Talk:Nightmares Made Flesh

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MetalWikipedia:WikiProject MetalTemplate:WikiProject MetalHeavy Metal articles

Albums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Reversion of recent edits

I figured I'd put this here as there is more space than the edit summary gives, and so any points can be discussed.

Restored the wikilink for Bloodbath in the infobox, most infoboxes have a wikilink for the band in them (see Template:Infobox album).
Removed the piped link to 2004 in music, according to WP:ALBUM.
Kept the line break in the lead, that does look better.
Restored individual song writing credits, why not be more specific here? Writing credits taken from allmusic, which is a reliable source.
Removed the tracklist template. First off, if we're going to have one tracklist template, might as well put the whole tracklist in the template, not just 2 songs. Second, I'm not sure why the bonus tracks need their own tracklist, they look fine as part of the main tracklist (the small notes beside the songs explains what release they belong to). Third, why should that separate tracklist be collapsed? Template:Track listing says the "collapse" parameter is "Useful for very long lists or pages with several lists", and I don't think this page falls under either category.
- Edited to add: Put tracklist into tracklist template.
Removed the ref to freecovers.net, I doubt that's considered a reliable source. The CD booklet itself is considered a reliable source (at least, as far as I've been able to determine), but for the information given in the Personnel section, I don't think an explicit citation is needed (unless the information given is potentially contentious).
Restored the wikilinks to various instruments and musicians. I'm not sure why these were removed (and why some were removed while others were kept), WP:ALBUM states that both should be wikilinked if there are articles about these subjects.
Kept a couple of the wordings of instruments (lead vocals, backing vocals) and musician credits per the album credits. Removed various subsections in the Personnel section (the person mastering the album is not a "guest"), added production info.

Hopefully that helps to explain my reversions. If anyone wants to discuss anything, let's bring it up here. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 23:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further reversion explanation: The producers, engineers, masterers, etc, are not guests; there is only one guest, and he is mentioned to be so. Kept wikilink to lead guitar. Restored wording from album credits regarding production/engineering. Removed "US" from cover art credit (I have a European version of this album with his artwork, for example). Minor change in artwork credit. Edited to add: Restored album credits according to allmusic, added in the tracklist for those credits. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 06:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

credits

actually my only problem with typing here is that I get no response so I figure typing directly to people is a better response. so the "actual" liner notes in an album is not a reliable source? M4pnt (talk) 09:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is always better to start discussion here than on individual user talk pages. The liner notes are a reliable source, however it is unnecessary to link to a scan of the booklet (as well as being against Wikipedia guidelines, as it is most likely a non-free copyrighted image, which WP:COPYLINK says should not be linked to). If you really want, WP:ALBUM says a comment like  can be used to state that you obtained the information from the liner notes (which doesn't need an explicit citation). However, if we can also find another reliable source with more accurate information (as I have, from Allmusic), we can use that information too. In this case, Allmusic has more specific writing credits, so there's no reason we shouldn't use those. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The offical bloodbath website also states that the album was written by the band (not individually) themselves so I have 2 sources. What now. M4pnt (talk) 06:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The official Bloodbath site isn't really a reliable source, as it isn't a secondary source that is independent of the subject matter. Again, there's nothing wrong with including more specific writing information, especially when it definitely comes from an independent secondary source. I have to ask, why do you want to remove the specific writing credits? What's wrong with them? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very puzzled as to how the official bloodbath website is not reliable either. We have 2 sources over one. The booklet and website written from the band themselves states who wrote what over some editor on Allmusic. Why would rely on the editor over the band?. I just want to change the credit because it's what the band wrote and that's all. M4pnt (talk) 04:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained, "it isn't a secondary source that is independent of the subject matter". We would rely on Allmusic over the band as it is a secondary source that is independent of the subject matter (ie. it isn't directly from the band). This (along with other criteria) makes it a reliable source. The list of songwriters on Allmusic is probably taken from a list of official publication rights (from a publication company).

I highly recommend that you read WP:RS and familiarize yourself with what is and is not a reliable source. This will help you to understand why information from Allmusic is generally considered better than a band's own website. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is from the band themselves, what do you mean? I don't know why you keep fighting this and btw Allmusic is not really that realiable, they've been wrong plenty of times. M4pnt (talk) 05:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, READ WP:RS, and understand that "from the band themselves" is NOT CONSIDERED A RELIABLE SOURCE. For the THIRD TIME, the band's site is not reliable because "it isn't a secondary source that is independent of the subject matter". The band's site is a PRIMARY source, and it is most certainly NOT independent. Allmusic is considered a reliable source, it has been brought up a number of times on the reliable sources noticeboard, and has been accepted as a reliable source (see Allmusic on the RSN). See your talk page. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki policies don't make sense. "the band" is the most reliable source. Allmusic is terrible. M4pnt (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]