Misplaced Pages

Talk:Genesis (band): Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:05, 8 February 2021 editFloydian (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors38,594 edits →Lead: undo... derp, wrong oneTag: Manual revert← Previous edit Revision as of 16:07, 8 February 2021 edit undoFloydian (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors38,594 edits →Lead: nobody is implicitly agreeing with you by editing after youNext edit →
Line 336: Line 336:


I am not sure who you are talking to - 4 people have either explicitly or implicitly agreed with my changes. Look at the history. Accept if someone else can find more useful imformation than you can. People want to know a band's first top 10 hit in the UK or the US.or where they had their first big hit. Listing 5 or 6 of their biggest hits and how big a hit they were in how many countries is important. Why only give info on the US for Invisble Touch???? The data I added is found in other leads on bands. Any full analysis of the current lead shows it to be highly accurate and superior to the old info. Don't keep crusading if no one else agrees with you or if a proper analysis finds you are wrong.] (]) 07:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC) I am not sure who you are talking to - 4 people have either explicitly or implicitly agreed with my changes. Look at the history. Accept if someone else can find more useful imformation than you can. People want to know a band's first top 10 hit in the UK or the US.or where they had their first big hit. Listing 5 or 6 of their biggest hits and how big a hit they were in how many countries is important. Why only give info on the US for Invisble Touch???? The data I added is found in other leads on bands. Any full analysis of the current lead shows it to be highly accurate and superior to the old info. Don't keep crusading if no one else agrees with you or if a proper analysis finds you are wrong.] (]) 07:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
:Edits to remove your poor grammar shall not be construed as explicit nor implicit agreement with your changes. - ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 16:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


{{u|Informed analysis}}, "{{xt|People want to know a band's first top 10 hit in the UK or the US.or where they had their first big hit.}}" I don't agree with that. In fact, I'm pretty sure that Mrs 333 doesn't care what chart position a single or album reached anywhere, with very few exceptions such as "]" being kept off the UK number one spot by "]". Or, if they ''do'' care, they'll look for it in the article about the single or album in question. The lead of the overall group's article should have a summary of the important aspects a layman reader who doesn't know the group well would want to know, and excessive verbiage about chart stats just isn't it. ] has further information. ] ] ] 15:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC) {{u|Informed analysis}}, "{{xt|People want to know a band's first top 10 hit in the UK or the US.or where they had their first big hit.}}" I don't agree with that. In fact, I'm pretty sure that Mrs 333 doesn't care what chart position a single or album reached anywhere, with very few exceptions such as "]" being kept off the UK number one spot by "]". Or, if they ''do'' care, they'll look for it in the article about the single or album in question. The lead of the overall group's article should have a summary of the important aspects a layman reader who doesn't know the group well would want to know, and excessive verbiage about chart stats just isn't it. ] has further information. ] ] ] 15:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:07, 8 February 2021

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Genesis (band) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4
Former featured articleGenesis (band) is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good articleGenesis (band) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 7, 2007.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 14, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
April 28, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
May 1, 2007Featured article reviewKept
June 30, 2010Featured article reviewDemoted
December 5, 2015Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Former featured article, current good article
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconProgressive Rock Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Progressive Rock, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Progressive rock on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Progressive RockWikipedia:WikiProject Progressive RockTemplate:WikiProject Progressive RockProgressive rock
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBiography: Musicians
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as High-importance).
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconRock music Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Vital article

Archiving icon
Archives

Archive 1: 2006 - 2008
Archive 2: 2009 - 2010
Archive 3: 2011 - 2012
Archive 4: 2013 - 2014


Neutrality

I have been slogging through this article and it's like Sysyphus pushing a rock up a hill. I'm carrying on with the book cites, but in the meantime, can I please put out a heartfelt plea to everyone (especially IPs, who seem to be the worst offenders) adding content to cite what you're adding to a reliable source, and include whatever information is necessary for somebody else to verify it. For books and journals, that means title, publisher, page number and ISBN. I know lots of hardcore Genesis fans can't bear the fact that the same group (or some of them) that put together Foxtrot (album) and Selling England by the Pound had the sheer and utter chutzpah to release Invisible Touch and We Can't Dance ... but that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia with a neutral point of view. (And I quite like 80s Genesis, well bits of it anyway). Ritchie333 11:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

