Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alternative music/Archive4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

R.E.M. at Peer Review

I'm hoping to make this Top-Importance article an FA by the end of the month. Feedback is welcomed at Wikipedia:Peer review/R.E.M. (band). WesleyDodds (talk) 10:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Spiderland at FAC

An article I've worked on significantly, Spiderland, is now nominated at FAC here. Supports, opposes, and comments are all welcome. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Loveless (album) at FAC

Yet another project article is now at Featured Article Candidates. This one has been a three-way collaboration between Brandt Luke Zorn, Ceoil, and myself. Please visit Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Loveless (album) and leave feedback, or render support or oppose votes as you se fit. Thanks. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Problem with the FA wall

I just noticed a problem with the featured list portion of our FA wall. The albums are listed chronologically, but left to right. They should be listed up to down like the FAs are. I only know enough about the code it's written in to make minor changes. This is is a major change, if anyone's up for it. Grim (talk) 05:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll redo it in a moment. Spebi 05:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I did that with the list because the layout is more logical for editors when it appears in the edit page window; otherwise when you update the wall you need to do a hell of a lot of moving of text. I know it was confusing for me when I tried to add articles. However, that problem can be avoided if only one person who knows what they are doing takes care of editing the FA wall. Spebi, since you arranged the new layout, would you like to be the person in charge of adding new FAs and FLs to the wall every time one is promoted? WesleyDodds (talk) 06:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Once the wall is set up in the right way, I think it's easier to add new articles, however, I'm willing to take on the role of sorting them out when new ones are introduced. I'll resort them when a new one is added, but I don't think I'll be able to track down new ones and add them to the wall. Spebi 07:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I guess we'll have to cross that bridge when we get to it. It looks a lot better now though. Grim (talk) 14:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
We won't have to worry too much about the topics part :) Spebi 05:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Internationalist (album) at FAC

I've nominated the article - comments here please! — Dihydrogen Monoxide 10:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Bands providing pictures

I've noticed that at least two bands, Belle & Sebastian and The Wedding Present, have given Wikipedia high-quality press pictures to use for their articles. Any chance anyone wants to try asking certain bands directly for pictures? WesleyDodds (talk) 06:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow that's really nice of them - I remember I emailed Powderfinger a few months ago and have no response (despite them telling you to send stuff to that email address). So I guess it depends on the band... — Dihydrogen Monoxide 08:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I once emailed Mogwai about something, but they never got back to me ;_; lol. Maybe I'll ask them for a photo if I ever take on their article. - Phorque (talk) 10:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I may ask Matador Records for an old promotional picture of Pavement or some other defunct band, seeing as no free images of them are available. Also, is it just me or was there a free promotional image at the Beastie Boys at some point? Anyone know what became of that? --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 01:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Deftones

Hi fellas. I was wondering if Deftones fall under this particular remit, or is that pushing it a little? I have a feeling that the metal WikiProject might laugh in my face with regards to participating. Anyway, I've just started a WikiProject, and me and Phorque are, between us, completely revamping Wikipedia's coverage of the band. Is there any way I could have something posted on the project page, or get some assistance/advice from anyone? Thanks. Seegoon (talk) 16:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Having not heard of the band, I'd be inclined to say it can be added as the genre is listed as Alternative rock...but perhaps someone else will know. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 00:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I think Deftones is a nice example of ambiguity between rock and metal, but nobody should oppose them being labeled alt rock, so they fit here. –Pomte 00:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe Allmusic.com lists them as alternative rock, and they've mentioned some alt-rock bands as influences (they even played at the MTV Icon special for The Cure). WesleyDodds (talk) 01:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure. If I remember correctly Deftones dabbles in electronica, as well. Can't say for sure. NSR77 TC 03:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
All correct pretty much. I'm still getting around to covering influences etc, but so far I've already read The Cure and The Smiths as being huge influences. And yes, several tracks such as "Teenager", "Lucky You" and "Pink Cellphone" are almost straight up electronica. Just another band that likes to be different and avoid categorisation, I suppose. - Phorque (talk) 11:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of alternative/nu metal bands, I keep trying to remove "alternative rock" at Linkin Park but the editors keep adding it back. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I would say nu-metal bands should never be considered alternative rock. Nu metal is a subgenre of metal, not alternative rock. Goes for Linkin Park, Korn, Limp Bizkit, the lot of 'em. And while we're talking about Deftones, purely out of curiosity for a band I know virtually nothing about, I have to ask: is pronounced "Deft Ones" or "Def Tones"? --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 05:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
"Def tones". WesleyDodds (talk) 05:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Good, that's what I thought. But anyway, I would just bring up the genre issues on the Linkin Park talk page. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 05:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, nu metal bands aren't alt-rock. Nu-metal is not an alt-rock genre, but a heavy metal one. However, some can straddle both genres, as with alternative metal. Two examples are the aforementioned Deftones and Incubus. But it certainly isn't common. The common rationle I've seen on the Linkin Park talk page is that the group says they're pursuing an alternative rock sound with their current album. Which verifies nothing. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Both Incubus and Deftones have "Alternative Pop/ Rock" listed at AMG, something Linkin Park (or any of the other bands I mentioned) don't have. I couldn't find any source that said that Linkin Park was moving into a more "alternative" direction with Minutes to Midnight, and even if such a source could be found, not every genre the band has touched on needs to be mentioned in the article. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 05:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I would say that out of all of the bands that have ever been considered 'nu-metal', Deftones are by far the best, and they don't really fit that category now. I'd include them in this WikiProject.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 07:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

7 Ages of Rock

The BBC documentary 7 Ages of Rock can be viewed on the VH1 Classic website right now. So if you aren't too familiar with the history of alternative rock, you can watch the last two episodes, "Left of the Dial: American Alternative Rock" and "What the World's Been Waiting For: British Indie Rock", to get yourself up to speed (yeah, there are some flaws in this series I'd like to point out, but it gets to job done in the most basic sense). WesleyDodds (talk) 05:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at some of the punk section. The vids are so out-of-sync as to be unwatchable! Wwwhatsup (talk) 09:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It's also airing on VH1 Classic right now (which is how I watched it this week). WesleyDodds (talk) 09:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Radiohead at FAC

One of the project's Top Importance articles (as well as one of the longest) is now at FAC for the third(?) time. Given the priority and depth of the topic, detailed and thorough reviews are encouraged in order to properly ascertain if the article meets FA crtieria. You can review the article at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Radiohead. Remember to indicate in your comments that you are a member of this WikiProject for purposes of objectivity. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not actually a 'member' of this WikiProject, but I'm interested in some of what it's involved in doing. Regardless, it is a very fine article and should have been promoted to FA a long time ago.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 21:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Going Blank Again by Ride

I've expanded this from a substub into something of an informative but short article, but how do you think I could expand it further to the point of GA status? Google Books annoyingly won't let me access books which have information on the album which I could use as a source.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 07:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice work so far. I'm not sure where to go from here - if you don't have access to books on the topic there isn't much in the way of internet resources on stuff that old :( Something I've found (in researching Powderfinger old stuff) is that some newer interviews will sometimes summarise a band's work, and go into more detail about the old stuff - this could help you. Otherwise just google "Ride Going Blank Again interview" or similar and see what you get... — Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Go with reviews first. Those by Allmusic and Rolling Stone should be available online. I have the review by Jim DeRogatis in his book compling pieces on alternative rock (actually it might be for Carnival of Light, I can't remember). Look to see if anything is available at nytimes.com. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

R.E.M. (band) at FAC

I finally got the R.E.M. article to FAC. A band whose only rival to highest importance in the alternative rock genre is Nirvana, I've tried to turn this article into an exemplar for future band FAs of all styles of music. You can review the article at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/R.E.M. (band). Remember to indicate if you are a member of the project when listing comments. Thanks. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Kurt Cobain and Arctic Monkeys

