Talk:Arctic Monkeys

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Arctic Monkeys article.
Article policies
Good article Arctic Monkeys has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.

Contents

[edit] Chris McClure

Chris McClure is mentioned like we are suppose to know who he is. Could someone please elaborate? I'm talking about the caption where there album pic is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.113.82.45 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 26 August 2006.

The relevance of Chris McClure is explained in the main article text. DJR (T) 17:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beneath The Boardwalk

Added as compilation. Poiuytre 16:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 06:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Not only are there no links to YouTube in this article, but the Arctic Monkeys article is not even mentioned in the link you provided. I realise AWB was used to produce the message, but I would appreciate some sort of clarification of your position. DJR (T) 11:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
If you look in the Other Links section the Arctic Monkeys video clips link includes videos from YouTube and similar websites. This is probably why the above has been posted. --Fozi999 18:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I have a list of articles with YouTube links in them... it was generated from a database dump by a diffrent user and might be a week or two old. There seem to be no link in the article now... so feel free to ignore the message. :) ---J.S (t|c) 23:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FAC Comments

"Lyrics Arctic Monkeys are generally considered part of the indie rock scene[8] alongside similar contemporary guitar bands such as The Libertines, The Futureheads and Franz Ferdinand.[9][10] The lyrics of Arctic Monkeys songs often feature social realism and observations of working class life, as typified by "When The Sun Goes Down", described as a "witty, poignant song about prostitution in the Neepsend district of Sheffield", and "A Certain Romance", an attack on chav culture,[9] which have led to comparisons with other acts, especially British rapper The Streets[11] and older artists Morrissey and Jarvis Cocker,[9] both of which are known for their combination of observational lyrics and humour.[10]

The lead singer, Alex Turner, sings in a strong Yorkshire accent, typified by the contraction of "something" to "summat", the replacement of "everything" and "nothing" with "owt" (/aʊt/) and "nowt" (/naʊt/) and the use of Northern slang such as "mardy" for "grumpy, difficult, unpredictable".[12] Their songs also include frequent references to popular culture both common and obscure; Whatever People Say I Am, That's What I'm Not includes references to Romeo and Juliet, "Rio" by Duran Duran, and Frank Spencer, from Some Mothers Do 'Ave 'Em,[12] leading one journalist to describe than the band as having a "camp retro-futurist fascination" for 1980s popular culture.[13]"

Is prostitution working class? Or is it social realism, maybe two lyric examples would be better, one for each. Is 'chav' linked before this appearance? Is the humour an observation of satire? Doesn't quite tie together. I'd like more examples from their lyrics for all of your comments, like you did in the second paragraph above, you need quotes on the song title, you need some possessives where they're missing. I actually think your prose is fine, the biggest problem is you need to rewrite a bit, using your own word to flesh out your research, as if you were explaining this band to my Deep South American mother-in-law. I think it will get there, but I haven't read the whole article, just don't have time. KP Botany 18:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "In popular culture" section

I've removed the thing about Peter Crouch's goal celebration being influenced by "I Bet You Look Good On The Dancefloor". It wasn't encylopaedic or relevant. The "In poplular culture" section needs to be expanded now, I think. James P Twomey 19:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "the second fastest selling for a debut indie album in America"

the reference http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1525120/20060301/story.jhtml , does not say anything about being the 2nd fastest selling indie debut in the USA. just that it reached #24. un-checked references are far too common on WP! so i have moved it to after '#24' and added {{Fact}}.

[edit] Unreleased Discography

I think it would be worth ading a list of unreleased / demos. --Jimmyjrg 05:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

This article has some vandalism that needs reverting. Dhawk1964 02:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fake Tales of San Francisco

Please see discussion at Talk:Fake Tales of San Francisco. DJR (T) 13:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Date formatting

What is with the date formatting on this article!? I tried to fix it but Djr xi undid it. All I tried to do was make the date uniform because right now some dates go April 23, 2007, some go 23 April 2007 and others go 2007-04-23. I also tried to make it easier to read by using one with the month written out (April) instead of the number (04). I don't mind which format is used, just pick one and stick with it throughout the entire article. - kollision 03:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi sorry I wanted to revert some of the textual spam that have crept in between old edits, unfortunately it took in some, but not all, of your edits to the date. The date format on this article has used the [[2007-03-02]] format as this will automatically reformat itself based on user preferences, and given that the {{citenews}} templates require this format for their input of accessdates, it seems sensible to used a unified format wherever possible. At the end of the day, dates could use the "DD MMMM YYYY" format or YYYY-MM-DD, and so long as they are linked they will adjust to user preferences. However, as this article is about a British band and uses British English, American date formatting should be avoided. (This is another reason behind using the YYYY-MM-DD code, as it avoids UK-US date format revert wars - even though all formats produce the same output so long as they are linked. In any case, I'll go back and unify everything now. DJR (T) 11:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the [[24 January]] [[2007]] date format should be used since it is easier to read for users without a date preference (like me) and unregistered users. Date wars are pretty rare I think.- kollision 12:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

