Talk:Iron Maiden/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Upheavel Section

I have seen interviews with Steve Harris that implies that guitarist Adrian Smith left by his own will, he was not booted, this error should be corrected and sited. 74.222.208.167 (talk) 04:19, 15 June 2008

Yeah, I agree completely - I hadn't noticed that statement before. I too was under the impression that he left due to lack of enthusiasm, rather than being let go for it. I'll look for a source when I get home and fix it, assuming we're correct. ~ mazca ^talk 07:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

From what I remember and gather, Adrian did leave to explore other projects. Just a look at some of the songs Adrian helped write ("Two Minutes to Midnight", "Wasted Years", "Stranger in a Strange Land") and you'll likely come to the conclusion that he was writing music meant for a single lead guitar. But I also seem to remember in ineterviews that he made the choice to leave. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

judas priest influences

http://members.firstinter.net/markster/POINTOFENTRY.html

Judas Priest preceded Iron Maiden by a few years in discography. The fact that they were a supporting act for Judas Priest so early in their carreer and they "borrowed" the leather image (among other things), too soon right after Judas Priest themselves launched it, I think constitutes a great influence for Iron Maiden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.140.93.157 (talk) 00:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Influences

The guy above makes a good point about Judas Priest being verifiably an influence for Iron Maiden. But the concern for me is on that whole sentence in the lead, which says they are influenced by "Thin Lizzy, UFO, Wishbone Ash, and Deep Purple". All of those seem pretty reasonable to me, sure. But the sentence is completely unsourced, and it seems to be defended pretty vigorously by the various people who watchlist this article. For example, when Judas Priest got added a few days ago it was just reverted without comment, but it was no more sourced (and no less reasonable) than the four acts already there. That sentence needs sources, or it needs to go - the lead section is not a place for original research. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 12:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Wishbone Ash is mentioned a lot in a tabs book I have I don't know how I could site it on here unfortunately, the other bands are all mentioned on the early days dvd but again I'm not sure on the proper technique for siting something that's not an electronic artical —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.201.143.208 (talk) 10:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! If nobody else gets to it, I'll look into citing those later myself. Could you tell me what the name of the tabs book you have is? ~ mazca ^{t | c} 12:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who added Wishbone Ash, I'm pretty certain. I distinctly remember seeking out that band after reading Harris claim them as an influence in at least one of my tab books. I'm pretty certain I read it on this tab book: http://www.amazon.com/Iron-Maiden-Guitar-Tab/dp/0769260195/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1218737579&sr=1-11 I might have thrown that book out, though...because as far as the accuracy of the tablature goes, it was pathetic (you can see my review from over four years ago saying as much). Ynot4tony2 (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I've cited both the things mentioned, if anyone sees a problem feel free to update, or just let me know. I'd love to see this article FA-quality again at some point and we need to sort out the sourcing if that's ever going to happen. :) ~ mazca ^{t | c} 20:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The last.fm bio of UFO mentions Maiden thanking UFO on the liner notes of NoTB although I'm not sure if thats a credible source or not Link:http://www.last.fm/music/UFO/+wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.61.127 (talk) 07:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The NotB liner notes themselves are credible sources, since someone's works can be cited to support their opinions. Furthermore, seeing as how Iron Maiden has covered "Doctor Doctor" on one of their b-sides, I think it's pretty much undisputed that U.F.O. has influenced them.

And even though *I* am not a credible source, Maiden's last couple concerts have started off with U.F.O.'s version of "Doctor Doctor" playing through the P.A. shortly before the band takes the stage, and they've ended the last half dozen or so concerts (after the band's last encore) I've seen with "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life" from the Monty Python movie "Life of Brian" (this is mentioned, but not sourced, on the Wikipedia page for the song). Should this warrant a mention? If so, can anyone find a credible source? Ynot4tony2 (talk) 12:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

In early interviews as well as official publications of the IMFC, Harris was explicitly citing Tull, Sabbath and Priest as his main influences. The others emerged much later. The reason it is getting deleted here is because there is an idiotic feud/competition between Priest and Maiden fans. The music is the same, but the fans have to hate each other - hey, if there's no reason to hate we'll make one up!!!!

RE the above two comments: covering someone's music is not the same as an influence. The reason UFO, Priest and Kiss are mentioned on the NoTB backsleeve is because Maiden supported those bands on tour. Influence means the muscic of the influencing band helped shape the influenced band's music in one way or another. A band can cover another band's music without necessarily being influenced by them. According to this reasoning, G'N'R were influenced by Bob Dylan? Priest by Joan Baez and Peter Green? Gimme a break. 65.51.22.212 (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The UFO song covered sounds a bit like the style Maiden uses, and Maiden's version didn't deviate much from the UFO version.

Besides, you are simply assuming Dylan (or any number of bands that performed the very same song) didn't influence GnR, and that Baez/Green did not influence Priest. You have no basis for these assumptions. So no, you get no break. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 20:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm... I still cling to my break. Of course no can totally disprove the influence of some bands on others, but that's not the point. "Influence" in general means those bands that had a major, conscious role in shaping the influenced band's music. If you were to cite any and all influences, you'd probably have to cite 300 inluencing bands for every influenced bands. IMHO the best thing is to stick to Harris' own (and earliest) words: Tull, Sab, Priest. 65.51.22.212 (talk) 11:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, that's only a partial list. I've read were Harris has also cited Wishbone Ash, for instance. But yes, you're right...we should find words coming directly from the band members before making such a claim. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 12:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Brice Dickinson is on record about the Sabbath Influence, at least so far as the song Children of the Damned in this quote: “I have to make a full and frank confession that I was suffering from Black Sabbath-itis when I recorded that track, far too much ‘Children of the Sea’ and all that stuff. Spotted by someone in the press at the time and vehemently denied by me.Of course I’ve never listened to a track called ‘Children of the Sea’ by Black Sabbath before I sang…ahem.”Winterdenni (talk) 13:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Up The Irons

Is it appropriate that a wikipedia search for "up the irons" redirects here even though there is NO MENTION WHATSOEVER of the phrase anywhere on the page? More than a minor oversight, IMHO... -70.251.98.176 (talk) 19:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

-Perhaps it should mentioned that it is a well know catchphrase among fans and the band themselves, as shown in the booklets with most of their albums. Iron-Mailer (talk) 23:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point! I added a paragraph under "Image and legacy". Ynot4tony2 (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Good addition. I briefly thought about adding it a few days ago but a good place for it in the article didn't stick out at me - where you put it looks good. Seen anything we can source it to, by the way? I'm sure there's several good ones, I just don't personally own any of the good books/DVDs that are useful for sourcing these things. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 22:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how we would source it. Since the phrase appears in the liner notes, we could potentially cite the discs/albums/tapes themselves for part of the addition. I'm struggling to find a legitimate source or even a discussion of the meaning/origin anywhere...I just find fans using it as a greeting or way or announcing they are a fan. But since the band certainly uses it, and frequently, this page should mention it even if we can't find a source outside the band. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 14:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

After a little digging, it seems that "The Irons" refers to West Ham United, a London Soccer club of which Harris is a big fan. A search of "Up the Irons" and "West Ham United" will give plenty of legitimate sources, but you'd have to dig a little deeper finding one tying the band to it all. It will be even more problematic finding sources to "prove" the fans' use of the slogan in reference to the band. I'll do a little more on this later, unless someone else does before then. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Up the irons definitely relates to west ham as the irons is one of West Hams nicknames. As for definitive proof of support for the west ham(apart from interviews), the 7:3 scoreline on the sleeve of somewhere in time has got to be evidence of a huge fan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.80.64 (talk) 10:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Ed Force One

Surprised there is no mention that Bruce Dickinson has a commercial pilots licence and co-pilots the plane. Every flight uses the call sign "Bruce Air 666". 59.167.41.167 (talk) 11:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Normally there would be an argument that such a fact would belong on the Bruce Dickinson page and not here, but since the band (I'm pretty sure) travels on the plane for gigs (as I was lead to believe by video footage shown at their recent concert), it would be worth mentioning here. Do you have a good source for it? Feel free to add it. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

There is mention of it on the page, "The first leg of the tour consisted of 24 concerts in 21 cities, travelling over 50,000 miles in the band's own chartered plane "Ed Force One"", with reference 39 pointing to a pretty big page of information about ed force one here. A reference to Bruce's piloting might be a worthwhile addition, although I don't know whether it would be more suitable on his personal wikipedia page. Steve355 (talk) 23:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out to me. I think Bruce's piloting of the band's plane is worth a mention here and on Bruce's page. Assuming no major disputes, I say go ahead and add this factoid. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 13:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Unnamed 15th album

I removed the mention from the discography. I'm under the impression that "discography" describes a band's body of work...and this would not include albums which do not exist yet.

