Talk:Static-X

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evil Disco[edit]

Just to clarify. Static-X has referred to themselves as "Evil Disco" not "Death Disco". I will change if no one contests this. StereoDevil (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am assuming the guy who made it say they are a "Rock" band is the same jerk that made korn a "Rock" band. Lets use a little more classification shall we. Beatles is rock, static-x is NOT. --71.80.54.93 (talk) 06:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... yeah they are rock. They barely pass for metal, so what the fuck do you think, smartass?

They're Industrial Metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.196.140 (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Evil Disco , there was no forcasting direction of music creation , i appriciate the correction and noteing evil disco , and please , wayne and terra where very highly respected as close friends here , show some respects please , thank you .founder of Rocksmetalhour — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.169.194.13 (talk) 11:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, you're responding to comments that are 5 to 8 years old... Sergecross73 msg me 12:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia[edit]

This page is getting out of hand again. We need to remove trivia items from Cameos / Appearances. Posters on the wall are are not appearances. I will remove if no objections. StereoDevil (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Images[edit]

I think the images are of so poor quality that only the main image should be used. There is no actual reason for using the rest anyways.

1. They detract from the article making it look bad. 2. It's only 3 band members and they are placed in different album eras. So what is the point of using them? If anything there should be something related to each album there if anything.

So my point is that I think they should be removed for now and leave the main one till we find a fair use image that has ALL the current members. StereoDevil

I disagree. They may be blurry, but they're free use. It's definately better than nothing. If you have some pictures of them that you have taken yourself, they can be used here. The Prince 19:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On this article it is not about the pics. They are not needed. They do not pertain to the sections. The sections are about the albums not band members and there are thousands of pages that have just the main pic so it is not always better to have something than nothing. This does not need them unless they relate to the section.

Just leave the main pic until there is a better one but the others detract from the overall article. StereoDevil

I still disagree. An article always looks better with images. The Prince 09:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To state that an article always looks better with images shows that you are not looking at anything objectively. Good pics that are related to the content make sense. Bad pics or pics that don't relate to the article do not make sense. I don't want to sound mean but I think the issue is not the pics. The issue is about ego. You don't want to be objective. I am soon going to have good fair use images to replace all the main images and if their are no images that relate to the article I will remove them. If this is a problem I am sure we can get some assistance in settling this from more senior members on Wikipedia. For me it is about trying to make this page BETTER. I have no ideas your motives. Stereodevil 23:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One last thing. Even in the Manual of style it suggests that "Images should ideally be spread evenly within the article, and relevant to the sections they are located in." and also "You should always be watchful not to overwhelm an article with images by adding more just because you can." So adding images does not always make a page better. StereoDevil 17:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
StereoDevil, please see WP:AGF. Accusing The Prince of not seeing the truth because of his ego is in complete violation of this policy. Anyway, if the images could be dispersed better, they wouldn't be helping it, but they wouldn't be hurting it either. WP:Consensus should decide whether they are used or not. These pictures really aren't that bad; I have seen some terrible free use pics, let me tell you. Also, they cannot be replaced with fair use pics, as if a free alternative exists the rights of fair use are violated and nullified. Peace, The Hybrid T/C 22:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am uploading better pics. Free Alternatives have been uploaded. This situation is one of two people. There is no concensus with two people. I already had removed them so if he wants to revert them that is fine. Then we can involve more experienced editors to get some concensus.
Alright, if you have better free use pics, then feel free to add them to the article. That would be a good compromise, probably satisfying everyone, and nullifying the need for a conversation. Peace, The Hybrid T/C 04:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These individual images look horrible, they reflect poorly on the entire article. macacid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.245.205 (talk) 05:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are way better than most free use pics. That isn't saying much, but it is saying something. The Hybrid T/C 05:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok done. I also split a section and it worked out fine so that I could get each band member on the page. I do prefer to have band shots for each era and as they become available we can look at that. Now I will start finding references for this article. 76.185.156.220 05:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those are indeed superior pictures, good job. Cheers, The Hybrid T/C 05:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biography[edit]

Not a very good article.

So fix it :) -- sannse (talk) 17:10, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If Wayne Static and Ken Jay originally formed the band, who formed the band after them? --Carolaman 20:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean formed after them? A band can only form once.
That's the point I'm making. They formed the band and they originally formed the band means the same thing basically. Thiiiiiiink about it. -- sannse (talk) 17:10, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Soundtrack songs?[edit]

  • Exactly why doesn't the article list the Static-X songs that appeared on soundtracks, but it lists just the movie/video game? Please list the songs that appeared on them, as most soundtracks don't seem to have articles. --G VOLTT 16:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Static-X arent really Industrial Metal; or at least not solely Industrial Metal. *edit* my bad

I also know the 'The Only' was on the Need For Speed game mentioned


No mention at all of Starsiege. Static X did all the music for that PC Game around '97. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.44.177 (talk) 02:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genre[edit]

A few people here seem to enjoy changing Static-X's genre to "nu metal." Furthermore, I was accused (I'm assuming he's accusing me) by User:Leyasu of "revert wars." This is incorrect, as the first genres of the article all involved metal, in particular industrial metal (see [[1]]).

