Talk:Illud Divinum Insanus

genre

This album is more nu-metal or alternative metal than death metal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.51.245 (talk) 22:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

................................................No it doesnt? Do you have any idea wtf nu metal or alt metal even is?

Do you have a reliable source stating that? If not, then it's not verified and doesn't belong in the article. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 03:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Reliable source = eardrums. 65.25.104.44 (talk) 23:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't actually sound like a death metal record, so how is it one, exactly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.50.78 (talk) 13:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

There are a number of sources citing an industrial influence: Source 1;Source 2;Source 3;Source 4;Source 5. Styled Executioner (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:RS explains what is and is not a reliable source (eardrums, for example, are not a reliable source). Source 3 and 4 are the same, and are not reliable (see here). Source 5 is a blog (with links to illegal content to boot), not a reliable source. SMN News is hard to tell, they don't really say much about who they are or their editing staff. Might or might not be reliable. However, Metal Review appears to be a legitimate reliable source with a proper editorial staff. I could probably support the addition of "industrial" (pipe-linked to "industrial music") to the infobox with this source (but not "industrial metal", that term isn't used in the source), unless someone more experienced disagrees. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 03:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not death metal, so at first plz delete this genre from the article, then try to discuss a new genre for this album. majjhimā paṭipadā ^Diskussion 16:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

"It's not death metal..." - According to who? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 00:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Not a snowball's chance Metal Review passes WP:RS unless its content has been published elsewhere by an independent, commercially-published, third-part source, or if the contributing reviewer is independently recognised as a professional journalist (i.e. has been published in a notable journal or site that itself passes WP:RS). It's a webzine, nothing more. I cannot imagine finding a legitimate source will be that difficult, but at any rate to include in the infobox you need more than "an industrial influence". Blackmetalbaz (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I figured having its own editor staff and not being generally editable by the public (like, say, Metal Archives) would make it a reliable source, but I'll accept that it isn't. Thanks for finding better refs! MrMoustacheMM (talk) 00:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Morbid Angel _IS_ a death metal band, so their records _ARE_ death metal, naturally. So is this album. If you're in doubt, then listen to the track Nevermore and tell me its not death metal. Whole this genre issue is nonsensical, this is death metal in its purest form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.73.88.155 (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

i changed industrial to industrial metal since those are two different genres, and this album is industrial metal, not industrial — Preceding unsigned comment added by I call the big one bitey (talk • contribs) 11:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I reverted your edit as it is unsupported by a source. If you can find a reliable source explicitly stating this album is "industrial metal", not just "industrial", then please feel free to re-make your change and include your source. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Reception section

this album is pretty shitty, there should be a reception section at least stating that fans of the band around the world are extremely disappointed that they waited almost a decade for something that doesnt even sound like Morbid Angel's type of dm or anything really close to them for that matter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.233.92.209 (talk • contribs)