Talk:List of gothic metal bands

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Silentium 2 Censorship 3 List Merger 4 Gothic Doom Metal 5 Evanescence 6 Xandira and Marilyn Manson 7 Problem with Gothic Metal list 8 Classification of metal bands in general 9 Lacrimosa 10 Some band debate 11 Red Links 12 Flowing Tears 13 After Forever 14 My Dying Bride

[edit] Silentium

I am not sure that this band belongs in this category or not, but regardless wikipedia does not have an article for Silentium, and somebody should start one. Could somebody here do that?

[edit] Censorship

Please stop deleting topics that have yet to be addressed. --198.82.125.67 19:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List Merger

Just a suggestion to simplify this article and possibly end the debates. Why not merge the gothic metal and gothic doom metal lists and then just put a disclaimer that says the list includes gothic metal, gothic doom metal, and goth rock inspired metal. Then, people can click on the band name and read the article to get an idea of what scene they are part of, be it the beauty and the beats scene, or a more doom metal inspired one.--Fred138 18:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

To add to this, we could then include goth metal/goth rock influenced metal bands like To/Die/For and etc into the list as well.--Fred138 00:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

This was already tried and overwhelming consensus showed that keeping the bands seperate was more helpfull, informative and correct. It also solved a lot of problems and fights users started. Albight i didnt like the idea of moving the list off the Gothic Metal article, it was done. In hindsight, its proved effective considering the work done to list all the Metal Genre Band Lists together on the Heavy Metal Bands list page. However, with the rewriting of the Gothic-Doom section to explain Atmospheric Doom, we can then seperate out the list into three clear sections, and also be more informative in the Goth Metal/Atmospheric Doom argument. Thus, we kill 3 birds with one potato.

[edit] Gothic Doom Metal

Several bands in the gothic doom metal list do not belong there. Specifically, To Die For, 69 Eyes, Poisonblack and etc. If we go to www.doom-metal.com, we can see that these bands are far to upbeat and fast paced to have anything to do with doom metal. Also, even if we were to use Danteferno's liberal standards over Leyasu's, I don't see how they could even be put in gothic metal, as they have nothing to do with the rest of that band list either. Therefore, I am gong to revert whatever edit classified these groups as doom metal. Fred138

Danteinferno's liberal standards over YOUR OWN you mean. Do you really think Wikipedians are that dumb? Everybody knows who you are. Looks like another report to WP:ANI for you. Fair Deal 03:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This is moronic. I love how whenever anyone mildly agrees with anything leyasu says in the slightest they are accused of sockpuppetry. My own standards actually happen to be more liberal than Leyasus, as I would consider bands like Moonspell to be gothic metal and he does not. I am going to revert your edit to my profile. Not to mention I provided a reliable source which gives a firm definition of the doom metal subgenre, which Leyasu also is not a fan of, but I am. Refer to my sources before you jump hastily to conclusions. Furthermore, if you have a legitimate source that would honestly list To/Die/For and the 69 Eyes as doom metal, I'd advise you present it instead of childishly accusing me of being a sockpuppet of a british user when I'm on Virginia based IP address.

In fact, here are some other sources that clearly explain what doom metal is. And also sources that point out the 69 Eyes and To/Die/For are not doom metal: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll, http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:hbfuxq9kld0e, http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:11956

Not to mention no one has addressed any of the arguments in doom-metal.com

Once again, someone reverted my change, which includes cited sources. Debate the sources or provide sources otherwise please. Even if you look at Wikipedia's own doom metal article, you can see that the bands I've removed have nothing in common with doom metal. Furthermore, if I were Leyasu, I would have gone in and removed Type O Negative and Moonspell from the list, which I clearly havent.

You've been reported Leyasu. Regular editors feel free to add comments at the administration notice board. Fair Deal

Once again, can you provide ANY proof that I am Leyasu? Saying something is true does not make it so.

Once again it appears that my changes which are SOURCED have been reverted with no refutation of the sources I provided above. For this reason, I am changing it back as doom-metal.com gives a clear definition of what doom metal is, and allmusic does not list either the 69 eyes or To/Die/For as doom metal or gothic doom metal. --Fred138 01:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evanescence

Is not a Gothic-Doom metal band. There is nothing Doom Metal about them.