To 76.117.58.67

76.117.58.67, Please stop undoing my edit. I have made it quite clear why I think the edit is opinionated (your opinion that the band was no longer a "homogenous" band during the Duke era). I feel it is original research, and opinionated at that. I have pointed you toward the appropriate section of the NPOV article dealing with subjective opinions, which you seem to just ignore. And all you do is go on reverting my efforts, and those of others in this matter, calling us "dumbass" and "stupidass" repeatedly. You even created a user page for me, calling me an "asshole" and "motherfucker." Your behavior is childish and disruptive. I care about this article, a former featured article, and feel it is being overloaded with too many details and subjective opinions and summaries. But I'm thinking of giving up on it now, if all I suffer is abuse from you. 147.46.57.248 (talk) 04:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

He won't be able to answer you using that IP for the next year unless you visit his talk page. His behavior has been entirely unacceptable; thank you for drawing my attention to the problem and I'm sorry that you and the other editors here have had to endure his abuse.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, he won't be able to answer at his talk page either now. Access revoked for removing the active block notice repeatedly.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete the biased and unnecessary 'Criticism' section

I don't understand the relevance of, or need for, the 'Criticism' section. It should be removed.

Genesis have been selling records since 1970 (or 1967 if you like) and have been hugely successful. Over that time, they've had thousands of news articles and many book written about them. Amongst that lot, plenty of negative comments were written along with lots of positive ones. There is therefore no foundation for having a 'Criticism' section with a cherry-picked selection of the negative comments. It's far from an objective view of the band but it occupies a relatively large percentage of the article.

That gives the articles bias, not objectivity. The wiki pages on Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd and the Rolling Stones don't have a 'Criticism' section, correctly so. Nor do the pages for Kajagoogoo, Adam And The Ants or the Spice Girls so its not musical snobbery. It's just bias in the article.

Pending a discussion here, the 'Criticism' section should be removed because it's biased and a disproportionately long part of the whole wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToaneeM (talk • contribs) 22:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree. For this article to improve, this should be addressed. LowSelfEstidle (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

So delete factual information on the band just because you think it's biased? The general public deserve better than that!

The above, unsigned comment appeared. It is a ridiculous statement. The information is factual; the presentation of it is biased. My above point stands and scornful, flawed one-liners are not a substitute for presentation of a reasoned point of view. The general public deserve better than that 'un. ToaneeM

Criticism of Genesis has been more significant among rock journalists than Led Zeppelin, The Rolling Stones or Pink Floyd, who are afforded more respect and critical acknowledgement. The comments by the Q journalist ("perennial whipping boys") and The New Rolling Stone Album Guide ("Genesis has had a hard time getting respect"), plus Gabriel's comment that the band never escaped being regarded as "snotty rich-kids" and Collins' admission that he only knew of one journalist who actually liked the band, tells you all you need to know about why the section is relevant. Rodericksilly (talk) 05:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC),

Rodericksilly, that's an appalling generalisation and a useless argument. An unbiased article cannot be based on your whimsical throwaways like "tells you all you need to know". You quote a few comments. My starting point: "Over that time, they've had thousands of news articles and many book written about them. Amongst that lot, plenty of negative comments were written along with lots of positive ones." Be reasonable. Led Zep, Stones and PF (to use my few examples) have produced their happy share of dud albums and bland patches and been criticised for it. It's part of being a long-lived and successful rock band. Genesis are absolutely no different in that respect. Rutherford once commented that "there were three UK music papers in the 70's and if they didn't like you...". It doesn't mean that their opinions warrant a 'Criticism' section. Again, from my starting note: "Nor do the pages for Kajagoogoo, Adam And The Ants or the Spice Girls so its not musical snobbery. It's just bias in the article." None of the objectors here has put forward a reasoned justification and none can because it's bias. Sorry, but there it is. Therefore it must go as it's against the spirit of Misplaced Pages.

You only seem to be able to repeat what you've written before. I can take it you've made up your mind and really are not interested in reasoned argument, just your own opinion. The comparison with manufactured pop groups aimed at teenage girls by marketing men is hardly relevant to rock criticism of Genesis. You need to watch the Genesis documentary Together and Apart which addressed this too, with a section on how unfashionable Genesis were and how Al Murray felt he had to "come out" as a fan. This is not a fan page where criticism is to be airbrushed. I suggest you start one instead. Rodericksilly (talk) 16:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