If you will look at the page history, clearly the non-registered user who has an IP address always seeming to begin with "87.122." (i.e. [[2]], [[3]], [[4]]). Looking at the history, it is clear he's using the page as a personal vendetta against what he does not consider, in his personal opinion, to be industrial metal -- simply read the reason for his first edit: "in the US every shit is industrial metal..."

Before his contributions, Static-X was classified as an Industrial Metal band. Why change it now? Is there any reason, other than the strong personal opinions of some users, who consider their taste in music, metal particularly, to be the very definition of all genres? Enfestid 03:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was aiming to kill the revert war and trying to clean up the page. If i made a mistake, so sue me. Ley Shade 04:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, sorry but Static-X is not metal at all. The article is confusing industrial rock for industrial metal. Their riffs are clearly not metal. No this is not an opinion. I get a strong feeling that this Enfestid individual lacks the ability to differentiate between rock and metal. If the majority of "metal" bands you listen to include Slipknot, System of a Down, Marilyn Manson, Mudvayne, then no you are not a metal fan, but a rock fan. Hell, even www.metal-archives.com doesn't recognize them as metal and for the most part they are pretty loose with the term metal (even Yngwie Malmsteen, Motley Crue, and the Scorpions can be found on their page). The metal genre stretches very far, but not as far as to include bands like Static-X. I'm so sick and tired of 1-month newbies acting like they know something about metal (yet can't tell the difference between rock and metal).
For actual metal riffs (from various genres of course) check out:
A long list for someone completely unware of what metal really is. Pasajero 09:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, yet another "metalhead" who thinks their opinion of what is and isn't metal is the very definition of musical genres. I hate to refute your claim, but I can clearly differentiate between "rock" and "metal." I think the difference here is you don't know what industrial metal is -- perhaps you should read the page on it before you jump to such drastic claims.
As for your list, I've heard them all -- and, yes, you are correct, they are all metal. Yet what does this have to do with Static-X's being industrial metal? Answer: it doesn't. Perhaps this "Pasajero fellow" should educate himself in industrial metal. The fact that you're referring to Metal Archives directly points to the metalhead sterotype who has a very close-minded perception of what is and isn't rock, metal, industrial rock and industrial metal. I can list websites that classify Static-X as pretty much any genre, but does that make them right? No. A short response for someone completely pig-headed in their views of musical genres.
Enfestid 19:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Industrial metal music is usually centered around metal guitar riffs and industrial synthesizer/sequencer lines, as well as heavily-distorted vocals." The problem here is that Static-X does not use metal riffs (the defining element in ANY metal genre) and therefore cannot possibly be metal. In order to be industrial metal a band must first be metal. The article only supports my original claim. Pasajero 15:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, in that case then, describe what makes a metal riff a metal riff. Because, last time I checked, Static-X has numerous songs that have what would be classified as a "metal riff." Static-X has what the metal article describes as "loud, distorted guitars (usually playing repeated riffs) and simple, pounding rhythms." How can you dispute that they do not? The distorted guitar is one of the key elements of Static-X. The metal article only supports my original claim. Enfestid 21:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That definition is way too vague. How many rock bands (that aren't considered metal) use loud distorted riffs while played repeatedly and simple? Many! And by that definition they would be metal. The end result is the complete annihilation of the dividing line between rock and metal. To precisely describe a metal riff in words is complicated. It has to be heard. That is why I provided a list of songs with different metal riffs. I compare a Static-X riff with the riffs of the many metal genres and the conclusion is that it is not metal. It just doesn't have that last element that makes a metal riff (audio). To further argue my point it is undeniable that every metal genre came from somewhere (namely a previous metal genre) and it derives their riffs from the previous genre. I have yet to see from what metal genre Static-X derives their riffs from. However, I can think of a non-metal genre that they get their riffs from and that genre is hard rock. Pasajero 17:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC
Heh, so only use the entries when they work to your advantage, right? It said metal guitar riffs, and I gave you what they quoted metal guitar riffs as being -- yet now that doesn't suit you? Either way, Static-X fits the industrial metal tag as defined by Wikipedia, thus that is what they are labeled as. Enfestid 21:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it just be easier to call them Industrial Nu-Metal... since no matter how you look at it they are basically a Nu-Metal band with programming (and in my view just having a bit of programming doens't qualify you as Industrial anything but I'm probably in the minority here) that way it just stops the arguement. Better examples of Industrial Metal bands can be found in Godflesh (unquestionably fathers of the style) and more recently in Red Harvest... and to be honest Static-X sound like neither of these beyond having triggered drums and some programming.

First of all no one's ever going to come to an aggreement on this. Ya know why. If you go to the Godflesh wikipedia site, people are aguring over whether they're industrial metal or "grind-core" (whatever that is). So to try to figure out what static-x is by comparing them to Godflesh is pointless. Besides Static-x is evil disco.

