Talk:Converge (band)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vandalism[edit]

It seems as though this article has been getting vandalized quite frequently. Please read the wikipedia article on reverting and revert changes made by vandals. Perhaps this article should be protected in the same manner as they've recently been doing with articles like that of George W. Bush. I don't know how to do that though, so any help would be appreciated. Jesusjonez 01:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccuracies[edit]

I corrected some mistakes in the discography (www.convergecult.com as a reference) I don't know what the previous author was using, but it wasn't even close to what converge has on their website. Also I thought that it was important to put some of their older works here to show how long the band has been around.

I just added When Forever Comes Crashing to the discography, it was missing for some reason.

Some Changes[edit]

This article badly needed a cleanup. I've done my best so far. There was lots of irrelevant and opinionated information. Most of the information about the side projects of Converge band members belongs in articles of their own. I'm also going to remove the Agoraphobic Nosebleed album cover. The images add clutter to this article, and would be more appropriate once it has been expanded upon. Jesusjonez 22:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I probably got a little over zealous with my changing of the page and format, but I added a lot to the discography section because it is important to note the releases of a band as it is their lifeblood. I would like to keep making modifications to the page and adding information, but I figured it would be a good idea to make sure no one is really working on this actively before I go and do anything major. So, if no one objects I would just like to work on this and add more information because there really is a lot that could be said about a band that has been around for over 12 years. Thanks.

I got my discography from the official website


Just please change the part about the drums being "off-time." Polyrythmic does not mean it's off time.75.68.103.192 22:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Superfluous or informative?[edit]

"However, as it is fast become the norm in this genre, Converge's lyrics must be read from the corresponding album's booklet or from a lyric sheet in order to interpret them correctly. The extreme nature of their music, particularly the atonal vocals and complex structure, is not entirely digestible to some listeners."

This could be said about any number of extreme metal bands. Does it really deserve a mention in this article? ~Mr Inky · (T @ C) 18:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More missing albums[edit]

Caring and Killing and Unloved & Weeded Out were not in the discography, seemed odd. I've never heard of that Haystack album, but I'm somewhat new to the group, so I'll leave that to the pros.


What about the poacher Diaries? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.67.114.87 (talk) 14:28, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

The Genre Jumping Special[edit]

