Talk:Cradle of Filth

Who is the Wikipedia newbie who wrote Cradle of Filths article and sub-articles? They musta been really lazy and copied and pasted album reviews from a third party web site. Either that or are just an over-opinionated twat that never read the NPOV. All the album pages need to be deleted and the main article needs to be rewritten. Arm

Wikipedia:Don't bite the newbies. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 19:42, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

Opening Statment

I have rewriten the opening paragrph to confirm to a more npov view, I can only hope that it will please everyone. It would seem to me that this is a page which is frequently vandlised, as every time I have visted it, it seems to have a completly different article. Avador 15:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Sodomizing The Virgin Vamps is an Unauthorized Album. Should it be listed?

It is li ve, however it has tracks on it that other studio albums do not.

http://rateyourmusic.com/view_album_details/album_id_is_98883

http://www.cradleoffilthuk.co.uk/music.html

Maybe their DVDs should be listed? The BBC Documentry? What about Live Bait For the Dead?

New album

The new album is out now. they will also have a song on the Res Evil II sound track.

Genre Discussions

CRADLE OF FILTH ARE NOT AND WERE NEVER A BLACK METAL BAND. Do they sound even remotely like Black Metal to you? No? Didn't think so. "Vampyric Metal" (what the hell?) does not exist. Anorexia Nervosa is Melodic (keyboard dominated, nonetheless) Black Metal. Cradle of Filth is not. Also, Symphonic Gothic Metal doesn't equal "Vampyric Metal". Just call them Heavy Metal. Or better yet, don't categorize them at all.

There's at least one section in there where it states their validity as a Black Metal band is disputed, and Dani Filth's subsequent response. But any metal website or magazine or any other source you find will inaugurate them as some sort of black metal, where it's melodic black or symphonic black or 'vampyric' black etc. Also, 'vampyric' metal exists if it is created by someone, so if fans of Cradle of Filth have so dubbed them that, I guess it does exist. How else would any other form of metal started out if it hadn't've stuck itself out and carved out a new name? Sounds more just like a good-old fashioned "Cradle-rant" to me than a topic for discussion. -Shipton 03:39, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"There's at least one section in there where it states their validity as a Black Metal band is disputed "

And yet the opening states that they ARE a Black Metal band, regardless of opinion.

"But any metal website or magazine or any other source you find will inaugurate them as some sort of black metal, where it's melodic black or symphonic black or 'vampyric' black etc."

Sure, if your idea of a metal magazine is expensive toilet paper that hails AC/DC as the originators of the genre. And if it's websites we're talking about, try the following:

http://www.metal-archives.com/band.php?id=24

"Also, 'vampyric' metal exists if it is created by someone, so if fans of Cradle of Filth have so dubbed them that, I guess it does exist."

By that logic, why not go to other band articles and label them whatever genre you feel like? If Cradle of Filth are Black Metal, why aren't New Kids On the Block Ultrafast, Candlelit, Groin-Destroying Sludge Grind?

To be fair, their style is/was pretty unique, but not sufficiently to pioneer a genre.

And subjectivity aside, here's a quote in reference to the Black Metal article.

"Black metal is a term. It is not place of Wikipedia to explain that it is a style which includes and excludes certain bands, nor is it the job of Wikipedia to explain that black metal is a lifestyle, religious choice or anything else. The job of this article should be to explain what the term black metal can be used to refer to. If there is a possible dispute over the meaning, the differing ideas should be explained clearly, with different opinions attributed to different persons who hold them. This is part of Wikipedia NPOV policy. Tuf-Kat 08:19, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)"

In a similar fashion, stating that a band is Black Metal when going on to state that there is a debate about it is effectively taking sides.

Aye, and the black metal category also states that "black metal" is wholly ambiguous. What you're ignoring in your own statement is " It is not place of Wikipedia to explain that it is a style which includes and excludes certain bands". www.metalstorm.ee calls them "black symphonic," formerly "melodic black," as does MTV, and if you want I can compile a larger list. Furthermore, your statement "Sure, if your idea of a metal magazine is expensive toilet paper that hails AC/DC as the originators of the genre," is not only irrelevant (since the quality nor intelligence of people who call them black metal is equally irrelevant, the fact is that the bulk of people call them that), it's only furthering the principle that this whole arugment is not only POV but just a "I-hate-Cradle-of-Filth" rant. I should end on the note I didn't write the first line and am not responsible for any contradictions that other people may cause when they add things. It will eventually get smoothed out, that's the whole purpose of wikipedia. Then again, melodic black or black symphonic (depending on the album) is about as close as you'll come to describing them. The key word here: black. On the whole, though, that's a rather minor element. The point of the band is to make music, not try to usurp a genre. If all you're going to do is debate their authenticity, then please supply your opinion in full detail as well as a solution rather than just "they're not black metal."

