Talk:The Police/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Genres

Why did my addition of punk rock in thier genres get erased? Thier first single was definatly punk. MidnightCrisis (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Because the infobox is meant to be a summary of the group, not a comprehensive database. Hence, genres only represented by one or two songs in the band's output should not be listed.--Martin IIIa (talk) 19:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Wrong name for band!

They are 'Police'... not 'The Police'.

Such a basic error! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.220.215 (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Apparently they and their record studios were unaware that they were just 'Police' because all of their albums and singles referred to them as 'The Police'.FillsHerTease (talk) 02:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter anyway. Karen and Richard Carpenter put out all their albums as "Carpenters" but wikipedia has their article under "The Carpenters" because that's what most people call them. 2001:5B0:26FF:2EF0:0:0:0:36 (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Cite for origin of band name

http://www.npr.org/2014/03/08/287283449/not-my-job-drummer-stewart-copeland-gets-quizzed-on-police-tactics MMetro (talk) 15:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

After reading the transcript the origin is not fully addressed, only alluded to in the mention of the list of names and that he (Copeland) had originally thought to call the band "expletive the Police". It's a start, but more of a "close but no cigar".THX1136 (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 27 January 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. EdJohnston (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

---

The Police → The Police (band) – Who thinks that more than half of people who type in "The police" or "The Police" are really looking for police? Bossanoven (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. I can't imagine someone actually looking for information on police would actually type "The Police." This is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. -- Calidum 02:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• Weak support "the police" would be the organization "police" would be the activity, if one were to think in that manner. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 08:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• Strong support. Of course someone who searches for "the police" is likely to be looking for the police. No doubt plenty of readers are looking for the band as well, but it's not a primary topic. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 04:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support - doesn't seem to be significant enough for diffcaps. Red Slash 04:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support per nom. bd2412 T 15:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. The name "The Police" might look similar to "police." But it's four extra characters and different capitalization. If a reader includes a "the" in the search term, it is almost certainly because he knows about the band. Update: I gather that editors who haven't heard of this band don't feel it deserves a primary topic. This is a hugely popular band with over 43,000 views a month. On Google, six of the eight results on the first page refer to this band. NotUnusual (talk) 23:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support, band names are often stupid 76.120.164.90 (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • How long did it take you to think of that one? —  AjaxSmack  01:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

not that long, i used to like Yes (band) and Rush (band) 76.120.164.90 (talk) 02:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment FWIW, yes, The Police are a very popular band, but this is not an internet search engine, this is an encyclopedia. It wouldn't make sense that people would often look up the generic term "police" by itself on an internet search engine. Furthermore, search engine results related to a police force would usually include other words, to specify a particular police department, for example. Whereas a band by that name would have multiple things like tours, album releases, songs, that are simply more popular search results, but not more notable. "Police" commonly has the definite article in front of it. - Bossanoven (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The idea should be to the get the reader to the article is he is most likely to be seeking with the least amount of fuss. That's why search engine results are relevant. The results for "The Police" are entirely different than the ones for "police," which are dominated by references to the local force in where ever Google thinks you're located. Lots of readers are searching for the generic term, as you can see here. NotUnusual (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, While I can see both sides, I'm edging towards oppose as I can't think of many users adding the word "the" when searching "police". What about "the" army, "the" hospital, would users searching for those topics do similar?. Having looked at the view count for The Police it is over 40k for the month (a little low if anything for a band of this size) so I doubt there are many of those searching for anything but the band Carlos Rojas77 (talk) 00:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per User:Calidum and User:NotUnusual. The article the plus an uppercase P on "Police" is enough of a disambiguator. —  AjaxSmack  01:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@AjaxSmack: What of the lowercase p? They are separate. - Bossanoven (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand your question. —  AjaxSmack  21:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

