This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Metal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MetalWikipedia:WikiProject MetalTemplate:WikiProject MetalHeavy Metal Industrial Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Industrial, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Industrial music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IndustrialWikipedia:WikiProject IndustrialTemplate:WikiProject IndustrialIndustrial music Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Industrial To-do: Top priority articles to improve to Good article status Front 242 Front Line Assembly Ministry Skinny Puppy Throbbing Gristle – needs "Musical style" and "Critical reception" sections Wax Trax! Records High priority articles to improve to B-Class status Coil Dwayne Goettel Graeme Revell Industrial Records Rammstein Mid priority articles to improve to C-Class status A Split-Second Covenant Laibach Nettwerk Nitzer Ebb Project Pitchfork Psychic TV Richard H. Kirk Stephen Mallinder VNV Nation Wumpscut

How do they qualify as "Industrial Metal"? They have never used a guitar on a single song as far as I'm aware. −' 09:40, 07 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.149.46.150 (talk)

Ok, my populating for this list is done, so be free to add any bands that play industrial metal even if it is with other genres. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 05:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This feature may become essential for bands that at some time played industrial metal, especially those on a single or a few albums. It is recommended that you add this for all bands though. Type this in:

<div class="NavFrame collapsed" style="padding:0;border-style:none;"> <div class="NavFrame collapsed" style="border-style:none;padding:0;"> 
<div class="NavHead" style="background:#EDF1F1;text-align:left;text-style:normal">
*<font size=2>[[Enter band's link here]]</font></div> <div class="NavContent" style="text-align:left;">
* Enter the albums here
* Enter the albums here
</div></div></div>

And this will be the result:

−₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 06:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's good, but I hope you won't mind me removing a few of them on the page for now. Some of them just seem to list all the band's releases, which seems a bit pointless. But indeed, when a band is only considered (according to sources of course) industrial metal for part of their career, it's worth making that distinction. Prophaniti (talk) 12:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know many, (if not all of you) are incredibly tired of people adding bands with no articles to these lists, especially, along with links that are blue but are disambiguation pages or something else along with not even being the "x" genre of metal it's supposed to be. I was thinking of making a rule box or something similar like a section for it, instead of it being with the context/intro. For example, bands that are added because the editor wants an article on them very badly, people who just look over our (damned) comments, the people that don't check their links for the right article and those links that lead to disamb pages that don't have the band or you would have to make a huge search for the band and the bands that are not even part of the genre. If there was a "master list" that I know of where all editors that edit these lists would see it, then it would've been better to put this there and as there are many metal lists it would be insane to put them all over which I might want to do anyway if you accept my proposal or better yet show you here and you decide how we should go along with it and to fight those that add redlinks and remove bands they dislike, etc. Something must be done and I thought those hidden comments were enough and it's clearly not. I also think this would make a good explanation to editors who do this type of thing as a warning on their talk pages which is an action we can partake. Here is my proposal below:

This will be part of the introduction to an editor for his warning:
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to add bands to this list, the last band you added was a red-link, was not the intended article or has notability concerns on it's article page. Hereby you must follow to these guidelines for band inclusion to this list:

Article rules/warning explanation:
Bands without articles will hastily be removed from these lists. This list is not merely the place for you to add bands of the style that you want an article for, this is a list of "x" bands with articles nothing more. You can do this exactly at Wikipedia:Requested articles/music/Performers and bands but they must pass WP:MUSIC to be acceptable here. Also, please click the "show preview" button next to the "save page" button to check your article links before adding them here and that you also have the right band that plays the genre. This is not of your personal opinion of what the band actually plays, the band's genre must have been approved either by verifiability with other editors or sources stated in that respective article. Also, make sure a band is notable, if a band is being questioned for notability has a notability tag at the top of the page then it should not be added to this list, wait awhile and re-add them when the notability of the band has been established. Please make sure bands are alphabetised and that the formatting is consistent with the other bands before adding them. Thank you.

I hope this proposal goes well. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 05:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, I like the idea man. But how is this going to trigger? is it like all HTML'd and stuff I don't understand or is it some person who catched the person themselves? I would like though, one thing, if the band added is a 'red' link and a death metal band...if that band is notable, I think we should create a 'death metal article to be made list' so that all the notable bands go on wikipedia. My last header, was saying this, I don't think we should just delete bands becuase the wikipedians before us haven't bothered to get information and make a dam article for them, do we?

Also, this way you get notable bands, becuase of wikifacists like speedy deletion service jeps the dam articles you make, just becuase you translate the biography into english and change a few sentences and that somehow interfers with G what the fuck O laws. Bullshit. Anyway, yeah nice idea, but ant going to work...you still going to have fags that think Bullet for my valentine are metal.

METALFREAK04 (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it would be like User warning templates, if you catch them you warn them and if they persist well... I never thought of that but they would keep on being reverted until the link is blue, that's for sure. And of course, if a band is surely notable we'll have a list here (wouldn't make sense to have a death metal band article to be made list anyways (and would have to start with "Wikipedia:Requested articles/music/. . .")) for them (which I'm not sure can stay up here, as this page would need to get archived within time) and also at the request article link I provided. Also, the amount of editors we will need will be like the size of a taskforce (albeit small one) for this to be carried out well. I've been thinking I should really add this to all the other lists.

