Talk:White Pony

KNIFE PRTY

The song is called 'Knife Prty'. It says so on their official website. --James599 23:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

He's right. Check the scans from different issues of the album: (1), (2), (3). Some European issues apparently had it misprinted (i.e. spelled correctly) on the back cover, but spelled it as intended on the ad stickers. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 01:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Online sources

When Googling, I used deftones "white pony" -ebay -lyrics -torrent -mp3 -wikipedia -amazon -myspace -youtube -mp3s to filter the cruft.

Here's some half-decent stuff:

• Rolling Stone review
• All Music Guide review
• Metacritic page
• PopMatters review

Fucking hell. Every link at Metacritic is broken, except the Rolling Stone one. Every fucking link! Damn internet. This is suddenly a lot less feasible. Seegoon (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Also look at the interviews transcribed on DEFTONESWORLD, but remember that you have to reference them as if you have the article in front of you, don't link to deftonesworld as it could be considered copyright violation for them to be hosting the transcriptions. It's best to double-check the names of the sources to make sure the article has been sourced correctly (eg. one source said "drummer magazine" for an interview that was also transcribed on another fansite as being from Modern Drummer, which I confirmed was the correct publication.) For reference format, have a look at what I've done on Deftones so far. - Phorque (talk) 11:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Dubious content in introduction

"[...] This is the proper version of the album, and "Back to School" was only added as a marketing strategy; Chino Moreno has stated that he wasn't happy about it.[2]"

The reference provided for this statement is no longer accessible, however, the most recent Way Back Machine copy does not imply that Chino Moreno was unhappy about the re-release of the album with the "Back to School" track. Perhaps this sentence requires rewording? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.209.241.193 (talk) 13:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Genres

There's no source for this being an experimental rock album. Allmusic's review states that this isn't a nu metal album. (Sugar Bear (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC))

• Actually, scratch that. I apologize. What Allmusic actually says is that "There aren't any lackluster similarities to Limp Bizkit and Korn". My apologies! (Sugar Bear (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)) i would like to put "post-hardcore" as a genre because if you know post-hardcore like i do then you'll probably agree it has the sounds and characteristics of post-hardcore

Tips for describe songs

here some tips to keep the line at the moment of describe songs:

1-Don't make reference to other bands to describe a song unless there were a direct colaboration among artists.
2-Keep an objetive point of view, don't dissmiss songs that you don't like & don't magnifi your favorites (this one is hard to do).
3-Cite your sources as much as possible.
4-Use the least words possible
5-Don't use profesional technisism unless necesary situations (Not everyone out here is musician).
6-The songs should be on it's correct order & category (b-sides with b-sides, album songs with album songs and so on bonus tracks). -Carnotaurus044

Track Overview - Deletion?

OK, so maybe I didn't discuss this in the talk page before doing it. But seriously, the entire track overview section is horrendous. Poor grammar and writing style aside, it's not even necessary for an album overview. I am yet to see a Wikipedia article (on an album, as well) aside from this one which actually has such an in-depth analysis of the tracks. I'm a Deftones fan myself; however, I feel as though this is entirely inappropriate for an encylopaedia. Am I the only one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[Special:Contributions/124.185.219.62|124.185.219.62[[ (talk) 11:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, acord to the quality scale featured in "Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Assessment" the description of album's songs is necesary for an articlecle in C-Class or superior (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Assessment).

• (creating a more proffesional layout for the track overview section).

The whole section should be deleted; it violates several touchstone Wikipedia policies (WP:RS, WP:OR) and is pretty poorly written. Seegoon (talk) 13:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, wikipedia features plus than 200,000 articles with unsourced statements who violates wikipedia policies, see this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:All_articles_with_unsourced_statements , is too hard found an article 100.00% verifiable out there, specially when the article is about an album wich is more than 10 years old 'cos the info is obtained from sources such magazines and interviews from t.v. shows from early 2000's and aren't on the web, so is nearly impossible take'em back ('cos that the importance of old opinion forums on the web), also with a bit of experience you can tell wich coments are truth and wich don't (look at the meaning of the "Pink Maggit" song for example, even thought you consider these sources unreliables, it's too obvious that it's true).User:Carnotaurus044
  • Just because there are other articles out there with unsourced statements, that doesn't make it okay to add another to that list. In an ideal world, that number would be 0, not 200,001. Also, what you're contributing is not just unsourced, it's completely unverifiable due to its subjective nature. Seegoon (talk) 14:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
• Maybe, but that'll convert wikipedia on a very incomplete site, which will decrease their quality and status. you can bet that easily more of the 90% of the origina research are trustfull facts, but these can't be verified since not all the info who goes around the world is posted on internet (specially old topics), and that if it weren't posted here it'll be lost forever. "The goal justifies the methods" you know. Carnotaurus044