Arctic Monkeys needs some serious work and I'm close to delisting it as a GA. A really quick read of just one section produces two {{fact}} tags and some pretty bad wording. I don't think it is anywhere near 'A' class; the article failed to be passed as an A-class Biography WikiProject article. Unfortunately Kurt Cobain can't be praised either, and has only withered since being passed. I suggested month ago for it to be de-listed; I know Wesley promised to clean it up but so far nothing has happened. NSR77 TC 00:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

My work on Kurt Cobain was focused on solving the whole "suicide debate" debacle. Now that that's been settled I'll see what I can do with the rest of the article. Not sure what to do with Arctic Monkeys; haven't read the article in a long time. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I can work on Arctic Monkeys, but I won't be able to work on it as much as possible due to school starting again tomorrow. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Notes and references in Stereolab

I just noticed that the notes and references in the Stereolab article are a disaster. I suppose that the reference format being used was common or acceptable back when the article passed FAC, but they should really be redone. I wouldn't want to have to submit it for FAR based solely on this, so perhaps we could collaborate to fix this. Grim (talk) 03:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It's actually an appropriate way to reference, albeit cumbersome compared to what we usually do. I had no qualms with it when the article was at FAC. If you really think the references should be reworked, you should talk directly to User:Merzbow about it and see what he thinks. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I assumed it was an appropriate way to reference—it is a featured article. Redoing the format however, would save a lot of room within the article, and make it much easier for the reader to understand. It would take a bit of work though. I'll mention this discussion to Merzbow. Grim (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm open to suggestions, but I think the way it is now provides maximal information while minimizing duplication. - Merzbow (talk) 08:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
It was unbalanced for me to refer to to the current format as a "disaster"—I take that back. However, I think we should convert the citation format to the more widely used format—the format that our project's other featured articles use. I think this format is preferable because it would cut down on space/size by a lot, and be easier for the reader to understand. I'm willing to help convert to this format, or even do it alone in due time. Any objections? Grim (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it would work here. Most articles listed as references are cited more than once; duplicating the cite template in each footnote would in fact balloon the page size greatly. This format may not be common in music articles, but it's common in academic articles, and is superior in my opinion. - Merzbow (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that's the case. A citation can be referenced more than once while only producing one footnote at the bottom. This can be done using an abbreviated shortcut in place of the full citation template. Look at the second reference in John Frusciante. That source is cited nine times, as can be seen listed alphabetically (i.e. a b c d...). Given this, converting to the format used in Frusciante would increase brevity as well as clarity. Grim (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
You can't cite more than once in the same footnote; the article has lots of footnotes with two or three cites; these would all fragment, and the text would be littered with many more footnotes. (Plus this removes the ability to specify different page numbers, although currently not a concern for this article). When the software is upgraded, I would support changes, but right now, sticking with academic footnoting standards is best. - Merzbow (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I wish I understood your point better. From what I understand, you're saying that you can't cite the same footnote more than once without it being listed more than once. I'm saying that's not the case. I feel that the software has been upgraded, and the format needs to be upgraded to match it. The current format is bulky, sure, but the major problem I see with it is that since multiple sources by the same author are being cited, it's very difficult to figure out which one specifically is being referenced. Steve Erlewine, Mark Jenkins, Heather Phares and Mason Stewart (to name a few) all have numerous references being used, and it's hard to determine which article from said author goes with which source. Anyone willing to offer a second opinion on this? Grim (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
What I mean is that a single footnote of the form "Smith (1987); Bob (2000)" would become split into two different footnotes. This clutters up the text; Stereolab is replete with footnotes that contain two, three, or even four cites. 99% of readers are just going to read the text anyways; the 1% who want to check the cites can deal with having to cross-reference the name and date to the Reference section. I honestly don't understand objections to using academic footnoting standards in an encyclopedia article. - Merzbow (talk) 02:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I see your angle now. I personally feel that it's inferior to all other accepted formats, but I'll concede that it's acceptable. I don't feel that conversion to the format I prefer would serve to clutter the article, but I'll stop pressing this issue. I strongly disagree that only "1%" of readers will look at the references, and your suggestion that such a minority negates the relevance of the issue. It should be assumed that 100% of readers will check the references, and they should be formatted with a clarity that allows that. Grim (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There are two issues to consider: what's easier for the readers of the articles to understand, and what's easier for the article's editors (ie. Merzbow) to use when adding further material (and there will be more to add; Stereolab is quite prolific). Both are important, and it is important to consider that Grim-Gym has no problem changing the reference system himself. But since the article has used a very consistent reference system, it's important to take account of what will best accomodate further referencing from the article's main editor(s). WesleyDodds (talk) 05:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair Use of Album Covers

There is currently a bit of a blitz going on on deficient fair-use rationales on album covers. Mostly it's just that the rationales lack a valid backlink to the relevant article. It's easy to fix using the Template:Album_cover_fur - in the case where the cover is used in an infobox, merely replacing the current fair use rationale (fur) with {{album cover fur | Article = [ARTICLE NAME] | Use = Infobox }} is sufficient. I know it's a pain in the rear end, but not so much as having to re-up the images. A list of disputed album images can be found here. Wwwhatsup (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't see why a bot couldn't be whipped up to do that. I won't do it personally because my AWB skills aren't the best and it's not always going to be straightforward, but if anyone else is willing, I'm sure it will be universally appreciated. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 02:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Wall of FAme

Right now, there are two "Today"s and "David Gahan discography" is in the wrong place. indopug (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, "Nation of Ulysses discography" is in the wrong Place. Spebi? Grim (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, guess I really don't pay the amount of attention to my watchlist I thought I would have... anyway, it's done now. Ohmpandya (talk · contribs) reverted half of my edits without any reasoning, so I don't know what was happening there. Sorry about the wait again ;) Spebi 20:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Song clip request page?

I've just had an idea of adding a song request page/noticeboard (linked to from the main project page). Editors request part of a song (either specific times or general song parts), and other editors with access to audio editing software supply the clip. What are people's thoughts on this? CloudNine (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. It's a relatively simple procedure, though. Will (talk) 19:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The editor who is requesting the clip be made should send the file through email. Sounds good, otherwise. NSR77 TC 20:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
There shouldn't be any need; most music that gets released is easily available. The music that isn't probably wouldn't have a good fair use rationale. Will (talk) 23:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I could help out with this, definitely. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 07:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Turning song pages into redirects

I've just turned some articles for songs from In Utero into redirects to that page because, quite honesty, there's too little information to make decent encyclopedic articles out of some of those songs. Some song pages have been around for years that should be redirected to the album pages. Don't be afraid to be bold and turn some song pages into redirects. A good rule of thumb is that if a song wasn't a single and isn't highly notable otherwise, it probably doesn't need its own article. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a few months ago I did the same thing to the band's entire catalog. Someone felt it was incorrect and that I should have gone through AFD; they undid all of my edits. To cut to the chase, these articles are pretty useless and made up almost entirely of trivial information. NSR77 TC 03:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Should we re-nominate Template:In Utero for deletion, then? I never liked the idea behind the template much anyway, but now that some of the songs are redirects there seems to be no use in keeping it. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 05:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Probably. But let's determine what shongs should be redirected first. I've redirected "Very Ape" and "Milk It", and plan to redirect "tourette's". "Heart-Shaped Box", "All Apologies", "Rape Me", and "Pennyroyal Tea" all definitely deserve their own pages. And while we're on the subject, I redirected "Stay Away" to Nevermind and would appreciate thoughts on what other song articles could possibly be redirected to that page. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
"Frances Farmer Will Have Her Revenge on Seattle" could probably also be redirected. "Breed", "Territorial Pissings", "Lounge Act", and "Endless, Nameless" can definitely be redirected to Nevermind. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 06:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of other song redirects is welcome. For instance, I've seen some stubs for some Pixies and R.E.M. songs that probably couldn't support a full article. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but for quite a few Pixies songs I've got multiple sources to write about them. However, they won't be improved for a while (because I'd like to concentrate on the core articles), so feel free to redirect them for now (or leave a note asking me to quickly improve them!). CloudNine (talk) 10:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
One I saw was "I've Been Tired". I don't see very much being written about that song to make it encyclopedic. I can see, say, "Where is My Mind?" supporting its own article (even though it wasn't a single, it's quite notable), but not this one. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
That's probably one that could be redirected. I think I've could write more detailed articles on songs from Doolittle (since I've got the 33 1/3 book on that). CloudNine (talk) 11:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I would seriously recommend using the afd process, I haven't really seen many of these as being up for deletion, just redirected. I can't honestly say i agree with this process, I think each song is notable enough to maintain its own article. Especially considering the size of In Utero and Nevermind. So maybe this should be opened for discussion in a separate afd page, because I feel like myself and others never really had a say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TostitosAreGross (talk • contribs) 00:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

