need, on this hypothesis, or if an entry lacks the very specific criteria-for-inclusion relevant to this list, it should not be on this article.Curb Chain (talk) 04:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You have gone far beyond being unhelpful. The Realm article on Allmusic is not ambiguous; I am going to draw short of calling "troll", but you are certainly being pointy. If a metal band is referred to as "thrash" by something that passes WP:RS, it is totally unambiguous. Please note it is also unhelpful to blank lists without looking for sources, as you did previously when you failed to get these lists deleted; citation needed tags should be used first. Finally, I politely point you to the fact that you are now arguing against consensus. 16:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

List articles are not the same as other articles in that it has specific inclusion criteria. Citation needed tags do not need to be used. The entries were unsourced for years. There was ample time to look for sources for the entries by you as it seems you want to point fingers.Curb Chain (talk) 05:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Please point to any single instance of my editing which disrupts Wikipedia to make a point or retract the last statement. I can quite happily point to examples of you trying to make your point. For example, failed attempt to delete list article here, followed by page blanking here. Failed AfD attempt per WP:SNOW here, more blanking here (the second is more fragmented as more editors were working on that article than the first, but you pattern of editing is clear). That is disruptive. Both lists are now fully sourced, almost exclusively by me. If I'm making any "point", it's that these list articles are relatively easily to source if you actually bother to look - something that you should have done before nominating either article, as per WP:AFD. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Ridiculous and insinuative. I can illustrate your "pointyness" by making a point of me not using time to find sources when by looking at your contributions you did none of this until I brought the articles closer to our policy of verifiablity.Curb Chain (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Not insinuative at all, nor ridiculous - it illustrates a clear pattern of disruption when you do not get your way at AfD; I believe your AfD for list of synthpop artists was also shot down. As to whther I have done "none of this" before your, um, intervention, can I point you towards the list of death metal bands, the list of black metal bands, the list of doom metal bands, the list of nu metal bands, the list of folk metal bands, the list of industrial music bands etc. etc. Most of these were sourced exclusively by me, way before you started disrupting these lists (as a cursory glance at the edit histories will demonstrate). I could also point you towards articles that I have written (see my userpage), or those I have rewritten from scratch... I thought the Extreme Noise Terror one was pretty good actually, and thoroughly sourced. This simply underlines the fact that not only do you fail to look for sources before you start gutting articles, you also fail to check other editors' editing histories before suggesting that we rely on you to understand WP:V. I repeat - find an example of a WP:POINT infraction, or get off your high horse. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

If you feel you have made these articles so well, why have they been so poorly referenced? What I do see, rather, from your user page is that you probably don't edit anything outside of this heavy music interest and that because of this interest, you have developed your own mini Wikipedia.Curb Chain (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Not at all; I haven't made any of the list articles; simply referenced them. There's no ownership issue here whatsoever. You are not addressing any of the issues I have raised. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's look at the article's history: before I came to clean the article, a huge multitude of international uncited artists including ones without an english or even foreign language wikipedia article existed! And you claim to be the custodian of the article, so why was it in such desperate shape.Curb Chain (talk) 05:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's move on from this. Some of us are annoyed at others and vice versa, we know that, so let's discuss actual content here.--¿3family6 _contribs 21:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not at home right this second, but I'll dig out my copies of Terrorizer's "Secret History of Thrash Metal" from 2011, and Garry Sharpe-Young's A-Z of Thrash Metal, published by Cherry Red, over the weekend. If a band's featured in there, the argument is effectively done and dusted. Although we're dealing with an editor that argued the toss that Swedish death metal was not, in fact, Swedish death metal, so I await the response with baited breath. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Possibly a bit late to the party

My 2c, although the article does seem to be ok in that I don't see any bands that aren't "metal". Curb Chain does have a valid point in that "thrash" doesn't always refer to "thrash metal". For example here is an article written by Felix Havoc for Maximumrocknroll, in that and Profane Existence you'll frequently find the genre "thrash" and it doesn't refer to "thrash metal".

AMG genres and styles seem to be all over the place right now. Hellnation are described as Genres:Pop/Rock - Styles: Heavy Metal, Alternative Metal, Hard Rock, Man Is The Bastard are described as Genres:Pop/Rock - Styles: Alternative Pop/Rock, Hardcore Punk, Punk Revival, Alternative/Indie Rock, Punk/New Wave, Capitalist Casualties are described as Genres:Pop/Rock - Styles: Heavy Metal. "Pop/Rock"??? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in here. The above discussion did end up on the dispute resolution board, and there is a solution proposed, but Curb Chain hasn't responded yet. Thanks for those additional sources though. With the genre tags in Allmusic 1) we don't use them because of the combined problems of not be attributable to an author and that they are indeed filled with inaccuracies, and 2) with the whole Pop/rock thing, that is the general category, the style gives the subgenre. In other words, heavy metal fall under a pop and rock structure, but is a specific styly of rock.--¿3family6 _contribs 13:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not just the genre I have a problem with, the style field is way off on all of those. Hellnation are generally classed as grind, thrash or powerviolence, Man Is The Bastard are a bit more difficult to pin down but are generally seen as powerviolence and/or noise, Capitalist Casualties are thrashcore or powerviolence. Nobody listening to Hellnation could reasonably think they are "Hard Rock", similarly nobody listening to Capitalist Casualties would think they are "Heavy Metal". That aside, I'm not too sure what the exact problem with this article is at present, as I tried to say earlier but possibly didn't make clear enough. I don't see any red flags on the article in terms of bands that aren't generally seen as metal. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 09:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

