Talk:Black Sabbath/Archive 6

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Genres

I think that the genres in the infobox should be heavy metal, doom metal, hard rock, and blues-rock. If you look at the articles on each of the original band members, those are the genres that are listed in the infoboxes. --John of Lancaster (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The genres in the individual Sabbath members' infoboxes obviously includes their solo work and other work outside Black Sabbath. That they have dabbled in other genres does not infer that Sabbath themselves have. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I must say that I am against changing the infobox. If you can find reliable sources describing them being any of these other genres, not just the style list in Allmusic, by all means add it to the text of the article but lets try to keep the infobox clutter free. The individual band members pages are pretty much a mess and this is a good article. J04n(talk page) 22:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok. --John of Lancaster (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I totally agree that these genres should be included in the infobox.Of course Black Sabbath didn't play ONLY Heavy metal. They were also Doom metal, Hard rock and Blues rock. I have listened to Black Sabbath for a lot of time and I have read many articles and books about them, which make me sure that the genres mentioned above must be included in the infobox. Just because we can't find something in the internet this doesn't mean that it's not true, and also, what makes a source "reliable"? I know that everyone will answer "go to the wikipedia page with the definition of reliable sources", but can you always be sure about something? To conclude, I consider wikipedia a reliable source and in wikipedia I've found in many articles that Black Sabbath were more than just Heavy metal. I don't have somrthing to win for this change, it's just about the article being right and precise for those who really want to learn about the band. --Darkrai21 16:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not arguing that that metal is the only style they play, I'm just arguing against putting other genres in the infobox. The infobox should be a synopsis of the article. Also, I'm certainly not arging against using books as sources. J04n(talk page) 20:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Also, as J04n says, the infobox aims for generality, so what we don't do is list every genre that a band has played. Sabbath were all of the genres you mention, plus a few more. But heavy metal covers all bases, and satisfies the purposes that the infobox is designed for. The article text can and does touch on the other genres associated with the band. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I disagree that heavy metal covers all bases. Also, in infoboxes of other bands, most of the time, there are 2 or more genres. So my point is, why not Black Sabbath? --Darkrai21 14:24, 7 May 2011
Doom metal is a subgenre of heavy metal, so that base is covered. How much of the band's output is blues-rock or other subgenres? Not much. It doesn't matter at all about other articles - this is a good article and that's because of things like having sensible infobox content. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
The fact that doom metal is a subgenre of heavy metal doesn't make it omittable because the term describes a specific genre. Also, much of the early work of Black Sabbath is Hard rock and Blues rock and that's why I consider it important to be included in the infobox. --Darkrai21
I totally agree that Hard rock and Blues rock should be added. Black Sabbath did not just play heavy metal, any Sabbath fan will tell you that their early music had a great deal of blues in it, and all of their career was very hard rock-based. Y45ed (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
The guidelines are clear that we are to aim for generality when assigning genres to an artist. Sub-genres are to be avoided. Speaking as someone who has been listening to Black Sabbath's music for 30 years, I can say that I do not and have never regarded their music as hard rock, blues rock, or anything other than heavy metal. Journey and Loverboy were hard rock bands; Sabbath is light years away from that style of music. Leave it be. ChakaKongLet's talk about it 21:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but The Monkees were pop and so is Katy Perry. Also light years away. But Led Zeppelin were hard rock, they're not light years away from Sabbath. Sabbath albums like Never Say Die and Technical Ecstasy were hard rock. They weren't really heavy metal because they didn't have the dark lyrics or riffs that albums like Sabotage or Paranoid had, and they were nowhere near as heavy. And loads of their Ozzy-era music was either blues or blues influenced. And blues rock isn't a sub-genre. Y45ed (talk) 21:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
"Never Say Die and Technical Ecstasy were hard rock" "loads of their Ozzy-era music was either blues or blues influenced" That is strictly your opinion, and we don't deal in opinion here. There is certainly no chance that "blues" will be added as a genre because we all know that BS is not a blues band, and "blues rock" is a subgenre, so that's out as well. Hard rock is defined as "a loosely defined subgenre of rock music" so that also is out. ChakaKongLet's talk about it 00:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Opening statement

This is nitpicking, but why is Black Sabbath described as a Rock band in the opening statement? Let's take a look at opening statements of their albums, shall we?

Black Sabbath is the debut studio album by English heavy metal band Black Sabbath.

Paranoid is the second studio album by English heavy metal band Black Sabbath.

Master of Reality is the third album by the British heavy metal band Black Sabbath, released in July 1971.

Black Sabbath Vol. 4 (often shortened to Volume 4) is the fourth album by the British heavy metal band Black Sabbath, released in September 1972.

...this pattern repeats across almost all of their 18 albums, those that don't simply don't include a genre in its opening sentence. So either the editor who contended to include "rock" in the band's opening statement follow suit with all of their albums, or step down and change the statement on the band's page from "rock" to "heavy metal". Keep in mind that wikipedia articles should benefit from the most general available(and sourced) descriptions, rather than broad terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.118.4 (talk) 07:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

  • The decision was made to use the broadest term in the opening sentence. Since heavy metal is a subgenre of rock music it was decided to use that. The genres in the infobox and opening sentence were being constantly changed so it was decided to go with their most recognizable genre, heavy metal, in the infobox, and broadest, rock, in the opening sentence. The body of the article would then be the place to talk about their influences on the many subgenres that their music has resembled over the years. J04n(talk page) 11:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Years active

In 1968 the members were calling themselves Earth, they did not change the name to Black Sabbath until 1969. Comments ? Mlpearc powwow 20:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It is debatable whether the start year should be 68 or 69; remember the band was pretty much defunct from Dec 1968- Jan 1969, while Iommi came was having the short stint with Jethro Tull. Looking at other articles, they are inconsistent around bands that had early alternate names. Disturbed's start date is listed as 1994 when they were still known as "brawl". Led Zeppelin however is listed as starting in 68 rather than 66 when they were named "the yardbirds". I propose that the Sabbath "Years Active" column be ammended to 1968, as unlike Zeppelin, the 1968 line up did not change until well after they were an established band.--ERAGON (talk) 23:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Reunion 1997-2006

this page is for sabbath, this section is for 1997-2006, so why is the picture in this section of Ozzy on stage from his SOLO tour in 2007? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.214.250.194 (talk) 13:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Pictures of Sabbath on wikimedia are unfortunately in short supply. If you own a more relevant picture, feel free to upload.--ERAGON (talk) 23:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Rumors of reunion

