Talk:Metallica/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The table has valid sources, it is in accordance with the article, it has important information and it doesn't matter if the page is long, it just matters to pass all the necessary information, maybe it's better to create a page of its own for Metalica members, until then, the table stands.--The Young Prussian (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

For reasons I've already stated, the table should go, in my opinion (as should your unnecessary edits to the timeline), and a separate members page would make even less sense given there have only been four former members and the session/touring musicians total even less. Would love some more input – anyone's more than welcome to chip in, but pinging more experienced editors to have frequented this article like Fnlayson, FlightTime, Binksternet and Jane, His Wife. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 15:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

The Lineups table below the Timeline repeats info from the Timeline graph and members listed above it. I don't believe repeating this info in another form is really all that helpful. Is there a layout guide for WP:Rock music or WP Metal that might cover this? (I did not see layout covered on these main project pages.) -Fnlayson (talk) 16:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

It does not repeat it, and therefore it is not redundant either, as it contains session members that are not seen in the table above, as well as several important demos. The Young Prussian (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Fnlayson, I can't remember where, but this was definitely covered somewhere a few years back; essentially all of these extra forms to depict the members, except for the timeline (unless it's massive, e.g. bands like Megadeth), are normally reserved for separate member pages (which would make sense, because those are the kind of lists that go into that level of detail). With Metallica's timeline, the consensus has always been to not split the roles because Hetfield has held the same role throughout and all of the lead guitarists and bassists have contributed backing vocals, plus the band members section is only supposed to reflect members' main instruments/roles in the band (which comes up a lot at Foo Fighters, for example, given Grohl's early work before filling out the band). The Young Prussian, the table is essentially repeating the timeline in text form, you've only included one extra musician (the longtime consensus at this article has been to not include Grant as a session musician), and I've never seen a lineup table place this much emphasis on demos. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 02:49, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

So fucking what? Joey Camelaroche (talk) 07:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Joey Camelaroche, thank you so much for taking the time to give such a detailed and helpful response... you are such a delight. 🙄

As mentioned before, the page is already quite long and there have only been a handful of lineup changes, so the table is unnecessarily repeating information from the timeline, with the addition of/emphasis on demos adding no real value whatsoever. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 10:40, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

The table doesn't repeat previous information and I already said, and tables like Mayhem's focus on the demos, because they were important for the formation of the band, with Metallica it's no different, Lloyd Grant was a session guitarist, so much so that he is credited with creating the Hit The Lights 1st Pressing LP in the 1982 Metal Massacre, and to say the page is "long" is meaningless. The Young Prussian (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

And Metallica himself on his 30th birthday live admits that Grant was part of the band. The Young Prussian (talk) 19:28, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

And Metallica himself Who is this person, a male named Metallica ? - FlightTime (open channel) 20:32, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

It is Lars Ulrich, specifically The Young Prussian (talk) 20:50, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

My points regarding the lineup table still stand – a list of members and timeline is sufficient enough, as it has always been. Grant has only been credited with a single guitar solo, which doesn't make him worthy of inclusion as a session musician in the same way that Rock is, having recorded for a whole studio album. Otherwise, the timeline doesn't need to be changed at all, as the roles don't need to be split and bass wasn't a role of Hetfield's in the band. Also, please stop using dummy edits (let alone edit warring) to try and get your point across – that's what this discussion is for. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 02:05, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with @The Young Prussian. Its additional information that should be included somewhere. That's what wikipedia is about. It doesn't matter if the article is long. As long as its correct, relevant and not repeated, it should be included. Mr Ezzbot (talk) 07:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure how many of these discussions have already been made, but coming between Metallica's and Lou Reed's seperate articles, I've noticed that the Discography drop-down of the Metallica article does not list the album, "Lulu" (collaboration with Lou Reed) between "Death Magnetic" and "Hardwired...To Self-Destruct", even while Lou's discography drop-down does list it as being a collaboration with the band.

Personally, I just feel that it would only be fair if the album was listed in both artists' discographies. 2600:1017:B118:381A:78F1:D007:827C:7CE5 (talk) 06:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

It is listed on the Metallica discography page under collaboration albums.