I would go as far as to say that, as of now, the upcoming 15th album does not merit any mention on this page at all. Yes, I'm aware there is a mention on the official site about Bruce saying they are going into the studio after the tour. But until there is more information like a title, a solid release date, or samples/tracks available, all talk is purely speculation. It's potential release is just too far off to be treated as impending. Any thoughts? Ynot4tony2 (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I pretty much agree. I think there's also been an interview recently where Steve Harris confirmed that they are working on a new album, but again there's very little in the way of useful information to put in an article. ~ mazca ^t|c 21:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to semi-protect the discography, and maybe the introduction? I don't want to discourage new users from editting other sections, but it's a bit annoying to track a page that's constantly barraged with the same two edits (album sales, "unnamed 15th album") from users who do not even bother to read the discussion and don't have the same interest in maintaining the page as other, more established users do. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 13:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately protection on an article is all or nothing - you can't semi-protect individual sections. I agree it's pretty annoying, but I don't think overall disruption to the article is enough that we can justify semi-ing the whole thing. I've added a hidden comment at the bottom of the discography: it certainly won't stop everything, but hopefully some well-meaning contributors will notice. ~ mazca ^t|c 18:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I have added a quote from Adrian Smith from a recent interview where he says that the album will not be as far off as previously imagined. I think that warrants the info as it was previously thought to be a long way off. Apologies for non slick usage of Wiki, noobz eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.167.143.229 (talk) 16:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Quote or not, it tells us nothing more than they play on making a new album. Not worth a mention as it contains nothing but vague generalities and no specific information. "...generally accepted that Maiden would not release an album any time soon..." Generally accepted by whom? Without a hard release date, album title, or something a bit more specific, your recent addition doesn't give any useful information. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject Iron Maiden

That's about it, I think Maiden it's being waaay underated here on wikipedia, and deserves mora than what's getting, just look at the NIN pages, looks awesome, then how it's posible that one of the greatest metal bands of all time has an article that doesn't even meet the "OK" criteria. Rockk3r Spit it Out! 01:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

If someone else wants to join me to create this wikiproject, then you're welcome to join (as it cannot be created with only one user as editor)

Add yourself to this list, and let's bring the maiden-related pages to a better status!

1. Rockk3r
2. Canniba loki 04:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

3.--Insaneingus (talk) 01:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

when are you going to re-write this article?the current edition of the article s*cks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krem12 (talk • contribs) 12:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

IRON MAIDEN SALES 2

iron maiden have sold over 100 milion records! .It's not logical to say that you change the number of the sales to 70 million because you think that is too much. i have also to say that iron maiden have sold more than metallica,nirvana and others!Krem12 (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

By all means, find a good source for the information and change it. Currently the source (the band themselves) claims 70 million, not 100...so please do not change it until you can properly source it. And believe me, I'm more than willing to give credit where credit is due, especially with my favorite band of 20+ years...but I still want verification before we embrace such an edit. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 13:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Go to last.fm ant type in search box iron maiden ,in the moment that an iron maiden song plays read their history,it says that they have sold MORE than 100 million records!Krem12 (talk) 12:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Please my bro band,s member as usual cited the sale results as statement of EMI - their main distributor, of course wWITH label of EMI band's sold 75 mln now, but 5 other labels still distributed'em too. Emi reveala ONLY THEIR OWN RESULTS - the same is for Depeche Mode , there's been always like that... Sources, please browse yourself on google results for 100 mln Maiden sales, more sources THAN EVER!!!! For example, Amazon.com, Gigwise., Rockmemorabillia , Rockline, Kultur.no, and many more... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.158.196.117 (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I´m a Maidenfan for many many years now, and i´ve talked to maiden crew members and also with people from emi uk, both sources were talking of 70 million albums + 25-30 million singles, dvds etc.! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.138.122.22 (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

BIILBOARD SPECIAL EDITION

in the image and legacy section of the article used to be a line saying that the only time that billboard magazine changed the letters of it's name was when somewhere back in time released and the name was written with iron maiden style of letters.what happened to this line????? Krem12 (talk) 10:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Continuing SBIT World Tour

http://www.ironmaiden.com/index.php?categoryid=1 It states more dates for South And Central America are to be announced. And they will also play for the first time in Peru to 40,000 fans. --Insaneingus (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I've added a brief summary of this new leg of the tour (though I do wish they'd either come play in the UK again or make a new album!). The whole paragraph involving this tour probably wants a general cleanup, but it's hard to do it at the moment with the combination of past- and future-tenses. I guess after March it will be easier to condense. ~ mazca ^t|c 00:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hope they come to florida...they haven't been here for 16 years.--Insaneingus (talk) 01:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Openning Paragraph

It looks pretty good so far, but it would give a better first impression if it said about how influencial they are/were on metal bands, and on metal as a whole. They are easily in the top 5 most influencial metal bands from the error and probably of all time. It would make the band seem more impressive than the opening article leads on. And isn't that the idea of an openning paragraph, to give a good first impression? Xanthic-Ztk (talk) 04:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

"top 5 most influential metal bands" is hard to quantify and just as hard to source. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 14:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Formation

I think it should be noted that they were formed in 1975, but when you say that, sounds like they were formed for a whole year. They formed on xmas, so that was only 5 days in 1975. The history, and everything should start in 1976. Afterall they didn't do anything worth of mention in those 5 days, it really sounds like if it had been for a whole year, this should be fixed.  Rockk3r Spit it Out! 06:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The format on wikipedia seems to call for putting in the year, not the year with a disclaimer. Using 1976 as the year they were formed would be factually inaccurate. The article is fine the way it is, as anyone looking for more detail will discover that they were formed on Christmas. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 11:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. They formed in 1975 - that's a fact, and that's correct. While they might not have done anything "worthy of mention" in those five days, they had indeed formed the band so the history of it starts there. Plus, any kind of disclaimer would strike me as kind of useless: not only is the difference between them being a band for either 33 or 34 years fairly academic at this point, but in the "history" section the first sentence states exactly when they were formed in that year. It works for me. ~ mazca ^t|c 14:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

OK you convinced me haha. I agree that it's ok the way it is now, and anyone looking further will find out they formed on xmas just by reading the first sentence of the history section.  Rockk3r Spit it Out! 16:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Iron Maiden Sales

I have 2 reliable sources that show Iron Maiden has sold over 80 million albums. If you have any problems please feel free to say :) Cheers!

http://www.phillyburbs.com/musicguide/ironmaiden.shtml

http://www.whatrecords.co.uk/iron-maiden.asp Ralfisloved (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen those ones before. There are other quasi-reliable sources that say 100 million, 90 million, and 70 million. Given the contradiction, I'm most comfortable with leaving it at 70 million - (a) all the sources agree it's "more than 70 million" and (b) one of the sources for that figure is the band's official website. ~ mazca ^t|c 22:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

i have a link that claims more than 100 million,it's last fm so it's reliable.Type the following: http://www.last.fm/music/Iron+Maiden/+wiki Krem12 (talk) 10:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Last.fm is self-described as a "social network and music recommendation engine." At best, it's "quasi-reliable". Ynot4tony2 (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Last.fm's artist info pages are a wiki, and an unsourced one at that. The opening paragraph is taken verbatim from an old version of the Wikipedia article, in which an unsourced claim of 100 million was made. This is why Wikis are not usable as reliable sources: if we used this as a source for an album figure, we'd effectively be sourcing ourselves. ~ mazca ^t|c 14:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Missing Discographies

Hi all, I've noticed the following albums aren't mentioned in the Discography section. I was wondering if there's any specific reason to that? -- User:Xushi

