Talk:Slayer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Slayer is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 27, 2007.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.
Maintained The following user(s) are actively involved with this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
M3tal H3ad (talk · contribs)
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Groove Metal

I believe that this should be included on their genre listing. Later material (Diabolus In Musica and onward especially sound like this, in my opinion). However, I'll wait for verification, cuz I don't wanna be the start of another flippin' genre war. Dark Executioner 21:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Dark Executioner

Groove metal would be unreferenced and incorrect. There's already too much overkill and superfluity in that field. Best to just leave it alone. It's been decorated enough 156.34.210.255 02:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
M'kay.

Dark Executioner 19:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Dark Executioner

[edit] Congratulations! Featured article

Slayer 4ever!--sin-man 02:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism! Woohoo!

Someone please break down the slayer/huntington park connection they are listed as famous residence on the HP page but no mention in the slayer page or (i believe) any members page

Wikipedia is so metal.--Rastabilly 12:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Kick ass! Congrats on making featured! \m/, CatBoris 14:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use image removal

I've removed fair use images from this article for reasons as follows:

  1. Image:Slayer - Show No Mercy.jpg; the album cover was not discussed in any way, and the text from the caption was entirely functional without the album cover. I've retained the text while removing the image.
  2. Image:Reign in blood.jpg; while the album cover is discussed as a reason for the album's delay, the same information is available in the album's article itself, making the display here redundant and unnecessary. A person curious about the album art can view the album's article itself.
  3. Image:Slayer-GodHatesUsAll.jpg; for the same reasons at Image;Reign in blood.jpg.
  4. Image:Slayer - Christ Illusion.jpg; the caption describes the cover art as being controversial, but not why. The cover is not discussed inline in the article at all. The controversial nature of the cover art is discussed at length in the Christ Illusion article.

The Wikimedia Foundation's resolution (see Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy) tells us that fair use imagery use should be "minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be ... to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works" Further, Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria item #3(a) tells us "As little non-free content as possible is used in an article" The fair use images here, while helping to decorate the article and provide visual queues for some of the content of the article, does not meet these bars. The content in some cases (2nd and 3rd cases) is replicated in related articles, and in cases where it is not the images serve only a decorative purpose (1st and 4th cases).

Subsequent to this, I have also removed the accompanying fair use rationales from the images in question for this article. Other fair use rationales exist for other uses.

For related material, please see Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_criteria#Time_for_FA_to_change_culture_vis-a-vis_fair_use_images. Thank you, --Durin 20:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I definitely agree with #1, the others, no, #4 definitely no. Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #5 says " Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content requirements and is encyclopedic." Wikipedia:Non-free content also says "Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item.
"the same information is available in the album's article itself, making the display here redundant and unnecessary" Yea it's available because i added it but how are people meant to know that? This article is a brief overview of the band's career and covers it lightly - the image is used to show how "graphic the cover art" is, are we meant to re-direct the reader every time to another page just to view an image? that is just stupid. I re-inserted the Christ Illusion cover because it is encyclopedic, the content is detailed and it needs a visual to let the reader know how graphic it was to get banned. Thankyou for reverting vandalism though. M3tal H3ad 07:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, I'll agree that what I am doing is just stupid. When you're done criticizing me, I'll be happy to discuss this in a mature manner with you. Until that time, --Durin 12:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Logo

The article used to have the logo on it, and it looks cool. Now why did it come off?--Willy, your mate 03:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It was fair use, feel free to make your own using Photopshop or something and release it under a free-license. M3tal H3ad 02:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, thank you for the response.--Willy, your mate 04:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Backing Vocals

  • I've checked all over the internet, and I can't find anything that states who sings backing vocals in Slayer. Slayer has minimal backing vocals, but they are heard in some songs. So which members sing them? - Alterego269 00:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
You haven't found anything on backing vocals because there aren't any. If you're thinking dead skin mask it's just Tom's voice edited. M3tal H3ad 02:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Nope, no backing vocals. That's all I know. All I see is Tom on vocals.--Willy, your mate 04:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
They're indeed minimal, but the first two albums do have some backing vocals. The "Show No Mercy" page details who did the gang choruses for "Evil Has No Boundaries." No idea about the backing vocals on "Hell Awaits," but it definitely does not sound like Tom doing the background "Kill!" chant in "At Dawn They Sleep."

