Talk:Megadeth/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Lyrics About Relationships

This quote bothers me: "Mustaine is also known for his original "snarling" vocal style, as well as his recurring lyrical themes, often involving politics, war, addiction, and more recently, personal relationships."

That's completely untrue - perhaps there are more songs about relationships on their more recent albums, but there have been some since KIMB, i.e. Last Rites/Loved to Deth, Tornado of Souls, A Tout Le Monde (relationship with those he loves), Wake Up Dead, In My Darkest Hour, etc.

I will be deleting "and more recently" and if anyone has any objections, we can discuss them here. Dan 05:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

sound clips

perhaps having the sound clips in a more-widespread extention (eg. .wmp, .mp3, etc) would be better, as many people do not know how/do not have the equipment to open .ogg files.

• .ogg is the only format allowed at Wikipedia 208.48.150.6 08:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Band Member Table

A while ago, I added in a table that gave a more visual representation of the members of the band and how long each was in. The new table seems to get rid of that. I modeled the original table around the one used in the Metallica table, and I think this looks better and lets the user visually get the point across. Mobus 19:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems the Metallica table was also changed to the new form, so the example no longer fits my description. Mobus 19:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"The answer is YES"

This phrase was said by Mustaine in Argentina... the article implies it was said in Puerto Rico, the way I see it... anyone care to rephrase that paragraph? Cheers - ironcito 08:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

External Links

I have removed external links to discussion forums as they are a violation of WP:EL. -- MakeChooChooGoNow 18:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Marty Friedman citation

Under the SFSGSW Lineup section it says: "Marty Friedman, who had played in Cacophony with Jason Becker, was initially ruled out by Mustaine for having two-tone hair", and a citation is needed. Well, Dave confirms this in the liner notes to the remaster for Rust In Peace, saying that he hesitated to hire him because of his 2-colored hair on the cover of Dragon's Kiss, the CD that led Dave to discovering him. However, I wouldn't know how to put that in citation form, nor link it to the footnote so... If someone else could do this, that'd be great.

On a personal note, I just want to say that Marty is the best shredder there is (go to hell Yngwie), and everyone needs to hear Dragon's Kiss. Thunder March alone is worth the price.

I just have to agree here, in fact, buy all of Friedmans albums, they all rock Lovefist233 20:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured article?

I think if a few of us get together, we could elevate this page to Featured Article status. It needs a major re-write with a more formal tone, a crapload of references, a bigger & better intro paragraph, and some cleanup, but it is possible. As was done with Dream Theater here, we can combine forces and hammer it out. Iron Maiden, Pink Floyd, Rush and Dream Theater are all good examples of a F.A. band pages, and if we work twords that style and format, we will see 'Deth on the front page one day

After looking at the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Megadeth page, I added quite a few pics. Although discussed above, I believe every lineup(at least) deserves a photo. I'd like to have had more live performance pics, that could maybe replace some of the album covers, as well as a good close up Vic Rattlehead pic, but overall I prefer articels with photos over articles with miles of plain text.

Over the next few weeks I'm gonna work on this one, any all help is appreciated! \m/ Skeletor2112 09:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

All images need sufficient use rationales which show they aren't violating copyright - images aren't even necessary for FA so really I don't see why people are concerned about it. What people should concern themselves with is inline citations, NPOV, removing weasly statements etc. - "What is a featured article?" is a good learning curve.

Also, Dream Theater and Iron Maiden aren't good examples of FAs, as they're both up for FAR and have a lot of problems. Anyone using these as guides on how to write an FA are looking for trouble frankly (I'm trying to help by the way). LuciferMorgan 20:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Cool, I haven't used those other articles as a guide so much yet, besides structuring the opening paragraph a little. I've been mainly working on the History section so far - the article is getting a bit long (compared to other music FA articles), but I figure too much is better than not enough, so I am overloading on citations and info (can always be shortened later) without going into band members personal lives too much, unless it affects Megadeth as a band (such as Mustaine's substance abuse).

I'd assume that lineup pics and album covers would qualify for use in the article, tho I am not up on the exact guidelines for picture use. To stay on the safe side I have only been using existing album cover pics, and lineup photos that can fall under the "Promotional" license tag - like ones used on back album covers, ect.

Also, I am wondering what to do with the "Lyical Themes" section. It is way to long, and seems to be mostly made up of song decriptions, with not a lot of info tying it all together. I am thinking about shortening it down to maybe a paragraph or so, using some of the existing lead paragraph, to group together similar songs, ect. Dave's lyrical style is important to mention, IMO - but I don't know how much a "list of song subjects" type section is needed in the article.

I'll be away for a few days, but will pick up with "The Return of Megadeth" and beyond next week. \m/ Skeletor2112 11:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Lyrical themes will have to be cited if that section is kept. Also, right now (as I said on your talk page), the article has weasly statements regarding the reception of albums. LuciferMorgan 17:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Congrats, Megadeth, on having the most badass Featured Article on Wikipedia. Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 20:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

How the hell can this be an FA? It's a typical heavy metal article (i.e. bad) with a load of footnotes at the bottom. One minute you're telling us that Mustaine is putting out one more final Megadeth album due to contractual obligations, the next that the band have announced their next album for release in 2007... The section "Gigantour" is basically a list without bullet points. Basically, it's messy from "Gigantour" on down. Please fix it. --kingboyk 20:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The person who got the article to FA left. Someone else will have to clean it. LuciferMorgan 03:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

23 official members?!

Early in the article you can read that: "In their 21 active years, Megadeth have had 23 official members, with Dave Mustaine remaining as the driving force, main songwriter, and sole original member."

At the end of the article there is a list of megadeth members, past and present. Counting those I only get 19 members excluding session muscisians and Mike Albert who is labeled a "fill-in". And even 19 members is being generous because i'm not sure that all names in the list were official members of the band. For example Lor Kain, Matt Kisselstein, etc. Maybe some members aren't listed? Could someone please verify or discredit this figure? BMW Z3 00:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I included session members - as Brian Howe, Vinnie Colaiuta, and Jimmy Sloas all appeared on albums. I am also not too sure about the validity of some of those old members - I have heard of most of the names. Also I dont think Dave Lombardo was ever an official member... so I will change it to 22 for now.

As I go on with the overhaul of this article, I will get as much verifiable stuff as possible regarding early members. Here is a link to a Megadeth family tree, with some of the lesser known names: [1]

These are the members I included in the count:

• Dave Mustaine
• Glen Drover
• Shawn Drover
• James Lomenzo
• James MacDonough
• Jimmy Sloas (studio)
• Vinnie Colaiuta (studio)
• Al Pitrelli
• David Ellefson
• Jimmy DeGrasso
• Nick Menza
• Marty Friedman
• Brian Howe (studio)
• Chuck Behler
• Jeff Young
• Jay Reynolds
• Chris Poland
• Gar Samuelson
• Dijon Carruthers
• Kerry King
• Greg Handevidt
• Lee Rausch

These ones I cant find mention of yet:

• Lor Kain
• Mike Albert (fill-in)
• Matt Kisselstein
• Richard Girod
• Dave Lombardo

I know Dave has mentioned a few of these guys in interviews, I will try to find the references as I redo all the old stuff. \m/ Skeletor2112 06:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Recording on a record is the whole idea of being a studio musician. If you don't record on a record, you are not a studio musician. I don't think they should be counted as official members because they were only hired musicians and they have their own term for that.