• 1985: Live After Death
• 1994: Live At Donington
• 1989: Maiden England
• 2005: Death On The Road
• The Very Best Of
• 1998: A Real Live Dead One - 2 albums
• 2002: Edward the Great
• 1999: Ed Hunter

This serves? (Iron Maiden discography); "Missing Discographies" or released albums? Canniba loki 21:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, by past consensus we just keep their new-material studio albums on the main article page, and the linked discography contains all the other releases. The ones you mentioned are live albums and best-of compilations. ~ mazca ^t|c 00:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Derek Riggs' Insignia

I think there should be a column on the Derek Riggs' insignia on the page and especially his killer artwork on the Somewhere in Time album and the various references that are present on the cover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazardous id (talk • contribs) 05:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The wiki page for Riggs has a feature on this insignia and where it appears in his artwork. The references in the Somewhere in Time album cover are a bit too detailed and specific to merit a detailed inclusion in a general encyclopedia, I feel. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, i am aware of that. But since there's a separate section called "Image and Legacy" I think its relevant in this page too. However, I agree with you about the Somewhere in Time cover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazardous id (talk • contribs) 15:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Any information about Maiden ought to have atleast a subsection on Eddie and Riggs. Eddie is unquestionably the most recognised face of any band (as a mascot) and Riggs has played a significant part in his history.220.224.15.16 (talk) 19:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Arrold.

We already have a distinct mention of Eddie in the "Image and legacy" section, with a link to the article Eddie the Head, which covers his origins and image in worrying detail. The main Iron Maiden article is already fairly long and there is a lot of information to include - I don't see why we really need to have more than a sentence or two about Eddie considering there's a separate article. ~ mazca ^t|c 19:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Order of band members

There's been a few reverts in both directions over the last few days: I think we need to come to some kind of consensus over what the correct order the band members should be listed in is. Some people (myself included) seem to think that listing them in order of join date is the most logical, ie:

• Steve Harris
• Dave Murray
• Adrian Smith
• Bruce Dickinson
• Nicko McBrain
• Janick Gers

whereas some others seem to prefer vocalist-first drummer-last order:

• Bruce Dickinson
• Dave Murray
• Adrian Smith
• Janick Gers
• Steve Harris
• Nicko McBrain

This obviously isn't a massively important point, and I don't think there's really a right answer here - the various Iron Maiden CDs I have seem to have no particular rhyme or reason to the order the members are listed in. I guess it's just a good idea to have a quick poll on who thinks which one works better for the article, any thoughts? ~ mazca ^t|c 16:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

For some additional info, looking at the various metal band featured articles we have there doesn't seem to be any consistency there either. Metallica and Tool (band) go for the join-date order, AC/DC and Megadeth go for vocalist-guitarists-drummer order. Motorhead and Slayer are no use as the two orders end up with the same result. So, flip a coin anyone? ;) ~ mazca ^t|c 17:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it really matters how they are listed on the discs; this is an encyclopedia and the order should have some sort of logical basis. As such, it makes the most sense to list them in the order that the people joined; listing them by how much time they've spent in the band sounds reasonable as well. Regardless, Harris should be listed first. He founded the band, has been in it the longest, and does most of the writing. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 00:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• I've never heard of any definitive order style for band members. The suggested methods seem reasonable. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

Why does this keep changing? What standard did we finally decide upon? The random method? Ynot4tony2 (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No idea - I don't think we really did decide anything, there wasn't a great deal of participation in this discussion! Right now we seem to have join-date order (which I prefer) in the main section on the article, and alphabetical order by last name in the infobox. I'm not a fan of the alphabetical order at all... but evidently someone likes it! We should probably pick one and use it consistently within the article - if people have a preference, please contribute to this discussion. ~ mazca ^t|c 23:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm still for using seniority, i.e., who has played on the most albums. This would put the drummer above the singer, which a lot of people seem not to like. It's a little harder to guess who has contributed more or drawn more fans to the band, so it just makes sense to use a logical or chronological sorting order. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 01:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Number of album appearances is fine by me. In practice it ends up with a similar result to join-date order, and it's definitely logical. ~ mazca ^t|c 17:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Iron Maiden Official Wikipedia English

Hi, my name is Ralf I,m current site user and musicologist, reviewer and writer. I,m generaly into hard rock and metal phenomenon, it,s a bit about the Iron Maiden career thei influence the legacy and honesty in music industry, rare attitude I guess... Maiden,s been played for 34 years at ruuning point, many record labela released and reedited their stuff throught these decades, but the major one and generally important as usual is british notable giant EMI. They have always promoted them all over the world excerpt from US. Last year signed and renewed new multiplexable deal and EMI in 1993, 1996 and last decade of new millenium released and proclaimed their official statements of band's achievement and effects of record sales. In 1993 that stated 36 mln, 1996:43 mln, 2001 - 53 mln, 3 years later they stated 63 mln , year ago it spanned 73 mln.... Maiden sales were more and more out of mainstream promo activity. As EVERY majors, EMI concentrates on their own market range and demand results depended on stocks ordering. With EMI label record sales for Maiden catalogue equal over 70 mln. Undisputted truth. But band's back catalogue and running titles were distribuled by alternative label, for ex:Sony, Epic, Universal, CMC and Maiden's omn Sanctuary rec. These manufactures sold many millions currently casual versions of discs and separatelly streams of limited edition series, collectable edits. Officialy only on their signed teritories but in fact, we could buy it almost anywhere. Life's right code... EMI can't control results of record sales with foreign markets labels, in case of that rights for controllers of world wide markets. If we studied the record sales of long time bands wich were distributed by the few record labels in long carrers we could released that achievements of record sales are vary. It's like that with bands such as Queen (180/320 mln), Depeche Mode (75/110 mln) and even AC/DC(155/210mln). According to their current labels results are estimated ONLY for sold issues of matter copies. Main result of world wide total sales must be compiled with data of ALL distributors and their purchasers all over the world, that's explainin' the difference! For some artist wich carreers at the begining are depended with the one and the same record label on throught the decades ( mainly american big stars as Ozzy, Doors , Van Halen) estimating the sales results are simple as kiddie toy! But.. back to Maiden thread; In their case we've got one main merchant name (EMI) and 5 the other ones ! I've been detecting their carreer for 25 long hard years. With Maiden it's so same as with Depeche Mode, Some serious sources state with over 70 mln, but bit mor with over 100 mln. You can check it out with web browser , and many other sources from the quoted links for Maiden WIKI Sites in foreign languages. That,s so easy. My conclusion and direction, please change the official record sales published on English Official Wiki site for Emi. Revealed data as "over 70 mln " cited from 2008 EMI press advertisement for "Somewhere back In Time Compilation' is right just for record sales of Maiden albums released only by EMI. Label,s statement cited for dozen times last year is still the source of discussion between legions of fans. Maybe that's interesting and even exciting but the truth is so clear, if you could please rechange the data on WIKI site, revealin' total sales not only for EMI. Thanx for patience if you've read until that point. Big greetings UP THE IRONS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.158.196.117 (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

What you're saying broadly makes sense, but it's not really usable in an article unless you provide sources. The figure we have for sales at the moment may, as you say, only include their sales through EMI, but right now we have absolutely no source for any better or more accurate sales figures - if you can suggest where we might find these, please do. As an encyclopedia, we can only really include previously-published, verifiable information. ~ mazca ^t|c 19:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Some sources from Emi statement in Poland 2008/09: www.miastomuzyki.pl/biografia-iron-maiden,1532 more www.aktivist.pl/wydarzenie/eventld,406753,iron-maiden-wydarzenie.html more SPD Mexico, Rezorgate.com, Ticket Liquidator, 8notes, Gigwise, Total Guitar.co.uk, Kultur.no, Radio Rockline, Winnipeg Sun, The independed, You can find infos on last.fm and facebook If you read concert official reviews from all over the world sites, last year and present there were too many, you can receive the short bio of band and record sales result of 100 mln, more and often than EMI,s "more >70 mln". Yeah, I knoe that point clear now, many sources quoted EMI 70 mln result 'cos it seems to be easiest to check out , established and sounds "politically correct". Yes, that's right but not representative for total sales... Managers and band members often expresses different point of view, and their describes for statistics may be so wide scaled : for witness- last Sao Paulo Attendence and many more... Smallwood and Co. ain't kind of men only into stright measure results , not statistics men. Please bro, check that out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.158.196.117 (talk) 19:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I replaced the artist's official site which was supporting the sales of 75 million albums with a third party reliable source. Please, don't support statements of any kind by artists' official sites as they cannot be regarded as reliable, see WP:RS.--Harout72 (talk) 16:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Iron Maiden Statistics