We're not deleting, just redirecting, as we are allowed to under the "be bold" guideline. AfD should only be used if there is a major dispute. A number of us are very familiar with the reference material available on Nirvana (which is why I brought up the topic here) and after careful consideration, some of these songs just aren't notable enough. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It is deletion since none of the information is carried over. As someone who has been through more then a few afds, they can be anything, petty, huge debates or barely a footnote in the archive. I really think it would be best if it was put up for general discussion and not just for people who frequent this page. TostitosAreGross (talk) 01:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless it becomes a huge issue there's no reason to so, hence the "be bold" guideline. If someone wants to restore an article and is able to discover enough reference material to justify a separate article, they can go ahead. But there are a lot of stubs floating around that don't need to exist. I can honestly say there is no information on "Stay Away" aside from where it was recorded, what album it's on, and what the song is about. The first two points are covered by the album article and the last one is irrelevant unless the song is notable. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
These articles represent purely unverified and trivial information. The same, AFD-less, process has been performed on the bands The Smashing Pumpkins and Red Hot Chili Peppers; two artists that have far larger song libraries than Nirvana. Furthermore, there is no standing guideline that says all redirected pages must go through the AFD process. WP:ALM is a project of users interested in alternative music; all of us who have participated in this discussion are familiar with Nirvana. We can, probably better than the rest of Wikipedia, identify what material presented in these articles, if any, is factually accurate. NSR77 TC 01:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The content isn't the main importance, its the notability and those songs were quite notable. Perhaps you could add to the articles instead of just deleting. AFDs are the preferred method I would think, as it requires more administrative authority so people don't jump the gun. It seems undemocratic, I know Wikipedia isn't a democracy but what I mean is that this hasn't been open for general discussion unless I stumbled upon WP:ALM. TostitosAreGross (talk) 02:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
We're redirecting because there's no notability to add. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason these articles are being redirected isn't because we're lazy. It's because there is nothing notable to add. They were created by inexperienced or IP users. NSR77 TC 02:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I too would like to emphasize this, as the guy who made "Smells Like Teen Spirit" a Featured Article, and wrote and sourced much of Nevermind. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not really up to you to decide what is notable, you create an afd and leave it to an administrator. Your notability standards are too high, if every village and school in North America deserves an article, then so does a song on an album that sold tens of millions of copies around the world, meaning that it has been heard by millions and is therefore notable. The idea behind stubs is not redirecting them, it's adding to them and you know it. Here's an idea, look up each of the songs and see if there is anything else you can add. Plenty of helpful stubs exist for the purpose of people knowing a little more on that subject, but again try to add to them. TostitosAreGross (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Most of the content on an album song is about its style and meaning, which can be better summarized in the "Musical analysis" section of an album article. By the way, since you're requesting the articles be restored, why don't you look up more information on the songs? CloudNine (talk) 14:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm working on it, although I'd like to know I'm not wasting my time. TostitosAreGross (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
You are wasting your time. I have, and I'm sure Wesley and CloudNine do as well, a couple of books written on the band. These articles wouldn't be redirected if they had more significance. NSR77 TC 19:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Have you checked the internet? Because I haven't seen any honest effort to improve the articles. So at the very least could you site some rules so I can check them and see if you are right on the whole notability thing, because I'm doubtful. TostitosAreGross (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
We probably have; however, there aren't many reliable sources that review or describe album tracks on the Web. Even my edition of Nirvana and the Story of Grunge only has a short paragraph on each song. CloudNine (talk) 23:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I've read nearly every book on Nirvana, watched every documentary, and looked up most reliable web resources, largely as a result of looking for reference material for Wikipedia articles. While Nirvana is the most-written about band in alternative rock, there's not a lot to say about many of the songs. The redirecting of song articles is definitely something I've thought about for months, and only now have I begun to determine which ones should be redirected. You're totally welcome to argue each song on a case by case basis. Also, the reason it wouldn't be wise to PROD or AfD these articles is in case enough information does come across so someone can turn one of these songs into a full article. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Here's the notability guideline for songs: Wikipedia:MUSIC#Albums and songs. So "On a Plain" gets an article because it charted on the US Modern Rock Charts, but "Very Ape" doesn't. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Interesting that the notability system only includes songs that chart but that rule was created so there isn't an article for every song by some band nobody has ever heard of. The point of the afd system is so that these things are seen within reason and not just deleted without any discussion. From what I've seen when someone tried to delete Dumb (song) I don't think that these would be redirected. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy (WP: BURO), so it isn't strictly about reading the regulations and deciding that this must be redirected, we should go to an outside admin. TostitosAreGross (talk) 03:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I was going to point earlier out that AfD is bureaucracy itself if used as an initial option; AfD is essentially intended as dispute resolution. But like I said earlier, if you have a quibble with a specific song being redirected, you can revert that specific article and add sources. But you really can't argue against the basic principle of turning a number of song articles into redirects to album pages, because it's encouraged, we've done it before, and we're familiar enough with the available sources we can judge which pages should be redirected and which should stay as separate articles. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Encouraged but these rules are only guidelines. It isn't immediately decided that these pages must be redirected based on what the notability page says, it simply bothers me that this was a decision made swiftly and suddenly without much input. The afd system is so people don't decide this thing all by themselves, there has to be oversight from an administrator. TostitosAreGross (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