[edit] Xandira and Marilyn Manson

Xandira has never had anything Doom in them. To list them as Gothic-Doom is wrong. Unless there can be proof given that they are such they need to be left off the list. Same thing goes for Marilyn Manson

[edit] Problem with Gothic Metal list

Ok there is a big problem with the list of Gothic Metal bands. Someone or should a say a number of people are starting to list bands such as Evanescence, Xandira, etc. into the genre when half of them have nothing to do with it.

Exmpale Evanescence being listed as Gothic-Doom. Unless proof can be given then those bands need to be left of the list. If good hard proof can be given then I'm all for listing them. Truemetalfan

I agree they're certainly not gothic-doom, but are they plain gothic metal? I'm not suggesting either one, I'm just unsure myself. On a slightly separate note, what about H.I.M. and Inkubus Sukkubus? I'd personally put them forward as gothic metal bands, at least in part (whereas with Evanescence I'm just plain asking). Prophaniti 06:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that Inkubus Sukkubus is a plain old gothic rock band. Just cause you have some metal elements and you are a goth rock band doesn't mean you are gothic metal. If that were the case, Fields of the Nephilim and even some Sisters of Mercy and the Mission would be gothic metal! The same applies to H.I.M.. Really I dont see how they are any more gothic metal than Evanescence. --Fred138 04:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair play then, just idle curiousity. Prophaniti 17:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The one problem with this is users who change the article and then the list to reflect their personal thoughts with no regards to WP:CITE. Thus users edits should be traced to check, unless they are a generally sound users known to give few problems. But lest you are right, for the most part

Well you see a lot of the bands that are being listed as Gothic Metal at times have a female singer. It seems that for some odd reason if a metal band has a female singer that means they are a goth band. That's just not the case at all. A very good exmaple To-Mera a new band that has just come out with a CD it is Prog metal through and through there is not one thing goth metal about them. Yet there are reviews calling them Gothic Metal becuase they have a lead female singer. They are far to heavy to be a goth metal band and have more solos and time changes and do a lot of what Prog bands do. So they should be called as such. Do they have some goth things in there music? Well maybe but it's not enough to call them as such. Same with bands as Nightwish, Epica, Edenbridge, and a number of other metal bands. In fact all metal bands if you really want to think about it have some kind of goth sound in there music some where. But some bands are just Power Metal with a lead female singer. Others are Prog metal and so on.

One last good exmaple Arch Enemy they have a lead female singer/gunrt whatever yet they are not Goth Metal they are Melodic Death Metal. Truemetalfan

[edit] Classification of metal bands in general

I'm placing this discussion point on a number of different lists of metal bands of differing genres, because it's a general point addressing many of them as a whole. I watch a number of metal band lists, and see an awful lot of reverting back and forth, often due to debate about what genre a band is. Think of this point as a kind of appeal for sanity. If in doubt about a bands genre, check their wikipedia article. If they don't have one, either make one if you think they should, or take whatever sources (e.g. the bands homepage) you might normally use in such an article. But ultimately the point of this is the wikipedia articles are the first and usually last place of reference. If you feel the classification of a band if wrong, then take that to the article in question, do not start having revert wars on the lists, going back and forth. If you feel that a band is wrongly classified, then go and debate that on their page, where there are likely more people who have something to say on the matter, and where it will need changing anyway if at all. It's confusing if the lists give one genre and the main articles another. If you have a good case for the genre being changed, then you should be able to do so on the main article of the band, and then you'll have every right to change the list article too. If we just accept that the main articles for bands are the primary point of reference for their genre, then things become a lot simpler. Someone's removed a band from the gothic metal list and you think it's not right? Go check the article. If it clearly says they're gothic metal, even in part, at some point during their career, or have influences of that, then there you go. No one can argue with that, and if they wish to they will have to take it to the main article. The lists are there to refer people to bands based on genre, they are not the place to debate genre in the first place. There will always be basic vandalism of course, but if people take note of this point I'd hope it might lessen all this silly waring over genre. Thank you. Prophaniti 17:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lacrimosa

Missing Lacrimosa... :( 213.112.157.250 15:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some band debate

Right. There have been a lot of edits going on here of late, mainly back and forth between myself and a number of others, mainly over the same bands. Here is my clarification for my own decisions on them:

After Forever: This I won't argue with, since they don't have a page on wikipedia yet and I know little about them myself.

