Talk:The Homosexuals

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.

Untitled

Despite having little major recorded output, this band is highly influential and I feel it should have an article on wikipedia. They are listed on allmusic and discogs.com and their records are for sale on [http://amazon.com/s/ref=sr_nr_i_8/002-6559624-8844841?ie=UTF8&keywords=homosexuals&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Ahomosexuals%2Ci%3Apopular&page=1 Amazon]. Furthermore, the record label on which their music has been re-released has its own article on wikipedia in which The Homosexuals are called "critically acclaimed," and the archive of the proposed deletion of an article on a side project of one of the band members mentions The Homosexuals multiple times as proof of notability. Re-releases of the band's music have been written about in The Village Voice, The Wire, Forced Exposure, Dusted Magazine, Pitchfork Media, and elsewhere. They meet WP:MUSIC criteria 2, 4, 5, and arguably 7. If Die Trip Computer Die is to be considered "notable," then they also meet criterium 6. --TeN 07:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, just include all that in the article. John Reaves 07:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the link to the unofficial discography as it is now a dead link. Unfortunately there doesn't appar to be any redirection...Datapanik (talk) 19:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Article today was given a notability tag. I believe, while the article definitely needs tightening, and sources added, there is little doubt that, given such, it would pass WP:BAND. While there has not been that much in the way of recorded output, mainly due to the band's defiant anti-professionalism 1) they were an important force in the early days of UK DIY, 2) uniquely disco-oriented as such, and 3) have toured internationally, and there will be press to back up all three. Wwwhatsup (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow

This reads like it was written on speed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.241.73 (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is in keeping with the Bruno Wizard persona! Rewrite is definitely needed to bring it up to Wiki standard. I'll extend the tagging to reflect that. Wwwhatsup (talk) 22:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it a serious cleanup. References for much of what remains would still be good. A lot of what had to be removed was subjective personal opinions, which has don't belong in the article, and whimsical writing stylings.Greg Fasolino (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]