Ok, so it seems that some editors are having a bit of a revert war over whether Converge is mathcore, metalcore, or polka. Anyone care to site a reputable source's definition of their sound so we can pick one and stick with it? --Threatis 21:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one. [1]. It fits the current edit. AKnot 05:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As this edit war is still going on to this day, I think I'll jump in. I've never liked the term "mathcore"; I've never seen a famous band describe themselves as such, and the only places that use it are magazines and sites which aren't exactly reputable, the link above for example. A similar but much smaller edit war happened a while ago concerning "brutal prog" - yes, this was an actual article. Apparently some journalist coined the term about bands like Hella who played fast, technical music. It got deleted quite quickly but a search for "brutal prog" still brings up a few mentions on wikipedia. The thing is, when does a genre pass from a scene buzzword or journalistic hyperbole and declarations of it being the "new big thing" to an actual legitimate term? I don't think mathcore does pass such a test yet (although I dunno what the test is :/) Basically, a Google search for mathcore brings up 187'000 hits (which isn't a lot, a lot of pages involving companies called mathcore, mathematics, or links to wiki and several foreign language wikis. Something like metalcore returns over 2 millions Google hits, clearly a far more notable term. Whether the article should exist is a whole other matter, but as I'm not a fan of the term I don't agree Converge should be tagged as such. I think metalcore and hardcore describe them perfectly well. Their music isn't even that technical, they're not the first band that comes to mind when I think of strange time sigs and technical playing. That's not meant insultingly, they just aren't that kind of band.
Anyone else want to comment? Olliemilne 01:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am now convinced that one user is constantly reverting the genres of many band articles to suit his own views, without consensus on the issue. Currently the I.P address of the individual appears to be 87.167.253.249, but this is different to last person to change the genre, which was 87.167.230.242. Both are sufficiently similar enough to lead me to believe it is the same user with a dynamic I.P address. Everyday the user changes the genres of many articles; I believe the user is some kind of hilarious troll and simply doing it for a joke.
If the user would however like to discuss this particular article's changes I would be more than happy to, but the way thing presently are I will keep reverting your edits as soon as I am aware of them. And as it seems the user is only active for a few hours a day, your edits will only be visible for a short time. So really, the best option is just to discuss this. I hate to sound like such a control freak and lilke I'm in charge of the article, but I have presented my case, now I would like you to do the same. I will leave a message on the user's latest I.P address too. Thanks. Olliemilne 18:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I beileve that mathcore deserves a mention as they without a doubt a mathcore band and the fact that you don't like the term has nothing to do with it. it's a genre. and is a genre that converge,without a doubt, play. as for Hardcore. no,can we please keep in mind that on Wikipedia "hardcore" is the term for Hardcore Punk, a genre converge DEFINITLY do not play. The genres should be Mathcore and Metalcore. Their used to be a reference/citation about how Converge was mathcore but then someone deleted it. which i find rather pathetic. but yes Mathcore and Metalcore are almost certainly Converge's genres. thank you for your time! p.s oh and as for "no famous bands describing themselves as such" The Dillinger Escape Plan call themselves Mathcore constantly.172.209.202.208 21:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You believe it needs mentioning because "they are without a doubt". Where is the proof? That's just your opinion. On their Myspace page (www.myspace.com/converge), the band describe themselves as "Hardcore / Metal / Punk". This is a DEFINITIVE source, as it is their official Myspace profile which I believe the band themselves are involved in maintaining. Until someone finds a decent source to say they're mathcore (a reputable music review site or such like) then mathcore cannot be justified. Esepcially over hardcore, which the band themselves describe themselves as. I have reverted your edit because there are no sources for it. Sorry if i sound like a bit of dick, but I really don't think Converge are mathcore. Dillinger fit the mould far better, as their music really is just changing time sig every bar and whatever. Converge tend to stick to a groove and aren't as musically complex. They may have been influential to mathcore artists, but they're not part of the genre itself. If you want to discuss it further, I'd be more than happy to. Nothing personal in reverting your edits either, I just can't see how you can justify them as mathcore. Thanks Olliemilne 22:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you position, but I think that matcore deserves a mention. I am able to provide a link showing that on last Fm, converge has the second largest number of votes, behind Dillenger escape plan, an the tag mathcore. That and the fact that they are highly influential to the genre justifies the adding of the mathcore tag. I would've added the tag, but tweetydevil kept on deleting it, so I didn't see the point. In the meantime, let's keep all three tags up while we discuss it. And Olliemilne, I should inform you that mathcore is a very diverse sub-genre. The Dillenger Escape Plan is not the be all end all of mathcore 205.206.117.219 21:44, 17 September —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So apparently this guy has a reputation for adding these ridiculously narrow and shortlived subgenre titles when he really shouldn't be. From the Pantera page: Please do not add specific subgenres to the template per the template's guidelines; these are covered in the body of the article. And, not surprisingly, he keeps switching the Pantera genre from Heavy Metal to 'Groove Metal'.

To be fair, we all know that rule is outdated. Scipo 20:14, 20 September —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 04:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether that rule is outdated, the fact still stands that this user (scipio, along with another I.P based user) consistently adds unsourced and little known subgenres to band articles, which are promptly reverted. Where sources are added they are spurious and often of little merit. Converge make no reference to themselves as mathcore. The wikipedia page on mathcore is poorly definted, citing bands like Converge as part of its "roots", yet also referencing The Fall of Troy, a band formed over 10 years after Converge. Mathcore appears to be applicable to any heavy music which has bits not in 4/4 in. Its just another buzzword and subgenre of a subgenre and hardly covers the majority of Converge's output. Elements of it may be contained within their output, but for it to be given equal billing with hardcore and metalcore is simply misleading and untrue. A similar mistake would be to call, say, The Mars Volta "salsa" because of some sections in their songs which are inspired by it (bad example really, but the idea is there)

Any further comments? Or DECENT sources for them being mathcore? Decent meaning not some fan-made website like "metalhardcore.nu" or something. Olliemilne 18:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with saying that multiple genre tags are appropriate? Like "their musical style has been described as mathcore, hardcore, thiscore and thatcore." Remember the whole WP:OWN doctrine, and remember that no-one here is omniscient and an absolute authority on metal genre. Something so subjective will always, always stir up debate and disagreement, and what you have to remember is that that isn't always a bad thing. Seegoon 00:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No its definitely not a bad thing that people are now discussing this disagreements, nowhere did I say it was. I've stated before that I know I'm not in charge of the article, its pretty apparent that i'm not because of this edit war that has erupted. Thus far I have stated several reasons why converge should not be tagged as mathcore, and very few reasons why they should. I have shown that the band themselves do not categorise themselves as mathcore (on their official myspace profile), the fact that "mathcore" is a poorly defined term with few results from a google search (at least when compared with metalcore), and the lack of any good sources refering to converge as mathcore. What are the reasons that they SHOULD be? So far people just say "that rule is outdated" or "its a good thing that there is a debate". Olliemilne 01:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For one, I've already said I can provide a source. If that is not good enough, please define what "good sources". Secondly, Converges opinion means nothing. For example Korn is known for saying that they are not nu-metal. But very few would call Korn anything but nu-metal. As for the mathcore page, I have taken note of your compliant and sarted working on it. As of now, the offical definition of mathcore is as follows,