Artrosis: Their article begins with "Artrosis is a Polish gothic metal band". Could this really be made much clearer?

Embraze: This is slightly more debatable, but really is still fairly clear: "a combination of traditional metal and dark/gothic elements". So Gothic, and Metal. Yeah, again, pretty obvious.

Lacrimosa: This is probably the only one truly debatable, but still they are described as gothic with occasional metal elements, and much more so since their album Inferno. So, of their 9 albums, at least 6 are predominantly gothic metal, and the other three are occasionally. I'd say this is still worth the list.

For My Pain...: Opening line: "For My Pain...are a gothic-doom metal supergroup". Yet again, no reason for removal whatsoever.

Virgin Black: Their box lists "Gothic-doom" as a genre, and the opening paragraph describes them as such. Painfully obvious again.

Morphia: As with After Forever, I'm not bothered about this band since it has no article.

Mourning Belloveth: They may be doom, but the word "goth" never appears in their article, so placing them on this list has no justification.

The Wounded: The same thing largely. They are described as Gothic Rock, but the word "metal" never once appears. So again, no reason to put them on the list.

Within Temptation: I'm not going to argue with anything about Within Temptation, ironic considering I know them best of all the above bands. But really, the debate about gothic metal here is a big one, so I'm not going to get involved.

So, if you want to play around with Morphia, After Forever or Within Temptation, go right ahead. But leave the remainder well alone. If this sounds like flaming then apologies, but I think I'm justified: I am sick and tired of the constant editing back and forth, where I give good reasons and everyone else just does it without a word. I've seen several bands be edited so their links, which I made functional, become red, and more than just once. That sort of editing is pure vandalism, and this really is a last warning before I start to investigate reporting it as such. I do not want to see the bands I listed above removed from or added to this article again without good reason given, or unless their own articles have changed. I really want this to be clear, because with the stupidity displayed by the people undoing my edits, I feel like a teacher admonishing little children. Read the article first. If a band is described as gothic metal then, shock horror, it's meant to be on the list. If the words "goth" or "metal" aren't mentioned, then oddly enough it's not. Is this quite clear? I hope so, because I don't want to have to deal with such moronic, pig-headed numbskulls as I have seen so far. Prophaniti 09:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

After Forever: This I won't argue with, since they don't have a page on wikipedia yet and I know little about them myself.>>>>

After Forever does have a page. But they are not Gothic metal. May a bit of there first album. But that is about it if that. They are Symphonic metal in fact they really have moved away from thing that might have been goth starting with there 2nd CD and beyond. There newst one from ever thing I have heard is so far from being gothic it's not even funny.

The problem here is that half the band getting listed as GOTH METAL just so happen to have a FEMALE SINGER in the band. Lead female singer does not = Gothic Metal. If it does then that would mean Edenbridge, Lunatica, To-Mera, Visions of Atlantis, Sinergy, Epica, Arch Enemy, and The Project Hate all goth metal bands and there not.

Edenbirdge is Symphoinc Metal Epica is Symphonic Metal Lunatica is Symponic Power Meatl To-Mera is Porg Metal Visions of Atlantis is Symphoic Power Metal or just Power Metal Sinergy is Power Metal Arch Enemy is Melodic Death metal The Project Hate is Death Metal

Yet people add them as Gothic becuase gasp they have a female singer. :|

Truemetalfan30, October 2006

Thanks for the info about After Forever, having checked the page you're quite correct they're not gothic metal and as such I'll strive to keep them off this list in future. Basically, I say just go with the wikipedia page. I agree, a female vocalist is definitely not reason in itself to class a band as gothic metal. But if the page says they're gothic metal (or words to that effect, such as "metal with strong gothic themes") then they should be on this list. If you, or indeed anyone, thinks that classification is wrong, then the place to debate it is on that band's page, rather than going through constant edits and counter-edits on here (not that I'm accusing you personally of this :)). Once a band's main page has been successfully changed (in the proper way of course, not just a quick change with no justification) then there is full reason to change this list to reflect that. Of the bands you list I've seen Epica added to this page, and removed it promptly because the page on Epica does not list them as gothic metal. This is the system I use for the list pages. Prophaniti 09:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

If you read the Gothic Metal article, it too states Goth Metal is variation of Gothic-Doom, and that Gothic Metal has nothing to do with 'goths'. Thus the word goth appearing in a band article means absoloutly nothing. Oh, and this statement does not mean they should be here:

• "But if the page says they're gothic metal (or words to that effect, such as "metal with strong gothic themes") then they should be on this list."