Also it would be preferable with a different wording such as "at least xx offical members" or "xx offical members at the most" etc. instead of giving an exact figure when it's not certain. BMW Z3 18:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I see your point - I guess studio musicians are not "official members". I put the list at 19 for now - all of whom have credits or Dave has mentioned them as members. Over the next few days I will hunt down references for them. Skeletor2112 11:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Fallen Angels reverts...

I can find no verifiable interview source for any facts regarding "Fallen Angels" - which seems to me would be a seperate band, anyway, and not Megadeth. The quote linked as a citation ([2]) for that info sounds like it was typed wrong, as well:

• "The band that everyone thinks was Fallen Angels, was nothing more than a beginning stage of Megadeth, and a very productive or influential one at that."

Sounds like it should read "...and NOT a very productive or influential one at that." And add to the fact that there is no citation info, such as "taken from Metal Hammer interview 1992" or anything, PLUS that very same timeline says "November, Mustaine and Ellefson form the nucleus of Megadeth" - this is where the band oficially starts, IMO. Robert Cromwell may have influenced Dave, but he recieved no songwriting credit on L.D.T.C. - and the part Dave is talking about is a famous classical passage - Im not up on classical, but its Bach, or Mozart or somthing. I am trying to keep this history strictly "Megadeth" - which, according to the bands official website timeline (in order):

• April, Mustaine forms new band Fallen Angels

• Summer, Dave meets bassist David Ellefson, forms Megadeth with guitarist Greg Handevidt and drummer Dijon Carruthers.

I take the second as the "official" start of the band "Megadeth".

The bottom line is that if we include every single little bit of info there is, the article would be 100 pages long. We could go into detail on Dave in Metallica, feuds, everyone's solo stuff, every single former member's whereabouts, ect ect ect.

Also grammatically, Megadeth is a band, "them", "they", ect - not an "it". You wouldn't say "It went on tour", you'd say "They went on tour".

Skeletor2112 06:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, it seems that part 9 of my history revamp was reverted, so I replaced the info along with the changes above.

Skeletor2112 12:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Subject verb agreement

I know that the British use a plural verb when talking about bands (i.e. Megadeth have released ten albums) and that is ok, (being an American, I don't really agree, since it is an American band, and Wikipedia was made by two Americans...) but in this article, there are a bunch of inconsistencies with the subject verb agreement. At one point a sentence reads, "Megadeth have received..." Then there is "Megadeth has had 18 official members." I really prefer if the singular verb is used since there is only one band, but if there are people who really care, use the plural verb, but please change all of them. If no one cares, then I'll just change all of the verbs to singular. And if you have no idea what I'm talking about then tell me, or I'll just change it anyway. Excellent.Wi-king 03:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree - one or the other. I don't have the slightest idea which is correct or better, but I'm American, so... USA! USA! USA!!!! WOOO HOOO!!!! Skeletor2112 05:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It should be in the language that fits with the rest of the article. If the rest of the article is written in British then use "have" else use "has". 213.100.48.80 23:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm makin the edit, unless anyone wishes otherwiseWi-king 01:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that since the English language was invented by English people that Americans shouldn't comment on their spelling, either way I don't see why we can't have both styles in the article, does it really matter? Lovefist233 20:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Article and FA

In my humble opinion, you should move the song samples to a specific section at the end, and reduce the size of the photographs to about the same size (150-200px) and then space them evenly throughout the article (FA reviewers hate things that look like a magazine). Good luck, and best wishes, for the FA review. --andreasegde 19:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the tips - the pics have been resized, thanks to help from User:M3tal H3ad. Regarding the placement of song samples, I was following the format of other music FA's, such as The KLF, Pink Floyd, and Rush (band), who all use song samples in the articles. I think that as someone is reading, it is helpful to be able to click the song in question, wihtout losing your place by scrolling to the end of the article. We could also add a list of all samples at the end, but it might be redundant... Skeletor2112 06:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

"Removing weasel words" revert

A lot of the edits made left sentences incomplete. Here are a few examples:

• As one of the most commercially successful heavy metal bands of all time, Megadeth has sold more than 20 million albums worldwide, including five consecutive platinum albums, with seven consecutive Grammy nominations for Best Metal Performance.

Was changed to:

• As one of the most commercially successful heavy metal bands of all time, with over 20 million albums sold worldwide, including five consecutive platinum albums, with seven consecutive Grammy nominations for Best Metal Performance.

And:

• Mustaine decided to handle lead vocal duties himself, while also serving as the band's primary lyricist, main songwriter, and rhythm guitarist.

Was changed to:

• Mustaine decided to handle lead vocal duties himself, main songwriter, and rhythm guitarist.

• Even with the resulting poor production, Megadeth's debut Killing Is My Business... And Business Is Good!, released in May 1985, was a well-received effort that blended elements of thrash, speed metal and punk rock.

Was changed to:

• Even resulting with poor production, Megadeth's debut Killing Is My Business... And Business Is Good!, released in May 1985, was a well-received effort that blended elements of thrash, speed metal and punk rock.

• Frustrated by the small independent label's financial insufficiencies, Megadeth signed to major label Capitol Records, who also bought the rights to the new album.

Was changed to:

• Frustrated by small independent label's financial insufficiencies, Megadeth signed to major label Capitol Records, who also bought the rights to album.

• The song remains a fan favorite, and has been performed at nearly every Megadeth show since.

Was changed to:

• The song has performed at nearly every Megadeth show since.

A lot of the edits seemed good, and I will go back and change stuff, but as this article is a featured article candidate, please be careful when changing the prose so drastically. Thanks, Skeletor2112 09:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you mean what you said?

In the "Killing is My Business" section, the second sentence reads:

However, after spending half of that budget on drugs and alcohol, the band was forced to fire their original producer and produce the album themselves.

I assume this means what it says, that the band spent the money on drugs and alcohol, and then fired their producer. If so, rock on, although the exact reason the producer was fired remains unstated. Could they no longer pay his fee?

However, it ocurred to me that the editor might have meant to say that the producer was fired because he spent the band's money. If so, rewording is in order. —Kevin 14:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the first is correct, they had to fire producer Karat Faye because they could no longer pay his salary (I assume the remaining $4,000 was spent on studio time, tape, ect). Skeletor2112 07:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Rock too

They are rock according to iTunes on some of their CDs, we should add this...DrSatan 04:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Please answer this, someone keeps on deleting what I added and won't even discuss it. It's really annoying.DrSatan 05:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

According to iTunes, all of Megadeth, but one song, is rock. That one song is a remix and is called pop. I think that iTunes is just stupid, but it's something to add and keep. I think they're more hard rock anyway, except in some songs...DrSatan 05:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Simple, iTunes is not a valid source. See WP:SOURCE, WP:CITE and WP:V for Wikipedia policies on how to properly reference content. 156.34.142.110 12:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay thanks, that's ALL I wanted to hear. :) DrSatan 02:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Slayer are labeled as pop/rock on some websites, doesn't mean they are. M3tal H3ad 07:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's different when it's alarge company that sells music for money...But still, I agree. DrSatan 01:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

itunes isnt very specific about genre anyway, its only got 20 fixed genres in the store and they are all Generalizations of everything in there respective subgenres, so it shouldnt be used as a reference for genre eitherway Balthazar 21:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I think 'Metal' is the best description of Megadeth's music anyway, as that encompasses all the genres that they fall into while not being too vague Lovefist233 20:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal Big Four Wikiproject

I have just created the Megadeth Wikiproject. But I think that the scope is too narrow (just Megadeth) and I think that the Metal Genere Wikiproject is too large of a scope to handle everything. I propose that we make a Wikiprject Big Four, or something to that effect to cover the Big Four American Metal bands, Metallica, Megadeth, Slayer, and Anthrax. I'm eger to hear any opinons.