Well, in my opinion that is exactly what it is until their official website or a member is quoted affirming it so. Mlpearc powwow 00:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

http://www.metaltalk.net/news/2010882.php <- what about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.34.179 (talk) 10:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

http://www.birminghammail.net/news/top-stories/2011/08/16/black-sabbath-to-reform-with-original-line-up-and-new-studio-album-97319-29245431/ Perhaps this is — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.148.79 (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

http://www.iommi.com/news.php?story=130 Claims of the reunion have officially been dismissed by Iommi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.197.209 (talk) 20:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

PLEASE do not add the "Rumor" of a reunion, it has be verified by Iommi as just that "A Rumor" on his website (see link above). Mlpearc powwow 21:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
But the band IS reuniting, check out this link http://www.birminghammail.net/news/top-stories/2011/08/16/black-sabbath-to-reform-with-original-line-up-and-new-studio-album-97319-29245431/ so it might be added to the article. --Milosppf (talk) 10:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
august 16th not 17th — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.214.250.194 (talk) 17:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Black Sabbath is OFFICIALLY back according to many vaild sources as of today including: http://www.billboard.com/news/black-sabbath-reuniting-for-new-album-tour-1005511372.story#/news/black-sabbath-reuniting-for-new-album-tour-1005511372.story, as well as their official website stating this. They will be recording a new album and touring in 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.99.112.194 (talk) 21:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, the portion of this article describing the reunion needs to be updated to fit the present tense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.99.112.194 (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and articles should be written from a historical perspective. Fezmar9 (talk) 21:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

According to Tony Iommi's official website, the reunion is a go. Source: http://www.iommi.com/index.php?story=144 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.70.249 (talk) 01:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Genre of Black Sabbath

IMHO, since the term "Heavy Metal" did not exist when Black Sabbath started to create music, the all encompassing term coined by Bill Ward "Downer Rock" is the most appropriate term for the genre of music Black Sabbath has since created until before 1978. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.80.160 (talk) 08:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The term downer rock is really an etymological footnote. Heavy metal is by far the most commonly used and recognised term.--SabreBD (talk) 08:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Bill Ward Considering not Participating in the Reunion

Source: http://www.billward.com/2012/02/statement-on-black-sabbath-album-tour/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.148.79 (talk) 13:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Further evidence provided by Black Sabbaths official website suggests that Bill Ward will possibly not be participating. The band released a statement claiming:

"We were saddened to hear yesterday via Facebook that Bill declined publicly to participate in our current Black Sabbath plans...we have no choice but to continue recording without him although our door is always open... We are still in the UK with Tony. Writing and recording the new album and on a roll... See you at Download!!!"

Source: http://www.blacksabbath.com/ (Under recording update 2/3/2012) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.99.112.194 (talk) 20:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Genre

"Heavy Metal" simply isn't enough to describe early Black Sabbath. According to this, they originally formed as a blues-rock band, and according to this, VH1 calls them "Hard Rock." I think that's more than enough evidence that either "blues-rock" or "hark rock" need to be added to the genre section. Woknam66 talk James Bond 23:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

  • I assume that you want to add to the infobox because these other genres/subgenres are mentioned in the article. This comes up frequently on this page, and the problem is that bands with long histories can be categorized under many different heading, in this case, the ones you mentioned plus, doom metal, stoner rock, gothic metal and others are often brought up. To keep things under control it has been decided that it would say 'Heavy Metal' in the infobox (because there are the most sources calling them that) and 'Rock' in the opening sentence, because all of the other genres are subgenres of Rock. The 'Formation and early days (1968–1969)' section of the article talks of their blues origins and other styles/genres are described in the 'Musical style', 'Legacy', and 'Influence and innovation' sections of the article. J04n(talk page) 01:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Music Genome Project

According to Pandora's Music Genome Project, several of Black Sabbath's songs are "hard rock" or "acid rock". AmericanLeMans (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

  • I assume you are making this point because you wish to add these genres/subgenres to the infobox. Long-term consensus on this page has been to only have 'heavy metal' in the infobox and 'rock' in the opening sentence. Black Sabbath has had a long history and valid arguments can be made for many genres, if all were in the infobox it would be a big mess. The 'Musical style' and 'Influence and innovation' sections in the text of the article are the places to describe (with proper references) these various genres. J04n(talk page) 00:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Associated acts

Apologies if this has been discussed here before - but should Jethro Tull really be in associated acts ? So Tony Iommi played with Tull for a short period before Sabbath existed - is that enough to warrant inclusion there ? -- Beardo (talk) 11:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I would say no. J04n(talk page) 15:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I think that any band that Iommi, Osbourne, Butler, or Ward played in should be listed, and also any band that at least two other members played in should also be listed. Woknam66 talk James Bond 16:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
This is contradictory to the guidelines at Template:Infobox musical artist. The following uses of this field should be avoided...Groups with only one member in common. J04n(talk page) 17:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but according to WP:IAR and WP:WIARM, exceptions to rules and guidelines can be made. This shouldn't be a discussion about whether the guidelines say Jethro Tull should be listed, it should be a discussion on whether or not that guideline should be ignored in this instance. I believe it should be ignored because, while Black Sabbath has had many members, by far the most well-known and longest-lasting members are Iommi, Osbourne, Butler, and Ward, and I believe that because of this we should give more weight to other bands that they have been in. Woknam66 talk James Bond 22:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion IAR should not be invoked for a situation where one band member was in another band for only 15 minutes (yes, I'm exaggerating). J04n(talk page) 22:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any reason not to stick to the guideline here. Iommi was hardly noted for being in Jethro Tull. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Whatever, as long as you also remove GZR and Rainbow. Woknam66 talk James Bond 19:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd agree with GZR being removed, but Rainbow and Sabbath share three members that I can think of, so they're eligible. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Right, I forgot about Cozy Powell, that makes them eligible. Woknam66 talk James Bond 03:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Bill Wards addition to 'current members'