That is wrong. If the band is alike what is stated on This article right here about Gothic Metal, then the band is Gothic Metal. Metal with Gothic Themes can be 'any' form of metal.

• Please note that when I say "it doesn't contain "goth"", I mean I've done a search and no where does that word, even as part of a word, appear. Meaning "gothic" doesn't appear either. I don’t argue for a band being included in the list just because it contains “goth” in the main article. I argue that if it doesn’t contain that word, if the term is never used, there really isn’t any justification for inclusion on this list.

Artrosis has a single opening line. It says they’re gothic metal. Not much room for debate.

Cradle of Filth I’m again not bothered about, since their genre is very debatable. I’m not going to argue with that one on the list or off it.

Embraze is, as I said, debatable. I’d perhaps feel more confident one way or the other if I’d heard more of their work. As it is, I’m not going to fight hard for them to be on the list.

Lacrimosa is less arguable. As noted, their article states they have been gothic metal for 6 out of 9 albums, and more than 10 years of their career, and the initial three albums are not listed as outright -not- gothic metal. Unless their main article is incorrect, they do warrant mention on the list.

The Midnight Configuration article seems incomplete, so for the time being I’m again not going to argue this one either way.

For My Pain…seems to be causing a lot of editing, yet I still don’t see why. First line: “For My Pain... are a gothic-doom metal supergroup”. Read it, it makes things quite, quite clear.

Mourning Beloveth and The Wounded also don’t yet have reason to be on this list. They are doom/doom-death and gothic rock respectevely, not gothic metal.

Virgin Black have “Gothic metal” listed as a genre type, and are described as that mixed with symphonic metal in the opening line.

I also agree, merely containing some gothic themes isn’t quite enough, which is why I’m prepared to accept debate on Embraze for example. But I said “strong gothic themes” as my example, not gothic themes. There’s a difference. Prophaniti 23:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

"Artrosis has a single opening line. It says they’re gothic metal. Not much room for debate."

Changed by the person who added them. Same as Autumn. Again, something you didnt bother to check.

"Cradle of Filth I’m again not bothered about, since their genre is very debatable. I’m not going to argue with that one on the list or off it."

Agreed. Debated remains debated, nor do they match what the Gothic Metal article says.

"Embraze is, as I said, debatable. I’d perhaps feel more confident one way or the other if I’d heard more of their work. As it is, I’m not going to fight hard for them to be on the list."

Metal with gothic themes does not a Gothic Metal band make.

"Lacrimosa is less arguable. As noted, their article states they have been gothic metal for 6 out of 9 albums, and more than 10 years of their career, and the initial three albums are not listed as outright -not- gothic metal. Unless their main article is incorrect, they do warrant mention on the list."

"Their musical style mixes heavy metal and gothic rock sounds along with violin, trumpet and more classical instruments, although their musical development throughout the years has also led to changes in instrumentation. Thats Gothic-Doom, as can be read here.

"The Midnight Configuration article seems incomplete, so for the time being I’m again not going to argue this one either way."

Not disputed.

"For My Pain…seems to be causing a lot of editing, yet I still don’t see why. First line: “For My Pain... are a gothic-doom metal supergroup”. Read it, it makes things quite, quite clear."

Answer to that is probally here

"Mourning Beloveth and The Wounded also don’t yet have reason to be on this list. They are doom/doom-death and gothic rock respectevely, not gothic metal."

See case for Lacrimosa.

"Virgin Black have “Gothic metal” listed as a genre type, and are described as that mixed with symphonic metal in the opening line."

Ehem, correction; "Virgin Black is an Australian band that combines gothic-doom, and symphonic metal influences for an emotional and dramatic sound". I fail to see where that says Gothic Metal.

"I also agree, merely containing some gothic themes isn’t quite enough, which is why I’m prepared to accept debate on Embraze for example. But I said “strong gothic themes” as my example, not gothic themes. There’s a difference."

