Talk:Operator Please

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Operator Please article.
Article policies
Operator Please was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: July 22, 2007

Contents

[edit] Ages of the band members

I think someone should mention how young these guys are. I mean Holy Crap.Joeldipops 00:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

They don't seem to know for sure here so it's probably not known for certain. shard who appears to be the forum admin is unsure with the ages posted. Farsouth 01:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Fixed from first hand sources. Amanda is 18 (soon 19), Ashley 18, Timmy just turned 17, Taylor is 16 and Sarah is 17 (18 in November) Erik Veland 20:24, 6 Aug 2007 (UTC)
Happy birthday Amandah! Erik Veland 11:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's appropriate to note their ages per se, but if pages are created for each of the group's individuals, they would then be indicated there. lincalinca 00:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Being a "young" band - one of the most often asked question is regarding their ages, so I think it is appropriate for this article. Erik Veland 04:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes that is one of the main questions associated with this band! Most people would actually look them up on wikipedia looking for their ages. I agree that ages should be included in this article, although if someone creates articles based on the individuals the ages should be removed from this article. andrewrox424 Bleep 06:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Which one's the blonde boy? When the music video was taken, he does not look 16–19. — 60.241.151.205 07:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
The "blonde boy" is Timothy Commandeur. How is it relevant how old he looks? For accuracy sake, he was 16 when the video was shot and he is currently 17. Erik Veland (talk) 04:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Album artworked, referenced and neatened!

I just adding album artwork, cited and neatened up the article to hopefully meet Wikipedia's standards. -- Kai talk 08:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article Fail

Hi page creators! I'm sorry to inform that the page fails the good article criteria. Firstly, I have to say that the article is well written, has a good display of images, but fails in some other areas.

WP:Verifiability is a guideline indicating that third party sources must be used. This page relies solely on information directly from the band which, while handy for some information, doesn't hold up to resource things such as notability. Now, notability isn't disputed based on the band's own information (such as supporting the Kaiser Chiefs and such) but this sort of thing needs to be outside referenced. Sure, their page says they supported them, but who else can confirm this? Gold Coast Bulletin perhaps? Courier Mail? The Drum Media magazine perhaps? On top of this, a multi-sourced article is a balanced one, as long as one maintains a neutral point of view. Generally, the POV issue isn't a problem in the article. There does need to be some work done to wikify the article (with songs, albums, EPs and such, see WP:MUSIC for a general guideline as to how they should be displayed). Not every instance of a word-type ought to be linked, such as in the middle of a sentence, it's not always appropriate to link the word "singer" or "quintet". Idon't think quintet is really essential in the article at all, actually.

Images here are a concern as the band is playing currently, and so free or fairer use images should be easily available. Though their quality may not be the same as from a photo shoot, they're more prefereble to these in that they don't have any copyright strings attached.

Consistency is generally good in the article, but here or there, if you use brackets for dates, use it every time. if you don't want them, never use them.

Some lists I think would serve better as prose (as a rule of thumb, if it's a short list, make it a long sentence instead).