Just make a Thrash project, imo --DragonDance 19:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Megadeth live

if you have any of the older dates please add them into Megadeth live. --AlexOvShaolin 04:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Killing is My Business Remix/Remaster "vastly improved"

"vastly improved sound quality"? That is utterly subjective! I could argue many reasons why the original is my preferred version, and I heard this "vastly improved" remix/remaster first!Sladek 20:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding? The remastered version is completely superior in terms of sound quality... how can you even compare the same CD in versions that are just about 20 years apart? You may prefer the original, as that is what you are used to, but there's no denying the remastered version has better sound quality. Dan 05:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

^That is only your opinion. In the remixed/remastered versions, the dynamics have been squashed, the volume is way too loud and there is tons of clipping. You probably prefer this version due to modern metal albums sharing this horrific mix/master method. Roland —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roland19 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the voice of reason, Roland. To the dude above, I am not "used to" the original version. I heard the remaster first. I have since acquired the original and will never listen to the remaster again. So, yes, there is fact denying that the remastered version is better. If you can't understand that, well, I suggest listening to music with a more discerning ear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.101.244.247 (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Band Members

Kerry King was never an official member, he just covered live dates. He should be removed. Jay316 12:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Also, when was Mike Portnoy ever involved with Megadeth? As far as I know, he has never filled in on another full-time band since being a part of Dream Theater.

• Mike Portnoy was never a member, but played drums on September 3, 2005. Shawn Drover was handling additional guitar duties that day.

question for experts:)

Megadeth or Megadeath and why ?:) 83.9.230.22 00:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Megadeth, just because. Doppelganger 00:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

A lot of the Megadeth fans I've met seem to have a "holier than thou" attitude towards Slayer fans. Is this because they've sold more albums or have become more popular? I'm about sick of it. Dark Executioner 16:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Dark Executioner

No actually Megadeth have sold considerably more albums than Slayer but it's only recently Slayer have become more popular. The reason some Megadeth fans (including me) look down upon Slayer is because out of the big four of thrash, they are not very talented in comparison considering bands such as Annihilator, Testament, Exodus and Kreator have been overlooked. One may argue that Slayer is death metal but again there are bands like Cannibal Corpse, Deicide and Death who don't have anywhere near as much recognition as Slayer. Granted Reign In Blood was a pretty good album, but it just doesn't make up for a mediocre catalogue.

To put it short, it's becuase they're overated. ([[User:Giani g|Giani g]] 18:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC))

187- Slayer really displays no talent besides Dave(Lombardo, not Mustaine if you were wondering). On the other hand Megadeth is incredibly talented, and display it.

That may be true but give me Slayer over Metallica any day Lovefist233 21:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Top Forty Hits?

I changed the 18 top forty singles mention in the Legacy section to 18 top forty Mainstream Rock singles. There's a big difference between the Mainstream Rock chart and the Hot 100.Clashwho 23:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Wrong

"Big Four of Thrash" bands, along with Anthrax, Metallica and Slayer. Having been in Metallica, Dave Mustaine is the only man to have been in more than one of these groups. Mustaine was obviously in tallica yes, but Kerry King was also in Megadeth for a short stint. I'm removing it.

My mistakes, sorry :(. I guess it was cuz Mustaine's time in Metallica's beter remembered. Largely because he hit Hetfield (The Elfoid 20:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC))

Dates

Someone removed the years attached to the eras of the band history, mind if I put em back? (The Elfoid 17:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC))

Duke Nukem: New World Order

the reference to the track that appears on the duke nukem soundtrack, new world order, makes it out to be the same "demo" version that appears on the Youthanasia remastered album. however the version on the soundtrack appears to be a re-recorded and considerably better quality version than the one on the youthanasia remastered album. Balthazar 01:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Lineup pics

Lineups (asterisk indicates a pic)

• 1983
• 1983
• 1983
• 1984-1986 (*)
• 1986
• 1986-1987 (same as 84-86 lineup) (*)
• 1987
• 1987-1989 (*)
• 1989-1998 (*)
• 1998-2000
• 2000-2002 (*)
• 2004
• 2004-2006 (*)
• 2006-present (*)

The 1998-2000 lineup is the only one that contributed to an album (other than 2004's session musicians) that hasn't got an image for it. Could we change that? (The Elfoid 02:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC))

Spoken article request

I think that this should be made into a spoken article. Who agrees? --DragonDance 19:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for this. It may be a tad long, but who cares? PENSIMONSTAR 15:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Citation confusion...

I fail to see why there are "citations needed" for the albums that have not been certified gold, platinum, or multi-platinum. There is no logic in their placement because since the information does not exist to either prove nor disprove these album's sales status... there is no resolution to this problem. For instance Soundscan shows actual sales from major retail chains not including music clubs, but RIAA certification is a result of albums shipped to stores. So an album doesn't have to actually sell 500,000 copies to achieve gold status, nor sell 1,000,000 copies to achieve platinum. Opposite we have the official RIAA website which often doesn't list every album or video that has achieved the required shipment mark (such as Slayer's Live Decade of Aggression, which is not listed on the website yet is a double album of each disc over 40 minutes that has sold very near to 500,000 copies). So I am removing the citations, and can see no reason to see them return. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.124.190 (talk) 09:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Infobox genre lay out

I think it's best to have the genres line break separated because:

• Initial lay out was using line breaks (jan 5, 2006) and their is no objective argument to change it.
• There is no consensus on this formatting topic so we should keep the 'old' format until consensus is reached.
• Other information in the infobox is line break separated
• Practically all metal bands have line break separated genres
• Most infoboxes have line break separated values

If there are convincing arguments to change the initial lay out please discuss it here. Until then, I'll think the original lay out should be preserved. Kameejl ^(Talk) 15:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

WTF

Why do people keep vandalising this page? It seems like it happens a lot. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 19:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Because they want to? Whst the fuck do you expect, the vandals to come say why? they dislike megadeth, so they vandalise the page. common fucking sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.183.13 (talk) 14:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, pal, watch your WP:CIVIL there unlees you wanna get blocked. I do of course realize the vandals are'nt gonna talk about it. I'm not an idiot. I figured another user might say something about the why. It was basically a rhetorical question, though. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 17:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I was just pissed because I answered your question 3 times, and all 3 answers were erased. I thought it was you, so I decided to get pissed off. Oh, how can you block me, btw? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.192.250 (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Please calm down. A Wikipedia talk page is not for insults and rants. You shouldn't be cussing at someone on here. He cannot block you but he can get somebody to for him due to you not being civil.
Thank you,
Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 22:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's been discussed. He didn't mean any harm by it. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Take note:... any/all comments/edits from any 142.162.X IP don't require a response and can be deleted as they are just trolling from blocked user Mark753. Any edits by this user to any article or talkpage on Wikipedia can be removed. 156.34.222.133 (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible Slipknot reference as well?