"The music is usually filled with discordant, somewhat technical riffing, complex time signatures and song structures, and passionate, energetic vocals. Songs played by bands of this style tend to vary from mere seconds in length to over 15 minutes and rarely feature a conventional verse-chorus song structure. Bands of the mathcore genre, because they are not commercially viable, are often categorized differently depending upon the whims of journalists."

Now personally, I feel that fit's converge pretty well. However, as mathcore is still a underground movement, it is hard to get a "offical" source. Scipo 18:11, 22 September —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 02:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, its been a while since this article was protected, and discussion has kind of died on the topic. The description of mathcore that was posted could be applied to so many kinds of music. It could describe straight forward metal with no problems. Also, it says that journalists categorise these bands differently on a whim, which implies that out there is some sort of authority on mathcore who knows for definite which bands are and which aren't. The fact that journalists don't use the term much lends it even less authenticity; just because a genre is "underground" (meaning not a major or more well known label in this case probably, but what does "underground" mean exactly?) doesn't mean journalists don't use the term. Post rock for example could be described as an "underground" genre, yet a ton of bands get tagged as it. The same isnt happening with mathcore because it simply isn't clearly defined. Most bands you can call mathcore easily fit under something thats less of a clique-y buzzword, such as metalcore, extreme metal, etc. There are a few bands where the term fits pretty well, like DEP, but DEP are considerably different from Converge. They really emphasise the unusual time signatures mathcore supposedly is notable for. You get the impression the music was purposely written to be complex, because theres no way anyone could naturally write in 7/16 time or whatever. Converge's music flows more and feels more naturally written. Of course that's just my opinion, but as everyone seems to be throwing their opinion around ("I feel it fits them" "I believe without a doubt" etc) I figured I'd throw my hat in the ring. There are definitely "mathy" elements to COnverge's music, but you could say the same of any music that uses complex time signatures. This seems to be the only difference to metalcore, the use of complex time signatures. Does that really warrant a whole new genre? I'm rambling a little here, but I've made several good points I feel. I don't want the article to stay locked forever, but I'm pretty sure the second its unlocked, mathcore will be added again with no discussion. Olliemilne 18:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Special Part 2[edit]

And looked what happened? Someone added mathcore again. I know it's opinion but mostly everyone would agree that Converge is just metalcore/hardcore with mathcore influences. It's not constantly presenting the tech/prog ability (like The Dillinger Escape Plan) but the framework is basically just metallic hardcore and adding the mathcore aspect as an add-on. They have also done doom/sludge stuff as well along with the hardcore background but we don't call Converge doom metal, sludge, or whatever; just because of the lack of sources? Jane Doe is the closest thing to a mathcore record but it's not the primary element which something like Ire Works or even Protest the Hero's Fortress does. I am fine with the description page but mainly in genres, it doesn't work. I don't want this to lead to 3RR. The Phantomnaut (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is currently locked in full it so we can continue this debate. It will be unprotected in 5 days so let's get started. The Phantomnaut (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unlocked with no discussion and the same reverting situation. If it passes 3RR within this day, I will have to request a lock again especially for an extended time. The Phantomnaut (talk) 05:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I did not reply, I must have missed it. anyway, it does not matter if you or I think converge are mathcore or not. Our opinions do not matter (see WP:OR). What matters is what information can be derived from thris party sources. There are five current sourced that back up the statement that some do consider this band to be a mathcore band. This is more than the other genres currently in the genre box. Please stop removing sourced information from this page. it is a violation of WP:NPOV 66.222.238.33 (talk) 05:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC) And as for the argument stating thaat they may be a doom or sludge band, if you have the sources, I don't have a problem with it.[reply]

All right, thanks for replying. I will leave it at be as the first sentence of description helps. The Phantomnaut (talk) 05:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now I am going back into my original view on this situation.The Phantomnaut (talk) 18:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mathcore[edit]

