Talk:Girls Aloud

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Girls Aloud article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Nadine's Flag

In the members section of the infobox, people keep swapping the flag. Half the time it is Flag of Northern Ireland, and other times it is Ireland. I think it should be kept as Northern Ireland, as that is where she is from, and she is not from the Republic of Ireland, or change all of them to the flag of Great Britain. Peterwill 18:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Do flags need to be used at all? I don't think they add anything in this case, seeing as they are all from the UK. Anything to do with Northern Ireland always seems to be controversial (see how many times Nadine Coyle's birthplace has been reverted between Derry and Londonderry) and in this case it seems to be an unneccesary problem. Also, see Wikipedia:Don't overuse flags. Gasheadsteve 10:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed the flags after Nadine's was reverted yet again. The nationalities, strictly speaking, are all UK, not English/Northern Irish because they all hold UK passports, not England/NI passports. Gasheadsteve 17:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

There tricolour should be removed as it is offensive. The band is British and was formed on a British TV show. I propose all flags should be the Union Jack or not used at all and the perception they are British should be status quo.

I don't know about the tricolour being offensive, but it's certainly factually incorrect, and should either be changed or the flags removed entirely. In fact, to be consistent with other music articles (eg Led Zeppelin, Sugababes, U2, or Placebo), the flags for the individual members should be removed. There's no real argument for their inclusion as all members are from the UK, so I'll make this edit now. Matthew 12:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It's been reverted back. All flags should be removed unless it's a single one for the band. This is NOT political.

I agree now, there shouldn't be one used. I never changed the flags at all as ai thought they were useless. The didn't really provide any extra information, as its all in the articles and individual articles. Also I think it was a good idea to put the flag by United Kingdom. Whoever put the unsigned comment 3 above this, the show was a UK based show yeah, but it was shown in ireland and the Irish could vote, so in those respects I think your comment is a bit anti-irish. Peterwill 19:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page Layout

does this page really need all the little headings for each of the singles? the contents look crazy and its going to get longer and longer... Salamander4000 14:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

hey guys,

"They have also received unprecedented (for a pop group) praise from the 'serious' music press" - i would argue with the use of the word unprecedented, since pop groups such as the human league, abc etc. got high praise in the 80s and furthermore groups such as destinys child were widely admired by nme at the turn of the century. whether you call them r'n'b or not. don_quixote 15:45 11 March 2006 (don_quixote)

This page is biased! 150.204.49.17 10:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Everything appears to be well-referenced to trade publications at this time...it still has a bit of a promotional slant, but IMO not enough to warrant a POV flag per WP:NPOV. Alan 14:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Some retard keeps calling it Slags Aloud. Theyre probably really ugly and jealous. Fixed it.

The way that Nicola's ugly and jealous of Dannii?

PJBeef 13:44, 29 March 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't the article's title be Girls Aloud? Rienzo 02:43, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Fixed. Lee M 02:48, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] SOTU Album release date

Bit confused about when "Sound Of The Underground" album was released - Amazon says it was released on Dec 1st (2003), and the first single was released on Dec 16th - this doesn't sound right to me, can anyone confirm this order was right? Oh yeah, anonymous changes to article on Nov 9th 2004 were me, I forgot to sign in. pomegranate 22:58, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Allmusic.com says 28 January, HMV say 1 December, their official site doesn't seem to have the details. Not much help, sorry! violet/riga (t) 23:12, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Are those dates just for the album's release? 'Cos Jan 28 would make more sense to me. pomegranate 23:43, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
Yes they are, odd isn't it? violet/riga (t) 09:27, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hmm. I will take the chance and go with the January. pomegranate 21:13, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

ANSWER Sound Of The Underground, the single, was released on December 16th 2002. The album of the same name followed on May 26th 2003. A re-issued version of the album was released on December 1st 2003.

Ah thanks, this sheds more light on some inconsistencies. Could anybody please give me a clue why there's only the 'clean' version on the SOTU album? ("shut your mouth because [.........]it might show") - Usually, even with rap albums, the uncensored versions ARE found on the album. -andy 80.129.75.16 00:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Because they didn't want a Parental Advisory sticker on the album. The PA version was finally included on the additional CD for the Sound of Girls Aloud, when they were releasing a single CD version without a PA sticker and a two-CD version with one. Richard Gadsden 09:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DOBs

Was it my imagination, or did an earlier version of this page give their dates of birth as all in the 1983-1984 range? -- Smjg 16:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Polish chart peaks?