There are multiple conflicting reports with regards to Bill Wards involvement in both a reunion and recording. Most current report is that Bill has pulled out. [1] BigJoeRockHead (talk) 23:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC) Sorry for the redundant post; I just noticed the other. BigJoeRockHead (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Photographs

I found it striking that this article omits a good picture of the early band composition. Shouldn't that be a no-brainer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.24.143.247 (talk) 03:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

We don't have many, unfortunately. Lets hope that some user comes along in the future who has a stack of photos they took in the 70s, for now we have to make do with what we have. --ERAGON (talk) 23:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hard rock should be included

i recently searched for reliable sources about the genre of black sabbath!! I have to say that their 4 first albums are cited as hard rock by allmusic(go check it out yourselves or http://www.allmusic.com/album/black-sabbath-r1998,http://www.allmusic.com/album/paranoid-r1999,http://www.allmusic.com/album/master-of-reality-r2000,http://www.allmusic.com/album/black-sabbath-vol-4-r2001 at these links) please answer and add it now if possible!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paokaraforlife (talk • contribs) 19:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no doubt that they are a hard rock band and this is detailed in the text of the article. The issue with putting it in the infobox is they are a lot of things and we end up with an endless list of genres in the infobox. It was decided a while back to just include metal in the infobox, rock in the opening sentence and everything else in the appropriate places in the text of the article. Consensus can change, so if folks disagree we can change things but my opinion is to keep the way it is. J04n(talk page) 19:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the info box shouldn't be a mess! But adding a 2nd(only)genre wouldn't be of much harm and it won't make it a mess and anyway it is the truth and it isn't even mentioned anywhere in the article so........ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paokaraforlife (talk • contribs) 16:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's reach a consensus before making a change, it may take a few days before a fair number of folks respond, there's no urgency here. The problem, in my opinion, of adding a second is which two? Why not blues-rock? doom metal? stoner rock? All of these are regularly brought up. Infoboxes for bands that have been around awhile are ripe for messy edit wars, we've tried to keep this one fairly stable which is part of the criteria that it met in becoming a good article. J04n(talk page) 17:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


i agree that there is no need for rush and the reason we can't add any other genre is that fisrt of all it doesn't cover a big section of their music and because we can't find any source to back it up so hard rock is the only considerable option — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paokaraforlife (talk • contribs) 15:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Genre's for this particular article is probably a dead issue, I'm sure if you scan through the archives this subject has been discussed to death. Mlpearc (powwow) 17:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Ward's removal from offical Sabbath's site

It seems Bill Ward has been removed from all images on Sabbath's official site, Please lets work together and get good sources and get as close to the truth as we can before we have a reverting war. Mlpearc (powwow) 21:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

This is the "Official" statement from BS.com Black Sabbath.com Mlpearc (powwow) 13:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, there is no immediately hurry. We can wait for a while and make sure that what is here is accurate and balanced.--SabreBD (talk) 14:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Tony Clufetos

Black Sabbath have a new drummer to replace bill ward, as mentioned on Geezer Butler's site. i notice that Tony clufetos is now on the band member timeline, surely he should be in the infobox too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ERAGON (talk • contribs) 18:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I would think NOT until the addition has a "valid reliable" source to go with it. This article is going to be here for ever, we need not be so hasty. Personally I'd wait until it is officially announced on BS.com IMO. P. S. the mention on Geezer site says Clufetos is there, in practice secessions but, NO ONE has offically said that he is a member of the band. Mlpearc (powwow) 19:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
True. Lets sit tight with our eyes peeled for now then.--ERAGON (talk) 14:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Should be Black Sabath is (not are)

We're talking collectively/together...I always learned that you in proper English, you can say a group/family/whatever are/were/whatever but only if you are talking about each individual member and something about them individually that is different from the rest. Like, the family are going to London and New York City. Or Black Sabbath are now Ozzy Osbourne as a famous solo artist, Tommy Iommi as...(whatever)...to clarity, in order to have a plural conjugated verb, like are/were, you would need to be able to insert "members" after the group (family, band, whaever) P.S.: I was just going to change it but was prompted, idiotically, to discuss changes to the lead and infobox (before making them)--99.124.128.157 (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

You are correct in terms of American English, but in British English, to say "Black Sabbath are a rock band" is grammatically correct. It's just one of the differences between the two varieties of English, and this article is written in British English because Sabbath are a British band. Hope this helps. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Oh, okay; I never knew that. But, even considering that, I thought this was a problem with bands in general (no matter what dialect of English), as I once visited wikipedia's page on Aerosmith (an America-originated band), and it said "...are a band [but I just checked it, and it now says 'is']." But even all that has been said, I think (not sure on Wikipedia's stance on this) that all Wikipedia articles should conform to one set of rules of English (like some of the spelling changes --- 'or' in US English --- honor, color ---'our' in Brit. English --- honour, colour), despite the article having more relevance to England, US, Australia, whatever (and, in my opinion, it should be Brit. English --- the 'original' English)...but I know that's not a discussion for this talk page.--99.124.128.157 (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
A few band articles do experience a bit of edit-warring over the "is/are" debate, and it's something I think we just have to live with. Aerosmith should be "is" as they're an American band. Interesting thoughts on conforming to one style of English - I'm willing to bet that people have argued about it a lot over the years with no conclusion. WP:ENGVAR explains a bit about how Wikipedia deals with different styles of English. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't think its amazingly important anyway; what matters is that the information gets across in an understandable manner. is/are are pretty much interchangable in this context, it doesnt really matter as long as it is consitent within the article.--ERAGON (talk) 23:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Lead Sentence

c'mon if Slipknot, Nonpoint & Five Finger Death Punch are mentioned as heavy metal bands in their lead sentences then so should black sabbath, who are way more metal than all three of those bands.