If multiple, independent and reliable sources (eg: "He has been called "the Antichrist," the sellout who took Peter Gabriel's Genesis, that paragon of prog-rock, and turned it into a lame-o pop act and went on to make all those supercheesy hits that really did define the 1980s" ) then it may be suitable for the article (note: "may" does not mean "must"). That's one facet of criticism. Bowler and Dray's biography also documents that Genesis knew full well some fans of Trespass and Nursery Cryme would not particularly warm to "Follow You, Follow Me" and Abacab, but felt its what they needed to do to progress as a songwriter unit - and frankly I'm sick and tired of internet fanboys proclaiming everything after Collins arrival / Gabriel's Departure / Hackett's Departure / Collins writing more (delete as applicable) is crap. It isn't. Anyway, yes, a criticism section is definitely possible for this article. Ritchie333 09:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I think this section has now been significantly improved and flows much better with all the heavy and unrelated quotes taken out. Rodericksilly (talk) 20:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Genesis (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —Talk to my owner:Online 10:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Genesis Was a band vs Genesis Were a band

the word Genesis is singular. the word band is singular. Why would we use the plural verb for a singular subject? It'd be like saying "The Alan Parson's Project" had more than one member so we should say Were not was? Genesis Was a band. Bryce Carmony (talk) 05:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Withdrawn by proposer, Brittish English actually treats all bands as plural. so Coldplay are. Sumpertramp are. So for Brittish bands we will use the plural. Bryce Carmony (talk) 05:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

GA

I started improving this to good article status ages ago, then got totally side-tracked to do a few of the albums instead. In my absence I see a few of you, most obviously @LowSelfEstidle: and @Rodericksilly: have picked up the baton and the article seems to be in a much better shape than when I left it in terms of sourcing and factual accuracy. So what have we got left to do? There are a couple of uncited end of paragraphs and I think we're going to have expand the 80s a bit more to give proper due weight - it was their most commercially successful period after all. Anything else? Ritchie333 18:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

A section definitively explaining the "lamb lies down on Broadway" :P (Jk since I don't think there is a definitive source for that) Bryce Carmony (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The sales figures were determined to be 130 million by examining several sources. Claiming that 100 million is better because it is listed in List of best-selling music artists is not sufficient, as Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source. A better course of action would be to update that article, since this is a GA and that is not a featured list, implying its quality control has not been checked. Ritchie333 10:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I thought a change would be reverted on that page. They reverted some changes I made a while back and they are absolutely resolute that Genesis's sales have been exaggerrated in some sources according to their certified sales. The bottom line is that there doesn't seem to be ANY consensus on the Genesis sales figure. The band were claiming a few years ago they'd sold 150 million, then it dropped to 130 million, List of best-selling music artists say 100 million, therefore to state on this page one figure as fact is extremely dubious IMHO. Rodericksilly (talk) 23:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

"most commercially successful"

Can I get a show of hands for opinions on this diff? I can see arguments for and against NPOV on both sides - the earlier version gives more weight to Collins / Banks / Rutherford, who I would expect "are" Genesis in the eyes of many casual readers, while the changed version puts equal weight on all members. Any preferences? Ritchie333 11:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

To me, the original version is fine. The only thing I can suggest here is something like, "There have been several formations throughout its history, of which the longest serving members include keyboardist Tony Banks, guitarist Mike Rutherford, and drummer/singer Phil Collins. Past line-ups have included original singer Peter Gabriel and guitarist Steve Hackett." LowSelfEstidle (talk) 15:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Lead stuff

I'd like a bit of chat about this change. Firstly, I don't want to cram up the first paragraph with the history, but I just want to list the members in a short a way as possible while still being factually correct. Just listing Gabriel and Hackett with a supplying sentence ought to do it. Ant Phillips is a marginal case, but I think he can be left out as he was never on anything that reached more than cult success. Ritchie333 17:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems pretty reasonable to me; anyway, I just want to emphasize the "founding member" thing, c'mon is Gabriel!. Regarding the inclusion in the lede of Land of Confusion and the Grammy (concept video) stuff; is this really necessary?; I mean, it was not the Best artist award or Recording of the Year, just my point of view. Greetings. Ajax1995 (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
It may not be the "creme de la creme" of the Grammy Awards, per se, but it is perhaps the most major and most recognisable award ceremony of all the awards they won. It's like Yes winning the Grammy for Best Rock Instrumental with "Cinema" in 1985. Pretty notable enough for the lede. Plus, the lede should be a summary of each heading in the article. LowSelfEstidle (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Genesis (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Disestablishment in 2012?