(Page break) CloudNine is an administrator. One who passed his RfA without a single objection. NSR77 TC 19:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Emphasis on "outside" admin as in one who is not part of this wikiproject and this specific discussion, I wouldn't want any bias. TostitosAreGross (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I feel arguing further about the redirecting of song stubs is pointless unless you do something about it (ie. revert a redirect and turn it into an article). Whether a song is redirected to an album page or is turned into a proper article with notability, something gets done. Taking every song page to AfD first keeps things from getting done. That's why there's PROD deletions before AfDs, or bold mergers then reverts. AfD is a form of dispute resolution, not an initial step; that's why we didn't do it first, and no one is obligated to take an article to AfD first when attemtping to merge or redirect articles. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I've been looking it up and I recommend you do the same. You can't turn an article into something with notability, it has notability that must be established, you don't create it. I've read the rules and the articles are only to be redirected or deleted when they fail to chart and are relatively unknown to the media because if that is the case we can't source it. That is not the case here and these songs have the notability, they are just a tad short. Practically every song on Wikipedia is a stub and they don't get redirected, they are often forgotten but these could receive some careful writing and sourcing if some effort was invested. Many of you don't seem to be very cooperative so I hardly see the point but based on the sources I've seen these could be de-stubbed. You keep siting your books as proof that these songs have no notability, just check the internet, even one good source woulld be enough. I'm working on it, you can help too. TostitosAreGross (talk) 02:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
But my point is that I have reviewed the information and have concluded that there is insufficient notability to keep certain song articles as separate pages . . . WesleyDodds (talk) 11:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you are incorrect. I'd say about 90% of all the artists on Wikipedia have unsubstantial song articles redirect to the appropriate album page. The remaining 10% are in the works of being crossed over (Nirvana is an example, for one). What I'm trying to get at is this: these articles are not significant; consensus, among users who are thoroughly familiar with Nirvana, has been reached. We know what is and is not important in not only the world of Music, but more importantly the world of alternative rock. These songs do not contribute in any way to the culture of alternative rock or music in general; nor have they charted or been released as a commercial single. They do not hold enough notability to remain individual articles and are therefore redirect to the album page, which talks about these songs adequately, anyway. If you want to bring this matter to AfD or another similar location, so be it. NSR77 TC 04:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see where it is your place to say "These songs do not contribute in any way to the culture of alternative rock or music in general". Saying 90% of song material is a redirect and the other 10% is in the process of doing so is a wild exaggeration, why does Led Zeppelin get a song for every article but Nirvana doesn't? TostitosAreGross (talk) 11:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
For one, some of those Led Zeppelin songs should probably be merged, just no one's gotten to it yet. Secondly, Led Zeppelin has been around longer and has had more analysis and critical discussion of its music (and honestly, there's more to analyze in most Led Zeppelin songs compared to Nirvana). WesleyDodds (talk) 11:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I was waiting for you to say that. You are suggesting that Led Zeppelin is more important because they are more popular and have been around longer, which again I must say it is not your place to say that. Aside from Nirvana defining the 90's etc. there has been 17 years to analyze their material. TostitosAreGross (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
No, I said there exists more reference material on Led Zeppelin's music, and that despite that, some of the songs probably don't warrant their own articles. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
But you do know that blindly following one rule is not standard procedure when it comes to things like this. To quote WP:SONGS "There are currently no specific guidelines for the notability of songs." I also notice there seems to be a double standard, Where is My Mind is not a single, didn't chart but gets an article because it is notable (and 3 lines long), I agree that it is but no more then any other song by a popular band like Nirvana. TostitosAreGross (talk) 12:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
You have to understand that no matter how popular a band is, some aspects will not be notable enough to go into detail on Wikipedia. I like Nirvana and have read tons of sources on the band, but honestly? There is no need for an article on "Stay Away". There is nothing to say about "Tourette's" as an individual song. These songs can be discussed as part of the greater context of the albums on which they appear on; the whole reason I brought up redirecting song pages is because Brandt Luke Zorn and I are working on In Utero. My God, someone made a page for "The Other Improv", a previously unreleased track on the With the Lights Out boxset. That song has zero notability. Just because Nirvana is popular doesn't mean there needs to be a page for every song, just like there doesn't need to be pages for every episode of a TV series on Wikipedia. Doesn't mean that people don't make those pages, but that also doesn't mean those pages are necessary. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Not every song, album songs, specifically In Utero and Nevermind. Some unreleased material really isn't notable but Nirvana basically has two successful albums and it wouldn't hurt to have 10 line or more article discussing this song specifically. People tend to look those things up and expect exactly what the type in. Take Planet Telex as an example, song by radiohead, not of particular importance, double A side single that to my knowledge didn't chart and has a small bit of information on it relating to how Thom Yorke was drunk while singing. That is the kind of thing you get with specific articles, if people want to learn the greater scope of the album they can click on the link and do so. TostitosAreGross (talk) 12:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a site for relating trivia. Including a tidbit about the singer being drunk during the recording of a specific song does not mean there should be a separate article, or even that the tidbit should be mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia at all. Just because you can verify something doesn't mean it's notable. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
But why not merge the song-specific info to the album article? The music section of most album articles is generally underpopulated, and that that Planet Telex tidbit could go in the "Recording and production" section of the relevant article. (However, it's a single, so it does deserve its own article). In general, song articles never become long enough to deserve being treated as a separate subject. (If you look at Nevermind, there's not really a discussion of the album's music; why not merge info from the song articles into that section?) CloudNine (talk) 13:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Why not? Because we don't have to. I would highly recommend you add something on these songs, maybe one or two sentences each, to the album page. But that is no reason to not have a more detailed article that teaches the reader something they didn't know before. WP: SONGS is devoted to making individual song pages worth reading, and even a relatively short article would be acceptable. What the wikiproject is trying to avoid are short articles like "Serve the Servants is a song from Nirvana's album In Utero". Those kinds of pages exist and contribute nothing the album page couldn't already tell them. But anything that has some information that would be too cumbersome for one album page to handle would warrant its own article assuming that it is notable (from a well known well charted band and from an album that achieved some level of success). As for trivia, I must mention that trivia itself isn't exactly discouraged, trivia sections are, most information can be integrated into the main body of the article. So having information on Thom Yorke's drunkenness would be fine if it were in the recording sub-title of the page but not in a sub-title called trivia. As Cloudnine pointed out, this could be added to the album page but only in an extremely brief summary, as too many FA's have been dragged down by cumbersome information. The reason to have song article is so the album page remains clean and short as it has to cover a broad subject. TostitosAreGross (talk) 15:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
True, but it largely depends on the song itself; I don't want to see a blanket "no articles for songs that weren't singles" or anything like that. If there is reliable, noteworthy, sourceable information about a song such as Serve the Servants the it would warrant an article. But a quick google perusal shows nothing but lyrics, tabs, and video links. That and any others like it should be redirected to their respective albums. Tarc (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I agree with Wesley and Tarc. Most album tracks are not notable enough to merit an article. Where there are no (or very few) reliable third party sources, the article should be a redirect to the album. --John (talk) 17:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody said it was easy Tarc, you'll get the same results if you look up a 'notable' song such as a single. There are a lot of bad results from a search and it takes effort to find anything worth noting but that's the same for most songs. What I'm noticing here is that are no rules saying non singles must be deleted, yet a single with the same lackluster source options is spared and allowed to exist as a stub even though technically a short single has no priority over an equally long regular song if it didn't chart. TostitosAreGross (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The act of a notable band releasing a single is itself notable; that is all that is needed to justify an article for it, especially so if it charts. Yes, you are right in saying that there are "no rules saying non singles must be deleted", but no one here is (or should be) saying that their are. All articles, music or otherwise, have to meet the basic criteria of noteworthiness, verifiability, and be supported by reliable sources. If material can be found to meet those criteria, then the article should remain. If not, then it should go. Tarc (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Since there is no guideline on the notability of songs, those knowledgeable of the subject must, therefore, come to a consensus. That consensus for Nirvana has been reached, in favor of redirecting the outlined songs above. NSR77 TC 20:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
There is no guideline for any article that is concrete. It isn't valid to say that you are the only authority in this matter and therefore are the driving force of all these decisions, it's the same situation for every article, no rules just suggestions. It seems that these articles were doing better off in their stub form (although they stand to be improved) then in album form. In fact I haven't really noticed the former articles in anyway supplementing the album page. I just wish this could be done in an official manner like an afd or something, well structured, not just a discussion on this Wikiproject's talk page. TostitosAreGross (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
We've been trying to tell you. AfD isn't the first step. Bold editing and then discussion are the first step. It's pointless to start this discussion at AfD before doing some bold editing. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Well is anybody else going to work on this? If you think that bold editing could even be made to improve these articles then you shouldn't have redirected them in the first place, you should have worked on it. Finding song sources is tough thanks to lyrics sites clogging results but there are some good places to start. For example I was thinking that each particular song could have a reception section in which reviewers thoughts on the song are discussed. I think this could work because that actually provides sourceable material for the article and would help towards making it a better article. All notable album reviews discuss the songs and this could be compiled onto the song articles. [1] is one of many reviews that give a couple sentences per song on top of adding greater scope of the album. An individual song review wouldn't fit on the album article but it could work on the individual level. I see that we have conflicting views of the dispute needed to warrant an afd, so I see no point in arguing that further but I really believe these article can be improved.TostitosAreGross (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
An AFD would inspire the same type of discussion as we're having here, so think of this as an informal AFD. I think the consensus here is to redirect most Nirvana songs though; if you can provide reliable sources (which quite a few songs that were redirected didn't e.g. Stay Away), consensus may change. CloudNine (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Well I just said I'm working on it, I specifically said I've given up trying to get you guys to afd this, and I'm actively looking for sources. I was also wondering what you thought about adding a reception section that would be sourced. TostitosAreGross (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I guess that's one way to win an argument, not respond. Just trying to be positive. TostitosAreGross (talk) 02:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