  • This was the result of a compromise a while back. It says Heavy metal in the infobox, and the body of the article certainly highlights them as pioneers of metal. J04n(talk page) 15:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Reunion (2010 to present) section title

I think this section should be ammended to "2011 to present", because there was nothing but rumour until november '11.--ERAGON (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

  • the problem with that is that there is information in the section from 2010. J04n(talk page) 15:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Australian Reunion 2013

Is there any particular reason that the recent events do not mention that the band are touring Australia this year. I've got the tickets in my hand and afaik they sold out quite quickly here. Should this be included? --The Count of Tuscany (TALK) 08:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The Devil You Know and Black Sabbath Chronology

Is there a reason why The Devil You Know isn't on the Black Sabbath Chronology? Other bands have had albums in chronologies where they technically performed under another name and there's no denying that The Devil You Know is also a Black Sabbath album. UltimaDude (talk) 00:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The "Heaven and Hell" name came about because Tony Iommi and Geezer Butler wanted to end Black Sabbath on the reunion with Ozzy Osbourne for the time being (Bill Ward was initially going to be part of Heaven and Hell too but dropped out). Therefore, Heaven and Hell should be treated as a seperate band. Plus, there is already a seperate page for all their work under that name — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrIpodz (talk • contribs) 21:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Genres 1

Black Sabbath is also Doom Metal! It's a genre that they actually created..it's not like death or black metal..it's not about dead things! Many people can't make the difference between these 3 types of metal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.162.80 (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source for this? What do Allmusic say, for example? Sure, some of their earliest stuff was similar to Doom Metal, but we can't apply a genre based on our own opinions. Rodhullandemu 21:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the Doom Metal article says so..and if it's on wikipedia..By the way, I think allmusic is rubbish! I read so many stupid things on that site! Like Green Day being sound inffluenced by Nirvana..That's why I don't think Allmusic is a good source..didn't found mistakes on the Black Sabbath article yet but.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.71.91.63 (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Following the trail, Doom Metal led me to Allmusic, which describes Doom Metal as "inspired by" Black Sabbath, but that doesn't mean Sabbath "were" Doom Metal, because the genre didn't exist at the time. More so, the Allmusic article for Sabbath doesn't even mention Doom Metal. And "being on Wikipedia" isn't a reliable source becase we merely cite what others have written. What does Kerrang! say? Rodhullandemu 21:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm..didn't find anything about that on kerrang, so i give up..I don't win anything if I'm right anyway..--84.208.162.80 (talk) 17:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Editing isn't about winning or losing, it's about getting the encyclopedia right. Don't be disheartened. Rodhullandemu 17:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Sabbath is NOT doom metal at all. Sorry man —Preceding unsigned comment added by XLAxMetallica (talk • contribs) 22:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Black Sabbath is also Doom metal.Just because there was no term for the genre at the time Black Sabbath first played doom metal, it doesn't mean that they didn't play it.Also if you read the definition of Doom metal and then listen to Into the Void (Black Sabbath song) you will see that there is a perfect match and also at rateyourmusic.com it describes it as doom metal (http://rateyourmusic.com/release/single/black_sabbath/into_the_void___black_sabbath/ ).That's only an example, there are many Black Sabbath songs that are doom metal, like Black Sabbath and Electric Funeral —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkrai21 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

"Black Sabbath are an English heavy metal band,... " they did not know that back then themselves - they started it :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.97.64 (talk) 03:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

May I also just point out that Heaven & Hell's only studio album is labelled Doom metal on Wikipedia, and they are the same band, just under a different name so not to cause confusion. Also, the band Orchid, who are famously directly influenced by Black Sabbath, are also labelled as doom metal. I definately agree that Doom metal should be added. Y45ed (talk) 23:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Ozzy's album sales

100 million? It's not clear from the ref, but that must surely include Sabbath sales. Unless I'm mistaken? Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Live Evil Broken Link

On the Live Evil page, there are two reviews listed, one of them is from Blender Magazine. However, when you click on the link, Blender's website states that the page has either been deleted or lost. Just wanted to make a note of that. Perhaps someone can find a working link to another official Live Evil review and take the Blender one down?

Tuning

Black Sabbath did not detune their guitars. Throughout their career they have consistently used a standard 440 tuning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.244.142 (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Wrong, Masters of Reality was recorded in C#, which is one and a half steps down from regular tuning I belive.--76.107.252.227 (talk) 02:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Feels Good To Me (Single)

Why doesn't it have a page of the Feels Good To Me single? Besides a demo of the song, it also contains a live recording of Heaven And Hell with Tony Martin on vocals and a studio version of Paranoid with Tony too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergiohsilva100 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Blues rock