I've been wondering about the category "Musical groups disestablished in 2012". While the band is inactive and there does not seem to be any significant expectation that this will change, making Genesis effectively disbanded, there is no indication in the article that anything special happened in 2012 that would warrant this classification. The infobox treats them as still active because there is no official statement cited in the article on the current status of the band, so why the category, which blatantly contradicts it? I've combed through the history and found this edit, which provides an explanation, as a statement by Banks in 2012 that said that Genesis had "come to an end" was removed from the lede without moving it anywhere else. Bad idea, now the category is entirely unsupported. Should it be removed? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I seem to recall there was a bit of a kerfuffle over this some years back, but I think we're now at the stage where to say the band is still active is misleading. I personally would go for 2006-7, as that was when they last had musical activity. Genesis are slightly unusual in that the ex members (except Steve Hackett) all get on and meet up for a nice cup of tea and a sit down, unlike many bands that dissolve in acrimony. Ritchie333 20:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree it's quite misleading to call them active. If Genesis tour again that will do nothing to change the fact that they were inactive for the last 10 years. The statement from Banks should be sufficient evidence that Genesis are not an active entity. I would certainly love to see Genesis tour again, but in the meantime we should stick to the facts. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

was / were

@Eprossnitz: Will you please STOP changing the article to use the incorrect regional variation of English? See MOS:PLURALS Ritchie333 14:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, as we now seem to have a consensus as to Genesis' status as "inactive", should the info-box be changed to list all of them as "past members"? As obvious as it seems to me, I know this situation has caused astounding levels of disruption at other articles. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
No problem from me. I generally go and hide in the corner when arguments about infobox fields rear their ugly head. Ritchie333 08:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the active status being up to 2007, but I find it odd to call them "past members". This term is generally used to classify members who left the band, and Collins, Banks and Rutherford didn't do that, even though the band is no more, which means to say they were the remnant members of the group when it ceased its activity. It would be like calling Lennon, McCartney, Harrison and Starkey "past members" of the Beatles, when actually that title goes to Best and Sutcliffe. Clausgroi (talk) 04:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
The info-box at The Beatles does call John, Paul, Ringo, & George "past members". Joefromrandb (talk) 07:12, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Even so, I would never call them that. Like I said, "past members" seems to me to imply the members were no longer in the band in its last incarnation, as though they had left. Clausgroi (talk) 03:42, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Maybe you wouldn't, but Misplaced Pages does. "Past members" were members in the past. "Current members" are members right now. No one is currently a member of Genesis, much are there are no current members of the Beatles or citizens of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. - SummerPhD 16:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
That's the thing: the article does not say (or said in previous versions) "CURRENT members", but only "Members". I argue that's a matter of interpretation: who are "members" ? The guys in the band NOW or the guys in the band when it ceased to exist (that is, the last incarnation which actually produced something). I understand it as the latter. In that sense, "PAST members" would obviously be the ones who had left the band prior to that (Hackett, Gabriel, Philips etc.). Do you see what I mean ? Clausgroi (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
I understand your point. However, throughout the project, Misplaced Pages lists current members under "Members". There, of course, are no "current" members of a defunct band. We cannot very well change it here and have it conflict with our usage throughout the rest of the project. To change it throughout the project, I'd suggest taking it up at WP:PUMP. - SummerPhD 23:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I have updated the comment in the lead to this reflecting the consensus in this thread. Ritchie333 20:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Lead

Can we get some consensus on what to do with band members in the lead? AFAIK, sources generally consider Banks, Rutherford and Collins to be the "core", with cursory mentions to Gabriel and Hackett, everyone else is too minor to mention. Ritchie333 13:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Genesis (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

A personnel timeline would be nice

I'm not knowledgeable enough to do this - and don't mean to be selfish in case this turns out to be a lot of work - but if someone can construct one of those multicolored personnel graphs, this would be a good musical group to do it on. Like Fleetwood Mac, the various personnel lineups constituted markedly different stylistic eras, as least according to some; you don't have to make that subjective assertion, but supplying the graph would accommodate such interpretations by readers.

By the way, there's not one of those on Fleetwood Mac. For such a monumentally large group, with somewhat few personnel changes, it sure would be nice there; it's tedious to have to scan large amounts of text to follow the personnel.72.190.112.100 (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

There's one already at List of Genesis band members, which is linked in the Members section in the band article. See the Timeline section. --Finlayson (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Yikes. Yes, all there in full color. I also agree with using a separate page since that page is so extensive. Thank you for your polite restraint at my high stupidity.