Because tastes differ, and figuring one kind of rock from another isn't like comparing, say, rock and rap, where the contrast is more pronounced, I revised the opening paragraph to represent a more NPOV explanation of their genre. ZPG0705 14:52, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd consider taking into account what the Metal Archives says. After all, it is THE largest metal community on the internet, and the people there do know what they're talking about. The bands page is here http://www.metal-archives.com/band.php?id=24 It says they're Extreme Gothic Metal.Ladysway1985

TearAwayTheFunerealDress 15:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)Ok. You really need to chill out. Let anyone call them whatever they want to. You think it really matters what genre in music they are? No. They make music. That's enough. End of story.

Metal-archives is typically rather inaccurate Spearhead 10:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Extreme Gothic Metal? Anyone care to try and exlain what that is, because before now, I've never even heard that term. Much Love, Helena Rayne TearAwayTheFunerealDress 16:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The band clearly came from a black metal background. They have more and more incorporated gothic influences in their music. The fact that they have become more popular than so-called "true" black metal does not change their history. So imo, classifying them under black metal is correct. Also note that there are many other bands that would have been removed if from the List of black metal bands if CoF would, like Dimmu Burgir, Hecate Enthroned, Agathodaimon, Ancient, Old Man's Child, Samael. And no, the term extreme gothic metal does not make sense.... Spearhead 10:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Alright. I don't understand what the argument is here? They're obviously not black metal, though they were strongly influenced by it. They themselves said at one point that they weren't. Everyone seems to agree that everything since their first album has been gothic metal, not black. www.metal-archives.com, the most comprehensive metal database around labels them as gothic. Even if their first album was black metal, how does that make them a black metal band with gothic influence? Everything since has been gothic. I would say it's more than fair to label them as gothic metal with black metal influence. Gothic metal isn't a derogatory term or anything. There are some fantastic gothic metal bands... Why do all the C.O.F. fans *need* to have the band labelled black metal?139.142.23.159

CoF are not a gothic band - that is just plain bullshit. Tristania is gothic metal, so is the sins of thy beloved, trail of tears - they're not anywhere near CoF. BTW I am not a fan of CoF, I just like their first couple of albums Spearhead 21:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Metal Archives and Metal Storm both disagree with you there. CoF has, since about 95-96 been a gothic metal band. No question, in my mind and both of those sites listed above (Both of which are considered to be excellent metal sources) support what I'm saying. Maybe you can put up a reason why they're not a gothic metal band, instead of just screaming 'bullshit'? Also, liking their first couple of albums would still make you a fan. A fan is someone who likes the band. It doesn't have to be extreme. Ilyon 22:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Many other sources qualify them as black metal. Just look at the google results [1] Also BNR, Allmusic (often praised on WP), [www.tartareandesire.com]. Like I said before, they have clearly incorporated gothic influences. Nevertheless they are also part of black metal history, but that is something darkthrone (et al.) fans just like to wipe out. Besides metal storm lists them as

1991-1993	 Death metal
1994-1996	Symphonic Black metal
1997-	Extreme Gothic metal

so you contradict yourself here. Spearhead 22:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I read the page. How is that a contradiction? You want to label them as a Black Metal band with gothic influence. I say they're a gothic metal band with Black Metal influence. 2 years at most as a Black Metal band and 8 years as a Gothic metal band. I wonder which one is more accurate? I'd say gothic metal with black metal influence. It's really simple math.

Read the Gothic Metal article. Also realise that Metsl Archives labels many bands wrongly, and also labels bands as what they want the band to be playing, not what they are playing. Leyasu 00:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

"Cradle of Filth" is a... symphonic black metal" band is an opinion, not a fact, regardless of how many people believe it to be true. It therefore has no place on a Wikipedia listing. If we must have this exhaustive and anal listing of what type of music the band is believed to have been making at different points in its career, maybe it should be moved to a specific "genre" subheading - or left off altogether and kept in "discussion" where it belongs. Cardinal Wurzel 18:33, 12th January 2006 (UTC)

On that basis, we had have to remove all genres from all band pages on all articles. Something says, its not going to happen, despite your pov on the bands genre. Something also says, by the way you talk, is that your exhibiting neoglism. The article shall remain unchanged. Leyasu 18:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

If you're (note correct spelling) against neologism then you should be in favour of limiting the use of all these daft genre names. It would be much better to just say "Cradle of Filth have at one time or another been described as blah, blah and blah. Dani Filth says blah". By the way, are you the boss of this page? Do all changes to this page have to go through you? I thought I read somewhere that Wikipedia's philosophy was a bit different... Cardinal Wurzel 21:16, 12th January 2006 (UTC)

No, im not the owner or boss of this page. However, i enforce Wikipedia's rules on pretty much all articles. Yes im dictorial in the way i speak, but thats the way i speak.