[edit] Demos

Shall we add the Slayer demos? I found them on www.metalarchives.com --Born Again 83 00:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The End Is in Sight???

Is it really true? Is Slayer going to make 1 more album, and that's it? What's the metal world coming to???? We don't need to lose any more great bands in the 2000s than we already have! Dark Executioner 19:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Dark Executioner

They have 1 album left in their contract, doesn't mean they will retire after that. M3tal H3ad 07:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

They've mentioned retiring in Revolver Magazine, though. That's why I'm concerned. They've also been on Fuse TV (I believe the show wwas called The Sauce), and Tom Araya himself said that Slayer would break up after this next album. He mentioned that he "doesn't want to end up like the Rolling Stones" and that "playing this kind of music at 46 is starting to have negative physical effects." I hope he was just spouting steam, but that's what I heard. Dark Executioner 14:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Dark Executioner

As usual, Slayer is just messing with people's minds. I'd be willing to bet that they live for aggravating the heck out of people who choose to take the themes of their music too seriously. They'll be around as long as they can sell records. Jsc1973 (talk) 07:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh no i love slayer and i wanna see them at least once it cant be they better be just fucking with us because ill be pissed. Zakkman (talk) 03:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Christian band?

Ok for some reason someone put that Slayer's a Christian band (hah) and for some reason i cant fix it could someone edit that like right away it's just not right —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazycelt72 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Araya is Catholic but King definitely is not religious, but he says he is neither a Christian or a Satanist. I don't think Hanneman is Christian either, neither Lombardo, or even Bostaph, so I don't think it is. Good Question Anyway-Metalist310 02:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Just vandalism. M3tal H3ad 09:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discography/References

Something went wrong in the Discography section with the References section it seems :P It all kinda side by side and you can't read much. I'd sort it out myself but I know I'd do it wrong.... Figured I'd leave it to someone cleverer ^^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.179.74.47 (talk) 12:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, just some idiot vandalizing. M3tal H3ad 09:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No move Duja► 07:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the move from Slayer to Slayer (band). This seemed particularly pointless. If anyone wants to discuss it, here is the place. ELIMINATORJR 18:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You could at least copy the discussion from the WP:RM which was removed.
Here is the discussion:
*Slayer → Slayer (band) — The term "slayer" means many other things, none of which are derived from the band's name, so it is unneutral to have article about the band named "Slayer" in the Slayer article instead of Slayer (band) article, because it gives impression that this band is something more important than anything else named "slayer". Slayer article should then redirect to the disambiguation page. —Qsaw (talk) 08:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Most of the examples on the disambiguation page appear to be significantly less notable than the band. The Buffy one might be close, but I'm not really familiar with that show. In any case, I think this move should be discussed first. --Bongwarrior 09:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Only problem for doing such move would be large number fo articles linking to the Slayer article while refering to band. I've encountered similar problem when I moved W.A.S.P. to W.A.S.P. (band) - it took me lot of effort to fix all of the links. However, maybe an bot could be used to automatize the process. --Qsaw (talk) 12:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • To be honest, I'd have to question you moving W.A.S.P. to W.A.S.P. (band). It's not like there are many uses of this term, or much likelihood of it being confused with wasp. PC78 07:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pages moved. Concerns above resolved by moving the disambig page to Slayer. - jc37 20:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Bold move. Now are you going to fix all the incoming links? — AjaxSmack 02:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
One of the stupidest moves ever. What exactly on the list is more important than the band? A 1988 computer game with four lines in the article? Six of the things there don't even have articles while the rest have tags and are stubs. Metallica links to the band, why? notability Pantera links to the band, why? notability? I guess you better request a move for gun to gun (weapon) because that has many links and link bird to bird (animal) because it gives impression that the weapon and animal is something more important than anything else named gun or bird. Move it back. M3tal H3ad 07:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I also question the necessity of this move, especially without a more rigorous discussion. It seems to me that a move that is contested should either be subject to a regular move discussion on the article's talk page or dropped outright, not unceremoniously rammed through. --Bongwarrior 07:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
A little civility would be nice : ) - Anyway, feel free to further discuss your personal POVs. In the meantime, absolutely nothing is hurt by the move. Readers merely have to click an additional obvious link, is all. - jc37 08:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and readers love clicking extra links. It makes it much more rewarding when you eventually find the page you were looking for. --Bongwarrior 08:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Kindly revert this change. This move was contested, and should have a proper discussion first. As an admin, you should know better. PC78 13:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, revert this please. That was a ridiculous move. ELIMINATORJR 17:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
--Qsaw (talk) 07:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, if we're copying discussions, the following is related to the above:

Move of Slayer page

I have reverted this change. It was contested, and should have been discussed on the talk page first. Thanks, ELIMINATORJR 18:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

A couple things. First is that your comment makes you an "involved" participant in the discussion, and also makes me wonder at your neutrality in "reverting" the move (no less than 5 minutes later). (And does "Ridiculous" sound WP:CIVIL to you?) And more discussion on the talk would have been preferable (as I noted in my response), and I think that reverting sounds like a nominee for m:The Wrong Version : )
I had some enjoyment yesterday reading over WP:LAME. If we let it, this could easily qualify. Anyway, I won't bother contesting the reversion at this time, since, as far as the page location is concerned, I honestly have no real preference either way.
Anyway, Hope you have a great day : ) - jc37 21:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes - apologies for the "ridiculous" - I probably meant something more like pointless, as I used in the edito summary. Thanks for taking it so well :) ELIMINATORJR 21:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Nothing really to worry about. As it was, it's not as if the "discussion" at WP:RM was much more than WP:ILIKEIT woven with incivility. (I kind of enjoyed the comments about "What about bird and gun and...") Shrugs. I'd personally have loved to see an actual citation showing notability above and beyond the rest of the Slayer references, that's typically the fastest way to sell me on something in a discussion : )
Anyway, while I appreciate the apology, no worries about your comment. Just continue on positively helping develop this thing we call Wikipedia : )
Have a great one. - jc37 08:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

- jc37 17:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move discussion

Personally, I still have no opinion on the move, except that the naming should follow current policies/guidelines. Feel free to discuss below. - jc37 17:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The move should be done for the reasons stated in discussions above. Only problem with such move would be about 1k of articles linking to the slayer article. Perhaps it would be good idea to fix those links before the actual move because Slayer (band) redirects to Slayer for now, so nothing would be hurt. Maybe a bot coud be used to handle those links. --Qsaw (talk) 13:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless there is any specific reason to believe that this is not the primary topic. Looking through the dab, and with reference to the volume of links mentioned, this appears to be the most culturally prominent usage. Dekimasuよ! 13:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. Primary topic of all of the things named "slayer" would be literal meaning of this word, which existed before the band with same name was formed. It is much safer, for WP:NPOV sake, to have this article under name Slayer (band) --Qsaw (talk) 11:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Yes, there are other uses of this term, but all of the other dab page entries seem to be of lesser notability. Unless someone is willing to make a case for Slayer (Buffyverse), then there's no reason for this article not to be regarded as the primary subject. PC78 17:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per above. M3tal H3ad 14:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:NC. antiXt 07:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Music sample

I think most of people would agree, that there should be more classical Slayer music sample, like from Lombardo-era. Reign in Blood made them so famous. Or South Of Heaven. It is like somebody wants to listen to a typical Metallica song and you give him "Fuel" instead of "Master Of Puppets".--Lycantrophe 15:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Backcover of Reign in Blood LP

Can someone use this on this page, it's awesome:P --Leladax (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Guilty of being white" misinterpretation?

