Talk:Underoath

I was recently reverted by a user who removed the adjective "Christian" from the article's lead. However, this fact is buttressed by multiple sources, including three scholarly ones, which are quite unlike many of the sources used in the article.^[1][2][3] I am restoring the adjective unless a valid reason can be given for censoring a key component of the band. Please do not revert until a compromise has been reached to this discussion. Until then, per WP:RS, the adjective, Christian, should remain in the article. If there is still disagreement, an RfC can be arranged. With regards, Anupam^Talk 06:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The revert comment indicates: "We already made it clear on all articles for Christian bands not to include that they're Christian as the opening line; see the talk page for more imformation". I have never seen this on any article except Switchfoot. I don't see it here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

We never said Underoath wasn't a Christian band and it's already sourced so you're unnecessarily sourcing material that is already known and proven but the description at hand is that this article didn't have it stated that they're a Christian band in the lead for multiple reasons. The same as to even why The Devil Wears Prada's article had a consensus to not have it stated in the lead. -- GunMetal Angel 15:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Please enumerate a few (or a few more) of those multiple reasons again as it does not appear to be common knowledge. This band is not The Devil Wears Prada (band) nor is it Switchfoot, nor is it Skillet (band) or Jars of Clay and each band should be taken on a case-by-case basis. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

For one the article already has stated that they're a Christian band more than four times in different places, we DO NOT need this in the lead too, I'll also say that having it in the lead isn't worth the replacement of a band's normal nationality format (ie. "is an American heavy metal band") but also looks extremely out of place and unprofessional, we don't open a subject's perspective focused on their religion in the first line (see WP:RNPOV). Also, Underoath don't like to be looked at as a straight forward Christian band, here's a quote from Spencer Chamberlain. > "[We are Christian but] in a different way. We’re not like your average Christian band. -- Christianity is the backbone of our lives, especially in the way that we handle certain things, but it’s not so much the backbone of our lyrics. It’s not like every song is a lesson from the Bible or something. It’s just normal life struggles." --- GunMetal Angel 17:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Still haven't convinced me. They're not an average Christian band. Does that mean they're an above average Christian band? Does it mean they're a Christian band who doesn't want to be identified as such (the way that Switchfoot does) or do they do things that the average Christian band doesn't do. By average do they mean the majority of the bands in the CCM? The quote you give doesn't offer enough context or information to come to a satisfactory conclusion, at least for me. So why specifically for this band and in this article does it not need to be in the lead? And in contradiction to your reference of WP:RNPOV, the bands I mentioned, Skillet (band) and Jars of Clay, it is the lead. I would argue that they too are not your average Christian band. I do agree with you on the national identity. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Mr. Görlitz. Gunmetal Angel, I have provided three scholarly sources that all identify Underoath as a Christian band. There is no reason to omit this fact from the lead of this article as Wikipedia should reflect what is given in reliable sources. As far as the band's nationality is concerned, I have still left it in the leading sentence. Looking at the archives of this discussion page, it seems evident that there is a large amount of editors who wish to keep the adjective Christian in the lead (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5). Individuals who have opposed this notion have not offered any reliable sources to warrant a removal of a key fact. Also, one of the facts that you mentioned regarding The Devil Wears Prada is incorrect. The Wikipedia article does indeed mention Christian in the opening paragraph. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 20:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the opening paragraph; not the opening sentence, I made it that way for several reasons. Better idea; can we do it that way so we all can be happy? • GunMetal Angel 23:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I still don't understand the concern about it in the opening sentence. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I already explained the reasons why I am unhappy with it... see the following for the issues in review:

• We're not suppopsed to base the article around what something's religion is. The article is for the band, not their religion and its only stated onto why they're a Chrisitan band almost no more than twice. It's not a main subject of the article. See WP:LEAD.
• It looks very unprofessional; espicially in the case of replacing the band's origin for the lead.
• Furthermore I want you to see Talk:The Devil Wears Prada (band) where I have already had a related discussion like this and have fully stated all the issues that adding that they're a Christian band to the first sentence of an article. • GunMetal Angel 01:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh in that case, you're wrong.

1. There is no guideline to not base an article around someone's faith, particularly when they are a faith-based group. See my examples. I will gladly provide more if you would like.
2. Its inclusion has no bearing on how professional it looks. Regardless of the case of placing the subject's origin. Many Christians consider that they are citizens of heaven first and then citizens of the nations of their birth. Unless you have proof of their stance on this theological issue, it's not an issue that should be imposed upon them.
3. As I have said, and you have chosen to ignore so I'll emphasize this time Underoath is not The Devil Wears Prada (band) nor is it Switchfoot, two bands which back your position nor are they Skillet (band) or Jars of Clay two of many bands that back my position.

