|
Template:RockmusicCollab
I have just nominated Achtung Baby as a Featured Article candidate. You may contribute to the discussion by visiting the nomination page. Thanks. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The nomination has been open for more than 2 weeks, but the article has not received an overall review by many users. If you have the time, please read the article and stop by the nomination page to share your thoughts. It would be a shame if the article is not promoted because the nomination did not receive enough attention. Thanks. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 16:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are two bands called Architects. One is a metalcor eband from Britain and the other is a punk band from Kansas in America. This becomes confusing as they are both popular bands. However, upon further studies and looking into thier Merch and cds, I discovered that the one from America is actually called "The Architects" and not simply "Architects". Maybe you fine folks who head Wikipedia could change the American band name to "Architects" to help avoid further confussion. Just a thought. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikedabandit (talk • contribs) 13:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone, please take a look at this article Mavara , I think it has notability problem. Rock ON! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spada2 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone knowledgeable please take a quick look at Action Bullet? This is not my field at all - I just stumbled over the article because I was looking for a particular word usage. If this is a real band then the article still has serious problems - please see Talk:Action Bullet. If it is not a real band, and I would not really know how to be sure, then it has even bigger problems. I don't want to seem deletionist or vindictive but at the very least it's not a great article, and could do with some help, and it the worst it may indeed need deleting, but you may be better placed to judge this than I. Thanks and best wishes, DBaK (talk) 16:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article does not prove that this band is notable. I think I'll put it up for deletion. I have found a myspace and an official website for this band, but there seems to be a lot of tall tales surrounding this band. Thank you for bringing this up. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 19:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional note: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Action Bullet. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 21:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks very much. Yes, I saw those pages too (see Talk:Action Bullet) but as you say there are tall tales - they still don't seem to add up to verifiable and notable band ... where's all the rest? Great if someone does rescue it with some good stuff, but I fear they may not. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, take a look at Sarakhs (band), I'm not sure if the article meets WP:Music, Rock ON! --Spada 2 ♪♫ (talk) 12:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think I'll put it up for deletion, due to them having a discography and being signed to a label with a wikipedia article. However, it does need sources, as the only citation suppled was something that has a broken URL. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 18:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a band article that is currently being put up for deletion. For discussion page about possible deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kitrina Podilata. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 20:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, take a look at Abdi Behravanfar , I believe it has notability problem. --Spada 2 ♪♫ (talk) 16:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article does have its fair share of problems, but it does seem to have potential to be notable, if you ask me. I would recommend you gain several more opinions about this article. Also, if you find a notability problem with an article, feel free to put it into the deletion process like I have with Action Bullet and Kitrina Podilata. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 18:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those 2 have obvious problems, but about this one I want to see what the others think. --Spada 2 ♪♫ (talk) 19:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated The Waterboys for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.-- Cirt (talk) 01:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No one has made any significant edits to improve this article, so it will likely be delisted soon unless someone step up. According to the history it seems no single editor seems to have major input which is why it is not on anyone's radar. Can someone help out? If so, please drop a note on the review page which may buy some time. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested that Autumn (Dutch band) be moved to Autumn (band). For more information, see the link in the subject line. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 19:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Since Brit Eng follows a different standard on this issue than other languages, for now all edits will be confined to NON-British musical groups.)
I will be systematically going through and editing every single article that uses the plural forms of passive verbs when referring to bands. (i.e. - "The Killers are an American rock band" "The Moldy Peaches were an indie group") I'm not sure why this glaring error is something that has been used only for musical groups, but it is most assuredly incorrect. A band is a single unit - when talking about a band, in any tense, the singular form should always be used. Were we to be talking about themembers of the band collectivelly (i.e. - "Zooey Deschanel and M. Ward are the comprising members of the band She & Him") then it would be appropriate to use the plural forms of verbs, pronouns, etc... For further clarification, take the article on the United Nations. While the UN is made of of a large number of individual countries, the organization known as the United Nations is one single thing. So the article (correctly) states "The United Nations Organization (UNO) or simply United Nations (UN)is an international organization..."
(For a simpler way of looking at it, try replacing this band's name with the term "this band" - "The Killers are a band..." "This band are a band..." Obviously, the singular form should be used: "This Band is a band..." "The Killers is a band..."
