Talk:Circa (band)

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

circa webpage[edit] is not working anymore facebook address is:

Best for main editor(s) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:7D0:843E:6B80:C0C7:662E:D61D:9DF6 (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


"Unitary band"...the article calls them that, but what exactly is a unitary band? btw, I love Circa:, their CD is great and I hope their tour comes my way. El charangista 22:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

"Unitary band" in contrast to a project with assorted guest appearances which doesn't involve people actually playing together much. There's probably a better way of putting that... Bondegezou 12:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


The term "supergroup" is both casual, and vague. It has neither a rigid definition, nor a firm set of criteria. As such, it should be used sparingly, if ever, in an encyclopedia article. To expand upon this, in the given reference, the phrase "a group of veteran performers who have pooled their considerable talents to form a kind of supergroup", is used. So not only is "supergroup" vague, but the context in which it's used is extremely vague. It certainly does not meet the precision required to include it here. Furthermore, the article is dated. It is the original version of the band that it refers to as "a kind of supergroup". Using that article to call Circa a "supergroup", is thus even more misleading.2tuntony (talk) 05:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, only just seen your comment here. Thanks for explaining your rationale. If reliable sources refer to the band as a "supergroup", then we should reflect that in the article. It seems to me to be original research to start deciding for ourselves whether "supergroup" is a sufficiently well-defined term. It is a well-established term in rock music criticism, which seems to me sufficient reason for it to be used in Wikipedia. If, as it seems, your core complaint is with any use of the term "supergroup", I suggest you seek opinions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rock music or Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (music) rather than focusing on a couple of related articles (here and Yoso).
As for this article, the citation given refers to Circa as "a kind of supergroup": something that is a kind of supergroup is clearly a supergroup. I can see how a phrase along the lines of "like a supergroup" could be considered vauge, but I see no vagueness in the language used in the citation. Bondegezou (talk) 09:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
"Reliable sources" do not refer to the band as a "supergroup". "A kind of supergroup" is not "clearly a supergroup". 2tuntony (talk) 00:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
My opinion is that the term "supergroup" should only be applied to bands that are entirely made of previously established members. Using the term to describe bands that made the respective musicians famous would not count. However, I am not against it being omitted from use, due to its loose definition. But yeah, a consensus would need to be reached in order to determine whether or not is should be used in the first place, let alone when to use it. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 21:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Discussion has rather tailed off. Sources still appear to be reliable to me and broader concerns about the use of the term "supergroup" still appear to be original research: Wikipedia should be guided by what sources say. I'll restore the citations for now. Bondegezou (talk) 09:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
As there is far from any consensus, at the moment, I have again removed it. And again, even if it were to be used, the source says, "a kind of supergroup". Furthermore, the opinion of one writer does not make something fact. This is not a fansite. 2tuntony (talk) 09:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
And lest I forget, Alan White, one of the super super members of this super super group, is no longer involved with the project. So even if we were to take the opinion of one magazine writer as gospel, it would be misleading to refer to the current line-up of this band as "a kind of supergroup". 2tuntony (talk) 23:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

"Without Explanation"[edit]

Material seems to be continously added back into this article, using the edit summary, "restoring material removed without explanation". First of all, in several cases, there was an explanation in the edit summary at the time of removal. Secondly, simply restoring something because its removal was unexplained is unhelpful, and creates more work for others. Please examine the material you wish to re-add, and then explain why it should be included. 2tuntony (talk) 04:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of being helpful, I will add several explanations, some of them already given several times.
  • 1.)"Billy", and "Michael" Sherwood have been reverted numerous times to "B.", and "M." Sherwood. Using abbreviations is less than encyclopedic (see WP:MOS). Continuously changing someone's full name to an initial borders on being tendentious.
  • 2.)"Stylized as CIRCA:" continues to be reverted to "Stylized CIRCA:". "Stylized" is a verb. "Stylized CIRCA:" implies that Circa themselves stylized something. Circa's name is stylized as CIRCA:.
  • 3.)"Rival Yes faction" has been removed, as it is unsupported. Anderson Bruford Wakeman Howe was its own entity, and no more a "faction" of Yes than Circa.
  • 4.)"(and perhaps others)" has been removed, as it is speculation, and therefore, original research.

I'm sure we all want this article to be the best that it can be, and if something is removed that genuinely belongs, then by all means, please return it. However, to save time for everyone involved, please have, and give, a reason for doing so. 2tuntony (talk) 04:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)