If we're going to use a fair use image rather than a free one then surely there's no excuse for using anything but the best? The picture currently there is technically poor; in particular, one of the guys isn't even in full frame. --kingboyk 18:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

True - a replacement would be good. DJR (T) 18:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nice article

Just finished reading - impressive article considering the band are both fairly new and currently active. Good one. --kingboyk 18:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of Vocabulary

I noticed the use of the word "frugal" in the article, and looked it up since I did not have a clue of its definition. The definition I found makes it look like incorrect usage of the word. The sentence was "...their somewhat frugal shows have sometimes been criticised by reviewers." The definition of "frugal" as I found it is: sparing or economical with regards to money or food." The examples given in the dictionary were "he led a remarkably frugal existence" and "a frugal meal". I am not aware of the use of this word in British English, but it seems like their could be better word choice here. If this makes sense in British English, then go ahead and leave it, since the band is infinitely more popular in the UK and Europe in general. Otherwise, it really does not make sense to use bad word choice just to make the Wikipedia article seem more sophisticated. It is just pretentious. Omer Zach 01:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The writer clearly intended "frugal" to be used in the correct sense that the concerts were criticised for being "sparing or economical with regards to money" spent on the concerts which means that it isn't pretentious... just correct. Of course an article that criticises this correct use of word inaccurately could be termed incompetently pedantic.

[edit] Influence?

How come there isn't a section with regards to the bands main influences. I remember there being a small section months ago and there were links to prove the influences. Some of Arctic Monkeys' main influences are Oasis and The Strokes. I believe they warrant a mention because every band has influences.--Play Brian Moore 03:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe they warrant mention for the exact same reason. All artists are influenced by other people in some way, and to list them is redundant Jacobtaylor1987 06:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Most other bands have their iffluences listed including Oasis and the super-original Radiohead. Arctic Monkeys have obvious influences, they probably should be listed.--Play Brian Moore 18:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Ditto, a lot of people use influences to find other bands they like. I think this info should be in an encyclopedia. GBobly 23:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brianstorm

Brianstorm is supposed to be released on April 16, but I bought it today. Can anyone explain? James P Twomey 19:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You bought a physical copy??? That should not have happened... DJR (T) 23:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I read somewhere that it was actualy uot on the 13th, and that the 16th was when they will start selling it on their website. Should we add this to the article? James P Twomey

Not unless it is sourced. It was only released in physical form in the UK on the 16th - if/when they sell it on their website is irrelevant. DJR (T) 13:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

"The lead singer, Alex Turner, is extremely sexy and sings in a strong Yorkshire accent, typified by the contraction of "something" to "summat", use of "dun't" (and not "don't") for "doesn't", the replacement of "anything" and "nothing" with "owt" (/aʊt/) and "nowt" (/naʊt/), and the use of Northern English slang such as "mardy" for "grumpy, difficult, unpredictable"" This does not seem NPOV to me. 199.126.166.13 23:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the 'extremely sexy' but I don't think the comments on the accent is POV. Iorek85 23:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

eeeek —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.136.241 (talk) 01:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Mardy is Yorkshire dialect rather than slang. The distinction being that this is not a recent coinage nor is its use restricted to young people; and it is not a general "Northern" word, it is used only in North Yorkshire, South Yorkshire and parts of the midlands. People in other parts of the North might not even understand what it means (=moody).GordyB (talk) 11:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Some more Vandalism going on("boring prick indie band"), should be reverted soon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.153.53.184 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 20 April 2007.

You may revert yourself. Click history, open the most recent non-vandalised page, click edit and then save. L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 22:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Or leave it there, cause it's quite accurate :) 195.157.52.65 16:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Genre

If you have a look at their discography, both albums are defined as Indie Rock... How can a band who's albums are Indie Rock be Post-Punk? GBobly 23:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

When they transcend musical genres... I personally think that genres are rubbish in general. DJR (T) 09:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't think of calling Artic Monkeys indie rock, is it just me or are they just pure old simple rock? --AnYoNe! 15:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
They are, in fact, both indie rock and post-punk revival. They fuse punk elements with simple indie rock tunes. And by the way, whoever keeps adding funk rock is a bloody idiot.

[edit] Supporting Acts

Anybody know who was the first supportin act to play with them at malahide castle on the 16th of june 07 before the coral played?-the-muffin-man- 22:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It was The DelorentosJames P Twomey 16:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It might have also been Voxtrot. At least I saw them with those guys opening up. (DJ EIK) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.154.148 (talk) 01:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Arctic Monkeys.jpg

Image:Arctic Monkeys.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Extraneous info in lede

I deleted this from the lede paragraph:

At least some of their popularity may be due to the amusing lyrics of that song (referring to "When the Sun Goes Down"), which was often heard on the radio in 2006, with its blunt northern language immortalised especially in the lines: "and what a scummy man, just give him half a chance I bet he'll rob you if he can...he's got a driving ban amongst some other offences...but he'll be alright 'cause he's a scumbag, don't you know, I said he's a scumbag, don't you know."

