Misplaced Pages

• Jun 2007 – May 2008
• Jun 2008 – Aug 2008
• Sep 2008 – Nov 2008
• Dec 2008 – Feb 2009
• Mar 2009 –

To start a new discussion section, please click here

WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for April 2009

The Alternative music WikiProject Newsletter Issue 25 - April 2009

"The other day I had these Jehovah's Witnesses come round to my house, and they tried to convince me that the Pope was the Devil's representative on Earth. So I told them that Jesus was the world's first communist. So they left. They were genuinely enraged.'" - Ian Brown Project news We collaborated on The Stone Roses (album), "Don't Speak", Indie rock, and Eddie Vedder during the past month. During the month of April, Slow Life, "Lost!", and Phantom Phorce were promoted to good article status. This month's "Recommended Alternative Album" is Stereolab - Chemical Chords (2008).

Editors User:WesleyDodds

SoxBot (talk) 10:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Bands

Please note: The rule of thumb is that a group acting as a unit is considered singular and a group of "individuals acting separately" is considered plural.

If the nouns were indeed referring to something which is plural, then "are" could be used. Though things like White Stripes and are not referring to individuals within being individually stripes which are white. Members of a band are simply so, members of a greater whole which acts as a single entity. Therefore, the band "is" going to play a show. Jack and Meg "are" members of a band which "is" the White Stripes. A member of the Pittsburgh Steeler on the other hand can act individually and is itself a Pittsburgh Steeler, as such the Pittsburgh could utilise both. The team (as a collection of players immediately so referred to) are going to play a game, or the team (as simply the entity which refers not directly to players) is going to Detroit.

Regardless, bands from the United States use "is" and bands from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland utilise "are". It is the established practice. 75.158.207.234 (talk) 11:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I should say White Stripes is not a plural noun. It is simply a noun. There is no difference between a band called White Stripe and a band called White Stripes, it is not referring to anything in plurality, rather simply the band name. It is not a collection of anything which the name embodies.

As for the Steelers, it is a football team in the same regard as the Tranmere Rovers is a football club. It is a single entity, which when not referring to its members as a collection of members, is itself. However, football players are capable of acting independently within the confines of their team and need not follow the organised method in which the team is designed to operate. As such, when speaking of the team as players who play, one must take into account the players act differently. Therefore, the Steelers are a team when we speak of such. Band members, while playing individually, cannot be separated from a greater whole. Members act as a whole, playing the music which the band as a whole has created. If a member of the band deviates from the music which has been organised (and such deviation is itself not and aspect of the band) then the member in question has removed themselves from what the band is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.158.207.234 (talk) 18:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Which would be the advantage of the a priori nature of language. One need not "show" anything to relate something about language, rather one need only utilise deductive reasoning.

1. A band is a single unit entity which is not defined by its constituent parts.

2. Band is an appropriate definition for The White Stripes.

3. Therefore, a single unit entity which is not defined by its constituent parts is and appropriate definition for the White Stripes.

4. Single unit entities not defined by constituent parts, are incapable of being referred to as a relation to such parts.

5. Therefore, single unit entities act as whole.

6. The White Stripes acts as a whole.

7. Therefore, The White Stripes as not defined by constituent parts is something which acts.

8. Therefore, The White Stripes is a band.

This is a valid argument, it is up to you now to discern whether it is also sound. 75.158.207.234 (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You have not shown such a defeating argument, rather only referenced sentences which may in fact not relate to what is in question. You would need to show band names such as The White Stripes to be plural of something. The very fact the name references the existence of multiple stripes which are white, does not necessitate the band relates to anything which is either striped or white. Indeed, what you have referenced does not deal with what has been outlined in the proof above. I should think to detail such a proof unsound, you would need to provide an account against number four, which you have not. 75.158.207.234 (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Skeleteen/Kyle Justin

Hey, that's understandable and I'm totally fine with that. I started the article before I joined the group but since I joined I haven't been editing it due to the policies about conflict of interest. I would just assume it be deleted. I didn't understand the purpose behind wikipedia's music project until now, and I don't feel the article is in anyway encyclopedic and is more promotional than anything. We're an up-and-coming band, we're getting out of the studio in a month and touring afterwards, so maybe we'll garner some worthy press. Wish us luck and good luck to you! –  Godblessyrblackheart  (talk)  16:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I started an article for my boyfriend Kyle Justin and he has expressed interest in having it removed from wikipedia, for many reasons, but mainly because we don't want to be lumped into a catagory of fame-junkies on wikipedia who self-promote and break the conflict-of-interest policy. Like I said, I didn't understand wikipedia until quite some time after I started the articles. Is there anyway you could nominate that article for deletion as well? They are way too self-promotional and bio-like. Most of the citations are controlled by the band or are simple non-major music blogs. The only newsprint I see is Orlando Weekly, which is only online now. Thanks! –  Godblessyrblackheart  (talk)  16:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Anti-vandalism

