User talk:CouchJarvis

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

Welcome[edit]

Hi, CouchJarvis. This is NOT some automated message...it's from a real person. You can talk to me right now. Welcome to Wikipedia! I noticed you've just joined, and wanted to give you a few tips to get you started. If you have any questions, please talk to us. The tips below should help you to get started. Best of luck!  Chzz  ►  01:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ようこそ
  • You don't need to read anything - anybody can edit; just go to an article and edit it. Be Bold, but please don't put silly stuff in - it will be removed very quickly, and will annoy people.
  • Ask for help. Talk to us live, or edit this page, put {{helpme}} and describe what help you need. Someone will reply very quickly - usually within a few minutes.
  • Edit existing articles, before you make your own. Look at some subjects that you know about, and see if you can make them a bit better. For example, Wikipedia:Cleanup#2009.
  • When you're ready, read about Your first article. It should be about something well-known, and it will need references.

Good luck with editing; please drop me a line some time on my own talk page.

There's lots of information below. Once again, welcome to the fantastic world of Wikipedia!

--  Chzz  ►  01:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles

Tiger Moon (New Wave Band)[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Tiger Moon (New Wave Band), and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://tiger-moon.com. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is some indications that Tiger Moon may be worthy of having a Wikipedia Article written about them. But as of now we are far from that point. There are many problems with the article. The sourcing is poor. Websites in general are considered a poor sources, especially Websites that exist purely for profit motive as this seems to me. Second of all the title of the article seems incorrect. The sources used describe them as Disco and Freestyle NOT New Wave. The sources do not back any of the claims made in the article that Tiger Moon's lyrics reflect the gay experience. This does not mean the claims are incorrect just that there is little or no proof for them in the sources used. The article as it is now written reads more like a fan page article then an article written for an encyclopedia. In the discussion page for Tiger Moon I put several tutorials that describe what reliable sources are and how to write articles with a neutral point of view. Based on the fact that their music has ended up in several compilations it is quite possible reliable sources exist to back up these claims. I would check out publications catering to the gay community and The Miami music scene, or the alternative media in Miami. Edkollin (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Edkollin and thanks for debating with me. I must admit it is very hard to gather information about Tiger Moon considering they've been up to two singles only. Then again, the use of Something Tells me in notable enough a movie as Frantic made me feel they deserved to be talked about. As for whether the band actually is New Wave or not, I rely on their sound which I feel is characteristic of synthpop New Wave (such as Erasure and Dead or Alive) : I can only urge you to listen to the track and I'm very confident that you may find it difficult to say they don't. You see, I just figure that a band from the 80's that sounds very much like such acts or Celebrate the Nun etc, etc... can only be said to be New Wave. This is not vandalism or my expression of rebel tendencies: just an innocent contribution to a list representing my favourite musical genre. The gay topic is tricky, I must admit but considering the band was part of two openly gay-oriented compilations that compared Something Tells Me to a gay classic, I felt it was important to state that some part of the gay milieu - let it be the exclusive Miami one - saw them as representative enough and point it out (and try to understand why by means of some lyrical analysis.) Now, if you feel I should moderate my assumptions as to the band's iconic gay power, just let me know so and I'll be glad to rewrite another draft on this specific topic. I would just be glad if you let Tiger Moon make part of the New Wave list : believe me when I'm telling you I have only respect for this musical genre and only care to contribute to the list with only the purest and sincerest intentions (share with people interested in it my own knowledge about it). Should I find more solid information from reliable sources about the band, please be certain I'll make sure to rewrite this article and make it as accurate as can be.

Thank you.