Blues rock should be listed in the infobox beside heavy metal. All albums with Ozzy were strongly influenced by blues. Also, the Wiki pages of each individual Black Sabbath member, (Ozzy, Geezer, Bill, and Tony) all list blues rock. This is not because they all played blues rock on their solo work, because they didn't.Mrwallace05 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, hear's a reliable source http://www.allmusic.com/artist/black-sabbath-mn0000771438/biography. "The group took the blues-rock sound of late-'60s acts like Cream, Blue Cheer, and Vanilla Fudge to its logical conclusion, slowing the tempo, accentuating the bass, and emphasizing screaming guitar solos and howled vocals full of lyrics expressing mental anguish and macabre fantasies." Mrwallace05 (talk) 23:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree that early Sabbath or heavy/doom metal itself is derived from heavy blues rock. Besides, if it's appropriately sourced I don't see any reason for not listing it.--Shallowmead077 (talk) 07:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
There is a difference between being influenced by a genre and playing it.--SabreBD (talk) 08:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
@SabreBD Yes but the citation says that they played slowed down, heavier blues rock. Mrwallace05 (talk) 10:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
In this video, Ozzy refers to the band as "a blues rock band" at 4:45 into it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58NoDJlqPfg Mrwallace05 (talk) 14:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I definitely agree that blues rock should be added - but I'd also add hard rock. Sabbath were (arguably) the first heavy metal band, but before "heavy metal" was a thing, they'd have been called solely hard rock and blues rock. JPuglisi (talk) 02:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree as well. Black Sabbath's sound is bluesier than 99% of metal bands out there. I think it's bluesy enough to be added. I also agree about hard rock being added as well. Twyfan714 (talk) 23:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Definitely blues rock. MetalicMadness (talk) 16:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, not after the first album, there was some bluesy stuff but the majority and the most well known songs were minor and harmonic minor keys. Even NIB on the first album, although cited as blues :::::::::based, isnt blues at all..its aoelian with harmonic minor bridge. This is one of Sabbaths biggest influences on metal, the move from heavy blues to minor modes, which is the mode most
metal is played in. I feel this should be mentioned. 86.147.191.17 (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The bulk of this thread is started/contributed to by a blocked user (likely in more than one guise) ... but I agree with SabreBD ... it's overkill and not required. Having hard rock is already too much for a band that is primarily a heavy metal band. If it has to go into fan-boy land and have anything more than just heavy metal ... hard rock is far enough. Mr Pyles (talk) 01:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree heavy metal is fine as this it what the are famous for - pioneers of the sound we could say. Source: Dr Andrew Laurence Cope (Staffordshire Performing Arts) (2013). Black Sabbath and the Rise of Heavy Metal Music. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. p. 9. ISBN 978-1-4094-9398-3. -- Moxy (talk) 03:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Thirded. Also agree that even hard rock is excessive and somewhat redundant (in the early days of metal, the distinctions weren't at all clear cut).—indopug (talk) 05:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Also, two of the above users are known sockpuppets ([1], [2]). The others probably need to be investigated as well.—indopug (talk) 05:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Just to clarify my position. Heavy metal is sufficient. I can just about live with hard rock as well, although at the point they were starting out the two were synonymous.--SabreBD (talk) 06:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Please let's keep this discussion friendly. The people who are disagreeing with the initial message seem to want to start a war, and to be honest sound rather arrogant. It is possible to solve a discussion without using sarcasm and, you know. Remember, everyone's opinion is just as important as everyone else's. I agree that blues rock should be there because this shows the difference between Sabbath's style and, for example, Judas Priest's or Iron Maiden's. Sabbath were incredibly blues-based. I think it's narrow-minded to only include heavy metal. MetalicMadness (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Also, Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, so why is only heavy metal allowed, just because it's the style they are known for? Music-related encyclopedias are supposed to give specific facts and information about a band, not what "they generally play". MetalicMadness (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
If people want to talk about the ins and outs of Sabbath's style, specific facts and information, and comparisons with other bands, then the place for that is in the text, with sources. This is an encyclopedia, after all. The infobox is supposed to be general, not to include every genre a band ever touched upon. I'd stick with rock for the lead sentence, and HM for the infobox. I don't have a big problem with hard rock in the infobox, but blues rock is unnecessary. Extrapolate it in the text, you know, actually write something. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Bretonbanquet ... you will always be one the most clear thinking voices of reason on Wikipedia!!! SabreBD and Indopug being in that same company. Even in album infoboxes genre overkill isn't needed. Like this article.... the specific style(s) of the band, album or whatever should be inlcuded as referenced prose in the body of the article itself. Leave the infoboxes in the most general, all-encompassing format that they can be.... pared down to their barest. Work on cited txt.... not infobox crufting. Mr Pyles (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Debates like these about genres in the infoboxes are very tiresome, because most of the people who start them don't seem to understand that their personal interpretations of an artist's sound or genre really don't provide any weight on Wikipedia. They need to provide reliable sources if they want to add or change a genre in order to start a serious discussion on the matter. I personally agree with the above. While Sabbath definitely had some blues influences, they are known for starting the genre of heavy metal. Therefore, I'd say just have "heavy metal" and forget the other genres. Johnny338 (talk) 18:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Three hours on Wikipedia and you already know what is "very tiresome" and what isn't? You, good sir, are far wiser than I will ever be.—indopug (talk) 09:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if we've reached a consensus but I can see that must of us at least wouldn't mind hard rock being added in the infobox. I think they definitely can belong to the hard rock category, though blues rock was really an significant influence on their first album. I'd even go for progressive rock but I don't think many agree with me on that, but I still think they're definitely a proggy band with their 70s albums. 108.81.33.59 (talk) 02:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Australian Tour

1973 was not the first time Black Sabbath played in Australia. They played in the Myponga Pop Festival in 1971. Myponga is a country town one hour from the City of Adelaide in South Australia. Sorry, it's been a while since i've done citations, so if there's mistakes in how i've done these, my apologies! Hopefully it gives you enough to verify this and change the page accordingly.

Davies, N 2010, 'Mypong Part of Rock History', The Advertiser, 20 June. http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/entertainment/music/daddy-cool/story-e6freeuu-1225881732691?nk=7a4fd4f09df9149d12441e3704a5302c

Iommi, T 2012, Iron Man, 2nd edn. Simon and Schuster, London. (Specifically p. 88-90).

It's mentioned in a number of other books, unfortunately, having just moved to the other side of the planet, i don't have them. It's definitely referred to in Mick Wall's Black Sabbath: Symptom of the Universe

Cheers.

87.160.187.201 (talk) 11:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2014

Hey, in the "Master of reality and Volume 4 (1971-1973) section, the final sentence of the final paragraphs states, "the band travelled to Australia and New Zealand for the first time in 1973,". Black Sabbath had actually visited Australia previously in 1971 to play the Myponga Pop Festival. I believe the above sentenced should be changed from, "Following an extensive tour of the US, the band travelled to Australia and New Zealand for the first time in 1973, and later mainland Europe." to "Following an extensive tour of the US, in 1973 the band travelled again to Australia, followed by a tour for the first time to New Zealand, before moving onto mainland Europe". An additional sentence could be added earlier in the article. My suggestion would be at the start of the "Master of reality and volume 4....) section. Meaning the first sentence would read thus: "In February 1971, after a one off performance at the Myponga Pop Festival in Australia(citation), Black Sabbath returned to the studio to begin work on their third album." Also, Myponga Pop Festival has it's own wikipedia page (which i just discovered!) so you could hyperlink that if you wanted. Anyhoo, here's a couple of references. Davies, N 2010, 'Myponga Part of Rock History', The Advertiser, 20 June. http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/entertainment/music/daddy-cool/story-e6freeuu-1225881732691?nk=7a4fd4f09df9149d12441e3704a5302c

Iommi, T 2012, Iron Man, 2nd edn. Simon and Schuster, London. (Specifically p. 88-90).

