Talk:The Romantics

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.

Biography: Musicians

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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 articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians.

Pop music

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Lisp?

Does the lead singer have a lisp? Or is that my imagination? tharsaile (talk) 14:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Is" vs. "Are"

The Romantics is a singular entity. The band is referred to as such throughout the article. It might not sound correct to the ears, but according to the rules of grammar, it is correct. Grammar is not determined by sound, but by adherence to the rule. A singular subject requires a singular verb.

Please refer to this grammar rules website: http://www.grammarbook.com/grammar/subjectVerbAgree.asp and peruse Rule 14. This article discusses the band as a unit, not as separate individuals acting independently of one another. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Buried Alien (talk • contribs) .

"The Romantics" is not a collective noun, it is a plural. As usual, AMG supports my version. "Building a local following with their live show, the Romantics issued a single on their own". [1] Rhobite 15:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AMG is an excellent musical information resource, but it is not an authority on matters of grammar. By what grammatical rule do we justify using "Romantics" as a plural in the opening sentence, but as a singular elsewhere in the article? A subject does not shift its number in that way. It must remain consistent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Buried Alien (talk • contribs) .

You are making this very tedious for me. Here are some more citations: "The Romantics are a foursome with two original members" ('80S STARS THE ROMANTICS RETURN TO THEIR FIRST LOVE - MAKING MUSIC, The Boston Globe, May 21, 2004, Friday, ,THIRD EDITION, Pg. E11, 744 words, By Steve Morse, Globe Staff). "And now the Romantics are back." (Morse) "the Romantics won back their copyrights" (Morse) "The Romantics Build on Rock's Primal Beat" (The Romantics Build on Rock's Primal Beat, The Washington Post, December 11, 1981, Friday, Final Edition, Style; C13, 201 words, Geoffrey Himes)