As I looked through the page for a couple of days ago, I found a text about a tribute to Megadeth in the film School of Rock, starring Jack Black, where his role figure's former band is called "MaggotDeth". However, could this also be a reference to the American nu metal band Slipknot, as well? I'm concerned that many of you metal fans know that the term for a hardcore fan of the band is nicknamed a "maggot", so... Could it be a reference, anyone? You know, like in a jokingly hating sentence like "death to the Maggots"? 84.217.18.180 (talk) 10:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)A Powerful Weakness

Oh shit, looks like the entire talk page got erased. (Not that I did it, though - What the hell would I win from doing something that extreme?!) A Powerful Weakness (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC) A Powerful Weakness

I archived the page, it was getting too long. Go towards the top of the page there is a box that says "Archive box" to see past discussions click on the links. The most recent archive says "May 2006—December 2007"
Thank you,
Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 20:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It could also be a reference to the drill sgt. term "maggot" as well. There's a lot of uses for words, so it's not a reference to Slipknot per se. It would make more sense to me that it would refer to Megadeth, seeing as how there's the "deth" part in the name and the film crew isn't going to outright name the in-movie band "Megadeth", so they probably just got creative with words. --Rattlehead (talk) 10:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

missing albums

What happened to the other 3 or four albums megadeth did after countdown in the bio? did they forget. the article goes straight from countdown to the system has failed. it mentions all the albums in the discog though. i would put it in but i'm a terrible writer.--Katholmetal (talk) 02:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ummm... Megadeth#Youthanasia, Megadeth#Cryptic Writings, Megadeth#Risk, Megadeth#The World Needs a Hero. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 02:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Eras - lets bracket the years after them

I did this before twice and both times it was needlessly edited out. Bands, artists, wars, political histories....most historical things do this. I mean, it makes it easier to read the contents and that's about it. Why not change "Formation, early days" into "Formation, early days (1983-1984)" for instance? (The Elfoid (talk) 05:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC))

Go for it, I don't think it should be deleted. I have a featured article and it has years, I also have a soon FAC with them. (Godsmack, Alice in Chains)
Thank you,
Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 06:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I was just about to when I noticed the eras got changed anyway. It would look silly if we just dated album releases. Before Early Days covered 83-85 with a section on the first album as a sub-paragraph. Having sub-paragraphs for each album, this continued with one on the band's rise to fame from 86-91, major success from 92-98, Mustaine's return to form (beginning with his failed attempt to get Capitol to release a heavier album in which led to be compilation instead) until the breakup, The System Has Failed and Blackmail the Universe, then United Abominations/recent events. That split things up nicely:

• 1983-1985
• 1986-1991
• 1992-1998
• 1999-2002
• 2004-2006
• 2006-present/recent events

Right now the page is horribly broken up and just a swampy mess of data. It deserves FA status I think still, but can be tightened up. (The Elfoid (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC))

Opening of history has line-up errors

I recently read Metal: The Definitive Guide by respected author Gary Sharpe-Younge. He states that although the line-up presently listed as first came together quickly, it was not the first group Mustaine tried out; see Megadeth band members. I can get citations if required. (The Elfoid (talk) 17:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC))

Chris Broderick?

Anyone have a source for this, nothing I have found has shown that this has actually been made official yet. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Until it is official Glen Drover should remain listed as a member.--E tac (talk) 02:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The band's official website has stated him as a member for going on a week now. Glen left Megadeth for family reasons. It's official. Dark Executioner (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Dark Executioner

I added a part about what kind of addition Dave Mustaine thinks Chris Broderick will be to the band. As far as I can tell from the concert youtube videos (as terrible quality as they are), Chris Broderick seems like he can play these solos extremely well, and Dave Mustaine thinks that it's like when Ozzy Osbourne found Rhandy Rhoads. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 09:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Why use remastered samples?

Hey, what's the deal with showing off how Megadeth sounded 20 years ago with having clips of the remastered versions from 2004? The remastered versions differ much from the original ones, and on So Far So Good.. the vocal is even rerecorded. Maybe I missed something? To me it seems that if this is done without any kind of copyright issue or other problem, a choice is made to have these recordings as they sound more "fresh" than the originals, thus an attempt to make it seem to a newcomer/first listener etc that they sounded better in the past than they really did. Especially as the sound clips are placed in these time period sections that most of the article consists of, making it seem more like this is how it sounded when it came out (I know it still says "remastered in 2004.. but still). And as newcomers/first listeners don't have anything to compare with, all this seems very biased as it shuns the old (maybe inferior) recordings. (WP:NPOV anyone?). I strongly object having it this way. Grinder0-0 (talk) 12:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I uploaded mostly the remasters because they are now the "official versions" - with the originals out of print. I thought that having the old ones up may cause some kind of legal issue... Dave re-recorded the vocals only on the song "Take No Prisoners" and the MD.45 album, because both vocals were missing, but not on SFSGSW. I agree that using the old version samples makes sense for the old songs, but those were what I had on hand when uploading at the time. I can try and add some of the older ones soon. Skeletor2112 (talk) 11:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Hmm you're probably correct about SFSGSW, but you get the point ;) Yes, it would be great if you could upload the original versions! But would it really be any difference copyright wise? I'm not an expert on copyright, but isn't both the originals and remastered ones released under Capitol Records (and Combat, don't really get that), making it no difference? Grinder0-0 (talk) 11:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

hard rock should be a genre too

ever listened to risk is a hard rock album so im putting that up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.225.25.37 (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is a very minor genre, appearing only on a single album, and disgraced later... Metallica got Hard Rock on their page bacause they keep playing it for more than ten years and three albums span, but here - it's a different story. You see, many bands had releases with hundreds of subgenres, even a different genre for each song, but that rarely should be placed on their generic description page. 195.238.190.244 (talk) 12:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope this doesn't happen again. May I ask, where did we decide that one album's sub-genre defined the entire fan. So Friedman played in a more pop direction for about half of a concept album? I don't understand your base. I asked for protection to keep the n00bs out, but evidently, I guess not... -MetalKommandant (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Bah. So they had one not so good album in their 20-something (can't think of the exact amount currently) year career. One album out of...a lot...doesn't make a band apply under a different genre. Megadeth is metal, now and forever. --Rattlehead (talk) 10:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Adam9393 (talk) 03:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC) Megadeth is not Hard Rock and never has been Hard Rock, and neither is Metallica. Both of them are Thrash Metal and always have been Thrash Metal.

If "Hard Rock" shouldn't be added as a genre at the top of the article, why is it listed as a category at the end? Well... it was. I've just taken it out. Not my opinion, just keeping the article consistent. IainP (talk) 21:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC) and dont give me that, i am not a "noob" ive been a Megadeth fan since i was 5 my mum listened to the in their ealy days she always said they were hard rock. 71.17.159.25 (talk) 23:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

There thrash metal and speed metal u idoits (Seth4000 (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)) Seth4000

---

@ Adam9393

That's the problem. As long as there's people trying to add relevant and accurate information to an article, there's always gonna be morons that screw around with the same articles. By the way, no one called you a "noob". Just chill, man.

