Talk:Disco 2000 (band)

Song samples

I think clips of "I Gotta CD" and "One Love Nation" would be good here.

Bank of Sources...

...to incorporate into the article:

• BBC "Peel Sessions" website - for "Angels 1 - 5", showing Jimmy and Cressida (Bowyer) working together. --Vinoir 00:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• International DJ magazine: "Worst Cover Versions" "Disco 2000 - Uptight (KLF Communications, 1988): The KLF had some brilliant ideas, but forming their own girl group and covering this classic Stevie Wonder Motown stomper wasn’t one of them. The resulting lurid day-glo fusion of Stock, Aitken & Waterman pop, edit-heavy ’80s house and dodgy female rap was possibly one of the worst records in the history of the world." Seems to be a credible monthly UK mag. --Vinoir 01:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Trouser Press - calls Disco 2000 "the entity responsible for an entertaining 1989 45 of Stevie Wonder's "Uptight" that sounds like Bananarama on a rap tip". --Vinoir 01:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Disco 2000 out-bugging the bad guys - from Library of Mu, "One Love Nation" video details: "this video is an attempted assasination upon the bloated carcass of traditional rock and roll". --Vinoir 14:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Untitled NME gossip - from Library of Mu (text not available): Disco 2000 are shooting a video with the Black Widows motorcycle group and not Dykes on Bikes as Cressida tried to make out. --Vinoir 14:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Disco 2000 at The Bell, King's Cross - from Library of Mu, a good review despite the fact that Mo and Cress are too drunk to perform and only do two songs. --Vinoir 14:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow!

Lovely work on the History section, Vinoir! This article had me stumped, but you've filled it in beautifully. --kingboyk 14:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks heartily mate. I was also quite concerned, but now I'm optimistic that we're getting there. When brief composition details are added, a couple of samples, and formats/track listings (either separate section or in discography), it should resemble a GA with any luck. --Vinoir 14:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Might conceivably resemble an FA, you never know. If it's complete it doesn't have to resemble a novella (or a chapter of our forthcoming book, available in all bad bookshops and a few good ones :)) --kingboyk 15:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't understand why the guidelines expect an FA to be >25kb. It's nonsense. The old adage applies about it not being the size that counts, if you ask me. Maybe we should attempt a book before someone else uses (for profit) this free wonderland of stuff we've created. :-) --Vinoir 15:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

GA nom on hold

1. In the first sentence, you don't need to say they're "notable" - just say they're a side project.
2. Might wanna format the refs {{cite web}} style, but you don't have to
3. "scored a hit in the UK Singles Chart" - slightly POV, reword?
4. Can you find any more non-NME reviews?

That's about it...— Dihydrogen Monoxide 04:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for taking time to review the article.

1. Hmm... I guess we were concerned that somebody might challenge the notability of this group, but I guess the article establishes notability now so I can fix that.
2. I'd rather not, thanks, because all the existing KLF articles including those which are Featured use the same scheme, and if I changed one I might feel compelled to change all of them :) If this article ever goes to FAC I might do it then, as I've just done with The KLF discography. (Also, it wouldn't be cite web as only one of the refs is a web site; most of the refs are magazines with courtesy web links supplied - the Library of Mu is not itself a source). In summary, the citation scheme was good enough to get The KLF featured so it'll have to do for now if that's ok :)
3. Well I guess you have a point that we've taken it upon ourselves to comment on lack of chart success from a primary source and that is ever-so-slightly POV (few people would even notice, and I wasn't sure where you were coming from at first... so, bonus points to you :)) That said, it's not irregular to comment on chart performance in an article about popular music. Do you have any suggestions about how to deal with this or should we leave it as is for now? Perhaps I can find a secondary source to cite...

   Sorry, my beef was with the wording itself "...scored a hit..." not the statement. Anyways, I reworded it myself. Just one more thing - general consensus is against having refs in an infobox (on music articles, anyway) so could you possibly remove the one you have in there? — Dihydrogen Monoxide 21:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

   Well then you've lost me. How is "scored a hit" POV and (not) "successful" not? I think you're confusing colourful with opinionated? "Not successful" could actually be more POV since it requires an interpretation of success (as opposed to the simple boolean nature of having a hit or not)...