And as i said, Gothic Metal has its own article. So bands that are Gothic Metal go on the list, not bands that simply have 'gothic themes', strong or not.

Firstly, you really shouldn’t edit someone elses post on the discussion page. If you have responses to things I’ve said, quote them and then say what you want under them. I have placed your responses together for you. If nothing else doing so is more likely to be overlooked. I have removed the comments to some of the points I made at the start, since the discussion has moved on from there and they are irrelevant (for example, saying "then they should be in the gothic-doom list", when they have since been moved them thusly). If you wish to add them back, please do so in a new post at the bottom. Putting in responses throughout the whole thing is just confusing and also sometimes makes it look like someone else has said something they didn't, especially since you haven't left signatures on them.

The gothic metal article can say whatever it wants. But the articles on these bands say they are gothic metal/gothic-doom/aren’t gothic metal/etc. If you think those are wrong, go and change them. However, to have this list directly contradicting other articles on wikipedia doesn't make sense. You seem to be under the impression that if an article has been changed that's the end of it. If Artrosis says a genre type you think is incorrect, then go and change it back.

"See case for Lacrimosa."

So you freely admit to having double standards? You say Lacrimosa shouldn’t be included simply because of the wording of the article, yet you then say that factor doesn’t matter for Mourning Beloveth and The Wounded?

"Ehem, correction; "Virgin Black is an Australian band that combines gothic-doom, and symphonic metal influences for an emotional and dramatic sound". I fail to see where that says Gothic Metal."

You fail to see it? Try looking in the text box at the very start of the article, where it says “genres” and then “gothic-doom”. Clear enough? Not to mention that if a band combines two genres, it is a part of both of those only unless it forms a new genre in the process. In this case, it doesn't.

Artrosis, For My Pain… and Virgin Black all make it totally clear what genre they are. Lacrimosa has a slight element of debate, but not much. They are not 100% pure gothic metal, but they are enough like it to warrant inclusion, because a band does not have to be unswervingly within a genre to do so. Take a look at the thrash metal list, which includes, for example, Metallica. I’m sure no one would argue to take them off the list. Yet of their 8 studio albums, 2 are not thrash metal at all, and another two are debatable. They are of course a more influential band on their genre, but I’m illustrating the point that a band doesn’t have to constantly be of a certain genre to get a mention on that list page. Prophaniti 14:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

"If Artrosis says a genre type you think is incorrect, then go and change it back." And i did, and i changed the list back to what it was before the vandalism insued to match what the band articles and the Gothic Metal article said.

As for Virgin Black, the point i was making is it says Gothic-Doom, not Gothic Metal. Thus listing them as Gothic Metal undermines your whole argument about 'listing as what the articles say'.

As for Lacrimosa, it doesnt say they ever played Gothic Metal. It says they produced music akin to Gothic Metal. Black Metal bands that shift in a Gothic Metal direction are often Symphonic Black Metal bands. Thus the article doesnt say they played Gothic Metal, it says they moved in that direction. That doesnt warrant them being included on a list of Gothic Metal bands.

When precisely did you change the Artrosis article to not term them Gothic Metal? Having looked through the entire edit history, the "gothic metal" description doesn't seem to have ever been taken out. You've also given no explanation this time for the removal of For My Pain... again.

Virgin Black does indeed say Gothic-Doom. And, unsurprisingly, I put them on the Gothic-Doom part of the list. Yet you removed them from that list three times. So, how has this undermined my argument?

And no, it doesn't say they played Gothic Metal. None of the articles I've seen actually say "they played gothic metal". But the Lacrimosa article does say they were gothic with metal, and then the gothic element became much stronger. It all depends on specifically how much they've gone towards that. I accept having influences, then going more towards that, might not boost them all the way into full gothic metal, but it sounds like a good way there, enough to get a mention at the least. Prophaniti 09:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Read this part of the Gothic Metal article. It lists that Gothic Metal/Gothic Rock combinations are Gothic-Doom.

Somebody kept putting Virgin Black in Gothic Metal. I apologise if it wasnt you, my accusation was misdirected.

Lacrimosa says they were gothic with elements of metal. I can think of about 50 bands that meet that vague description that are nothing alike Gothic Metal. No mention for bands that arent Gothic Metal.

