Jump to content

Talk:The Saturdays

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HThtFKSQikM

hypnotised? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.161.73 (talk) 10:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Sundays

[edit]

Any relation to The Sundays? They are both music bands from the UK with a girl in the lead.

yeah, and the (happy) mondays, too... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.18.22 (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...and Tuesday Weld, Wednesday Adams, Thursday (band) and Friday Caliban. Now, back to improving the article... - SummerPhD (talk) 13:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...and the girls all go out with players from Sheffield Wednesday who ironically play mostly on a Saturday afternoon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.136.118 (talk) 14:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xenomania

[edit]

Why is Xenomania in the related box and the bottom they have nothing to do with The Saturdays —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.118.205.150 (talk) 21:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frankie

[edit]

Her own article? S Club section && Saturdays section Bogger (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not much of a discussion, is it? what Bogger has written here makes no sense... onto the actual discussion... it says on her section on the saturdays page - It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into Frankie Sandford . (Discuss) - surely this should be her page merging with this page? she's not bigger than the group, which is implied by merging the saturdays article into hers... to be honest, only one member does not have her own page, and a couple of the others are small, just repeating what is on this page, therefore it would probably be a better suggestion to merge each girls page into this band page. there are many band members out there, who are in much bigger bands than this little known group, that don't have their own page on wikipedia. 77.97.18.22 (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Work (5th single)

[edit]

Why is Work always removed as the 5th single?! The Saturdays have claimed that the single has been moved for a later release due to the new single signed. Why do people keep deleting it? Oneshyguy46 (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because The Saturdays haven't revealed what the 5th single will be yet. The Saturdays stated that "Work" was only a rumor spread by fans. Though, it will most likely be the next single, due to their tour being named "Work Tour". StupidityxLEAK (talk) 07:52pm, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Main image

[edit]

Why is the image always removed? The picture of any album cover is justified for the main image since in pictures all five members respecfully. Can someone give me an explination? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oneshyguy46 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Album covers are acceptable only under "fair use" guidelines. Essentially, this means they can be used only where no other image will do the job. An album cover is the only image that will identify the album, so that is acceptable. However, any photo of the band will work to identify the band, so an album cover cannot be used. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Associated acts

[edit]

Members of The Saturdays have previously been in S Club 8 and Fallen Angelz. What are the associations with Girls Aloud and Luigi Masi? 80.176.88.21 (talk) 17:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well The Saturdays went on tour with Girls Aloud last year. I'm really not sure about Luigi Masi, although I think Luigi Masi will go on tour with The Saturdays for the Comic Relief 2009 Tour.Oneshyguy46 (talk) 04:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that being on the same tour bill as another act does not really count as an association in the same way as The Saturdays are linked to S Club 8. If The Saturdays have a long career and do a lot of tours and festivals the list of 'associated acts' will get very long. I'd suggest removing Girls Aloud and Luigi Masi unless there's some other association between these acts. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, thought the same myself. Just doubled checked here in case they were there for a reason. I'll remove the irrelevant ones.. »—Mikay—talk—contribs→ 19:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hadouken!

[edit]

Is it true Hadouken are supporting them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.46.212 (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Formation

[edit]

Has anyone got a reference to when The Saturdays formed? The intro text states 2007, but the info-box says they have only been active since 2008.Last Polar Bear (talk) 12:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The formed in 2007, but they became famous in 2008. "Active" means how long they've been making music, been popular/famous, etc. IHelpWhenICan (talk) 00:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the UK did they form? Wiki editor 6 (talk) 23:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a remarkable lack of information in the article about the genesis of this group. How did they get together? Where? When? Why? Under whose influence? How did they get a record deal? 82.36.129.101 (talk) 10:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Filmography

[edit]

Should be removed.Boils (talk) 12:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Street team

[edit]

I don't know what to do about the street team comment, but I do know it has no place whatsoever in that section.IHelpWhenICan (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I've added a new subsection.Furball3 (talk) 11:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that it needs a new section. It's that the comment does not deserve to be in the article, AT ALL, and you're so adamant and forceful in including it. Street teams are nothing notable, nothing new. Everyone does it, whether through fans or the official website/fan club of the artists. I don't understand how you don't get that. Don't put the comment in the article. Orane (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's leave it commented out for now.Furball3 (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editing not permitted?

