Choose other. That's what the reel-to-reel format really is.

Also make use of the version description field. The "Other" category shouldn't be used unless you can specify what this "other" is.

A re-release with vocals re-recorded should be added as a new album or just other version?

New album.

since no one else replied in a while, I'll have a go... I've seen mods remove the "s" from links, and so I do it too when I remember.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTPS

HTTPS means the site is being loaded over a secured connection, which protects transmitted data from being eavesdropped on by network providers. Some sites allow content to be loaded over both unsecured (HTTP) and secured (HTTPS) connections, whereas sites supporting HTTPS (like Facebook) will generally force you to use HTTPS.

So in other words, if a site can be loaded over HTTP *and* HTTPS, it's generally best to leave it set to HTTP. OTOH, if a site always redirects visitors to use a secured connection, set it to HTTPS.

Same here, aloof. Cheers.



So, in other words, links to official websites, ReverbNation, Amazon, and Bandcamp should be set to http (as they never redirect to https), whereas Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, and Twitter links to https. Thanks man.

could we "update" the autofill for the links, with google+, tumblr, amazon, etc.? assuming of course these are legit for the site...

edit: on a sidenote, are those kind of links legit? http://www.heavy-metal-gems.com/2012/06 ... -1985.html
there was a discussion a while back, but I couldn't remember the url... at least one user has been adding them to quite a few bands...

So what is the official consensus on adding members of unlisted bands to the lineup tab of split releases? I know it's been brought up multiple times, but there's never really been a consistent answer, since adding them to lineup tabs by extension means creating a bunch of artist pages for people that, 90% of the time, will never have another credit beyond that particular split album. At this point, it's split half-and-half, with some splits featuring unlisted band's on the lineup tab, and others relegating those lineups to the additional notes. Has the staff come up with a more concrete yes-or-no answer on this topic?

Yeah, we discussed this recently in mod chat, too. We are a little torn here. On the one hand we value comprehensiveness in the information we hold, so having the "complete picture" when it comes to the credits of an album is important to us. At the same time, giving "artist pages" to individuals that have nothing to do with metal seems wrong to us, too. It might be an easy solution to not include credits for unlisted bands on splits, and that's a possibility. There's also the possibility of only including those credits on unlisted sides of a split that already have "artist pages," but that would be providing an incomplete picture of that album and might be sloppy. Ideally, if or when it happens, one possible solution could be to have the option to create non-linked credits - credits without "artist pages" - specifically for those cases where the artist has nothing to do with metal, but that would involve a fair bit of programming that HellBlazer does not consider a priority. As you can see it's not an issue you can give a nice-and-simple "yes" or "no" answer to. I may create a thread in the staff forum to see if we can come to a solution, so be patient.

If the decision were "not to add them", would that apply to the "other staff" tab, too? That tab is so flexible that it allows you to add any artist you want. Moreover, and this might be interesting:
Consider Zorg85's report here:
http://www.metal-archives.com/report/view/id/516726
It's true that you can't add the members by clicking "+add artist" under the line-up tab; however, you can add all artists under the "other staff" tab, then go back to that tab and change "miscellaneous staff" to "band member" from the little drop-down menu, click save, and shazam they're listed under the "band members" tab.

Moderator consensus so far is to disallow them entirely, regardless of whether dummy entries are going to happen or not. That'll be equally true for full members, guests/session musicians and misc. staffers (if their work is confined entirely to the unlisted band(s), of course).


Well, removing the "+add artist" button for the main member tab was not with this particular issue in mind. I asked HB to do it because I think that it achieves two things: 1) preventing people from dumping guests or otherwise in to the full member tab, 2) forcing people to add full members to the main page first. Both of which are known nuisances. The ability to move added artist entries between the tabs offers a way around this, yes, but by removing any direct means it should send a message and help combat the not-entirely-braindead-or-malicious cases (without any downsides that I can see). I suppose it now also works to keep unlisted (full) band member credits from splits, but as you observed that can be circumvented in an identical manner. The idea would be to simply remove any unlisted entry from the dropdown menu entirely.

So what does that mean for the numerous split entries that already have full lineups for unlisted bands? Should we be removing those unlisted lineups and moving that info to the additional notes?




So if that does become the option, what would that mean for people with qualifying artist pages that contribute to the unlisted side of a split? (Though that does admittedly loop back around to what already Derigin wrote about completeness/comprehensiveness in his original response.)

Edit: OK, so I drank another cup of morning joe and noticed the first part where you said this would not effect people with pages for work with listed bands. So ignore the second paragraph.