Maiden fans all over the globe. Wikipedia so many times changed their statement for numbers of record sales about Maiden. Some past sources datas were right at that moment, but now some "righterous" extra correct individual citing just from EMI label achievent sales durin' the 30 years period of distributing their music with LABEL of EMI Rec, indeed! Just 75 mln at this moment for Emi. Mammoth achievement, one of the biggest in tradition of releasin' for this established label. But NOT ONLY the Emi distributed Maiden Music in the world, since 1990 ther were 5 another music foreigner labels to purchase their stuff mainly but not exactly in USA. Emi has always based on their own statistics as in case of the other their artists for example: Queen, Depeche Mode, Deep Purple- their right. I'm Maiden freak since I was 9, frenzing 25 years madness, now. How many sources for their record sales ammount effects (??) hundreds of them and still grows more. Most of them states by "over 100 mln figure" that was with Wiki last time... But WHY Eng Wiki quoting and always pointing at Emi statistic as The One and complete , representative for world-wide band's sales, but it's just a part of achievement in fact!!! Even if you are really into, observe the career of band and if you really realize the level of that you must agree many times ago band received the special outstanding sales award signet and representative just for Emi. 1996/o1/05/08 special multiple platinum certificates for sales of ''42/52/64/73 mln copies UNDER EMI LABEL LOGO catalogue of that band! If you read the other Wiki bios of Irons should see many " >100mln" statistics number and links, sources for that. That's a fact. Sources, oh my god try Maiden bios in net, many to citing there. Maybe for most of people there is no difference between over 70 mln or 100 mln, but I still wonder why in case of other bands just like Metallica , Sabbs or Deep Purtle Quotin' their sources of sales according net bios was usual "right" and JUST FOR MAIDEN "not exactly".... That's hypocratics, a little fake my friends. Paul Di'Anno Managers In artists bio said that Only First 2 albums of Maiden sold Worldwide totally in 20 mln copies source[1] check please, next one [2] polish main official site associated with EMI!!! Next one:[3] for example if you only want you could find 'em more. Correct this, please...(maidenfan (talk) 09:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC))

Ivor Novello

Did Maiden win their Novello in 2002 (as in main text) or 2000 (as in awards list) -Gif 93.97.106.42 (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC) (Edit for typo 93.97.106.42 (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC))

Associated Acts

What, exactly, is the point of associated acts? Can you really call Wolfsbane an associated act? Does every project of every former and current member belong?

Samson, for instance, is a band I associate with Bruce Dickinson, not with Iron Maiden. About the only "associated act" in my opinion is Lauren Harris's band, as they last toured with Maiden and Steve seems to be helping promote his daughter's band.

So let's define what "associated act" means, and someone feel free to explain how Samson, Wolfsbane, et al, qualify as such. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 18:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This has already been defined through discussion - see Template:Infobox musical artist#Associated acts.--Alf ^melmac 21:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

According to the definition linked above, none of the bands listed in "associated acts" belong (since we are to avoid "association of groups with members' solo careers" and "Groups with only one member in common"). Seems like a no-brainer to me, that the section should be scrapped altogether. But, I'm open to discussion before I delete it. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 01:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

No complaints from me about deleting the list.--Alf ^melmac 14:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed here too. I have gone ahead and removed the field for now. ~ mazca ^t|c 00:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Touring in 2010

http://www2.kerrang.com/2009/10/iron_maiden_set_to_charter_ed.html Rod Smallwood talked about the tour, and how they're going to even more new places. So should this be put in the article?--173.65.134.113 (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Record Sales

Do we really need eight sources for the album sales? One, maybe two is sufficient. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 13:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

They seem to have been added recently as part of the ongoing "how many records have they sold?" dispute. Apparently eight references saying 100 million beats the previous 1 reference saying 75 million. Unfortunately, at least six of those references were blatantly bad sources, and I've removed them and rephrased that whole sentence somewhat - the two remaining references are still less than stellar. ~ mazca ^talk 19:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed three of the four sources that were currently on the page. One was a blog, one was foreign language, and one was an amazon page which cited an on-line music encyclopedia. I left the link to NME...it's the website for a print magazine, so it retains some credibility.

I have also fixed the broken link to Iron Maiden's official page about their record sales. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 01:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Associated Acts

As has been covered in the talk page archives (page 2, at the bottom), "associated acts" do not include solo projects for individual band members, nor bands that have a single member in common. I've removed the section again. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 01:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Unverifiable and uncited "____ are fans of the band" content?

Hi all, I have just reverted an edit from an anon that states (the bold-italic portion below):

The Sum 41 song "Fat Lip" contains the line "Heavy metal and mullets it's how we were raised, Maiden and Priest were the gods that we praised"

Iron Maiden are also immensely popular among well known celebrities like David Beckham ,Lindsay Lohan ,Sam Worthington (Lead actor of the blockbuster Avatar) and Miley Cyrus who uploaded a video on her website 'Mileyworld' saying that she was an Iron Maiden Fan

Unlike the previous (the bolded only) section, it does not seem verifiable, and was not cited. Please re-revert if anyone thinks my revert was inappropriate (with my apologies), but as much of an Iron Maiden fan as I am, I think it kind of cheapens the article (at least the way it was written). If it was written as "During the 2009 Online Music Awards, Lindsay Lohan said she loves Iron Maiden" or something similar that indicated something verifiable, I'd be all for it. So, perhaps its just the wording.

Best, Robert

RobertMfromLI | User Talk STP2: Producer/Gaffer/Webmaster 21:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It would seem Almosthonest06 agrees, as his revert to remove that statement beat mine in - so clarification time:

I tried to revert the anon edit, but Almosthonest06 beat me to it. :-)

RobertMfromLI | User Talk STP2: Producer/Gaffer/Webmaster 21:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

New Album Release Date

I have reverted the new album's release date from Sept 2010 to 2010 or 2011 as indicated by the band. Additionally, the latest news I can find on it is here: http://www.classicrockmagazine.com/news/iron-maiden-finish-new-album/ from Feb 16, 2010 stating no release date has yet been set.

If anyone has citable information to the contrary, please feel free to re-revise the release date and cite it.

RobertMfromLI | User Talk 17:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Reverted another "Sept 2010 (Confirmed)" release date that was not cited - nor could I find anything online other than speculation for that date based off the theory that Maiden will want it out before they start their new tour.

Please, if anyone can actually CITE an official statement showing a release date, by all means do so. Otherwise, I have a feeling all you anons are wasting your time changing it to un-verifiable, un-cited information as it will continue to be reverted back to the latest, CITE-ABLE, VERIFIABLE information.

PS: putting "confirmed" in the page edit does not constitute a proper citation or reference.

Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 23:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Announcement has been made on the main page of the website ("expected to be released late summer of this year") - release date has been already changed to 2010, and should probably be left at that unless there is a new announcement of a date change.

RobertMfromLI | User Talk 20:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

New Album Name

The name for the new album has been announced as "The Final Frontier" - it is currently announced on their main web page (which currently consists of only that page). The page seems to keep going up and down at the moment, but I have verified it and ref'd the anon's addition of the name.

Here is a screenshot the anon took (see titlebar): http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/5365/88552046.jpg

Currently, the website reads:

"IRON MAIDEN ANNOUNCE NEW STUDIO ALBUM "THE FINAL FRONTIER" AND NORTH AMERICAN TOUR IRON MAIDEN are pleased to announce that their forthcoming new studio album will be called 'THE FINAL FRONTIER', and is expected be released late summer of this year."