Thanks for the clarification (on my talk) about which timestamp you meant. This policy gives free passes to people who vandalize many pages very quickly before being caught, but that's how Misplaced Pages rolls. Whereas I would rather anon-block the entire Abdulaziz 212.138.0.0/16 immediately. - Frankie (talk) 18:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Great job dealing with vandalism at The Killers discography. Thanks! –M 18:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The Guidance Barnstar
		For not only offering an elegant and easy solution to a problem that has irritated me for years, but also taking the time to come over and convey it. Both helpful and kind. :) Moonriddengirl 11:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I am often most taken by those ideas that make me go, "Duh! Why didn't I think of that?" I didn't. I've been writing album articles for years, and I never have. So, thank you. Muchly. :D --Moonriddengirl 11:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply to deletion discussion

I know I should talk about The People from Planet Cheese on the talk page. And I did. I also mentioned it on my user page. Oxguy3 (talk) 02:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Silver

I'm still looking for work. Yep. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, up for sorting out the charts for "How Soon Is Now?"? Those myriad sections about the covers need to be condensed and merged, too. I really need to get on referencing the recording background while I still have the Goddard book on me. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

you reverted an edit i did...

hey JD554, you reverted an edit i did this morning. i copied and pasted information from two other articles to restart another article that was removed for some reason. i'm referring to the skeleteen article. i thought i did a good job of finding reliable sources and putting up references. i thought i added new references that didn't seem to be there before that were worthy, so could you tell me what i did wrong? is it just not notable, like is that what it is? because if that's a fact then that's a fact. but, i would like to see this article up there, at least part of it, in some form, because i believe this is a notable group. i feel that the band meet the notability criteria. the sources are worthy enough for wikipedia, are they not?

altsounds.com is an international alternative online music community and so is beatcrave (they do news, interviews, reviews and have a corporate office) and i think they're both considered reliable online news sources. (?) there are more but those are the 2 important ones i got from a google search. >>>>

71.72.231.204 (talk) 16:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

i just wanted to point out in case what i said seemed unfriendly, i'm just trying to figure this out and ask for help. thanks JD554! >>>>

71.72.231.204 (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I didn't assume you were being unfriendly. I reverted your change to the Skeleteen article because it had recently been deleted per this discussion. Of the new references you added, altsounds.com is a forum which contains user provided information and anyone can become a user, and beatcrave.com is a blog which appears to be run simply by music fans. Both of these are considered to be self-published sources by Misplaced Pages and cannot be considered to reliable sources. I hope that helps. I've replied on your talk page as well. --JD554 (talk) 06:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

jd, i understand what you mean with references that come from forums with user provided information, which anyone can become a user of.

beatcrave.com is not that, it's run by a staff of 8 editors (a head editor, 2 associate editors, and 5 others). though it is in blog format it's a website for music news, interviews, and such.

altsounds.com is a site run by 7 editors, 2 bosses and 5 associate editors. altsounds isn't blog format at all. i believe they both fit the criteria for the reliable sources policy you linked. if you could, please read their "about us" pages to verify that information.

so, with all this said, is there some sort of consensus we can come to about the article, with at least part of it up there? i believe the references fit the criteria and policies that you linked. and, i think the group skeleteen is notable, and i'd like to see them up here because they do a lot of good and charitable stuff. the other editors in the deletion-discussion you linked mentioned they considered it a "weak delete", and that it appears that the band is notable enough for wikipedia's standards. so, not to be long winded, what can we do about putting the article up or some mention of them, anything? i've been looking into other bands on here and some of the stuff i've seen is completely promotional, referencing myspace links and blogs and often having no citations. i didn't write what was up there, i simply gave it better references and edited it to make it more encyclopedic, because it deserves to be up there.

thanks for entertaining this discussion. it's appreciated.  :) i think i have a revolving IP address, so i will try to figure out how to register a name when i have more time. >>>>

71.79.14.213 (talk) 02:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't look back in anger single release date

You changed DLBIA's release year to 1995 on the Wonderwall page...but check the WTSMG page, DLBIA was released on February 19th, 1996. Yes, the song itself came out in 1995 on the album, but the single came out in 1996.Kohran (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

A Message (of Anger!!)

Yo idiot, why did you delete the "Glass of Water" page?? Huh?? it took me like an hour to find good information and put it on there. Don't delete any of my pages again. You hear me Dipstick??. Sincerely--Das Ansehnlisch (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)