So unless you come up with some concrete position from the band, I suggest that my personal opinion and your personal opinion should not enter into the article. Many bands who are of the Christian metal and Christian rock genres have Christian in the first line let alone the first paragraph. In light of all of those, I don't see what the problem is. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Christian rock and Christian metal are genres "Christian metalcore" is not. And I was not tying Underoath with The Devil Wears Prada; I was saying SEE the list of things on that talk page so you could view upon why there was an issue with this exact conflict. Also there is no guildline for stating that an article requires upon what religion something has; in the case of this and the other articles you even said it yourself Underoath is not Skillet or Jars of Clay... ect. but these bands have "Christian rock" in their heading because this is an actual genre. I'm alright with mentioning they are a Christian band in the second sentence of the lead; but not the introducing first sentence. Maybe we could do this that way? • GunMetal Angel 05:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

When Resurrection Band released Awaiting Your Reply in 1978 people said there was no such genre as Christian metal too, although for different reasons. At some point that had to change. There are sufficient Christian metalcore artists that I think it's time to breakdown and say that it is a genre, or a convergence of genres. Underoath is clearly a Christian metalcore band even if the genre is not labelled "Christian Metalcore". Even if it were not, perhaps a comma would satisfy you. I don't see a reason why the adjective cannot remain in the first sentence. As for checking Talk:The Devil Wears Prada (band)#Adding Christianity to their band heading there's nothing there that you haven't said here. It makes no more sense here than it does there. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

A comma to satisfy me? Satisfying would at least have it said in the second sentence rather than have it how it is now and replace a band's origin, have an overlink, make a statement that is NOT a main subject of the article in the lead as well as have it in the lead in general something that is already explained multiple times in other sections; what is the real need for this change in the lead anyway? • GunMetal Angel 07:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

OK. There's no satisfying you. Again, there's no indication that nationality or origin, as you put it and I already commented on may not be the correct term, is at all as important to the band as their faith. Without knowing the band's position the current wording could be more appropriate than the previous one. What's the real need for nationality to go first and faith to be buried? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

One cannot deem the insertion of an adjective to be unprofessional when most scholarly sources that discuss the band use the adjective. In the past, this Wikipedia article did as well, and so did other articles concerning this band. I hope this helps, Anupam^Talk 05:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Changes made. I find it unprofessional to rely on nationalism when it's not clear whether the band considers themselves to be Americans first and Christians second or vice versa. I trust that User:Gunmetal Angel made an effort to ensure that the references that were deleted were also incorporated in the remainder of the body. If Anupam wants to verify that this is the case and restore information in an appropriate location, that would be appreciated. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Can't have everything your way I guess; to leave a little insight about myself just to make things clear; I'd like to say I'm not against Christianity but personally I will admit that I am not a Christian, but my general beliefs consist of almost nearly all of the statements in the Holy Bible. My only concern with this article was the lead just didn't seem fit to mention that they're a Christian band in the first sentence and I still feel that way. But I satisfied myself around it the best I can with the edit I made. It cleans up and I always wanted to keep this article in top-shape. GunMetal Angel 18:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You recently reverted edits where the adjective "Christian" was added to Underoath-related articles. Nevertheless, you allowed the term "American" to remain. Could you please explain your logic for doing so? I am okay with the lede of this article as it is (I have readded the link to the adjective); other articles concerning the band should reflect this article. With regards, Anupam^Talk 02:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

By you I trust that you (Anupam) mean User:Gunmetal Angel and not me. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

My apologies Mr. Görlitz. Indeed, I was referring to User:Gunmetal Angel. Sorry for the confusion. With regards, Anupam^Talk 03:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Gunmetal Angel, per this de facto agreement to have both "American" and "Christian" appear in the lead of the article, I have applied this format to all Underoath related articles. Please do not revert this without a discussion here. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 09:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It might make more sense to link to a genre rather than the faith. Please confirm with other, similar articles to see if they are linked and where the link is made. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Your suggestion seems fine to me. If User:Gunmetal Angel objects to the link to "Christian" in Underoath-related articles, he can go ahead and remove the link. With regards, Anupam^Talk 19:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Again? Your recent deletion of the term in the introductory section reopened this debate. Your comment read Wikipedia acknowledges a difference between "a Christian band" and "Christians in a band". See their influences section.. Nothing has changed from this section since we seemingly closed this discussion. Please stop this silliness. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Dudley said in an interview with BadChristian that the band wasn´t Christian anymore after a time. Apparently some members didn´t feel like it was an honest statement because they weren´t fully christians or were having doubts. Here is the link to the podcast. http://badchristian.com/podcast/bcpod-4-chris-dudley/

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles. Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article.

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

The full title of the upcoming album is 'Ø (Disambiguation)' and not 'Disambiguation', as previously written. I don't know if the title was written incorrectly on purpose because Wikipedia uses (Disambiguation), but I have changed the 'Disambiguation' references to 'Ø (Disambiguation)', and added a new page for 'Ø (Disambiguation) (album)'.

Source: http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=1943559&blogId=538739479

We don't do funny spellings on here, also MySpace is not a source. Furthermore; it's their seventh album, not their fifth. Prooves how much you know how this site works, much less the band. • GunMetal Angel 14:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of how the article is titled, it's still too early for this album to have its own page. I will create a redirect in place of what you have started, as I have already done with Disambiguation (album). You are welcome to come back and edit the article once it meets the guidelines at WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Fezmar9 (talk) 14:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as how the article should be titled, there are some things to take into consideration. There is a wide variety of similar symbols (Ø, ø, ∅, 0/, ${\displaystyle \varnothing }$, ⌀) some of which cannot be generated easily, or at all, in an article title. We would need to confirm if Underoath is using a slashed zero, the Scandinavian letter, the symbol for an empty set or one of the other symbols. Some of these symbols also won't display properly on all browsers, which may hinder searching and reading. I imagine most publications won't bother trying to figure out how to generate the symbol, and just refer to the album as Disambiguation. But it's probably too early to guess the the article's commonname. Because 'Ø' is not on the standard English keyboard, I think the article should be titled Disambiguation (album) for searching purposes, with the {{Wrong title}} template placed at the top of the article. Articles linking to Disambiguation (album) could still pipe link as Ø (Disambiguation) if desired. Have I missed any guidelines or policies in my thought process here? Fezmar9 (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