I think everyone is forgetting the one fact that is most important about Static X: They suck ass, regardless of their genre. Did anyone see them open for Megadeath? They played 2 notes the entire night. I've never seen so many fans get pissed off at a band they love. I know that Megadeath is lightyears ahead of Static X, but they straight up got blown out of the water.20:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The discussion page is not about your opinion on whether they suck ass or not. It is to discuss the wikipedia entry. So anything you said is pretty worthless because you don't care about them anyways. So go somewhere else. StereoDevil —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.156.220 (talk) 19:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the only way to solve this dilemna is to take their repertoire by an album-by-album basis. In my opinion both Wisconsin Death Trip and Machine are Industrial Metal as they include features similar to an industrial (that of sirens and heavy machinery - hence the name Industrial) This is seen in the guitar setup, unique time setting and drum rhythm. However, with the release of Shadow Zone these features appear with less frequency, appearing to take a more characteristic Heavy Metal stance (with the near-disappearance of synthesised beats). Whatever your views about whether it should be labelled exclusively Industrial Metal or not, you cannot deny that there is an Industrial influence. 82.18.228.81 20:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but Shadow Zone was a very weird album for static-x. You forgot to mention Start a War which returns to their original industrial influenced music.

I'm With Stupid/Otsego[edit]

These two sections really seem to take away from the page. Is there not another place in which they could be put instead of the Static-X page? Maybe on the pages for the albums each is on (in the case of Otsego, all of them?). It just doesn't seem like an encyclopedia article. Enfestid 23:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a page for I'm With Stupid a while ago, but I have no idea what to do with the whole Otsego thing. I agree though, it doesn't seem like an encyclopedia article very much. - James 13:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related Artists and Influences[edit]

  • Does this part of the article make much sense to have? It's just a list of bands that have nothing to do with Static-X, except for some of the major influences. It also seems a little bit more of a definition of a music genre. - James 19:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not note-worthy? I see no reason to remove it. Numerous other articles include similar references.

Enfestid 23:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


the information contained in the related artists section is useful and interesting, maybe the lay-up itself could be changed, I don't know but I wish more band pages had a description of the music they play beyond just naming the genre (which is disputed by most) and leaving it at that. It could be expanded though.

Ken Jay[edit]

Hey, I edited the biography quite a while ago, and I just remembered one thing I had been very confused about. The biography said Ken Jay left the band due to "political differences", however the former members section says he left due to "musical differences", so in the biography I put "due to musical and political differences", just to be sure. I'm pretty sure either one is wrong, but I can't seem to find out which one is. Does anyone know what actually made him leave the band, or should we cut out the reason he left from the article? - James 17:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Influences[edit]

Static-X Influences (from an interview of 1999): Joy Division, The Sisters Of Mercy, Coal Chamber, The Prodigy, The Chrystal Method...

These bands are rockbands or big beat artists. They're not industrial artists. So, where is the influence of industrial music? Static-X is definitely not an industrial metal band.


I have to disagree with you fully. Firstly, a band can be influenced by another band, yet still appear in a separate musical genre. E.g. Many bands list The Beatles as influences yet they do not follow the same formula of 60s rock and roll. Secondly, two of the influences in your supposed source are described in Wikipedia as Industrial in nature: Coal Chamber are included as "Industrial Metal" in the Genre tab, and The Prodigy are seen as combining many elements incuding "industrial". 82.18.228.81 19:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Prodigy had never used industrial elements. That's dullcrap. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.122.26.22 (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Actually Waynes cites his influence to Disco music, on the Shadow Zone DVD he refers to "Static-X" as "Evil Disco" Jay316 23:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Static-X is only industrial metal (Seth4000 (talk) 14:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)) Seth4000[reply]

Static X is Nu Metal and Industrial![edit]

Alright, the only reason that Static X is "Nu metal" is because they came out around the same time Nu Metal was at the peak of it's popularity. I've heard every Static X album, and I can say without a doubt, that they are in fact an Industrial Metal band, which is what I am going to change it to. If you have a problem, complain to someone else on another page. 129.252.215.115 20:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any problem with the change. I agree with you. StereoDevil (talk) 23:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


ok, someone changed it back to nu-metal, but they have a source. that source says they came out of the nu-metal era. so that doesnt mean there that, jsut means they came out then. they are industrial, and if noone minds, someone should change it. they are totally not numetal. -some guy, on march 20th.

Static-X and Devil Driver?![edit]

Where is the proof for this? There are no offical, public announcements on either bands pages and it's not on the Ozzeft website?Arson5000

Fair use rationale for Image:Shadow zone.jpg[edit]

Image:Shadow zone.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Machine.jpg[edit]

Image:Machine.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Static-x44.jpg[edit]

Image:Static-x44.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Band Members[edit]

On the former members listed, three of them are just session members. I propose taking them off the list of former members listed in the article(former members would mean that they were in the band instead of just sitting in). -- Mogthetormentor 19:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I know a guy that used to be in Static X just before Wisconsin Death Trip, but his name isn't anywhere to be seen. My buddy has valid claims with decent evidence and doesn't want money, just some acknowledgment. I'm trying to put together a Wikipedia page for him, but it was deleted once and I don't want it to happen again. I've reviewed the notability and citation credibility stuff, but I'm a little lost.