All I ask for is for people like you and everyone who edits these lists help in notifying these type of users. If that can be done then that's the least you could do for these lists. Have hope, and let's make an example for them. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 06:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is a seemingly random selection of bands on this list bolded, and others not? Also, I appreciate adding references to these lists is a contentious issue, but there seem to be an awful number of bands on here that I'm not sure I've ever heard referred to as "industrial metal". Is there any way to deal with this? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My usual method is to simply keep these list pages as reflections of the band pages. If the band page lists an artist as "industrial metal", it should be on here. If not, then it shouldn't. This of course also means that if you feel a band isn't industrial metal, and see them listed as such on their page but with no source, you can simply remove this, asking that it only be added back with a source, and then remove them from this list.

Having genre debates on list pages would only clog things up, and wouldn't let all those with knowledge of the band contribute as much as if kept to the band discussion pages. So it's simplest to just edit the band pages in keeping with wikipedia's rules on sources, and make sure this page reflects that.

Oh, and I'll remove the bolding except where a band has an expandable discog: it just seems to be done when someone thinks a band is particularly good or important, it doesn't appear based on anything verifyable, unlike the gold highlight for bands with 1,000,000 sales. Prophaniti (talk) 12:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to attempt some significant clean-up on this page. See my comments in the discussion page existing sections, but basically it will be:

• Removal of the bold font. It doesn't seem to indicate anything meaningful or verifiable. I'll only leave it where an expandable discog remains.
• Removal of the expandable discographies where they simply list a band's entire history. The whole point of them is for bands who are not industrial metal throughout their career.
• Removal of any bands that don't belong here. Now, bear in mind, this will only be done in keeping with wikipedia's rules, and is going to be the longest part of my clean-up. Where a band has industrial metal sourced, then all is fine. Where a band doesn't have that, and sources appear lacking for it, I'll remove them. I just want this list to reflect the band pages, which should themselves reflect the sources. Prophaniti (talk) 12:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, an extra part: I'm going to remove the gold highlights, unless someone objects and can explain to me how to edit them. Because the only reason I'm taking them out is putting them in is causing me such a headache :P Prophaniti (talk) 13:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely Industrial Metal, so why is it deleted?--10000 Walls (talk) 10:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the whole band page was deleted? Why?--10000 Walls (talk) 10:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed Kryoburn's flag,for some reason it was set with MX which is inaccurate, they are from Carlsbad , New Mexico US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.130.118.142 (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Band Name: Erase The Virus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.235.88.11 (talk) 12:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No article, so I removed it. Feel free to create an article on it, then add it.--猛禽22 ^•• 19:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His inclusion on this list is justified and he's also the artist actually sourced on it. His later materially was mainly industrial metal orientated. RG (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• One source that is frequently cited as making many mistakes in regards to music genres is not justification. Alice Cooper has been performing music longer than industrial metal has existed, and the majority of his music, even his later material, is not industrial metal, for one thing. For another, genre lists are for people who are predominately performers of that genre. I am looking at the articles for Alice Cooper's albums, and the genres, based on the majority of sources and consensus, do not even state industrial metal. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Seriously dude? You have frequently used allmusic and have admitted that it is a reliable source. You are being incredibly hypocritical right now. "even his later material, is not industrial metal, for one thing," pure POV. RG (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What POV? I'm stating the facts based on what the sources and other articles actually say. Don't misquote me and claim POV. I made no such statement: I clearly said that the sources do not state Alice Cooper's albums as industrial metal. Pay attention. Secondly, as stated below, there's a difference between what is stated in a review, and what appears aside the review. The genres listed in those boxes are frequently miscategorized, something that I have repeatedly pointed out. (Sugar Bear (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Two points. One, I believe that standard being used on the nu metal list is that the Allmusic genre list for bands and albums is not usable as a source for putting bands on the wiki list. However, if the genre is mentioned in a review, that counts as a good source. Having said that, the review doesn't exactly give a ringing endorsement for industrial metal; it really just mentions it in passing about previous albums. Not a super strong source. On the other hand, no other band on this list has even a single citation. Why not pull the whole list down? Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 03:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Allmusic: The Eyes of Alice Cooper different album , different reviewer: "The first thing one has to say about The Eyes of Alice Cooper is thank Jehovah and all his witnesses that the Mascara'd One has grown out of his metal/industrial phase." Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 04:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think David Jeffries makes it pretty clear in the Dirty Diamonds. He specifically calls Alice's late-1990s work, "industrial-flavored metal." I also think we should consider adding Guns N' Roses (well really just the Axl Rose band now) to the list considering their more recent material has its fair share of industrial metal. New York magazine for instance notes their experimentation. RG (talk) 04:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you're ignoring the fact that one or two albums does not make a band or artist industrial metal. You're really reaching here, RG. (Sugar Bear (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

• The source in question has David Jeffries stating that Alice Cooper has performed some "industrial-flavored metal", an opinion that not only isn't backed up by any other source, but certainly does not qualify Alice Cooper as an industrial metal artist. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

  I have to admit, in neither of these sources, which we can all agree are reliable, does it explicitly, exactly say "industrial metal" in relation to AC. "Industrial-flavored metal" and "metal/industrial phase" are close, but not quite right. Seeing as how AC is really not known for that genre, and has released, what, more than twenty albums that we would all also agree were definitely not industrial metal, I'd say leaving him off the list is probably okay, unless other sources can be found. I'd welcome more editors' input on this, however. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 21:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]