100% agree with Fez. Also regarding; the title being "Ø (Disambiguation)", somewhat violates MOS:TM. There's too many strikes & doubts against the title being "Ø (Disambiguation)", and I'm not even mentioning that it looks exactly like a Wikipedia disambig page. -- GunMetal Angel 19:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree that we should find out which character they're using and use that in the article. I suspect that it's the empty set character though. If it's an issue for searching and linking, we use a disambiguation page to redirect to the correct article title. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that was barely the case. -- GunMetal Angel 19:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, it's still perfectly acceptable to use 'Ø' in prose similar to Sign "☮" the Times. As I said above, "Articles linking to Disambiguation (album) could still pipe link as Ø (Disambiguation) if desired." Since this seems to be the albums official title it's okay to mention this in prose, but it might be hard to search for the article whether you're using google search or wiki search if there is a '☮' or a 'Ø' in the title. Fezmar9 (talk) 19:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. Gunmetal what is the case? We're talking about searches and Wikipedia has a search facility. Articles are indexed by Google and other search engines and we're talking about how to use the band's title for the article and still have it be found by fans and other interested in the album. I don't know what you think this is about. Oh, and please stop undoing the edits that insert the apparently correct title. It's starting to become a problem, it's pretty close to WP:3RR for you (going on memory alone), and showing the page ownership you have displayed toward this article again. It's not productive. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

PS: Myspace is a source when it's about the subject itself. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia:Article titles states noting about using an Ø in the title, although it does discuss accents in the Special characters and formatting section. The closest is the Consider browser support sub-section. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean by "when it's about the subject itself"? Myspace is not a reliable source, at all. It's user submitted, the information could have come from anywhere, posted by anyone, and changed at any time. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY has changed since I last read it. It indicated that claims from a primary source may be used in reference to the source itself. So a musician may use their MySpace page to indicate an upcoming tour or an author may discuss details about a book. That's fair game. Self-published sources may not be used as secondary or tertiary sources: a fan of a band discussing an upcoming tour or a book club member discussing the plot of a book. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Should we involve someone from Wikipedia:Article titles to get their opinion? Fezmar9 (talk) 20:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea, yes. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I dropped a comment yesterday, let's see if someone responds. Also, a user has made multiple articles for this album and I have been redirecting them to Underoath. I asked the user to stop on his talk page, and linked him here. This third and most recent one was Ø (Disambiguation). Just wanted to have a record here of these articles in one place so they can be properly redirected to wherever we decided the album page should go. This article follows Disambiguation (album) and Ø (Disambiguation) (album). Fezmar9 (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The track listing for the album has been released today, so there is enough information available to create a start class article. The cover art (here) revealed the logo and looks a lot like a slashed zero, which cannot be generated in an article title (to the extent of my knowledge). Because of that, combined with the fact that "Ø (Disambiguation)" is just one capital letter away from being an already existing disambiguation article, I am going to start the article at Disambiguation (album). If there are any objections, they can be addressed on the talk page of that article. Fezmar9 (talk) 00:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

There's already an article at Ø (Disambiguation) so you don't need to start one at Disambiguation (album). --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Would anyone be opposed to removing this bulky 'Album appearances' table from the article? It seems superfluous to the cleaner table at List of Underoath band members. This section probably shouldn't be too detailed if a separate article exists for this information anyways. Fezmar9 (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer to have it in prose. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't really answer my question. Fezmar9 (talk) 20:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with Fezmar; the table at List of Underoath band members is neater, and this article could simply point to the list at the start of the relevant section. I don't think it'd be practical to put all that information into prose; a brief section about notable members of the band and a link to the full list page, is most appropriate. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Neat isn't an issue. It's big and that's what Fezmar9 is requesting to have removed. using the timeline template might be a better choice. Less bulky, and still graphic. However, I tend to lean towards removing graphics and describing in prose the subject. It takes less time for the servers to render that way. I agree that removing the current table is a good choice. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ideally I think the band members section should briefly highlight (in prose, as Görlitz says) the main history of the band in terms of band members, and direct to the list of members as it does now. It's slightly redundant (as well as untidy) to have lists of band members here, with no expansion upon the subject, and also pointing to the list on a separate page, complete with a table representing the same data as here. I support removing the table, as well as the change I just described. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Expanding List of Underoath band members to something like List of Misfits band members is a novel idea, but not really what I was getting at here. I would just like to see a simple list of current and former members at Underoath#Band members and any further information (including a table) should be found at the separate article. Similar to the simple list of albums at Underoath#Discography and having a separate article at Underoath discography with further information. Essentially, List of Underoath band members and Underoath#Band members currently reflect the exact same information. If a separate article does exist, any information here should be brief. And yes, I find the table here ugly and unnecessarily large. Fezmar9 (talk) 20:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

not going to lie, i think that that table is really helpful and easy to read. just my 2 cents. --Stevedietrich (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected}} Please change "Christian" to "Christian". Thank you and God bless! 173.60.80.54 (talk) 05:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

