Is any type of organisation that gives out a release to be considered a label? Because if only labels are labels, and only self-released is self-released, then there are releases that doesn't fit into any category.

For example, sometimes there are splits or singles released through a charity organisation or a sports team.

What, exactly, are the official parameters regarding band/artist image priority? I run into a lot of reports, for example by user "lone_surviver," that often state something nebulous like: "Image attached is more recent." or "New image proofed directly from band's website." Then you open it up and it is either lower resolution, a hazy live image, or one or more of the members faces are obfuscated by hair or whatever. In most cases these images are more recent, but how much precedence does being up-to-date take over image quality?

I only ask because MetalCuresHeadaches let me know I was probably doing it wrong at one point a few weeks back, and despite some efforts I can't find any set-in-stone guidelines regarding this issue. I figure I'm present on the queue enough that if I closed the reports that didn't necessarily pass muster, it would take at least some workload off of the staff. At the same time, I don't want to exert any muscle that I can't necessarily back up, being only a Veteran user profile. Cheers.

I don't know that there are official rules written anywhere but when I became a mod, it was always stressed that we prefer unobstructed still shots over anything else.

So I always look for them in some order like this:

A) Clear still shot of all current members.
B) Clear live shot of all current members.
C) At least some kind of unobstructed view of all current members.
D) Some unobstructed view of one of the lineups.
E) If none of those exist because the band wants it that way, I'd take the best I can find.

However, do note that it's "suggestion" of a better image. I think we'd prefer to have the most current lineup up but would rather see a clear older picture than some really crappy new one. For artists that you're updating not because they changed lineups but because they took some new photos yesterday - if they are worse we are under no obligation to the band to change them.

http://www.metal-archives.com/albums/So ... rki/188110

Should the circle-A be used for the album title?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_ ... m#Circle-A


and considering the aspect of titles with such special unicode characters, would it not be good to have an alternative title field, like it is common for band names? Because otherwise it might be difficult to search for them via the search function.

Thanks for clarifying TUA. Just today, that lone_surviver user is up to the same old crap. "Image attached is more recent." For a bunch of major artists like Scott Ian, Frank Bello, etc. Images are almost always inferior. Gets irritating, good to know I can deny the unacceptable attempts.

Should we write lyrics as we find them in the album booklets, even when they're clearly typos?

"The paster of a cross-eyed congregation"
"The pastor of a cross-eyed congregation"

The first one is what's found in the booklet, but it's quite clear that what they meant to write is the second. Which one should I submit?

Use "Pastor" - if I find that in there later as "paster" I'd spell-check it and clean it up anyway. I'd only list something like this in a case where they clearly intended it to be mis-spelled for one reason or another.

Alright, will do.

any comment on this?

Meh, just leave it as it is. As you say, it might fuck up the search (not sure, though) and it seems more of a stylistic choice.

ok, when I add a contact link in the band's notes, should "Contact" be in <b></b> or not? I used to put it in bold, then I noticed a mod removing the <b>s, now another mod added the <b>s where I hadn't put them... I'm confused and I would like to be proper

*shrugs* It doesn't matter much. Al and I prefer it in bold, yeah. Apparently some staffers don't. Though it's a bit dumb that some moderator would actually go out of their way to remove them again...

ok, thanks... I'll stick to the bold if it's not "wrong".

if an album booklet gives credit to a company (as opposed to a person), as in "mastered by Trafo Sound", or "artwork by MSP Vision", what is the proper way to list it on the website?

Additional notes. Artist pages are only used for actual artists: people and orchestras, etc.

ok, thanks... that's what I did today. in the past, I've added a one-person studio in the lineup tab, but I don't remember which album it was on. sorries.

Not really a question. I've come across these little misspellings throughout the site the past few months (mostly just a space before colon), and I want to unload:

Viewing band's modification history:
- "Band line-up modified for <band> :"

Viewing album's modification history:
- "Album line-up modified for <album> :"

Editing a split album:
- "Bands on this split :"

Editing band members on band's main page:
- Tab says "Live musician" (missing an 's'?)