I suppose it's your turn to attack the Boston Globe and the Washington Post because they are not "an authority on matters of grammar". Also, could you please sign your comments in the future? Just insert four tilde characters: ~~~~ Rhobite 16:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are obviously of two irreconcilable opinions on this. Perhaps we need a third party to be an arbiter in this dispute?

~~~~ User:Buried Alien

It's very annoying that I spent time digging up all those references so that you could ignore them completely and continue reverting. Are you saying the Boston Globe, the Washington Post, and All Music Guide are wrong? I had hoped we could resolve this through discussion but if you continue to ignore me, we could go through the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process. Rhobite 04:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should. We both have firm positions on our views on this matter and neither of us is succeeding in convincing the other. Therefore, I'd welcome the input of a third party who has both the knowledge and authority to make a definitive decision on this. Buried Alien 06:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)User:Buried Alien[reply]

You are misunderstanding the purpose of dispute resolution. The ideal outcome would be if you acknowledged that you were mistaken, and agreed to stop revert warring. There is no third party who has the power to decide content disputes here on Wikipedia. Mediation is voluntary, and arbitration only deals with a user's conduct. It is obvious that you're mistaken; I have provided multiple references to the band's name being used as a plural, you haven't provided any relevant references to support your position. Why are you refusing to respond or even acknowledge these references? I'll repeat my question: Are you saying the Boston Globe, the Washington Post, and All Music Guide are wrong? Rhobite 17:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

30 years experience as an editor here. ~~Correct usage in the US is "are", in GB, "is".~~ My vote would be for "are". ~~American band, American grammar.~~ ETA: You're right about my having it backwards--apologies--though I wasn't thinking of collective nouns per se, but what? names of corporate entities? British usage would be, for example, Nabisco are planning a new brand of cookie, or MI5 are seeking a rogue agent. In the US one might say the Glenn Miller band is planning a comeback, but not the Beatles is planning a comeback. The specific sources you cite as references are reliable and authoritative. -Jmh123 22:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's backwards, actually - American grammar uses "is" for collective nouns, British grammar uses "are". Of course plural band names are not collective nouns, so that's beside the point. I agree with your conclusion. Rhobite 23:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coming here from RfC. I agree with Jmh123. Current usage treats a band name that acts as a plural, as a plural. "The Beatles", "The Rolling Stones", "The Beach Boys". Mick Jagger is a Rolling Stone, but Eric Clapton was a member of Cream. Therefore, The Rolling Stones are in China for a concert, but Cream was disbanded many years ago. It may be inconsistent, but anything else sounds wrong (at least to American ears). Powers 13:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a former American college English professor, I can say without hesitation that the correct grammatical phrasing is always "The Romantics IS". You are referring to a single entity made up of more than one person. But technically it is a singular noun. You would never say "The band the Romantics ARE comprised of four members: John, Mitzi, Fifi and Bubba." That sounds like you are talking about the word Romantic in plural. You would say "The band The Romantics IS comprised of four members. John, Mitzi, Fifi, and Bubba ARE the Romantics."

However, in my opinion, the debate here is not on what is grammatically correct, but instead on what is easiest on the eyes in terms of what is commonly accepted in modern English usage. And it is very commonly accepted for the grammatically incorrect word to be used. In fact, if you were to ask my opinion on the matter, I would say that you should use "are" (etc...), because this is what the layman would expect. Pacian 03:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not an English professor, but it seems to me you're changing the structure of the subject by changing "The Romantics" to "The band The Romantics". To me, "The band The Romantics" is indeed referring to the group as a whole, while "The Romantics" is referring to the members collectively. You say it's correct to say "The Romantics IS" in most situations, but the correct form of the following would be: "The Romantics ARE John, Mitzi, Fifi, and Bubba," right? I think, then, the justification is the silliness of having one situation where one says "The Romantics ARE" and another where one says "The Romantics IS". Powers 13:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase “the band the Romantics” is elliptical for “the band called ‘the Romantics’”; it is perfectly analogous to “the team the New York Yankees”. One does not properly say “The Yankees is in town.”, though one may say “The baseball team the Yankees is in town.” That's because, in these elliptical expressions, the subject is “band” or “team” (which, in fact, may take either a singular or a plural verb, depending upon whether one wishes to emphasize their underlying plurality — just as one may say “A number of men are coming.” though the grammatic subject is “number”). —Gamahucheur 09:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Popped in from RfC. English language is based on usage. We would never say, "The Beatles was at number one in the charts." It would always be "The Beatles were...". Same for any group name using the plural. I assume this is because John, George, Paul and Ringo are each classified as one Beatle and four of them as Beatles. Usage, whenever we talk about their activities, is to use a plural agreement in the verb. An exception would be if we were talking not about the term Beatles as referring to the individuals collectively, but merely to the label "The Beatles". See in the following example how the verb can change from one sentence to the next: "Some band names are puns. 'The Beatles' is one such band name. The Beatles were at number one..." Now try reversing it: "Some bands names are puns. 'The Beatles' were one such band name. The Beatles was at number one..." Tyrenius 04:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC opinion -- "are" should be used; we are referring to a number of band members collectively, not to their name. Tyrenius said it much better than I can.--Marysunshine 01:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usage doesn't proceed ex nihilo, and it is clear that some people would indeed say “The Beatles was at number one in the charts.” Rather than argue in a circle, one needs to invoke principles and analogies. —Gamahucheur 13:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Tyrenius did just that. Powers 14:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're an English professor, I hope that you would say "The band The Romantics comprises four members," not "The band The Romantics is comprised of four members." Dfan (talk) 21:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Don't you guys have anything better to do? It's English, not Latin. It's constantly in flux. Grammar provides a good basis for clear communication, but as long as there aren't any egregious errors you're bickering about common usage here, and nobody's served. Well, I'm served because I'm sitting here laughing my ass off at you two for sniping at one another over an article on THE Romantics. The ROMANTICS, people. If you put half the energy into improving the actual article with, y'know, INFORMATION that you do into your little feud here this'd be a kick-ass article. And now I expect you to snipe back at me and my colloquial use of "this'd". Go ahead. I need some more humour in my life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.26.197 (talk) 05:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Romantics-st-front.jpg

Image:Romantics-st-front.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 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 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 07:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Our Time

The BBC programme In Our Time presented by Melvyn Bragg has an episode which may be about this subject (if not moving this note to the appropriate talk page earns cookies). You can add it to "External links" by pasting * {{In Our Time|The Romantics|p00546ws}}. Rich Farmbrough, 03:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Additional citations

Why, what, where, and how does this article need additional citations for verification? Hyacinth (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Romantics. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081220020103/http://blog.wired.com/music/2008/08/judge-dismisses.html to http://blog.wired.com/music/2008/08/judge-dismisses.html

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) 04:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]