Talk:Butthole Surfers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Butthole Surfers article.
Article policies
Good article Butthole Surfers 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] Revision project

Posted the completely revamped intro tonight. That said, it needs 5 facts (in some cases, major facts) sourced. I know this information is out there somewhere, so I'll be looking for it tomorrow. In the meantime, if anyone else working on this project can find references for the unsourced items, feel free to add them in.

Alternately, if anyone feels it's too early to post this in light of the missing references, feel free to revert; I have the whole thing stored in a Word doc, and can add it back in once I've found the sources.

Will be revamping the rest of it over the next week or so. All info removed from the original intro (especially Gibby & Paul's meeting in college) will get added back in when I redo the "History" section.Thehaikumaster 04:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Those facts are all sourced, as are all the others that have been added so far.Thehaikumaster 04:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Main history section now complete & sourced, barring light additional editing. Thehaikumaster 00:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review

FYI to anyone still tinkering with this article -- it has received an initial "B" rating, and has been officially submitted for Peer Review. If you add anything at this point, please be sure to provide a source. Similarly, if you modify any sourced info, or delete it, please provide another source that proves the first source is wrong. Thehaikumaster 19:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New album

Before History section got complete revamp, it had a mention about Gibby Haynes confirming a new album back in August. I couldn't find anything online to support it, so if anyone does have a source, please include if you re-add. Thehaikumaster 02:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Gibby mentioned it when he DJ'ed on Sirius Satellite Radio back on (I think) August 18, 2006. There are MP3s of the broadcast floating around. Gruntmaster flush 20:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bass players

Re: earlier edit note about bass players, I don't plan on providing a complete accounting of them. If anyone else wants to fill in those gaps, feel free! Thehaikumaster 01:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Surfers, not Surface

219.88.3.77 had replaced many occurances of "Surfers" with "Surface". Not sure why. It's fixed now.--64.122.49.30 02:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

if you replace the "surfers" in "butthole surfers" with "surface" it becomes "butthole surface", which is pretty funny and that's why they did it, i'm guessing

[edit] Deleat, Deleat, Deleat!

What a horrible album so rude I haven't herd of this band has anyone else? bah, the rubbish people put on! Czesc26

What is even the point of a Talk post like this? First, learn how to spell. Second, learn how to differentiate between an album and a band. Third, to each their own. Incidentally, rest assured the Butthole Surfers haven't heard of you, either. Thehaikumaster 00:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
look at his user page that's got to be a bot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Why delete? The band had a #1 hit on a Notable single chart, resulting in its parent album going gold. That's sufficient enough. Just because you don't like a band doesn't mean they don't deserve a page Doc Strange (talk) 10:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts on major 2/21 revision

As the primary author of this page, I reverted the majority of changes made by Chris77xyz. First, this article is currently undergoing Peer Review, and two experienced users have been over it and didn't suggest any of the changes made in this revision. Specifics include:

  • Reverted most of intro, as additions were unsourced & removal of sourced material was unexplained;
  • Reverted a number of other changes that don't mesh with the cited references;
  • Reinserted section intros, as sections are supposed to start with an overview of the topic discussed (also, in the current Peer Review, no indication has been given that section intros should be removed or shortened, and they have suggested shortening/removing other areas);
  • Completely reverted "Live Performance" section, as there was no reason to remove the sourced info, and again, a suggestion to remove or shorten it has not come up in the peer review (Update: did modify it and the sentence or 2 in main history body to make them less similar);
  • Thayil is sourced to the Azerrad book, just like the rest of the paragraph;
  • Reinserted Surfers/Rusk opposing viewpoints on T&G lawsuit, as part of Wiki's purpose is to provide opposing viewpoints in such cases;
  • Original rotating use of "release" and "publish" was intentional, so as to avoid using the exact same words over and over again (or different iterations of same word in one sentence);
  • Reinserted "ridiculous internal links," as they all have active pages on Wikipedia and no Peer Review suggestions have been made to remove them (though they did suggest removing most red-linked names, which was done). And why make it difficult for readers to learn more about a subject if they want to?;
  • Re-broke up some combined paragraphs so as to keep similar topics in separate paragraphs, and to not lump a variety of topics into one paragraph;
  • Re-alphabetized genres;
  • Other minor reverts due to changes to improper use of capitalization;
  • Did keep some changes, but only those that didn't go against proper writing or existing references, and that didn't remove cited information. Thehaikumaster 00:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nice work

Nice work on this page! 71.34.38.19071.34.38.190

Thanks; couldn't have written it without the help of a lot of other people. Thehaikumaster 01:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA comment