the coment below has been sectioned to make easier their response

"Alternately, descriptions of the songs and the album in general may be included." Note well the phrase IN GENERAL. That's the only thing I can find. And although a description of songs may be necessary, that does not mean an in-depth, somewhat (to be kind) subjective description of every song ON AN ALBUM PAGE.

• So, above you complain about the descriptions being poorly (Aka. small, incomplete, superficial or any other situable synonymous), and here you complain about the descriptions being too in-depht, nothing can make you happy?, also the descriptions couldn't be subjetive since there are various deftones fans editing the page.
  • This is not a Deftones fan forum. It's an encyclopedia. The ideal White Pony article would be written by someone who has no personal tastes about the music whatsoever. Seegoon (talk) 14:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
• that's what we are doing here, also the article must be written by someone who cares and have heard the music. Carnotaurus044

Please, take those descriptions to individual song pages.

• There isn't enough information to give a single article to every song (each article lenght will be like two small paragraphs max), really, if every song had their own page these pages will be deleted, instead of that a general description was given to the songs (just like the wikipedia quality standards sugest).

And if anything, use more musically precise terms rather than very vague terms such as "soaring, epic chorus" (How objective is that phrase?)

• That topic was discused before: not everyone is musically trained out there, and since wikipedia is the info source for excellence, it means that everyone looks for it's info, so, musical technisisms must be simplified the most possible for their easy understanding.

*(epic chorus phrase fixed)

"Constant light drums" (What do you mean by light? Minimal drumming? Soft drumming?)

• It means soft druming, and if you puts attention to the sentence it says "It starts with constant light drums..." so the minimal subject is dicarded, but thanks for the observation, that has to be specified in the "Rx queen" section.

And "heavy and fast paced" (What is heavy? Lamb of God? Dubstep? What is fast-paced? DragonForce? Hardstyle?).

• Heavy means, well, heavy (see Heavy metal music) and the fast-peced term inside the musical context means that song's tempo is rater fast (see Tempo), why better don't just listen to the song, that'll give you a clear idea of the terms used in the Korea song's section. Carnotaurus044

Okay Carnotaurus, let's be clearer here. You're advocating (and in fact encouraging) editors to engage in original research, which goes completely against the principles of Wikipedia. Listening to a song and writing about how it makes you feel, regardless of whether you deem it "obvious", constitutes primary research on your part. Please don't take this personally, but it appears to me that what you're trying to do is not what Wikipedia is for. Perhaps Wikia would be a better venue for this kind of interpretive writing. Seegoon (talk) 14:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• Now most of the references were aded, most of the meanings aren't original research anymore. Im NOT encouraging the original research, i want encourage editors to make this site the most complete and ultimate source of information out there. Honestly, for everyone here, you're the one who looks more subjetive.
  • Ad hominem attacks aside, I admire the work you've done to improve the section. The main issue, unfortunately, is that songfacts.com is not a reliable source, as its content is contributed by users and not staff or professional editors. If you can find the original sources of the quotes from Moreno (i.e. the magazines/articles from which they've been pulled), that would be a highly preferable option. Seegoon (talk) 10:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• I'd dissagree with you in this point, songfacts is a reliable source since the meanings that we use are the ones who were primarly submited by the site's staff, even above of the quotes says on marked letters "songfacts:" (wich means that they've submited the meaning), we aren't using the opinions from the inferior section (which says on marked letters "coments:").Carnotaurus044

"why better don't just listen to the song, that'll give you a clear idea of the terms used in the Korea song's section" This statement renders your entire argument useless Carnotaurus.

• I don't think so, that statement was used on a sarcastic way to make stop complaining one person that "aperently" don't knows what heavy & what fast-paced means in the music world, but ironically is comenting on a Deftones article.
  

