Talk:Keane (band)/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Talk archives for Keane (band) (current talk page)
<< 1	< Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3 >	2 >>

Contents 1 Image 2 Keane (band) 3 Good article candidacy 4 Keane ARE not Keane is 5 The state of this article 6 Clarification needed 7 1979-1998 8 Searching for Keane in Wiki 9 Changes to the Keane disambiguation - who made them? 10 GA Status 11 Requested move 12 No references for some of the quotes! 13 Reference changes 14 Delisted GA 15 Fair use rationale for Image:Keane Logo2.png 16 ? New album ? 17 Chaplin 18 Flag in infobox 19 Little Broken Words 20 Thanks 21 Who moved this page back???? Did you not read the discussion around moving it last time????? 22 Requested move - AGAIN!

Image

I'd just like to point your attention to this image.

[1]

Thank you.

rtgrewr ! 64.231.251.138 06:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Keane (band)

When I type in "Keane" into the search bar I come here, as opposed to Roy Keane, or any other number of Keanes that are more famous than this band. This should be fixed so that if you type in Keane you are taken to the disambiguation page... So this article should really be "Keane (band)".212.64.98.189 00:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the band is more famous than footballers. Music is universal. This has been taken a lot of trouble before and I don't want to discuss it, so if you use your logic, you would type in the explorer bar "Roy Keane" or "Robbie Keane" or anything you like. The band will simply stay on this space with me on the Wikipedia.--Fluence 00:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Keane is a very common surname that existed many hundreds of years before the band. I think the "Keane" going straight to the band is incorrect. When you type in "Prodigy" you are not taken directly to the page of the band. The same goes for "Franz Ferdinand" 130.37.83.22 17:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Keane going straigth to the band is correct. When you have a biggest article about the surname than the band, then change it. Franz Ferdinand was a person who died just the past century so it's reasonable. And when you type Snow Patrol?- Keane will stay just here since this has been treated before with these results.--Fluence 03:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how big the article is. I think the best comparison is the surname 'Bush'. When you type in Bush, you are taken straight to the disambiguation page, not the the band "Bush" or President Bush. I think you are doing what you are doing just because you are a fan of this band and it illustrates much of what is wrong with Wikipedia. As for 'Snow Patrol', they are the only entry under that listing, so it is perfectly reasonable that you get taken straight to their page. 212.64.98.189 22:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

If you use your human logic, you'll type George W. Bush for the politician, as well as you'd type Robbie Keane or Roy Keane for the footballers, Sean Keane or Dolores Keane for the musicians and so on. Since Keane and the same surname are the only terms on that matter, Keane will stay here. In other words, it doesn't matter how much you try because this discussion has been held before, winning the current moniker. Now, with me here, it'd more difficult even...--148.221.178.131 00:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

If you were to use your human logic, how would you go about finding the band called Bush? This was the situation I was referring to. It's not a question of enough Keane (band) fans getting together and all arguing their point to bemused accidental visitors to this page, it's about following the correct procedure. Unfortunately personal agendas are too often the driving force behind Wikipedia. 212.64.98.189 01:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but there's no need on looking for "Bush" for the president or another person when you know his first name, George. The band and the surname are the only subjects having just "Bush" on the name, and Wikipedia does not storate surname articles. Even though, there's a disambiguation page on the top for that matter.--Fluence 01:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You haven't answered the question there. 212.64.98.189 00:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Bush. You wouldn't certainly go for George Bush, would you?--Fluence 00:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. And you would be taken to the disambiguation page and from there you would click on Bush (band), in accordance to standard practice. Check it out for yourself. 212.64.98.189 22:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

But it's quicker simply on Bush...--Fluence 00:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Good article candidacy

This article needs citation where FACT tags are at. Otherwise it seems good. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The last tag was replaced for a reference so there aren't any references missing now--Fluence 00:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the reference tag. I've noticed there are many one- or two-sentence paragraphs in this article. Can't some of them be merged? Also, there is verb/noun disagreement throughout this article. If Keane is one band, I don't believe the sentence should read "Keane are". You could say "the members of Keane are..." What do you think? Firsfron of Ronchester 17:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The is/are has been largely a conflict between American and British English. I personally believe "is" is the best noun since there aren't, as you say, more Keanes. I'm currently working on the nouns to normalize them into "is" as the main paragraph and American English. The sentences are easy to merge so I'll look forward to--Fluence 23:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

After reading a bit through the article and trying to change the nouns I realize it wasn't easy. There are however some articles that read better changing "their" to "its" for example: "Keane have been known as..." to "Keane has been known as". But some others make no logic, at least for me: "Their mothers became friends..." to "Its mothers became friends". Surely is all about the context so it's not really necessary to change all "they" nouns to "it". Maybe I will do it tomorrow but for now I can say "they" to be used when referencing the people, I mean, the members of the band. "It" to be used when talking about the group in general.