What is there to respond to? I don't think anyone's purposely not answering you. If you want to make a song into a full article, go ahead. The need for a reception section will depend on what sources are available. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah and I was wondering how acceptable would music reviews like rollingstone be? Because if they are alright then there is the source you were asking for. TostitosAreGross (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Rolling Stone is a perfectly reliable source. I think we're all interested in (and waiting for) your improvements to a song article. CloudNine (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

B-class article drive

What does everyone think of a B-Class article drive? That is, those of us interested can select an article rated B-Class in on the project scale they want to bring up to at least GA standard during an alloted time (one to three months, or something) that we agree on. Some require a lot of work, but others are quite close to looking rather acceptable. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll probably go for The Replacements. Perhaps it should start on Feb 1 and run for two months? CloudNine (talk) 11:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm fine with that, if no one objects. I'll tackle Britpop, since I've been planning to finish it for months. We also need to bring more of the genre pages up to adequate standards. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and I figure everyone can pick an article aside from what they're currently working on. For example, I'm working on In Utero and Definitely Maybe with Brandt Luke Zorn, but we're going to take our time on those ones, so those won't be our entries in the drive. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Remember that there are plenty of tasks which don't need expert knowledge on a subject so don't feel that you need to commit to a particular article - most B class articles need some or all of the following:
  • Thorough copyediting
  • Standardisation of inline reference formats
  • Addition of fair use rationales to images, sourcing of free images
  • Addition of appropriate maintenance tags, so that experts on the subject can deal with specific points. Papa November (talk) 12:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
True, but given that many of us have written multiple FAs and GAs we can do better than that. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This could be the ideal time to work on Red Hot Chili Peppers. I may take a crack at Dinosaur Jr. while I'm at it, but they've dropped off my interest level these past several months. Sonic Youth needs a bunch of work and is nowhere near GA status. I'm probably going to de-list it and then give it a run over with Our Band and some other publications. To Papa November: we're the experts in this field. ;) NSR77 TC 03:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure thing, but there are lots of articles in the project and we're not experts on them all! There are also lots of people who can help us out - the intention of my list was to draw attention to the things that everyone can help with. Papa November (talk) 12:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I was just lightening things up with some humor. Bad humor, mind you. NSR77 TC 17:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmm...I might help out with RHCP, having just gotten hold of their best of, I now feel like an expert (bad news, guys!). And then, anything Australian, of course :) Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 08:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless there's some editors in Hawaii or thereabouts, the drive has officially begun. Good luck, everyone! WesleyDodds (talk) 08:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sign-up for B-Class article drive

Project members should all sign up here if they want to participate in the drive. Indicate what articles you plan to work on, and sign your name. The drive will run for two months, from February 1st to April 1st 2008. Feel free to tackle another article if you bring your chosen article to GA or FA status before the drive ends.

Soundgarden

I was wondering if anyone was interested in doing a duo type thing to make Soundgarden a Featured Article in the near future. I love the band, and doing so would have another huge grunge band become FA'd. If so, leave a note here or on my talk page. xihix(talk) 00:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone? I'm sure there's some interest out there. xihix(talk) 01:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
You can sign up to work on the article as part of the B-class article drive (in the section above). I personally have been trying to help those who've signed up to work on the listed articles. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia-friendly labels

As we know, under current Wikipedia policy, the use of non-free images in discographies/galleries etc is unacceptable. What I suspect is, for most independent labels at least, they would much prefer to see those images remain/continue to be contributed. I'm wondering if we could make an effort to get blanket cc licences from labels that cover thumbnail images of all their products. We'd need some boilerplate for them to sign off on and to create a Wikipedia-friendly labels list/category? Wwwhatsup (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If you forward an email from them allowing CC usage to OTRS, it's all done. Blanket licenses could be done, but I'm not sure if any label would want to...we'll see, I guess. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 00:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that asking is worth a shot, and if any labels are gonna give us permission for images it'll be indie labels. I doubt that it's even possible for album covers to get CC licenses, but trying to obtain press shots is a good idea. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 03:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Record labels (in general)

Given the discussion above, I feel it allows me an appropriate segue to talk about the inclusion of record labels in the project's scope, something I think we shouls tackle. The main problem with labels is that they are rarely restricted to one genre (in some cases, they might even branch into releasing non-musical material). However, there are a number of labels strongly associated with alternative rock I feel should come under the scope of the project. The recent promotion of the discographies of Dischord and Load Records is a testament to this. Now, I don't think we should go tagging any and all labels with sizable alt-rock rosters; for now, I suggests we focus on the core, emblematic records associated with alt-rock that would fall under High or Mid Importance on our scale.

Some of my suggestions, with notable bands and some comments:

  • SST Records (Husker Du, Minutemen, Meat Puppets, Sonic Youth, Dinosaur Jr, Soundgarden) - Started as a place for Black Flag guitarst Greg Ginn to sell radio parts, then turned into the foremost label of the Southern California hardcore punk scene. However, a number of key releases int he mid-1980s were responsible for the transition from hardcore to alternative rock in the American underground scene. Should be High Importantce.
  • Sub Pop (Nirvana, Soundgarden, Mudhoney, Sebadoh, The Postal Service, countless one-off singles by the likes of The Smashing Pumpkins, Sonic Youth, and Hole) - The home of grunge. They now are home to a lot of low-key indie bands. Uh, something happened there along the way. regardless, it'd be High Importance.
  • Creation Records (The Jesus and Mary Chain [for one, seminal single], Primal Scream, My Bloody Valentine, Ride, Teenage Fanclub, Oasis) - Creation emerged as post-punk was waning, so basically its entire roster has been devoted to the development of British alt-rock through noise pop, shoegaze, alternative dance, and Britpop. As there is a book about the label, I can see this one becoming a Featured Article. High or Mid class.
  • 4AD (Bauhaus, Cocteau Twins, Dead Can Dance, the Pixies, Throwing Muses, the Breeders) - Primarily focused on gothy British bands at first, then branched into American college rock in the late 1980s. You can always pick out a 4AD album by its cover art. Mid Importance.
  • Rough Trade Records (The Smiths, The Fall, Butthole Surfers, Belle & Sebastian, The Libertines, Babyshambles) - Rough Trade's legacy primarily lies with the post-punk movement, but they did sign The Smiths. Issued some American alt-rock bands in Europe, and has reemerged after bankruptcy as a home for several key indie rock bands of the 2000s. Mid Importance.
  • Matador Records (Pavement, Liz Phair, Guided by Voices, Yo La Tengo, Interpol, Cat Power) - Arguably the key indie rock label of the 1990s. Mid Importance.
  • Touch and Go Records (Big Black, Butthole Surfers, Scratch Acid, Jesus Lizard, Slint) - Home of noise rock and math rock. A large part of its catalogue has been recorded by Steve Albini. Mid Importance.

That's just what I feel are the big ones. Some others to think about include K Records, Domino Records, and Factory Records. What does everyone think? WesleyDodds (talk) 02:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Also Merge Records (Arcade Fire, Dinosaur Jr, Neutral Milk Hotel, Spoon, Magnetic Fields, Teenage Fanclub) and Drag City (early Pavement, Smog, Joanna Newsom, Royal Trux, Will Oldham, Loose Fur, Weird War), both of which aren't yet in the project but really should be. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 03:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. Sub Pop and SST should be High-importance without a doubt. NSR77 TC 03:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Totally agree with you. Funnily enough I was pondering this last night (on the fact we don't really focus on record labels). It may be worth creating a Record label task force for this project; it would be nice to improve several of our record label articles. CloudNine (talk) 11:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll start tagging the record label articles listed. Like CloudnNine, I've also thought about a record label task force, but I do wonder how that'd work, since we don't have many precedents for well-written record label articles. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Also one should take into consideration the fact that no one writes about the record labels themselves, really. Just the artists on record labels. A task force would be pretty beneficial and could probably help improve the overall quality of label-related articles. Clean up and source what's possible, but I don't think any significant changes will be made. NSR77 TC 22:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, there's quite a few chapters in books that focus on record labels. Off the top of my head, I can think of the Mudhoney and Beat Happening chapters in Our Band, which focus on Sub Pop and K Records respectively. My Pixies books have quite a bit about 4AD as well. How about nominating Sub Pop or K Records for a COTW soon, and seeing how that goes? CloudNine (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, as I mentioned above, there's an entire book devoted to the history of Creation Records. Ceoil's got a copy, and he's used it to cite the Loveless and Be Here Now articles. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I've listed SST Records at the COTW page, since Our Band Could Be Your Life covers the history of the label fairly extensively. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Since in a Replacements mood at the moment, surely Twin/Tone Records and their support of early alternative rock bands warrants inclusion in the project? CloudNine (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Do links to concert histories belong on Wikipedia?

Do other Wikipedia editors share this admin's opinion that links to sites chronicling bands' live performances don't belong on Wikipedia?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John#Built_To_Spill

After this exchange I found that links to pages that document concert performances by Nirvana, Sonic Youth and the Butthole Surfers had all been deleted; the Pixies page hadn't, presumably because it has the word 'official' in the title.

First, I wish I'd considered my words more carefully, and have sent sheepish mail to all these other site admins. I know that Krist Novoselic has been involved with Mike Ziegler's page, and that Sonic Youth approve of and link to Chris Lawrence's page, and that the Butthole Surfers link to the page maintained by James Burns. Doug Marsch and Scott Plouf have both told me they appreciate my efforts, and I have piles of emails from people telling me they refer to my site repeatedly.

I understand that conflict of interest is an issue, so I don't want to argue about it, but I'd like to hear somebody else's opinion about the matter. My feeling is that these sites are meticulously researched, cite their sources, and contain information that shouldn't be replicated within Wikipedia, but is of vital interest to people who want more detailed information about the live performances of the bands in question. It seems obvious to me that sites like these should be linked to from band articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.177.87 (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think sweeping statements like that bear much water. Each link should be considered on its merits. IMHO, in your case you are a valid secondary source. Wwwhatsup (talk) 14:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
You're right, I should have said sites like these which cite primary sources and satisfy Wikipedia guidelines (not publicly editable, not commercial, personal, blog-ish, etc.). My specific concern is for the links John deleted to the three other sites I named, each of which I consider even more scrupulous and scholarly efforts than my own. I got the sense that he acted without a complete understanding of the nature of these sites. The timing of the edits gives me the impression that he could only have given them the most cursory inspection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.120.148.177 (talk) 14:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Silverchair

I don't mean to spread too much Aussiecrut around, but is there any particular reason this is mid importance? For mine, Silverchair have been the biggest altrock band in Australia in the last decade (and longer) and have also been fairly successful in the USA. Comments? dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 09:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I was considering upping their importance, but wondered how popular they are back in Australia compared to every other Aussie band, regardless of genre. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I would say that at the moment they're at the top of the genre in terms of popularity (certainly in charts). Compared to other bands...they're still pretty high up there. They also hold the record for most ARIA Award wins. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 09:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I would agree with DHMO above. I wouldn't call them the most popular band at the moment in the genre, but their influence is certainly huge here, a lot more so than many other flash-in-the-pan Australian bands. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 09:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC).
Alrighty then. I just wanted to clarify that. I was pretty sure Silverchair is hugely popular in its native country, but was unsure how that compared to overseas acts that also sell records there. After all, Blur was huge in the UK, but they were nothing more than a cult act outside of Europe. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I see your point, and thanks. Now to start campaigning for Nick Cave's top importance ;) dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 09:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure about Silverchair. They've supported a couple major acts on tour (the Chili Peppers, for one) but I don't know the extent of their popularity. But I don't particularly like Australian music of any form, either (no offense), so I'm not the most knowledgeable in this field. NSR77 TC 01:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
So . . . you don't like AC/DC? WesleyDodds (talk) 05:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I don't particularly like AC/DC either! (is this the bit where I dodge the rotten tomatoes?) To NSR, I don't know what their popularity is like overseas, other than what AMG etc. can tell me, but they're definitely supermassive here. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 06:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't like AC/DC. They're overrated. I prefer Black Sabbath. NSR77 TC 17:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Dude, High Voltage is totally hot shit. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, on this note, can Powderfinger get top importance? ;) dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 22:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Only after they grow awesome Nick Cave 'staches. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
High Voltage sucked. Paranoid totally owned it in every way, shape, and form. NSR77 TC 00:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course Paranoid is better, but AC/DC is nothing to sneeze at. Aren't you supposed to be on a break? WesleyDodds (talk) 00:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not on break, just "operating at lower levels of daily editing". NSR77 TC 01:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

GOTH!

General question: is anyone interested in working on articles related to gothic rock? Many of them are in poor shape, but from what I can tell the only active Project editors who know enough about the genre to get by at a goth club are Ceoil and myself. I have bios for The Cure, Bauhaus, and Siouxsie & the Banshees, and Simon Reynolds' book Rip It Up and Start Again devotes a chapter to the genre, if anyone wants to help out. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Ausgang needs a lot of work, if anyone has anything useful on them.--Michig (talk) 09:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Add me to the club. When I'm more active next month I'll be glad to help. NSR77 TC 00:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Brandon Flowers

Would his article fall under alternative rock? If so, it needs reviews for quality and importance. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If not, where else would it fall under? 24.32.208.58 (talk) 00:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it would. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
If The Killers (band) is at 'Mid' importance, shouldn't Flowers' article be as well? 24.32.208.58 (talk) 03:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
No, because Flowers is a member of the band, and the band article, since it covers all band members, warrants a higher importance. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
While the Killers are far from the "best" alt rock group out there, I'm going to kick the band up to High importance since they're one of the most popular alt rock bands of the last few years. Feel free to discuss if you wish. Teemu08 (talk) 06:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
No objections to this. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 08:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure, why not. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Just like Heaven (song) at FAC

Speaking of goth, the article on the best song Robert Smith ever wrote (yes, it is; don't argue) is now at FAC. You can review the article and leave feedback here. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Was going to mention "The Caterpillar", but wont. Du do do da daa dada. Ceoil (talk) 10:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Robert Smith looks so stoned in that video. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Totally unrelated, but Template:TheCure has singles in italics...? dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 11:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
-cringes- I'll fix that. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The Top disappoints me. That, along with Wild Mood Swings are the only two Cure records I dislike. Also, "Just Like Heaven" is absolutely not the best song he ever wrote. "From the Edge of the Deep Green Sea" totally and completely owns it musically and lyrically. NSR77 TC 20:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Some comments towards an FAC