I think this is better as Metallica's discography is so large, it better serves to just have their main studio releases (Kill 'em all through to 72 Seasons) listed on the main article. Mr Ezzbot (talk) 07:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Only studio albums go in the discography section when there is a separate discography page for the band per guidelines. Other albums besides studio albums can be found on Metallica's discography page. Bowling is life (talk) 08:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Metallica have sold more than 150 million copies, while the page still shows 125million. some of the sources: https://www.metalcastle.net/the-top-5-highest-selling-metallica-albums-until-2022/ https://www.scmp.com/magazines/style/celebrity/article/3202136/who-richest-metallica-member-net-worths-ranked-millionaire-founders-james-hetfield-and-lars-ulrich 2A02:586:1E3F:B9CF:85FC:8A1D:A8BE:7813 (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes I have noticed that. The number 125 is really outdated. I think that this was the number back in 2016. 2A02:586:1E3F:B9CF:B1D8:7781:FF4D:BA82 (talk) 22:51, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Metallica has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add that the new album "72 Seasons" was released CPA0908 (talk) 01:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• I just added info and ref to support this in the "Further activity and 72 Seasons" subsection. Regards, -Fnlayson (talk) 01:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I made a page for James son Castor as a redirect to James for future reference and possibly he is in a band and doing some productivity with his life. Not sure how you all feel about it, but maybe some years down the line it can be it’s own stand alone article. A.R.M. 04:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

The redirect Napster Bad! has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 16 § Napster Bad! until a consensus is reached. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm American, Bands are "they", not "it" in American English. "We went on tour with it" sounds completely wrong, and this tendency to refer to bands as "it" is something I've noticed on Wikipedia more than anywhere else (and not even consistently within articles, like this one). That's basically it. Esszet (talk) 04:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Per American and British English grammatical differences#Subject–verb agreement: In American English (AmE), collective nouns are almost always singular in construction: the committee was unable to agree. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 05:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Why this Australian guy thinks he understands American English better than I do is beyond me. Esszet (talk) 05:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

All I did was point you towards a sourced article explaining the differences in grammar; have a look at MOS:SINGULAR as well, the very reason why you see the singular form more often here like you say. Also, again, please don't revert without reaching a consensus first, per WP:BRD. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 07:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Miniapolis: I have no idea what in the fucking world this guy's problem is. He's Australian, he thinks he knows American English better than I do, I tried to explain it to him at his talk page, but all he keeps doing is repeating himself and reverting me wholesale. The very next sentence in the article he keeps mentioning is "However, when a speaker wishes to emphasize that the individuals are acting separately, a plural pronoun may be employed with a singular or plural verb: the team takes their seats, rather than the team takes its seats." He's made no serious attempts to contribute to the discussion, and he has now taken it to the level of edit warring. What should I do here, I've never had an experience like this on Wikipedia. Esszet (talk) 15:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

(←) I replied to 4TheWynne on their talk page wrt article ownership, and their WP:DE tag on your talk page is inappropriate. That being said, I'm a non-participant in WP:MOS wars; the MOS is guideline, not policy. It takes two to edit-war and if the singular/plural thing becomes enough of an issue, the page's FA status may be jeopardized. Miniapolis 17:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, normally I'd refrain from doing things like this, but the sheer audacity here is outrageous. He isn't even North American! Esszet (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

• User:Esszet, you appear to be bordering on personal attacks here. Try to follow talk page guidelines such as WP:TALK#USE, and WP:TPG#YES and stick to the issue not other users. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Miniapolis, all I've done is try to follow grammar/MOS and policy; how do my actions suggest over-application of American English or that I think I WP:OWN the article? The article was already formatted this way and, given I agreed with it/MOS seems to support it, I sought to have the matter discussed first, while Esszet has gone against WP:BRD by reverting prior to/while discussing (the most recent such edit I gave the warning for, as I'd asked multiple times to discuss first) and gotten antsy about me having this stance despite not being American, which is completely irrelevant.

Esszet, regardless of how aggreieved you might feel about what is being argued, I've pointed you to MOS and twice towards a sourced article on the grammatical differences (the excerpt that you took out – However, when a speaker wishes to emphasize that the individuals are acting separately... – doesn't apply to this argument, as the usage that we're referring to is for the band as a whole, not its individual members), how can you say that I've made no serious attempts to contribute to the discussion? 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 17:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

It's completely relevant, you don't know what you're talking about. You've now had two North Americans tell you're wrong, and you're still pressing it? If anyone else has anything to add, feel free. I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style to make the MOS clearer, by the way. Esszet (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

The fact that Esszet is more familiar with the subtleties of the variety of English used in the article is absolutely relevant here. Miniapolis 18:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Miniapolis, well, then, the issue here is that "the subtleties" have put Esszet at odds with MOS, which is a problem. If you're just going to disregard their conduct and focus on mine, fine, but again, I was just following follow grammar/MOS and policy. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 03:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)