The Ian MacKaye article seems to say that MacKaye was not offended at Araya's change of lyrics, but rather that people would find any racist message in the song at all. Can someone with access to the reference (97 as of this writing) double-check the statement in context? 205.167.180.132 (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that as well- the Minor Threat page says "In an interview in Steven Blush's book American Hardcore: A Tribal History, MacKaye has stated that he was offended that some perceived racist overtones in the lyrics." I don't have a copy of the book so I can't verify though. I might know someone who does, I'll look into it.Thee darcy (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hardcore punk

I think Hardcore punk should be included in their genre list cause they were influenced by Hardcore punk acts.

You said it right, it's an influence, not a genre associated with Slayer's music. Kameejl (Talk) 21:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Influence

I wonder if anyone can substantiate the rumors I've long heard that Slayer provided suggestions and assistance to both the Butthole Surfers during the recording of Independent Worm Saloon and Suicidal Tendencies during the recording of Join the Army. (Rocky George of ST later worked with Hanneman on in the short-lived punk project Pap Smear.) I think it's also worth mentioning in the main article that Kerry King contributed to labelmates the Beastie Boys' Licensed to Ill. If all three of these are true then I think it would be safe to say that Slayer has had a direct influence on other bands that goes beyond the normal definition of the term. Sofa King (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Kerry King definetely contributed to Lisenced to Ill. My dad owns a copy of the album, and Kerry's in the credits for playing on "Fight for Your Right (To Party)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark Executioner (talk • contribs) 22:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Download Festival

Slayer did NOT headline the festival. Request to remove it, or edit it? Mark handscombe (talk) 10:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have a source, then go for it. Dark Executioner (talk) 15:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

These are the only ones I can find on the Download website, but the wikipedia article on the festival covers all 5 past years (03-07), and they haven't headlined once. [1] [2] [3] Mark handscombe (talk) 21:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Feuds

Whilst the section is immaculately referenced, do we really feel that this section is notable? There are feud sections on other band pages as well, and when they broadly boil down to two bunches of people calling each other names on stage or in interviews I you're stretching notability. As it is it makes the page look 'unprofessional', for lack of a better word. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Every band has some sort of feud with another and it seems kind of trivial to the article. I removed the section, thanks for bringing it up. M3tal H3ad (talk) 02:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Whoa, shouldn't it still be mentioned somewhere in the article though? Every Slayer fan knows that the band has either directly criticized or dissed Megadeth and Machine Head. It would contribute to people's knowledge about Slayer. Dark Executioner (talk) 13:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, yeah, and Metallica and who knows who else. The question is whether it is notable and encyclopedic. I'd argue not, particularly if it's just a record of X called Y shit so Y called X gay etc etc. Its inclusion is unnecessary. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the only feud Slayer still has going is the one with Megadeth. Machine Head and Slayer made up sometime in 2005 or 2006 because MH (finally) abandonded nu-metal and went back to their original sound. Festering Rat Corpse (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Grammy

Why can't we add 'grammy award winning' they won a grammy! Nineinchsin (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That's right, it was for "Eyes of the Insane," if I'm not mistaken. If you could just provide a direct source then we're good to go! Dark Executioner (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

  • It's already stated in the article, dude. Someone must've added it before I read your comment. According to the article, they have won not 1, but 2 Grammys, one for "Final Six" as well. Dark Executioner (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Songs

Slayer's had a whole career of making great songs. How come only 4 of them have articles? 68.215.135.22 (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Death Metal

I really don't consider Slayer to be death metal at all, but I've noticed someone keeps adding it to the page for some reason. They were one of the biggest, if not the biggest, influence on the death metal genre, but I wouldn't think this makes them death metal in any way, does it? 24.255.138.82 (talk) 01:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] sorry

I am sorry. I have no idea how the infobox just deleted like that when I changed it but it did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloodfall (talk • contribs) 23:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Cute Fuzzy Puppie Kittens?"

Is this a joke, seriously? Who is that, and how on earth are they associated with Slayer??? 68.217.38.7 (talk) 16:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

There is none. I removed it. Festering Rat Corpse (talk) 17:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)