 Not done

That would violate WP:OVERLINK. Plus is it really important to link it anyway? I mean it's kinda self-explanatory. I don't know one person that doesn't understand Christianity. • GunMetal Angel 06:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done - I linked it to Christian metal. There is no overlinking as the term isn't linked-to anywhere else in the article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Overlink, as I was regarding did not concern what is linked twice or not, it's that too many links (especially in the lead) needs to be avoided. In this case, there is seriously no point to link "Christian" and it also violates the overlinking policy. GunMetal Angel 16:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not overlinking, but I understand your concern. Many other articles have a packed introductory sentence in the lede. I'll let you decide whether to link it in the lede or in the infobox. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I have proposed some genre tweaking on the They're Only Chasing Safety album article, and was told to defer to this page as more people come here. The album is currently listed as metalcore and post-hardcore, which I have no problem with. But according to some reliable reviews which are listed on the article, the album is also screamo, melodic hardcore, and nu-metal. Because these are mentioned in reliable sources, they should be included in the genre description unless a serious and legitimate reason for opposition can be brought up. Please remember that I am not talking about what style the band itself is sourced as, but what style the album is sourced as.--3family6 (talk) 13:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you considered starting a section devoted to the musical style specifically for that album? The infobox should really be kept short and sweet and reflect only the vast majority's opinions and with only one or two genres listed. That being said, I must say that I also disagree with your claims, despite there being sources present. The term "screamo" has been used by the media to describe a vast array of bands that are clearly not screamo—including Rise Against and Linkin Park. Sourcing this genre should only be done with extreme caution. Also, nu-metal is a style of metal that usually incorporates hiphop elements, such as turntables and rap-style vocals; neither of which are present in Underoath's music. Fezmar9 (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Nu-metal is actually a combination of heavy metal with other genres. Rap or hip-hop is only one possible fusion genre. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Many sources describe almost all of Underoath's albums and Underoath itself as screamo, that term is used about as many times as metalcore and post-hardcore. Interestingly enough, currently there are no sources in the album article that describe the album as metalcore, and Allmusic seems to actually be saying that the album is more on the punk side than the metalcore side.

The melodic hardcore reference is very clearly used to describe the album as a whole, that one should go in too.

The nu-metal ref is weaker, so that one maybe should be done in a style section. As Walter said, nu-metal isn't just hip-hop elements, the more universal feature is syncopated and staccato sub-riffing. I'm not sure if I agree with the ref, and Walter can testify that Cross Rhythms can be weird with genres, but Cross Rhythms is a reliable source. I'll probably put that one into a stylistic section instead of the infobox.--3family6 (talk) 01:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I guess I should never claim to be a nu-metal expert. But I think it's fair to assert that hiphip is one of the more prevalently incorporated elements, no? But either way, I believe WP:WEIGHT comes into play in this case. If you do choose to write a section devoted to this album's style and genre, be sure to dig up a good collection of sources supporting your claim. If all you are able to find is a single review, then it's obvious that this is only a minority view and should not be discussed widely in the article. With only a single review supporting a specific genre, I think all you'd be able to add to the article — within the confines if Wiki guidelines and policies — is a brief mention in a review section that clearly states it's the opinion of a single reviewer. Fezmar9 (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, hiphop is a big influence of nu-metal, and in my opinion is present in virtually all of it, just not always in the vocal department. Anyway, to the point, I'm not sure how many reviews are out there, so WP:WEIGHT may or may not be an issue. Either way, I would mention the fact that it was Cross Rhythms review that called it nu-metal. --3family6 (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, just wanted to say, Chasing Safety is no doubt over all a post-hardcore album. I would say it is also a metalcore album however, with tracks like 'I Don't Feel Very Receptive Today' sounding like something off of The Changing of Times, or even Define the Great Line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:D:7580:F84:DEE:B92C:ADBD:9F87 (talk) 01:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I was looking at the list of grindcore bands earlier, but I wanted to find some more bands to listen to, and I noticed that Underoath was on there. I've listened to every song from every album except Act of Depression and Disambiguition, which I've had on my iPod for about 3 months, and just haven't been in the mood to listen to yet. I've yet to hear a piece by them that has any grindcore influence, but that's just my opinion. I guess what I'm saying is that if more people agree with grindcore than those that don't, maybe we should add it to the genre list, and apparently the grindcore community considers it to be. That, or they don't really listen to grindcore, they're just looking up stuff on the internet and going by it. I personally think the grindcore list should only include legitimate grindcore bands, such as Napalm Death, Torsofuck, Wormrot, Pig Destroyer, etc. I've already posted it on the grindcore talk page, and I'm not even sure why I'm posting it here. But yeah, I fully agree with the genres that are already on there (christian metal, metalcore, post-hardcore). Especially post hardcore, they have alot of hardcore influence. I pretty much just wasted your time if you read this, because the issue's not really on this page, it's on the list of grindcore bands. I apologize for the inconvenience, I'm just bored. Thank you and goodbye for now.

The Underoath listing is for the Define the Great Line album. If consensus feels one album is insufficient, feel free to remove the band from the list.

P.S. Please remember to sign your post by typing for tilds "~~~~."--3family6 (talk) 17:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Oops, had the wrong album above, it is now correct. I feel silly.--3family6 (talk) 18:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I might do this myself, but I'll list everything here. The stylistic section for Underoath could use some work, and after some digging I have found some sources for the band's major styles, listed from most frequently used to least frequent: Metalcore1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9, hardcore1 2 3 4 5, post-hardcore 1 2 3 4 5, screamo 1 2 3 4, emo 1 2 3 4, CCM 1. Also, as most people who are familiar with this article know, in early years the band was black metal, hardcore, death metal, and metalcore 1 Powell, Mark (2002). Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers. pp. 976. ISBN 1-56563-679-1 [2] 3 4.