With just a quick glance over the article, I saw that some of the images need fair use rationales. I'd recommend adding them, or someone may quick-fail the article. --Nehrams2020 01:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Zoiks, thanks! Have removed all but the top image. Wish it had more pictures, but it's real hard to find fair-use Butthole Surfers articles, much less free ones. Thehaikumaster 01:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Reviewed this article, and I think it meets the good article criteria. It is very well written and referenced. With regard to the one image at the top, based on the editors' arguments ('Image:Butthole Surfers modern.jpg'), I believe it falls under the fair use clause as a promotional photo, so I have added the appropriate copyright tag to that image. I do agree with the previous call to remove other images from the article, and I agree that one photo at the top is needed for the page, but also that the well-written content of the article stands on its own as a GA. Good work! Dr. Cash 00:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dashes are wrong throughout

  • Hyphen - used on hyphenated words
  • ndash – used to separate ranges of dates and numbers (see the section headings, for example,which incorrectly use a hyphen instead)
  • mdash; — used to punctuate sentences, this article incorrectly uses ndash or hyphens instead.

Pls read WP:DASH and correct throughout. En and Em dashes are available below the edit screen when in edit mode. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; will clean that up this weekend. The Haiku Master 15:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I have question in regards to this article. Why are the butthole sufers listed among alternative metal arists? And if they are why isn't the genre listed on the main article. I'm adding it.

[edit] Words

God seems so removed when love is torn from the truth

WHAT? Roman Dog Bird 03:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Album covers

I removed these fair use images from the article as they are only considered to be good fair use in the articles on the individual albums. Being used in the main article is not only a breach of our mission to provide a free encyclopedia, but may discourage editors from finding or producing free content to illustrate the subject of the article. See here for a recent discussion of the same issue. --John 16:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your link to that discussion. What I see there is a significant number of people disagreeing with your interpretation of fair-use policy specifically and the priorities of Wikipedia in general. I also disagree with your interpretations. Let's see how other editors interested in this article respond. While, all other things being equal, free imagery is preferable to nonfree imagery, Wikipedia's primary mision is to provide a freely accessible quality encyclopedia. Your sweeping elimination of properly used fair-use images detracts from that mission in the case of this article. I have restored the images.—DCGeist 18:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
On what basis? What is the purpose of using the images in this article? It would have to be pretty compelling to outweigh the Foundation's guidance on the minimal use of non-free images. I have given you my reasons for removing the images; what (in terms of policy) are your reasons for replacing them? --John 20:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why we shouldn't use the non-free images in this article

In the absence of any clear consensus emerging here to keep them, I have removed them for a second time. Here is a brief summary of my reasons:

  1. Our policy on non-free content currently states: "Minimal number of uses. As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary." and "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." (from here)
  2. While the article needs images, these album covers are rather a lazy way of illustrating it. Wouldn't it be better, and far truer to the spirit of the project, if someone could create free images of the band? "A further goal of minimizing licensed and fair-use material is to encourage creation of original new content, rather than relying on borrowed content that comes with restrictions" (from here)
  3. I would argue that the album covers are perfectly fine and indeed greatly aid the understanding of the articles on the individual albums. Here in this article, their use does not in my opinion 'significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic', and nor would 'its omission ... be detrimental to that understanding'. This is why this is not a valid or encyclopedic fair use of these images. --John 17:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The images add significantly to readers' understanding of the article subject by illustrating the unique and bizarre image the band created for itself and how that image varied and evolved over the course of the band's existence. Overall, the use of five fair-use images for an article of this size and detail is quite modest and responsible. I would be happy to see the album covers supplemented by comparably informative historical free images; however, I am not aware of any available ones.—DCGeist 17:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it verifiable that the band had a hand in creating the images? If so, that would be a useful addition to the article and would strengthen your argument slightly. As it is they are simply being used for decoration, a clear breach of our rules. --John 17:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Please state your argument a little more carefully. They are not "simply being used for decoration." They are being used for the significant purpose I just described. You have asked that the band's involvement with the design of their album covers be sourced--a fair request. I believe it can be satisfied and I'll see to that.—DCGeist 18:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Sentence noting that band designed its own album covers added and cited.—DCGeist 19:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Do you really think "The band designed the striking, bizarre album cover, as it would the cover illustrations for its succeeding work.[1]" justifies the inclusion of all of these images? Is it your judgement or that of the source that the album cover was "striking, [and] bizarre"? --John 20:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
It should be clear to you that I thought the inclusion of the five images in question was already justified by their manifest content. The cited addition to the text provides further justification for their inclusion. I have edited the sentence and expanded the cite so the characterization of the imagery unquestionably reflects the judgment of the source.—DCGeist 20:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Is the word 'bizarre' present in the source? As to the images issue I can see we are not going to be able to compromise so I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content to see if we can attract wider comment. --John 20:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Azerrad uses the word repeatedly in his discussion.—DCGeist 21:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where are the 90's???

I cannot understand how this article can get any kind of Good Arts label with a huge gap in the period of their greatest success and influence, relative mainstream acceptance, contravercy(sp?) over major label signing...in fact what should be the meat of the article as far as i can tell...even a 90's section of poor quality would be better than this glaring omission... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.67.204.241 (talk) 21:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)