I have added a few words to the paragraph about Stefani and merged the sentences about the appereances of the songs--Fluence 23:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I've corrected now the nouns with my Spanish-native-speaker-language since it actually allows using both nouns "it" and "they". I hope it makes sense at all. And I also made an update I had missed ;)--Fluence 23:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware that British and American English differ in rejecting "they" for a singular noun. Thanks for the changes. This article does look much better. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Keane ARE not Keane is

British Band, British grammar rules. Please leave this alone it annoys the p*ss out of me. 88.109.125.62 00:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I love British English to a point I think is the best language on Earth. Somehow it makes more sense to me with "is" though that's American English (in Spanish we say "es" a singular noun not "son", the plural). If you check for the past versions of the page all nouns refer to "they". All nouns were changed when the "is" was changed so please, if you're reverting again "is" to "they" change all nouns trough the article to make sense--Fluence 02:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. You know who I am don't you?

What, you don't think Classical Nahuatl is the best? Apparently Keane has a better monument to their name than Tenochtitlan. --Node 03:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm more keen on editing than others. But you may take a look at Mēxihco.--Fluence 22:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. My point was not to cause an edit war. I simply didn't realize British English allows those grammar rules. Either way, the article now appears to meet the requirements for a Good Article, and will be listed with other Good Articles. Good work! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 04:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Late thanks:)--Fluence 22:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This is misguided nonsense. A Briton would not say (for instance) "The band were formed in 2000"; the band can be a singular entity. Fowler, a famous British grammar writer, said as much in his Modern English Usage from around 1900. I may be able to find the relevant comment from his book and post it here, if anyone is interested. 86.131.97.181 (talk) 05:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not misguided, and in fact "The band were formed in 2000" is just fine, even if it sounds a little awkward (normally, you would say "They were formed in 2000"). Consider the England football team, for example: A Briton would say that "England were outclassed", not "England was outclassed". -- Scjessey (talk) 13:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Nah, a true Briton would say "The referee was biased, that was never a penalty, they were just lucky" e.t.c. :) Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 13:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The state of this article

Pardon me, fellow editors, but it's complete mess. I might as well call it something smelly. I don't know, I think that this is one of the worst bands' articles. I feel very sorry, I haven't been able to turn things around, but yet again I might as well go and ask for its delisting from Good articles. Yep, that's what I'm gonna do. This article doesn't deserve it, the editors aren't working full-force and aren't striving for quality above quantity and are pumping overflow information about band's instrumentation and poor tabloid media facts about the band or the band's name. Which isn't at all what the public does need. The public needs an article with good and direct-to-point information without what kind of toothbrush bandmembers use or the quality of instrumentation band is using. Because just to point out, band like Radiohead use far more instruments than Keane (and who are far better band not to mention). Imagine what will happen if we list the types. Well, you cannot imagine it, because you just haven't thought about it. I want to remind it to you. I'm going to ask for article's delisting.

Regards: Painbearer 21:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The comment above marks obviously a position against the band. Being a good article does not mean a band is better than other. If you know nothing about Keane I don't care and is neither I nor any other editor's problem but the information is completely accurate and relevant. If you don't like the article, I'm so sorry. Keane in cualli, amo Radiohead. Tehuatl īhuān inon occequintin tlacameh in xoxomeh...--Fluence 23:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

keane es lo mejor de este mundo los amo chicos

I hope that, you're blatant showing of French proficiency isn't the last resort you can come up to, Fluence. But, that's not something that bothers me so much. Hope it doesn't hinder the state of the article. But nevertheless, it seems that you have more... dare to say... collaborative approach than before. While, you are still die-hard fan of the band, you aren't hindering the progression of this article. As a matter of fact I was little little affraid of you coming on and reverting my work. But, that didn't happen and I think it is a positive sign, as I remember in our last encounters. You are becoming less of an asshole than before. Keep on.

Regards: Painbearer 10:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Is not about your edits. Is just that your edits aren't that awful as before. You're being less exclusionist.--Fluence 00:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

That's what I call a good edit, Painbearer. Those are worth edits. That's why I kept them--Fluence 09:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC-6)

No, really you are less of a twat than before. That's called progress, Padawan. Progression of how you use the Force :). Keep on. You still have some shit lurches, but you are progressing. But, as a matter of fact, I am still exclusionist. Look it on the bright side, mon ami, that you are developping into collaborative editor. Last time, I just couldn't stand the smell of you. But, now more or less, you are progressing. I have been here for 3 years. I am more experienced and developped editor than many people and I am among those first few thousand.

Regards: Painbearer 23:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

So now exclusionism has progressed too, while before it trashed good edits now's throwing the trash out of the article.--Fluence 01:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Clarification needed

This sentence appears in the article's second paragraph. Can someone knowledgeable about the topic please fix the parenthesized part?