RobertMfromLI | User Talk 20:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Nit-picking on the Image and Legacy section

"Well over a half-dozen other Iron Maiden tribute albums (each featuring various artists) exist, including a piano tribute, an electro tribute, a black metal tribute and a hip-hop tribute."
I love the tribute albums, especially the piano one, but I'm not sure it's really fair to include the hip-hop one.
(quick disclaimer: While I've never been a huge fan of hip-hop, I did keep an open mind about the album)
In all honesty, I can't hear any resemblance (not even a faint trace) between the hip-hop versions and the originals. I got so frustrated with the hip-hop album that I eventually listened to the one song I knew better than any of the others - The Trooper - and listened to the hip-hop version of it over and over again, attempting to hear a resemblance - yet I heard none.
If you look at the Amazon.com reviews of it, you won't find a single good thing to say about the album (and you will find I am not alone in not hearing any resemblance) and, while their theories are not sourced, a great many individuals went so far as to accuse the album of being a cheap marketing trick to try to take advantage of some of the more hardcore fan-boys.
That said, I'm not really sure it's appropriate to call it a tribute album when the only thing that bears a resemblance about it to Iron Maiden is the album's actual name. Or at least, it may not be wise to list it under the examples with the others.
On a side note, I've checked out most of the other tribute albums mentioned and, while I didn't necessarily like all of them, I could at least tell they were covers of Iron Maiden songs. Xanofar (talk) 05:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

English v British

I have reverted an IP's presumably good-faith edit which changed the first line of this article to describe Iron Maiden as a British heavy metal group, as opposed to an English heavy metal group. I believe English is more accurate and appropriate in this context and the article is include in the classifications "English heavy metal musical groups" and "English rock music groups". There is no appreciable Welsh, Scottish or Northern Irish component to the band. Happy to hear other thoughts on this? Careful With That Axe, Eugene ^Hello... 08:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree - we should generally be as specific as we can with these things while remaining accurate. Given that all members are clearly English and the band was clearly formed in England, there's no reason to obfuscate by changing to 'British'. ~ mazca ^talk 09:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I do agree with you in this respect, but I think that because something has formed in England it doesn't make it an automatically English band. For instance, a band consisting of Welshmen formed in London wouldn't necessarily be an English band...if you follow me. May seem a little out of context, but I think we should stipulate exactly what we mean by an English band Drivenapart (talk) 10:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

That dispute does come up sometimes on bands that actually do fit that description - the general outcome tends to be that if a band is unambiguously associated (both the band and the members) with one component of the UK then we call them English/Welsh/Scottish etc, and if it gets confusing or controversial then they become "British" to save everyone pointless bickering. I think that's probably the easiest way to handle it. ~ mazca ^talk 10:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I have removed blatant, uncited (and incorrect) speculation from Claims of Occult References

I have removed this: Possibly due to these controversies, the band's later albums moved away from those themes to notably less controversial ones, such as film and literature (the album Piece of Mind and songs like "The Prisoner", which was based on the British television serial of the same name, "The Wicker Man" and "To Tame a Land", based on the novel Dune), wars and world conflicts ("The Trooper", "Aces High" and "2 Minutes to Midnight"); historical themes ("Alexander the Great" from Somewhere in Time and "Run to the Hills") and even human fears and emotions ("Hallowed Be Thy Name", "Fear of the Dark", and the album A Matter of Life and Death).

"Possibly?" - that alone indicates the section is speculation. There is not a single citation to even warrant wording it in a more acceptable fashion (if there even is one), and the section is incorrect - for instance, as just ONE example, on AMOLAD, "The Legacy" is about the devil, and in a good light (as it's from his point of view). Another example, "For the Greater Good of God" (AMOLAD) is about the evils of religion.

AFAIK, editors/contributors should not be entering their opinions that they think possibly might be right. If anyone believes I am incorrect about this, I would love to discuss it here.

'(Of course, that does not mean they worship the devil (nor do I believe they do), it simply means, as they have stated, they sing about a lot of topics - and in a more realistic way)'

Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 03:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this smacks of WP:OR. Careful With That Axe, Eugene ^Hello... 10:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Happy to see this gone, but I'm absolutely baffled that you could interpret The Legacy as a song about the devil from his own perspective. To me, at least, it's a soldiers' perspective criticism of the upper echelon of the military and the propaganda that deceived them into trusting the generals and those who now, on their deathbeds, are seen for what they really were all along. Anyway, I suppose that's all irrelevant to the article... Baron Ronan Doyle (Sprechen mit mir) 14:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the removed material, it's clearly opinion, and incorrect opinion at that.

Possibly due to these controversies, the band's later albums moved away from those themes to notably less controversial ones... songs like "The Prisoner", which was based on the British television serial of the same name

"The Prisoner" is from the same album as "The Number of the Beast"! Baron Ronan Doyle (Sprechen mit mir) 14:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

OOOPS! Sorry, I was thinking "Lord of Light" and not "Legacy" - sorry.

RobertMfromLI | User Talk 15:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Genres (Heavy Metal and/or Progressive Metal) - DISCUSSION/CONSENSUS

An editor (or two) keep adding "Progressive Metal" to the genre list, which, as of the last discussion (see archives), is against the earlier decision to simply leave "Genre" as "Heavy Metal"

Though I dont have a particular opinion on the matter, to help stop the edit war that seemed on the verge of starting, I am opening a discussion here, and have notified the editor(s) involved so they may participate and will hopefully avoid 3RR or an edit war until a consensus is reached.

Anyone for the inclusion of "Progressive Metal" in the "Genre(s)" list (in addition to Heavy Metal)?

RobertMfromLI | User Talk 02:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Do any reliable sources label them a progressive band? J04n(talk page) 03:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK, reviewers have been using terms such as "progressive influences" and similar to describe their last two albums, but (and I have not been digging for such) I have not seen them or their albums being labeled as such. Is the criteria that they be considered a "progressive metal band" or that their music is being labeled as "progressive metal" or is it sufficient that their music is being labeled "more like progressive metal"/"progressive influences"? If the first, then I'd probably vote no unless someone finds a reliable source. If the second, I'd vote no unless someone finds a reliable source. If the third, I'd probably vote yes, as their music is being labeled similarly lately. But that'd be solely based on Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion of such stuff and not my opinion on what they play. My opinion on that is they are definitely heavy meta, with (lately, as well as sometimes in the past) influences of progressive rock thrown in. RobertMfromLI | User Talk 03:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Associated Acts

Please stop trying to add "associated acts" to this page. The acts listed simply do not qualify under wikipedia standards. You don't add a name to the list just because they had a member or two in common, nor do you add solo acts.

I don't care if other wiki pages for bands make this mistake...that's no excuse to make the same mistake here. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 01:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Budgie

Why is Budgie not listed under Iron Maidens influences? If you compare them, they sound very similar! If you listen to "Wildfire" by Budgie, you can clearly hear where Maiden got the idea for "Two Minutes to Midnight"! Steve Harris has stated that Budgie is a huge influence, and Iron Maiden has even covered "I Can't See My Feelings". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.16.226 (talk) 03:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Because I dont think any one has found any reference that shows Steve or anyone else from Maiden saying that. If you find such a reference in a reliable source, that's great! But if you dont, then even if we agree that they sound very similar, it's still just our original research which isn't permitted on Wikipedia. Best, Robert ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 18:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I think if they cover a song from another band, it's a fair call to say they were influenced by that band. Perhaps a better compromise would be something along the lines of, "Iron Maiden members have specifically cited (insert band names here) as being influential in shaping their music, and they have covered songs from the likes of (insert other band names here). Ynot4tony2 (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The influence section of the article needs improvement anyway. The first article referenced lists only Steve Harris' influences, the second article doesn't mention any influences apart from where it displays the Iron Maiden wikipedia page- so the article is actually referencing itself in this case.--Nerdtrap (talk) 15:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thrash?

