Jump to content

Talk:Cutting Crew

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Similarity

[edit]

Has anyone noticed that the intro to (I Just) Died In Your Arms sounds like a slowed version of the intro to Toto's Hold the Line? Tyharvey313

It's tenuous - the overall sound is different ("Arms" is lusher, with some sampled instruments, whereas "Line" uses piano), and the Toto song does a trickier thing with the chords. They are both extraordinarily tedious songs, but this hasn't become a meme. -Ashley Pomeroy 22:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're no way similar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.52.223.36 (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Cutting Crew discography

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was merge discography. --George Ho (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not large enough, and only one album and one song are notable. Why should there be a separate discography of the less-notable band? George Ho (talk) 21:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep discography separate - Per MOS:MUSIC, the discography is a substantial portion of the Cutting Crew article and should be kept separate, hence the reason that it was probably split off in the first place. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discography is currently (including coding) 7k, and parent article is 9k. They are not long enough, especially in prose per WP:SIZE. The list started six years ago, and time has passed. Whoever created it was in the time when Wikipedia's server was just... slow and inadequately advanced. At today's standards, the Cutting Crew is a one-hit wonder band, so the reason to split the list six years ago no longer holds water. --George Ho (talk) 02:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - This means that the discography is almost the same size as the article is without it, and should therefore be split out. 5FDP discography and it's parent article total less than 100 kB. I think that WP:AFD is in order, to get the opinions of all of the correct people. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What? I don't grasp your interpretation. Each is below 40k, which means "Length alone does not justify division". Well, since WP:SIZE normally discusses prose, let's look at WP:SPLITLIST. Also, let's discuss what WP:splitting and WP:merging say. As for AFD, out of question. --George Ho (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Please read MOS:MUSIC#Discographies bullet 2, 'If the discography of an artist, group or work becomes disproportionately large in relation to the rest of the article, it should be split into a subpage list (preferably titled "<Name> discography").' --Jax 0677 (talk) 04:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did I forget to mention that it's a guideline, not a policy? As for "disproportionately", the list is NOT disproportionate enough, and it should never have been split in the first place. --George Ho (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I am using a widescreen monitor, so is your monitor a 4:3 or 16:9? --George Ho (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Assuming that MOS:MUSIC#Discographies bullet 2 is a guideline, that is my position. If both 5FDP discography and 5FDP are less than 40kB, why is there a separate discography page? I am guessing that it is because like Cutting Crew, the discography is the same size as the article is without it. The monitor that I personally use is not important. Without additional input, we will likely reach no consensus, which is what WP:AFD is for in this case, per WP:BDR. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I asked the monitor because, to me, re-merging the list does not make the parent article appear longer. And you are using the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. That's WP:BRD, and there is also Wikipedia:BRD misuse. --George Ho (talk) 19:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Response to third opinion request:
Much of this is a "Great Taste vs. Less Filling" debate, so here is my 3O. In this case a single article with the discography included is best for the reader. The actual disc listing portion may end-up greater than the descriptive text, but that really won't matter in a small article like this. The article needs more descriptive material. It is severely lacking in references. – S. Rich (talk) 05:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For an unsolicited opinion, I agree with George. The article would not be "disproportionately large in relation to the rest of the article" if the discography is included in the main article. What was done with another artist's article/discography is not relevant to this discussion. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 03:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from:

  • Charlotte Dillon & Andrew Leahey
  • Michael Sutton (AllMusic)
  • Doug Stone
  • Musician Magazine (September 2005)
  • USA Independent Syndicated Review (ROCKnPOP) Gavin Moser
  • Classic Rock Magazine
  • Mark Deakin - Insight Magazine
  • Jason Ritchie, Reviews Editor, Get Ready To Rock! www.getreadytorock.com
  • Sandy McDonald HFX MUSIC April 2005
  • Ron Foley Macdonald 2005 Halifax Canada


. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Peter James (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cutting Crew. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 20:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Name inspiration?

[edit]

Could it be their name has been inspired by The Crew-Cuts? --2003:71:4E16:4B88:B965:2F3C:900C:BD2B (talk) 00:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An error in the facts (chronology)?

[edit]

1985–1986: Formation ... Initially, the two made demos before bassist Colin Farley and drummer Martin "Frosty" Beedle joined in 1986.


1991–1992: Compus Mentus ... Farley and Beedle left the group in 1991 with no replacement


Former members ... Colin Farley – bass (1985–1993)


Farley joined Cutting Crew in 1986 and left the band in 1991 but was a former member from 1985 to 1993??? 2A02:8108:95BF:FD5A:2493:8EA2:F8E0:51E9 (talk) 11:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cutting_Crew&oldid=1209975471"