Tom Chaplin's singing, which avoids the use of high chest voice, countertenor or "falsetto" register, (but however a "blend voice ", a blend of the two registers) is considered a fundamental and distinctive part of the band's style.

--zenohockey 17:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit weird. It should explain about Chaplin avoiding flasetto, a feature used by many, such as Chris Martin (Coldplay), Matthew Bellamy (Muse), etc. He tries to use his normal voice while singing. I'll fix it--Fluence 23:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

1979-1998

In the current form, the article has a section titled Formation and early years (1979-1998). In the opening sentence, it mentions Tom Chaplin was born in 1998. In my experience, bands don't usually form until their members are a bit older. The Beatles didn't form in 1940. Motorhead didn't form in 1945. Or is there a mistake of some type at work here? --Dreaded Walrus 02:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the band didn't spring from their mothers' wombs fully formed, Athene-style, clutching drum sticks, synthesisers and a mic. Can we not have two sections, one on "Early years of the band members", another on "Formation of the band" or something similar? Greycap 07:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

That's one idea that sounds quite good. Another one would perhaps be to keep all the pre-Keane stuff (apart from maybe about how they formed) in the individual member articles, and keep the Keane article about, say, Keane itself. The actual content of the first History sub-section isn't too bad right now, although it is perhaps a bit too long. And then, of course, the main complaint I had - the section title's date (Formation and early years (1979-1998)) seems to denote that the formation of the band happened in 1979, whereas the article itself says they have been going (in some form or another) since, at an earliest, 95. --Dreaded Walrus 08:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Unlike most bands, members met at early childhood, Rice-Oxley meeting Chaplin at born, an creating the friendship that would make the band formation possible. I don't suggest separating the information but separate paragraphs of definitely change the date to 1995. However, Chaplin and Rice-Oxley started working together in 1991.--Fluence 10:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC-6)

This is one of the reasons I find it unnecessary to include the years in the headings. It doesn't look good, and it can be confusing. The years are mentioned with the information in the paragraph, so what's the point of including years in parenthesis in the heading? --LaraLove 23:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Searching for Keane in Wiki

Searching for Keane on wiki should take the use to the Keane disambiguation page not this pop band. There is a movie called Keane. When a use searching for one of the other keanes types Keane into the search engine then they should not be forced to come to this page. There is no good reason at all for this to be the case, Keane is a word and name that has been in popular use since before this band where even born. Murphy 10:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your point that this article should be at Keane (band), and Keane (disambiguation) should be at Keane. Even if the band Keane are the more well-known usage compared to Roy Keane, Robbie Keane e.t.c., it is not hugely so. As User:212.64.98.189 says above, a good comparison would be Bush, which is a disambiguation page, rather than the band's article being there, or having it as a redirect to George W. --Dreaded Walrus 03:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Not in Mexico actually. Neither in other non-english speaking parts of the world. This is the fourth discussion of the kind. I'm here already.--Fluence 21:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The obvious problem with that argument is that this is the English Wikipedia. Maybe your :argument can work on the Spanish Wikipedia or your little Nahuatl Wikipedia that you own, but it does not work here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.251.240.229 (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

That's two people with the same complaint over the same people. Maybe spend some time writing articles for these men with Keane as a surname and a little less time complaining that the search for said surname leads to a band page and, therefore, would not lead to Roy or Robbie's articles... if they existed, that is. As far as the movie goes, I've never heard of it... and based on the article, not many other people have either. As mentioned above, music is universal. Keane is not a popular surname in the west. Statistically, it's reasonable to assume most searches for Keane would be related to the band. --LaraLove 03:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

What a load of complete and utter rubbish LaraLove, Keane is a popular surname in the west, Robbie Keane is Irelands leading goalscorer of all time, Roy Keane is better known thoughout the world that this pop group, The company called Keane is a big company, the movie 'Keane' is a brilliant french film scoring 7 on IMDB. "music is universal" and football is not? Movies are not? the world cup is not? The Celtic name "Keane" that hundreds of thousands of people in the world have and has been part of their family for generations is not as important as some pop band with 2 albums and a couple of minor hits to their name? You people are just stupid fanboys/fangirls who are doing their best to make a mockery of everything that Wikipedia stands for. Will someone please sort this childish nonsense out???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.186.241.225 (talk • contribs) 09:28, April 21, 2007

My apologies. In the US, it is ranked 4090 with a freqency of .003%. Regardless of whether or not that can be considered common, I am an idiot. I don't know why or how but when I looked for the articles of Roy and Robbie on the 18th I did not see them... how I missed them, I have no idea. Either way, I still think there's a statistically reasonable assumption that the majority of searches of "Keane" would be for the band. If someone wanted to know about the leading goalscorer of all time, Roy Keane, I think they'd probably search for Roy Keane. As far as the movie, if it's so brilliant, I suggest the article be expanded so detail of its glory can be shared with the masses, but even then, it's a French film that I don't think made it around the world. This article is also listed as a Good Article. So if people do accidentally land here instead of somewhere else, at least they've hit quality. Lastly, when you ask if football is universal, in American terms, are you speaking of football or soccer? --LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 03:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all why are you using US statistics when this web site is Global??

