Talk:24-7 Spyz

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

Onlyslighted, while some of the additions you've added are greatly appreciated, you don't need to Wiki-link every name and title, especially since a lot of them don't have entries at the moment. Also, you removed several important events, such as the CBGB's performance that led Jimi Hazel to reform the band. JohnBWatt


I am creating pages for those links. For instance, the DVD and the page for Heavy Metal Soul By the Pound were created but you deleted the hot links. Also, the CBGB's thing was never deleted. Please let me work on this page for now and maybe we can come to a consensus tomorrow.

- onlyslighted

You're not supposed to make the links first. Make the pages and THEN add the links and stop removing important information such as real names and events. Also,, how is the article more factual with Onlyslighted's information. One fact was added. He DID remove the CBGB's reference, as well as Fluid's real name, which is listed as such on Temporarily Disconnected. JohnBWatt
What was removed? Again, the CBGB's thing you claimed was missing is still there. And the misuse of punctuation and sentence structure must be addressed and corrected. Erroneous commas, incorrect use of words and phrases, etc., should not be re-entered. I have expanded this article without deleting any important information - onlyslighted
There may be punctuation errors here and there, as well as phrasing changes, in just about every article on this site. I don't care about those changes, for the most part. Do what you have to do. As far as expanding the article, you added the name of one early band member for which you don't even have a citation. The CBGB's reference is NOT still there though because you removed it a second time. It was the second show, in 2003 that led to the reforming of the band in 2004. You keep removing the information on the second show, not the first one. Also, if you're going to list Andar Khan as the original drummer, you might want to mention his leaving the band before mentioning Anthony Johnson being added. It makes it sound as if there were two drummers at one time. JohnBWatt

Drummer changes[edit]

Where is the information for the original drummer changes coming from. This is the third drummer now listed as the original and the only one I can find any proof of is Anthony Johnson. JohnBWatt

Walter Rattamus[edit]

According to Jimi Hazel and Rick Skatore Walter Rattamus is one of the only three founding members of the band that remains. This may not be a human member--but they view him as an integral part of the team.

Since, it appears that you've done the majority of content on this page--I'd like to ask that you keep Walter--even if he is listed lower as their ICON and Soul Counselor.

Jimi seemed awfully happy to see W.R. on the page when I talked to him today. He's getting out all the various incarnations of W.B that he and Rick have so that we can add them.

Your move, Senor.

Lastly, I scanned a new iteration of This Is... with a cleaner look and better colors. Somehow it came off without someone noting the talk/diff/history aspects. Do you mind tossing it back in? It looks ever so much better.

Rick Raymo

It's not the issue of having the character mentioned. It's the listing of him as a member. For all I care, list a section down below about the mascot itself and the history of it. Listing him as a member though is just silly. I'm not concerned over Jimi being happy with its inclusion. In fact, putting the mascot's history in its own section within the article is a better idea than giving it its own article, which I see you started, if only because I guarantee that someone will try to merge it anyway, if not delete it. JohnBWatt 04:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


The genres sections of the Infoboxes on both the band's main article and album articles are cluttered. The rule of thumb is to aim for generality. Every album page lists the same genres, even if some of the albums might not represent some of these musical styles. (Sugar Bear 23:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC))

Rap metal[edit]

There seems to be some debate over whether Spyz counts as rap metal - they've had rap in a lot of their songs, so I'm not sure why it shouldn't be listed.. Thoughts? Luminifer (talk) 06:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