Oh, and as for For My Pain, i didnt realise id end up losing them. Ill be more thoughtfull to make sure they dont get deleted this time.

Artrosis' page lists them as gothic rock/gothic metal, not a true combination of the two, and thus they need to be put on the gothic metal list.

Lacrimosa's article also then goes on to say that the gothic aspect increased after their first three albums, and it became downright gothic. It's enough to get on the list.

And what are your exact reasons for wanting Mourning Beloveth and The Wounded on the list page? Prophaniti 10:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine, ill go change the Gothic Metal part of their article to reflect they were Gothic-Doom if people really cannot figure it out themselfs.

Lacrimosa doesnt get on the list. Gothic has a whole disambiguation page for it: unless it says they are Gothic Metal and they are the same as whats listed on the Gothic Metal article, there is no reason for them to be on the list. As i said, Gothic + Metal can = Gothic-Doom, Gothic Metal, Symphonic Black, and Symphonic Death. Vague and POV to go They are Gothic and Metal so they are Gothic Metal.

As for The Wounded and Mourning Beloveth, there is about 30 pages in the archives of the Gothic Metal discussion pages that say they are Gothic-Doom.

For Artrosis, then that's fair enough. If no one edits the genre back, then it's accepted, and all I'm trying to do is keep this list reflecting that.

There's no mention of Mourning Beloveth or The Wounded on the current Gothic Metal discussion page, and whatever that might or might not say, their articles don't call them gothic metal. You can hardly be so strict on Lacrimosa, yet not on the others.

Yes, the term "gothic" can mean a variety of things, but on the Lacrimosa page it's clearly in a musical context, and indeed even a metal context. And indeed, "gothic" + "metal" can equal a variety of things, but given that there's no mention of "doom", "symphonic" or "black" metal anywhere there, they need to be put into a differing category. It's not really POV to say "they are gothic and metal, so they are gothic metal". That's a perfectly logical process.

I assure you I'm not trying to take this onto a personal level, but your arguments aren't being helped by what seems to be lying you have displayed thus far (gothic metal talk page, Artrosis history) and the implication elsewhere of you being the sockpuppet of a banned user. Prophaniti 13:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Should be in the archives. Im not saying that either band was specifically mentioned, there is just 2 dozen sources saying thats what they are.

And yes, its a perfectly logical first conception. But it doesnt say Gothic metal, and the Gothic Metal article has a whole common misconceptions section for things like this.

As with the Artrosis history. I can think of two users who kept changing them and adding them to the list. I dont think their names bear repeating when you can figure it out for yourself.

And sorry if this seemed personal, im not trying to make it personal - im more glad that we have made 'some' progress to come to a mutal, rather than come to heads.

But the reasoning behind Lacrimosa and Mourning Beloveth/The Wounded isn't quite the same. The latter two shouldn't be on, not because they don't use the exact phrase "gothic metal", but because one never has any direct sign of being gothic in it's article, the other never has any mention of being metal, and as such they have to be disqualified. Whereas Lacrimosa has both of those traits, the only debate is on how much of said traits are necessary to get onto the list article. Prophaniti 11:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

In my view, its these traits. If Lacrimosa has these traits on its albums, then their article should be edited to reflect that, and they should be put on the list in the appropriate section.

Well until I get the chance to investigate them more myself I don't think this can go much further, so I'll leave it there myself for now. At least we got somewhere through this. Prophaniti 02:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Red Links

When someone gets the chance, somebody needs to create articles for the bands that have red links, even if they only small stubs like the Penumbra article.

Since this is still concerning red links I'll put this in here. I'm proposing that red links be banned from the gothic metal bands list. Other metal band lists have done this and it works well, because it makes managing the article a lot simpler. There has been a whole slew of red links added lately and a big edit war has erupted with taking them out, putting them back, and so on. With bands with articles if there is a dispute about the band being on the list it can be solved simply by looking at the article in question. But without articles it makes settling this very difficult. Ultimately this article is not going to list ALL gothic metal bands anytime soon. Just take a look at other big lists, such as encyclopedia metallum, which lists over 40,000 metal bands in total. I think a shorter, but more complete list is better than an ultimately futile attempt at a full one, filled with red links, as those links serve little purpose and cause these big edit wars. Prophaniti 15:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I can draw up sources and such for all the red links i added, but from behind the veil (Shadow mechanic for those MTG whores), i cant create the articles. If i drop the sources to your talk page are yew prepared to create the articles? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.44.165.193 (talk) 13:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