I think you would think the name Keane was significant if your name was Keane!!

Football is called football by nearly every country in the world accept North America.

There are far more internet users outside of the US than in it.

Does it matter where the film 'Keane' was made, or only films made in the US important?

According to Wikipedia guidelines searching on 'keane' should take you to the Dissambiguation page and this pop band article should be under the 'Keane (band)' heading, regardless of what you think. Keane was a name and word in use on wikipedia BEFORE this article was first written. This has only happened because people like you are happy to make a mockery and mess of Wikipedia just to satisfy your juvinile love of a pop band. I for one have stopped using Wikipedia because this problem is too widespread now. If the moderators cannot sort this issue out then Wikipedia will lose much more users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.186.241.225 (talk • contribs) 03:21, April 28, 2007

Inasumuch as I love Keane the band, it should belong to Keane (band) and part of a disamb page. Principally because many notable people (and other assorted entities), which are featured in this encylopedia, go by the name Keane. Before that is done though, is there another example to look at? I.e., is there another article on a band which has a surname as its name? Chensiyuan 09:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay I thought of an e.g. myself. A band of greater vintage, Travis, belongs to a disamb page. See Travis. Chensiyuan 09:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

First, four tildes (~). Sign your posts. Now to go through your questions.

1. I used US statistics because my statement was in reference to music being universal and the name Keane not being popular in the West, not gloabally.

2. My maden name is uncommon and I don't think of it as significant. My married name ranks 11 in the US. That's common. Significant? I don't know. I guess significance is relative.

3. Then I guess it's not universal. Answered your own question.

4. I get that.

5. It's ranked 7/10 stars by user votes, and only just over 1000 of them, which (by the apparent IMDb site averages) is low. It may be a fantastic movie and it makes no difference where the film was made. The issue is how popular it is. Which is not very. It's not a well-known movie.

Wikipedia: Disambiguation guideline states "Ask yourself: When a reader enters this term and pushes "Go", what article would they most likely be expecting to view as a result?" That's what we're discussing here. It has nothing to do with which article was written first; It's not based on seniority. And change it to Keane (band), I'm not opposed to that. What I'm stating is that, in my opinion, the vast majority of searches for Keane would be in reference to the band. I think this, as I've stated, because I believe that:

• Searches for people with the surname Keane would include their first name.
• Searches for the movie would be much less common than those for the band.
• Searches for the company would be even less than the movie.

I also believe that for those who do end up at this article in error, clicking on the disambiguation link would not be a huge inconvenience that would deter them from further use of Wikipedia. Considering that it is listed as a Good Article and is quite possibly the most searched "Keane", it is my recommendation to leave it as the result page, with or without (band) in the title.

As for Travis, I've never heard of that band. My example would be Genesis. A search for it automatically goes to the article about the book of the Bible as opposed to the band because, I assume, it is considered most likely that searches would be in reference to the book of the Bible. Another example would be Nirvana, which is both an American band and a UK band. The article, however, directs to the Buddhist religion's Nirvana. In those cases, neither goes to the band, but neither goes to a disambiguation page. They go to the page that is assumed to get the most searches. --LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 14:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

If you've never heard of Travis, it's strange you'd assert Keane is the most likely intended search target, because Travis is much more famous (outside of USA, as always). The Travis analogy is the most spot on amongst all examples proferred. Moreover, I can categorically tell you that when people say "Keane" (outside of USA), almost all people think of Roy Keane, not Keane the band. Will they search "Roy Keane" if they're looking for him on WP though? My suspicion is they may simply key in Keane. Chensiyuan 15:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

If the majority here feel that most searches for Keane are for Roy, then disambiguate it. It's too bad Wikipedia doesn't keep track of what articles get the most hits. That would be most helpful. Regardless, I still believe it should be left as it is, but that's only my opinion. Majority rules. --LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 15:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

---

No LauraLove, you are so wrong there but it does explain a lot. It has nothing to do with 'Hits' at all, the reason why Genesis takes you right to the Genesis article is because there is only one Genesis, everything else is named after the book of the bible. i.e. if that book was instead called 'google' then there would be no Genesis the band. keeping with the band name theme look for instance for 'Franz Ferdinand' a huge band in the UK and i have no doubt that there article has many more hits that then the duke of Austria who's death started WW1, due to the band being current and possessing a large fan base but that search goes straight to the disambiguation page and not the more popular article being the band (though one would think that the initial search result should actually go straight to the duke). Keane is not an original name like 'Coldplay' or 'Snow Patrol' for instance, the name existed before the band members were even born, they do not own the name. This is the reason why this search result should not go directly to this article. But this page is not the only guilty culprit, U2 is one of many articles that are guilty of this themselves being names after a famous aircraft.