I'm just trying to start the discussion and get a little guidance. Thatwillbeall (talk) 02:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Static has recently confirmed that Tony Campos has quit the band http://podcast.morningshowcentral.com/?p=194# Raidon04 (talk) 02:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am hoping this goes in the right place, this is news to me about Wayne Static, I really felt a connection with that band, saw them a couple of times in concert, they were really an influential band while I was in the beginning of my college years. What I remember is they went through 2 drummers and 2 guitarists, it seemed that the bassist and frontman Wayne Static were the only ones that stayed in the for whatever reason. Thanks for letting me know. 

LostinGod (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opperation Annihalation Tour[edit]

Does anyone know if these guys are the main act or are Shadows Fall, I see them on Oct, 10 2007. Skeeker [Talk] 03:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Annihilation tour was static-x's, so therefor they were the main act. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.245.205 (talk) 05:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nu metal[edit]

Darn. I think Static-X is not nu metal. It has some nu metal features, but it's not nu metal. --84.249.61.239 (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If you look at the music structurally it doesn't really fall into that category. Even lyrically. The problem is that people will keep changing it and fighting so if people want to have both that's fine. If anyone removes industrial though then I will revert it. StereoDevil (talk) 03:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree too, the sound may have a few Nu metal qualities, but not enough to actually be Nu metal. The overall sound really isn't Nu metal, and I'll revert any edits that say it's Nu metal.Felix-schade (talk) 07:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If people were to look at wiki's own entry for nu-metal they would see that vocally Static-X is not nu-metal and are much more like Ministry and Prong which are not nu-metal. In fact there are tons of songs by Static-X that are obviously taken from the Ministry / Prong sound. I did speak with one guy on wiki and he said that the press labeled them nu-metal and that was good enough. These are opinions. It is not a fact that Static-X is nu-metal. No amount of what the press says makes anything true. I think the concensus in the community is that they are very heavily influenced by industrial music. Although they are not going to fall into tradition industrial music, they exhibit these elements much more than they do any elements of nu-metal. Detuning guitars does not make you automatically nu-metal. StereoDevil (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All nu metal references were unreliable. 84.249.61.239 (talk) 16:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Static-X isn't nu metal because a couple of people decided they aren't. Wikipedia is based on sourced content, not on opinions. Look at the sources, they are reliable. Popmatters, rolling stones, artistdirect are all recommended reliable review sites (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Review sites) and rockdetector is widely used on wikkipedia... Static-X might not have nu metal vocals but that isn't a prerequisite for being nu metal (just listen to Disturbed, System of a Down, Slipknot, and many other nu metal bands). Kameejl (Talk) 12:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, Static-X does NOT have a Nu metal sound, they have a few Nu metal qualities, but not nearly enough to be considered Nu metal. I will undo any changes saying that they are Nu metal.Felix-schade (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I don't care about your opinion if it's to push your POV on wikipedia. Sources are clear, Static X is similar to e.g. Coal Chamber, Disturbed, System of a Down, Slipknot, and other nu metal without clear hip hop influences. Many sources (professional reviewers) contradict you. Stop the POV. Kameejl (Talk) 00:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to Disturbed, System of A Down and Coal Chamber? Are you kidding me? They sound nothing like them. Static-X has an industrial metal sound, that's it, NOT Nu metal.Mogthetormentor (talk) 04:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Static X is one of those bands that suffer from the nu metal stigma. They were at their hight around the nu metal days, in wish anything new and confusing was casually tacked with the nu metal genre. Although people may have branded them as such, Static X are not nu metal. To anyone who listens to their albums for 5 minutes, this becomes clear. Genres are always a point of contention I find, a point I prefer to avoid, and nu metal, like emo, is one of those that gets thrown about a little too much, it seems every alt. band that was around the late 90s will have some idiot referring to them as nu metal. Anyhoo.. rambling here. Rehevkor (talk) 13:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC) xx[reply]

Well, if you check out the Nu-metal page, you'll see a list of styles that are connected to Nu-metal. I'd start there for a guideline and use the resources you have to figure out the true genre. In music style, they have 50% similarity. But the lyrics are not nu-metal nature and there is no hip-hop influence. But they tend to have drum and rhythm styles that point towards nu-metal along with down tuning. I'd be glad to incorporate Nu-metal on the list. But as others have said, it shouldn't be the only one. I'd let Industrial Metal pass on this one. This group is strange enough and hard to pin point what they are. It bothers me to only have Industrial Metal though. Heavy Metal, Nu-Metal, and Industrial Metal should probably be all there. Xe7al (talk) 07:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xe7al sums it up well. People have this mistaken idea that unless a band raps and sounds just like Linkin Park, it can't be nu metal. This is incorrect. Nu metal, like all musical genres, has many identifying characteristics. Hip hop style and rapped vocals are just two of them. Static-X bears other qualities of the genre: down-tuned guitars, with emphasis on them as rhythmic instruments; a heavy sound, but without complex riffs or many solos; a strong rhythmic drum beat; aggressive vocals with clear hardcore influence; usual verse-chorus song structure.