Secondly, yes, it could be done as that, much like the Nightwish article. But then, it would still say that they are a Symphonic Black Metal band, with influence from Gothic Metal. So it doesnt really serve much point at the moment, does it now? Leyasu 21:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

"Dictatorial". No, it wouldn't really say that - I don't think you've got the hang of Wiki's NPOV rules. "They are a Symphonic Black Metal band, with influence from Gothic Metal" is still your point of view. The trick is to not definitively say that they "are" anything at all. The only thing they definitively "are" is a metal band. I still think that "Filth have been described as blah blah blah... no consensus... Dani says Cradle of Filth are Cradle of Filth" is much the better way to go. Also, if we're listing Peace Through Superior Firepower along with the albums and EPs shouldn't we include PanDaemonAeon and Heavy, Left-Handed and Candid as well? The DVDs probably belong in "Other Releases", where they already are. Cardinal Wurzel 22:52, 12th January 2006 (UTC)

Their discography isnt something i know about, so if they are missing albums or what not, add them. As for what they are, its hardly my point of view when its fact, and when i can back that up with studying musical genres for years, and working in the scenes. I suggest you read the Black Metal article, the Symphonic Black Metal section on the Symphonic Metal article, and the Gothic Metal article, which will all show you, that they indeed are, Symphonic Black Metal. Leyasu 06:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Nope, it isn't fact, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Look at this discussion page alone and see how many people disagree with you; people who are just as much the "expert" as you believe yourself to be. Your assumption seems to be that anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant of the scene, which is extremely arrogant. Surely the fundamental point is, if the band's own frontman doesn't think he's making symphonic black metal, or doesn't care to have his band labelled that way, there will never be a consensus as to what genre Filth belong to. This page should acknoweldge that and be careful not to come down on one side of the argument or another. I suggest you carefully read Wikipedia's NPOV rules, along with its policy on vandalism. :p Cardinal Wurzel 09:06, 13th January 2006 (UTC)

Ive been editing articles for a while. I completely revised the Gothic Metal, Gothic Music, and Symphonic Metal articles, as well as being in the process of redoing Nu Metal and Metal Music.

Also, you overlook that Dani Filth has claimed to be all of the following, 'Satanic Metal', 'Vampyric Metal', 'Doom Metal', 'Gothic Metal', 'Black Metal', 'Gothic Rock', 'Speed Metal', 'Brutal Death Metal' and 'Horror Metal'. Most of these, are terms he came up with himself.

Again, its hardly POV when A) The black metal article states that Cradle of Filth are Symphonic Black Metal. B) The Gothic Metal article states the same. C) The Symphonic Metal article states the same. D) Black Metal fans typically discredit Cradle of Filth due to their commerical reknown. E) A bands genre is defined by the sum of their parts, not what you wish they were.

Again, i suggest you read the Symphonic Metal, Gothic Metal, Black Metal and Metal Music articles. Also read about Wikipedia policys on Consensus. Consensus runs in favour of listing a bands genre where appropriate, which in this case, it is. Leyasu 10:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, you're assuming I haven't read all that stuff. And again, you're missing my point. I'm not trying to assign them to a genre that "I wish they were". I'm saying that we shouldn't be classifying them at all. If anything we should just be reporting the various arguments as to how they should be classified, but concluding that there is no definitive answer to that question. What you say about consensus is a fair point, but I'm not convinced, judging by the discussion page comments here and on other pages from everybody who isn't you, that there actually IS one. And wait a minute - I've just absorbed something you said earlier... What do you mean by "their discography isn't something I know about"? Am I actually having this discussion with someone who DOESN'T EVEN LISTEN TO CoF'S RECORDS?? If anybody else is following this, feel free to jump in. Cardinal Wurzel 11:36, 13th January 2006 (UTC)

I am not a fan of the band, and i dont follow every single album, ep and compliation the band chooses to bring out. I am also not a fan of Nightwish, and i had a hand in helping devolp that article as well, which is now a featured article thanks to all the editors who both worked on, and critiqued the article in referal for FA.