[edit]

I don't seem to be able to edit this page but it's not protected is it? Anyone else experiencing the same thing or is just me?  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 18:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problem solved. The article was protected due to an editing conflict. Orane (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Date discrepancy

[edit]

The lead says they formed in 2007, but the infobox says Years active 2008-present. Jim Michael (talk) 00:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They were formed before they became active.Furball3 (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

[edit]

Only three members of the band are visible in the infobox pic, is that a pic mos issue? Off2riorob (talk) 17:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean. Adambro (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, well an ip has been removing it as there were five members in the band and it kind of gives undue weight to the three in the pic, it is not actually a pic of the band is it, it is a picture of some of the band? Off2riorob (talk) 17:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly a photo showing all the band would be better but since such an image doesn't seem available I see no issue using this one. Your addition of a caption is helpful in clarifying that it only shows part of the band. It might be useful to go further and try to name who is pictured but I don't know enough about the group to immediately recognise who is who and I'll have to try to figure it out from other photos. Perhaps you might be able to assist if you know more about them than me. Adambro (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've got the names figured now. Adambro (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have no idea if the names are correct but adding the names is a good idea, I agree a pic of three is better than no pic at all, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moan, moan, moan - don't people actually take the time to look for a new image? I mean, look at what I snagged by using the advice found here... and that's not all that's in the Commons cat for the band. <G> Tabercil (talk) 21:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Make the current picture a little smaller? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.72.146 (talk) 15:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Spy

[edit]

Is a very celebrity style citeation, it as I have seen discussed, ok just about for little issues, nothing big and nothing personal or controversial at all. Off2riorob (talk) 22:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is an acceptable citation. Digital Spy is a reputable entertainment website. As i've said in previous discussions, the music editor Nick Levine is quite well-known (he was invited to several significant album launches last year) and frequently interviews the Saturdays amongst other British music acts. The orgnisation is owned by Hachette Filaapacchi Medias which itself is a large media conglomerate. The fact the website has an editorial team shows that there is some credibility. It is similar to US magazine People and another UK entertainment outlet, E! Online. Furthermore there are countless GA and FA articles which make use of it which is sure enough proof that it is reliable. The Saturdays themselve have given lots of interviews with Digitalspy. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Digital Spy doesn't have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy - e.g. http://twitter.com/RochelleTheSats/status/8955989905 Furball3 (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Digital Spy does have a reputation for accuracy. First of all the disclaimer notes that the website makes use of a wide variety of sources. Secondly it has an editorial team. Thirdly if the information has come from elsewhere or if it is not 100% they always use phrases like "according to..." or "according to a report" etc. That was the Daily Star's fault not Digital Spy. In that case the source could have been used to say "According to the Daily Star, the group would not be touring in 2010"[1] etc. However removing all uses of Digital Spy as a source is not acceptable and you need to stop doing so. Only 3-4 days ago did they give an interview with Digital Spy here and they confirmed the TV show, 24/7 live on Alan Carr: Chatty Man. Despite me providing links on your talk page where Digital Spy was passed as a reliable source as well as pointing out that it has been used in WP:GA and WP:FA articles you are still removing the source. If you're disatisified with its use discuss it here first but constantly removing the source is not the way forward. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Physical sales

[edit]

Here are the latest sales figures for the albums and singles (as of November 7th, 2011). Can someone edit it into the discography and keep up with it?