Having recently passed GA with Silverchair (as part of the B-Class drive), I would like to go all the way with this one. Basically, I'm really unsure on, content wise, how much is needed. I've looked at some of the other FAs and have some idea (I also know I need to work more on the style section), but any other comments would be awesome. Thanks, dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 08:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The main thing I've noticed is that the Msuical style section needs som real strengthening. I't most comments by reviewers for albums. Try to find sources where the band itself has discussed its musical style and influences. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
It's really premature to even start thinking about an FAC. Silverchair has been around quite a long time and I'm sure you can find dozens of magazine and print-related articles that go more in depth. It's pretty short right now and not outstandingly comprehensive, but so far so good. NSR77 TC 18:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Nine Inch Nails live performances

This is a rather unusual article, given that Nine Inch Nails is for all purposes Trent Reznor and only Trent Reznor, but he has to assemble a band for tours. I think it's decent, but there really is no precedent for it and I was curious as to what others might think about structuring it. Right now I think its a hybrid article about a backing band and a list of tours the main artists has undertaken. Also, I for one am not too keen on those collapsable tables of band line-ups. Thoughts? WesleyDodds (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know much about NIN, nor do I listen to them but once in a blue moon, so I don't think I could offer any help here. But yeah, those collapsible tables are really unnecessary. NSR77 TC 20:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
For the record, there is some precedence: Pink Floyd live performances and Queen live performances. And I do think that the tables are unnecessary, but we should ask Drewcifer about it. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 06:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

In Rainbows at FAC

The latest Radiohead album In Rainbows (y'know, the one you could get for free) is the current Collaboration of the Week, and now it's at FAC. You can review the article here. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

A-class rating

How exactly is it awarded? Is there a GA-type process involved? indopug (talk) 03:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

In this project, no. I think Wesley checks A-class ratings though, and AFAIK we don't really use it much. Some projects (MILHIST etc.) have formal ratings schemes. IMO just go for GA. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 08:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Technically anyone in the project can give the rating to a page if they feel it fits the criteria. In practice, CloudNine and I usually tag worthy articles as A-class. I make periodic rounds through the GAs to see if any are suitable. I can only think of one article I have ever tagged A-class that wasn't a GA at the time: Stereolab (an abject lesson on bypassing the Good Article nom process if you can write a bitchin' article really quickly). Personally I try not to rate articles I have worked on as A-class, but sometimes I do, usually as I take an article to FAC. There should be a lot of discretion when tagging a page as A-class, but it hasn't become a problem with this project (unlike some others I can think of). WesleyDodds (talk) 08:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The question I've always had with A-class is does it really matter? I guess that can be applied to most assessment cats, but I think stub, start, and B have more meaning...I really don't get the point of A. Any insights, Wesley? dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 08:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
In my view an A-class article is generally on its way to FAC. Either it can be put up for a nom soon, or needs just a little bit of work before submission, usually needing to include something important like a reference or an important sales figure or something that would be essential for an FA. It should be fairly complete, comprehensive, and well-written, moreso than your average GA. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This Charming Man at FAC

"This Charming Man" was the first alt-rock song to become an FA, but it's since been demoted. It's now back up for Featured Article consideration, courtesy of Ceoil. You can review the article here. And you can see that legendary Top of the Pops performance mentioned in the article here. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

In before "OMG copyvio linking". dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 06:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Whatevah! WesleyDodds (talk) 08:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Question: if/when this article is promoted, should we acknowledge the previous FA promotion date on the FA wall? There have been only two FAs in the project's scope that have been delisted (the other is Lollapalooza, which apparently was delisted a loooooong time ago), but I think it's worth pondering. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we add it at the 2nd listing date, with the initial listing (and a link to the FAR if we can fit it) in brackets. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 12:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not even sure the FA wall should stick around much longer. Most large Wikiprojects have too many FAs to keep them plastered up and generally have them on a subpage. We're nearing 60. NSR77 TC 01:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I personally think the wall is five kinds of awesome. It makes it easy to see all the featured articles, lists, and topics (I personally use it to keep tabs on them to see how several articles are fairing), and it makes for great conversation with people from other WikiProjects. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
There must be an easier way to organise the entries correctly; I remember trying to sort it out a few days back. It will suffice to say that after 45 minutes of futility, I was completely confused, and things only got much worse. indopug (talk) 04:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we could utilize scroll bars. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good; then it would have six kinds of awesomeness. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 06:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Or perhaps colapsible tables? NSR77 TC 20:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

R.E.M. discography

Is anyone willing to help me revamp R.E.M. discography and turn it into a featured list? I have plenty of print references, but I hate dealing with the tables and numbers. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The White Stripes GA status

This article is nowhere near the standard required, and has fallen into much disrepair. The COTW didn't help much either. Delist? indopug (talk) 06:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

If I was GA reviewing that, I wouldn't pass it. I suggest a delist. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I've just cut out a lot of crap from the article, but it could use some steady, interested editors to bring it up to standard. I went back to the version that was promoted to GA status almost two years ago and it wasn't all that impressive. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Surfer Rosa on Main Page

Tomorrow, Surfer Rosa will be the first FA by prolific project editor CloudNine to be featured on the Main Page. Let's all keep an eye out for the inevitable vandal onslaught. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Watchlisted. Here's hoping I get one of my 7 up there one day too... dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
It'll happen one day ;) It's a shame it's come at a time where I've lost time and motivation to edit (although I'll be back to nomral editing levels soon now I'm on holiday.) CloudNine (talk) 10:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I get the feeling it'll take a lot of stalking the requests page. Or getting my cabal on it. ;) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
After having two FAs on the Main Page I can assure you it's not all it's cracked up to be. Would be much more tolerable if the pages were semi-protected on Main Page Day, but that sure isn't going to happen. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If anyone's interested, I took a look to see what other articles could be featured on the Main Page this year due to an anniversary. Adore, already an FA, celebrates its tenth anniversary of release in June. Of albums celebrating their 20th anniversaries of release, Daydream Nation, Green, and Isn't Anything could possibly be brought to FA staus in time to mark the dates on the Main Page. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Internationalist (album); 10th anniversary on 7 September 2008. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Mark your calendar! And make sure no wars were fought on that day. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I really wanted John Frusciante up for his birthday (March 5) but I completely forgot. :( I might try By the Way next, or simply stick with Flea. Congrats CloudNine! NSR77 TC 18:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Hoping to get the 15th anniversary of Anodyne up on October 5. Teemu08 (talk) 19:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised there haven't (yet?) been any "concerned parents" whining about "ZOMG think about the children!!" once they have a look at the Surfer Rosa album cover :) indopug (talk) 04:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm awfully surprised, too. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll keep that in mind when nominating Odyssey Number Five! dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Same! CloudNine (talk) 10:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

On a related issue, there's a discussion over at Talk:Come on Pilgrim over whether the release should be a mini-album or EP. Thoughts are welcome. CloudNine (talk) 16:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mazed

There is an article about a band called Mazed which avoided speedy deletion only because the article claimed that Boris Williams, formerly of The Cure, is one of the members of Mazed. However, no sources for that have been located. Anyone familiar with Williams' career who knows for certain that he is or isn't a member of Mazed is invited to participate in the AFD discussion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Newsletter help

Does anyone have AWB? If so, can you help deliver the project newsletter, or find someone willing to do so? Xihix usually does this, but he had trouble using AWB last time and hasn't posted in a while. We need someone to send out this month's newsletter and the one for February. If you don't have AWB and are just willing to do it manually, that would be great too. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Running now. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Mainstream media reading project pages?