So all in all, we have 9 sources for metalcore, 5 for hardcore, 5 for post-hardcore, 4 for screamo and emo (though one emo ref is weak so I'll say 3.5 for emo), and 1 for CCM, plus 4 sources for the band's early sound.--3family6 (talk) 03:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Two hours, wow!--3family6 (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

So death metal is a minority view. It's much less sourced than some genres like screamo. So I don't really understand why people insist on keeping it in the genres instead of styles and influences section. Most sources are for christian metal, post hardcore and metalcore. Then comes screamo and then emo. Reviews on older albums are more on post hardcore/black metal/screamo. So please do not add death metal and act like the consensus is on death metal while it's a minority view and can't really go in the genres' section.Solino_{the Wolf} 20:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what "less sourced" means. Do you meant that there are fewer references that support it or that every review supports it but they use the phrase less frequently than the others? BTW: More people will take you seriously if you capitalize correctly (Christian) and if you use references correctly. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry I don't think capitalizing is what we talk about here but thanx. I think everyone using wiki knows what less sourced means. It means there are fewer references for the genre. (as you can see above or by searchin' a little in the reviews and articles about Underoath). I really don't wanna make it seem like genre warring but death metal really has a few references in this case.Solino_{the Wolf} 21:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Capitalization shows professionalism and appreciation to detail. It's also offensive to some. But I suppose I can't suggest anything to you since you don't even have a level of professionalism to spell "thanks" correctly.

Apparently not everyone does know which was why I asked. I agree with the lack of sources though, they're not really death metal.

--Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree about death metal. With screamo, the reason I opposed it being listed was to keep the infobox broad (there is a policy about this for music genres, too lazy to find it right now.) My rational was that emo and screamo are both forms of hardcore and post-hardcore, and as they are mentioned in the article, putting them in the infobox I think is unnecessary. Why was hardcore removed? While hardcore can be a reference to metalcore, there is at least one reference saying that at one point the band played "straight out" hardcore. If anything, post-hardcore and screamo should go and it should just be "hardcore," as that is both accurate (post-hardcore, emo, and screamo are all hardcore styles) and broad.--3family6 (talk) 03:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Genre in lede. Currently reads post-hardcore but metalcore doesn't seem out-of place. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Besides their old stuff, I don't see how they are metalcore, they don't play very much of what would be considered breakdowns, and their music is more heavily based around punk and pop than metal. And besides screaming, there is nothing really "hardcore" about them, so the metalcore label is pointless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LarryTheDolphin (talk • contribs) 23:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Their old stuff is their stuff and so it's one of their genres. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I think progressive metal should be added to the genres. They're newest album follows that criteria pretty closely. Homie C (talk) 08:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable reference that calls them that?--¿3family6 _contribs 12:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I listed the references on the page. I think that should suffice. Homie C (talk)

Metal Archives is not reliable, because it is user generated and the editorial staff is not professional. I am not sure about Metropulse, that might reliability requirements. Please read up reliable sources to get a better idea of what types of sources Wikipedia aims to use. Good luck!--¿3family6 _contribs 11:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Update: Okay, Metropulse looks reliable, but the source in question mentions "progressive," not "progressive metal," and those are not the same thing.--¿3family6 _contribs 12:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

If you listen to Disambiguation, odd time signatures are prominent. I think it's just an obvious observation. For instance, there's no need to reference the fact that Underoath is a band because that's pretty much obvious. I think the progressive metal thing is pretty obvious as well not just on Disambiguation, but on the album before that, too. You guys do whatever you want, but I think that progressive metal should be kept. Homie C (talk) 05:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

[copies of articles deleted]

Jesuswasmessengerofgod (talk) 16:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

You could have just asked to change the genre. Not done unless you have a source for it--Jac16888 ^Talk 17:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Underoath was not a black metal bands, it was a unblack metal band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.103.94.210 (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

True, but there is a general consensus on Wikipedia that there is no such thing as unblack metal as there are no reliable sources to support it as a genre. I have heard the term used, but we need a WP:RS for both the term and its association with Underoath. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there are plenty of sources for the term "black metal." But I haven't seen any that call Underoath that.--¿3family6 _contribs 00:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Post-hardcore and screamo are subgenres of hardcore punk and Underoath combines these musical elements with Christian music, that's why it's also a Christian hardcore band. (Read about "Christian hardcore") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.40.31.173 (talk) 20:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Correct, but since both the Christian and hardcore nature of the band is covered extensively throughout the article, it would just be redundant to add that to the infobox genres (I assume that's what you were requesting).--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 00:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Given the many bands that have cited Underoath as an influence (I know of Memphis May Fire and Kids in the Way citing them, and I'm sure there are many more), perhaps the style section could include a subsection about Underoath's influence on bands in the genre?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I just read the Kids in the Way "influence" on AllMusic "combining their love of rock and screamo (the Smashing Pumpkins and Underoath have been named as influences)", I'm not convinced. A more detailed expression of that influence would be required to explain how they were influenced by the band. Did they listen to Underoath and say "hey, we can play better than that, let's form a band" or did they say "I want to rock like them"? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't remember the name, but there is some hot new British band that cites them as an influence. I stumbled across them on Wikipedia, but I can't remember which band.--¿3family6 _contribs 20:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Could be. I'm sure a Google search would turn up a lot of them.