Where from they come, pOland doesn't have any singles chart, only radio charts, airplay charts and TV charts that doesn't coun tthe low sales of singles, just SMS votes.

[edit] Which Girl Aloud?

Help identify these members of Girls Aloud please. First off the easy ones I got, the ginger one and the blonde one:

Nicola Roberts

Sarah Harding

and the ones I don't, one brunette, two highlighted "blondes", and they all look the same. Take your pic from Cheryl Tweedy, Nadine Coyle and Kimberley Walsh

Girl Aloud 1

Girl Aloud 2

Girl Aloud 3

(all images are on the commons, so could you note the results there please.). I think I must be showing my age. Cheers. Dunc|☺ 00:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

1 is Cheryl (or Ashley Cole's bit of fluff)
2 is Kimberley
3 is a really bad picture of Nadine, seemingly sans makeup.
I've answered here as well, in case I've not put the name in the right place on the commons (as I never use it). And the ginger one is the best. Proto t c 10:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Actually I'm pretty sure you've got 1 and 3 the wrong way round. Will you take another looks please. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 20:58, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Compare with their pictures on their CBBC profile - I'm pretty sure they're the right way round. Proto t c 08:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Afraid you are wrong. 1=Nadine (roundish face), 2=Cheryl (eyes), 3=Kimberley (dark hair). If you need a source then: [1] PTSE 16:41, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

ANSWER

Nadine Coyle

Cheryl Tweedy

Kimberley Walsh

[edit] Eras

An 'era' is a long and distinct period of history with a particular feature or characteristic: fair enough for the most part, but the intervening year or so between albums is not long enough to count as an era. If we want to avoid simply using album names as sub-headings we need to use a more appropriate descriptor. Driller thriller 22:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

I added this third image to the article, initially as the main photo, and i accept it might not have worked as well as I'd hoped in that context but when readding it to the article simply as illustration for the Chemistry section User:Sunfazer reverted my edits. Now I'm going to put the photo back in now because no explanation was given and I'd like other editors' opinions, not because I want to get into some stupid edit war about something so pathetic as a picture. Driller thriller 22:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This page needs more pics, and I think to be honest the one you added was a very good and current one. Can't see a reason personally why it should be taken down, especially not without an explanation. 82.10.145.130 22:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
that's a great pic, why did he take it down? Maybe he's a wiki vandal? 15:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Why do we always have to have live performance photos? Why not publicity shots or public appearances? We know they're singers, I don't think we need a blurry image of them performing live with some of them obscured and/or unrecognizable.68.7.212.126 21:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Current image dispute

In response to the current dispute over the use of images on the page I'm starting a discussion here. User:Hotwiki went through the article changing or removing all images but two, and replacing them with screenshots. This change has left an orphaned image, and I feel doesn't look quite as good. I wouldn't argue for keeping things as they were, merely a mixture of sources that represents the opinion of more editors. Driller thriller 16:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

First, I think my version is better if you look at the featured articles like Mariah Carey and Kylie Minogue, you will see screenshots and publicity photos and this article have number of album cover and cover of re-release material. Second, I think it's better if we separate the Non-Musical aspects by bullet form not per headline it reduces the size of the article since most of it only contains 1 to 2 sentences. Third, the template looked much better it's more organize and neat and not so big Thank you.--hottie 16:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversial?

I don't get it: why? How? Driller thriller 15:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not: tag removed; this makes a mockery of the controversial articles facility. 82.71.2.179 22:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review

Is it worth getting this article peer reviewed? It seems pretty well referenced, a good stock of different media and pretty neutral POV. A bit of work and it could make FAC in a few months... Dick G 15:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. It seems like a pretty good article and it's always good to get some additional feedback. Gasheadsteve 17:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm concerned that the article only has 9 references, most of them being about either the show that formed the band (Popstars the Rivals) back in 2002 or about Cheryl Tweedy's conviction in 2003. I would suggest that before asking for peer reviewing, we back up more of the stated points, especially those from 2004 onwards, with solid references. Fabricationary 17:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree, I went through referencing and rewriting the stuff on Cheryl Tweedy's conviction a long time ago because I thought if anything needed to be properly referenced it was that but nothing else has been done since. I'll have a look at doing a bit. Driller thriller 23:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Girls Aloud template