I get the feeling that MSNBC took a look at the R.E.M. article before writing this. Kinda amusing seeing your writing paraphrased by a major news source. Could be a massive coincidence, since much of this information is well-documented. Still, rather close to how I laid out the "Formation" section. Anyone else stumble upon similar Wiki acknowledgement in the press? WesleyDodds (talk) 09:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You might like User:Blnguyen/Times of India. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, that's fun. Still, I'm just bemused that it's a clear indication that people read what I write. Situations like that are delightfully weird. There's been two people at my work who've read segments of the punk rock article aloud without knowing that I wrote the lead and worked on various segments of the article body. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Don't get your ego too inflated, now, Wesley. NSR77 TC 22:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. It's always hilarious when people read back to me facts from articles that I wrote. I don't think I've seen my writing paraphrased anywhere else just yet though! CloudNine (talk) 23:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Boredoms discography

I'd like to ask for someone to give this article a look; I've been doing some major revamping using some featured discographies as inspiration. It was recently rated Start by someone, but I'd like to see if anything could be done to bump that up to B or possibly GA. Specifically, I'd like to know if anyone has suggestions for formatting the list, because each release has several labels associated with it. Thanks a lot = ∫tc 5th Eye 19:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Acid Mothers Temple

Similarly, I gave the AMT page a huge workover today, and it also has some questionable section formatting in it. I'm considering moving the discography to another page, but barring that I'd love suggestions for anything with regards to this article. = ∫tc 5th Eye 04:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This might be a pain, but given it's a Japanese band, you'll want to track down sources written in Japanese. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that'd be cool if I (or anyone I know) could read Japanese... = ∫tc 5th Eye 04:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I know. That's the unavoidable problem. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Right. The main thing I was asking about here was general proofing and format suggestions though. = ∫tc 5th Eye 05:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Split up the history into appropriate sections. That first paragraph in the history section seems unnecessary. Say something about the group's music in the lead section. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Magazine request

Does anyone have access to any of the reviews listed here (other than the ones already in use at Diorama (album))? Much appreciated...cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

My library might have the Mojo issue. I believe Blender keeps its reviews online. Try looking through nytimes.com. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Only thing I found on the Blender website is a review by Guy Pearce...will try nytimes. If you could get the Mojo one it'd be great. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Almost forgot: my library also archives Spin issues. I'll check those too, although it might not be this week. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Much appreciated, whenever you get the chance. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

R.E.M. album tracklistings

This might be more of a WP:ALBUM issue, but it's spanning virtually all the R.E.M. album articles so I'll bring it up here. How should the tracklisting sections be formatted? Check out the discussion at Talk:New Adventures in Hi-Fi for further information. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Dinosaur Jr

After much work by WesleyDodds, NSR77 and a few others, this page was promoted to B class yet tribestros decided to put it back to start class, which I reverted. I also undid virtually all of his edits from March 31 as they were very poorly written, contained reduntant information and were flat out incorrect in some cases. Can I request that folks keep an eye on it for other poor edits and perhaps an admin of this group contact tribestros to ask him to cease his edits ? Arleach (talk) 04:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is, without a doubt in my mind, B-class material. NSR77 TC 17:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Not very far off GA - nice work Arleach. I've put it as B-class for all projects (it was still start for WPBiography). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I've split/expanded the "reunion" section into it and one for 'Beyond' and added references. If I've messed up the format for the refs, please update. I'll try and expand the "Major Label Years" into separate sections for each record as well. Arleach (talk) 04:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Cut the number of Beyond reviews; they're more appropriate for the album page. Remember to include author name when citing websites. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
okey doke. I'll do that later. but will referencing only 1 review (say, Pitchfork) adequately illustrate "critical acclaim" ? Arleach (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

cleaned up 'Beyond' section and expanded 'Reunion' Arleach (talk) 00:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

expanded "Musical Style" section. Need to find a few things on Murph Arleach (talk) 01:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

obtained high resolution press photo from management. Uploaded to commons and I think I forwarded the needed info to OTRS for a CC-BY-NC license but if I've messed anything up, please let me know. Arleach (talk) 05:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

White Stripes at GAR

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/The White Stripes/1. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Indie Record Label - Righteous Babe Records

Hoping this is the right wikiproject, and that the scope of the project applies to this article. If not, please direct me to the right area! I need some assistance over at the Righteous Babe Records article. I've begun a clean up and sourcing of the article in earnest, but could use some help on formatting, any templates, and really getting this article up to par with some of the other record label articles. Thank you. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Pearl Jam on Main Page

Wow, Pearl Jam is on the Main Page today, and I didn't know it was going to happen. I'm insanely busy this week, and I won't be back at Wikipedia for the rest of the day, so be sure to keep an eye out on the page, everyone. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Watchlisted. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 12:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Alt-rock discographies at FLC

What with the advent of WP:Discog, there's a flurry of discography-related activity. The following alt-rock discographies are up for consideration at FLC; feel free to review and/or them. Thanks! indopug (talk) 10:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Good article icon

A proposal to add a symbol identifying Good Articles in a similar manner to Featured ones is being discussed: see Wikipedia talk:Good articles#Proposal. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

How many can you name?

This really doesn't have any bearing on anything, but a while ago I found this poster of alternative rock icons (you can see a bigger version at various poster shops). Can you identify everyone represented? Some are pretty easy, like the Chili Peppers and Robert Smith of The Cure, but a few stump even me, although I think that has more to do with how they are painted rather than any unfamiliarity on my part. Anyway, try naming them all! This is a good way of familiarizing yourselves with some alternative icons. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The Pumpkins, Tori Amos, Kate Bush, Kurt Cobain, Eddie Vedder, Blondie, the city of Seattle, Oasis, and Morrissey. NSR77 TC 15:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Tori Amos is alternative? Oh. I don't see Blondie and Oasis, I think they're Sonic Youth and R.E.M. indopug (talk) 15:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Blondie? What am I talking about? Yeah, it's Sonic Youth. And I could have sworn I saw Oasis somewhere. Tori Amos is indeed considered to be alternative. NSR77 TC 16:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm still not sure who that woman by the Space Needle is, but if people think it's Kate Bush, I'll roll with that. Her and the guy on the right above the Chili Peppers with the curly hair are the only ones I can't identify. WesleyDodds (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I could see why you thought R.E.M. was Oasis, given Mike Mills' colored Lennon glasses and Bill Berry's unibrow. You can tell it's R.E.M. for sure because of Peter Buck's sharp featues and because Michael Stipe is wearing that stupid hat, which was one of his many failed attempts to cover up his receeding hairline until he just gave up and shaved his head. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Who's that girl under Kate Bush wearing a yellow outfit and a strange expression on her face? I'm stumped. NSR77 TC 19:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It's Björk. WesleyDodds (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I would have never guessed it to be her. She doesn't come to mind when I think of "alternative". NSR77 TC 19:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Her work with The Sugarcubes during the 80s was definitely alt-rock, and her solo stuff is technically of the genre, despite her electronic excursions. WesleyDodds (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
who's the guy to the left of Sinead O'Connor ? that thing should be on black velvet. oof. Arleach (talk) 05:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

"Touch Me I'm Sick" peer review

I plan on taking this seminal song to FAC in a couple of days. Feedback/suggestions/complaints at peer review would be welcome. Thanks, indopug (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Vancouver, British Columbia meet-up

Wikimedia Vancouver Meetup

Please come to an informal gathering of Vancouver Wikipedians, Monday, May 5 at 6:30 pm. It will be at Benny's Bagels, 2505 West Broadway. We'd love to see you there, and please invite others! Watch the Vancouver Meetup page for details.

This box: view • talk • edit

Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Touch Me I'm Sick

Pretty much the first-ever grunge song. Comments and concerns should be addressed quickly. indopug (talk) 06:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Archive 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.