I will leave my last thought in this subject as thus, let us say for instance that a new band called 'New York' had a string of hits and suddenly became the most popular band in the world and in the process has the article on wiki with more hits that anything else. Would you think it appropriate that any users searching for 'New York' would be taken straight to their article and not the city???—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.186.241.225 (talk • contribs)

That 'New York' thing is a really back example. The Franz Ferdinand example on the other hand is a good one, I don't think it should go to the disambiguation page since in the long run Franz Ferdinand will be a bigger name. In 10 or 20 years since the band will be more or less forgotten about (they aren't exactly The Beatles).
Also somewhere is was said that one of the Keane footballers was the top goal scorer of all time for NI, I'm not a big Football (soccer) fan but my flatmates are, they are also from NI and tell me George Best was, and still is, the top goal scorer for NI. ≈ Seraph 15:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

So I looked into it, my flatmates say I was wrong about George Best but none of them mentioned Keane when saying who it was... Not that this has anything to do with the band but just showing that you are wrong. ≈ Seraph 21:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Your can apologise to me know..... Robbie Keane is the top goalscorer of all time for Republic of Ireland (See Republic of Ireland national football team) nobody said NI (Northern Ireland). Roy Keane is one of the most famous footballers in the world due to his temper tantrums that have made headline news as well as his best selling Autobiography and also due to his new career of football management where he is about to make headlines for the right reasons by taking Sunderland from the bottom of the English League 2 (championships) to the Premiership in a single year. Both Irish and if you did not know Keane is a famous irish name then you do now. And by the way i think New York is a great example, we are talking about bands who have named themselves after something already existing.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.186.241.225 (talk • contribs)

Is it really that difficult to sign your post? I mean, really. It's just hitting the tilde key (to the left of the 1) four times while holding the shift key down. Past that, disambiguate it or not. One way or the other. My vote stands as is. Maybe if you'd sign a post I'd be slightly inclined to waiver in view of your Franz Ferdinand and New York examples, but you haven't, so I'm not. Tally the votes and follow through. However it ends, let this discussion be over. --~~~~ = --LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 03:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

LauraLove, i am afraid it is not that simple, you also need to be signed into Wiki to add a signature, i actually have not registered with Wiki so therefore cannot sign in. I might register one day if Wikipedia gets its act together and puts a stop to nonsense such as this. And if just by adding a signature is enough to make you change your mind then that just says it all really then.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.186.241.225 (talk • contribs)

First thing, it's Lara. I don't know if it's blantant disrespect or you've just happened to twice now incorrectly type out a name you've only read and, therefore, know the correct spelling of. Regardless, signing posts when unregistered leaves your ip address. That allows others to not only keep track of who they are talking to, but also allows for users to easily access your talk page. I'm over this conversation. My vote will not change at this point. --LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 16:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

To the brightless dude above. First: Keane are not pop; pop is based as simple chrods and simple lyrics for simple people not calling them "dumb". Great rock bands such as Keane and Muse have written lyrics and melodies you wouldn't understand in your whole life. Second, it's not "juvenile"; many adults and even elder people support the band but many of them don't have the time to come and write here, or simply don't want to (another fact for Keane's greatness: timeless). Third: if you know nothing about soccer, you'll never know about Robbie Keane; even if you know - Is Ireland a big football champion nation? no and therefore I can say Pedro Rodríguez was the best F1 driver of Mexico when few people know that. Fourth: I do not own Nahuatl Wikipedia; no one even if he/she has written 5000 or more articles own any Wikipedia. Fifth, by the time you've wasted here, you could have visited every article on people surnamed Keane. Sixth: as I said, I'm here already.--Fluence 16:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC-6)

"Brightless Dude", Cheers for that, you know me so well!! Okay, first off, the word pop band refers to a musical group who play popular music. the term Rock is saved for bands that play Rock music. Nothing to do with chord structures simple or not, some of the worlds greatest rock bands rely on very simple chord sructures for most of their music, some pop acts have the most inventive music around, its a name, get over it, Keane are not a Rock band, they do not play Rock Music, i have both of their albums and not one song could be described as Rock. Coldplay, Snow Patrol, Travis etc.. are all Pop Bands. Guns n Roses, Foo Fighters etc.. are Rock Bands. If you want a better label for this band then maybe try 'Indie' i guess they could fall under that catogory.

Ireland are indeed a big football nation and have been a presence in most of the recent world cups despite having to qualify from the European qualification pools, the most competetive in the world unlike some teams in the world who always get an easy path to the World Cup. Robbie Keane may not be a world star (although very well known accross Europe - a higher population that the US) But Roy Keane is the most famous Keane in the world and was so well before this pop band left school!! Every single Irish player plays in the British football league, the most well known and competetive football competition in the world which games are broadcast live accross the globe to all footballing nations.