@ Seth4000

Hey, there's no need to call people names. I agree that they're Thrash Metal, but seriously. Not cool, man. -- Rattlehead (talk) 06:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Album Capitalization

I noticed that several Megadeth-related articles have ellipses in them, such as Peace Sells… But Who's Buying?, Killing Is My Business… And Business Is Good!, Still Alive… And Well?, "Holy Wars… The Punishment Due" and "Never Walk Alone… A Call to Arms". Notably, these articles capitalize the words 'and', 'the', and 'a'. However, according to WP:MUSTARD, these words should not be capitalized, as there does not appear to be a rule that allows the capitalization of these words after ellipses. So, should the articles be changed to Peace Sells… but Who's Buying?, Killing Is My Business… and Business Is Good!, Still Alive… and Well?, "Holy Wars… the Punishment Due" and "Never Walk Alone… a Call to Arms"?

-Xnux the Echidna 01:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I support! Burningclean _[speak] 02:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the changes have been made. Yay for meticulous capitalization! Xnux the Echidna 21:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Reflist

GAH! What happened the the references? Bulbous (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Fixed- there was a "/" missingJeffStickney (talk) 21:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

popular culture- Cape Fear mention

In the movie Cape Fear when Danielle's wall is shown, she has a "Rust in Peace" album poster on her wall. I previously added this and it was deleted as unsourced. I re-added it, and cited the movie itself as the source. Sources do not have to be internet based, as books are acceptable. Since the only fact I am verifying is that the poster was shown, the movie should suffice as the source to that fact. There is no ambiguity as it was shown clearly enough to read. The poster can first be seen at 1:14:04 and is most visible at 1:14:42 JeffStickney (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Major fucking vandalism

Some little fucker changed all the band member names to swing singers so it needs a revert but i have no clue how to do that.71.17.159.25 (talk) 02:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Click the "edit this page" tab up at the top of the article, and change it in there. I thought that this was relatively simple knowledge. Guess that's what I get for thinking. --Rattlehead (talk) 10:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Albums

Somebody is editing the Megadeth albums (Notably Peace Sells and Countdown to Extincion), and saying that they were made by "Heavy metal band" Megadeth. Megadeth are definitely Thrash metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.218.17 (talk) 16:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Question. Who is it hurting? No one. Why don't we just all not edit the genres, and say that we didn't. --Rattlehead (talk) 10:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that too.--Kamikaze14 (talk) 00:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hard Rock?

Why is Hard Rock listed as a genre? Risk was an experimental album --; —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.236.184.42 (talk) 23:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I keep asking that. And when people come here saying that, I wonder where that discussion was to put hard rock up there, as well as pretty much every album. There was one, apparently. Can't seem to find it, unsurprisingly enough. -MetalKommandant (talk) 18:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I tried to fix it back, but wikilibs and somebody else keep changing it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.236.189.168 (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The hard rock on the main page came before someone "fixed" all post-90 albums to say hard rock, which, if you know Megadeth's style and read the articles here, that's a contradicting fact. Mainstream heavy metal can exist without being hard rock. There is a big difference between all post-RIP albums compared to Risk. I've tried to explain this several times.

Still, I was told there was a discussion (and this had to have been within the past month) to make a consensus to add hard rock as a genre. When the hell was this; I can't find that. -MetalKommandant (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how you can possibly call The system has failed, and United Abominations Hard Rock... rofl. Risk and cryptic writings could be considered hard rock, but it was 2 out of how many Megadeth albums? Anyways, I put Speed Metal before Hard Rock for accuracy.AlanZhan (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see a new discussion on this, since of the "Hard Rock arguments I have seen, one is based on iTunes (LOL), and another is based on 1 album. AlanZhan (talk) 23:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Countdown to Extinction, Cryptic Writings, The World Needs a Hero, The System Has Failed, and United Abominations should just be "heavy metal, thrash metal". Note between Cryptic and Risk that, for one, Friedman is pretty much playing his own version of Load and ReLoad out of Hammett's book. And Dave's growl is mostly nonexistent after about "Crush 'Em." That mainstream heavy metal is a big part of Cryptic Writings, but that's not hard rock. Youthanasia has that same concept. Heavy metal can be mainstream without being hard rock.

Heavy metal is a subgenre of hard rock. The description of the album is devolving when you put "heavy metal, hard rock." Mainstream metal and hard rock aren't synonymous. -MetalKommandant (talk) 02:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

There is an overwhelming recent edit history from editors in Wales and England and the United States and New Zealand that support the inclusion based on the the post Countdown to Extinction releases that have been primarily traditional hard rock and heavy metal. These albums have very little thrash metal on them and so the ancestoral genre origin takes precedence on the bands description. They are more hard rock than thrash metal and have been that way for almost 20 years. 165.228.66.170 (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the band is just as much hard rock as they are anything else. They(Mustaine) haven't been a thrash band for a quite a while although their last 2 albums were close to the Rust in Peace style. But with a more traditional hard rock sound. 24.67.64.107 (talk) 22:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The fact that there is an overwhelming recent edit history from editors does not have any pull in saying what their genre is. The fact of the matter is, they should speak their mind on this talk page before making blind edits regarding disputed facts without taking other editors into account. Additionally, their nationality has nothing to do with their credibility regarding Megadeth's genre. The general consensus on the article's OWN TALK PAGE has overwhelming support, if anything, to leave it off. Explain to me how there is not a consensus to leave "hard rock" out of their genre listing. Just read the two sections regarding this issue. --Almosthonest06 (talk) 04:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

No, Risk is traditional hard rock. You're confusing hard rock with heavy metal, and there's no evidence. Heavy metal is more specific than hard rock. Countdown to Extinction was more mainstream, but heavy metal can still be heavy metal (that album still has thrash metal, not seeing your hard rock) without being just rock. Growling and thrash metal solos are not hard rock.

Youthanasia was, like Countdown, a traditional heavy metal album. And the same goes for Cryptic Writings, which has the same slow-melody as Youthanasia and thrash elements on The Disintegrators and She-Wolf. And The World Needs a Hero follows that same formula.

