Talk:Dimmu Borgir

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Genre?[edit]

Although I'm aware that Melodic Black Metal and Symphonic Black Metal almost sound alike, what would you compare Dimmu's earlier sound to their recent sound? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.32.29 (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can find all the genre debate you want in the archives (there's a search field at the top of the page). The genres in the infobox were discussed and chosen quite a while ago, although at some point I'll be looking for reliable sources to verify them. Most bands' articles' talk pages are brimming with genre debates. It's not a matter of opinion, it's — because this is an encyclopedia — a matter of what's been printed, despite what the fans thing or the band itself. So in answer to your question, you'll find the infobox has two genres listed: one for their "old" sound and one for their "new" sound. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 22:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really can't say anything about this band's sound, as I don't listen to them, but melodic black metal and symphonic black metal sound nothing alike. Melodic black metal refers to melody (obviously) as a musical concept and it usually has to do with the sound of the guitars being more melodic. Symphonic just means they play keyboards a lot. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 09:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After realise of Abrahadabra, I think that genre box should be expanded. Melodic black metal (early)- okay, Symphonic Black metal (now) - hmmm. I think that there should be add Symphonic metal and Extreme metal. I do not have source, because I am too lazy to search for it but I am sure that somewhere you will find something if you start search for it. All those who listened to Abrahadabra noticed that they changed sound in more un-black metal way. I really think that those changes must be seriousli considered. Vater-96 (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Vater-96 stated, their sound has definitely changed from the earlier symphonic black metal style towards a more generally symphonic metal style. Compare a Nightwish album to Abrahadabra and you'll find the sound (apart from the vocals) isn't that different at all. Extreme metal/Symphonic metal is a more fitting genre for the music itself in my opinion. Dimmu Borgir still adheres to some of the typical black metal characteristics though: corpsepaint, growls, unconventional song structure, etc, so confining their music to a specific genre isn't really optimal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.11.22.48 (talk) 16:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The newer recordings aren’t Black Metal at all, rather some extreme Symphonic Metal; I even have a reliable (in the true sense of the word, not only as used here; see Talk:Mayhem (band)#On post-1994 Mayhem not playing Black Metal for that) reference for that (I would have added that to the article myself, but I don’t want another conflict with users coming up with bullshit like “genre warrior”). In Slayer no. 13, Jon “Metalion” Kristiansen called Spiritual Black Dimensions “a fine case of melodic, over produced, symphonic Metal. If you like this melodic style I can’t really think of anyone doing it better […]. No, I wouldn’t call this Black Metal. Read the interview with FUNERAL MIST for the right definition of Black Metal.” (The Great Rock & Roll Swindle!. In: Jon Kristiansen: Metalion: The Slayer Mag Diaries. Brooklyn, NY: Bazillion Points Books 2011, p. 419.) --217/83 18:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As there were no replies, I was bold enough to edit the article, also including a footnote considered “reliable” here, although I dislike the site, because I have read too much bullshit there (MusicMight). So it’s not “only” Metalion I am referring to. --217/83 22:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shagrath on Keyboards for New Album[edit]

Can anyone actually find said picture? Because I've searched and haven't found anything. That Random Guy 23:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Llama lom (talk • contribs)

Hi Llama lom, I'm sorry for replying so late; I don't think I ever saw your question on my watchlist. I was the one who added the photograph bit; the image isn't entirely original research, because it was covered by the citation that followed my contributions. The image can be seen here, one of the references to the Ninth studio album section, and also on the MySpace blog entry (which is currently not working). The image was one of several that showed DB working on their new album. The sentence itself will be obsolete when more information comes out, or even when the album comes out. Feel free to remove it now, though, if you'd like. I just found it interesting to note. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 18:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritual Black Dimensions and Puritanical Euphoric Misanthropia & Death Cult Armmageddon[edit]

considering almost every sentence in these sections ends with "citation needed", i think they are in need of an overhaul. Randal6546 (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article could use a good overhaul, more than likely. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 18:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline Chart[edit]

I noticed this article had a By Year and By Album table. I thought we could replace both of these tables with a single timeline. I've finished the basic data for this timeline, which I will post below. If anyone would like to take a look at it and help tweak the dates a bit before it goes "live" (you'll notice odd spacing), I would be eternally grateful. The black lines represent studio album releases. If we want to include EPs and compilations, I think that's easy enough to add (just different colors needed), but I've yet to see any other timeline actually include anything other than studio releases. While the studio albums' data is correct, most of the band members' data are actually guesswork, as taken from the tables. I have not checked them against specific album information yet. Any help would be appreciated; otherwise, I'll just tweak this thing here on the talk page for the time being over the next couple of days. Thanks! – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 03:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline[edit]

Therion (band)[edit]

Am I missing something? Why was this band added to the infobox? No explanation was given. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 14:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was added by Vater-96 without any explanation, just like every other edit made by this user. Feel free to revert it. --antiXt (talk) 12:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vater-96 also keeps adding Dariusz Brzozowski (Daray) as their current member working with them on the upcoming studio album (to this article, album's article, Daray's article and Dimmu Borgir navigation template), while no provided source claims he's anything more than just a live member. --antiXt (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snowy Shaw[edit]

He has NOT been confirmed as a member yet. Whoever keeps adding him to the page, read the last line of the article you use a source because in it Shaw says himself that the rumor is FALSE. That Random Guy (talk) 16:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editing[edit]

I put sources in every "citation needed" tag.Accordingly I removed the tag that this article needs more sources.