Walter, that was just an example, I'm sure there are enough Underoath-influenced bands that we wouldn't even need to mention Kids in the Way in such a section, if that's what you're worried about.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

(But just as a side note, in this interview with JFH, Dave Pelsue mentions, "We listen to music like Blindside, Underoath, y'know, the screamy stuff - that's in there." Again, not a big deal, but there you go.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I listen to music from Palestrina to John Coltrane to Johnny Cash to Brandon Heath to Five Iron Frenzy to 116 Clique to Underoath, but it would be difficult to trace how that influences the music I write or perform. I can tell you who my musical influences are and I do listen to that music as well so we have to be careful not to equate the word "listen" with "influence" since the one is a sub-set of the other. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

So unless they say "these bands have influenced our sound" or a RS comments on the influences of another band on them, it's not verifiable to state otherwise. Unless of course, we want to use influence in a broader sense of the word. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

(At this point I'm just assuming that the idea of such a section has more or less been approved, and that now we're just debating about how to tell "influenced" from "I have them on my iPod".)

Actually, the statement was specifically in response to a question about what the band's stylistic influences, and in context, "That's in there" is obviously referring to their sound. Sorry for not mentioning that before.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 23:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

On another note, as a starting point for this section, perhaps we could start listing bands that have cited Underoath here on the talk page (with sources, of course).

I suggest some changes in infobox:
Genre = Christian hardcore/metal, metalcore, screamo, post-hardcore, unblack metal (early years) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.23.163.30 (talk) 15:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

What should happen is that a style section should be created and discussion of the band's style (not the style on individual songs) based on what has been written by reliable sources. Then, we can add a summary of that to the infobox. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe post hardcore is the main genre they play. I only think their early work and their newest stuff is metalcore.

What do you think? Ereuka (talk) 17:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The third paragraph of this article says Underoath received two Grammy nominations, one in 2007 and one in 2010. This isn't true as they did not receive a Grammy nomination in 2010, they received a Dove nomination. When these nominations are mentioned later in the main article, as well as in the articles about the nominated albums, the nominations are referred to correctly, it's only in this one sentence. Could someone change this? Either to "They received a Grammy nomination in 2007..." or "They received a Grammy nomination in 2007 and a Dove nomination in 2010...". Thanks. 67.58.198.58 (talk) 21:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091205183951/http://www.grammy.com/grammy_awards/52nd_show/list.aspx to http://www.grammy.com/grammy_awards/52nd_show/list.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 08:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Underoath is going to be touring with BMTH and Beartooth in the spring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplecocktails (talk • contribs) 23:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the "Post-break-up activities and reunion" section, the first sentence reads "In January 2015, the band and launched a campaign..." It should read "In January 2015, the band launched a campaign..." unless the band launched a campaign with someone else. 146.126.51.51 (talk) 15:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Done Thanks for spotting the typo! — Iambic Pentameter _{(talk / contribs)} 18:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Underoath. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120524100953/http://www.buzznet.com/tags/envyonthecoast/journals/2526911/underoath-choose-album-title-get/ to http://www.buzznet.com/tags/envyonthecoast/journals/2526911/underoath-choose-album-title-get/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160110175950/http://media.altpress.com/specials/podcasts/AP_Podcast_8_UNDEROATH-1.m4a to http://media.altpress.com/specials/podcasts/AP_Podcast_8_UNDEROATH-1.m4a
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071208061827/http://www.crossrhythms.co.uk/articles/music/Taking_The_Oath/16016/p1/ to http://www.crossrhythms.co.uk/articles/music/Taking_The_Oath/16016/p1/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110715195217/http://www.rockonrequest.com/id218.html to http://www.rockonrequest.com/id218.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100408164858/http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=1943559&blogId=532247560 to http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=1943559&blogId=532247560

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 00:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I think Christian Metalcore should be replaced with simply Christian rock as it incompasses all of the bands music snd the band doesn't only make Metalcore music. Dekai Averett (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Walter Görlitz I am not opposed to this because although metalcore is the best sourced genre, they have also been considered hardcore, post-hardcore, metal and emo and all of these are also rock genres. Either version works fine IMO.--MASHAUNIX 10:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Metalcore is in the infobox to describe the bands sound, however the group also makes emo, screamo, and post-hardcore. It was said that Christian rock is a poor choice of lead because it is not in the infobox (however many bands have simply "rock" in the lead when they play more specific genres such as Punk, Alternative, Indie, Hard rock, and Heavy metal). If Christian rock can't be included for this reason then I suppose a better lead is Christian hardcore as Emo, Screamo, Post-hardcore, and Metalcore are all subgenres of Hardcore punk and they are a Christian band. Dekai Averett (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Metalcore keeps behind added to the lead which only describes a fraction of their sound. The lead should aim for generality and Metalcore is a specific genre with a few subgenres. Hardcore on the other hand describes all of their Infobox genres so why can't this be the lead I ask? Dekai Averett (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