Ai also suggest you look at other band articles and see how articles on bands are constructed on Wikipedia, before you judge rashly on how the page should be improved. Leyasu 14:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Nothing rash about my judgement, and once again, stop assuming what I have and haven't read. I'm not a newbie, despite not having created an account before now. I'm sorry you're so affronted by constructive criticism. I'll get off your toes, shall I? Cardinal Wurzel 15:54, 13th January 2006 (UTC)

Your not getting on my toes. What im trying to do, which im typically very bad at, is explain to you how what your saying is flawed, and as such is not correct in this place. Yes, what you said does hold some water. However, they meet exactly what Symphonic Black Metal is. Plain and simple. There is no arguing about that, unless your bothered about what bands discredit the black metal scene of give it commercial appeal, at which point it becomes Neoglism, and not about their music.

Genres is weighed upon the bands construction of music, album by album, not what certain fans wish they were or were not playing, or their commerical aspects. Leyasu 16:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

To clarify: CRADLE OF FILTH STARTED OUT AS DEATH METAL, THEN THEY STARTED PLAYING SYMPHONIC BLACK METAL, NOW THEY PLAY GOTH METAL. Check any metal database, metalstorm for example: http://www.metalstorm.ee/bands/view_band.php?band_id=cradle_of_filth Or check on Metal Archives.

Oh for fuck's sake. Cardinal Wurzel 22:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

They dont play Goth Metal AKA Gothic-Doom nor Gothic Metal, as they lack its key attributes. They play Symphonic Black Metal. I suggest reading both the Symphonic Black Metal and Gothic Metal articles. Also if u want to cite websites claiming the band are Gothic Metal, i have a whole trio more saying they are Symphonic Black Metal. Ley Shade 13:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

What's even scarier, is the coralation with Gothic Rock and Death Rock. I don't see how they have anything to do with either one of those genre's. Just because they were on Valor's so-called "Christian Death" release, doesn't make them Death Rock. JanderVK

Okay, I’ve left it alone for a couple of months, but let’s go one more round to see if I can change your mind. Leyasu, the problem here is still your inability or refusal to see that the symphonic black metal thing is your opinion and not a fact. It’s a perfectly valid opinion, and more valid than many, but it’s still an opinion regardless of how many sources you can provide that agree with you. You are equally as guilty of “serial POV pushing” as many of the people you revert. Your argument runs like this: “It is a fact that I can find a lot of sources that agree with my opinion; therefore my opinion is a fact.” That does not follow. Next time you’re looking up neologism you might want to have a look at non sequitur while you’re there. Please understand that I am not necessarily even disagreeing with you as to the band’s genre. I am not trying to say “They’re not that, they’re this”. As before, I’m trying to make this page consistent and factually accurate. The main article’s introduction is careful to say “general consensus SEEMS to have settled…” (implying that the debate could start up again at any time) and we now have a subsection detailing the genre controversy. It is therefore inconsistent that the text box should definitively label the group, and preferable that “genre” in the text box should simply direct readers to the genre subsection which explains the various debates and opinions. Insisting on taking a position that a lot of people disagree with gets people's backs up and causes a lot of what you call “vandalism” in the first place. The most frequent changes to this page (apart from idiots saying “cradle fucking rock” and the like, which you’re really good at spotting and getting rid of) are people taking issue with the genre we’ve settled on. I’d be really interested to see if we provoked less controversy by not specifying a genre, and simply admitting that nobody can agree. This is a long argument about a pretty trivial matter, and in all honesty, I can’t be bothered to have it go on and on and on. If changing the genre in the textbox is going to keep you awake at night in a cold sweat because it doesn’t match your opinion then I guess we’d better leave it your way and thaht'll be the end of it. I would hate you to have a nervous breakdown or anything. I just want to make this page as good as it can be. Cardinal Wurzel 19:38, 21st March 2006 (UTC)

Easy answer. Simply put (Debated) after the Symphonic Black Metal in the infobox. Ley Shade 20:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