He means The police (a redirect to The Police). The band is primary topic for both. --В²C ☎ 21:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure why that's an issue here; WP:RfD is the place for that. But I suppose I would still be for the band as the primary topic. No evidence has been presented to show that a significant number of people search for the law officers prefaced with a "the". It could be tested by changing the hatnote link to For law enforcement organizations, see [[Police (law enforcement)|Police]], creating a page at "Police (law enforcement)" redirecting to Police, and then checking the pageviews for that page (but I'm not volunteering). —  AjaxSmack  21:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, User:Calidum, User:NotUnusual and User:AjaxSmack. I will just add: even if some people searching with "the police" are looking for Police (which I find to be extremely unlikely), it has to be a relatively very small number. So, in any case, surely the band is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for The Police. --В²C ☎ 21:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose as "the" is generally not used when referring to police. I think NotUnusual said it best. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - no proof, besides Bossanoven's 'hunch' that this is an actual problem. Even if it was, it is already solved by the article's hatnote.--Krótki (talk) 08:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I was all set to oppose. Checking ngram viewer here it seems that search patterns for "the police" and "police" followed similar ups and downs. I am not sure what to make of this. GregKaye 13:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Unlike Web search, Ngram is case sensitive. So none of the results for "the police" have anything to do with the band. See here. NotUnusual (talk) 13:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - For those who for whatever reason decide to search for police by including "the", a hatnote is more than adequate for directing them to where they want to be.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. The use of The is adequate disambiguation, who would expect The Police to redirect to Police? It's not as if they're an obscure band either so the current title is recognizable. Zarcadia (talk) 18:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose – the hatnote works fine for the (surely) few people who might add the "the" when searching for info on police systems. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Earlier picture

It would be fair to include one pic on the band as they were in the late 70's early 80's in their teen idol days.Noseball (talk) 21:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

It would be good to do so, but it's probably difficult to do so with the requirements we place on images.

[Commons] doesn't appear to have any from that era. Calidum ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 05:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Timeline

Can we please discuss the value of including a "timeline" on this article? HurluGumene continues to push it in, despite being removed by both me and Carlos Rojas77 as being unattractive and of very little value due to the long-term stable lineup of this band. --Laser brain (talk) 13:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

It's you both who firstly started this edit war by reverting my edit, not me!!! It's you who continue to push it in! Anyway, who are you to decide whether or not the timeline is "unattractive" and "of very little value"? I totally disagree with that! In spite of the ong-term stable lineup of this band, this timeline is useful as it is a very easy and very pleasant way to visualize the albums releases and the periods of activity of each member... HurluGumene (talk) 14:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, reverting or undoing someone's edit one time is not starting an edit war. It's simply a way to indicate that you disagree with what they did. When you continue to make the same edit and fail to follow WP:BRD (as you have done), you are edit warring. You will note that I came here to discuss the issue after removing the timeline only once. At any rate, can you explain in concrete terms why you think this timeline is adding anything substantive to the reader's understanding? I disagree that the timeline is helping visualize anything. It's difficult to parse any information other than that the band was inactive for some period of time—but that's obvious even from perusing the section headings of the article. Aside from that, we're left with an ugly visual (which I accept is a subjective point) that doesn't express anything the reader hasn't already encountered in the infobox and article. --Laser brain (talk) 14:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, reverting or undoing abruptly someone's edit, even one time, is starting an edit war!!! – I already explained in concrete terms why I think this timeline is relevant: visual interest, easier reading, attractiveness, colourfulness... It visually summarizes the infobox and article informations in a pleasant manner... HurluGumene (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Semantic disagreement aside, I agree to leave the timeline in place until we hear from other editors. If the consensus is that the timeline is unhelpful, I will expect you to abide by that consensus. --Laser brain (talk) 16:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

What is the point of a graphic timeline? Just as easily, you can write a small paragraph on the periods of participation of each member and highlights of their contributions. The members are so few that the paragraph would be less than ten lines in length. Dimadick (talk) 06:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no point to a graphic timeline, except when a band has gone through a multitude of changes which is not the case with The Police. It's standard practice not to clutter up the page with needless fluff.–Carlos Rojas77 (talk) 19:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

This is not needless fluff... The Police Wikipedia article deserves a timeline section... HurluGumene (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@HurluGumene: You are editing against consensus at this point. 3 different editors have expressed concern about the timeline and you continue to re-add it. I request that you revert yourself and respect consensus. Otherwise, you will be reported and blocked for edit warring. --Laser brain (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)