Talk:Six Feet Under (band)

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

GA nomination[edit]

I am currently trying to get this article up to GA. It would be very sweet if we could get a death metal article up to this status. Anyone who has reliable sources and information that would be useful to the article, please contribute! Dark Executioner (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It won't happen, not with this article anyways. There are other dm articles that have a higher class than this one, btw. I think B class is the highest. Only Death has that I believe. SFU ain't even that great =), but that's my POV. There's better dm bands. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 22:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WOW! There's no way this article will get GA status. I just looked at all the metal GA status articles...There's no pure death metal bands in there at all. The closest you'll get is Devourment, Opeth and Divine Heresy. None of whic are pure death metal. One is melodeath, another is melodeath with metalcore (urgh) and Devourment is deathgrind. You have no chance. Not with this article. It's not even close to good enough. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 23:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working to change that. This article can succeed if its more than just me doing all the edits and finding sources. And who cares about what you think of the band - this isn't a forum. Keep comments like that to yourself. Either join in and help or leave, don't cause any problems. Thanks, Dark Executioner (talk) 00:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! I get you, but that wasn't very nice. I realize it's not a forum. I didn't insult SFU, only said there are better death metal bands out there. I'm not even a huge dm fan anyways. Black metal is my topic of choice. It just so happens I always talk like that on talk pages. I get out all my POV there. For example, I often go to the metalcore page and harass them =). Not to the point where I get in any trouble, but I always make sure they know exactly how I feel about that shitty music. I always make sure I am talking about something constructive as well, though (i.e. fixing something or responding to someone). In your case I'll just say that I will join in and help when I can. I'm a very busy sort of person and I work on a great myriad of articles, so it can be hard to spend much time on just one. Good luck. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 00:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I wasn't insulting the article by saying it wasn't good enough. I was simply pointing out that it does need editing. It also surely won't get a GA rating (and it has nothing to do with the band). It could definitely be upgraded to start class. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 00:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages on Wikipedia are not the place to vent your POV. I don't care that you think that there are better death metal bands, Wikipedia isn't the place to say that. I'm not being harsh - I'm merely stating the facts and trying to keep you out of trouble as well. Understand that, dude!

I appreciate any positive contributions you can make to SFU. This GA means a good bit to me b/c it's my very first time trying to get an article up to this status. Thanks, Dark Executioner (talk) 01:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never gotten in trouble for that, but I'll stop, at least with you. To be honest, I think it's a losing battle you're fighting. Take a look at the metal bands who do have high status (GA or above). It's only the biggest bands, man. Slayer, Rush, Megadeth, Metallica, Iron Maiden and other bands like that. Even then there aren't many of them. You have a better chance with other articles than this. Devourement has the highest status for a death metal band (GA). Take a look at it. Death also has one of the highest statuses for a dm band (B). Examine it. Both are longer and a bit more adept than this article. You just don't have enough info to work with. This article should be changed to start class, but i don't see it getting higher than that any time soon. I'll do what I can. Making it more encyclopedic helps. Words like "apocalytic" and "brutal" don't help the article at all. I'm a metalhead. I appreciate shit like that, but the normal person won't. You gotta think like more of a normal person or a nerd. Encylopedic. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 01:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just went through the page and did an array of cleanups. From what I can see from this article is a lot of repetition like "saw the release of" for example. It also has a lot of OR which needs sourcing. You also may want to check the Words to Avoid guideline for what words you shouldn't use, such as obviously/obvious for instance. Also, with WP:DATE we don't add the st, nd, rd or th at the end of dates (although I am unaware of a time when you can). With WP:CONTEXT it is good to link articles that are related to the text or things people may not know a lot about (think international with things). Also the length for it to be a GA-class article is a bit short and the quality of this article I don't think is quite there yet for a "B" article but it's definitely not a stub anymore. I know a few articles that should be reviewed which are B-class and could be Good Article Candidates. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 06:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet, thanks CircafuciX! Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 22:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As always, your help is appreciated, CircafuciX.