CouchJarvis (talk) 22:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answering. Putting our conclusions into the article based on listening to their music is original research and violates a basic tenant of editing Wikipedia articles. If journalists or other reliable source draw conclusions that they are new wave or at least synthpop then it can go into the article. These policies are right here in this talk page so take some time and study them. The same principles apply to the "gay" angle. A reliable source must draw the conclusion that the music speaks to homosexual concerns or a band member themselves must state that they were writing about gay specific issues for us to put in the article.
As for rewriting it, just keep in simple and stick to facts without drawing conclusions. I would write something along the lines of "The group from Miami released a song in 1987. It has been sampled by Prince and was used in the movie Frantic as well several compilations". The readers will draw certain conclusions based on the list of compilations on the bottom.
They are obscure so you might have to do some digging. If reliable sources can not not be found the article by necessity has to be short.
I'm sorry but I still can't see putting "New Wave" in at this time. I am not going to delete it for a few days. This will give us time to rethink Edkollin (talk) 01:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has been over a week since our last discussion and there has not been sourcing of any kind that is surfaced describing "Tiger Moon" as "New Wave" or any subgenre of New Wave so I am going to have to delete them from the list. Also I substantially rewrote the "Tiger Moon" article to make the language more neutral and renamed the article from "Tiger Moon (New Wave Band) to Tiger Moon (band) Edkollin (talk) 03:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ! I noticed the change : I must admit it's hard to find more information on the band vouching for the New Wave theory. Should I ever find some, I'll let you know about it. In the meantime, I've written an article about Poésie Noire (a Belgian New Wave/EBM band) and just readded Robert Palmer to the list (I think you don't agree but in the early 80's he had a New Wave period - with "Johnny & Mary" or "Looking For Clues", for instance - that several rock critics talk about and permitted him to be a part of many new wave compilations. Hope we won't "fight" about this one! ^^ CouchJarvis (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should you ever find some reliable sourcing for Tiger Moon just add it. As for Poesie Noire I added a reliable citations warning to the article. While personal Websites may be used in external links relying on them for references is dicey. The other cites also seem to be websites designed for profit motive and not considered reliable. Social media websites are particularly discouraged. Unfortunately the one cite that might have been reliable the German newspaper interview now is a dead link. Again I implore you before writing any more new articles please study the Reliable Sourcing rules. If you can't find reliable sourcing maybe the article is not worth writing. As for Robert Palmer there is allmusic and other reliable sourcing for his New Wave/Synthpop period. Since his New Wave MTV period was the was the period of his greatest popularity he was most certainly merits inclusion in the list Edkollin (talk) 16:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Edkollin. Thanks for your comments. I must admit though that I don't see how the sources may not be reliable : most of them are from the official website supported by the actual members of Poésie Noire (a band that's definitely worth having an article written about them. They really are famous on the European goth wave and EBM scene). Maybe the Sherman Filterbank website is a little more designed for profit but I felt it was important to let the people who are not into musical technicity what a filter was, so. Anyway, if you find any other satisfactory sources, feel free to add them to the article.

CouchJarvis (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Policy is Wikipedia Policy and they are pretty clear about these issues. Not only that but Wikipedia guidelines are more stringent then those used by mainstream media. Not that I always agree with every policy myself, but to participate in this project you need to get rid of the idea that readers need to see what you think is important. If they are as famous as you claim they there will be articles in the archives on them not only in the mainstream press but in the music press (Spin,NME,The Face etc.) and the Alternative press
The concept here is that we write not what is truthful but what is verifiable. This can be a tough concept to grasp, it goes against a lot of things we are taught. I had a tough time for awhile with it and still wrestle with it. But it is the right thing, music is subjective, there are a many truths(particularly when the subject is 1980's New Wave/Alternative/Post-Punk). Edkollin (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, go to NME's website and you will see that some of their videos are on it. Maybe you should also keep in mind that not all bands remain in all archives because, and I quote (you), "music is subjective" and probably history and geography have made some bands less important than others and the "archive webmasters" won't pay any attention to some of them. This precise list shows you that you can (re)discover new bands everyday, bands you had forgotten : so can they. One thing is verifiable, though : the number of albums they've released, the number of compilations they're on (some of which were released by major labels such as PIAS or Universal Music)... Draw your own conclusions, I did. I don't think there is a concept I don't "grasp" here. I think you judge easily and hastily (and not only me.)
There are several issues here. The first is a group is notable enough to have an article written about them? These groups you have added are notable enough. The next issue is what sources you use in writing the articles. For the most part you use sources that are considered unreliable according to Wikipedia policy and you continue do so despite it being pointed out to you continually that it violates policy. It is not me that is judgmental it is Wikipedia policies that are very judgmental as to what reliable sources are. The other issue is what you write in the article. You write you feel like not what the sources however questionable they are say. If the sources do not mention new wave or at least a sub genre of New Wave you can not describe them as that or put them in a New Wave listing. You can not say a group speaks to gay people unless a reliable source backs it up. If you do it is considered original research. No Original research is one of the most central policy's in Wikipedia. You say you understand all of this, if that is true then you are willfully violating these policies.
"music is subjective and probably history and geography have made some bands less important than others and the "archive webmasters" won't pay any attention to some of them"" Agreed. "This precise list shows you that you can (re)discover new bands everyday, bands you had forgotten : so can they". Rediscovery is original research, it not our job it is theirs. That being said why are you limiting yourself to to the Internet?. Hyperlinks are a courtesy they are not required. Book sources do not use hyperlinks. Go to a public or campus library, there are on line databases as well as publications in stock that go back to the 1880's never mind the 1980's. The good libraries have courses on how to use these. It will take some digging and more time then you planned but if you are that dedicated to bringing obscure acts to Wikipedia that is the price you have to pay. Edkollin (talk) 09:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I'm not looking for a fight here : the gay importance of Tiger Moon was a mistake I acknowledge but I've shown a little more rigour about Poésie Noire and I'm glad to see you find them notable enough.

