Talk:U2

Early members

Whether to consider Dik Evans and Ivan McCormick early members is something I've wanted to address for a while and a recent edit has inspired me to try to open this discussion.

Most sources say that U2 was formed in 1976. If you go by this date of formation and don't consider previous names for the band (Feedback, The Hype) to be completely separate bands, then surely is is reasonable to call Dik Evans (with the band until March 1978) and Ivan McCormick (with the band for several weeks initially) to be initial members (Peter Martin can probably be excluded, having only showed up at the first practice). It might be a stretch to call them former members of U2 (having never played with the band when it was called U2), but it is absolutely factual to say they were formerly in the band. The only scenario in which I would agree with excluding Evans and McCormick as former members is if you redefine the date of formation to 1978, when they changed their name to U2, but again, most sources state 1976 as their year of formation. As for how to treat these two in the infobox, I think something like how the Beatles article handles it, where a link "See members section for others" is used in place of their names, is a suitable way to handle it considering their tenure and how their membership in the band does not coincide with the band when it was called U2.

Thoughts? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 22:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

There have been discussion about this on the talk page of {{Infobox musical artist}}. The discussions frown upon linking to the article, but I personally don't see a problem with it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Re-reading this, I will self-revert. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I know this section is a couple of months old, but I decided to take the liberty to make some auto corrections when it comes to the past members category. The difference between U2 and The Beatles is that The Beatles had their past members as being branded as The Beatles, while U2 has their past members as being branded as "The Hype" or "Feedback." Also, their isn't even enough sources or evidence to actually show that those members were in the band. No photos, black/white videos, media coverage, etc. By the way, it's more suitable to keep those members in the article but being labeled as "The Hype" or "Feedback." Just like I stated you're not gonna find any personnel that has those members being branded as "U2." If you do, I`ll revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeatlesMania64 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I find it disingenuous that we have a "Members" section in the article body that lists people that used to be in the band, but not the infobox. There should not be conflicting information given by these sections, and right now when I look at the infobox, I assume there were no prior members of the band. I completely understand the point about members who were in the band prior to its being named U2, but canonically, the current band members consider the 1976-1978 history to be part of the same band. Thus, there is no reason to ignore in the infobox that there were previous members. I think you and I agree that McCormick, Evans, and Martin should not have nearly the same level of prominence as Bono, Edge, Clayton, and Mullen in the infobox due to their tenure and the fact that they preceded the U2 name. Which is why I see no harm in keeping a "see members section" link in the "previous members" parameter that takes you to the article body to explain. Just look at how The Beatles and Queen handle it. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 13:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for contacting. Now to get to the bottoms of this, the reason why those members aren't in the infobox it's because they weren't branded as U2 members and this is a U2 wikipedia article. Stop comparing U2's wikipedia to Queens' or The Beatles'. We all know that U2 ever since the release of their debut album they have been here with all the members that they started with, with no line up change. Also, The Beatles and Queen were branded as The Beatles and Queen with those previous members. Like I stated before when you find a personnel that includes those pre-U2 members as "U2" members, then we can have a link in the infobox redirecting the members section. It's just at this point having that seems like a deception and there isn't much noteworthy sources. The thing is The Beatles and Queen's wikipedia handles it differently because their situation is much different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeatlesMania64 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

You are treating the name change as a distinct division in U2's history, as if their years as the Hype and Feedback make them an entirely different band. That is not the case. The band contends they were founded in 1976, so that is the point in history where we should start counting former members from. If the infobox's "time active" says 1976-present, the members section of the infobox should capture that same time period. I don't see why having a "see members section" link is so harmful. We aren't adding the names of the early members to the infobox, and nowhere does that the infobox label say "former members of the band during the time they were known as U2". It just says "former members", which is entirely accurate considering the history of the band is considered to start in 1976, not 1978. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 15:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The thing here is that "U2" is an idea that was formed in 1976. While it's true that those members were part of that idea, they weren't/aren't apart of the brand that is "U2." The reason why it looks harmful to even have those members in the infobox, it's because by hinting them in the infobox, means that it's ok to put them in the "U2" brand. It's TRUE that the idea was formed in 1976, since they're not in the "U2" brand, I don't see a reason why there should be an infobox with them. The members don't have adequate sources and they weren't even in the brand to begin with. Therefore, they are lucky to have a mention in the members section as "Pre U2." — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeatlesMania64 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

This entire rationale is a huge stretch. I don't know what "brands" and "ideas" have to do with this. The band, regardless of its lineup, was founded in 1976. That should not be up for debate. There used to be other members of the band between 1976-1978. Thus, they fall into the history of the band, regardless of what they were called and when (and the infobox represents the band and its entire history, not just the current iteration of it). If Feedback and the Hype were considered by the current U2 members to be a distinct band from U2, I would see your point. But they don't. If X Company changed its name at some point in their history and still considered itself to be the same company, a former CEO for that company would still be called a former CEO of the company. The changing of the company name alone does not alter its history. Long story short: the name changes in U2's history are irrelevant when we are detailing the collective group. Which is why I see absolutely no problem with there being a "former members" section in the infobox that does't mention the early members by name. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 13:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

If RSes indicate that they were members of U2, then we should support that in the article and add to infobox.