Seems like the kind of speculative, weasely minutia that plagues many current band articles, IMO, but I suppose I won't object if consensus is it belongs; however, this has absolutely no place in the intro.75.139.32.246 11:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

OK fine no prob...it's a wicked and unusual lyric, however; it would be nice to keep it somewhere in the piece...weaseley? hmmm, i'll pass on that one. Peter morrell 11:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It might be worth mentioning on the page for that song; just needs some rephrasing. "At least some of their popularity may be due..." By the time you've put that many qualifiers on it, you end up saying virtually nothing, that's what I meant by weasely (WP:WEASEL). And if we're the ones speculating whether that may be a source of their popularity, that's original research (WP:OR). Find a notable source like a prominent review, saying something to that effect and cite that; then that would be a valuable addition to the song page. Just try to avoid writing about your opinion of the lyric and its contribution on their popularity. Thanks.75.139.32.246 12:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, now that I think about it, that lyric would be a pretty good example of the biting humor found in many of their songs, and thus might merit mention in the "Lyrics" subsection of this main article rather than on that song's page -- assuming someone finds a notable, verifiable mention of this we can cite.75.139.32.246 12:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I would just place it in the article anyway it does not have to be authoritative...the lyric is good and the point being made is a valid one. Peter morrell 11:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. The lyric may be good and the point may, in fact be valid, but we don't get to assert that on our own authority. That's original research and it's not a neutral point of view. We compile verifiable information published in notable, reliable sources. This is Wikipedia policy, and it's not optional. Look at the way "When the Sun Goes Down" is mentioned in the Lyrics section now - that's a good example of how to do this.75.139.32.246 11:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flag

I see some edit-warring about the England flag versus the Union Jack in the infobox. This is a good illustration of why such flags do more harm than good. If anyone has a good encyclopedic reason why we need a flag there, let's hear it. If not, let's do without it, as most good band articles do. --John 22:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It's standard practice for groups and people. I don't think it's necessary either, but people seem to like it, so I'd rather it stay and match with the rest of wikipedia. If you want to go through every article removing the flags, that's your choice. If not, just leave it be. --Lfg
It is not standard practice at all. WP:FLAG is a fairly well-developed essay describing why we should be careful about using flags this way. I personally love flags but I agree with this essay that in a situation like this they add nothing. Anything in an article should be there to enhance its encyclopedic value. If it doesn't, it should go. It is also a breach of WP:NOR; what verifiable evidence have we that the band identify as being English (rather than British, European, or "citizens of the world")? --John 05:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the flags are good in case you don't know what their nation's flag looks like. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 18:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
It's easy enough just to click through to the country article, which is still linked from the article when the flag icon is removed. The country article is an appropriate place for the flag. The band article is not. --John 19:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why it's inappropriate to have the flag since it represents the country, which is stated. Furthermore I think this discussion belongs to the template's discussion-page but not this one. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 15:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Which country though? England, the UK or even the EU? If there was verifiable evidence that a band identified as being "English" (rather than British or European), I think you would have a stronger point. --John 16:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, the only example people have given about this is the UK vs. England case which is weird. I ask, can you be English without being British? You added Europe but that's hardly a country. This whole argument is quite ridiculous. Personally, I don't care. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 17:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
You can certainly have an expressed preference for being called English rather than British. It becomes especially ridiculous with bands of mixed nationality. Should we display every flag for each member of a band like Snow Patrol? Should Stiff Little Fingers' entry display Flag of Northern Ireland Northern Ireland even though the Ulster Banner is unofficial and used as a symbol of one side against the other in their ethnic conflict over there? I agree strongly that it is ridiculous, but I'd say I do care as I believe these flags never add any encyclopedic content to an article, instead over-simplifying nationality and implying allegiance to a particular flag. They also regularly inspire bitter edit wars about what flag to add. Dumbing down our project like this will not be a good thing. --John 17:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I think you made a valid point there. What if the band has mixed nationality? I think from now on I'm against flags in band articles. Cheers. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 21:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article needs tidying up

There are a lot of areas of this article that need tidying up:

  • The introduction states that they are 'similar' to Bloc Party, The Libertines, The Futureheads and Franz Ferdinand, which is clearly nonsense, and isn't really supported by the references.
  • There is generally far too much irrelevant detail, e.g. the mention of a NME live review which 'compared their performance at the 2006 Reading Festival unfavourably to that of Muse'.
  • The article even details when the tracklisting for their second album was announced.
  • The 'Television appearances' section states "October 2005 saw the group's only UK television appearances", before going on to list at least 2 later UK television appearances.
  • The section on the band's logo doesn't belong anywhere near an encyclopedia.

I'm tempted to just go and cut a lot out of the article, but perhaps some editors who are fans of the band might like to do some tidying first?--Michig 21:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The last two are fixed James P Twomey 21:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why does "Five Clicks to Jesus" redirect to this particular page?

See header. Katsarephat (talk) 04:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It was a move vandalism. Just ignore it. - kollision (talk) 04:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name Origin

It mentions the fake story Helders told about the name, but there's no mention on the real story of how they got their name. Anybody know? 75pickup (talk · contribs) 01:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)