Iron Maiden has been classified as thrash metal? Seriously? Ynot4tony2 (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Could be wrong, think an IP added it before. No source was provided for it though. HrZ (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

List of Awards

Perhaps this is slightly picky, but is there a particular sorting applied to the various awards IM have received? It doesn't appear to be by date or alphabetically. I would propose that each awarding body (e.g. Brit, Grammy) is listed alphabetically, with actual awards listed chronologically beneath. Any opposition? Careful With That Axe, Eugene ^Hello... 17:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Derek Riggs/Eddie

The article makes it sound like Derek Riggs ceased creating "Eddie" image for Iron Maiden in 1992, which is patently untrue. Perhaps it could be amended that he was the exclusive creator of "Eddie" images until 1992, and continues to provide them, but is no longer the artist used exclusively by the band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.128.193 (talk) 04:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Phrasing has been changed per your request. --Nerdtrap (talk) 12:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

List of Awards

This section just keeps growing & growing, and it smacks of fancruft. I hate this section! Many of these awards are barely notable and most have no references. Back in February I posted here to see if anyone would help reach consensus on how to order the Awards section - I think now I'd go further and suggest that this section is trimmed right back to just 4 or 5 entries - after all, there is a dedicated article for their awards. Being at work I sadly do not have the time to be bold and make sweeping changes myself but perhaps that's for the best. I'd rather seek consensus here first. So, any thoughts? Careful With That Axe, Eugene ^Hello... 08:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

If the band already has an article dedicated to their awards then I agree that, in the same way in which this article only has a shortened discography, it should be trimmed. I think it should be knocked down to the high profile awards (the Grammy, Brit and Ivor Novello for example) and possibly the Classic Rock and Metal Hammer awards as they have their own ceremonies and selection process, although other "awards" based entirely on magazine polls and internet polls should probably be removed. It should also be examined whether or not the article should mention the European Festival awards and awards given to Flight 666 as these technically weren't given to the band.--Nerdtrap (talk) 09:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it should conform to the standard method of doing such things. So, per Nerdtrap and Eugene, I too agree, like every other article, it should list a few of (a) their significant (pick valid rationale to determine which fit) awards or (b) a few awards from each category (ie: print pub review awards, inductions, etc), and be linked to the page with the full list. I'll be away with limited access till July 1st, so, if final consensus is to do this, I may not be able to help you guys (though I am sure you can handle it without me messing things up). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 16:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't see any real reason to list more than a handful of major awards and number of times (if applicable) that Maiden has won. IMO, anyhow.Intothatdarkness (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I think the Grammy, Brit and Ivor Novello should definitely be kept although I'm not so sure about the Nordoff-Robbins (it sounds fairly prestigious but I don't know too much about it). I get the feeling that the Classic Rock awards should be kept because it has its own ceremony and is fairly well known, as are the Metal Hammer Golden Gods and Kerrang! awards ceremonies, but all reader's polls should go I think. In my opinion, we could probably keep the Juno award as that's still relevant to the band, although not really awarded to them personally, but the festival awards were given to Sonisphere itself, not Iron Maiden, so they should be removed. Although definitely notable, the Rockwalk and Keys to the City weren't really awards so should probably be moved from that section and into the main body of the article.--Nerdtrap (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Concur. Rockwalk isn't as big a deal as, say, the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. Readers' polls aren't necessarily notable in and of themselves, either. I'm iffy about the N-R award (again, like you, because I don't know that much about it). Festival awards should be out if they're given to the festival proper (although it could be noted on the Sonisphere page, perhaps).Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Iron Maiden in the Palais Omnisports of Paris-Bercy (France crop).jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Iron Maiden in the Palais Omnisports of Paris-Bercy (France crop).jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests May 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Iron Maiden in the Palais Omnisports of Paris-Bercy (France crop).jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 06:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Winchell

What is Spruce Goose? How to develop P-38 style, turbo prop aircraft: have connections like Howard Hughes. Urchin75.251.169.170 (talk) 02:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Urchin

Greetings. I am #11527 member-exmember, or whatever. Deja-Vu cannot be played in concert, and neither can Back in the Village. That's all I have to say. I'm just a slave </\>75.253.160.157 (talk) 06:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Just 90 mln albums sold worldwide!

According to original press release for Download Festival 2013, Iron Maiden just have sold 90 mln albums world wide via EMI Rec Ltd. Check: http://www.downloadfestival.co.uk/iron-maiden.html

Quoting: "Iron Maiden recently completed the hugely successful North American leg of their 'Maiden England' tour, with a set list and production based largely on the band's live concert video filmed in Birmingham during the 'Seventh Son of a Seventh Son' tour in 1988. Widely considered one of the most important rock acts of all time, Iron Maiden have sold almost 90 million albums worldwide, played over 2000 live performances across 58 countries around the globe, and released 15 studio albums including the most recent, The Final Frontier, their biggest ever chart success attaining No.1 positions in over 28 countries".

Change the main data in the Maiden WIKI BIO!!!

THX — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.180.191.32 (talk) 16:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I would not be inclined to trust a festival website for accurate figures considering the fact that they are trying to sell tickets and will therefore be extremely generous about the bands that they have booked. An impartial source, such as a newspaper, is more ideal. In any case, the figure given in the wikipedia page is referring to "record sales", the band's wider catalogue including videos, singles etc, rather than just their albums, 90 million sales of which is very far-fetched.

The figure as it stands was decided by consensus two years ago, with which I was not involved but maintain. In my opinion, the statement is not, as it stands, as informative as it could be, given the age of the source and the differing figures given by various articles. I actually think the statement should read "In 2010, the New York Times reported that Iron Maiden have sold 85 million records worldwide..." However, without further consensus, the statement must remain as it is. --Nerdtrap (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Clive Burr's death

Is this something we want noted in the article? IPs have been adding it over the last couple of days, while others have been taking it out. Personally I don't see any harm in noting it in the members section (where it's being routinely place), but figured it was worth mentioning here so that others can chime in and a record of discussion can be created. Intothatdarkness 15:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I did not think it his passing was that relevant to the band initially. But considering band members made statements in a release about Burr's death, it seems OK. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

That was my take as well. They've also stayed active with the Clive Burr MS Trust and so forth, so he's been a part of the band's ongoing history in that sense. Intothatdarkness 15:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

It is relevant to the article as the band's numerous Clive Burr MS Trust fund performances are covered. Putting it in the members list is not appropriate- it does not denote why Burr's death is relevant to the article and implies that we should update the list whenever any former member dies. In my opinion, a note of Burr's death should go alongside one of the sentences about the band's charity concerts (preferably the last).--Nerdtrap (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Actually, I had no preference as to where the information went. Just figured we needed a record of discussion so we'd have a fixed location for the information. Intothatdarkness 16:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Praying Mantis

Praying Mantis should be listed as an associated act, Dennis Stratton was in the band from 1990 to 2006, Clive Burr used Chris and Tino Troy in his band as well as playing Mantis himself and Paul DiAnno even did a tour with them alongside Dennis doing Mantis and Maiden songs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxeFv1KMEX4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.114.186 (talk) 22:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

They have a sufficient number of shared members so you're right, they should be added.--Nerdtrap (talk) 23:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Eddie????

why do we have a section on the chartered jet but not on Eddie, Iron Maiden's mascot who has appeared on practically every album cover? Blanc morte (talk) 14:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Eddie does have his own full article and a paragraph in the "Image and legacy" section. We could expand this into its own subsection, I suppose. The "Special charter" section is a bit of an issue as it has not really gone anywhere far and largely repeats and expands information in the "Somewhere Back in Time World Tour..." subsection- I think it may be best to reduce this info and merge it back into "History" or even in "Image and legacy" as a single paragraph.--Nerdtrap (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Logo Design

Other than a graphic showing the logo differences, does anyone know "why" there was a change in the logo design? And if so, should that be added in somewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Z-vap (talk • contribs) 22:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

On the genre

Since heavy metal is a sub-genre of rock music, why not put "hard rock" in the bio after heavy metal?108.81.33.59 (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Because Heavy Metal is a genre and subculture in itself, there is a difference between hard rock and heavy metal. Though I am only guessing someone else reasons. Blanc morte (talk) 14:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I agree with the OP. Hard rock should be on there. HR and HM is not all that different. I would even add progressive rock because they have some very prog-rock material.108.81.33.59 (talk) 03:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect. Iron Maiden has always been heavy metal, both in terms of looks and sound. There is a more compelling case for adding prog rock, especially with some of the compositions on the first two albums, but that requires consensus here. Intothatdarkness 13:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Not really prog rock. They actually were more similar to Prog metal, you know combining prog rock and metal. If I had to list the genre's in the infobox, it would be Heavy metal, Progressive metal, Speed metal. I would also say they were highly influential on power metal and thrash metal. 99.108.198.222 (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Use of self-published sources in regard to album/record sales

Rather than engage in an edit war over this, I thought I would start a discussion instead. The sourced figure of 85 million records from a reputable source (NY Times) was decided by consensus prior to my involvement in the page and, as a result, has not been deviated from since. Despite this, we have had numerous alterations to this figure, typically bumping it up to the holy grail of 100 million sales. One of the regular changes, such as the latest, involves using a press release from the band or a concert promoter to change the figure to 90 million album sales. The reason why these changes have always been reverted is that they are in clear violation of Wikipedia's stances on referencing and the use of self-published sources (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Questionable_and_self-published_sources and similar articles for more info). Given that the sales figures are such a contentious issue, using a source from the band, particularly an article which is advertising the group and their products, is a clear breach of Wikipedia's policy and they should never be used. While I understand that moving this new figure to a footnote was possibly done as a compromise, in my opinion its use still conflicts with policy despite making it clear that it is a press release.