This is sickening. They lack ANY attributes of what makes black metal, black metal. The closest thing they've ever done to being a black metal band was having screeching vocals. They fit gothic metal perfectly, with the exception of not having a female lead vocalist like many bands do and that damn sure doesn't change their genre. Harvested Sorrow 16:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It sure does when they also lack the lyrical and instrumental style as well. Ley Shade 23:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me what should have happened with this discussion—and I accept that there is a legitimate dispute here, in that COF combine black metal trappings and vocalisation with slower music (that's just my opinion)—is that it should have devolved onto secondary sources per Wikipedia policy. In fact, you discussion hasn't circumvented the need to find reputable sources outside of Wikipedia for the genre-assignment of this band. I have therefore tagged this article as unreferenced. mgekelly 12:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Due to the controversy surrounding ANYTHING we put as the genre, I think we should just put 'extreme metal' and be done with it. Sure, it's vague, but since Dani Filth's image is on the front of the book "Extreme Metal II", it's also pretty accurate. If we have issue with that...why not just 'metal'? We don't have to subgenre-ise everything to death, after all. There's plenty of reputable sources who all say different things about their genre, and it's pretty hard to determine who or what is 'most reputable'. There'll always be someone who disagrees, but I think we can settle on them not being pure black metal, especially if you take recent albums into account. It's not an insult, anyway; not being black metal doesn't mean they're a bad band, it just means they're not black metal. If 'not black metal' meant 'bad', we'd have an awful lot of bad bands around. Moose 21:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The forthcoming "Gospel of Filth" that Dani's involved with has got the subtitle "A Black Metal Bible", and Dani's on the cover of that too "see here"., so good argument but not quite good enough I'm afraid. "Just metal" is pretty much where we've finally got it. The page has been pretty stable for a while now, although it's still getting the odd "They're gothic! They're black! They're extreme!" from anons. Keeping it neutral seems to be working so far... Cardinal Wurzel 16:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

We dont put Cross-Refs on infoboxes. Keeping it as simply Debated is the better way in this case, keeping it neutral as best we can per WP:NPOV. 81.157.88.250 20:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I just looked up Extreme Metal II on Amazon and I'm damned if I can see Dani on the front cover. I see a black and white pic of someone I don't know, and I see Slipknot - where's Dani? Are you sure you've got the right book? Is he on the back? Cardinal Wurzel 15:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm positive, since I have the book right here in front of me. There's two versions of the cover - the Slipknot one and the Cradle one, which can be found here. Moose 14:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right! :-) Cardinal Wurzel 19:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Jesus is a Cunt

Should controversies regarding the infamous Cradle of Filth "Jesus is a Cunt" t-shirts be mentioned here? Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 00:50, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Can't fathom why not, so long as you keep it NPOV and describe the controversy factually and whatnot. ZPG0705 00:13, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

Agreed, it should be mentioned. I was quite suprised to find it missing, it was fairly infamous in the UK.Trench 21:58, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

The controversy surrounding this T-Shirt became public with Cradle of Filth members Dani Filth, Paul Allender, and Martin Foul wore the infamous "Jesus is a Cunt" T-Shirt while touring the Vatican City. It is reported by multiple sources that all three members were arrested for disturbing the peace, and later released that night without any charges.

• I infact find it very ballsy to do such a thing, and it inspired me to buy this shirt online from a european company called Xtra Undergound Fashion

Nymphetamine

The new album has been out for quite a while and it's hard to argue it's either "true black metal" or a return to form (I'm talking Dusk... and her Embrace period).

Allow me to add that the purpose isn't to make the argument as to which is correct, but instead to provide an NPOV dissertation of the topic. If you feel the description of it as "true black metal" or as a "return to form" is either incorrect or POV, rewrite to provide a full presentation of all the facts, opinions included. Just keep 'em neutral.

Vandalism...

Wow. Has anyone noticed how often this entry gets vandalised? I mean, I've had to revert it twice today. It's probably the most troublesome entry on my watchlist.
Matthew king 09:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

TearAwayTheFunerealDress 15:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Maybe it's because people have so much to say about C.O.F. They either hate them or love them.

Could be...
Matthew king 04:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know. I love them....but don't label them. I've added from stuff on the page and it's still there so at least I know I was right. Well...if you need any help let me know. TearAwayTheFunerealDress 14:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Band Members

According to www.metal-archives.com , Dave Pybus is back in the band and Charles Hedger is not in it anymore, So I put their names in the propper places. Ladysway1985 05:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks much. I was confused for a moment. Much Love, Helena Rayne TearAwayTheFunerealDress 16:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Tour dates!

Why add current tour dates? This is completely beside encyclopedic value. There are other websites to provide that sort of things. --Steerpike 21:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Tour dates seem like irrelevant information to have in an encyclopedia.
Matthew king 02:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I agree with you both. But just on the subject, I heard they were supposed to have a brief US tour in November. Is that true or just a rumor? Well...tata loves. TearAwayTheFunerealDress 14:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

For the record, this discussion was apparently removed from the talk page some time ago, probably by some schmuck who saw fit to paste those tourdates back into the article anyway. It's not helping! Tour dates are completely non-encyclopedic. Visit the official website for that sort of info. The link is right at the bottom. --Steerpike 01:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Trivia

I was reading an interview where it states that Dani Filth's favourite band is The Misfits. But on here it says different. Would anyone help clear this up? TearAwayTheFunerealDress 16:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Yep I saw something like his favorite band was Emperor. I'd like to know where you saw that it was The Misfits. That's interesting though. Robobot569 12:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I have read on many occasions that The Misfits were his favorite band, although I cannot remember the sources (The Haunted Angel 17:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC))

Comments on Cradle of Filth

The first time I heard the title song I was like "WOWWWWW!" It was freaky! Really scary. that's okay, though. I like listening to scary music like CoF and another band called Demon Hunter. I can't really say which is the better band since I have none of CoF's CD's but I like DH and CoF. Thanks for putting up this article.