But "hardcore punk" is only part of metalcore. Entirely absent is any association with heavy metal. Why not generalize to extreme metal? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Well yes but "extreme metal" has no association with emo, screamo, or post-hardcore. All of those genres are directly related to hardcore punk. Other pages are like this, such as the Converge and Alesana pages. Dekai Averett (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Which is why metalcore is a good compromise. It encompasses the metal and punk aspects. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Metalcore shouldn't be mistaken as a catch all term for the continuum between Punk and Metal. If you look at the infobox genres, the best sourced ones, all of them are forms of Hardcore punk. We should focus on the best sourced genres. Metalcore is not a general term like Hardcore is. Metalcore is a distinctive style and unless the infobox genres can fit into that term or are related enough to fall under such a term. Dekai Averett (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Hardcore punk is also a distinctive style, and the metal components of the band are not represented by that term. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

What if we described them as a Post-hardcore band? Post-hardcore is a brroader term and can be applied to a multitude of mixtures of genres. Or even simply rock. Dekai Averett (talk) 03:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I think leaving the lead as simply rock would be best. The band crosses multiple genres throughout punk rock and metal including emo, screamo, indie rock, post-hardcore, metalcore, death metal, and black metal. I think that calling them simply a "rock" band or calling them a "punk rock/heavy metal" band would be best. Dekai Averett (talk) 03:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

That was the earlier consensus as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Since Christian Metal and Christian Hardcore are only there to describe the Christian Metalcore sound the band makes could those be replaced with simply Christian Metalcore so Screamo can be added without clutter in the infobox. Dekai Averett (talk) 02:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

All of the following are referenced: metalcore, hardcore, post-hardcore, emo and screamo. Five isn't too many. Christian metal isn't referenced. We should only include what's supported. Walter Görlitz (talk)

Christian Metal may be included because they played a style akin to Black Metal and Death Metal in their early days. Dekai Averett (talk) 02:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The edit you made was fine. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Underoath. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080829235715/http://www.hmmagazine.com/exclusive/cornerstone_festival_2006_review200608/index.php to http://www.hmmagazine.com/exclusive/cornerstone_festival_2006_review200608/index.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927024319/http://www.saintrocknroll.com/interview.php?band=Underoath&date=2007-03-23 to http://www.saintrocknroll.com/interview.php?band=Underoath&date=2007-03-23
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110831214120/http://underoath.sandbag.uk.com/Store/DisplayItems.html to http://underoath.sandbag.uk.com/Store/DisplayItems.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090207065936/http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view to http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=1943559&blogId=534154965
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120730000213/http://www.underoath777.com/blog/underoath-release-play-your-old-stuff-1018 to http://www.underoath777.com/blog/underoath-release-play-your-old-stuff-1018
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091102103137/http://www.musicmight.com/artist/united+states/florida/ocala/underoath to http://www.musicmight.com/artist/united+states/florida/ocala/underoath
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130203222654/http://www.thedailytimes.com/Weekend/story/Blessings_of_success_make_metalcore_band_Underoath_bigger_than_its_members_id_007967 to http://www.thedailytimes.com/Weekend/story/Blessings_of_success_make_metalcore_band_Underoath_bigger_than_its_members_id_007967

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

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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.

as usual, the MySpace blog was not archived. The others are fine. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:48, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Underoath is no longer a Christian band. So where it says “underoath is a Christian metalcore band should be removed “ 2600:1004:B04D:B232:B815:CA88:CC21:2886 (talk) 18:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — IVORK _Discuss 23:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I'm new here so I apologise if I've missed previous conversation on this topic. I think it is important to note that, while Underoath were a Christian band for most of their career, that's not the case with their most recent album 'Erase Me'. There's multiple interviews that back that up. For example, here's an interview Spencer did with triple j in Australia: https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/short-fast-loud/underoath/9681850

And here's a quote from Spencer in that interview: "I think we’ve all grown up a lot and are able to say we don’t necessarily believe in a fairytale heaven and hell and those kind of things. What I retain from it; you know, it was some of the worst years of my life, being a part of that community."

I think there can be a way this page acknowledges the Christian influence on the band for most of its albums, while also clarifying that's not the case with their most recent work and the band has indeed turned its back on Christianity.Harrisonvc (talk) 04:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

That's not a particularly clear statement. I know lots of followers of Christ who do not believe in a "fairytale heaven and hell". If they come right out and state that they have rejected Christianity and no longer follow Christ, we'd have something to write about. A clear statement could be added to the Christianity sub-section. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Under the Influences tag it says "Bassist Grant Brandell has explained that Underoath's music has been influenced by various bands such as Refused, At the Drive-In, Apple Not Asteroid, Jimmy Eat World, Isis and Radiohead." I've looked for this Apple Not Asteroid band and found little to no information about them, much less in relation to Underoath. The article that supposedly references this makes no mention of the band. It should be removed as an influence. 190.188.208.128 (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

In Underoath’s first two albums they were put under the categories of Death Metal and Black Metal. Should Extreme Metal be added into the list of genres to encompass these? Dekai Averett (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Black Metal should replace one of the genres in the list. Once again, a group of retards assembled the list. 2600:1700:93B0:6B50:DE9:579F:9A69:4F05 (talk) 20:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

What a mess! I am seeing unaddressed maintenance tags that are over a year old and extremely under-covered sections dating back to when the band reunited in 2015. In addition, there are several uncited statements throughout; a few obvious ones, including at least one citation needed tag. This article looks emaciated for a "good article" in some cases. dannymusiceditor ^oops 16:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Just because they released a single doesn't mean we have to write about it, even though MetalSucks put a small blurb about it on their site. We should seek guidance from WP:NOTNEWS and recognize that Wikipedia is not here to publicize every single, video or other release, we're should only cover the notable ones. We should remove it from here and push it into whatever album article it makes sense to move it into, provided that it charts. If it charts well, then it makes sense to write about it here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