The System Has Failed and United Abominations have been repeatedly referred to, even on Megadeth's site and reviews, as returns to the old pre-'91 style, though some basic heavy metal elements remain. You cannot honestly tell me that there is no difference between Risk (album) and United Abominations? Your "consensus" has gone, I think, a bit too far. People I have talked to have also wondered where this imaginary consensus came from to completely alter the Megadeth genres. What I have just said has come from the actual articles. By these edits, the actual Megadeth articles have been contradicted. Please read them and you'll see what I mean. Risk (album), as Wikipedia can tell you itself, was the only commercial album that can be labeled as hard rock, and one concept album cannot label the whole band, AS WELL as Dave Mustaine's actual page. -MetalKommandant (talk) 02:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

They have been a hard rock/heavy metal band from Extinction up to today. Their albums have heavy metal songs. But they also contain songs that aren't heavy metal they are just hard rock styled. Especially their singles. 203.97.49.128 (talk) 10:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, on Risk (album), that's true.-MetalKommandant (talk) 16:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Risk and maybe Cryptic were the only "hard rock" albums. You don't see the kind of lyrics in Youthanasia or Countdown in hard rock. Hell, Youthanasia and Countdown are faster than just about all the Hard Rock albums. You don't see the solos in System and United Abominations in Hard Rock. I don't see how a band can have a major genre on maybe 2 out of their albums. Metallica, I can see where the hard rock came from, but Megadeth? come on. Mainstream != hard rock.AlanZhan (talk) 22:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That's probably the funniest part; the post-Risk albums are supposedly the same style as Risk, apparently. The World Needs a Hero still has some melodic elements of Youthanasia and Cryptic Writings, but Risk (album) is really in its own boat; songs like Breadline and Crush 'Em are severely different even from the more traditionally heavy metal songs like Sin, Promises, Elysian Fields, and Something That I'm Not. But, where on The System Has Failed and United Abominations do we even a suggestion of hard rock? Name one song on these albums, please, that can be labeled as hard rock. I'm eager to see that especially on United Abominations, since every song has a thrash solo, pretty much. -MetalKommandant (talk) 02:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Somebody put Hard rock on again... People need to actually read the discussion :/ AlanZhan (talk) 21:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a consensus among more editors to keep the field accurate. The band's output since Countdown to Extinction has been hard rock and heavy metal with very little thrash metal and no speed metal. Persistent pov reverts by only 3 editors against 17 others results in this. 202.174.177.40 (talk) 01:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Where is the 17? From previous discussions, there was only a guy who claimed itunes was a source, and another one that said "I think...". Not reliable.AlanZhan (talk) 03:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is everybody adding Hard Rock to all the Megadeth albums from the 90s and onwards?? I dont get it, seems like its only been done because the 80s thrash era was considered over after 1990. Ok they only really tended to have that sound in Risk most prominently, some of Cryptic Writings aswell maybe. dont know about World Needs a Hero though because ive never gave it a listen. They arent really a hard rock band besides elements those two albums.86.164.41.167 (talk) 00:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

That IP up there, by the way, is MetalKommandant socking. Anyway, I don't know why you're all discussing what specific albums sound like because it's a moot topic. None of you can choose the genre. Back it up with sources, please. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 15:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

When Megadeth was promoted to a FA, it had no Hard Rock genre on it. http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll has no mention of "Hard Rock", and even add Progressive Metal as a 'style'. I can't find a source that claims Hard Rock. AlanZhan (talk) 00:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm choosing what's already there. The IPs are the ones throwing up hard rock with no source or real reasoning other than their imaginary secret agreement they had on it. on Wiki's consensus page, it says that at this state a compromise must be reached since the edits were changed. The moderators have been acting like 'hard rock' has been on the pages since the albums came out. No, they've only been recent, challenged additions. Like AlanZhan said, you won't find a source that says Megadeth or any non-Risk (or maybe Cryptic Writings, I'll give you that small margin as a compromise) because like I said, you're confusing hard rock with traditional heavy metal. When I see more mainstream heavy metal albums from artists such as Black Sabbath, Iron Maiden, and Judas Priest as "hard rock", then you can label Megadeth's '90s era as hard rock. There has to be some consistency here. I've said repeatedly, Countdown through Cryptic were more regular heavy metal albums but not hard rock... there is a big difference between Youthanasia and Load (album)!!!

It is 100% wrong that anything after Risk (album) would have hard rock blatantly added to it. Unless the genre vandalism has seeped into the articles themselves, The World Needs a Hero (even more so with The System Has Failed have been marked as huge returns to the old thrash metal style. Listen to "Return to Hangar" and "Kick the Chair" if you think that hard rock is the dominant genre here. And if think United Abominations is only hard rock, then I'm surprised the vandals haven't tried to put that on Death Magnetic yet... -MetalKommandant (talk) 13:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hard Rock? I've never heard so much bollox - 'scuse my language. Do people actually realise what Heavy Metal is? So what if a few elements of the risk album have sounds commonly seen in hard rock. Killing is my business had a cover of a country song. shall we add that on the list too?? Megadeth on every album have bordered between thrash metal and speed metal (speed metal being speeded up heavy metal). Thrash metal is a sub-genre of heavy metal (speed metal is speeded up heavy metal - Helloween sound like a speeded up Iron Maiden do they not?). Megadeth are heavy metal as in it is the over-riding genre that the sub-genres contribute to but they have always maintained their element of speed & their characteristics of thrash metal. Its like when I heard some young fan slating Metallica trying to say they weren't even metal. Metallica have always been metal. they just lost their status as a thrash band for a while. Young fans think heavy metal is all about extreme metal such as death metal & black metal as thats all they've known. They do not realise the making and appearance of heavy metal and what the other musics were like at the time. They need to actually listen to early heavy metal groups like Black Sabbath or NWOBHM bands like Diamond Head etc to understand Heavy Metal is not actually that heavy in comparrison the the more modern extreme metal genres of today. They should follow the evolution of metal (such as the appearance of thrash metal and how it was a new thing and it took the metal world by storm) to truly be able to comment. Metal is not about being able to list a hundred or so silly genres. Its about appreciation for the music and actually being able to relate to it and where it came from. Its like new fans saying Venom are the same as these new groups like Mayhem & Immortal that were inspired by Venom. Musically the two are eras and styles apart. One uses death metal style vocals and sounds similar to death metal and the other was part of the NWOBHM and at the time was not taken that seriously. Metalosaurus (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I've got a real quick question (and no one ever seems to check the individual album pages to see). Since we've agreed Megadeth is not hard rock with the exception of Risk, why is still unacceptable to remove the hard rock tags? Those were added with no source and should therefore be removed. I know the moment I remove them the moderators will start in again... Can we please have consistent accuracy now? -MetalKommandant (talk) 04:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I generally hate genre debates, but is there even a single reliable source that calls Megadeth a hard rock band? There seems to be a lot of opinion above but no sourcing... Blackmetalbaz (talk) 02:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Listen to everything their albums from 1993 , they definitely have some Hard Rock songs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.108.192.50 (talk) 09:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is Lyrical Themes seperate from Controversy?

I think it would make more sense if Lyrical Themes was a sub-headline under Controversy since the Lyrical Themes headline talks about how the lyrics in Megadeth songs are often controversial and misunderstood. Along with that where it talks about Dave Mustaine's controversy I think that should be a sub-headline titled "Dave Mustaine". Adam9393 (talk) 06:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

"Tour with Mercyful Fate" in.... 1987?

The "Peace Sells..." section states: In February 1987 Megadeth was added as the opening band on Alice Cooper's Constrictor tour, followed by a brief tour supporting Mercyful Fate in the US.
However, Mercyful Fate did not exist in 1987 - this band broke up in 1985, and did not reunite or tour again until 1992-3.
If anyone knows who the headlining band really was - please fix this error...
77.125.83.83 (talk) 03:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Deliberate Misspelling

does anyone know why they deliberately misspelled their name?

"The name Megadeth is a deliberate misspelling of the word megadeath"

also doesn't this need a source? Coolpizza84 (talk) 07:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it needs a source. I can't remember where I heard why they did it. I believe it made it symmetrical for one thing. Also interesting, Pink Floyd was originally The Meggadeaths. DrSatan (talk) 01:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, you know how Wikipedia is ran... the IPs can add whatever they want... but when we try to revert that back to what it was, it starts an uprising. -MetalKommandant (talk) 12:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

new album in 2009!?