   Footnote 1 isn't a reference, it's a note about the data presented in the infobox. I don't know where else I could put it... I'm quite sure it belongs there. If you don't agree, could you tell me where you would place it please? Thanks. --kingboyk (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

   Oops, glanced over that without noting what it was...my bad. Anyways, passing now. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 21:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

   Thank you for your time and help. --kingboyk (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

4. Unfortunately not. We're all sourced out I'm afraid. I believe this is due to them not getting much coverage beyond NME rather than a failure on our part. --kingboyk (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

"Mo" as a member of Disco 2000 - refers to whom?

Who is "Mo Brathwaite"? I never heard that name! Perhaps "Mo" credited for Disco 2000 vocals is not June Montana from Brilliant? Can someone shed a light on it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.117.190.18 (talk) 13:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That was added in 2011 and removed some years later by an IP editor. Google is almost silent on the name "Mo Brathwaite" - I get only 3 pages of results, none to do with music except for a Disco 2000 video description on YouTube which is a copy of an old version of this article. --kingboyk (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm starting to wonder if a terrible mistake has been made in this article and that "Mo" is not June Montana. 1) Postmastergeneral, whose contributions suggest some inside knowledge, reverted "June Montana" to "Mo" back in 2006. 2) I've just been through the references here and can't find a single mention of "Mo"'s full name or that she was in Brilliant.

I've watched a Disco 2000 video and a Brilliant video on YouTube. It's really hard to tell if they're the same person or not because of the liberal use of makeup, different hairstyles, and the videos being blurry. If I had to put money on it, I'd say it's different people. --kingboyk (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Move / disambiguation

As there are now three articles called Disco 2000 (this one, Disco 2000 (anthology) and Disco 2000 (song), I feel like it could be time to change Disco 2000 to a disambiguation page and move this content to Disco 2000 (band). How do others feel about this idea? Euchrid (talk) 03:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

A very belated endorsement from me! This article occupied the Disco 2000 spot purely because at the time it was vacant. Now the other articles exist, there is no way this article could be considered the primary topic. --kingboyk (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Good article?

Isn't this article far too short to be declared a GA? Toccata quarta (talk) 06:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

No, although it's moot now as the article was delisted (for reasons other than length, including the dubious complaint that an article about a band inactive since 1989 had not been attended to since 2008). WP:GA requires that an article "addresses the main aspects of the topic". Disco 2000 only released 3 singles, none of which had any commercial success. What else is there to say about them? If you have concerns about specific info which you feel is missing, please detail them.

If an article covers a topic as thoroughly as the sources allow (speaking in general terms here, not about this particular article) I see no reason why it shouldn't be an FA, never mind a GA. --kingboyk (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Cressida - Cauty or Bowyer?

Cressida was usually credited as "Cress" or "Cressida" example. I note that on this hand written white label she is credited as "C. Bowyer", which is the name she now goes under and was the name she used before she married Jimmy. Of course a hand written white label isn't a reliable source in anyway; it just piqued my interest.

MOS:NEE: "A person named in an article in which they are not the subject should be referred to by the name they used at the time being described in the article". We can't very well call her "Cress" (can we?) so I suppose in this and other KLF-era articles we'll stick with Cauty? --kingboyk (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

As the identity of "Mo" was not supported by any reliable sources I could find, I've taken the opportunity to go with "Cress" and "Mo", which is all I can find that they were ever named as on the records and in KLF info sheets. If new info comes to light this can be reverted. I've left old text commented out. --kingboyk (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

With regards to Cressida, one in-house source I have found suggests that the surname is interchangeable, and I personally am happy to leave it with her name as "Cress" (Cressida Cauty) in the infobox and Cressida Cauty, née Bowyer in the body. The source is The KLF's Stadium House Trilogy: On the sleeve, Cressida is credited as C. Bowyer; in the rolling credits at the end of the video, she is credited as Cressida Cauty. --kingboyk (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)