It's mentioned in a number of other books, unfortunately, having just moved to the other side of the planet, i don't have them. It's definitely referred to in Mick Wall's Black Sabbath: Symptom of the Universe. Cheers. Charger Piano (talk) 22:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done Stickee (talk) 03:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

only Heavy Metal?

Black Sabbath are Doom Metal too,check it here [3] also if you listen to the early 70s and also 80s songs you will get that they're Doom Metal too.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GREYBOYY (talk • contribs)

@GREYBOYY: Hi, thanks for posting here first. "Doom metal" might be a little too specific for what we're looking for in the infobox, unless we can find more sources to support it. I'm not sure if metal-archives.com can be considered a reliable source. I think heavy metal works as it is an umbrella term that would encompass doom metal, among others. This way we can stay more neutral and account for other variances of the heavy metal genre. — MusikAnimal talk 15:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Encyclopedia Metallum is most likely not a reliable source.--SabreBD (talk) 18:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
The infobox genre should "aim for generality". See Template:Infobox musical artist#genre. I concur that "heavy metal" alone is sufficient. Binksternet (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
+1 on Binksternet's comment. The Dissident Aggressor 22:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Every other band has multiple genres in the info-box. Besides Heavy Metal has changed a lot over the yearsFruitloop11 (talk) 07:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Tuned-down guitars?

I have some music background, but "tuned-down guitars" is not self-explanatory for me. Can't tell if a wikilink is appropriate. I found:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Dropped+D+Tuned+Down+One+Whole+Step -- Dropped D Tuned Down One Whole Step An alternate tuning for the guitar, CGCFAD as opposed to EADGBE. More commonly (and mistakenly) referred to as Drop C. 

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D_tuning -- D Tuning, also called One Step Lower, Whole Step Down, Full Step, or D Standard, is an alternate tuning for guitar. Each string is lowered by a whole tone or two semitones resulting in D-G-C-F-A-D It is used mostly by heavy metal bands to achieve a heavier, deeper sound and by blues guitarists, who use it to accommodate string bending.

Thanks -- Jo3sampl (talk) 13:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Only heavy metal?

The article says Black Sabbath is only Heavy metal, which i disagree with. Much of Sabbath's sound is classic heavy metal, but aren't they doom metal? If you listen to later bands called "doom metal" like Witchfinder General, they sound almost identical to Black Sabbath. Songs like "Children of the grave" and "Into the void" are early heavy metal, but "Sabbath Bloody sabbath" and "Black Sabbath" as well as the later song "God is dead?" are most certainly doom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.107.16.119 (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

That's just in the infobox, the article mentions rock (in the first sentence) blues rock and so on. Mlpearc (open channel) 21:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I still think it needs to be changed. It's a bit misleading. All of the genres of metal are "Heavy metal" but that's like saying Metallica is just "heavy metal." Blues rock honestly should be added in too, as well as hard rock — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.107.16.119 (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Lead sentence

Hi, I think it should be changed to Black Sabbath are an English heavy metal band as they are always seen more as metal than rock. Lukejordan02 (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Technically, it'd be right. However, "heavy metal" was a sub-genre of rock back then, rather than a genre of its own as we know it today. Also, Sabbath sounds way too soft (no offense to the band) when compared to other metal bands that came after them, so, i think that "rock" is just more than right and should stay that way. Teh Thrasher (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Heavy metal would be both most accurate and most appropriate. The aim for generality in assigning genres is specific to the infobox, not the lead section. Sabbath quite literally invented the heavy metal genre and referring to their music simply as "rock music" is specious bordering on unencyclopedic. Caper454 (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Arctic Monkeys under Legacy

I think it might be apt to include Arctic Monkeys as having been influenced by Black Sabbath under the Legacy section. Alex Turner has been pretty vocal about how much of an influence they were on AM specifically. In addition, Arctic Monkey's logo is homage to Black Sabbath's from Master of Reality. Not to mention they play War Pigs live as a transition during Arabella. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.84.188 (talk) 23:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2015

Please add to the "Formation and Early Days Section": Ozzy Osbourne had one of the most unique voices in rock and roll at the time, which is why he was the ideal choice for a lead singer. Kate17taylor (talk) 21:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC) Taken from this link: http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com.ezproxy2.library.arizona.edu/subscriber/article/epm/67439?q=Black+Sabbath&search=quick&pos=3&_start=1#firsthit

Kate17taylor (talk) 21:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

 Dupe of above request. Stickee (talk) 00:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2015

Please add: Ozzy Osbourne had one of the most distinctive voices in rock and roll at the time, which is why he was the ideal choice for a lead singer.

Taken from this link: http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com.ezproxy2.library.arizona.edu/subscriber/article/epm/67439?q=Black+Sabbath&search=quick&pos=3&_start=1#firsthit Kate17taylor (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're a student at the University of Arizona and have access to their library, because this link shows a login page. Do you have different link to the source you're using? Cannolis (talk) 21:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 Not done - no reply in over a week - Arjayay (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Description

It says that "Black Sabbath is an English rock band" I say we need to change that to Heavy Metal. They are NOT rock, they're metal. In fact, the very first Metal band. Metal ozzy (talk) 18:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The first sentence is a general description, HM being a subgenre of rock. Sabbath are also rock of course; they spanned a number of genres. HM is shown in the infobox, per long-standing consensus. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Looking at our articles for rock music & heavy metal music, and considering MOS:LINK, I would support a change in this sentence to link to the latter, as a more specific link. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 08:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
"metal ozzy" is a mostly Genre Warring account. as per the "metal ozzy" contributions page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Metal_ozzy CombatMarshmallow (talk) 17:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Mac Sabbath under Legacy?