"Dave also mentioned he expects the album to be done by January 2009"

Don't you think that's way to quick to work on a new album? Not that i'm doubting the band or anything (I love megadeth) It just seems too good to be true....because look how long it took UA to come out.

Is there a source on that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.44.204 (talk) 06:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC) |

SOURCE FOR HARD ROCK

http://www.jimmydegrasso.com/bio.html there, their former drummers website, im readding it and im adding my source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.159.25 (talk)

Please sign your comments with four tildes, and no - that's not a reliable critical unbiased source. It's written by the webmaster, and could just aswell have said heavy metal. Not acceptable. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 10:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

And it's also about six years out of date-- "The demise of Megadeth". -MetalKommandant (talk) 07:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It is an opinion; biased, and he can say anything he wants. AlanZhan (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The new album 'Endgame' is a homage to the Alex Jones video of the same name, please see interview with Mustaine here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pl0TW6UYhQ

Bring back protection?

Now when just about every other edit is for the purpose of adding something to the effect of "Dave Mustaine/Megadeth is gay" just about every 12 hours, I think it would be easier to just lock the page? -MetalKommandant (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Wishful thinking, MetalKommandant. I agree; At least semi-protection. I doubt it'll happen anytime soon, though. -- Rattlehead (talk) 08:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

New DVD Live

Megadeth got a new DVD called "Blood in the water" Can someone check that please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.132.194.90 (talk) 03:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

What exactly should we be checking for? -- Rattlehead (talk) 08:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

new album?

is megadeth really coming out with a new album and can som1 find wat date it will come out (Seth4000 (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)) Seth4000

Of course they are, they're freakin' Megadeth! Eh, sorry. Got a bit carried away. According to the band's official Myspace blog, the drum tracks are done. Also, Dave says that the release date (which is TBA) that he was shooting for is unlikely. Call it wishful thinking, but I'd say at least sometime in May. -- Rattlehead (talk) 08:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

New Song

Search in megadeth page in the part of february news, and you will see that the title says February 24, 2009 - SONG NAME REVEALED: "THE HARDEST PART OF LETTING GO". O and yeah they are preparing a new album for summer 2009.--Dethmyname (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hail!

I've found something of interest. Apparently, former Megadeth members David Ellefson and Jimmy DeGrasso are both participating in a collaboration with Tim "Ripper" Owens and Andreas Kisser, called Hail!. If anyone needs a source, here is the link: [3]. I'm not going to add this to the article YET, but does anyone else think that we should? 98.174.219.194 (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed - don't agree

This portion from the controversy section doesn't match what I've heard: "In April 1988, at a concert in Antrim, Northern Ireland, Mustaine "unknowingly" dedicated the final song to the IRA.[89][90] Before the final song, "Anarchy in the UK", Mustaine said, "This one's for The Cause!". A fight amongst the audience ensued, as Protestants took offense and, according to Mustaine, the band had to travel in a "bulletproof bus" for the remainder of the tour of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Mustaine later alleged that he had been misled as to the meaning of the expression "the cause" by T-Shirt bootleggers outside the venue where they were performing. This incident served as inspiration for one of Megadeth's most well-known songs, "Holy Wars... The Punishment Due"."

My concern is with part referenceing the song Holy Wars.... Punishment Due. If I recall correctly in a TV interview with Dave he noted that the song was based on a Marvel comic book The Punisher and a multipart storyline called Holy War. (citation needed ;) ) While the incident In N. Ireland may also be connected to this song the lyrics strongly suggest the comic as the main inspiration. As I don't have the full citation myself I'll leave the entry as is but do think it needs to be reviewed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tracepac (talk • contribs) 01:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

According to my information, it's really two songs in one. That is, the middle section is about Dave's love of the Punisher comic books, while the rest is about "the cause". I could be wrong through, as there is indeed a Punisher issue titled "Holy War". But I guess I should be trying to find a citation rather than giving an excuse. I would agree with removing it until a citation can be found to support such a statement. Quxert (talk) 04:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Still no source for hard rock

And yet it's back. I thought this was resolved? -MetalKommandant (talk) 00:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

You need to produce one that says they aren't. The Real Libs-speak politely 02:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:CITE says "sources should be cited when adding material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." Saying that I need a source to take away information that is questionable in the first place is a total reversal of that. And this was something that was settled months ago because no source was found that Megadeth was hard rock... hence, violation of consensus. Before last fall, this question had never come up on the page. All of a sudden, it's supposed to be accepted de facto with absolutely no professional sourcing attached it in the genre box.

Once again, the terms :hard rock" and "heavy metal" are not interchangeable. -MetalKommandant (talk) 02:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

You need to provide one that says they ARE. When Megadeth was promoted to FA, hard rock was not included as a genre. You are adding material and it is obviously being challenged. --Almosthonest06 (talk) 02:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, I don't see why Hard Rock has been added again. I contacted Scarian about it before, and he put a warning that explicitly said that you must provide a source before editing the article's main genre. I'll contact him again if need be.AlanZhan (talk) 05:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC) ::Why is supposed to be deleted? Hard rock is Megadeth of the 1990s. It is correct the way it is with hard rock listed. Fair Deal (talk) 10:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Striking socks Rockgenre (talk) 04:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Source it. Not about opinion.AlanZhan (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I won't protect because edit warring is easily dealt with per WP:3RRN. But, I will say this: If anyone continues to add unsourced information (Spec. genres) then it will now be treated as vandalism. All parties need sources, by the way. There is no standard unless proven. If you need any assistance please do not hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Thanks and regards, Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 21:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Guess we'll need a poll. There is a lengthy history of numerous editors adding hard rock... and very editors (including an IP sockpuppeteer) removing it. The Real Libs-speak politely 00:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, a poll is worthless since it is opinion. The entire point of this is the avoid opinionated genres, and none of us can say what a band's genre is. (as Scarian said above). AlanZhan (talk) 00:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Consensus would be the next step if no one comes up with a source. For example: Nirvana (band) doesn't have any sources for their genres because of consensus; alternative rock is the umbrella term and grunge is the specific. Although, I've never actually heard Megadeth and I don't know a huge amount about them. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 00:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

There are sources, for Thrash metal, speed metal, and heavy metal. There are no such sources for hard rock. The only Megadeth release that was hard rock was "Risk" (which Allmusic called Alternative Metal: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:gpfpxqykldfe ) AlanZhan (talk) 01:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