Their style by no means fits the nu metal genre alone, and hence it makes perfect sense to include industrial metal. To simply term them "a nu metal band" would be incorrect. However, it's a definite element of their music, and thus worth including in the genre section. People should also note that including a genre there is not saying "This band -is- X genre". It's saying there's part of it in their music. The opening line is what states their overall classification. Prophaniti (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again I'll say that they have a few features of Nu metal, but no where near enough to actually be considered nu metal. and if we're going by the way of "they have a few elements of it, so we should apply the nu metal tag to them" then half of all bands in the world would be classified as Nu metal. They're industrial metal alone. Mogthetormentor (talk) 20:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion though. See wikipedia's policy on original research. You may make a convincing case, but it counts for nothing because as far as wikipedia is concerned editor opinion is not reliable. Prophaniti (talk) 20:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then still, Nu metal gets applied to too many bands because some editors see some elements of it in their music. And the whole source thing? I'm sure you could find several "reputable" sources that would call Static-X thrash metal, would that make them right? No. All genres of metal share some similarities with eachother, however having a few similarities to a certain genre does not make a band part of that genre.Mogthetormentor (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I can only refer you to read wikipedia policy. Verifiability, not truth is the basis of wikipedia. In essence, logical argument (as I have found out over the years) has no place on wikipedia. It doesn't matter if the sources are "right" or "wrong", wikipedia reports what they say regardless. Prophaniti (talk) 20:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So are you then saying that you would willingly add incorrect information to wikipedia just because a source says it's right? I somehow doubt that, and if wikipedia reported what every source said as absolute truth, well then according to wikipedia the holocaust would have never happened. Wikipedia has to look at all sources and report what they say, that doesn't mean they have to report it as the truth.Mogthetormentor (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I -really- stress that reading over wikipedia policy would help you. I personally wouldn't add information I didn't agree with, no, but I wouldn't try to remove it if it was appropriately sourced either.
Wikipedia does acknowledge the holocaust denial arguments. You'll find plenty of mention of them on here. You'll also find plenty of mention of the common criticisms of them because they too are found in published, reliable sources. But it does not put them forward as truth, not because of logic, but because they represent a minority view. See WP:undue weight. Prophaniti (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So then you've just disproved yourself, we can't present every source as true. We can only show that some sources believe Static-X to be nu metal, but that doesn't necessarily make them Nu metal. It's the music that makes them Industrial metal and not nu metal.Mogthetormentor (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* No, I haven't disproven myself. Let me spell it out clearly:
  • Wikipedia states that we represent the sources. Not what editors say, but sources.
  • Sources here say Static-x are nu metal
  • The only circumstances in which this would not be reported is if you provided enough reliable sources that didn't cite them as nu metal. Note that for this to work you'd need a lot more than we have already, in order to make "Static-X are nu metal" qualify as a minority view.
  • Without that, which you haven't yet provided, they stay as nu metal, because we have a good number of sources stating that. I'm seeing 7 sources for nu metal, so really you'd be looking at about 15+ reliable sources that counter that. Good luck. Prophaniti (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I personally promise to revert any edits stating that Static-X is nu metal. Listen to their music, then go listen to any other band that everyone agrees is Nu metal. Then note how they sound almost nothing alike and besides coming out in the same era and having detuned guitars they have nothing in common. Sources can be wrong and not all sources should be taken as absolute truth.Dark lizard (talk) 21:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that's -your- viewpoint. You are not a published, reliable source. Yes, sources can be wrong, but they aren't just because you say so. So once this particular bit of discussion has run it's course I will re-add nu metal, and any reverts will simply result in dispute resolution. Which will get you no where. Prophaniti (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to humor you, I'll get you your sources saying they're industrial metal. Until then I'll also revert any edits saying that they're Nu metal. (oh by the way, you're not a reliable source yourself are you?)Mogthetormentor (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not, which is why I'm not listed as one of the sources. Given how highly unlikely it is that you will produce that many genuinely reliable sources, I shall revert for now. If you two want to dispute it, go for it, I'll simply request outside opinions, and I promise you they'll say exactly what I'm saying now. Prophaniti (talk) 21:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh trust me, I'll find that many sources that say Static-X is industrial metal. Until then, listen to the music.Mogthetormentor (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment on nu metal genre[edit]

A couple of editors disputing the various sources given for nu metal as one of the band's genres. See above discussion.