  • My main "argument" is that all these rap hybrid terms are thrown around very easily and are very rarely accurate. I get bands like Limp Bizkit and such being deemed "rap metal" but are we going to give that label every band that has black band members and/or the occasional rap segment in a song? If you wanted to say that they were a metal band, I'd say it was accurate because they played a whole lot of that. They're not truly rapping on any kind of regular basis though and, in my opinion, should not be deemed as such. They certainly did not have "rap in a lot of their songs." Urban Dance Squad did a ska song. I certainly wouldn't label them a ska band as a result. JohnBWatt (talk) 23:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I believe there is at least one song with rap on each of their albums - and the fusion goes back far enough that I think it's meaningful to acknowledge it. Do I need to go through all of their songs and pick out the ones that have rap? There are bands that have incredibly varied styles of songs - I don't think it's helpful to try and broadly define the bands by some average style - I think it makes more sense to acknowledge any styles which they have a number of songs in. Also, I don't think there's any call to start referring to their race - this has nothing to do with that. Luminifer (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Oh, please don't try to get all righteous about what I said. It has everything to do with the point that I'm trying to make. The point being that whenever there's a black band that plays any form of rock, somebody wants to instantly apply the rap label on here. I'm not saying that it's what you're doing. I'm pointing out an observation. If you think there's "at least one song with rap on each of their albums," then yes, I suggest you go through and pick out those songs. You're the one trying to make a case and should have to prove such. Even if they did have one song with rap on each album, it still doesn't make them a "rap metal" band. It's not like that their style. It's just incorporating a style of music into an occasional song. Once again, adding the word rap to different styles of music (ie: rapcore, rap metal and rap rock) is getting out of hand on this site. JohnBWatt (talk) 22:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
        • This goes into a deeper philosophical discussion... Is the point of the styles to summarize some weird notion of a band's "overall" sound, or to list all of the different things they have explored? Is it useful to have a link to rap metal so that someone searching for "rap metal" and, say, "Jungle Boogie" might be able to find the 24-7 Spyz page - because their biggest hit afaik was Jungle Boogie (in the late 1980s), which had a rap section in the middle. This alone, I think, seems noteworthy enough, no? How much rap metal would one have to do in order to be allowed to have it listed as a genre? Luminifer (talk) 23:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
            • Even the wikipedia entry for their Strength In Numbers album lists them as a 'rap pioneer', as does (suspciously verbatim) this site: .. though you may argue that this is the kind of too-willing-to-call-them-rap problem that you're fighting against, I thought it was worth mentioning... this does not overshadow my above point.. Luminifer (talk) 23:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed related links[edit]

Someone just removed a whole bunch of links that I thought were pretty useful and relevant to the band. Does anyone else have any thoughts? Luminifer (talk) 06:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The links weren't really necessary for an encyclopedia. The myspace pages of individual band members should be kept to any wikipedia page made for said band members. Prophaniti (talk) 09:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree... However, many of these band members are not super-famous, and don't have their own wikipedia pages (even Jimi Hazel does not have one) - I suspect that if they were to be created, they would just be merged with the 24-7 Spyz page, in which case, the links would belong here... Luminifer (talk) 15:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, if you really want them in, I'm not going to push it or owt. I'd feel that if they're not significant enough to have a page, then the need for a link to their own myspace is unnecessary, and would feel like a fan-page kind of addition. But hey, it's nothing worth arguing about. Prophaniti (talk) 19:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
My initial reason for including them was so that people interested enough in even reading an article about the band could follow the whereabouts of current and former members beyond the article. I find it odd that so many people are all for adding official websites of bands but not their myspace pages. These days, more and more bands are opting to use their myspace as their official site instead of getting their own domain. So, in my eyes, it shouldn't be a big deal listing the myspace pages of bands and their members. The other links were direct links to information on current projects of former band members. I too feel that it's very relevant. JohnBWatt (talk) 20:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

i wanna show you[edit]

i think this might be another title for temporarily disconnected. does anyone know more about this? Aisha9152 (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Look at the album cover on your Amazon link. It says nothing about 24-7 SPYZ. Amazon just has it has it wrongly grouped as such because of the term 24-7 being used on the cover. Twenty 4 Seven was is/was apparently a Euro dance group in the 90's. JohnBWatt (talk) 02:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
oh thanks. for some reason i dont see an album cover at amazon but i believe you. Aisha9152 (talk) 16:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

"dubious distinction of being the first video on MTV to air on the specialty shows 120 Minutes, Yo! MTV Raps, Hard 60, and Headbanger's Ball."[edit]

Why is this distinction "dubious"? I think its pretty cool that that happened. Why not say "unique distinction" or something? Maybe the original editor will explain the thinking so I won't change it at this point.

  • That edit was made anonymously over three years ago. So I doubt anybody is coming back to explain it. I never really noticed it myself but you're right. It's not really dubious. I fixed it myself. NJZombie (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)