What's happened to it? Why's it been changed? The old colour scheme was better. Just my two cents worth. JohnJTSmith 21:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pride of Britain

"In 2006 Girls Aloud, excluding Nadine, presented the award at the Daily Mirror Pride of Britain Awards, for the GMTV Emergency Service Worker of the Year"

I deleted this and someone has put it back in. it just seems like a gratuitous advert for the Daily Mail. All sorts of people will have presented all sorts of awards, why does this one need to be mentioned on the entry for Girls Aloud? It brings the quality of the article down. Comments? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.157.204.159 (talk) 12:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC).


[edit] International Chart Posistions

go to the french version of the girls aloud page and scroll down to the disogrophy and you'll find that some odd chart posistions like jump and something kinda oooh being realesead in the usa and all the singles charting in the top 3 of the world chart i dont really think that its true but but does anybody know if its true or not if it is it could really help with the girls aloud chart posistions in other countries.Ae12079410 23:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Please sign your comments and use proper punctuation. — hippi ippi++++ 12:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Television appearances Section

Is this section important? In the long run, this will simply be trivia and unimportant. — hippi ippi++++ 12:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not important--HW-Barnstar PLS 19:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, then, I'll delete it. — hippi ippi++++ 11:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who is Tony Lamezma?

Tony Lamezma has remixed many Girls Aloud tracks however I can never seem to find information on the artist himself (Wikipedia or elsewhere). The only connection I made was rather odd: Tony Lamezma was a character on the second episode of Knowing Me, Knowing You... with Alan Partridge and whether that means something I don't know. So does anyone have information about him? --The NCC Factor 20:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Tony Lamezma is a moniker of Brian Higgins, who is basically the leader of Xenomania who produce all of Girls Aloud's music. BambooBanga (talk) 03:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Splitting up?! Rubbish

NOTW is a rubbish newspaper, please edit the splitting up article!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.161.237.34 (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

I removed it!--SuperHotWiki 23:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism and the band picture

This is getting out of hand, every time i look at this page it is completely different because people come up with new single and album titles out of nowhere. Until the title is confirmed on the official Girls Aloud website can people please stop posting these titles.

Also, in regards to 'The Sound Of Girls Aloud', it is certifed 3x platinum because of shipping numbers so please can people stop changing it back to 2x.

Even worse is what's happening to the band's picture. If you look at every other article for both solo singers and bands you will see either a picture from a live show or some kind of professionally photographed promotional image. People should keep the Girls Aloud article in line with this and stop using either album/single covers or even worse; the sunsilk advert poster.

Winterspell 15:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redundant Information

Under "Non-musical issues" is a section called "Curls Aloud". I feel that it is totally unnecessary and unimportant. In the long run, these facts will mainly be trivial. The main purpose of this article is to describe the band's musical endevours, right? Look at Britney Spears and Beyonce. Those articles hardly mention advertising campaigns etc. Perhaps the "Tabloids" section should be under question as well. Just a suggestion. — *H¡ρρ¡ ¡ρρ¡ 15:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and deleted all that useless info, and other things such as Cheryl's conviction. That kind of information does not belong in this article. — *H¡ρρ¡ ¡ρρ¡ 17:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The band's genre

I think surely it might be time to change the genre to dance-pop? If you look at artists like Britney Spears and the Spice Girls, they are listed as dance. Girls Aloud's music is far more dance orientated than either of them - especially considering songs like The Show, Something Kinda Ooooh and Sexy! No, No, No....

Winterspell 13:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems correct. --Neon white (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discography

The singles discography is a bit crap isn't it?? Do we really need the chart positions of singles in Greece and Poland?! How about some important music markets, like Australia, France and Germany? Paul75 (talk) 00:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colours on the Template

Howcome Girls Aloud have the colours of their names and the Sugababes don't? It's so unfair! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.251.54 (talk) 20:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Where? I can't see what you are referring to. ~~ [Jam][talk] 21:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)