Sure thing, if you can pass on sources I'd be happy for form small articles with any info in those sources. I don't know anything about the bands added, so I can't provide much, but I can form small articles with any info given, certainly. Prophaniti 15:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I dropped the sources in as citations next to the bands. Though its hard to communicate with yew when yew have one over righteous admin who has decided that its ok to revert to vandalised page versions simply because he dislikes yew.

I'm already on it. I've been scouring tonnes of lists with red links, and I remove every single band without an article. Chances are they're non-notable if they don't have an article. --Dane ^~nya 03:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flowing Tears

Is a Gothic Metal band. Not only does it say so on there Wikipedia page but that's also what they are list as at Enycolpaedia Metallum. truemetalfan Dec 27, 2006

They are not Gothic Metal. The person who added them changed it. Encylopedia Metallium is reknown for being wrong. And, the only reason it says Gothic Metal is coz some biased admin is changing it back to the vandalised page version because every user ip on Wikipedia is Leyasu now, seemingly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.157.81.83 (talk) 01:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

Ummm no they are Gothic Metal. Sonic Cathedral.com and www.metal-observer.com both list them as Gothic Metal. truemetalfan Dec 27, 2006

While I agree encyclopedia is one of the most biased and useless sources out there, the fact is that the band list articles should only ever reflect the other articles on wikipedia. In other words, if someone has genuinelly changed an article on a band to put them in a different genre, go and change that back. It's just as easy for anyone to make changes. And if a debate as to the genre of the band crops up, settle it on that band's page, not on the list pages. Prophaniti 15:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

They are still arent Gothic Metal. Listing non-reliable sources over reliable sources that made up the Gothic Metal article is not going to make the band Gothic Metal all of a sudden. It doesnt matter if someone calls Britney Spears Brutal Death Metal, she doesnt play it so calling her it doesnt mean she does play it. Simple as.

Well then let's go here http://www.last.fm/music/Flowing+Tears they also list them as Gothic Metal. Many many sites list them as Gothic Metal becuase that's what they are. turemetalfan Jan 1, 2007

[edit] After Forever

Alright people, Let's put this to rest once and for all: After Forever is not Goth Metal. Look at the facts (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong):

1. They got their name and influences (amidst other things) form a Black Sabbath song. Yes, songs like "Hand of Doom" and the title track of the self-titled debut, which were debatably Doom Metal songs (proto-doom metal would do more justice), they were not Goth Metal.

   Another influence of theirs was [[|Iron Madien|Iron Madien (band)]], they even covered the song "The Evil That Men Do" (Did a good jorb i must say).

   They sound more like New Wave OF British Heavy Metal Revival/Progressive Metal, and (almost) nothing like Type O Negative, My Dying Bride or even 13 Winters.

Again, correct me if I'm wrong. --Emevas 04:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My Dying Bride

I want someone to give me one good reason why My Dying Bride is not Doom/Goth Metal. Eslewise I'll just keep reposing it. --Emevas 18:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

They are Doom/Death (and are among the Big Three of Doom/Death, with Anathema and Paradise Lost). Goth/Doom is like Avrigus or Type O Negative. My Dying Bride has hardly anything to do with those sounds. I didn't take it away again, because I don't want to cause any big debates or anything, but I think it should be off the list (along with Paradise Lost). Look at their articles. Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • O))))} 19:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright If you don't want a debate, I won't give you one. This is just thrown out there to compete wiht those who are of an opposed view. (Although I do agree with your view on Paradise Lost), (And If I remember correctly I added Type O Negative, so I'm no stranger to the genre) Listen to tracks like Sear Me 1993, Two Winters Only, She Is the Dark (although not a great example), Velvet Morning, and Your river. Do these songs not capture a sound very much like what goth metal is/was?--Emevas 23:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit: I even provided a source. --Emevas 00:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay well if no one sees any problem with it, I'm taking off MDB & PL from the list. If someone has a problem with it, just revert my edit and talk about it on the talk page. :) Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • O))))} 21:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)