Profile > Editing profile:
- "ICQ# :"
- "AIM :"
- "Yahoo :"
- "MSN :"
- "Google Talk :"
- also, maybe adding Skype to those wouldn't be such a bad idea? I would assume it's more common these days than some of the other IMs above.

Profile > Modification history:
- "Added album :"

After sending a report:
- "Send" button > doesn't do anything (not sure about this one, I haven't sent out any reports for a while)

^Yeah, that's been bothering me a bit too. Colons and exclamation points are clingy fuckers in English and they're always as close to the preceding word as possible.

I don't really see the relevance for members sexuality in the additonal notes of a band. Since it's got nothing to do with the musical project that a band is.
http://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Cynic/91

Is it relevant for the trivia/bio on the artist page?
http://www.metal-archives.com/artists/P ... vidal/1167
http://www.metal-archives.com/artists/Sean_Reinert/1170
http://www.metal-archives.com/artists/Rob_Halford/3535

Nowhere?

If they relate it to or link it to their work on the band, then sure. That is definitely the case here.

It's an important thing to consider; when band members publicly associate information on their lives with their musical contributions, it's a reasonable expectation that such information will be recognized by their fans, and metalheads in general, as a part of the band's identity. This is not the same as an artist who purposefully distances parts of their personal life from that of their musical work. In that case, we respect their wishes if those wishes reflect that reasoning. But with Cynic, the interview they gave makes it apparent that Paul and Sean wanted to make it a statement about how they see their band and their musical careers. That's enough to warrant an inclusion in the additional notes.

Keep in mind that MA only exists to catalog metal information with the aim to be objective and neutral. Whatever the band or the artist decides or does, that's not for us to judge. We are merely observers making observations.

Relaying some info here: If photographers or artists complain about the cropping or removal of watermarks for images being used on the site, comply with their wishes. Try to find images without a watermark (preferable) - but it isn't always possible and some are so diminutive or transparent that it can be easy to miss sometimes if you are trying to fit the image(s) under the image-size threshold by resizing, etc. I've had this come up twice so far in the last month, so it isn't out of the realm of extreme possibility. Be aware!

I've got a question about ex-band members, I could not find the answer anywhere in FAQs/rules/helps.

The band was formed long time ago, and it started with guy A and guy B. Guy B left the band in some time. Later the band made a release - guy B of course was not involved in it; guy A was involved, and that was written on encyclopedia in the band+release's lineup. Still guy B is considered by the band as important part of its history (contributions, formations, early songs, etc) and band considers that guy B be added to ex-members list.

It is OK to add guy B to ex-members list? Of course under assumptions that they agree to that, and there is proof he was involved in the band (it is encyclopedia after all).

So basically guy B did some songwriting and was considered a part of the band at some point (even a founding member)? You can add him as an ex-member to the main lineup, if that's the case. Did he play an instrument too?

Yes (founding, but his songs are not played anymore) & yes.
Just was curious, whether this somehow conflicts with the 'pedia rules.

Nah, sounds perfectly fine.

Ok, thanks a lot!

long story short, Stuka Squadron are active again (including the founding members), while Iron Knights are also ongoing... shall we "undo" the "changed name" or what?

It should be like this:

? - 2012, 2012 - 2014 (as Iron Nights), 2014-present

thanks, OC but isn't there any complication since both bands are now active, with entirely unrelated line-ups? it's more like Penance and Dream Death...

on a different matter, is there a line between "live member" and "guest" on m-a? Daniel Gildenlöw was never a member of Stonehenge, he just popped on stage to sing a song and a half with them... I've seen more similar examples.

is the way Messiah Marcolin is listed under Portrait the way to go, perhaps?

Hm, maybe like this? (updated both pages, did I get the years right?)