Remove the lineups and flag all artists with no valid connections for deletion. I'm not quite sure if we want potentially lengthy unlisted band lineups even in the additional notes. Maybe, maybe not.


Did I say that? We want to do away with lineup credits for unlisted bands completely, even if the artists have connections to listed data.

So you have a split between Band A and Band B. Band A is listed, Band B is not.

Artist 1 - played on Band A's side ---> added, obviously
Artist 2 - played on Band B's side, no connections to listed entries otherwise ---> not added
Artist 3 - played on Band B's side, has connection to the listed Band C ---> not added either

---> Lineup credits: Band A: yes; Band B: nope, none, nada, zilch

B-r-i-l-l-i-a-n-t!

Ok, but...why? I understand not wanting a bunch of pages for some members of a free-form country/ska hybrid that have no other connection to the site, but why would you want to do away with linking to artists with listed data?

Because when it comes down to it, doing a job half-ass is not worth it. You'd have some credits added, while others credits not included. That'd be incredibly sloppy and incomplete.

Besides, unlisted sides of splits really aren't our purview. If it's unlisted it does not (currently) fit our rules for inclusion, so why should we treat credits any differently? We're a metal encyclopedia with certain standards. We don't accept bands that don't fit those standards, it doesn't make sense we would do the same for artists.

Yeah, it's nice from an artist page perspective, but when you look at the album lineups, it's just an awkward, holey mess. We add unlisted bands to artist pages, yes, but we draw the line at that. Album credits are beyond that line and we only concentrate on the metal side of a split in that regard.

Also, it would be a pain in the ass to enforce. We would need to keep unlisted bands available for selection, so that artists with valid connections could be added, and also trust people to only add them and not fill up the lineups with everybody (as it is now). Even with explicit mention in the rules and us constantly trying to clean up lineups that'd be a bitch to keep consistent, I'd say. People would always be wondering why there's these weird gaps in the credits. Best to cut off this vestigial tail for good.

I'm updating Roswell Six's page:
http://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Ros ... 3540278888
A lot of artists were added as band members whereas in fact they were guest musicians only. <Deleted>. However, the two musicians who were considered band members were in charge of a single album each (assigning roles, composing, mixing, etc.). Those were put to past members, which leaves the active-members tab empty.

Description: (http://www.therecordlabel.net/progressi ... orizon-cd/)
"This is the ground breaking music portion of the book and CD project. Here you have a music CD whose story and lyrics were written by bestselling author Kevin J. Anderson with his author wife Rebecca Moesta. Employing the musical and keyboard talents of Erik Norlander to compose the tracks and a variety of very high profile guests to perform..."
The same can be said about the other album <replace Erik Norlander with Henning Pauly>, save for the fact that Pauly played all instruments himself, hiring vocalists only.

My question is:
The two people behind the project are the writer (story line, lyrics) and the executive producer from ProgRock Records. They are the ones commissioning the projects. So, that said, is it a good idea to put those two under active members, despite the fact that their roles may not be as orthodox as one may expect them to be?

A strange case indeed, but making those two main lineup members is OK, given the explanation provided in the band notes.

Diamhea, I'm not allowed to add Shawn Gordon as Executive producer. Moreover, I was wondering if a mod warning would be necessary. Something along the lines of "Please do NOT add guest members to the line-up. File a REPORT if necessary." The project isn't dead and there's always room for line-up changes. Just a thought.

You're not allowed... says who?

No need for a mod warning, the user who added the lineup originally is an idiot that has been already been given a harsh warning. An aberration.

Executive producer isn't a category I can save in a band line-up at my rank.

EDIT: I see you've already sorted it out. Cheers, dude.

That's interesting, I didn't know knights couldn't do that. Live and learn. Okay case closed.

Just finished updating Depressive Age's page: http://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Depressive_Age/1586, had to include two pictures because otherwise it'd be quite unfair.
Fronted by Lubitzki (vocals and guitars), the band was active from 2003 to 2004. New members then were Miles Stone (bass) and Niels Eberle (drums). Any info concerning these two is appreciated.
http://www.backstage7.de/band4/depressi ... index2.htm
There's also a sentence I don't quite get in the article above - Live wird die Langzeit-Therapie von Reso Nanz (keys) unterstützt - even with google translate. Is Reso Nanz a person? It's definitely not a real name, is it? Should I add him to live musicians?
Not sure this is the right thread; so, if it isn't, redirect me.

EDIT: Also, I'm of the opinion that Small Town Boy should be listed as a single not an EP.

Just a small matter of clarification:
http://www.discogs.com/Various-Lyl-Iiyllull-Lilu-Lul-LilituNin-Lil/release/4760550
acceptable as an entry or a sampler. How to identify the latter properly?
At least two bands (both have MA entries) come with exclusive tracks.