If we want to change the current figure, it is clear that we need to hold another consensus and find a recent, reliable, second-hand source to give us the new total. As for this discussion, I thought this would be a good place to confer over the footnote containing the 90 million figure; whether it should remain and, if so, whether or not it should be altered to a second-hand source.

As a side note, while the 90 million figure might appear to show a reasonable growth from 2010's 85 million, they are in fact vastly different. The current figure represents "record" sales, which encompasses albums, singles, EPs, DVDs, videos and other forms of media in this vein, however the 90 million claim refers to album sales alone. The idea that album sales have totalled 90 million appears very far-fetched in my opinion, especially when considering that the total record sales which we can ascertain from certifications are under 20 million.--Nerdtrap (talk) 15:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

It did look like much of an edit war to me. I moved the 90 million figure to a footnote simply for comparison purposes since it seemed like comparable to the 85 million from 2010. I was not aware of the record/album difference before. Removing or keeping thr note and ref are both fine with me. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

27 April: Brand New Figure:

https://www.onkyomusic.com/GB/iron-maiden-hi-res-catalogue

https://www.onkyomusic.com/US/iron-maiden-hi-res-catalogue

From official sites of ONKYO MUSIC about remastering process of IM catalogue. Current sale data, 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RALFFPL (talk • contribs) 08:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

CITE: The idea that album sales have totalled 90 million appears very far-fetched in my opinion, especially when considering that the total record sales which we can ascertain from certifications are under 20 million<...> Not exactly in fact. The certificate sales are based on soueces compiled from local markets focusing on sales thresholds accepted by authorities. Sales index is compiled for the some period of time, but behind this one album is still released and year after the year thousand of copies are sold worldwide, but very often never included for certificate sales. Some major markets just like British or American are "scanned" by companies (Nelsen - Nielsen for example in the USA) but tens of smaller markets are out of this procedure. Just look at the Deep Purple or Scorpions database - certificated sales of these ones oscillated around the numbers of 17 or 22 mln but total number of sales records are estimated at "more than 100 million copies". That's true. Even if you compare the Rolling Stones dara base of certificated sales - the datas are pretty under "250 mln records", maybe 60 mln finally. The next problem are the labels - if the band is represented by so same record label since the beginning worldwide, the certificate sales number are most primary to estimate and the final numbers are closer to summary record sales cited in biograms - the examples : Mewtallica, Madonna, Bruce Springsteen, AC/DC and many more.

So I think if in 2010 official band's site informed that's summary Maiden album sales achieved the threshold of 85 mln, today number of "more than 90 mln" is pretty believeable taking into account the market conditions, cuttin' prices of CD, the streams of new remastering releases and two hughely succeful tours.

I think it's time to change the data on Wiki-site of IM from 2010's "over 85 mln" to newest "over 2015". ONKYO MUSIC info is based on band's management info and focused on this we must admit is a way more fair to believe tan random data from "NY TIMES" info published (sic!) 5 years ago! We should see that many sources worldwide multiplexing the data from newest sources (ONKYO MUSIC, IM MANAGEMENT) as brand new and most actually if we do not change the sales number on WIKIPEDIA IM SITE - it will generate data - conflict and make many people confused. We should be "on time" and avoid this situatium. Wikipedia should be just one step before all the sources!

Thanks for patience and attention - and seriously consider my proposition. It's time to change number of sales! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RALFFPL (talk • contribs) 10:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The date is clearly stated so not being perfectly 'current' is not a major issue. onkyomusic.com is not a quality source, like the New York Times source. A 3rd party source of similar quality/reliably is needed to update the figure, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, just look at the official press release at the band's "home page (section NEWS - "Book Of Souls) the Parlaphone Rec. said band's albums has been sold in "over 90 mln copies so far" - see the bottom of the site, please. The official statement of the band's record label and management are the most believeable source and respected all over the whole world's media and Wikipedia, so I'm checked many wikisites of major bands, sales figures are based on official statements data not the newspeapers or the journalists' articles in some magazines, even if the articles were published in "New York Times" or "Daily Telegraph".

Check the band's "Book of the Souls" news (bottom line) and change the "85 mln data" please. Since five years we all are still in 2010 (yeeeaap) - and many sites after English version of Maiden Wiki site - echoed the old datas as a mantra - SHAME! :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.74.154.244 (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Book of Souls

Just to avoid confusion, this has been confirmed by the band as the title of their new double CD. Story is here.Intothatdarkness 16:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I checked right after you reverted the IP and found that story. Looks to be a significant album as well. Intothatdarkness 16:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanx for adding the info - BUT:Hi, just look at the official press release at the band's "home page (section NEWS - "Book Of Souls) the Parlaphone Rec. said band's albums has been sold in "over 90 mln copies so far" - see the bottom of the site, please. The official statement of the band's record label and management are the most believeable source and respected all over the whole world's media and Wikipedia, so I'm checked many wikisites of major bands, sales figures are based on official statements data not the newspeapers or the journalists' articles in some magazines, even if the articles were published in "New York Times" or "Daily Telegraph".

Check the band's "Book of the Souls" news (bottom line) and change the "85 mln data" please. Since five years we all are still in 2010 (yeeeaap) - and many sites after English version of Maiden Wiki site - echoed the old datas as a mantra - SHAME! :(

THX — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.74.154.244 (talk) 17:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

influences - iced earth

so, apparently iced earth did some covers by iron maiden, same title. wasn't even aware of this fact.

not too keen on editting wikis, so if the curator cares at all, the curator may add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.146.151.9 (talk) 06:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Album sales figure supported by a reliable source

I know the 90 million figure has been kicking around for some time and we have been waiting for a reliable source to replace it, but it has just been published by The Observer in this article. Given that this is from a reliable source which isn't just copying a press release, what do we think about finally replacing the NY Times figure?--Nerdtrap (talk) 14:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Still waiting for a response, does anybody have an opinion on replacing the figure? I'd rather get a consensus of sorts before just replacing the old one.--Nerdtrap (talk) 13:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

This seems fine to me. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. If you don't do it I will, but really I can't possibly see how it would be controversial. C628 (talk) 02:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Excellent. I've replaced the figure now. I just wanted to run it through the talk page before just editing, given how contentious an issue it is.--Nerdtrap (talk) 07:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Not "only" heavy metal

We all know that a lot of their music is "heavy metal," but that doesn't mean all of it is. Most would agree that a lot of their music, like Judas Priest, has some elements of heavy metal in it, but is not loud and aggressive enough to be defined as "heavy metal" by the traditional definition. Take Flight of Icarus, for example- that song isn't all that heavy. Even Run to the Hills doesn't seem heavy enough sometimes. Is there anything wrong with putting "hard rock" in the infobox after "heavy metal?" I'm currently searching for a citation for this, but so far, all I've been able to find is a lot of people on forums who think some of Maiden's music isn't heavy metal. I'm sure there's a reliable source out there.2602:306:83F9:1880:50B0:DD0D:D946:345F (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Pls read over M. Scott Campbell (March 2011). Walk With Me Awhile. Lulu.com. pp. 332–. ISBN 978-1-257-06315-4. you got your genre mixed up. -- Moxy (talk)

Iron Maiden is not hard rock, you just don't know what metal is. The songs you listed are all definitely metal rather than hard rock. Anyway, if anything, alternative genres like progressive metal should be added as some of their albums are very progressive. Moxy is right in that their softer songs would probably prog rock rather than hard rock.

