Jump to content

Talk:Editors (band)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleEditors (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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 7, 2008Good article nomineeListed

Untitled

[edit]
  • "Their debut album The Back Room was released 25 July 2005, to critical acclaim, and broke sales records" - Which records are these? Best selling album that sounds like Joy Division in 2005? I guess that counts Giveitallforcheese 23:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Earlier I added a tidbit about the song Munich being on the videogame Saint's Row. This is surely a step in the right direction for them, right? Well, now it's gone....I'm putting it back and wondering why it was removed.--Dil337
  • This should not be the top hit when one searchs on Editors. There are many prominent editors and substantial categories of editors profiled on Wikipedia. Pleasantville 19:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's why there's a disambiguation page linked at the beginning of the article. Want to point to these prominent editors? Link to the aforementioned categories in that same bit. But this should be the first hit for "editors" because, well, that's their name and the general concept of an editor is covered under "editor". Drjayphd (talk) 06:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Editors thebackroom.jpg

[edit]

Image:Editors thebackroom.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Editors-logo.png

[edit]

Image:Editors-logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 09:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

[edit]

Melvo, the dates must be in the appropriate wiki format, be it "[[mmmm d]], [[yyyy]]" or "[[d mmmm]] [[yyyy]]". The article as it stood had a mix of these formats, which is not allowed per our MOS, and poorly formed versions that omitted some of the links. The use of the second style shown above is preferred here because it is an article about a band from Britain. violet/riga (t) 16:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GAN unsuccessful

[edit]

Sorry, a few too many issues for now. Hopefully these notes will help improve - give me a yell to take another look!

  • The infobox image caption could be more descriptive  Done
  • The lead should probably be split into 2 paragraphs - check out some other band FAs like Powderfinger and Silverchair for ideas  Done
  • Please move all free images to Wikimedia Commons (I can help if needed)  Done
  • First sentence should say when they formed  Done
  • References need better formatting. Try {{cite web}} and be sure to fill out accessdate and publisher, at least  Done
  • "The band were not always known by their current name," - not really needed, as talking about original names implies this.  Done
  • "tracks Come Share The View and Forest Fire." - titles of songs should be in "quotation marks" (albums go in italics)  Done
  • Try and use their biography on their website less, and other sources more  Done
  • "Onemusic Unsigned and received very good reviews." - what's Onemusic, and do you have a source other than the website call these reviews "very good"  Done
  • "They then changed the line-up" - how? Who left, etc.?  Done

There are issues with prose and referencing throughout...try and give the article a good read through and see what else you find. I'd be happy to take another look after you've done some work on it. Good luck, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've now resolved all the issues you have raised and I shall be renominating it proptly.Wikipéire (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GAN on hold

[edit]

Here I am again! :)

  • "Editors are a British indie rock band from Birmingham" - bands are generally singular, so "is", not "are"
"Are" is correct in British English. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Learn something new every day... dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but quickly realised it was taken" - the "quickly" isn't needed
removed. I've also restructured the sentence.Wikipéire (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Short paragraphs in the Formation Years (2000-2004) section - expand/merge?
I've expanded this section by adding more information.Wikipéire (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "followed in April of that year " - don't need to wlink the month, only do so if you have the exact date (eg. 6 April)
  • "After re-issuing "Bullets"" - you've already wlinked the song, only need to do so once
  • Same with Munich next paragraph
unwlinked all those.Wikipéire (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As evidence of the buzz the band had created in America, they played influential festivals in 2006 such as Coachella and Lollapalooza." this needs a ref
restructured sentence and added a ref.Wikipéire (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Editors at the Eurockéennes 2007" - I only see one person; say who it is
added description.Wikipéire (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ease up with quoting in the An End Has a Start (2007–2008) section - you should only really use one major quote, if that
removed second quote.Wikipéire (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That section in general could do with more sourcing...ends of paragraphs, and stuff like that
added about 4 or 5 new refs.Wikipéire (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the band's best ever single result outside of the UK." - highest charting, not best
changed.Wikipéire (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ollowing their first number, "Bones", Tom Smith said" - you've wlinked Bones before...check the whole article for this sort of thing
  • "Tom Smith announced that the band would be releasing "Bones" as the final single." - but you've already mentioned them releasing other singles...how is it the first (also, delink it)
removed the earlier time "bones" was mentioned so this wlink is needed. but have removed all the others which are done twice. It doesn't say first it says last.Wikipéire (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right...why cant I read...?
  • Refer to him as "Smith", rather than "Tom Smith", and the same for other people, throughout
done to a certain extent. first names were needed in 1 or 2 cases throughout the piece.Wikipéire (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that looks fine. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fansites rarely make useful external links
there's only 1 ref on a low importance piece of info.Wikipéire (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leave a note on my talk page when done. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 04:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done; nice work...now for some boilerplate...!