As for the references, I'll keep considering a band's official website remains a good reference. I don't quote books because I don't necessarily have them here and I can't spend my time in libraries (for now) because I - like anybody else - have also a social and professionnal life to deal with. Then again, should I ever find other references to add to the article, you can rest assured I will. What makes me "sad" about all this is I'm persuaded you and I could get along about the whole policy thing but you've got to admit it's easier to find information about Depeche Mode, The Cure, Erasure or Dexy's Midnight Runners than it is about such bands as Poésie Noire or Stabilizers or acts as such. This is why you've got to admit that what you consider great official references might not make part of articles about them because they are "obscure acts". A famous EBM band's singer recently told me a book about Belgian EBM was soon to be edited : should I find references about Poésie Noire in it, I'll add them to the article. CouchJarvis (talk) 12:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And also someone added The Jesus and Mary Chain to the list : how do you feel about that because I never considered them New Wave and neither was I able to find anyone pretending they were ? 79.86.191.131 (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am in agreement it is much harder to write articles about obscure acts then popular ones. And I am in agreement that we all have lives outside of Wikipedia. So all I say is why the rush. If it takes you a few months to get an article written the right way because there are other priorities in your life then so be it. A bands website is not considered a good website because they are not exactly unbiased, same for a fan website. There are some very good fans/band websites and there are some that aren't. But if you have a problem with the policy find the right place here at Wikipedia and talk to them.
As for The Jesus and Mary Chain I will say this I do wish this list was significantly less inclusive. But the overwhelming consensus based on how the article has been edited is for extreme inclusiveness. The best I can hope to do is with my limited time is to limit the damage by flagging groups where sources listed or otherwise do not say a group is New Wave which is what you got caught in. The line between post punk ,new wave, and 80's alternative has always been a matter of disagreement among reliable sourcing and everybody else for that matter. It goes back and forth as to what view predominates. In the '80's in the U.S. every new band under the sun was new wave. Alternative was started to distinguish bands like The Jesus and Mary Chain who had pre punk, rock elements from the predominant synthpop New Wave of the day. By 1990 from every new act under the sun was alternative including surviving "New Wave" acts like the B-52's and Depeche Mode,and The Cure. A few years ago when the Wikipedia articles were written reliable sourcing were viewing these genres as separate and the articles still reflect that. Right now the trend is that Alternative and New Wave are being used interchangeably. I have added language to the New Wave article to reflect this and have made a proposal in the Alternative Rock talk page you can look at (there is an article I use as a cite where towered the bottom The Jesus and Mary Chain are described as New Wave). So based on the editor consensus and current trends among reliable sources I decided not to delete The Jesus and Mary Chain. But please note I still go with reliable sourcing even though I personally disagree. Edkollin (talk) 03:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Hey ! I wonder why you keep removing The Stranglers from the list when such websites as allmusic - which you relied on as a "reputable site" to remove "Double from the list, on October 11th - claim they are new wave as well as NME - an unidputable reference - does ? CouchJarvis (talk) 16:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to remove The Second British Invasion list[edit]

You are invited to comment on the proposal to delete the List of Second British Invasion Artists. Edkollin (talk) 17:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late answer. I agree with you : most artists on this page already make part of other more inclusive and "documented" pages and for the few artists left that are not part of those pages, they'd better join them, in my opinion. Not without mentionning that this list of Second British Invasion bands looks rather random and poorly constructed because of the various musical genres represented by the artists chosen to represent it in its present form. I'm on your side, on this one.CouchJarvis (talk) 01:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for retitling the reference for Marquis de Sade. I didn't pay attention to it when I added them. ^^ CouchJarvis (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up The New Wave List[edit]

Go for it. Have not had the time to really do it. Some of these acts are obscure so you do have to research each one. Edkollin (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Ed ! I guess as one of my fiercest "opponents" for the last three to four months, you most certainly deserve a "Merry Christmas" from me (provided you celebrate it, of course!) : so, to quote Nat King Cole, "I'm offering this simple phrase [...] : Merry Christmas to you". ;-) Cheers, dude !