Robot569 00:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Kill yourself mate, they are not scary, they are clowns without a circus.Czr 19:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

You do know that Demon Hunter is a Christian heavy metal band right? They really aren't a thing like Cradle of Filth.

Midian

Just for future reference, it's been said that Midian is based on Clive Barker's novel Cabal, and has nothing to do with the biblical city. (Joe 18:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC))

If you can find or provide a source for this, it can easily be added to the aritcle. Leyasu 19:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The main reason I said this was because in trivia there was a line indicating that Midian

was a biblical city

, which I found had nothing to do with it. The topic regarding Cabal is

even mentioned in the 2nd paragraph of the Biography.

Here's a quote, anyway;

"I also enjoy the dichotomy present on this disc, as well. Midian, as some horror fans will no

doubt remember, is semi-loosely based on Clive Barker's short story "Cabal", which was remade

into the movie "Nightbreed". In this world of Barker's creation, Midian is where the monsters

go. For these outcast protagonists, Midian was both a heaven and a hell. Much the same way this

grandiose effort by England's CoF is a gratifying lesson on the topic of torment and

tribulation" from http://www.chroniclesofchaos.com/Articles.aspx?id=2-1782

(Joe 19:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC))

I think u miss the point of the Trivia. Its usage is to point out that its not only part of the album and its ideal, but its also the name of a religious place. Not that it has anything to do with the album. Leyasu 01:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Midian IS based on the city. Dani Filth mentions it numerous times, even in the live concert on Peace Through Superior Firepower. The Haunted Angel 17:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Band photo

Fair enough using a band pic instead of one of just Dani, but I don't think that's the current lineup. That was my thinking behind using just a frontman pic - band pics will constantly have to be changed to keep on top of their revolving-door membership, but if we can stay on top of that I guess it's the better option. Was just being lazy! Also, photos need to be properly tagged - it looks as if Wikipedia will remove the current pic within a week. Cardinal Wurzel 09:21, 8th February 2006 (UTC)

---

Its not the current lineup, but I liked it better... If you dont you can change it back I dont mind. I will fix the wrong tagging thing, sorry. Im off to that now.....

--Andy5190 23:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

---

There I fixed the tagging.... sorry about that...

--Andy5190 23:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Good stuff! Hey, I know what to do - just whack a caption underneath the picture that states what year / era it was taken. You could even do a "left to right: Dani, Adrian" etc etc type thing. Cardinal Wurzel 09:30, 9th February 2006 (UTC)

---

Hows that? eh?

--Andy5190 02:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Genius! Cardinal Wurzel 11:06, 10th February 2006 (UTC)

---

Picture changed, as discussed with Andy (see his discussion page). Cardinal Wurzel 9:54, 19th February 2006 (UTC)

Related Artists?

I think that there should be a section on related artists. Many other band pages have this. For a start maybe:

• Bathory
• Emperor
• Dimmu Borgir
• Rammstein
• Testament
• etc....

Anyone want to add one?

--Andy5190 23:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Good idea - you do it! Cardinal Wurzel 09:30, 9th February 2006 (UTC)

The problem with these is it opens for a lot of POV. Be carefull what you put on, and provide a source for your list. Leyasu 09:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Medusa's noticed you! Find something reflective! But yes, I guess the trick would be to only choose bands that have definite links to Cradle. So any band that Cradle have covered would be ripe for inclusion, any that they're documented as having sited as influences, maybe any they've toured with. Just as long as it's not just an infinite and random list of bands that are a little bit similar. Cardinal Wurzel 11:06, 10th February 2006 (UTC)

Ive cleaned up the list that was an infinite and random list of bands that are a little bit similar. If you want to do a section on bands CoF has toured with, entitle a list as such and include ONLY the bands listed that way. Also seperating lists into 'Touring Partners', 'Influences' and 'Similar Bands' is far more effective, as as such the band list was just a pile of random bands with little to no similaritys to CoF what so ever. Leyasu 19:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