What's the point of the track overview when everyone could just go and listen to the song(s)?

• The "track overview" section has various goals (goals aren't sorted in any particular order at all):
  

1- To improve article's quality whitin the quality scale (acord to it, a C-class or superior article about a music album must contain descriptions for the songs in it) what you're doing here is trying to decrease article's quality, wich isn't cool acord to the quality scale and wikipedia site.
2- To seed curiosity among people who haven't heard the album.
3- To interchange and preserve knowledge about the band Deftones.

This is an encyclopedia that tells FACTS, not your descriptions of songs.

• You're pretty much wrong, those aren't my descriptions, and all the info there are facts since i'm using referenced info (info from back 2001) and the 94% of the info are trusthfull quotes by members of the Deftones band.
  

A description of a song is far too subjective (as Seegon proved above) to be used in an encyclopedia. Even if you could find a quote by Chino Moreno or any of the deftones describing a song then that would still be their description and thus subjective.

• How can you say that quotes from Chino Moreno are unvalid here? i mean, he made the songs, he knows what about them, and actually, all the articles about music are filled of quotes by the musicians, wich makes'em subjetive, and what about the music reviews? that's what i call subjetive, and all these stuff will be removed because of someone complaining about being subjetive? Honestly i don't think. Please on future issues use the same logic on all the topics. honestly your last agument (the one saying that Deftones point of view don't counts) seemed really biased.
  
• Reply by Carnotaurus044

None of your descriptions of the songs feature any referencing at all. The meanings do but thats not what I'm getting at. Even if you used your comment about going to listen to Korea instead of looking at the track overview sarcastically it still renders your argument useless. You literally cannot describe a song to somebody who has never heard the song. Whilst Mr Moreno may be able to provide insight into the meaning of the songs he cannot give a description of the track without it being subjective. I'm sure that Chino and Stephen could very easily give totally different descriptions of the same track because they are giving personal opinions, there is no set criteria for what makes a song "heavy" or "sleepy". My younger brother considers Nickelback to be heavy, I do not, You may consider them heavy, do you see what I'm saying here? Also please let go of this belief that just because I'm trying to remove the unverified research you added that I am not a Deftones fan. I am a Deftones fan but i put the quality of a website used by millions of people every day before my love of Deftones.

• there are lots of songs' descriptions in this wiki without any reference at all, look at any article about any song released as a single, or severeal C or superior articles features'em, however, i'm musing a lot about reference the songs' descriptions with external links to sites that allows to hear the songs but not download'em.

As Seegon previously stated, just because there are articles that are somewhat against wiki standards that doesn't mean you should add to that list. I'm fairly certain its not withing wiki policy to link to songs so people can hear them or at least it isn't done on a large scale.

• I don't think about all these articles to be out of the wiki standards, there two big trues: Nothing can be absolutely sourced, and these topics (call'em song descriptions or well, the descrition of the plot in a movie page, or any good faith complementative prose on wiki at all) aren't suposed to be chalenged for references at all. Still i don't know if link to a music page could be right or wrong, i'll search more of the topic. Carnotaurus044 23/05/2011