Why don't you just request semi protection? Landon1980 (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could do, but it seems a bit excessive for two editors in what's basically an open-and-shut case. Prophaniti (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah well so is the RFC, we all know what the outcome will be. I bet if you give it time others will come along and revert them. Landon1980 (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe so. But previous requests for protection I've found are usually just met with "Not enough reverting" and don't go anywhere, so I'm reluctant. If you want to request it though, by all means. Prophaniti (talk) 22:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd appreciate it if no one count me out before I've got all 15 or so sources, and I'm on my way to that goal.Mogthetormentor (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind that that figure I gave you was just my own rough estimate. Right now, we have sources for nu metal. If and when you find sufficient weight of counter-evidence, -then- the page can be changed to reflect it. But we don't edit pages to reflect sources that might be found at some point in the future. Prophaniti (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are wasting your time, finding sources for industrial metal will only mean that genre belongs, not that nu metal should go. What you need is 15 or so reliable sources that definitively states this band is not nu metal, they can be both. Landon1980 (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we're going by that logic, then find me 15 sources that say Static-X isn't death metal, or how about gothic metal. I could very well be wrong here but, please show me where it says that we have to provide proof of something not being something. Does that mean we need the very same thing for every band article on here? Do we need sources stating that metallica isn't Nu metal? So go ahead, please correct me. Until then i'll be finding 15 sources stating that Static-X is Industrial metal.Mogthetormentor (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) No, we don't have 15 sources saying Static-X aren't death metal or gothic metal. And we don't have 15 sources saying Metallica aren't nu metal. But you know what else we don't have? 7 sources saying Static-X are death metal or gothic metal, and 7 sources saying Metallica are nu metal. The whole point is we have plenty of sources saying Static-X are nu metal. Prophaniti (talk) 22:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying that if I find 7 or so sources stating that they are alternative metal or any other genre, that we'll have to include it as well? I'll gladly do it.Mogthetormentor (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we would, far as I know, provided they were genuinely reliable sources. Prophaniti (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, how do we determine weather it's a reliable source or not (meaning if their view is right or wrong essentially)? Just wondering for clarification.Mogthetormentor (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't even have to be 7, if you can find 2 or three reliable sources for a genre then by all means it should be added. Keep in mind they must comply with WP:RS. Landon1980 (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend taking a look at the guidelines on reliable sources. Essentially, they need to be reliable, third party, published sources. I advise caution, because with music genres a lot of users end up trying to cite non-reliable sources. Examples I've seen used which are not reliable would be Last.fm, Pandora, myspace, amazon, rhapsody, mp3.com, etc. Prophaniti (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would Ozzfest.com and maxim.com count as reliable sources? Just wondering, for clarification.Mogthetormentor (talk) 23:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If maxim.com is the home site of maxim the men's magazine, I would guess not, since it's not (to my knowledge) a magazine focused on music. Ozzfest I couldn't say myself. If there're any you're uncertain about, ask over at the reliable sources noticeboard. Prophaniti (talk) 23:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what is going on here. Industrial metal is in the infobox and in the lead sentence. Is he/she trying to get rid of nu metal or what? Landon1980 (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mog is trying to get nu metal removed. I mentioned the undue weight rule, which feasibly could be used to remove a genre from a band infobox if sufficient sources were found so as to make those using the term "nu metal" appear a minority view. However, given how many sources we have for nu metal, the number of such sources required would be very big. Prophaniti (talk) 23:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What are your thoughts on industrial metal being in the lead? I personally don't agree with it being in the lead. The lead is supposed to comply with WP:NPOV and that could be done by putting simply metal or heavy metal. As far as nu metal goes, even if mog finds 300 sources it is unlikely nu metal would be removed. Have you told mog how wikipedia works on verifiability and not truth? Landon1980 (talk) 00:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've linked to them, and certainly it'd take a heck of a lot of sources to make a convincing argument. I very much doubt there are that many reliable sources talking about Static-X, so I can't see it happening.
I'm not fussed about the lead myself. Certainly more vague is always preferable. Really, the lead should only give something specific where there's no difference from source to source. It's fine listing Cannibal Corpse as death metal in the lead, because I doubt you'd find any sources not terming them death metal. Prophaniti (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So once again, if I find 2 viable sources saying that Static-X is thrash metal, does that mean we'll have to put thrash metal down as one of their genres?Mogthetormentor (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not viable, reliable. However, most reliable sources are viable I suppose. To answer your question, yes, if you find two sources which meet the standards of WP:RS that label this band as thrash metal you can add it to the infobox. Landon1980 (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's two sources, feel free to check them yourself, and please let me know if they're viable. http://www.maxim.com/entertainment/reviews.aspx?p_id=9951
http://www.ozzfest.com/profile/staticx