  1. 1- If This Is Love (108,000+)
  2. 2- Up! (315,000+)
  3. 3- Issues (246,000+)
  4. 4- Just Can't Get Enough (285,000+)
  5. 5- Work (101,000+)
  6. 6- Forever Is Over (158,000+)
  7. 7- Ego (313,000+)
  8. 8- Missing You (206,000+)
  9. 9- Higher (265,000+)
  10. 10- Notorious (180,000+)
  11. 11- All Fired Up (257,000+)
  12. 12- My Heart Takes Over (75,000+)
  13. 13- 30 Days (87,000+) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.187.206 (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. 1- Chasing Lights (485,000+)
  2. 2- Wordshaker (229,000+)
  3. 3- Headlines (335,000+)
  4. 4- On Your Radar (189,000+)

Credit: Generation Network —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.59.51 (talk) 04:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

without a reliable source to back them up they will be removed. Mister sparky (talk) 13:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2006?

[edit]

Stop changing the years active bit back to "2006-present" because it is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.188.103 (talk) 09:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The New New New (talk • contribs) 07:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who can prove the girls formed in 2006?? WE NEED SOME CITATIONS! IHelpWhenICan (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv-entertainment/tv/todays-tv/2010/08/26/the-saturdays-24-7-itv2-9pm-115875-22513679/. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Susfele (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Susfele (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appearances

[edit]

Could the summary areas be more elaborate with more appearance listings. What about their involvement with Children in Need 2010 and possible the x factor 2010.--Cooly123 01:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Selected filmography

[edit]

Do we really need Selected Filmography within the artical?--92.17.35.32 (talk) 13:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Future proof?

[edit]

The page is bit ahead of itself. It says singles "were released" in November 2011. It's only early October as I write this! SmokeyTheCat 20:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I have gave the page a complete make-over. All this is sorted now. --ƒɾɛɛᴅᴑᴍºᵀᴬᴸᴷ 12:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetical order

[edit]

To who ever keeps on putting Frankie Sandford first in member order should stop it. Just because she's your favorite or the most famous out of them. Gives her no right to be put first. Just like all other girl groups, including The Spice Girls & Girls Aloud to name a few. They are listed Alphabetical by name! The Saturdays are no different! It should be listed as follows: Una Healy, Mollie King, Frankie Sandford, Vanessa White & Rochelle Wiseman. So please if you are a true member of TEAM SATS; Please stop changing the order! Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.33.166.44 (talk) 12:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chord progressions ?!

[edit]

"Ego" follows a chord progression of: Bm-G-D-Bm-G. Well I think this is definitely irrelevant for a "band" article (note the quotes). Are we going to add chord progression for other bands too now? *shakes head* I'd like to see this removed. Permanently. -andy 77.7.116.144 (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and removed. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Current Image

[edit]

No, the image being used currently is NOT a better image one bit. It makes all five of the girls look unattractive and doesn't flatter them at all, plus it's much older. The image used for the infobox in the past was completely fine and there was absolutely no reason to change it. Jjj1238 (talk) 05:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revamp

[edit]

Tis revamp is rubbish for normal users who regularly read this article i cant understand it with so many sources they are not that important plus half the stuff at the top of the page should not be there and should be placed under or other projects — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.158.176 (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is "band" an appropriate description?

[edit]

Is it just me, or does the word band apply only to a group that plays instruments and thus The Saturdays should be called a vocal group? --anon. 71.183.133.71 (talk) 20:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edits From May 2013:

[edit]

Corrections have been made to the whole article as of May 2013. These changes are all correct, and all punctuation have been corrected, so please do not use a saved whole piece of the article, and revert back to it, just because you can. Please read what I have written first, as the article before was a mess regarding its punctuation and out-of-date references. Changes to the opening description, Infobox and History sections have all been corrected as of 11/05/2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14CABaker (talk • contribs) 21:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on The Saturdays. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on The Saturdays. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on The Saturdays. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

English-Irish?

[edit]

What makes this an English-Irish group? A member born in Ireland? The group is English, it's members include an Irish person. We don't call Guns n' Roses American-English (an English member), or U2 Irish-English (two English members). 82.10.117.175 (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Saturdays&oldid=1210232034"