Trooper Beer

Please add a mention in perhaps the Image and legacy section of Trooper Beer, designed by the band (Dickinson in particular) and manufactured by Robinson’s Brewery in England. Here is the source: http://www.ironmaidenbeer.com/about# BollyJeff | talk 00:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Title

Should the title not say Iron Maiden (band) just so there is no confusion between this and the actual iron maiden object. ILikeCycling (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Clearly a consensus was reached some time ago. I don't know what the reasons were but I suspect the fact that the use of iron maidens as an actual torture method is doubted and the band's success had something to do with it. In any case, the page for the alleged torture instrument does not require a bracket clarification either as the word "maiden" isn't capitalised. When also factoring in the "other uses" links which precede the article, it doesn't seem to matter. --Nerdtrap (talk) 22:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Members timeline

A detailed one is included in the separate article about Iron Maiden members; I think it would be useful to include here a shortened version (including only members since the first album). OrlinKolev (talk) 13:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

If a band has a separate page for members, that's where the timeline belongs. - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Claimed unsourced edits on Blaze Bayley era

Edits made today January 9th 2017 at 14:31 were reverted and clamied to be unsourced. The sources given were from one of Sweden's biggest news paper, Dagens Nyheter (used in multiple places in this very article already), and Hard Radio, one of the oldest internet rock news outlets. The edits were made to the Blaze Bayley section where the dates for his tenture are wrong.

Accordingly to Dagens Nyheter, Blaze Bayley was officially announced as the singer on December 30th 1993. In the Iron Maiden book 'Run To The Hills', Bayley reviced confirmation from the band on Christmas day 1993.

The press release confirming Bruce and Adrians return can be found of multiple places online, and also on the Hard Radio website. -- EinarSotka (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I can't speak for the user who reverted your edit, however, having had a look at your changes, they are problematic. The main issue is that several pieces of information were deleted in the article, resulting in Bayley's tenure being reframed to conclude with the return of Dickinson and Smith (even though Bayley's tenure ended with a documented band meeting in January 1999). The result is that your edit appears to be an attempt to remove any criticism of Bayley during his time with Iron Maiden, suggesting that his departure only took place because of Dickinson's reinstatement. This contradicts several sources, most particularly the band's biography, which state that Bayley was dismissed due to his vocal issues; statements which you deleted wholesale with your edit. Special care and numerous edits have been made to this section in particular to cover the issue fairly (for example, including an explanation as to why Bayley had issues) and deletion compromises the article's neutrality. --Nerdtrap (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Bayley's tenture ended inofficially in January 1999, but the official announcement was made on February 10th 1999. This is similar to the Chris Slade situation in AC/DC. Chris Slade's second tenture with the band started with documented rehearsals in 2014, but the article follows the official announcements. Regarding what you referred to as 'attempt to remove any criticism of Bayley during his time with Iron Maiden', I don't think we are on the same page here. From my point of view, which is from a country where Bayley was well recived as the frontman of Iron Maiden, the critisism would just be someone's opinion and something that compromises the article's neutrality. Einarsotka (talk) 01:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the points Einarsotka made. What critics think about the Blaze Bayley line up should not dominate that part of the article. I can also confirm that Bayley's official tenture was the stated dates, December 30th 1993-February 10th 1999. Fekso (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Iron Maiden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://loudwire.com/metallica-to-headline-rock-in-rio-2013/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cronica.com.py/online/articulo/6138-iron-maiden-slayer-y-ghost-confirmaron-su-venida-historica-al-paraguay.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://loudwire.com/iron-maiden-to-release-maiden-england-88-concert-dvd/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.classicrockmagazine.com/news/iron-maiden-confirmed-for-download-2013/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101218144328/http://www.mtv.com/bands/m/metal/greatest_metal_bands/071406/index5.jhtml to http://www.mtv.com/bands/m/metal/greatest_metal_bands/071406/index5.jhtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aftonbladet.se/nojesbladet/musik/hardrock/article15499116.ab
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150904024728/http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php to http://riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jb.com.br/cultura/noticias/2012/10/16/rock-in-rio-2013-tera-springsteen-metallica-e-iron-maiden/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160609204645/http://www.kerrang.com/43773/kerrang-awards-2016-the-winners/ to http://www.kerrang.com/43773/kerrang-awards-2016-the-winners/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Priest Influence

Until about 1990 Maiden & Harris always cited Priest as an influence. In the 90es this started to change. IMHO this should be noted in the influence section. - Joe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.145.27 (talk) 02:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Doug Sampson

Doug Sampson joined Iron Maiden in the summer of 1978, not in 1977, and this is wrong all over wikipedia. Someone fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.136.120.122 (talk) 11:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Iron Maiden's manager official album sales statement for 2017.

HI my friends! I'd like to inform that R. Smallwood - manager of Iron Maiden group in the special interview for prestigious "Music Week" UK magazine, stated Maiden has sold "100 mln copies of albums" to date (first day of May'17). To read "Big Interview" must log in for free trail. Statement of the impresario we can find at the end of article.

http://www.musicweek.com/interviews/read/the-big-interview-phantom-management-s-rod-smallwood-and-dave-shack/068326

Read this one please and make a change on official band'a Wiki bio.

Cheers! Up The Irons! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RALFFPL (talk • contribs) 15:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not completely sold on using the band's manager as a reference...I would rather the number come from an independent source. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 01:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The next source: http://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/music/797918/Iron-Maiden-break-from-tour-Nicko-McBrain-snooker — Preceding unsigned comment added by RALFFPL (talk • contribs) 13:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Or how about the official ifpi reports? if these are the actual numbers of 2005 I doubt they made it to 10 mil. in the period that the golden era of record stores has long ceased, it's worth having a look here as well MusicPatrol (talk) 03:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

2017 - The Times: (more reliable than The Observer) - the newest source 100 mln sales: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news-review/iron-maidens-bruce-dickinson-a-man-child-in-satans-sweet-shop-wcjz6s7wt

Next source: https://inews.co.uk/essentials/culture/music/bruce-dickinson-interview-band-fragile-thing/

Firstly the idea is to bring articles here for discussion before adding them to the page without consensus. Secondly, The Times is not a more reliable news source than The Observer. Nevertheless, I have no other issues with the change and will not argue for its reversion, unless there is consensus otherwise.--Nerdtrap (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Iron Maiden. 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/20150227194019/http://rockawards.bandit.se/content/alla-vinnare-i-bandit-rock-awards-2015 to http://rockawards.bandit.se/content/alla-vinnare-i-bandit-rock-awards-2015
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130505092958/http://evening-times.vlex.co.uk/vid/bruce-blokes-dickinson-veteran-boys-65899750 to http://evening-times.vlex.co.uk/vid/bruce-blokes-dickinson-veteran-boys-65899750
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130122193733/http://www.fender.com/en-GB/series/artist/steve-harris-precision-bass/ to http://www.fender.com/en-GB/series/artist/steve-harris-precision-bass/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111009092226/http://www.footballfancast.com/2010/11/football-blogs/west-hams-top-ten-most-famous-fans/attachment/steve-harris-2 to http://www.footballfancast.com/2010/11/football-blogs/west-hams-top-ten-most-famous-fans/attachment/steve-harris-2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426202935/http://junoawards.ca/2010/04/saturday-night-winners/ to http://junoawards.ca/2010/04/saturday-night-winners/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160305034546/https://www.planespotters.net/airframe/Boeing/747/32868/TF-AAK-Air-Atlanta-Icelandic to https://www.planespotters.net/airframe/Boeing/747/32868/TF-AAK-Air-Atlanta-Icelandic

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Iron Maiden. 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/20150109004814/http://www.aquariusrecords.org/bin/search.cgi?search_string=powerslaves:%20an%20electro%20tribute to http://www.aquariusrecords.org/bin/search.cgi?search_string=powerslaves:%20an%20electro%20tribute
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131024113236/http://www.musicradar.com/news/guitars/the-25-greatest-bassists-of-all-time-279007/45 to http://www.musicradar.com/news/guitars/the-25-greatest-bassists-of-all-time-279007/45
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110304182807/http://www.rockband.com/songs/artists/Iron+Maiden to http://www.rockband.com/songs/artists/Iron+Maiden

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)