This GAN has passed, and this is now a good article! If you found this review helpful, please consider helping out a fellow editor by reviewing another good article nomination. Help and advice on how to do so is available at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles, and you can ask for the help of a GAN mentor, if you wish.

Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The second biggest British band of the decade

[edit]

"Editors are currently being lauded as the second biggest British band of the decade after Arctic Monkeys."

See, this is where the "WP: ANYTHING PUBLISHED BY ANYTHING BIGGER THAN SOME DUDE'S BLOG CAN BE CITED AS FACT" policy falls down. There is no way in hell Editors are "the second biggest British band of the decade" behind anyone, let alone Arctic Monkeys (who I like, but I think Radiohead might have something to say about it, let alone The Libertines or the rubbish but massively selling Snow Patrol). Because it's been published by ONE journo in ONE publication (and i'm going about this without even mentioning the rampant corruption in the British mainstream music press, especially the newspaper music pr...oh wait, oops) it warrants merit in the introduction. That is utterly and completely preposterous. Jamieli (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right its a bit OTT. I'll make it more specific in mentioning the Mail on Sunday so it won't be quite as 'preposterous' for your average reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mulacho (talk • contribs) 23:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British vs English

[edit]

The constant reverting between "British" and "English" to describe the band's nationality is getting quite ridiculous. I have started a section here in the misguided hope that it can be discussed properly, but I guess there's no need to discuss when you can simply revert back and forth, ad infinitum. No need to discuss, ignore all rules etc. The only edit I made was to make a "neutral" version with the nationality removed completely, but it didn't survive long so I gave up. I requested page protection, which was denied, and the edit war continues. The IP editor's edits are certainly disruptive, but as far as I can see no clear consensus has built against him/her, otherwise they would be receiving blocks by now for vandalism. Hence I think discussion is required. But I'll just talk to myself here for a while, you guys carry on reverting. --Jameboy (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still going on I see. Yawn. --Jameboy (talk) 20:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oxegen Image

[edit]

This article may be enhanced by one of my images located at Oxegen 2008. --➨♀♂Candlewicke ST # :) 11:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom or England

[edit]

Normally I wouldn't care if an edit of mine was undone, but considering it was the edit that got me into all the "trouble", I feel like I better justify it! Ever since my days of high school geography class many moons ago, it has been drilled into me that England, Scotland and all those weren't proper countries like we all used to imagine they were and they were part of a country in itself which is of course the United Kingdom. I came across this page by using the random article tool and looked around for any mistakes I could fix. I saw British as correctly being an adjective for this particular band and looked across and saw England as the country there were from. Am I right in saying that this doesn't match up? If they're British then don't their passports say United Kingdom? Shouldn't the article match their proper nationality? Othewise its just darn confusing! Why exactly are you insisting that England be shown?Cosiman (talk) 15:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are a British (nationality) band from England, like Winston Churchill is a British politician and statesman from England. Geographical locations on WP for the UK are given as constituent country. This is in keeping with other Biographical dictionaries, encyclopedias, most newspapers, textbooks, journals etc etc. It has widespread preference on WP whilst WP:UKCITIES gives guidance too. With regards to England and Scotland not being proper countries, have a look at countries of the United Kingdom. Furthermore, take a look at the Stafford article too, both here and at Britannica.
The issue of Stafford's geographic location is seperate to nationality. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But why is it that you say that geographical location stops at England? I had a look at the Britannica website and it says Stafford, England, United Kingdom. Would that not make the most sense? It mentions both.Cosiman (talk) 17:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's it's title, not the description in the prose. But the Britannica example is one of several points raised above. UK is redundant if England is mentioned. There's little to be gained changing this article when millions of others remain otherwise consistent. You could raise it at WT:UKGEO, but I suspect there will be considerable opposition to the change you seek. Indeed, it's partly why the distruptive User:Wikipéire was blocked - forcing through minority preferences on articles he liked. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

writing style / clarity

[edit]

What on earth does "This new sound was created by adding more textured layers to the songs as well as incorporating new forms of music into them" mean? Could this not be replaced by a sentence that actually describes the new sound, or explains more clearly how it was achieved? 84.198.246.199 (talk) 02:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

adding more to influences

[edit]

shouldn't more influences such as depeche mode, flock of seagulls, and other 80's influences be added to their musical style section of the article? because they have similar sound and inspirations as those artists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveg17mgtfie (talk • contribs) 07:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 02:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editors → Editors (band) – Editors is plural of Editor and should redirect to Editing. E-Kartoffel (talk) 20:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Editors (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, 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) 09:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Editors (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) 12:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Editors (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) 10:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Editors_(band)&oldid=1257717066"