To review the editing of history about the band. I removed part that is related to the depature of Mustis and vortex because it makes no sense that the whole biography done at intervals around the LP albums, thats why I have merged the section with the period of "In Sorte Diaboli". Vater-96 (talk) 02:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3 piece[edit]

Shag just stated that they were so I think Daray should be removed Angxst (talk) 15:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shagrath in interview stated that Daray is part of "Gang" right now and he is on Abrahadabra and Darkness Rebourn Tour as full time member. Vater-96 (talk) 2:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

2010 line-up[edit]

Now I'm not even sure if Daray is member of the band, because somewhere it says that he is, somewhere it says that he isnt. Now Geir Bartland appeared for whom I am much less sure what his role in the band.What you think about the whole situation? Vater-96 (talk) 14:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This could help. --93.139.38.54 (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian-Icelandic?[edit]

Which one of the band members are Icelandic, exactly? The band has had members from other countries than Norway through the years, but I would still class it as a Norwegian band. ~Fenrisulfr (talk · work) 21:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So would I. --217/83 21:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dimmu Borgir listed as Hard Rock....[edit]

I noticed Dimmu Borgir is listed as a Hard Rock band. They are actually Symphonic Black Metal....too heavy to be considered Hard Rock. This should be changed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hard_rock_musicians_%28A%E2%80%93M%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimmu_Borgir Lilangus (talk) 08:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Raise in Article class?[edit]

I think the article as it stands right now might be worthy of a review. I'm quite busy right now but will see if I can come back in the future to help in this regard. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 06:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Dimmu Borgir. 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, 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 08:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Dimmu Borgir/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: DannyMusicEditor (talk · contribs) 20:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Bleeeecchhhh. Black metal. Looks like a weak article at the moment, and I'm sure I'll have to quickfail it. But I'll put some things here anyway. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 20:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your assistance is greatly appreciated! Thank you. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

Okay, I get that the Black metal Wikiproject has only six GAs and that GAs surrounding this topic are indeed difficult. But this article fails a couple of serious points to get this promoted. Alt lys er svunnet hen, I appreciate your eagerness to get this promoted, but this isn't there yet, and I would say it'd take even an experienced Wikipedian at least a few weeks to get this done - and that's without consideration of work, family, other plans, etc.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Prose is okay-ish, I guess. The lead is very short, and everything in it should be covered in the body of the article with sources and further elaboration. More should be added, too - see the bands I gave for sourcing for help on this.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    Far from it. You've at least one dead link which was bare to begin with, and I'm sure several more are as well. To fix these, use the [archive.org Wayback Machine]. (Thought I'd tell you as a first-time nominator.) The article pretends to be cited properly in many instances; other times, it more blatantly unsourced. The amount of uncited material here is enough for grounds of failure. DO NOT assume that the article is well-cited simply because there are references at the end of every paragraph! You MUST double check them if that's what you plan to do! No issues of copyvio; in fact, the article barely draws much from these sources - the most used source has 23% of the article on here. As for source reliability, it's good except for CDUniverse references. I (and any other reviewer I'm sure) would much prefer you used AllMusic for this. And I'd also like you not to capslock anything the references originally capslocked.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    This article is really, really short for a band. I mean, I get that it's hard to improve that for black metal, but please try and learn something from Antestor or Mercyful Fate if you want good black metal examples. Even the Polish version is already a GA, so provided the sources are reliable, you can take some from there! And there's no style section either, which is essential.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    It's hard to check this without adequate sourcing.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    No problems here, but I would like to say that the nominator should contribute a LOT more during nomination period!
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    They're all licensed properly, but the third image has no real encyclopedic purpose. It should be moved and possibly be recaptioned depending on what you decide to use it for.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

I'd suggest a Peer review after you look at another band article and fashion it from one of those. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 16:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, DannyMusicEditor. I kind of figured there would be big issues with sources and overall length, but didn't even think to look at other language articles (that Polish one looks great and I will definitely try to emulate it, along with other metal GAs). I'm going to have a few weeks now where I can do some major work in the sandbox. It'll take time for sure, but thank you for taking the time to look at the article, it's a big help. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alt lys er svunnet hen, please, in the future if you just want a review and would expect this to fail, use Peer review instead. It may not guarantee a reviewer, but is much less inconvenient for GA reviewers to have to weed out of the nominations list.

The language articles will indicate special status at the far left of the page, a black star is a GA or RA ("recommended article", used only in Danish, Swedish and Finnish languages) and a gold star is a FA. Don't rely on these completely, though, they may be old and unsuitable nowadays, or the standards for those languages are low. (Example, even FAs in Slovak, Belarusian, Afrikaans, Aragonese, Azerbaijani, some Russian, Albanian, Galician, and other less common languages generally don't make good GAs in English.) Polish is usually fine though. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 04:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dimmu Borgir. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dimmu_Borgir&oldid=1206974961"