Likewise for Fleetwood Mac. Dooooooooh.72.190.112.100 (talk) 21:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Graph of band members

What if the graph below (from the List of Genesis band members article) was added to this article?? Surely it would help readers get an idea of band lineups without it being too cluttered. Just a suggestion. JC7V-constructive zone 06:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC) 

==Timeline==
Genesis
Studio albums
Live albums
Compilations
Box sets
EPs
Singles
Other songs
Video albums
Tours
Related musicians
Related articles

Genesis Live in Poland : https://www.discogs.com/fr/Genesis-Live-In-Poland/release/4989667

See above thread - consensus is it belongs in List of Genesis band members Ritchie333 09:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

"Second lead guitarist"

At the beginning discussing important members it should say Hackett the "succeeding lead guitarist" rather than "second lead guitarist" as that gives the impression that they had two lead guitarists at once (in the vain of Thin Lizzy or Judas Priest). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2c0:8500:3ef0:849d:9d3e:41f4:64b0 (talk)

The article is not protected, be bold and fix it. Ritchie333 19:57, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Among the best selling artists

The group are one of the highest selling music groups in the world and they are even listed on the Misplaced Pages article on that subject.

I’ve tired to mention it on this article but it got remove. Bob3458 (talk) 15:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I reverted with the summary "is that necessary for the lead?" because this is a good article and hence certain quality standards have to be upheld for each edit. In this case, the claim for being "one of the best selling acts in world" would need to belong in the article body (probably under the "Legacy" section); however in the article List of best-selling music artists, the only sources for Genesis are to verify 100m record sales (and one is more an anecdote of how Collins passed the audition in August 1970). We would need an actual reliable source (outside merely a mention in a WP article) to put that in the body, and hence the lead. Ritchie333 19:56, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Edit summaries

What is this, National Don't Leave An Edit Summary and Leave People Guessing Day? I can't read minds. Ritchie333 12:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@Moline1: There is a longstanding convention that only official members go in the infobox. Ritchie333 15:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Lead

I'm not going to revert the lead by Informed analysis (also socking as 2607:fea8:57a0:de0:69ef:efdf:8697:2e80), but I'll critique it.

  • Although some people think "Supper's Ready" is the epitome of Genesis, the fact is that most sources agree the most commercially and critically successful line-up is Banks / Collins / Rutherford. See my comment above from August 2017.
  • Genesis were not particularly folk beyond Nursery Cryme, so mentioning that in the opening sentence is misleading.
  • There is no mention of Jonathan King or the transformation between the debut album and Trespass, nor an explanation of why Gabriel quit. The reader might think it was because of "musical differences", which is not really true.
  • "Hackett left the band, reducing it to three." - three what?
  • "first UK and European top 10 and North American top 30 single" - this is too verbose, which European Countries, and Honduras and Belize are in North America, did it chart there?
  • "multi-country top three album" - what does multi-country mean?
  • "Genesis have sold 21.5 million copies of their albums in the US" - why is the American market important to the British band?

I've got to go and do some snow shovelling, and when I come back I will fix up the lead to be more akin to what it was before, having passed WP:GAN and gained consensus. Ritchie333 14:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I've had a go at doing the lead again. Per MOS:LEADLENGTH, it shouldn't really be more than three paragraphs. Ritchie333 17:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure who you are talking to - 4 people have either explicitly or implicitly agreed with my changes. Look at the history. Accept if someone else can find more useful imformation than you can. People want to know a band's first top 10 hit in the UK or the US.or where they had their first big hit. Listing 5 or 6 of their biggest hits and how big a hit they were in how many countries is important. Why only give info on the US for Invisble Touch???? The data I added is found in other leads on bands. Any full analysis of the current lead shows it to be highly accurate and superior to the old info. Don't keep crusading if no one else agrees with you or if a proper analysis finds you are wrong.Informed analysis (talk) 07:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Edits to remove your poor grammar shall not be construed as explicit nor implicit agreement with your changes. - Floydian  ¢ 16:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Informed analysis, "People want to know a band's first top 10 hit in the UK or the US.or where they had their first big hit." I don't agree with that. In fact, I'm pretty sure that Mrs 333 doesn't care what chart position a single or album reached anywhere, with very few exceptions such as "Vienna" being kept off the UK number one spot by "Shaddap You Face". Or, if they do care, they'll look for it in the article about the single or album in question. The lead of the overall group's article should have a summary of the important aspects a layman reader who doesn't know the group well would want to know, and excessive verbiage about chart stats just isn't it. MOS:LEADREL has further information. Ritchie333 15:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Categories: