Talk:Overkill (band)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Brookeharowitz. Peer reviewers: Melissa5464a.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

16 million records sold?

Seems like a huge number. This doesn't sync with sales figures for bands of a relatively similar profile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:2E96:BA90:4028:F403:F564:50CB (talk) 19:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Groove Metal needs further citation

You can't use one link to an album review as a citation for classifying Overkill's latter work. I will re-word the genre description to "Overkill is a thrash and groove metal band" which eliminates the need for era specification. If you want to delineate eras, please provide further evidence than one Decibel magazine review, because I can show ample evidence to the contrary. Supercodes (talk) 02:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

levente AT mit.edu

ha? I wrote the article for Metal-Archives. I decided to put it here too. Well, it's back. There is no copyright violation, as the article is not copyrighted. I as the author release the article to the public domain, and the webmasters of metal-archives.com agree with this decision. Feel free to contact them - emails available on the site. levente AT mit.edu

Deletion of whole sections

If you feel you have to delete whole parts of the article, it would be appropriate to state your reasons here. Otherwise this might be seen as a form of vandalism. --84.184.149.207 11:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Beavis & Butthead

Come on, no mention of them savaging "Hello From the Gutter"? That's the only way 90% of people ever heard of this band. "Huh Huh...that skull should fly away to a video that's cool....huh huh"

Major Cleanup

Although I am a die hard lifelong 'Kill fan, I drasticaly lessened the POV in this article(such as "this is their best alum" type stuff). I tired to take a more factual stance in the article as well. I also removed lots of unessecary stuff like "(name forgotten over time)" and cleaned up run on sentences, ect. I also added the infobox and pics.

Most of the later album descriptions after W.F.O. still say somthing to the effect of "combining the new overkill sound with their classic sound" ect. But I'll leave that argument to someone else, As I know little about the bands albums after F.T.U.A.B.

There are lots of unverified facts here, such as Dan Spitz being a member? A lot of that stuff needs sources and citations if it's to be included...

I'm also in the process of giving each album a page(if there isn't one already) and uploading all the covers - can't believe they arent up! Skeletor2112 09:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• • See also Category:Overkill albums --Yendor1958 12:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Blitz's "Stroke"

I talked to Blitz after a show in Edmonton, and he said that what he had wasn't really a "stroke", per se. Maybe it makes sense to refer to it as a stroke coloquially, since it gets the point across to the layman, but I forget exactly what Blitz called what he had. If someone could look into this and update this page, I'd be grateful.

Whilst looking for info on the official numbering of the albums, it appears that Blitz himself refers to it as a stroke, albeit a minor one, in all his interviews. So I think you're alright on this. cp

It's possible it's what's called a focal seizure, but it appeared as if it were a stroke when they did all the tests. It's not lifestyle, it's not predisposition. It's possible it's a twisted vein (from the cancer operations). disallowed link to suite101 - Interview with Bobby 'Blitz' Ellsworth by Chad Bowar. - NR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.254.117.66 (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't remember which interview it was, but I remember him referring to it as a focal seizure in an interview he also described an altered state which may be consistent with that, if that helps...Wmfarrell (talk) 18:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Numbering of albums to make Killbox 13

Just a general query, I don't wish to be a pedant because your article is otherwise top notch, but isn't Coverkill the 11th album making Bloodletting the 12th and Killbox 13 the 13th rather than Overkill EP being 1st? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.238.233.2 (talk • contribs) .

I thought the numbering was based on albums of original material, not cover & live ones, but I could be wrong. If you know of an interview or any reference that mentions the albums counted, please feel free to add/change the info. Skeletor2112 08:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No, you are dead on the head of the nail, Skeletor. From the horse's mouth, "Well, it is the thirteenth, but it’s only really the thirteenth for people who followed the band. There was an EP called “Overkill” back in ’84..." http://www.themetalweb.com/overkillinterview

In this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huwIdfi3P1Q) at around ~10:03 it is stated that White Devil Armory is the seventeenth record by Overkill. Therefore Coverkill is not a studio recording and is considered as a compilation. Here's how the studio album list looks and should stay this way:

• Feel the Fire (1985)
• Taking Over (1987)
• Under the Influence (1988)
• The Years of Decay (1989)
• Horrorscope (1991)
• I Hear Black (1993)
• W.F.O. (1994)
• The Killing Kind (1996)
• From the Underground and Below (1997)
• Necroshine (1999)
• Bloodletting (2000)
• Killbox 13 (2003)
• ReliXIV (2005)
• Immortalis (2007)
• Ironbound (2010)
• The Electric Age (2012)
• White Devil Armory (2014)

Overkill is also not considered as a studio album so it stays in EP's section. Sabbatino (talk) 10:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Year of Extended Versions

Allmusic has Extended Versions with a release date of 2002, yet it's in this discography as released in 2004. I didn't want to change it, as I've known AMG to be wrong. --Joelmills 02:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I have an original copy of Overkill, Extended Versions: The Encore Collection - it has on it "Copyright 2002 BMG Special Products" So, yes this should be changed to 2002... Wmfarrell (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Logo

Did the guys ever officially confirm that their logo (at least the "O" in the logo) is based upon the Iron Maiden logo? I don't think this is pure coincidence.--80.133.223.142 16:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

In a documentary called Born In The Basement former Overkill drummer Rat Skates states that he designed the band logo and the letter "O" was borrowed from Iron Maiden logo. Sabbatino (talk) 09:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

References

Overkill Sales

I'm wondering, how many albums have Overkill sold worldwide? And how many albums have Overkill sold for each album?{{subst:image source|Image:1401.jpg)) Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 00:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC) {{missing rationale|Image:1401.jpg

Fair use rationale for Image:Hello From The Gutter- The Best of Overkill.JPG

Image:Hello From The Gutter- The Best of Overkill.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 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 23:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:OverkillTheYearsOfDecay.jpg

Image:OverkillTheYearsOfDecay.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 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 05:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Overkill Logo.png

Image:Overkill Logo.png 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 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 05:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Overkill - Unholy.JPG

Image:Overkill - Unholy.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 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 05:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use criteria

The use of images not in compliance with our fair-use criteria or our policy on nonfree content is not appropriate, and the images have been removed. Please do not restore them. — Moe ε 18:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Images, Cleaning-Up Article

I've re-uploaded the logo and a shot of the band. Someone needs to come in and fix this article as much as possible! --LuvataciousSkull 16:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

15 studios should be 14?

There are only 14 studio albums? why does it say 15?....unless I don't know that percific one, I got all their albums and their is only 14. METALFREAK04 12:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Overkill-logo.png

Image:Overkill-logo.png 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) 19:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This is aimed towards the idiot who undid my edit on them being groove metal

My citations include Decibel Magazine, a major heavy metal magazine. To the last dickhead that undid my post, SUCK FUCKING DICK. What is wrong with you? Are you a fucking moron? Did you not read the edits before you just changed them? Fucking tool. 70.157.67.202 (talk) 09:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Please mind your language and be civil. Using that kind of language leads to blocking. I don't really care about the issue, you may be right or wrong, but being civil is a part of wikipedia. I agree that whoever removed your post should not have done so (unless it was very offensive). Anyways, after reading this I thought to myself that I've never heard anything by Overkill that could even be remotely described as groove metal, but then I haven't listened to everything by them, so they may have made a groove metal album or something at some point and maybe that's what you're referring to. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 18:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I seemed rude in any way. It just seems that people go about reverting edits without taking into account verifiable citations and its very disheartening, disgusting, and seems to be uncivil and rude. The majority of their albums from the 90's on up were clearly groove. from the 80's back it was mostly thrash, and judging from the latest album, is more thrash oriented. But the majority of their albums in the 90's was more of a groove direction. Possibly due to lineup changes and also probably due to the fact that the original members (they themself admitted) being into hardcore (as their original band before Overkill was in a more punk direction) Clearly anybody who heard the entire library of Overkill could easily see. Also as I've said I have put a very good citation up on it. Its not that I'm biased towards this subject, its just that I'm well versed in it and get offended when people think rock-solid citations are all fluff. Decibel Magazine is about the equivalent to Kerrang, Revolver, et cetera as far as Heavy Metal magazines go. So for people to revert my posts due to their bias towards thinking "groove metal doesn't exist" seems very very biased as the genre is very well cited as a sub genre of thrash. It just seems like a lot of metalheads who are into thrash hate anything that refers to anything branching out from thrash because they (in their own bias) think of groove metal as a made up term or something that is coined when in FACT it is NOT a neologism and has been in use since at least 1990/1991. But I appreciate your support, and I do see your point on reverting it to get rid of the edit wars, at least you kept it in the body of the article, so thumbs up, and sorry if I seemed hostile. But in my view the majority of their material for basically a whole decade (give or take a few years) was groove metal. 70.157.67.37 (talk) 05:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I checked your referance and you were right. Sorry about the reverts, but it helps if you use the citation templates, so people can click on it and see the referance at the bottom.Johan Rachmaninov (talk) 02:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The Comma and Break wars are fucking lame

Nobody really gives a damn which you use, please come to a consensus and stop bickering over asinine stuff, because edit wars piss me off. Thanks. DarrelClemmons (talk) 11:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Lol, well said. Well as long as both are accepted there will be no end to the wars. One genre delimiter must be decided on to stop the wars. I don't like taking part in them either. Messy. But I agree. If people keep edit warring on here we'll take a vote or something and reach a consensus. That was what was decided at WP:METAL and that is the OFFICIAL consensus. A vote or talk between the warrers until a conclusion is reached. I must note, though, that the consensus for any metal band article that has a high number of genres (such as this page) has generally been to use line breaks as it looks a lot less fucked up. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 18:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Consensus on genre delimiters

Well, some sock IP user reverted me. I don't wanna revert again. Let's just take a vote and talk this out until consensus is reached as this seems to be a big issue for some reason. I vote line breaks just because the length of the list of genres there, which I think is a pretty good reason. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 20:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

What's the point in a vote? It doesn't matter if it's a comma or a line break (see Template:Infobox musical artist#Genre) so why not just leave it? --JD554 (talk) 20:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question, it would be great to leave it, but people will war over it so it was decided at WP:METAL that consensus would be gathered on a page with problems for one genre delimiter or the other. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 16:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:VOTE. The example shown in the template guideline clearly shows a comma. And matching the example shown in a guideline is a good faith edit. Reverting because of personal preference is a bad faith edit and simple trolling. Whatever bridge you briefly retired under, is waiting for your return. 83.231.130.42 (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

And you are lying. The template guideline shows both a comma break and line break being used. Don't call me a troll, I'm an editor of over a year who's made a lot of good contributions. You, however, are obviously a sock, so cut it out. I do not revert because of personal preference. I usually make sure that pages that have had one genre delimiter for a long time stay the same, no matter what genre delimiter they use. I've reverted people who have changed genre delimiters to line breaks on pages that have had comma breaks for a long time. I just wanna keep the peace. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 16:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Long Time Dyin' video does exist

This doesn't need to be stated as "reportedly", you can find it on YouTube. It was also apparently aired on "Virus" (the video is watermarked). Perhaps someone knows what network "Virus" is on. I am new to Wiki, so I won't attempt to edit - just pass the info to a veteran... Wmfarrell (talk) 18:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

F.T.U.A.B. Tour

In summer 1997, the band released !!!Fuck You!!! and Then Some. The album included the !!!Fuck You!!! EP, which had been out of print for some years, along with the classic Overkill EP and two live tracks from a 1990 promo single. October of the same year saw the release of the ninth Overkill studio album, titled From The Underground And Below. This record retained some of the modern influences from The Killing Kind, while also reincorporating elements from the band's earlier efforts. Some songs on From The Underground And Below, including "Save Me", even had a slight industrial metal sound to them. Reportedly a video for the track "Long Time Dyin'" was shot, but due to the non-existence of metal in the mainstream media at the time, it is unlikely that the video has ever aired on television. Again Overkill opted to only tour Europe in support of the album, which took place in May 1998, with Nevermore, Angel Dust and Nocturnal Rites.

---

This information is incorrect. I don't know how extensively Overkill toured elsewhere for "From The Underground And Below" but, they DID have a U.S. tour. I know this because I was at their Sunday April 5th, 1998 show @ The el Mocambo in Toronto that was in support of this album. Opening acts in Toronto (according to my ticket stub and newspaper ad) were "JAWW" and "M-69".

As per the back of my concert t-shirt, the U.S. tour ("It Lives") included the following stops: Albany, Cohoes, Elmira, Rochester, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Columbus, Cleveland, Flint, Detroit, Chicago, Minneapolis, St. Louis, Lincoln, Lawrence, Boise, Denver, Salt Lake City, Portland, Seattle, San Francisco, Fresno, Anaheim, Los Angeles, Reno, Phoenix, Albuquerque, Lubbock, Dallas, Austin, Houston, San Antonio, Oklahoma City, Orlando, Fort Lauderdale, Miami, Tampa, Atlanta, Charleston, Raleigh, Norfolk, Virginia Beach, Baltimore, Washington, Boston, Providence, New York, New Jersey, Hartford, Toronto, Montreal, Philadelphia.

Ogre21 (talk) 00:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Ogre21

Ditto that. The Chicago date was actually at a club called Jackhammer's in Schaumburg, which doesn't exist anymore. I sat on the tour bus and interviewed Blitz for my college radio station between shows (they played 2 that night) during a spring-time blizzard. I want to say it was March or April in 1998. 209.254.200.110 (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Reads like a fan page

This page is a mess. It's full of opinionated editorializing and informal language that makes it read more like a fan page than an encyclopedia entry. For example, it's okay to indicate an album's perceived quality, but this must include links to more than one album review, and for heaven's sake, terms like "thrash-terpiece" do NOT belong on a serious neutral encyclopedia page. Granted, I'm not saying I could do better, but I think content creators need to reevaluate the tone and scholarship of this page. Heisenplanck (talk) 06:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea where that IMDb link came from... Heisenplanck (talk) 06:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

16 million copies is obvious exaggeration.

Where are their certifications or high chart positions for that huge number? In any country? For example, Cannibal Corpse have similar SoundScan numbers, and they sold just about 2 million worldwide. Where are Overkill so popular beyond the United States? In Europe? For another example, Nightwish have massive sales throughout the Europe, they have tens of gold certificates in many European countries - and still, they have sold maximum 9 million copies worldwide. Please, don't make wiki page a die-hard fan club. There: http://lesliesmetal-page.blogspot.ru/2010/11/over-kill-bobby-gustafson.html - Bobby Gustafson speaks frankly about one of those fanboy myths. "What album?? We never sold 2 million of anything. By itself or combined."

You call everyone fanboys, but you still fail to produce a reliable source. How about stop it right there and actually search for sources if you are so concerned? A source from a blog is not reliable and it does not meany anything that a former member of the band said it. We need a source which gives numbers and not someone's opinion. – Sabbatino (talk) 06:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

And your source is no more than just another opinion, someone's unproved speculation. Ask you once again: in which countries those millions were sold? Where are their sertifications or chart positions? Even Metallica sells in the U.S. more than half of their numbers, so how can Overkill's worldwide sales be 20 times better than in their native country? It's an American thrash band, not European power metal or disco. And I am not so concerned, I'm simply interested in statistics.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Overkill (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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.allmusic.com/artist/overkill-mn0000420504/awards
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091112200924/http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/Blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=129550 to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=129550
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=160946
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120126015111/http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=168656 to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=168656

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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Citation templates in the Post-Atlantic Years section.

I put a 'Unrefereced section' tag in the Post-Atlantic Years section. See edit. In addition to this I put some Citation needed templates in places I feel should have citations and for guidance. Someone might find that it looks messy. I obviously think they're helpful — might start looking for citations at a later point, it's nice to know what I should look for if I do — but I know that some people might not feel like me. If you don't I'll be willing to discuss it here. Either to argue for my point of view or to be persuaded to change it. - Kxxvii (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Timeline Bug

The timeline section of this article seems bugged. The black bars on the graph are acting strange. Checked firefox and chrome and both have the same problem. Also confirmed that other pages aren't having this problem (Annihilator) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.60.138 (talk) 03:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@24.94.60.138: Everything seems fine to me. I might have to refresh the page in order for it to show correctly. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Infobox field: Past members

Hi Sabbatino, I noted you have recently undone an edit to the Overkill (band) article. You state in your Edit Summary that "The longstanding consensus is not to list the members here if the band is active". I do not believe this to be correct. Based on personal experience of viewing and editing hundreds of band articles and, more importantly, based upon what Wikipedia states for the Infobox musical artist template. If one reads about each field, the "past_members" one in particular, it states they should be filled in if data exists and has nothing stating that with still-active bands this field should be kept empty.

Could you please point to any "longstanding consensus" discussions on Wikipedia that would have produced something counter to this policy? If they exist, it seems odd that WikiProject Musicians admins would have not added this new consensus policy to the infobox documentation. Regards. – ░▒▓ №∶72.234.220.38 (talk) 10:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC) ▓▒░

@72.234.220.38: There was a discussion about it somewhere, but I cannot look for it at this time, because I am away. I should also point out that the documentation can be edited by any registered user. Perhaps asking at Template talk:Infobox musical artist would be the best option since as I already told you – I am away. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Sabbatino, okay, but you must know that edits to documentation are quickly reverted if they go counter to policy? As you did the initial revert, it really is up to you to make the case by providing documentation. Call it WP:RS for your policy/consensus claim. So, using that logic your revert will be undone as it reverted an AGF edit without fully documented reasoning. When you get back from being away please do follow up on this Talk page discussion.

If you do find this consensus policy someplace, I would request you first test it out on the Rolling Stones article which is one of a vast number containing the past members infobox field. See what the followers of that article will say and do to you when you change it. 😉 Regards. – ░▒▓ №∶72.234.220.38 (talk) 11:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC) ▓▒░

@72.234.220.38: You should not restore to your implied version until the discussion is over per WP:BRD so I restored the status quo version. In addition, there is no need to test something at some other page as you are implying (like The Rolling Stones page), because WP:OTHER is not a justification. I want to also add that if a band had many members in its existence then the former members are not listed until it disbands.

On a side note, are you editing logged out or are you a sockpuppet of some banned editor? Because IP editor cannot know that much about the policies/guidelines. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm Sabbatino, I thought you said you were "away"?

First, please, no wiki-insults, IP-based editors' article edits have been, from the start, considered as valid as those who choose to set up an account – in fact by our policy. Maybe one should assume an editor may know "that much about the policies/guidelines" due to the editing of Wikipedia articles for almost 15-years now? Perhaps they even helped with forming some of the early policy/guideline definitions? Not having an account is often a choice.

Now to the point, I re-did my edit as you stated you were "away". Hit-n-run editing is never cool, stay with the discussion until consensus is achieved, or just come back to it later. If you would have presented the documentation to back up your reasoning, it would have been no issue. You could always have presented it upon your "return".

As for WP:OTHER, it seems to be you using that reasoning by stating "longstanding consensus is not to list the members here if the band is active" which implies there are many other articles set up this way that justify your revert. I'm certain there are quite a few, but the majority? Not by my count. But using the WP:BRD criteria, and ignoring not following suggestions on dealing with reverting, I'm fine to let the status quo version stand and await the evidence you say will support your claim. Oh, and no need to try too much wikilawyering, this "lowly IP editor" has a degree in it. 😉 Regards. – ░▒▓ №∶72.234.220.38 (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC) ▓▒░

Darn, almost hate being correct, but looks like this was a hit-n-run edit (undo). Nothing new posted in this talk thread for weeks with the evidence that some later "there was a discussion about it somewhere" or "longstanding consensus is not to list the members here if the band is active" has superseded the MoS on musical artist infoboxes. Also, the reverting editor has newer edits so is back from being "away". Given this, will wait a day or so more, but if no evidence given, original infobox edit, as per MoS, will be restored. Regards. – ░▒▓ №∶72.234.220.38 (talk) 04:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC) ▓▒░

Sources for albums sold

About the number of albums sold (again). If you look at the version of the Wikipedia article on August 21, 2017 (which was before the article from The Aquarian was written - September 27, 2017) you can conclude that Aquarian simply took the information from Wikipedia, therefore they cannot be considered a reliable source. Moreover, I don't know if we can consider the first source reliable, either (needs discussion). And I cannot find any information about 625,000 records in the U.S in first source (the second is not reliable, as we found out). HeadsOff (talk) 23:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)