What? So you want the page to be outdated? What about when the band releases their new album and we include information on their new album? Wouldn't we need to include this song as it would be the lead single? Every other band article I've seen mentions new singles in the history section. It doesn't hurt the article. Without it, the history section isn't up to date. I understand not including news stories that may not be confirmed yet but this is just a new single. It's not controversial. By this logic we should remove the mentions of the singles off of "Erase Me" while we're at it. This song is going to need to be mentioned if a new album comes out. I have never heard of not being able to add a new song to a band's history section. That makes not sense. I would like some other editors to join this discussion because that is definitely wrong. Bowling is life (talk) 21:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Have you read NOTNEWS? Do you understand that not everything this (or any) band does is immediately notable? Do you agree that not every single they release is worthy of an article? By extension, we do not need to mentioning every single they release in the article.

As for your questions, if they release a new album (or EP, or even a mini-album) it's likely to get a lot of press and should be considered notable, but there are many instances where it's not worth mentioning a release of any kind.

If it's the lead single and doesn't chart or even get much notice, it would make sense to include that in the article on the album, or—if the album is not notable—to mention that both the lead single and album were a commercial failure.

Most other metal and rock band articles are so poorly written that appealing to them is a waste of time.

It clearly is controversial, and we have been discussing this at the musicians project recently. If you want, I could invite those editors to this discussion, but remember, this is a passing mention in a WordPress "website". That really carries very little weight. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

As their first public release in several years, it is notable on its own. NOTNEWS does not apply here. It is not a rumor, an arbitrary act by band members, or an event that other sources have deemed newsworthy - It is the band’s first release of published music since 2018, and as a rock band’s notability stems from their musical activity, this release is noteworthy. Its mention in the article has not been embellished with opinion or speculation, nor is it simply one in a number of non-noteworthy releases. Their first major musical activity deserves simple recognition, which is what it has in the article. Mcfuggins (talk) 18:33, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Notable, in Wikipedia terms, does not mean "important to fans", it means is well covered by reliable sources. If it's actually newsworthy, as you claim, show the news sources that are writing about it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I've since added more citations to news sources that have written about the single, and I could continue to add more if it were necessary or appropriate, which it is not. Your insinuation that chart performance and commercial success are the determinants of notability for a band's new release is both archaic relative to the music industry, and extremely subjective. Inclusion of Damn Excuses on the band's article page does not violate any of the four categorical exclusions outlined in NOTNEWS in any way.

Thank you. There's a fine line between notability and WP:OVERREF.

Do you notice that every source uses the exact same image? Do you find that odd? It's almost as if a publicist provided them with it and encouraged them to write about the piece. I'm not saying it's payola, but it is suspicious. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I noticed it, sure. But if you're insistent on industry publicity being the standard for notability, you should be familiar with this as common practice. If reliable news sources are writing off of publicist leaks, then that's the notability standard, and you'll find it for every artist. If the notability standard is different, we should have that conversation as a complete one, rather than a throwaway point in this discussion. Mcfuggins (talk) 14:00, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Not "industry", but "reliable". Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Tracklist to new album voyeurist:

Track List: 1. Damn Excuses 2. Hallelujah 3. I’m Pretty Sure I’m Out of Luck and Have No Friends 4. Cycle ft. Ghostemane 5. Thorn 6. (No Oasis) 7. Take A Breath 8. We’re All Gonna Die 9. Numb 10. Pneumonia Underoath838 (talk) 14:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Articles about musical artists have information about the band, their members, artistic style, live performances and recordings. However it is only on articles about those individual recordings that you would provide a track listing. If there is an article created about the new album Voyeurist then that's where it belongs. --10mmsocket (talk) 14:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Why don't you write the article about the new album yourself? Take a look at their other album articles (and the wikiproject links above) and just follow their lead. It's a great opportunity for you to learn. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Assuming the album currently meets notability criteria. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:41, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

It has recently been announced that rhythm guitarist James Smith has left the band. The main page is locked, so I cannot update it to include this new information. If someone can, please do so. RahyneManic (talk) 22:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Arguing over genres is a tale as old as time, and I personally don't really get the fuss. The situation seems to have exploded on that front, so I tried to bundle them all into a single reference. At first I considered bundling each genre into its own, but it seemed like some sources weren't as good as others. For instance, AllMusic/RhythmOne aren't the best sources, and Sputnik Music seems like a UG source? Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 17:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

This is not a bad solution, but for this case, if it were up to me, I'd suggest something like Deftones uses. dannymusiceditor ^oops 18:00, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

That's another possibility. I'm not sure what's better per se, but wow they have a lot of cited influences. I think it works well there since Underoath has 6 main genres cited with a couple sources for most. Deftones has over twenty with several citations for most of them. I could see how the way I did it wouldn't work for something like that article. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 17:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

See title. They've said so in interviews. 2601:840:8081:8FF0:D6DA:662F:B7FF:4A7B (talk) 00:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I recommend excerpting information at the end of the History section about the band's 10th studio album release today (28 March 2025) and reproducing it at the end of the overview section up top that summarizes the article. Excerpt below:

Underoath released their tenth studio album, The Place After This One, on March 28, 2025.^[1] Stedman Halliday (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 13:00, 20 May 2025 (UTC)