As far as the album descriptions go... Most of the information was reworded from AMG.com. I didn't want to put the same source after every description because it seemed unnessicary. So I just put it at the end of the page and titled it "Album Descriptions."
I really need help with sourcing. I'm finding that there are not too many descriptions of SFU on other websites that aren't already listed in this article. Please help if you can, anyone! Thanks, Dark Executioner (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, I like to help out. :) Well I just got word that Damageplan just became a GA so maybe length isn't as important when I think about it, but flow and sourcing is, etc. I'll find a time that I can look for good sources, otherwise I'm busy with everything else. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 02:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are now sixteen sources on this article. If you can find any more, that would be magnificent! Dark Executioner (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Low Priority article?[edit]

I don't think this is accurate anymore. The page has undergone massive rewrites and improvements since then. I have yet to check, but I think it's approaching B-class, if not there already. Dark Executioner (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the article is POV ridden. It needs massive improvements before one even considers a GA nomination. LuciferMorgan (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The album descriptions are sourced, as well as most of the other main, informative details. Man, I'm just proud that I was able to help get this thing to B-class, to tell you the truth! Dark Executioner (talk) 14:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They might be sourced, but they aren't properly sourced. Comparisons from Slayer article and this one;

Slayer article: "Blabbermouth.net reviewer Borijov Krgin described the album as "a feeble attempt at incorporating updated elements into the group's sound, the presence of which elevated the band's efforts somewhat and offered hope that Slayer could refrain from endlessly rehashing their previous material for their future output.",[31]"

This one: "The tracks are still crashing and mostly slow-paced, but have less static."

If you notice, none of the opinions in this article are actually attributed to an opinion. Sourced or unsourced, this article is POV ridden. Also, WP:RS needs to be observed - using a Metal-archives.com review as an example of critical opinion is grossly wrong, more specifically as anyone can write a review for them. LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Album Descriptions[edit]

I have run into a minor problem. I would like to keep the album descriptions as informative as possible while keeping the article neutral in tone. It seems as though those five hours I spent finding sources for the descriptions wasn't enough :-( and now I have to maybe cut out some of the stuff I worked so hard on.

To anyone out there reading this, if you would like to help me take out the weasley words like "brutal" then I would gladly appreciate your help. Dark Executioner (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI this article and the article on Bringer of Blood contradict each other with the numbering of studio albums.

Music Samples[edit]

I also think that the article would benefit from music samples. I don't know how to put music on Wikipedia though, and the steps that people have given me to help don't really make any sense as I am not a techno-wiz. What would be really good is if we had an original song (like "Doomsday") and a cover song (like "TNT" or "California Uber Alles") sample in the article.

If you know how to put music in the article, then please do so. Thanks, Dark Executioner (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats[edit]

To Dark Executioner and anyone else who helped him. I am thoroughly impressed. B-class. If this article can be considered B-class, though, I think a lot of other metal articles can be moved up in class. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 20:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! There is still much to be done, and you can help (especially if you know how to put music samples on Wikipedia), but thank you. Dark Executioner (talk) 16:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Insect/Drowning/Grinder[edit]

The 3 studio tracks found on the Alive or Dead EP are also found on the Japanese Retail of Warpath FYI. 24.68.46.39 (talk)

Edit warring[edit]

Folks, that's uncited text that's being repeatedly removed. If you want to be able to defend it successfully, add a reference.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The user needs to follow protocol and include an edit summary and/or move the content to the Talk page for discussion; as it stands, his edits constitute vandalism. Radiopathy (talk) 00:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added a [citation needed] tag to the disputed content, since it doesn't appear that it would be libelous if false.

edits[edit]

I'm editing a couple of things on this page, mainly word choice and sentence construction--but since this article seems to be important to a lot of people I'm being very liberal with explanations of my edits. Thus, you'll see many small ones rather than one big edit marked 'edits throughout.' I hope that makes everyone happy. Drmies (talk) 20:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Six Feet Under discography[edit]

Support split - Discography section is becoming lengthy, and should be split to a new article entitled "Six Feet Under discography". Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support split - Makes sense, as they have 11 studio albums and quite a bit of miscellaneous items in the discography as well. Would make sense to simply list the studio albums like this and have the discography article listed above that.--Jacob Hellflames (talk) 10:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Six Feet Under (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

is that their logo?[edit]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Six Feet Under (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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 17:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Six Feet Under (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) 21:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Six_Feet_Under_(band)&oldid=1207850260"