Aside from being intensely frustrated with this issue still not being resolved, I also want to point out, yet again, that it is impossible for you to write objective descriptions of songs. You said that for "Korea" that it is "heavy and fast-paced" (I may have slightly paraphrased it). I listened to it, and in my opinion, it's nowhere near "heavy and fast-paced". You want "heavy and fast-paced"? Check out some of Protest the Hero's work, particularly the song "Sequoia Throne". I don't know how many times this needs to be brought up, but THE ENTIRE SECTION NEEDS TO GO. 123.211.190.87 (talk) 03:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Both are heavy and fast-paced, i thing that the main diferencess are which song you listen more loud, and that both songs falls onto diferent genres, and that the protest the hero song is faster, however this is a good article and have to still this way, this is more like you subjetivelly are disgusted with something in particular in the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carnotaurus044 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not "subjetivelly [...] disgusted" with something in particular with the section. I am "subjetivelly [...] disgusted" with the entire section. I'm a massive Deftones fan myself, and it pains me to see such a terribly written and absolutely superfluous section because not only does it bring down the quality of an otherwise brilliant page, its inclusion and subsequent poor standard also reflects on the general Deftones fanbase. 121.223.68.4 (talk) 04:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• What you says is senseless. Acord to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Assessment to add more quality to "x" article, a description to the songs must be added. The section isn't superflous, and it's weel writen, perhaps the overview give to each song it's small, but if that's what upsets you that can be fixed anyway. The issue here is that if we make each song's overview too long, like here: [1], i can bet that newies and fans won't read it, thus making it useless and effectively decreasing article's quality. A dynamic overview section is a wisest choice. However, you effectively burned yourself stating that you are clearly "subjectively disgusted" with the section (see: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). Nice day. Carnotaurus044 (talk) 03:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This has really become a saga. I'd like a resolution here, if only because time spent warring over this non-issue could be much better used in constructive contribution to the article. As such, I suggest we take this issue to WP:RFC. I should point out, before we do so, that they will indisputably come down on the side of deleting the section and that it would basically be a waste of many peoples' time. But it would be a rational and objective answer and pretty binding. Does anyone have any thoughts? Seegoon (talk) 11:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Why don't you give a look to this album [2], it's format is very similar to our white pony album, and actually, that album section isn't organized well, the comentaries for some songs are to long, and not all of them describes the music, it even isn't diveded well like in our article where we divided the music from the meaning and tried to keep both subsections with similar lenght. And again: acord to the quality scale featured in "Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Assessment" the description of album's songs is necesary for an articlecle in C-Class or superior (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Assessment). Carnotaurus044 (talk) 03:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Carnotaurus, I've found pretty much everything you've argued about in this section to be completely wrong and almost completely based on opinion and personal interpretation. Anyways, if anyone is going to give overviews on the songs, it probably should be someone with a better grasp of how to write grammatically-correct sentences and spell correctly. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 20:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• I've found that you have nothing to do here and that you're absolutely wrong in all your statements, if i were wrong there wouldn't be others albums following the same layout, also, again i have to remark that i'm proceding acord to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Assessment, finally the section is well written, (although there could be more prose in it.), thus you're wrong. Attention: nobody here should give any attention to the coments of the user Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) why? because he is here just trolling and clogging any improvement related with my edits, and he is just angry because i owned him on every article related with the band Muse here are the proffs:
  

• [3]
  
• [4]
  
• [5] (see from July 6 onwards)
  
• [6] (see from June 29 onwards)
  

there are more articles but with this is enough to make my point clear. Carnotaurus044 (talk) 04:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

No one cares about your previous disagreements with me about Muse, or whether you "owned" me or not. It's completely irrelevant. Any discussion here would be better spent demonstrating how to mention individual songs in an album article without providing unverifiable, original research. If you want a prime example of how to do this, I would recommend looking at Achtung Baby. Or alternately, you can describe how the songs came to be like The Dark Side of the Moon does. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 12:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Both, your alternatives and the mines are aceptable, i don't see wich is the discusion. Carnotaurus044 (talk) 04:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there some way we can get a higher authority to come down on this and give us all a final solution?

To be honest, the whole section looks so bad right now and wastes unnecessary space, i'm removing all the unsourced statements, (most related to the "music" section) and modifying it akin to the Achtung Baby album, but keeping the "track by track" layout, that is what i think was done right. Nicrorus (talk) 01:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

About the genres in the infobox...

This section have been created due the continuos genre warring in pages related with the band Deftones i found that one editor is heavilly determined with introducing the genre "Nu metal" in numerous articles, i've reverted it's edits because and restored the genres to the ones that due convention Deftones is always labeled because:

• No verifiable/reliable source has been given
  
• The band themselves disagrees with being labeled as such
  
• Nu metal and Rap metal aren't the same genre.

I'm inviting the I.P. user to discuss his/her point of view and to provide reaal verifiable refernces,otherwise i'll revert all of his/her edits Massivesquid (talk) 19:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Nu Metal

--72.251.108.163 (talk) 03:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC) Yeah this is a classic Nu Metal album. Back To School (Mini Maggit) for you diluted hardcore Deftones fans is a Nu Metal song. Please change it. --72.251.108.163 (talk) 03:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Although there's no source here, and I don't think this alone will change anything, I think he's right. Rap metal is similar to Nu metal by the fact that it uses hip-hop elements, but also in the fact that it seems to match the Deftones' style based on what other music similar to theirs IS considered nu metal. DannyMusicEditor (talk) 19:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal of adding nu metal into the infobox for genre

I have a review of the album that suggests White Pony is nu metal, even if that one song mentioned in the last section is not for some odd reason.

