Talk:The Laziest Men on Mars

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-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.
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

Contents

[edit] Porn music?

What exactly is meant with "70's porn music"? This is such a vague definition. Guest Account 18:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old AFD full

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on April 2, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] keep

I say keep. Mathiastck 21:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It isn't currently up for deletion. --Liface 21:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Can't I vote in advance? Mathiastck 01:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it should be kept. They are a band, I've heard of them, isn't that enough?

[edit] disappearing act?

Having difficulty finding the songs. Anyone have a link to them? I'm particularly looking for The Terrible Secret of Space, but feel free to post links to any of their songs here.

qft++ mp3.com is useless now. I have a few of the songs floating around but would like the Santa Claus conquers the Martians tracks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.2.124.11 (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] I rewrote the article to meet policy requirements

I removed all content that I couldn't find a source for. It turns out all the media mentions just mention their involvement with all your base belongs to us. --Quirex 23:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC) I should be noted that nothing except the few sentences fragments I kept was sourced or referenced in the previous article. It was complete original research. --Quirex 23:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm a newb here, but I have a question/point to make

I know that most of those statements don't have sources, and I personally would not know where to go to get sources for them. But I am also sure that those are true statements, and that people would benefit from knowing them, vs. the OR that Quirex did (no offense, Quirex, but you must admit the article was much longer and much more informative prior to your liberal application of 'teh rules'). Rules are cool and whatever, but isn't the point to help people know more? I really seriously doubt that you could find a "reliable" source on the history of this, besides this article and people's memories. If it would suit everyone, I could go make a web page with all that information on it, and then link to it, but I feel like that's cheating even if it was maybe technically correct. Couldn't we do something to preserve the spirit of Wikipedia and let this article be a beacon of hope for those searching for information on this mildly obscure band?

There's an analogy with the US Patent Office's search for prior art. They aren't, as far as I know, allowed to use anything but published journals and things of that nature to find prior art, and subsequently they miss a LOT of things that have appeared on the internet but were not deemed worthy of publication, thus letting a lot of bad patent applications through. The system is more broken than this, but I think the point of the story is clear: We should publish the Internet in a journal so that this doesn't happen anymore!

Kidding, but maybe we could allow ourselves some laxity? --Sean Talts 05:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

So you're suggesting we keep publishing unsourced material? Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines is pretty clear about the requirements that information be sourcable and that wikipedia should be a tertiary source. If you want to change anything I think you have to try to change policy which won't be done here. --Quirex 17:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


I remember that somebody deleted the "This is bunny" article. It can't be retrieved any longer. What was valuable information to me is gone, because a few people thought it was unimportant. And now this. Internet culture is not often something you can find secondary information on, especially from several years ago.

[1] [2]

Here are two links I found... the first one is an archive of the page that TLMoM used to be able to be found on. Unfortunately, archive.org doesn't have the full listing, which I had seen before. I can vouch for probably the first half of it. The second link is the Time Magazine article refered to in the previous version of the article. I found it here -- [3]. Just a couple clicks away from the website link listed at the bottom of the article. So how much time did you spend working on this, Quirex?

I can understand the "reliable sources" thing being applied to historical and scientific articles. But for things that do not get much attention by the mainstream media like the Internet and video games... users should be able to add information to it so long as some other users can vouch for it, and the information isn't challenged by someone as inaccurate or made up.

People use Wikipedia for different purposes. Those looking for references for their essays, and those marketing Wikipedia CDs as a reliable source want sourced material. Those wanting purely information would like sourced material, but just preferably accurate, and on any topic that they would find useful. I'm of the second group. Are you going to ignore us? Clarphimous 16:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The time article gives the name of Roberts. It does not mention his band, you'd have to source a link between him and his band and it'd have to be a reliable source. I did not find the Time article because it did not say The Laziest Men on Mars. I'm going to debate the loosening of Wikipedia policy to comply with your idea of what Wikipedia is. --Quirex 17:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Alrighty, thanks. In the meantime, I've made a compromise and put the old version of the article on my website. --Clarphimous 17:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Track listing

I've restored this information, which was in a previous version and was simply erased wholesale because it was unreferenced. All of the information is accurate as far as I know - the primary reason it's not possible to accurately referenced is because MP3.com have since pulled these mp3s from their site. That doesn't mean they never were available, never were called these things, and never were these song lengths. Tag them as "needs references" if you hvae to, but don't delete them. Search filesharing networks if you need confirmation that the song info is accurate. - SoulSkorpion 10:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Their mp3.com-page have been archived by Archive.org here: [4]. None of the pages archived seem to have all the songs mentioned in the article listed, however we can atleast source a few of them. I don't have time to this this right now, so I've only sourced the first song. If someone who's better than me at organising footnotes could take a look at all the pages archived and reference them that would be nice. Otherwise I'll probably do it in a couple of days when I have more time. /Jiiimbooh (talk) 14:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)