If RSes indicate that they were in bands that contained members of the band that later became known as U2, we should indicate that, but not include the non-U2 members in the infobox. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

The Island Records UK site has a mini-bio on the band here that says: "The band originally formed in 1976 when Larry Mullen posted a bulletin in his school asking for musicians to form a rock band. The band then consisted of the four current members plus three additional guitarists, including The Edge’s brother Dick Evans (later a member of Virgin Prunes), Ivan McCormick and Peter Martin." Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 17:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Seems like a primary source, but it is a source. I would rather see one from the band's biographers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

changed topic to discuss the infobox image

This might be off topic in pertaining to the topic at hand. But, U2's article image is 11 years old and it barely shows the drummer. Now, the band is still playing and recording music and they're still stuck with a decade old image that obscures the drummer. Don't you think it's time for a new more modern image. Like something from their latest tour? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeatlesMania64 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome to find a free image you think would be a suitable replacement. I haven't come across one yet. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 13:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

So, I've came across this one awhile back. It's up to you if you want to keep it or not. Please your advice is highly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeatlesMania64 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what made you think it was a free image, it was definitely non-free. Non-free content cannot be uploaded to WikiCommons, and if free content is available, it should be used in the article over non-free. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 21:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Profile pic changed

As the uploader of the previous image, I prefer it over the current. Thoughts? U2fan01 (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

A comment was added to my user page (not user talk, so I moved it to my talk page). I think the MSG picture, File:2005-11-21 U2 @ MSG by ZG.JPG, is better. It has better composition the one U2fan01 added, File:U2 2015.jpg, and it better represents this band—any band actually. The 2015 image is newer, and for current bands, "newer" is usually preferable, but I would rather stay with the MSG image because it shows the band on instruments, it's straight up the middle rather than off from a side, and the focus is sharper. With that said, the 2015 image should be in the article somewhere, just not the infobox image. The other fault I find with the MSG image is that Mullen (the drummer) is somewhat obscured by his drum kit. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on U2. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for //www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/u2s_serious_fun

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

"Past Members On The Infobox Dispute"

We all know that the band U2 had 2 different names when they started out. Within those different names there were also 3 other members. Now, the issue is having those 3 other "early members" getting a reference in the infobox as "past members." It just doesn't add up, here's a live performance from when they hadn't released their first EP. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qe6VtCRTvsU Even in this live performance I cannot see the other members and if I can't seem them here what makes you think I am going to see them anywhere? So, the point is why have a largely exposed infobox that has a reference to these others members and then have audacity to label them as "past members." Rebound55 (talk)

What do the sources say? Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Your cherry picking of a random performance from a random point in the band's history is your justification for your argument? I'm sorry if you think the article should ignore the time before the group was called U2, but this is an encyclopedia. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 22:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe that the article should ignore the time before the band was named U2, because I acknowledge the fact that those 3 other members were from U2, but before they became U2. I never completely deleted them from the article so how am I ignoring their existence in the article? Also, me cherry picking a random point in a band's history is still more reliable than the sources you've provided for below. So according to your logic, a website that contains a written source is more reliable than what we humans can see with our naked eyes.Rebound55 (talk)

I'm sorry, what did I cherry pick? I apologize if I did something untoward, but really I was just asking a question. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Dbrodbeck, there are 3 people to consider as part of your question:

• Dik Evans - was at the first practice on 25 Sept 1976, and remained with the group until March 1978. He was much a founding member of the group as Bono, Edge, Larry, and Adam.
• Ivan McCormick - was also at the first practice on 25 Sept 1976, wrote in his diary on that day "Joined a pop group with friends and we rehearsed". Another entry on Oct 9/10 in his diary said "Rehearsed all day in the music room at school." Around that time, before their first gig, Adam told him he couldn't remain with them because their show was in a pub and he was too young (a lie, as the other were too young as well). And that was that.
• Peter Martin - sources don't agree on whether Peter was there. Most accounts, such as a Larry in the U2 by U2 biography and Ivan's brother Neil, mention Peter's guitar and amp were used but he couldn't play and was going to be the manager. In a recent interview, Ivan can't remember Peter actually being at the practice. Island Records' bio of U2 mentions Peter as a founder. Either way, no sources seem to indicate him being involved in any capacity beyond the first practice. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 22:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources in the past members section, there's no reason to remove a link to it in the infobox, although it is not a recommended practice. The usual practice is to summarize the contents in the infobox rather than link to it, unless that content would make the infobox inordinately large. Removing it completely is not appropriate.

If there is a question about who the former members are, that's a different matter. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

When it comes down to it where is the link provided for Dik Evans? The questioning of Peter Martin being in the band or not and the link that you mentioned does not directly state that he was a founder. So you feel like this justifies your reasoning for putting them on the infobox and labelling them as "past members?" Listen, there isn't solid concrete proof to give such members grand exposure as "past members." It all seems too abrupt and impulsive and in a way kinda desperate. Not too mention what you once told me, this is an encyclopedia. Then why exaggerate such a far-fetched idea which will lead to deception among readers.Rebound55 (talk)

In other words, those sources are too tenious to even have those members in the infobox labelled as "past members." Also, Peter Martin's eradication shows that you're just adding fuel to the fire. It's like a flying vehicle in auto-pilot going berserk without permanent control.Rebound55 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

@Rebound55:. C.Fred warned you a few hours ago about being engaged in an edit war. You don't seem to understand what that means. I have reported your behaviour to the an3 board. If you take a look at the contents of the page over time, that content has been there for a while (just like it wasn't there for a long while) and there's no need to make a change to it right now. Back off and wait for other editors to come to WP:CONSENSUS rather than impose your opinion on the page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Songs of Experience

Don’t you guys think we should have at least some info about the upcoming album on the page? I mean, we already have many sources: statements from the band, gig rumors. I tried to add a section about the album, but it was reverted. Thoughts? U2fan01 (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Until we have confirmed information about the album and its release, I see no reason to add anything. The band are notorious for speaking about projects and then plans changing. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 04:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

There was just a tour announced. I think it’s time to add some stuff... U2fan01 (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)