This has got nothing to do with the merits of the band called Keane, my only argument is that searching on Keane in Wiki should not take the user directly to this page. The band took their name from an already existing name, an Irish name that is centuries old, a name that people have taken all over the world, look at the history of Chicago and Boston and see how many Keane's you can find there. There is an American multi-national called Keane, there is a movie called Keane (And LaraLove, it is not a french film but a US film), Roy Keane is just called 'Keane' by many countries around the world. So grow up, you are acting like a fanboy and it is ridiclous. There is nothing wrong with having this search go to the Keane Disambiguation page and have the link to the band there along with all the other Keanes.

Still can't find the tilde key, huh? Regardless, I didn't read all of that, but I did read the part where you said "the word pop band refers to a musical group who play popular music... Nothing to do with chord structures..." That's inaccurate. Pop isn't just short for popular. Pop music reads "Pop music (often called simply pop) is a genre of popular music distinguished from classical or art music and from folk music.[1] The term indicates specific stylistic traits such as a danceable beat, simple melodies and a repetitive structure. Pop music often includes elements of rock, hip hop, reggae, dance, R&B, jazz, and sometimes even folk. The pop music genre often involves mass marketing and consumer-driven efforts by major record companies, which makes it an often scorned genre by other musicians." ~~~~ = LaraLove^T/_C 00:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

LaraLove, thats great and that applies directly to Keane and simlilar artists (many of which i hasten to add i do actually listen to and like) Repetetive Structure is a staple of pop music - "Verse-Middle8-Verse-Chorus-Verse-Chorus-Instrumental-Verse-Chorus to fade" now listen to any Keane song and you will find it, Simple Melodies, again you will find in Keanes records. "Consumer driven effort of Major Record Companies" Island are part of the Universal record label, i guess could be described as a major label. I like pop music, some of it is brilliant, the beatles for god sake were a pop band. Using the word 'Pop Band' is not a put down, it just is a correct label for a particular band. I guess some fans may have allusions of granduer for their favourite act of the time but calling Keane a Rock Band is just silly to be honest. Maybe it is a culture thing, in England there was a show on for years called 'Top of the Pops' which was a show dedicated to the pop charts, bands such as Nirvana, Stone Roses, Oasis, U2, Rolling Stones and even Keane have all appeared on this show, they are all 'Pop acts', In the UK this is no problem, people do not get so hung up on a name.

Anyway, this is not a argument about the merits of Keane as a band, i actually do have Keane in my collection and do listen to the music from time to time, i am English so have a very good understanding of the UK music scene, i am a musician so understand music, this has got nothing to do with the band whatsoever.

What this has got to do with is the fact that the word 'Keane' takes you directly to this article when it clearly should not, this should not even be an argument LaraLove, it is simple common sense and is clearly written in the Wikipedia Naming Conventions, i have pasted some of those below...

"Convention: Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things"

"When necessary, disambiguation should be done using (band), (album), or (song) (such as Anthrax (band) or Insomniac (album))"

This is not Rocket Science, it should not even be an aurgument, i will leave this for someone to sort out as everytime i try to do it it just gets changed back. Otherwise i will be making a name change request anyway, but would be easier for someone who is working on this article to get right. The Disam page should state that the word Keane is an persons name of Irish Origin and should contain a link to the name page, below that should be a list of links for the other Keanes including; Keane (Band), Keane (Roy Keane), Keane (Book), Keane (film) etc.. etc.. Thanks.

Pop structure:

• Intro
• Verse
• Chorus
• Verse
• Chorus
• Instrumental bridge
• Chorus to fade.

And not any: Something In Me Was Dying - Maybe Keane's only Britpop song, better term actually

• Intro
• Verse
• Verse 2
• Chorus
• Verse
• Verse 3
• Chorus
• Bridge to fade

Can't Stop Now

• Intro
• Verse
• Chorus
• Verse
• Chorus
• Intro
• Bridge

The Happy Soldier

• Verse
• Chorus
• Verse
• Chorus
• Chorus
• Instrumental bridge
• Verse
• Bridge

Atlantic

• Intro
• Chorus
• Chorus
• Bridge
• Verse
• Verse

And I can go on, also with Muse's.

I have got no idea what the above is supposed to prove (if anything). anyone it does not matter and has no significance to this discussion. As i have stated on many occasions the argument has nothing at all to do with the merits of the band named after the name 'Keane'. The only question is should the name 'Keane' point directly to this article? There is a new topic below for people to make a comment on this before it is moved sometime this week.

LaraLove, you will be pleased to know i have done as you asked, if you get two minutes have a look at Keane (film), I actually rented this movie at the weekend to see what it was like and it was actually very very good, so good i thought it deserved an article. Murphy Inc 14:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Changes to the Keane disambiguation - who made them?