I have provided a offical source from rock detector. I you wish to remove please disscuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipo (talk • contribs) 23:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rockdetector is an amateur fanzine and cannot be used as a reference. Read, and try to understand, policies WP:CITE, WP:V and WP:RS. Amateur spam is not a citation. 156.34.228.63 01:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, this is the problem with finding a source for that; they're all of this nature. An "official" source would be the band's opinion, and on their Myspace they do not describe themselves as mathcore. Please stop readding this source. Olliemilne 19:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rockdetector's credibility is hardly ever been questioned. Rockdetector is only edited by the people that run the site and the bands whose biographies are on the site. It is a good source, Don;t remove just beacause you don't like it. Scipo 00:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the links provided above; the site is an amateur site made by people who are no different than you or me, it just so happens they run their own website. Such sites are not counted as valid citations by Wikipedia itself, not just the guy who reverted it. Thats the policy. Find a site which is reputable and you can add it. Also, please sign your edits by typing 4 tildes (the ~ key). Olliemilne 19:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The same logic could be appled to your "Offical" sources. Scipo 17:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scipio, a look at your user talk page shows that your views on genre seem to differ greatly from the rest of Wikipedia. You have been constantly warned about edit warring and forcing your opinions on numerous pages-maybe that shows you are the one with the problem here? You are about to be banned for such things, and I have no qualms about notifying someone of your actions on this page to add to your already impressive CV. Please, just give up. Olliemilne 20:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agian, My source is as reliable as any and the only reason it is being removed is beacause you disagree with the subgenre that is being put up. It is you who are violating the rules due to your constant removeing of a source based purly opinion. I am not the only one with the opinion that this a reasonable source. Scipo 21:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC) If you check the Opeth page, you can see that they use Rock dector as a source.Scipo 03:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Opeth article which you yourself are a heavy editor of, and which was locked for constantly edit warring over genre additions. You brought your ridiculous ideas about what bands belong to what genres, backed up with a non creditable source (the only reason that the Rockdetector source hasn't been removed from the Opeth article is that noone has seen it to remove it yet) to THIS article, and it also ends up getting locked. Wherever a band's article gets locked because of genre edit wars, Scipio seems to be there. Just look at his talk page, people are constantly complaining about him and his edits. He seems to take it as a personal attack on him, but he has almost been banned for such behaviour on numerous articles. It isn't just a few people's personal opinions, it seems to be many, many people who disagree with him. If you revert your change one more time, I will notify an admin, who will take one look at your warning covered talk page and ban you, and I am serious this time. Make your choice Scipio. Olliemilne 20:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hardcore[edit]

I am wondering if it is correct to keep this genre up. Metalcore is a subgenre of hardcore and it's presence seems redundent Scipo 18:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Age of band members[edit]

How old are these guys? I know they've been playing forever, but I've never seen their ages actually listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.208.248.170 (talk) 10:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Dw.logo.converge.high.jpg[edit]

Image:Dw.logo.converge.high.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, 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) 07:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Developments[edit]

The mathcore tag and the source for mathcore have been in the article for some time without any more recent objection. Rockdector is a reliable, thrid party source which is used in many wikipedia articles relating to music. The user twentydevil is a vandal, who obiously has a problem with the genre, amd seeems bent on removing sourced information from the article.137.186.62.69 (talk) 06:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should do yourself a favor and rummage through a HUGE backlog of previous edits; it's been established long ago by the majority of Wikipedia users that care for the welfare of the Converge page that 'mathcore' doesn't apply to Converge. If anyone's a 'vandal', it's these anonymous edit-makers who cite dubious sources to constantly re-enflame these editing standoffs.Twentydevils

A. A majority of editors, from what I can tell, could care less. B. Rockdector is hardly a dubious source. It is a thrid party website maintained by Garry Sharpe-Young and a team of writers, who he pays. Garry Sharpe-Young has written many books on the subject of heavy metal and has gotten his books published a feat you will never accomplice. There have been tweleve books atributed to rockdetedtor. It is very a reliable source. And C. Anonymous editors have the same rights as editor who are signed in.137.186.62.69 (talk) 00:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

jake bannon[edit]

there isnt a page for jake. there are ones for nate and kurt though. anyone have enough infor on him to start a page? im really curious as to the other bands hes been in. i know he does all their album art and has done other bands album art (as i lay dying for one). Whitey138 (talk)