As I said above, you make a valid point, and that is why Allmusic's tags are not used, only genres found in the actual reviews. The initial problem is that one user believes that any band called simply "thrash" should not be listed, only if it is called "thrash metal."--¿3family6 _contribs 13:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

What kind of tag?Curb Chain (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

On the left side of most artist bios in Allmusic, there are genre and style sections, and these have various listings, or tags, underneath.--¿3family6 _contribs 17:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I see moods, but I don't know about tags.Curb Chain (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

"Teutonic Thrash"

What is Teutonic Thrash? Our inclusion criteria does not include and is this a genre?Curb Chain (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not a genre, it is a geographically significant subset of thrash metal bands (primarily Kreator, Sodom and Destruction, but obviously there are others). For further reading / source material, please see "As the World Burns... Teutonic Forces" in Terrorizer's Secret History of Thrash Metal (June 2011), pages 16-18. The publication deals with a number of geographical hotspots, of which Germany was a major one. Not a subgenre, but very obviously fulfills inclusion criteria by being made up of, um, thrash metal bands. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Apologies... but after seeing "what is teutonic thrash?".... I have to ask this question.... "do you know what the 'big four of thrash' is?" Mr Pyles (talk) 05:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

"Teutonic" refers the "Teutonic Knights". To use "Teutonic" is anachronistic. The reference is convoluted and uses bad grammar so as to make it impossible to know what is being referred..Curb Chain (talk) 06:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that is the point of the term "Teutonic," to evoke the old German heritage. The same kind of idea as Viking metal. But this is getting really pointless now. Let's deal with actual sourced content, not our personal terminology preferences.--¿3family6 _contribs 13:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Viking metal IIRC has it's own musical characteristics. It's important to clearly indicate which is to be included in each article.Curb Chain (talk) 13:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Removal of the quotes in the list

There used to be quotes about how the major bands in the thrash metal scene were important, etc. They were well sourced. Does anyone here recollect why they were removed? Thanks! Welt^anschaunng 21:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

They were original research.Curb Chain (talk) 08:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

If sources could be provided, is it possible that they could be returned? I'm thinking like the perge and subsequent restart of list of power metal bands, where people rather hastily found sources to prove that these bands were in fact power metal.

james —Preceding undated comment added 19:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

What is your point. If it is listed in a reliable source that they are classified as such, what ground do you dispute so.Curb Chain (talk) 23:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It would end up being a POV nightmare. Save it for the main article at thrash metal; list articles are not here to represent a band's "significance". Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Non-thrash bands placed on the list

While checking the sources, I've noticed several bands that weren't described as thrash metal neither on Allmusic nor Wikipedia. These are: 3 Inches of Blood, Black Tide, and Early Man. Blackmetalbaz, what's your opinion on this? Should we remove them?--Retrohead (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

As always, if there is no source that passes WP:RS then they should be removed. Quick check: Allmusic mentions 3 Inches of Blood mixing classic and thrash metal here. Couldn't immediately spot anything fro Black Tide, but I confess I haven't looked hard. Early Man are described as thrash here. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

This discussion started on the Featured list candidate sub-page, but as it does not deal directly with the discussion, I'm moving it to here. I added many bands to the list, and some of these were challenged. I don't really care, but I question why some of these were removed, as I demonstrated that several of them are sourced as thrash, or at least a fusion of thrash with other styles. I'm listing here the bands that I think should go in the article, and the sources supporting them:

As I Lay Dying - AllMusic, Noisecreep, and a Music Connection quote reprinted in an HM article (I don't know how to access that review directly).

Deuteronomium - Weak support for this one, you have HM - [1]; Indie Vision Music - [2]; and possibly The Phantom Tollbooth - [3].

Seventh Angel - Powell, Mark Allan, Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music, pages 810-811; Cross Rhythms - [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]; HM - [9]; HM writer Matt Morrow - [10]; Blabbermouth.net - [11]; MusicMight - [12] [Comment: I really see no way why this band couldn't qualify for the list, with that many sources!]

Napalm Death - Allmusic: [13], [14], [15], and [16]; CMJ: Vol. 57, No. 610, pg. 29.

Zao Weak support for this one, but you have the following: Blistering - [17] and Jesus Freak Hideout - [18], both of which indicate that Zao played some type of thrash/hardcore hybrid.

Most of these bands did not only play thrash metal, some even did more of a hybrid style, but the sources above demonstrate that at least two bands, Napalm Death and especially Seventh Angel, belong on the list.--¿3family6 _contribs 18:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Meshuggah

Conconexplosion, per your objection to the listing of Meshuggah, in which you claimed that the AllMusic source was misinterpreted, I restored Meshuggah, with a better source that explicitly calls the band thrash. You then reverted that addition without any explanation. What is your reasoning? That source is far from the only one that calls the band thrash. There are others on the Wikipedia page, despite your claim that the Wikipedia article doesn't support that genre.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Adding bands with no articles on Wikipedia seems pointless because the reader can't see that band's discography. There are 23,369 thrash metal bands listed on Encyclopaedia Metallum and listing all of them here simply doesn't make sense.--Retrohead (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

"Terror" name missing from T

All entries that should be for the band Terror are shifted one column to the left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.175.250 (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of thrash metal bands. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150327011638/http://www.metalhammer.it/note.aspx/43575/hyades-la-tracklist-del-nuovo-album/ to http://www.metalhammer.it/note.aspx/43575/hyades-la-tracklist-del-nuovo-album/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081220114822/http://www.exclaim.ca/musicreviews/generalreview.aspx?csid2=846&fid1=30305&csid1=121 to http://www.exclaim.ca/musicreviews/generalreview.aspx?csid2=846&fid1=30305&csid1=121

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) 20:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)