I see that our fanboys have changed the disambiguation page for keane now, removing the references to people called Keane to a page called Keane(Surname).

It now states that Keane is a pop band but other uses of the word are..

Keane (film) Keane (book) etc.. etc..

Why is this pop group not Keane (band).

Can a moderator please step in and put a stop to this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.186.241.225 (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

Moderators are not policemen. And Keane are not pop. With a little intelligence you'd know why.--Fluence 16:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC-6).

GA Status

This article is beginning to not look like a GA anymore. There's some necessary cleanup. IF you want me to (unofficially) review the article, let me know. Regards LaraLove^T/_C 17:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

This article has been renamed from Keane to Keane (band) as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 09:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No references for some of the quotes!

Quotes such as "Due to the piano-based music and the alternative sound of the debut album, critics first regarded Keane as Coldplay imitators; the media however, in supporting Keane, started calling them the "new Coldplay"[7]" Will need to be removed if there are no references available to back them up. In fact the whole section on criticism needs looking at as it has some POV issues. This line for instance "Critics, especially from The Guardian, have attacked the band with tabloid stories like the supposedly styled image Keane had." What is that supposed to mean? The Guardian is not a tabloid, so are you saying that you think the article was written in a tabloid style? Is that a personal view or are you trying to demean the article in question? I read it and it is a good article, typical of the Guardian. Murphy Inc 21:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi LaraLove you put back the very quote i deleted for having no references, and it still has no reference so i have deleted again. Sorry but i understand you want to get this back to GA standard and know you would appreciate me pointing this out.Murphy Inc 13:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

"Newer bands such as Morning Runner and The Fray have been compared to both Keane and Coldplay for the piano-oriented sound of their music." One reference was just a link to a spanish language site front page, not even the article and the other was just a link to Q Magazines fron page, again not an article. Sorry, Again Murphy Inc 13:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you missed it in your search, but about 15 links came up when I googled "Keane new Coldplay". I only added two because the cite web template is a bit time consuming and two seemed sufficient. I also added a ref for the quote that you didn't delete despite the fact that it is challengeable while the content you did delete is not. I recommend that you read WP:CITE before deleting anymore content from this article.

Regards, LaraLove^T/_C 02:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

To be honest LaraLove i am not fond of that quote at all, my personal opinion is that Keane are nowhere near Coldplay in terms of talent and ability and i think that back in 2004 some journo's were getting a bit carried away with themselves if they made claims like that. While it is a personal opinion it is backed up by the majority when you look at record sales / gig attendance etc.. But each to their own and if the quote was made then i guess it is fair enough to reference it, however silly it may seem. So hence why i never went looking for it, i guessed it was out there somewhere, everything is there if you you really want to find it!! Murphy Inc 07:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

WELL, actually, if you don't know, Coldplay's biggest hit "Clocks" (2002) was based in chords and piano riff by Muse's 1999 single "Sunburn", and Muse truly are the best band in the Universe, far far away from Coldplay, and I'd dare, Keane so that's true talent. Muse are not that famous because few people are the clever enough to understand their lyrics.

However, Keane's chord and musical structure on their 2004 single and biggest hit "Somewhere Only We Know" is absolutely perfect since it can be perfectly heard in a beautiful way also, backwards. The truly Keane style flows on "Snowed Under" and "Something In Me Was Dying". And not on personal opinion but technical, Matthew Bellamy is the best singer, lyricist, composer, guitarist and pianist I've ever heard. Also, people don't make someone grand, that's ad populi; millions thought Industry Revolution in 1850 wouldn't ruin climate...

And Chris Martin with his wife Gwyneth Paltrow were seen attending a Keane concert. Funny and ironic uh?--Fluence 00:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

So I suppose you're clever because you like Muse, eh Fluence?

Reference changes

I've formatted all the references and encountered some problems in the process.

• Dead links:
  • I removed dead links and replaced them where possible.
  • I placed fact tags in place of ones I couldn't replace.
  • I am going to attempt to find archived versions of expired/dead links but, hopefully, someone will be able to find new ones.
• The reference named "Book" needs page specifications for respective citations. You can't just cite the whole book.
• Keaneshaped.co.uk appears to be a fansite, which is not a reliable source. Considering how many references are attributed to this site, I feel there is a problem. Where possible, these references need to be replaced with a more legitimate source.