Mogthetormentor (talk) 01:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any comment on the sites viability would be pure speculation on my part, as for whether they are reliable or not I'd say yes for maxim, not sure about ozzfest. Prohaniti linked you to where you can ask whether sources are reliable or not above. You can start a thread there to find out for sure. Landon1980 (talk) 01:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So then, since I have my two sources stating that Static-X is thrash metal. I'll just add it then, since they are reliable sources.Mogthetormentor (talk) 01:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who told you they were reliable? I'm not sure whether they are reliable or not, I told you that. I don't know if Maxim can be considered an expert in the music field or not. I do know that neither of the sources are commonly used on here to source genres, I look at a lot of music related articles on here and I've never seen either of them used. It wouldn't hurt to wait and see what they have to say at the reliable source noticeboard. Landon1980 (talk) 04:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to ask one thing, if we're going to say Static-X is nu metal, then why don't we have any of their albums or singles listed as nu metal? Are we contradicting ourselves? Because if they were in fact nu metal then wouldn't that mean that at least some of their material would have to be listend as nu metal? Or do we have to have sources for every single album for any band in the world stating what genre it is? Please clarify this matter.Dark lizard (talk) 07:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mog: you've asked about them, but no one has yet told you they are reliable, and I personally doubt they would be. So I've removed it for now, but do re-add it if you are told firmly by a number of editors that they are reliable sources.
Dark Lizard: The reason the album pages don't list nu metal is because, like this band page, they get reverted all the time, and I think it's simply that most editors get tired of having to revert 6+ pages the same way all the time. Maybe once this particular one gets settled they can be set right. We do have some sources for it though: album reviews are usually the best way to differentiate with albums specifically. Example: we have metal-observer as a source for nu metal, and it terms both Shadow Zone and Start A War as nu metal. Prophaniti (talk) 09:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I've got a compromise, how about we keep them as industrial metal, and under their style section, we note that many often mistakenly label them as nu metal, but note that their music is more industrial metal than anything else, yet still noting a slight and very few elements of nu metal in some of their music.Mogthetormentor (talk) 01:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You just don't get it do you? It doesn't matter if they are "mistakenly labeled" nu metal, we have several reliable sources calling this band nu metal, therefore it stays in the infobox. There is really no need in discussing this, this is how wikipedia works. Wikipedia is based on verifiability not truth. You are not an expert, and your opinion is 100% irrelevant. We listen to the sources, they call this band nu metal and there is really nothing else to talk about. Before you can put anything in the article suggesting they are mistakenly labeled as nu metal you will need several extremely reliable sources that say just that, and even then only a disputed tag would be added. Landon1980 (talk) 02:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you do not self-revert your last edit I'm going to have to report you and you will likely be blocked from editing. Landon1980 (talk) 02:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have an even better idea, why don't we just put genre disputed or something, or put a redirect down to the style section. Plenty of other band pages have that so why can't we do the same here. They have a few elements of nu metal by wikipedia's own definition(but not enough to be considered nu metal) and an overwhelming amount of Industrial metal elemnts. why not just put genre disputed?Dark lizard (talk) 02:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be because there is no dispute. The dispute must lie within reliable sources, not among wikipedia editors. Both of you need to take a look at WP:V WP:RS and most of all WP:OR. A couple of fanboys disputing a genre means absolutely nothing, there is nothing to discuss here. Landon1980 (talk) 02:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1) don't you dare call me a fanboy. 2) I'll get sources if that's what this issue needs.Mogthetormentor (talk) 02:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look, there are 7 sources for nu metal, the genre is not going anywhere. If you are not happy with the way wikipedia works I don't know what to tell you, other than recommend you use another site where you can write whatever you want about this band. Seven reliable sources call this band nu metal, and frankly that is all that matters. Yours, mine, or anyone's personal opinion means absolutely nothing. If you continue to revert this and continue disrupting the talk page you will end up blocked and the article semi protected. Landon1980 (talk) 02:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain to me how I'm disrupting the talk page when I'm simply seeking clarification and discussion on an issue? Also I'll kindly ask you to stop talking down to me.Mogthetormentor (talk) 02:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are disrupting the talk page because this is a dead end discussion, and you have had this explained to you over and over and over. Intentionally removing a genre with 7 sources is disruptive, and you have been linked to one policy right after another explaining this to you yet you refuse to let it drop. I am not talking down to you, I have been extremely patient with you. I have tried my hardest to make this clear to you, but I don't know how else to explain it. I hate to do so, but the next step here is to report you to an administrator. I requested this page be semi-protected yesterday to stop the IP from reverting nu metal, and the other new editor. The admin suggested instead of protection to issue the three of you warnings and then escalate to blocks if you do not stop. Landon1980 (talk) 03:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Landon sums things up just fine. I'm sorry guys, but you must understand how wikipedia works. I thought and acted like you did once too. And it go me nowhere. Here it's all about sources. Prophaniti (talk) 09:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(OD)Nice to see that we can agree on something for once. Mog has said he will not make any further reverts until he gets his resources together. I have tried my damnedest to explain how it works, but he still seems to think he can provide some sources (saying what I don't know) to justify the removal of nu metal. It would take a lot of very reliable sources definitively coming out and saying "they are not nu metal" to justify removing the genre. Even then the right thing to do would be add a disputed tag, not remove it altogether. I saw where mog is now attempting to canvass other users to come here and side with him. Landon1980 (talk) 22:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the opposition to nu metal-- however, Start a War especially has this portrayal. Shadow Zone and yes, even Wisconsin Death Trip have nu metal influences. And we have professional sources-- that makes it tangible, not far'fetched. Trust me, I've been on the losing side in so many genre wars, but this time, there are actual sources and not statements such as "My mom listens to Megadeth and says that they're hard rock, so it must be true." Unfortunately, your mom is not a valid source, I'm sorry to say. =( -MetalKommandant (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