It also goes on to say straightforwardly that the band is even nu metal. While iTunes tags right below the artwork and price on the album are not necessarily correct/true/agreed upon/reliable (ex. the Hair Metal classification) their reviews are reliable, right? If not, give me a simple explanation of a reliable source. DannyMusicEditor (talk) 19:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, now I google Nu metal bands, and the Deftones are the fifth result. We really shouldn't deny this. If White Pony was their most successful album, and this is what they're known for, we need to add this. There has been no counterstatement in over a month. 65.185.86.64 (talk) 13:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC) aka DannyMusicEditor

--72.251.108.204 (talk) 03:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC) Please add it. --72.251.108.204 (talk) 03:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Scott Weiland

It appears that Scott Weiland assisted with the vocal lines on the song Rx Queen and sang part of the chorus - possibly as a guidance vocal as Moreno noted here. It is hard to hear, but apparently it is there as is discussed here. As the source is a) a forum and b) refers back to the article as a source - it can not be used as a reference; no credit on the album. Karst (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I added a fact tag to that, as the only source I could find (that wasn't a forum or other definitely unreliable source) was here: http://www.deftonesworld.com/txt/deftones0500.txt. Chino says "I...worked with Scott Weiland (stone temple pilots) on the vocals for the bridge. he came up with a really cool harmony for me to sing". He doesn't come right out and say "Scott sang on this song", just that Scott helped him write it. Honestly, I think that credit should be removed from the article (assuming no reliable source can be found supporting it), and instead a mention made in the "Musical and lyrical composition" section. Something like "Scott Weiland helped Moreno work on the vocals for the bridge of 'RX Queen'."[reference] 98.158.92.230 (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

....post-grunge?

The allmusic review for it seemingly describes it as post-grunge in the beginning. It does seem to be the only one saying this, but it seems a reasonable description. Would it be okay to add it? DannyMusicEditor (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on White Pony. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070306114139/http://www.thedeftones.com:80/whitepony.shtml to http://www.thedeftones.com/whitepony.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071209103831/http://www.grammy.com:80/GRAMMY_Awards/Winners/Results.aspx?title=&winner=deftones&year=0&genreID=0&hp=1 to http://www.grammy.com/GRAMMY_Awards/Winners/Results.aspx?title=&winner=deftones&year=0&genreID=0&hp=1

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

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Genres

I think dream pop and post-hardcore should be added as they both flow very well with the album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PugsNotDrugsHD333 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Dream pop inspiration is mentioned in the lead already. A sound flowing well with another sound is a very different thing than being in a distinct genre. If this album is part of one of those genres, there should be reliable sources written by experts in the field specifically saying so. If you find one, please feel free to add it.  Adrian^[232] 05:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on White Pony. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151019075638/http://www.zobbel.de/cluk/CLUK_D.HTM to http://www.zobbel.de/cluk/CLUK_D.HTM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110704041118/http://www.bpi.co.uk/certifiedawards/search.aspx to http://www.bpi.co.uk/certifiedawards/search.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080723120736/http://www.reveillemag.com/columns/warp-weft/warp-weft-deftones-white-pony to http://www.reveillemag.com/columns/warp-weft/warp-weft-deftones-white-pony

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 22:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on White Pony. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nme.com/reviews/reviews/20000613115417.html
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6GgwEepck?url=http://www.musiccanada.com/GPSearchResult.aspx?st=&ica=False&sa=deftones&sl=&smt=0&sat=-1&ssb=Cert.%20Date to http://www.musiccanada.com/GPSearchResult.aspx?st=&ica=False&sa=deftones&sl=&smt=0&sat=-1&ssb=Cert.%20Date

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 16:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Alternative metal or Nu metal.

Alternative metal and Nu metal aren't the same thing. White Pony isn't a Nu metal album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:18:46:1475:9C5A:79B1:E5C2:938 (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

We are aware there is a difference. The album is both, you are wrong, and there are sources in the body asserting such a label. It is acknowledged that it is much less so than their previous two releases. dannymusiceditor ^oops 01:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)