Note : When you add a reference, you can't just add random information, like a radio station and what dates a song aired, for example. There has to be some sort of attainable documentation. Whatever you cite has to be accessible to the reader and other editors for them to verify. All quotes, interpretations, statistics, challengeable material, etc, needs to be referenced. Speaking of quotes, they are not italicized. Regards, LaraLove^T/_C 06:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

LaraLove, just a quck question, what do you mean by "Speaking of quotes, they are not italicized." Does this mean they are not supposed to be, or does this mean that the quotes in the article were not when they should be? I was under the impression that quotes are not to be in italics and wonder if i got this wrong then. Murphy Inc 06:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

They are not to be italicized. I should have worded that more clearly. There were several quotes that were italicized when I was editing last night. I removed to italics and, hopefully, no one puts them back. LaraLove^T/_C 17:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Delisted GA

I have delisted the GA status of this article, based on its degenerated state. I fully intend to continue to work on it and renominate it once I feel it has been brought up to standards. Fluence, please do not get upset over this. I would appreciate your help in bringing this article back up to the quality it once was. However, if you, or anyone else, feels this decision was made in error, you may request remediation at WP:GA/R. Regards, LaraLove^T/_C 17:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not upset, but I won't do anything anymore either. I'm retiring for a while from Wikipedia, the English Wikipedia, I'm kind of tired of some things, not this though. Hope you have good luck. I'll come back when the Nahuatl Huiquipedia reaches 2600 articles. So see you later--Fluence 23:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Keane Logo2.png

Image:Keane Logo2.png 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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 15:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I added a fair-use rationale. Hopefully it passes. LaraLove^T/_C 05:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

 ? New album ?

Little Broken Words 195.228.39.215 07:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place to talk about that, but where did you see this?--Fluence 00:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to reply to an old post, but I Jeevesed it. Looks like a compilation of some of the less common songs. review

Torika 14:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Chaplin

I am intrigued by big-faced Tom Chaplin, drug-addled singer of super-bland band Keane - I hope to find out more about his plight (but much, much less about his terrible band and songs!!!) from Wikipedia. How his face get so big?

By the way, I must congratulate all of you on wresting this page out of Fluence's grip. Under his command it would surely have gone to hell in a handbasket, if you would pardon the redneck etymology. But then you've got LaraLove to worry about. Oh well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.157.210 (talk) 21:24, June 14, 2007

Don't Worry, Be Happy! :D LaraLove^T/_C 03:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I think LaraLove is doing a very good job on the page so I with let her improve the page without intruding. By the way Keane are one of those bands you love/respect or hate/offend. It's like the Renault Mégane car. Different but cool. Seems people tends to offend them quite much than other bands; they're are more notable therefore. Many great bands had drug addicts; Beatles, Nirvana, Darkness. MUSE ;)--Fluence 02:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, Fluence. I keep forgetting: this is your page, isn't it? Silly Mexan child.

Sometimes I get downhearted, but I am happy in the knowledge that I will never be Mexan, and I will never have a face as big as Tom Chaplin's face.

Oh, poor Mekon, you didn't enjoy your childhood. Take a bow!--Fluence 23:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Again with the childlike English and allusions to terrible music, Fluence? Why?

I would recommend that you sign your posts ~~~~, but I'd rather you just go away. You're not being productive in any way... and you're certainly not contributing anything. LaraLove^T/_C 04:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Flag in infobox

It's funny to see the proud use of the flag of England on all of these infoboxes...nearly no one outside of the UK even knows the English flag, we have seen the Union Jack as the emblem of Britain for our whole life...so the use of this gets lost, really...so much for English pride. Thurifer 19:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)Thurifer

I'm from the US and knew it was the English flag. I suppose it could be implied by the fact that it states "England" right beside it, though. Or that scroll over results in "Flag of England". LaraLove^T/_C 07:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

We don't use flags like this. See WP:MOSFLAG. I'm removing it. --John 17:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a matter of culture. You love your flag or you don't. Seems you don't but I respect all flags as most of us do in my Mexican nation. Seems we do care about our national ensign so I do care about the English national ensign. I'll just include it again and sorry if you Wikipedians think it's useless to represent a country with a flag but that's the way it was a thousand years ago for England and I think it should remain there. May you meet new flags then.--Fluence 01:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Little Broken Words

I noticed Little Broken Words, the 2007 album, has not been added yet. I was going to add it myself but I don't know how to go about obtaining the sales figures etc. Not to mention, the whole table formatting business is over my head. Just posting here in the hopes someone more able can patch it up. --Sauzer 02:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I'd just like to thank the kind person who returned this article to its original title. And for the first time, it was not me.--Fluence 05:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Who moved this page back???? Did you not read the discussion around moving it last time?????

What is it with you Keane fans? Keane should be the disam page and you know damn well it should be. Wikipedia is getting pathetic and is full of children. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.213.128 (talk) 14:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Requested move - AGAIN!

Please see the previous discussion entitled requested move, It was agreed that this page should be at Keane (band) and the Keane (disambiguation) page should actually be under Keane. This was agreed and the required changed were made. The user who moved this back recently is guilty of vandalism and this should be reverted.

Then why you took so long to repair it? I shall just wait then to make it again. This is getting so Spanish Wikipedia...--Fluence 01:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Fluence, you should really learn to respect consensus, it is one of our founding principles. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 04:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but if it is full of children, then those children are building Wikipedia. They make the concensus then.--148.221.171.66 22:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.