Mac Sabbath are technically a tribute band which typically wouldn't warrant inclusion here, but they're also a distinct parody who've received much of their own independent international media coverage and even received acknowledgement from Black Sabbath's official Facebook, which in itself is frequently mentioned in their media coverage. Is that qualification enough to be included under the "Legacy" sub-section? Skibz777 (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Skibz777, As a purely personal opinion, I am not sure that it is sufficient qualification. I don't see that a single Facebook post swings things enough. If anything it would be one or two sentences only. Though perhaps a link in the "See also" section might be appropriate. Thoughts? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 19:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit Requests

I am requesting the addition of at least "blues rock" behind heavy metal in the infobox. Its important to remember that the term "heavy metal" is a term that has evolved over time, and Sabbath's music was labelled as metal at the time because it was heavier than anything that had ever been put out. But as early as the latter 1970s there was music out that made Sabbath sound soft (e.g. Judas Priest, Aerosmith, Van Halen), and more hard rock. Then came Iron Maiden, Metallica, Slayer, etc. Even Ozzy Osbourne has said that he considers Sabbath's music to be more hard rock and blues influenced. All I'm requesting is the addition of "hard rock" and "blues rock" to the infobox; there are plenty of sources out there to justify this. I mean, go ahead, call me a douche for labeling some of Sabbath's music as hard rock, but you can't deny that much of it is indeed blues influenced.2602:306:83F9:1880:881D:AC7A:B46E:1B69 (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Heres a source for blues rock that appears to have already been brought up. [4]. Also, I suggest some watch this video; not so sure if it is a reliable source, though, but it's Ozzy's opinion [5]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:83F9:1880:881D:AC7A:B46E:1B69 (talk) 15:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Having reviewed the source provided above, I do not concur that it supports the inclusion of blues rock. Absent additional sourcing or support from other editors, I will decline this edit request in the next few days. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 02:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Doom metal

I know this is heavily discussed here, but doom metal really needs to be added beside heavy metal, as it qualifies as both, due to a large amount of their songs. TheEarthboundFan2001 (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

No, there are plenty of reliable publications saying that doom metal was inspired by Black Sabbath, but not that their music was doom. Binksternet (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
No, per Binksternet. Mlpearc (open channel) 01:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Black Sabbath. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 05:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Associated Acts

I was working on the associated acts as anyone who knows the band members of Black Sabbath have also been in many other bands. Listing the singers alone, one can see that there are bands missing from associated acts. My edits were however reverted back and a warning/threat was promptly placed on my talk page by an user. I am coming on here to start a conversation about this.The 'Associated Acts' section of the infobox is for other bands that the band's members have been in. The need for references is excessive as by clicking on the band members and following their links shows the exact same thing; that the bands I had added are indeed associated. On a side-note Black Sabbath's early music is heavily influenced by Blues Rock, as was Led Zeppelin's; and the two are contemporary's of each other. Burningblue52 (talk)

@Burningblue52: Please read the guidelines for listing associated acts. Mlpearc (open channel) 02:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Mlpearc has the correct link. The "associated acts" must be more closely connected than one shared member. Binksternet (talk) 02:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
@Mlpearc: I have read the template guidelines for listing associate acts, and it only backs up what I was doing even further. "This field is for professional relationships with other musicians or bands that are significant and notable to this artist's career. This field can include, for example, any of the following: For individuals: groups of which he or she has been a member..." That is exactly what I was listing. I am listing important key band members' other bands that they have been in. As I stated before one need only look at Black Sabbath's lead singers, and see that "Ohp, this page is missing related/associated acts!" Each of Black Sabbath's bandmates have contributed to the sound of the band in each of their albums. I still don't see the need for discussion here. The band, along with Dio, Rainbow, and Deep Purple is famous for rotating out band members.

Burningblue52 (talk)

Burningblue52, I think you might be misreading that section. The guideline says to only include that much information "For individuals". Black Sabbath is not an individual. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 03:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

The section also doesn't state anything specifically about 'bands' though...a band is a unit that functions as one. I think if we're going to be so specific the guidelines should be then as well(?). Burningblue52 (talk)

What are you talking about? The guideline definitely talks about bands and groups. Everything it says contradicts your wish to include lots of peripheral bands in the "associated acts" section. Binksternet (talk) 17:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Is Black Sabbath the First "Heavy Metal" Band?

Was Black Sabbath the first heavy metal band? I mean heavy metal in the way we generally know heavy metal. Lots of people like to include Led Zeppelin in there, but I don't think the music they did have anything that was a heavy song or riff. Ppujdak (talk) 23:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 23 external links on Black Sabbath. 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) 17:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Last gig in Birmingham, 4 February 2017

How often does the band get mentioned in national news and media outlets, including BBC News at Ten and BBC Radio? But "This isn't news of any kind", apparently? 49 years after the band's formation, one might even expect to see it nominated for WP:ITN on the front page. I suspect they won't be getting many more mentions after this one. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

First of all, the band announced this long time ago. Secondly, the last concert didn't take place yet. Despite knowing that this is will be their last concert, it shouldn't be added until it ended. We don't add news in advance as WP:CRYSTAL is clear on that. However, if the wording was changed then it can be added again without waiting for the concert to take place as the wording of last addition implies that they announced it yesterday, which is factually wrong as I already wrote in the first sentence and feel free to change the wording – Sabbatino (talk) 10:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I guess it depends what one means by "announced". It certainly never made national news until yesterday. I also suspect that after the gig has taken place no-one will give two hoots. Just sayin' Martinevans123 (talk) 10:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I guess so. There's also another new article on BBC. As for being mentioned on national news, there's this brief mention that this would be their last tour. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that brief mention just says that this tour would be their last, no mention of last date. Ozzy seems to attach some significance to the last ever gig, and the fact that it's in Birmingham. Looks like we'll have to wait until later tonight before we can add anything. As that other BBC article says, "Ozzy: 'I'll cry at Black Sabbath finale.'"Martinevans123 (talk) 10:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Blimey! Not finished already have they?? I thought that racket was never gonna stop. Shucks, nope, still going..... Martinevans123 (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2017

