Talk:Biffy Clyro

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Biffy Clyro article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Good article Biffy Clyro was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
August 28, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
Archive
Archives
Archive 1


Contents

[edit] Beggars Banquet Link

The link to beggars banquet links to the rolling stones album and not the record label, i don't know how to change it, so thought i'd just say. Also, could someone tell me how to actually do it for future reference? cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.57.122 (talk) 01:58, 13 June 2007

Simply make an internal link to Beggars Banquet Records, but like this: [[Beggars Banquet Records|Beggars Banquet]], as it is the norm on Wikipedia articles to not include the "Records" bit. Daisy-berkowitz 02:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James And Ben's footballing beliefs (cont)

Does anyone know if the Johnstons are Killie fans? --> 7+1 22:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Is that relevant though? --SteelersFan UK06 19:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC) I've heard somewhere that they are, but unless they are famous among Kilmarnock fans, or it has actively influenced their work (which I don't believe it has), then it's not really notable, so not suitable for inclusion. Unless of course there's a journalist somewhere who's taken the time to write something about it? Tbone762 22:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually I just wanted it know. Harhar :) seven+one 01:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Thekidswhopoptodaywillrocktomorrow.jpg

Image:Thekidswhopoptodaywillrocktomorrow.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 03:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use criteria

The use of images not in compliance with our fair-use criteria or our policy on nonfree content is not appropriate, and the images have been removed. Please do not restore them. — Moe ε 22:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Machines the next single?

I raised my eyebrows when I saw this on the page, but after a little bit of research I couldn't find any reference to it anywhere, so I'm going to take it off for now. If any information is released, then it would be ok to include, but without some kind of citation I think it counts as unverifiable. Tbone762 16:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's album art, it's on their page as the next single...and also that it is out right now. Doc Strange 17:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Yup, glad to be proved wrong by the band, just couldn't find any mention of it at the time. Tbone762 22:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failed Good Article nomination

After reviewing this article, I do not think it meets the Good article criteria. The following are observations on why this is the case:

  • This article has one major difficulty with its nomination - it is not thoroughly and reliably sourced. The lede states that the band "have found real commercial success", the album has "won wide critical acclaim" and goes on to describe their "sound" without any references whatsoever.
  • The main body of the article reads like a timeline and does not flow well, with many short sentences starting with dates. These should be incorporated into large paragraphs with sentences which follow stylistically and logically from each other. See Tool (band) for an example of a well written band article.
  • Omitting the unsourced Style and songwriting section, the entire article is a blow-by-blow account of the band's history. In this respect, it is insufficiently broad in its coverage.
  • The only image in the article, Image:Biffy.clyro.png is a non-free image that is replaceable, thus violating the fair use rationale on the image description page. Other band pages have free images to depict the bands (see Queens of the Stone Age, Rage Against the Machine), there is no reason that I am aware of why Biffy Clyro should be any different. The article should preferably have more than one image.

Once these difficulties have been resolved, I look forward to the article being renominated. Best of luck with the development. Skomorokh incite 13:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the Style and songwriting section, doesn't need sources, cause what is stated there are plain facts,not something arguable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.141.119.154 (talk) 02:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
If they're "plain facts", they should be straightforwardly sourceable. As it stands it seems to me to be perilously close to original research (without necessarily much in the way of actual research). Alai (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 05:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Awful name"

"The bands reason for chosing this awful name" There's a spelling error there, and calling the name awful is subjective. 74.37.143.14 (talk) 06:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Great spot. I removed the section as it was poorly-written, unencyclopedic, and perhaps not important enough to have its own section there. Again, thanks for spotting it. :) --Dreaded Walrus t c 06:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Much commotion in the genre field

Lots of edits to the "genre" field of the infobox, none of which seems to relate to any discussion in the body of the article, much less any relaible sources. I think "alternative rock" pretty much covers most of the assorted other additions, so I'd propose returning to simply that. Alai (talk) 07:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

And likewise, now they're "alternative metal" now -- or used to be, before Puzzle, allegedly. Again, this doens't look helpful, and it certainly isn't sourced, so I plan on prung again, unless someone objects in a convincing manner... Alai (talk) 10:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
And now, "post-punk revival". People, if you're not going to source these, at least keep it simple (and plausible). Alai (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Post-hardcore punk emo alternative pop rock? I give up. Alai (talk) 05:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)