---

It was not a pile of random bands, take some time to recognize other people's work, it was a list of bands that have toured with Cradle. I got the information off of their website, and it is 100% verifiable. I also clearly listed that it was a list of toured bands, and that related bands had the "RA" symbol next to them. I put it your way now, but take some time to look at what other people do before you take aim and fire by saying things like "the list that was an infinite and random list of bands." You jerk. --Andy5190 21:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I saw the list for what it was, a very half assed attempt. Next time you want to do something in good faith, please do it properly and to its full extent, rather than a half assed job. Leyasu 22:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Fuck you, you motherfucking whore. People like you make me sick. With your "that sucks, you do everything band." Take your dominatrix bullshit somewhere where someone actually cares, cause obviously you have mistaken me for someone who cares about your definition of "half-assed" things. Cradle of Filth and Dani Filth are my fucking heroes, and I dont do half assed nothing for them. I took my fucking time, and you can go fuck yourself.

Swearing and insulting me will achieve nothing. You were also the one who attacked me for cleaning up your prose. Wikipedia has ways of doing articles, and yew made a good effort, misdirected but a good effort. Insulting me and telling me to fuck off will not achieve you anything, other than seriously making me believe you really did do an half assed job. Leyasu 02:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Thats it, I'm done with you... Just leave this discussion topic alone, once you read this, please delete all of this insignificant argument. One final comment: it was your who insulted my work first... and that pissed me off, I didn't fire the first shot. --Andy5190 23:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I did not target you specifically, i targeted your work. You do not delete things from the talk page as its part of an archive. I did not insult you, i did indeed, give my view on your work, for its lack of Wikipedia prose. If i had known you were new, i would of been kinder in my tone. However, i will warn you, that calling people names is a personal attack, which is not allowed on Wikipedia, and can result in temporary and permenant bans from editing.

I wont report you for it this time, but i suggest refraining from doing it further now that you have been warned. Ley Shade 00:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh.... ya now I feel like an ass. Thanks for the warning.... and kindness.... Sorry I was a jerk --Andy5190 00:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the list still needs working on. Fair enough, have the bands toured with, and have the bands covered, but related bands? There are potentially hundreds of related bands, and many of the bands put are nothing like Cradle of Filth! The list is already long enough, I say that part is removed. J Milburn 09:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed and done. Ley Shade 09:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that has improved the article. J Milburn 19:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Who's the Chick on the Nymphetamine Cover?

WHOS THE CHICK ON THE NYMPHETAMINE COVER???Axxion 04:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

There are six models in the booklet and the credits don't specify who is who. She's either Wanda, Anais, Justine, Aimee, Dena or Lupe. That doesn't help you at all, does it. Cardinal Wurzel 22:45, 3rd March 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't. But whatever Axxion 03:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm ... I'm not sure I don't have anything from them so I don't know. Robobot569 12:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The girl on the Nymphetamine cover is Emily Booth.

Is it?! Are you sure? Why isn't she credited on the sleeve? Cardinal Wurzel 21:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Answerphone Message

Does anyone know which magazine originally gave this away (if that's actually true)? Cardinal Wurzel 17:18, 4th March 2006 (UTC)

I removed it until a source is provided. Ley Shade 18:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

FINALLY tracked down where it came from (see here) although it would be good to know exacly which issue it was given away with. Cardinal Wurzel 17:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Vocal Cords

Does anyone mind if I delete that stupid thing in Trivia about Dani's vocal cords bleeding? Cardinal Wurzel 22.45, 18th March 2006 (UTC)

Done it. Cardinal Wurzel 12:32, 19th March 2006 (UTC)

CoF pwns

CRADLE OF FILTH FREAKIN PWNS!!!!!! i LOVE them! i mean sure, they're satanic, but who gives a shiny rat's ass!?!?!? sure everyone has their own opinion, but calling someone frikin satanic just cuz they listen to better music is gay...and people shouldnt just not be allowed to listen to them because they say stuff like "this is the end of everything; death is the season..ect" that kind of stuff. so yeah they're awesome but this thing needs more info about them. ex: what kind of guitars do they normally play? that stuff comes in handy for someone who plays the guitar and who loves these guys. so if you dont like them, fine, but if the only reason you dont like them is cuz they're satanic, ur gay. if you do like them, POWER TO YA!