megadeth is thrash metal & speed metal there not fucking hard rock (Seth4000 (talk) 14:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)) Seth4000[reply]

Merely an example... =) -MetalKommandant (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting that you could reasonably cite Sam Dunn's http://www.metalhistory.com/metal01.html Metal a Headbanger's Journey as an Industrial Metal tag source. I'm not advocating that this qualifies them as not being a part of the New Wave of American Heavy Metal, but it does add another example of the Industrial Metal genre. Kelryn (talk) 22:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WTF[edit]

y is static-x nu metal (Seth4000 (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)) Seth4000[reply]

Because the sources say they are. This has already been discussed quite a bit above. Prophaniti (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To me they dont sound nu metal they sound industral metal (Seth4000 (talk) 14:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)) Seth4000[reply]

Which is fair enough. That's your opinion though, wikipedia reports professional opinion, not editor opinion. Prophaniti (talk) 15:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Seth4000, and welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We do not edit based on our own personal opinions, if we did the encyclopedia would be one gigantic mess. Have a look at WP:Verifiability, WP:RS, and see our no original research policy. Those policies will help you to further your understanding of how things work around here. Have a good day. Landon1980 (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with nu metal is that just about every heavy band that started between 1998-2005 can be sourced as nu metal. 7 sources sounds copmelling you know as well as those who are arguing against it that many bands were put under the label wrongly. 3 inches of Blood is a one such example. Genres are often added and removed by concensis combined with sources but by the sound of this group thats not gonna happen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.195.171 (talk) 11:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, that's complete bullshit. Municipal Waste was formed in 2001 and NOBODY even dares to call them "nu metal". Bands are nu metal when a bunch of losers who wear too-much eyeliner and tripp pants decide they are the shit and need to cut themselves and get angery at their parents because their music is beyond critsism. They don't understand what "metal" really is other than it's supposed to be the evilest genre on the planet, thusly fueling their need to label every trit alternative rock band who have dreadlocks and paints their nails "heavy metal", because hey, that sure sounds a whole lot better than "psudo-gothic-pantera-ripoff-rock".
And that, my friends, is "Nü Metal in a nut-shell"
Please remember Wikipedia is not a forum, however. You also may want to look at the Emo page. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, they do sound like industrial metal LostinGod (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comic Book[edit]

Why is there no information about Static-X's Comic book? It was produced by CHAOS! comics in 2002 as a tie-in to the Machine album. It was supposed to be an ongoing series but CHAOS! went bankrupt a few months after the publication. The comic was released as standard art cover, photo cover and autographed collectors editions. 1 2. Second link has a synopsis, sut is a retailer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.198.205 (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nick oshiro background[edit]

where was he born? couldnt find any on that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.35.42.15 (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Push It" video Mac OS 9 CD[edit]

After searching extensively I cannot find a single reference to verify this claim. I ask that a 3rd party verifiable source be provided. And "Their popularity was pushed (sic)" is a POV claim with also requires a source, without it the inclusion of this information would be trivial anyway. Rehevkor ✉ 20:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With continued searching, I have found mentions of it which suggest it to be a fact. But that doesn't address the POV issue, the trivial issue, or even the notability of the fact. Rehevkor ✉ 20:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to "search" – for the absolute source is (!) the mass-produced and completely cited Mac OS 9 CD here. It's a mass medium like a book or LP album or magazine or cine film etc.pp., verifiable by ten thousands of owners and users. Third party sources are not trustworthy and therefore cannot verify anything. Why don't you primarily erase sentences marked with "citation needed" (they are not verifiable at all)? While my citation is precise, complete, direct, definitive and verifiable by ten thousands of OS9 CD owners, you destructively keep at deleting this citation. See Wikipedia:Vandalism. |Memex (talk) 15:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Woah there, vandalism? I'm trying to engage you in a constructive discussion and you play the vandalism card? Back off. I have asked you to provide a 3rd party or even 2nd source to establish and address the notability, POV and trivia issues, can you do this? Rehevkor ✉ 16:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Demo[edit]

I picked-up something by Static-X today, and I couldv'e sworn it was a single, but it identifies as a demo by them when inserted into Media Player or the Xbox 360. Can anyone identify what this is? — It includes the tracks "Push It", "Bled for Days" and "Down". • GunMetal Angel 23:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not familiar with any release like that. Are the tracks actually demos? Rehevkor ✉ 00:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not being rude, but how would I know if they are or aren't? • GunMetal Angel 04:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are in a better position to tell than anyone else. Demos are usually of lower production quality compared to album releases. Could it be this: [5]? Rehevkor ✉ 12:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know exactly what you mean, and I assumed that's what you meant on first though. The tracks are well in production the whole thing was released through Warner Bros.. It is not what you linked, however. • GunMetal Angel 23:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the 2001-2005 section?[edit]

Why is there no section for 2001-2005 anymore? There's five whole years, Tripp's arrest and departure from the band, and two whole albums (Machine and Shadow Zone) missing from the article. Why is that? - SeraphisCain (talk) 13:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems they were broken by this edit a couple of weeks ago. Now fixed. Rehevkor ✉ 14:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Damnation[edit]

Chelsea Grin have an album titled My Damnation, wherein a Static-X song also has this title. Should a hatnote be placed on the top of this article, saying "For the Static-X song, see Start a War"? Or would that be totally unnecessary since the song is not even a single and just a little album track that the band probably never even played live? I was just wondering • GunMetal Angel 02:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source[edit]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Static-X. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, 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) 01:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Static-X&oldid=1208700408"