Using BBC as a source for biographies[edit]

No can do. While using Wikipedia passes the BBC sourcing guidelines it fails Wikipedias. Cheers Edkollin (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I've just added a reference from lastfm that "tags" them as new wave. It's not the height of luxury but you know me : always looking for the bands that are the most difficult to defend. ;)

Easy to be fooled. It is the BBC and "reliable" as the first thing that pops into your head as a Wikipedia editor. I think the last.fm was my bad so we are even. Edkollin (talk) 22:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfsheim[edit]

They seem a tad to late for New Wave. Formed in 1987 which is ok, first demo in 1989, but first proper record and hit 1991 and other hits into the 21st century which puts them more in the New wave influenced category. Edkollin (talk) 21:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! ;) I kinda thought about it when I included them in the list but a couple of things led me into adding them anyway. First, I remembered Cause and Effect, a similar case, had spent some time in the list (I've just seen they were removed.) Second, the early nineties can arguably be said to be an era of "persisting New Wave" since they brought many classic anthems with them ("Violator" was released in 1990, "Heart like a Wheel" by The Human League - which I saw live last friday and which are still as energetic and cult as ever ^^ - too and many others...) This plus the fact they, indeed, formed in the late 80's and had their first demos spreading then and their impact on the Goth/Darkwave community urged me into considering they were worth mentioning. This is an open discussion, though. I agree. Which makes me think of something else: do you think cult darkwave band Deine Lakaien should be a part of the list? I really can't seem to make up my mind... Looking forward to reading you.

Cosmopolis (film)[edit]

Good work with the sources, thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome. ;) CouchJarvis (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of new wave artists and bands may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • //http://www.allmusic.com/artist/the-dickies-mn0000123007|publisher= [[Rovi Corporation]] |work= [[AllMusic|Allmusic}}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BP[edit]

Could use your input here. Cheers. Robvanvee 14:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And here please. Robvanvee 16:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be sorted for now. Let's see how long it lasts...Glad to see the experience hasn't put you off Wikipedia for good. Robvanvee 07:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, apparently our friend has learnt a valuable lesson here. For good, hopefully. ;-) And no, he didn't manage to put me off WP permanently: he's just made me a little more paranoid, so now, I feel compelled to look for two to three sources for each new addition I suggest (which can soon prove tricky when it comes to some short-lived bands you're already lucky to find one article about. :-D). Anyway, glad this whole experience led to a constructive conclusion and it's mostly because of you. So thank you for that.CouchJarvis 13:43, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Britpop musicians[edit]

Do you think any of these bands not listed in List of Britpop musicians could qualify for being associated with Britpop?

  • Cornershop
  • Gorky's Zygotic Mynci
  • Manic Street Preachers
  • Silver Sun
  • Super Furry Animals 24.127.236.115 (talk) 06:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The way I see it, the Manics and Super Furry Animals definitely fit into the list both being British, musically active during the Britpop years and usually associated with this scene (I remember seeing Super Furry Animals live as the opening act for Suede circa '99, for instance.) Cornershop are a trickier example: they're British and they were active during those days, indeed, but I guess their music is a bit too remote from traditional Britpop to make it to the list. As for Gorky's and Silver Sun, I'll admit to not being familiar enough with them to give you an "enlightened" opinion about them. This being said, I remember some "virtual brawls" taking place back then when some people tried to include the Manics into the list. So I guess it'll all come down to justifying those additions with solid sources. If you're up for it, please search for some. Good "hunting" and thanks for asking my opinion on the subject anyway. ;-) CouchJarvis (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have two more bands for you that I'm not sure qualify for Britpop.
  • Embrace
  • Teenage Fanclub

So, what are your thoughts? Do you think they qualify for Britpop, or don't? 24.127.236.115 (talk) 11:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I know Embrace might be seen as a "debatable" add by some, but I personally think they should be included in the list: their first album was released in 1998 (as was Rialto's first album, for instance) and is definitely considered to be a Britpop album. As Embrace went on releasing albums, they were progressively seen as a post-Britpop band essentially because most of their LP's came out after the Britpop era per se, which does not erase the fact that they launched their musical career during the Britpop days with an album that was as Britpop as could be.

As far as Teenage Fanclub is concerned, though, I don't believe they were ever officially labelled as "Britpop": power pop or jangle pop, for sure, but I'm really not certain they were considered to make part of that scene (nor did the band ever overtly claim to, for that matter.)

But once again, I'm not one to argue with reliable sources if you've got any stating the contrary. ;-)

Thanks for asking. CouchJarvis (talk) 04:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you consider Embrace to be Britpop, would that make Catatonia, Stereophonics, and Travis, who are considered post-Britpop, to be Britpop as well, since they released material in the years 1996 and 1997 respectively? 24.127.236.115 (talk) 11:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Catatonia are already part of the list, so yes. God knows I fought hard to keep them there. ;-) I personally think Stereophonics and Travis should be included because their first albums matched everything about the genre while being released during the final years of Britpop. CouchJarvis (talk) 11:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CouchJarvis&oldid=937497871"