So, in a nutshell: consistency, images to free or fairer use, outside references and wikifying is needed (as well as a bit of prose work in parts). it's a lot of work and I don't see it being done in 7 days, so I'm failing for now. Try again if you feel you've achieved these things. --lincalinca 13:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words, we'll try a bit harder! Cheers, Sarah, EMI
I have gone through the article and addressed the issues raised here. Citations have been changed or added to include outside references from third parties. Unnecessary linking have been pruned, and consistency are maintained to the best of my knowledge. The picture used is an official press photo and should be as such covered by fair use. Erik Veland 04:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I noticed the improvements. Very good work. I'd still suggest that the article's not acceptable for fair use until it uses images released under a free licence, because the group is still together. As it's not impossible to get a photo of them, it can be fairly assumed that the group's photograph isn't too hard to come by (although I admittedly have had some issues coming across free licence Powderfinger images, but that's beside the point). lincalinca 06:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Would you not need the photographer to release for free use in the first place? Or are you saying that any "non-press" photo would do? Erik Veland 06:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The photographer needs to needs to release it under free licence or under GFDL or a GFDL compatible license, like sharealike or creative commons. lincalinca 07:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Daniel Boud has released both photographs on this page under CC Share-alike. Is it time to resubmit for review soon? :)Erik Veland 07:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Almost. A few things more need to be done. I'd advise all editors of the OP and associated pages (i.e. the album/single/ep pages, band member pages, when they're all created) read thoroughly and adhere to the WP:MOS. There's an entire music section that is paradigm to this article. The second image still isn't tagged as sharealike if it is, so the licensing needs to be adjusted, including linking to the confirmation of sharealike. The article's improving, however there's a lot of information that's required that the article doesn't even touch on. There needs to be a basic rationale of the group's musical style. This is tough, I know, because it needs to be verifiable, and so you can't include original research, which is tempting because of the nature of the information you're looking to include. You should go into anything about how the band members formed the band. Did Amanda write a bunch of songs and recruit a band to fit her stuff, did they meet, make music and say "this would make a good band", did they form a band, have an old singer and booted the old one for her? I want, as an article reader, to know how the group formed. I'm 100% sure it's not going to be as simple as "they went to school together". Every band I formed in school had more of a story to it than these guys have noted here. Another thing that needs to be here is an article (even if its basically a stub) for each of the band's members. If the images are the right type of sharealike, you can cut their faces out of the main image here and paste it in there so they can be indicated in the image. Another thing is indicating which one is which in the images (I know Amanda's the one with dark brown hair, and that's it). I will say that what's here is well written, appears to be factually accurate and is well researched, but there's a guideline in WP:GA which asks the question is it "thorough" and I don't believe it is yet. I know they're a young band, but they've got to have more history than this. I know that's a fair bit to do, but it needs to be done before considering putting it up for GAC again. I don't mean to sound harsh, but you'll get slaughtered like it is now, unless you do these things and probably some more on top of this. --lincalinca 11:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Album covers of "Just a Song About Ping Pong"

I'm pretty sure I have seen a different cover of "Just a Song About Ping Pong" on Operator Please's MySpace and other websites. It has a ping pong paddle on it surrounded by ping pong balls, and it has "Just a Song About Ping Pong" written on it in chunky white writing, and the handle has "Operator Please" written on it. I was thinking it was the 7" cover or at least the UK release cover, but both releases here have the same pictures of a boot with ping pong balls as well as the title and artist... anyone know the difference? 210.50.189.10 09:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The releases with the Ping Pong Paddle is the Australian single release of "Just A Song About Ping Pong" as well as the Australian exclusive EP release of Just A Song About Ping Pong. The difference is the latter contains the songs "In Motion" and "Spying" in addition to the standard tracks "Just A Song About Ping Pong" and "Just A Song About Ping Pong (Kissy Sell Out's White Stallion Remix)". The cover that is on here now was for the British releases of the single and the vinyl EP. Erik Veland 10:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Uploaded new cover art and credited creator Elvira Wilkinson Erik Veland 10:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikilinking

Don't wikilink to "#### in music" via pipe with just a year. Plus, don't just wikilink years alone. If there's a specific release date, you can wikilink the whole thing. Although we're supposed to bulid the web, we're also supposed to only wikilink to the appropriate page as suggested by the link you click on. As I said, if you have a full release date, you may note that as [[19 August]], [[2007]] (any americans will have the month/day switched over according to their user preferences). If you know the month and year, then link that also, such as [[August 2007]], but if you just know the year, don't wikilink it. See the manual of style for more info alike this. --lincalinca 07:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UK and Aus ver of Ping Pong