I hope this makes sense to anyone reading it. Obviously, there are a lot of articles out there which need this kind of editing and it will take a long time for me to do so by myself. Feel free to pitch in and make alterations anytime you see this plural/singluar error. Send any questions, comments or objections to my talk page. (This entire text will be copied verbatim into the talk page of evey band article I correct.) ocrasaroon|blah blah blah 20:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Come to think of it, your assertion about bands being a single unit deserving the use of "is" and "was" makes perfect sense. Good luck on that editing. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 20:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, wait. I did just read Rodhullandemu's response to your message. There is that British English thing, and that user seems to know more about the wikipedia workings of those tenses for bands than I do. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 20:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You may have noticed that this "glaring error" is mainly on British band articles, for the simple reason it is totally normal in British English. Since the convention on Wikipedia is that articles about predominately British topics are in British English, you will probably just find them all reverted by the regular editors.--SabreBD (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because there is a different grammatical standard for Brit bands, the original proposal above has been edited to illustrate my exemption of all English bands. However, this is really just for now - basically to avoid any undue turmoil. The bottom line is: Wikipedia should be uniform. Whether the article is talking about an international organization, the latest MTG set, an art exhibition or a musical group, we should be applying the same grammatical rules to construct the articles. So I'll be avoiding U.K. groups (and yes, that's where the majority of these discrepancies are), but in the end we'll have a different set of standards for English bands as we do for non-English bands (which is a pretty huge chunk of them) and that English standard doesn't conform to the way other mass nouns are treated and it's just a whole big mess. Hopefully, those who use British English will respect my right to alter non-brit band articles to reflect the grammatical rules of my language just as I respect their right to refer to modify their nouns on English pages however is right to them. ocrasaroon (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please consider that British English is used outside of just England, including, the rest of the UK, Ireland and related countries such as Canada, New Zealand and Australia. I think that many editors will accept that US articles should be left with singular usage, but I do not see why anyone would accept that US English is more appropriate everywhere else. I suggest, and this is kindly meant, that you limit yourself to US bands.--SabreBD (talk) 21:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I plan to and am glad to start with US bands and those that are based in locations with the US English standards. What I think we need, though, is ONE SINGLE STANDARD for the accepted Wikipedia usage of mass nouns. An actual documented, voted upon consensus that can be added to the Music MOS. I honestly don't care which way it goes, so long as it's all the same (although I think it's pretty obvious where I stand on using the singular form when referring to a single unit.) I'm just not sure where the best place is to actually start the vote - probably Music MOS. But I'll let you know. ocrasaroon (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Such decisions on Wikipedia work by consensus and not vote. You may wish for consistency on Wikipedia, but the truth is that use of English is not consistent and that probably makes it impossible. Nevertheless if you get a discussion going in an appropriate place then let us know here so that we can join in or see how it goes.--SabreBD (talk) 21:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I need to be very clear on all this, so help me out: I was under the impression that, to gather a consensus, one needs to say - "In situation A, the possible approaches are B and C. Please state which option feels correct to you." I would assume the topic would be left open for a short amount of time (anywhere from a few days to a couple weeks) and then closed. At the end of that time, whichever option had the most individual user's advocacy would be accepted as the consensus...let's assume "C". So from that point on, "C" would be the appropriate standard to use in editing. At least until someone disagreed and a new consensus was taken.
- To me that feels like a vote. Informal, yes, but a vote nonetheless. One that gathers a consensus. Before I can do anything like this I need to be sure I'm doing the right thing and following the right procedure. (Though I am inclined to feel that simply by opening this topic in a number of projects, I've started the process.) ocrasaroon (talk) 22:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have replied on your talkpage as this is more a user issue, than a project one.--SabreBD (talk) 22:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've already posted this on Ocrasaroon's talk page but I thought that I should put it here as well. If you take a look at American_and_British_English_differences#Formal_and_notional_agreement, you'll see that "The Killers are..." is correct, even in American English. If the band's name is a plural proper noun, then "were" or "are" (depending on whether they're still a functioning band I suppose) is correct, even in American English. Therefore, "The Killers are..." or "The Moldy Peaches were..." is correct and should not really be changed as far as I can see. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 12:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In an attempt to try to get this all onto one thread, it has been suggested that any further discussion be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Plural v. singular form when referring to a musical group. I am going to copy Kohoutek's important comments there as they have not made it until now.--SabreBD (talk) 10:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Big time rewrite needed for clutch me thinks. 9 albums in and the information is so limited and cluttered it's quite shocking. I'm sure there are plenty of Clutch fans out there who would be interested in this one. Just finished an overhaul of Karma To Burn myself and going to start on Clutch soon. Help would be much appreciated.Gedmundo (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to the garage revival article it refers to BRMC as sort of riding on the success of the strokes,hives etc-despite the fact they had a hit single in either 1999/2000, which prempts the strokes debut by a year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.125.88 (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone, please take a look at some of the cars songs you know and please edit when you see something wrong with the song genre, you'll know what im talkin about if you hurd there songs before. Because half of there genres on wikipedia are wrong, because they are considered rock and most of there songs are not correct in the genre area, songs like my best friends girl, just what i needed ETC... needs to be added with some kind of rock genre. MajorHawke (talk) 12:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:2tuntony has been removing the term supergroup as a description of a number of bands (e.g. XYZ, Circa, Yoso) from multiple articles. In some cases, there are specific issues about supporting citations, which we can leave to those articles' Talk pages. However, as you can see from our discussion at Talk:Circa (band), 2tuntony has broader issues with the term, arguing "it should be used sparingly, if ever, in an encyclopedia article."
I suggested that this broader view on using the word warranted a wider discussion, so that's why I've brought the discussion here. Do others have any thoughts? Should we be avoiding the term generally as being un-encyclopaedic? Should we use the term freely? I guess I favour using the term, but only where sources support it if any dispute arises. (Thoughts on the specifics of the Circa and Yoso articles also welcome.) Bondegezou (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would welcome comments Big Star since there seem to be a small group of editors who insist on listing the three replacement members of the band as current members. The band died with Chilton, they seem to want to wait for some sort official announcement that will most likely never come. 70.119.247.185 (talk) 00:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