First of all, they are not Satanic, only minor amounts of their stuff is. Second of all, what is wrong with Satanism? Third of all, this is [to the Cradle page], so take it to a forum. The Haunted Angel 00:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

CoF sdad

Sure do attract dickheads Cardinal Wurzel 22:43, 22nd March 2006 (UTC)

Stupid detail

Just a little stupid derail that I was wandering about. Is it Stuart Anstis or Antsis. Cradle of Filth Official page says Antsis as does Allmusic and several other cof related pages. While Anstis is on wikipedia (which is questionable by this talk so this is a Paradox, haha) and on several fan pages which is also questionable and Encyclopaedia Metallum aka metal-archives. Could somebody also take another look (if anybody is interested) and see what is his real name. I know it is just a small bit but aren't encyclopaedias supposed to be 100% accurate? Death2 14:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Official Filth website says Antsis, and Antsis gives you more results if you Google it. Not stupid at all - well spotted! Cardinal Wurzel 17:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Roadrunner United on Discography?

Hey guys. I recently added Dave Pybus (Herr Pubis) to the Discography under Roadrunner Utd, as he plays Bass on one of the songs. It occured to me then, should this really be mentioned on the Cradle of Filth page? I know that ⅓ of the band plays on album, but it is not a Cradle album. If the whole band played on the album, that'd be ok, but as it is just two of the guys, I suggest moving it off the page, and instead putting it under the Discography (that probably doesn't exsist) for Dani and Dave. I'm not to bothered either way, its just an idea. The Haunted Angel 22:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

That's why it's in the miscellaneous section Cardinal Wurzel 21:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I suppose... but its still not Cradle of Filth. Then again it does contain ⅓ of the band anyway =\ - The Haunted Angel 22:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, point taken, it IS a bit tenuous. But I do think it's relevant. It's a hard one to call because it's a fairly unusual album. But it isn't a side project or a different band - Dani and Pybus are basically on there representing Cradle of Filth as part of the Roadrunner stable, so for that reason I vote it stays where it is (although there's no reason it shouldn't go on their personal pages in the way you suggested). I guess it COULD go into Trivia, but then people would probably question why it wasn't with the rest of the albums... Cardinal Wurzel 09:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah point taken. It is hard to classify, but as I said, I'm not to bothered either way, it was just an idea. I suppose that is why the section it is under is 'miscellaneous' rather then 'EPs and Live'. The Haunted Angel 12:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly - we can chuck whatever we like in there! Cardinal Wurzel 19:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Bootleg section

Hallo mates, its been quite sometime since I have been around these parts, and let me say, the article is coming along great! (Much appreciation to Cardinal W) I was just looking it over, and I think that splitting the Misc section into 3 parts would be Reasonable. I think their should be a Demos section, Bootleg section, and a Misc section. Whats everyone think? ~Andy Blak 19:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan! Cardinal Wurzel 20:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Aye, Captain! I will get to work on it! ~Andy Blak 00:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

New Genre Dispute

After reading the long and pointless original Genre Dispute, I think it would be best to start a new one. I reviewed Wiki Policy and checked several sources to see what we can determine about this issue. It seems to me that the best thing to do is to create a "Source Poll" when you find a source that is not a personal or uncommon website, post it, and after 2 weeks, I will tally the genres and see if everyone can agree to that. Lets keep this civil and simple. I really want to reach an end to this dispute. Oh... and once we come to a conclusion, this article is going up for Semi-Protection. --Andy Blak 23:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Knock yourself out - I don't think it'll do any good but its worth a try. I don't think I've ever actually stated my own position, which is that "black metal" would be perfectly good enough. I think ALL the websites I used as sources for the main article go with that. But I doubt even if we reach a consensus that the page will be left alone. And, as a reminder for anyone who's never bothered to look it up, here's the section from the Wiki NPOV policy that I've tried to make the page adhere to in the last few months:

The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions. Cardinal Wurzel 08:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

As usual Cardinal, I think you're right. So let me rephrase my method. Lets get this goddamn thing protected and leave it at black metal. How would that work? oh and your answer to the article below is fucking hilarious! --Andy Blak 18:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

There Is no genre dispute cradle is a true symphonic black metal band

if you open your eyes cradle of filth has toured with bands like emperor and dimmu borgir and never has been seen that any community shuns them if they are not black metal covenant,dimmu borgi,old man's child and many other norwegian bands ore not black metal and cradle of filth is related to many norwegian black metal bands. metal archive web site knows them as black metal and extreme gothic metal all music knows them as key artist of blackmetal real rhapsody too all music website knows the as black metal band. what the hell is brutal death metal and stuff like that. they are a true black metal band.

That settles that then. Thanks for clearing it up. And here's us having a massive debate for a year, and people writing "gothic" and "extreme" all over the page every day. Who knew it was that simple? Just imagine: someone who doesn't even sign in solving all the page's problems just like that! I'm so relieved. Cardinal Wurzel 17:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)