It got deleted.Howl5 (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

any reason? Whitey138 (talk) 04:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because some bored recent changes patroller spotted it and decided it wasn't notable or was lacking sources and wasn't worth keeping. Go check out its delete log, its a real lol. They even thought the Converge article itself should be deleted. You could try making it again but it'll be hard to cite it properly and someone is likely to delete it again as its already happened once. Olliemilne (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried a bunch of times.Howl5 (talk) 01:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Petitioning the Empty Sky / When Forever Comes Crashing Down[edit]

can anyone CONFIRM the original release dates of these albums? They were both rereleased in 2005.. but I see various sources saying they both came out in 1998.. while some claim 1997 for Petitioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.39.27 (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Single purpose account[edit]

There appears to be a single purpose account that keeps returning and blanking content. Could they explain themselves here and wait for replies from all regular editors before they do that anymore lest they be blocked from Wiki The Real Libs-speak politely 10:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if you read through a good portion of the talk section you'd see why. it'd also be in your best interest to comb through my edits. converge is nowhere near the only profile i 'return' to. TwentyDevils
You still continue to blank sources without waiting for other editors to comment. Continuing these bad habits will result in your account being blocked and the page protected. Use the talk page and wait for consensus. The Real Libs-speak politely 16:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
it's not blanking when there's still an entire page of exposition there? several editors reached a unanimous decision long, long ago, on the sources in question. again i urge you to sift through the talk page.

repetition, inconsistency?[edit]

History section:

"They started by playing covers of hardcore punk, punk rock and heavy metal songs, being self-confessed "hardcore kids with left-over Slayer riffs"."

Musical style section:

"Guitarist Kurt Ballou described Converge's first album as "a bunch of hardcore kids playing leftover Slayer riffs"."

i'm thinking this shouldn't be like that... not sure what to do, though, or if it's fine as it is. seems wrong... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.249.185.2 (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested page move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived 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. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Converge (band) → Converge – This is the primary topic. The disambig page is a waste of space, the only other 'Converge' on Wikipedia is a less notable programming language. Mynameisnotdave (talk/contribs) 14:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: As noted on the dab page, the primary meaning of "converge" is the concept of "the coming together of at least two things". This band is not that dominantly notable (especially in the sense of long-term enduring notability), and the term is far from obscure. Perhaps Converge should just redirect to Convergence, but it certainly doesn't primarily refer to this band. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as BarrelProof, but also "the converge" while not common also exists in obscure cases like modelling in The Hidden Power of Flash Components. Also as the article indicates "Converge is an American metalcore band from Salem, Massachusetts formed in 1990" - so it's not as if "(band)" is going to wrong-foot a reader. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: As per BarrelProof, "converge" by itself does not primarily mean the band (which I had never heard of, by the way, until now). In any case, the disambig page is meant for a "did you mean...?" type approach. "Converge" is a pretty common term, so it's likely this will only create confusion. With that in mind, I'd say leave it alone. Twyfan714 (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should prob redirect to convergence and I'll probably raise an RM there, unless you beat me to it. Red Slash 00:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No RM is needed to change an article to a redirect. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" and all that. From Goolging "converge -wikipedia", my sense is that more readers are looking for the band than for a dictionary definition anyway. Put the haggis on the fire (talk) 07:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
— Put the haggis on the fire (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Oppose per BarrelProof. The verb and noun forms could be merged as a unified disambiguation page. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 23:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – why should an obscure band be treated as primarytopic for a general term? The current band article title is precise enough to specify the topic, and no more. Leave it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the idea to encourage more people to read Wikipedia articles? These parentheticals reduce readership and chase readers away. Put the haggis on the fire (talk) 01:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a theory I have not heard before. How does saying "(band)" chase away readers looking for the band? Dicklyon (talk) 03:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You think that adding a parenthetical increases readership? You have now taken both sides of the issue. Either way, this is something that can be tested empirically. If it's true, the primary topic guideline is written upside down. The way it is written, it assumes the base form is the default, the one readers will check out first. Put the haggis on the fire (talk) 07:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The other page should stay the disambiguation page. Coreyemotela (talk) 12:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
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.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Converge (band). 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.

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) 12:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

Is it best for the intro to say Metalcore and not Hardcore punk? I feel like calling them a "Hardcore" band in the lead would be better since their infobox genres are all forms of Hardcore but not necessarily of Metalcore. Even though Metalcore is their main genre. Dekai Averett (talk) 01:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the genre in the lead should be general and encompass multiple of the genres that the band has been through.Issan Sumisu (talk) 06:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Converge_(band)&oldid=1206782481"