To change the years active from 1968–2006, 2011–present to 1968–2006, 2011–2017 thanks Timelord247 (talk) 00:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Note: this change was made by another editor at 06:34, with this source. Although not a definitive statement, it says "Osborne said Black Sabbath's farewell tour was the definitive end, vowing: 'This is definitely it. It's run its course.'" BBC Radio 2 are still running the story in news bulletins this morning, but they are not saying the band has split up, just that they have played their last gig. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
So where's the source that says unequivocally that the band has split up, stopped, broken up, been disestablished, quit, been put to bed, retired, etc. etc.? One might have expected a tiny inkling here??? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
When you're done, you don't update your website. You deal with that in November. Besides, websites are for dinosaurs. Official Twitter is official today. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Not too sure that's a definite rule, but thanks. Now that an actual source for the break-up has been located, maybe it should be used in the article? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't see it as any more actual than the rest, just closer from the horse's mouth. I'd think of it as a mutual retirement more than a break-up, but that's splitting hairs. Definitely nothing to suggest "hiatus", as the infobox says at the moment.
And yes, the rule about websites was set in stone by Heaven's Gate in 1997, through its after forever suicide solution. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
...is/ was... are/were... it's seems it's not just me who's still a bit confused. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I started complaining about singular nouns here yesterday, but deleted it after learning the British typically refer to bands (probably all groups) in the plural. I can kind of see where they're coming from. If I'd known others cared, I'd have left it. Nobody seemed to, judging from the Talk Page. Maybe it's been brought up and deleted a hundred times before, though.
As long as Our Lady Peace stays one person and The Tea Party doesn't get confused with those people or that gathering, I have no problem with "were". I still have a problem with "are", because they ain't no more. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Quite agree about are and were. Just confused about the whether they ain't no more or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Ozzy's still Ozzy, what is and was and is to come. The others will likely still pop up from time to time, as former Sabbath members do. Supergroups are always kind of super. But this one, kaput. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Just you wait. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Still together or not?

Before we change things back from past to present tense, I thought that whether Black Sabbath is still together or not needed to be brought up for discussion. Although the band has stated that the farewell tour they did would be their last one, it appears that they're still active. At least one source, which I know is not reliable, says they're still active and they've only retired from doing large scale tours, and if I remember correctly, they never said they were breaking up. Tony Iommi even said in several interviews that the band might release new music or even do one-off shows: [6], [7] and [8]. So instead of changing things back from past to present tense (like "Black Sabbath were" back to "Black Sabbath are" for example), I only added a sentence with a reference that said that Iommi hasn't ruled out the possibility of the band's future next to the sentence that says "A year after embarking on a farewell tour, the band played their final concert in their home city of Birmingham on 4 February 2017." Any thoughts? MetalDiablo666 (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the alleged "break up" is far from clear. The November 2016 source, supplied above by User:InedibleHulk, says: "When this tour concludes, it will truly be THE END, THE END of one of most legendary bands in Rock ’n Roll history...BLACK SABBATH." ... which sounds quite definitive, but which has not been repeated anywhere recently as far as I can see. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
In response to the last sentence ("...which sounds quite definitive..."), I just I changed "Black Sabbath were" back to "Black Sabbath are" and "2011–2017" back to "2011–present". MetalDiablo666 (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Makes sense. The surer a source is about a claim, the less likely it is to be true. I'm absolutely positive that's what it says in our verifiability policy. And I'm fairly confident WP:CRYSTALBALL is about how a hypothetical future universe to which Tony Iommi left a metaphorical door open carries the same weight as the so-called real world and its so-called final shows.
Let's keep saying they're active until/unless a multitude of reliable sources announce a comeback. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
As if Ozzy would ever spin a yarn about the end of the band. Yes, what we need is a reliable source. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
So does the Geezer Butler Band. Still together in spirit, it seems. But nobody ever needed The Daily Mail. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I bet Ozzy certainly never needed it. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2017

192.236.64.27 (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Black Sabbath ended and its still listed as a currently operating.

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. You don't specify, but I'm assuming you want the "present" changed to "2017" for the "Years active" parameter in the infobox. The article indicates that the band has played its final concert. However, it leaves open the possibility of "one-off shows" or future studio work. That suggests that it's now inactive, although not necessarily "ended". I'd like to see some editors who watch this article weigh in here. RivertorchFIREWATER 03:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
A similar instance at Talk:Eagles (band), I couldn't support anything short of an official statement from Sabbath. - Mlpearc (open channel) 03:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
And even an official statement by the band sometimes turns out false. - Mlpearc (open channel) 06:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
(Pinging User:Mlpearc.) I don't think we should worry too much about false official statements (being aware of them is a good thing), but I do wonder what constitutes an official statement. Now someone has changed the lead sentence to the past tense per the band's Facebook page. On said page, there's an image with "1968–2017" prominently placed under the band's logo. Is that an official statement? Without accompanying explanatory text, it strikes me as potentially just denoting the run the band has had thus far, but I'd like a second opinion. RivertorchFIREWATER 13:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
@Rivertorch: I've seen other articles accept Facebook as a reliable source, if it were up to me, no, I could not take a Facebook post as fact for this claim, the end of one of the most influential rock bands, but the community could not care less what I think :P Besides, how would we treat this statement "Iommi has stated, however, that he has not ruled out the possibility of new material or one-off shows under the Black Sabbath name."[2] - Mlpearc (open channel) 15:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
@MetalDiablo666: Please join the discussion and quit changing the bands status before consensus is reached. - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
@Mlpearc: The source I meant to use as a reference says "Despite rumours that they continue, Black Sabbath have confirmed that they have indeed split up after 49 years together." That's why I changed the status of the band about an hour ago. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Connor, Thomas. "Black Sabbath, Chili Peppers will play Lollapalooza". suntimes.com. Retrieved 29 April 2012.
  2. ^ "Tony Iommi: Black Sabbath Hasn't Ruled Anything Out Apart From Large-Scale Touring". Blabbermouth.net. 6 February 2017. Retrieved 8 February 2017.
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Black_Sabbath/Archive_6"