Live musicians should be semi-regular contributors, more than an (intentionally) one-time guest thing (especially if they are just showing up for a particular song). Gildenlöw sounds like he should only be mentioned in the notes. I don't know the particulars about Messiah Marcolin, but from the looks of it, he too should be removed as a live musician.

thanks on both counts with regards to SS/IK, I didn't know we could do this... it looks a little confusing, but I guess the situation is confusing in itself.

agreed on live/guest members, at least that's what I thought it should be like... Messiah has been guesting with quite a few bands, as he's otherwise inactive, he did do a tour with Therion, though.

edit: I edited DG/SH and MM/P, expanding the trivia notes.

Crimea now is a part of Russia, should we change the country of all bands which were formed in Crimea?

I can imagine that country changes for all bands which were formed in Crimea in 2014 will be legit, all bands which have been formed earlier should remain of Ukrainian origin.

But that is just my personal opinion, for curiosity reasons I am as much as you, aeturnus, interested in the statement or answer of the staff.

It is a difficult question since we normally mark bands with the country in which they were formed, not the country in which they live now.
But that was supposed to concern bands which relocated to another country, not to borders which were relocated.
I'm unsure about it but there at least needs to be added a note to these bands now.

Maybe we should treat them the same as bands that were formed in East Germany - those are all listed as German.
It's not exactly the same situation, though.

Probably it's best to wait with it until the situation there has settled a bit.

Hmm. With countries we've tended to accept some degree of "universal" international recognition as an indicator for what the country field should be. Until the Crimean situation is resolved in that manner, we're unlikely to change the country location. This isn't just true for Crimea. We don't even have a country label for places such as Kosovo yet.

That said, maybe Sciera's point is the right way to go about it, and we should label the country of origin by what it was at the time of origin instead of the current designation for that territory. So those bands formed in East Germany would be labeled as such. But this might be too much of a hassle to get into.

Thanks for answers. Some old bands were formed also in Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Soviet Union...

Should we follow the rules of capitalization for band names in their native languages? I know we already do for album titles, but I've seen some bands whose names obey the language's capitalization rules and some that don't.

For an example of a band which would be affected, Smuteční Slavnost (which should be "Smuteční slavnost").

We should be cautious about this issue. For every single Czech band that uses 2+ CZECH words as their band name, I checked their official website (typically Bandzone). Most of them capitalize every word in their name, with only the following 6 exceptions: Krvavá práce, V rukou osudu, Volná linka, Zapomenutá minulost, Železná neděle, Živá hudba. Even for these bands, some Czech sources capitalize all words. Also, Czech city names always capitalize all essential words (e.g., České Budějovice, Ústí nad Labem, nad=over). I would compare band names with city names and people's names as well. You don't expect people to write Milan Kundera as "Milan kundera" or "milan Kundera", do you?

Anyway, I'd like a Slavic language speaker to confirm it.

Plus: According official pages, the following band names should be capitalized: Ohavné zvuky (Bandzone), Hefaistova lyra (Bandzone), Starostovi muži (Bandzone), Tisíc let od ráje (This should capitalize as Tisíc Let od Ráje - Thousand Years from Eden. Official web).

Well to be fair, even disregarding band names, there are a lot of Czech orthographic rules which call for some words to be left uncapitalized: media such as films and novels, place names aside from towns and cities, countries where the name includes a generic term for "state" or "republic" (e.g. "Česká republika"). But yes, let's sit tight and wait for a native speaker. I might go ask my Czech buddies later today if nobody's chimed in before then.

Russian: if the band's name of 2+ words contain proper names or the band name is the same as the musician's name then it should be capitalized: Пророчество Вёльвы, Просто Горыныч / Артур Беркут, Алексей Страйк; if it's just about common names - we should capitalize only the first word: "Чёрный кофе", "Коррозия металла", "Облачный край", "Янтарные слёзы".