Just wondering what the difference is between Just a Song About Ping Pong EP is in Australian and UK? Because I just wrote an article on it and included the UK version of cover art as the alternate cover.. is this appropriate? Because I really don't see the difference between the two. andrewrox424 Bleep 06:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The Aus version includes the songs In Motion and Spying. The UK one do not (I believe). Erik Veland 10:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so im wondering why on the two 'just a song about ping pong' articles it says single/EP? When they clearly cannot be both. andrewrox424 Bleep 07:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
And also, how is a CD with 2 songs or 4 an EP? andrewrox424 Bleep 08:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
The term "EP" orginally referred to any "extended play" record that could carry more than one track per side (i.e. two songs on the A side and two on the B side). Becaues we don't really make music for EP or single format any more, so technically, they can call it what they want. They can fit as much as 80 minutes onto a CD if they want, really. The terminology hasn't changed, despite the reasons for the terminology not being existent any more. --lincalinca 11:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
To further clarify, the single refers to the two song release, and EP to the four song release. Erik Veland 14:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, so i'll get onto making the 'single' page today. And i will have to move it again, thanks to lincalinca. no offence. andrewrox424 Bleep 07:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
No, don't do that. In accordance with mustard/albums and songs wikiprojects, don't have multiple pages where one is sufficient. It's the same piece and there is simply an EP release of it and a Single release of it. Otherwise the articlemapping becomes duplicitous. The two articles with invariably become merged if you do this. --lincalinca 11:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree; there isn't a need for two articles that are about the same song. Use the article already used in Just a Song About Ping Pong (EP), and perhaps move the name without the word (EP), then write clearly in the article that there are two different formats released in Australia and UK. Include the track listings for both releases and any other info that's relevant for both. RaNdOm26 15:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, listen to Random. He knows his shit. Imagine if I created a separate article for each different release of "It's Only Natural". That's crazy talk! --lincalinca 22:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Restored the previous layout. There is no reason to separate singles and EPs at this stage as they all have from two to four tracks. The UK vinyl "single" of Ping Pong had five tracks for example. Separation can be made when the album is released in November, as it will be more natural to separate major from minor releases. Erik Veland 11:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so now that it's on an actual album could we make a separate page? andrewrox424 Bleep 13:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox & Category

Don't really know if anyones interested but I just created a userbox and a catogory for people that like Operator Please.

To add yourself to the catogory, insert the following on your user page:

[[Category:Wikipedians who like Operator Please|{{subst:PAGENAME}}]]

Or if you wish you can add a userbox like:

{{User OP}}

Thanks, andrewrox424 Bleep 23:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know, that category will be deleted based on a lack of content for one, and another is that you can't add your user page to an articlespace category. Articlespace is purely for articles abut OP. Unless you set up a wikiproject for it, you really can't make a category to indicate yourselves, and there's no way there'e volume enough to sustain a wikiproject. Sorry, I won't nom it for deletion, but can guarantee it won't last. The userbox is fine though. Nothing wrong with that. --lincalinca 11:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, ok, I was just reading the categorization page and it said anyone could create a category. Sorry, and that sucks lol, it took me ages to find out how to create a category. andrewrox424 Bleep 07:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's a fair enough assumption. Anyone can do anything, especially with the climate when it comes to rules around here, however, deletionists are very likely to give it the flick. As a general rule of thumb, a musical artist doesn't warrant a category unless there's going to be a decent volume of articles (including subcategories for members, albums and songs by the band). Generally, an artist needs to have released a reasonable volume of albums to quantify a category creation. Albums and songs should always, however, be categorised by artist. --lincalinca 23:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, ok but for the meantime, its here to join. andrewrox424 Bleep 08:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Official MySpace and YouTube pages qualifies as relevant links according to the WP:EL. Erik Veland (talk) 04:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

who cares, these kids are ridiculous —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joelasaurus (talk • contribs) 12:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep your opinions to yourself, this isn't a forum for you to tell me you don't like them, it's an Encyclopaedia to give information about the band andrewrox424 Bleep 05:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NavBox Template

I've just created a Operator Please NavBox template, so we don't have to put in a large ammount of code. Don't worry about updating at the moment, I've already updated all the pages that are linked in it.

{{Template:Operator_Please}} Hope this is helpful. andrewrox424 Bleep 09:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

  • One question, in the navbox it says a former member is Kieran Richards but in the main article it says nothing about this, could someone please write something about that? If they are certain its true of course. andrewrox424 Bleep 05:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)