Talk:Electric Wizard

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

Rock music Low‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock 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.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Musicians

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Low-importance).

VFD

They merit an article, but not necessarily this one. "a band from another freaking dimension" - not encyclopedic material in the slightest. Rather than editing everything, it might be best to start from scratch as a broad slice of this current article falls under what I believe the wikipedos refer to as 'fancruft'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.14.50 (talk) 06:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with the article. You don't just slap an AFD tag on an article after someone vandalizes it. Schrödinger (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Band History

Added the band history - decided not to go into all their live performances, as details are hard to find! Viro 01:56, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sludge

I changed the description of Stoner Doom with the other thing and changed it to Sludge doom. Electric Wizard are definately sludge. Darksteel 09:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to the new lineup

I object to the declaration that "The general response from critics and fans has been good, most Wizard fans being happy that the band has finally sorted out their notoriously shoddy live performances with a stronger, more professional line-up."

I feel there is some division in the fanbase here, with some enjoying the direction the band is taking, while others strongly miss the old band. While Many people did enjoy "We Live," and while it is generally considered to be an above average album by those in the stoner/doom community, the total response was in fact, mixed, with negative and disappointed reviews appearing on sites such as stonerrock.com, amazon.com, and rateyourmusic.com, just to name a few. The quoted statement seems to imply that the old Electric Wizard is inferior to the new one, something that is not supported by the fact that Dopethrone, an album recorded under the original lineup, is overwhelmingly by consensus considered their best work. Lsmythe

Fair use rationale for Image:Electric Wizard 2004.jpg

Image:Electric Wizard 2004.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 Wikipedia articles 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 05:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:We Live.jpg

Image:We Live.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 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 04:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:We Live.jpg

Image:We Live.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 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 20:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Buckingham & Jus Oborn

Does anyone know if Liz & Jus have any kids together now that they're married? Mr. Brain (talk) 02:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Format in discography table

I'm a fan of including the format in the discography table as not all albums come out on LP. I like to be able to see quickly which did (and which are 2LP or some other format). This is more important for the EP sections where some are 12", 10", and 7". The album/EP articles mention this in more detail with repress info however I find it helpful to see quickly what format everything is. BeastmasterGeneral 11:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genres

I have removed Sludge from electric wizards genre box. It is unsourced. If you would like to readd it, please provide a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johan Rachmaninov (talk • contribs) 23:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doom and stoner metal are also unsourced. Should we remove them too? BeastmasterGeneral 11:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the band are undoutably both a doom and stoner band, there is no need for a source. however as sludge is not a genre often used to desribe the band, it does. Johan Rachmaninov (talk) 11:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The band seems undoubtedly sludge so I don't see why it needs a source. Anywho, as you mentioned, it was easy to find since it is widely accepted. I re-added with source. BeastmasterGeneral 02:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be to much to ask that you find a source that isn't allmusic? There not known for being the most reliable source. If you can't I may have to remove it.Johan Rachmaninov (talk) 05:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I site the Wikipedia article on sludge metal? I'm not sure why you are so against this. I usually stay out of genre arguments because I don't really care but since you seem to be reverting this on a daily basis and multiple users are reverting back it seems the consensus is against you. BeastmasterGeneral 14:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not agianst sdding sldge to the article. I'm Against addinding it with inproper or no sources. Allmusic has been noted for being very inaccurent, so there should be another source to back up the one from allmusic. And Wikipedia is not a democracy Johan Rachmaninov (talk) 20:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic is a pretty common site to cite in music related articles. Can you show me where it has been noted for being very inaccurate? BeastmasterGeneral 04:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you check the talk page of allmusic, you shold see some complaints. It's flat out wrong when it comes to citing many bands genres, and many users disregard it. Johan Rachmaninov (talk) 05:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually don't care what genres are listed but I don't want to see the page show up in my watchlist on a daily basis because of revert wars. You have determined what is obvious and what isn't. Multiple other people seem to think that sludge is obvious and keep reverting your removal. WP may not be a democracy but it seems that there is consensus with sludge and you are the only one fighting it. BeastmasterGeneral 13:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with BeastmasterGeneral. I see no valid argument for why the doom and stoner labels do not need sourcing while the sludge label does. All three are COMMONLY used to refer to the band. If one requires a non all-music source, so they all must. To argue otherwise seems to me to be a blatant display of your own particular biases on the matter. Gilesbardsong (talk) 18:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using Allmusic as a source is perfectly valid, per WP:RS. Note that this applies only to the biographies (credited to specific professional journalists), not the little "genre tags" at the side of an Allmusic entry. That there are complaints about the side on the Wikipedia Allmusic talkpage simply demonstrates how many people that contribute to Wikipedia misunderstand WP:RS. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Electric Wizard. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060907170002/http://www.riseaboverecords.com:80/bandpages.asp?band=ewiz to http://www.riseaboverecords.com/bandpages.asp?band=ewiz

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: 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Electric Wizard. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140718173833/http://velanegra666.blogspot.com.br/2013/11/vela-negra-entrevista-jus-oborn.html to http://velanegra666.blogspot.com.br/2013/11/vela-negra-entrevista-jus-oborn.html

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: 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) 05:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Electric Wizard. 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: 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) 05:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contradicting formation date

I noticed this article flip flops between saying the band formed in 1993 and 1988. The infobox lists Lord of Putrefaction, Thy Grief Eternal and Eternal as early names for Electric Wizard, under the 1988–1993 sub-header it says the same and Pre-Electric Wizard 1989–1994 is listed as an Electric Wizard release. However, this is contradicted by the infobox, lead and 1993–2003 section saying the band instead formed in 1993. I tried fixing this by changing the mentions of a 1993 formation to 1988 but was reverted without any reason given. This contradiction should definitely be fixed, if not in the way of my prior edit, then by removing mentions of the pre-EW bands as early names of EW, instead calling them pre-EW bands. What's everyone's opinion on this? Issan Sumisu (talk) 09:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]