Talk:Bee Gees

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Contents

[edit] Name of the band

Page title should be "THE Bee Gees", not "Bee Gees" alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.0.206.164 (talk) 12:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Why? If you check LP covers since 1967 and onwards they don't use "The" in front of "Bee Gees". Ferdinandhudson (talk) 11:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Using album covers is not a strong enough argument. There are many groups that have a "the" in the name but don't (always) have it on their albums. I'm not on one side or the other on having an article in the title (of the article). I think there probably should be one, but it doesn't really matter. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] a harmonic "soft rock" act in the late 1960s

I think it's WRONG . The Bee Gees plays Pop ,power pop , psyche pop and baroque pop songs not Soft Rock ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.247.229.246 (talk) 19:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Deceased

To the best of my knowledge, this is still consensus. Radiopathy •talk• 01:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

I see that there are 3 cats having to do with England, and 2 for Australia. From what I can tell, they have lived in the US longer the UK and Aus. combined, so why would there not be any that are "American ___"? --Musdan77 (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Name of the band, again

I think it is clear the preponderance of reliable source 'texts' (as opposed to headlines) support naming this article The Bee Gees (similar to The Rolling Stones and The Beatles). If I hear no strong objections I will move the article in the next day or so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

That seems a bit hasty. Maybe better to wait and see if there's consensus. Providing actual evidence of the preponderance of reliable sources would advance your position more than a claim of it. My take: while these things aren't earth-shatteringly important either way, I don't think "the" is an official part of the name. The sources I consulted suggest it isn't, anyway. They include AllMusic.com (widely cited as a reliable source for musical artist info on WP), Rolling Stone (unquestionably a RS for our purposes), and Billboard (ditto), as well as the biography section at Robin Gibb's official site. That the cover art of all but their first two albums omits the definite article may strengthen the case a bit more. WP:MOS says that an "authoritative source will determine whether the word 'the' is part of a band's name" but offers no hint of where to find such a source. So I would oppose the move unless you provide clear evidence to counter the above. Rivertorch (talk) 09:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I too would like to see proof of this so called preponderance of reliable sources that UnitedStatesian hints at. They have not used the definitive article for a very, very long time and I see no reason to change the band name. Ferdinandhudson (talk) 17:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment UnitedStatesian - please provide several examples of this preponderance for the group to weigh against the established sources that Rivertorch has listed. Ckruschke (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export