Looks like a valid split to me, unless I am missing something obvious..

How does it exactly work with band submissions? Just submitted a band I've had for a week in my drafts - release date is May 12th, which started an hour ago in the Netherlands, and if I'm not mistaken in Germany, where the band comes from. The band had been submitted five hours ago by someone from Germany - that's definitely a premature submission. But is mine so too? Because it still says 11 May on the submissions list. Time difference, I reckon.
I know I should know this, but I'm not entirely sure. Submitting bands isn't my thing, and most bands I submit are those I come across by chance (either online or through old demos/CDs)... bands that'd released their album way before my submission.

*Report follow-up*
Potential band to add for whoever wants to listen to this:
http://bw-disnomia.bandcamp.com/album/artificialidad

Previously known as Bottomless Wound: http://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Bot ... 3540379624

All decisions we make are based on MA time (EST). Sometimes we can be lenient with the time a band is submitted, particularly if we don't get to it until days later, but we advise not making submissions until the correct day has passed for MA. We always prefer when users abide by that request.

This is also not the thread to advertise potential band submissions.

Got it. Thanks.



Not advertising, Derigin. I closed the report hastily after updating the info (changed name -> new name), then thought the band could be added. If this isn't the thread, is there another? If not, never mind.

A while back I was contacting bands to get info for their profiles with holes in them. I haven't tried this in a while, so something may have changed, but if a band member or a group prefers to remain anonymous (including absence of pseudonyms) is there a way to differentiate this choice from their identity being N/A?

Just looking at the profile I couldn't tell if someone had already inquired, and it might save redundancies.

It depends on whether names have been published in an official capacity at some point (liner notes, official website, etc.). While we do try to be reasonable when it comes to making artist pages more anonymous, we don't generally delete artist entries outright. If that is what you are asking. Pseudonyms are a sort of minimum in that sense, we don't whitewash the actual involvement of an artist.

But it really depends on the particular case. Which band/person and what exactly do they want removed?

Hi, Azmodes.

Sorry if I was unclear. None of the artists had anything on here that they asked be deleted. Originally I was looking at incomplete band profiles and so contacted some bands asking for an official lineup, etc. A couple had identities they wanted added, which I did, and some preferred to remain anonymous. There was no option in the band profile editing field to indicate that anonymity was the band's official word as opposed to a part of their profile that had yet to be filled in. The profile looked no different after my communication with the band as it had when I found it "incomplete."

To save contributers time, I was wondering if there was a way to officially note that anonymity is the band's preference and the field is blank officially instead of the current "N/A" which, as far as I know, indicates that someone looked and couldn't find anything, or that the band has not yet been contacted.

We can leave a "mod warning" on the page noting anonymity, as well as a note in the band's biography section, however, like Az said anonymity has to be proven. If you're certain that the band has never made information about its line-up public then you should be fine. If possible, just send in a report with an image of your correspondence with the band member confirming they want to retain anonymity.

As for N/A, it's just a general term that has multiple meanings. Yeah, it can mean that something is "not available," but it can also stand for "no answer" and "not applicable." Unless there's a mod warning it's generally presumed that whatever publicly available information you find out about the band is OK to add. We usually leave it up to the artist/band to prove that publicly available information is unauthorized. Though, as with a lot of things, there are exceptions and it depends, too.

Thanks, guys. In future I'll include correspondence in reports. I'll make a point of looking in the bio, too, before contacting bands. I always made a point of including a link to their profile so they could submit any reports themselves, and I will continue this practice.

Just saw this. Yeah, seems to be a person using a pseudonym ("resonance", for those who didn't already guess). "Langzeit-Therapie" is a reference to the band's name and "unterstützen" means "to support". I've added him/her as a live musician.

Cheers, Az.

http://www.neseblodrecords.com/cutenews/data/upimages/HU12.jpg
It is somehow a pity that Neseblod offers images with such a low resolution. Does any one know whether it would be possible to get better ones?

It would be nice to see this entry completed.

Size is hardly an indication that an old picture is better than its replacement. There are at least 50 reports per month concerning updating images that are uselessly big, hence pixelated. A lot of users sacrifice quality for size, and whatever shit they upload needs to be replaced, even if that necessitates scaling the image down to 400x400 or so. Note that unadulterated digital images take up much less space than scans; colored (esp. colorful) images consume more bytes than grey-scale (esp. dark) ones; etc. I sent Caliginosity an email a while back asking him what image editor he used, but he still hasn't read it... Best quality-preserving reductions I've seen on here.