...That doesn't surprise me, somehow. Allmusic calls metalcore "alternative metal." -MetalKommandant (talk) 01:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, before such unsourced challenged material was abruptly added last fall, the consensus as well as the condition of the article when it was promoted to FA status was without hard rock. Though all the circumstances that would apply in other situations that would actually follow citation rules (citing to NOT prove something completely reverses the policy of conducting positive research), none of them matter all of a sudden. -MetalKommandant (talk) 00:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm waiting? So you found your source for your outrageous addition? -MetalKommandant (talk) 06:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see a source to prove the addition too, why is it all of a sudden ok to add Hard rock to the genres when there is no source. I thought the rules on adding genres is to gather as much sources as possible to back it up, as far as I'm aware Hard rock has no sources so why keep changing it back when i try to remove it when i have explained there are no sources to back up the genre added. Thats just plain ignorant as that is a valid reason to remove it. 86.136.212.175 (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC) :There is an overwhelming consensus to include it with only one IP user who keeps removing it. The term thrash metal doesn't apply to any of the band's 1990s hard rock and melodic heavy metal output and yet there is no argument over that unreferenced term. And the band has no speed metal in their catalog after the début album and even it has very little speed metal style on it in the first place. The infobox field should just include: heavy metal, hard rock, thrash metal, in that order. Fair Deal (talk) 00:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC) Striking sock Rockgenre (talk) 04:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Overwhelming consensus? Where? According to this discussion, MetalKommandant, AlanZhan, Scarian, and myself agree it should be removed. You are the only one in this discussion who suggests otherwise. When it comes down to it, there is no source for it. Furthermore, when the article was promoted to FA, hard rock was not a genre listed. According to WP:CITE, "Sources should be cited when adding material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." Again, hard rock was not included in the FA version, and is therefore being added. --Almosthonest06 (talk) 01:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

:::It doesn't matter what the article looked like when it went FA. FAs are not set in stone. And note that one of Scarian's last edits to the article here was to re-add hard rock after it had been removed by the 86.X IP sock who has been trying to blank the content for some time. MetalKommandant has already been investigated and blocked from editing because he has used IP sockpuppets originating from the 86.X range so his vote is negated. Admins like Scarian and Wiki libs re-adding it and requesting it be left alone. I support the inclusion of it. In the article edit history the attempts to remove have been reverted by other users incl: Grip the husk, WetherB, Peter Fleet and countless anon editors whose IPs originate from the UK, the US, mainland Europe, South Asia, NZ/Au and so on. That is overwhelming consensus for inclusion. There was a request for citations to support the removal of the genre but so far those citations have not been produced. Consensus can be overturned if these citations can be brought here. Fair Deal (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC) Striking sock Rockgenre (talk) 04:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell there are no sources to prove Megadeth are or are not Hard rock. So since we cant really come to a proper decision based on sources, I am supporting the possible conclusion that Hard rock gets removed from the bands page, but however is still kept up on the Risk album page because clearly thats the one and only case whereby Megadeth experimented their style with Hard rock. This would make sense as the rest of the genres on the bands page are well sourced, even Speed metal which only seems to be present in the first album. 86.136.212.175 (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC) ::I reverted the IP trolling attempts to remove hard rock as it is a good description of Megadeth's albums following Rust in Peace which was the band's last real thrash metal album. I agree with the earlier proposal to order the genre field with thrash metal listed last after heavy metal and hard rock and speed metal removed completely. The article lead in should also follow with the newest consensus to only use general terms like rock in the opening sentence. Motorhead, Korn and Marilyn Manson are all good examples of what a music lead should look like. "Megadeth is an American rock band" is how the article should start out. Peter Fleet (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Striking sock Rockgenre (talk) 04:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Comparing Megadeth to Korn and Marilyn Manson? I'm sorry, but those two are nu-metal, not thrash. Motorhead is only listed as rock because of Lemmy's repeated frustration about being called metal. I agree with 86.136.212.175, though I'll up him and say it should be included on Cryptic Writings also. -AlanZhan 76.254.20.166 (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

::I agree with Scarian, Peter Fleet and Fair Deal that heavy metal and hard rock should be ahead of thrash metal in the list and that speed metal should not be left out. GripTheHusk (talk) 02:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Striking sock Rockgenre (talk) 04:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Scarian had no opinion on the matter, and he did his fair share of hard rock reverts, and even going as far as threatening anybody who changed the hard rock genre without a real source with blocking. Hard rock should not be ahead of thrash metal because Megadeth has not made more than two hard rock albums. Heavy metal should be above thrash metal however. AlanZhan 76.254.20.166 (talk) 03:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Tell someone who cares, Fair Deal. =) Wikipedia isn't a place where people with more push can bully their way to the top of the pyramid. I've been told by non-Wiki Libs mods again and again that sources should be added to verify additions. You're negating the entire definition of positive research-- what you're saying, as I have stated civilly... you ADD sources to prove something. I was not aware that an encyclopedia was invented just to disprove rumors and heresy.

As early as November, Elizabeth Bathory confirmed that unless no sources for hard rock were added, it wasn't going to be added. And that was the end of it. Then Wiki Libs comes back around April and starts firing up the whole debate again out of his own amusement, after a resolution had been reached. I am unable to understand why Megadeth's mainstream discography can't be labeled as just primarily heavy metal. NWOBHM bands, which Megadeth has a major amount of influence from, are just generally labeled as "heavy metal", so why not Megadeth? A handful of radio-friendly songs from Risk and maybe Cryptic Writings do not justify the entire rehaul of Megadeth's genre. -MetalKommandant (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Since there still hasn't been a source added, I'm taking off hard rock. I mean is it that hard to come up with a reliable source? -AlanZhan 99.184.207.234 (talk) 04:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Wiki Libs once again reverted my deletion of hard rock. I would like to request you to stick to the rules. Wikipedia:CITE, 2.1, should be considered in reversions. The point is that to claim something you must obtain valid confirmation. It´s not the other way around. Majestic122 (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

See WP:CON. The Real Libs-speak politely 14:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Observation: The very first source used in this article this one begins "MEGADETH one of hard rock¹s most revered acts" - it is being used for sales figures and comes after Megadeath being a heavy metal band, however the cite does not, in fact, mention heavy metal.--Alf ^melmac 15:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Italic textThat said, consensus is not simple agreement; a handful of editors agreeing on something does not constitute a consensus, except in the thinnest sense. Consensus is a broader process where specific points of article content are considered in terms of the article as a whole, and in terms of the article's place in the encyclopedia, in the hope that editors will negotiate a reasonable balance between competing views, as well as with the practical necessities of writing an encyclopedia and legal and ethical restrictions.Italic text

Thanks for giving me more proof that I'm right, Libs. -MetalKommandant (talk) 22:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure other users can pay attention to the history of an edited page. For such an iron-clad consensus that has absolutely no other opinions whatsoever, there seems to occasionally be users changing the genre. Mind you, that's how this all started last September with one-time IPs adding hard rock with no evidence. To not recognize that a consensus has still not been reached to contradictory to the definition of a true consensus. -MetalKommandant (talk) 02:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Megadeth Memeber

if there are any member of megadeth that need to have an article i can create one and make it good. i noticed there are alot of former megadeth members and lots dont have they're own article. im in wikiproject metal and wikiproject rock. reply to this to tell me which one/ones i should do. CallMeAndrew (talk) 14:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

i made Greg Handevidt article about a month ago. CallMeAndrew (talk) 00:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Slayer?

Didn't Megadeth Do an Act with slayer? It Says they went on tour like 14 years ago. And in Slayers profile it says Associated Acts:megadeth, Testament —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.8.72.112 (talk) 01:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Associated acts means they shared a member. In this case, Kerry King, who joined Megadeth for a while. I believe Megadeth are touring with Slayer in Canada too though. -AlanZhan 173.58.88.184 (talk) 01:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I know 15 years ago they were touring together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.8.72.112 (talk) 04:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)