Jump to content

Talk:The Sweet

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

Article needs editing

[edit]

This band does have a website somewhere with all this information, yes? Wikipedia is supposed to provide a comprehensive summary of the band and their music, not everything that is known about them. Most of this information needs to go. I love the Sweet but this is way too much information. Definitely tldr. Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors (talk) 05:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gimmie Dat Ding

[edit]

I added a line for Gimme Dat Ding (album) in the discography, and another editor rolled it back, with an edit summary of "not a proper Sweet album". Fine, so let's talk about this.

Gimme Dat Ding (album) is a split album -- one side is Pipkins songs, the other other is Sweet songs. According to the Gimme Dat Ding (album) article lede: "Gimme Dat Ding is a split album by The Sweet (side one) and The Pipkins (side two), released on EMI's budget record label, MFP (Music For Pleasure) in 1970. It is named after the 1970 song "Gimme Dat Ding" by the Pipkins. Side one was given over to (then) fledgling pop band the Sweet and features the A and B-sides of what were three commercially unsuccessful singles (on Parlophone Records) before the band finally found fame with "Funny Funny" released by RCA Records..."

So, one interpretation of "not a proper Sweet album" could be either something like "The Sweet does not actually appear on this album, that article is wrong" or "It's a different band that happens to also be called The Sweet". Neither of these seem likely although I'm willing to hear more.

Another interpretation of "not a proper Sweet album" is "Well, it's a Sweet album, but it's not a proper Sweet album in that it's just a collection of some singles, not an real album put together as such with a bunch of songs designed to work together as an album, and produced with at least partial input from the band itself or its designated agent" or something.

I mean yeah, I get it, but I don't see that as as strong argument. Looking for instance at Gliding Bird, that article says "Though technically Harris' first album, she subsequently disowned the record and regards 1975's Pieces of the Sky as her first 'official' album". And it was released six years before her second album, she was pretty young (22), she may not have had all that much creative control, it's not really like her later work... nevertheless we do include it in her discography, and properly so IMO. Katy Hudson (album) is included in Katy Perry discography even though it was released under her real name, was released seven years before her second album, and is quite different from her later work (it is Christian rock/contemporary Christian music album). And so forth. All of these give some insight into the arc of the artist's public career.

I think we want to be pretty conservative about going down the road toward "I don't like this album, so let's not include it in the discography".

As to the "it's just a collection of some singles" argument (if that is what is meant), The Sun Sessions is just a collection of some singles never intended to be part of a cohesive album, and so are all "Greatest Hits" and "Best Of" albums I guess. So? They're still considered albums and are still listed in discographies. Including them provides useful data.

Another interpretation of "not a proper Sweet album" is "Well but it was not a complete album of just The Sweet; they shared it with another band". But I mean so what? It's still 1) and album which 2) contains hella Sweet material. If it was just one song in a compilation album then that album could be listed separately or maybe omitted. But the album is half Sweet. If you can't include in The Sweet's discography you can't include it in the Pipkins' discography either, and it'd be like the album doesn't exist. But it does.

Ultimately, I'd like to hear the answer to this: "Gimme Dat Ding (album) is an album of which one-half is by the Sweet and it collected their early singles, but we must not tell the reader about the existence of this album, and it will enhance her experience to not know about this album, because _________". What goes in the blank? Herostratus (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what I meant was "not a proper studio album". It's just a collection of early singles compiled with songs from another band. On the discography page, it is listed among the compilations and not the studio albums, so it should not belong here. This is a summary of the main studio albums, not a comprehensive discography of the band. JPGR69 (talk) 16:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Sweet. 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) 15:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 September 2020

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus is that current title is a valid natural disambiguation supported by sources and preferable to parenthetic disambiguation. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 06:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Sweet → Sweet (band) – Previous discussion in 2011 at Talk:The_Sweet/Archive_2#Sweet,_or_The_Sweet was inconclusive. On 11 January 2016‎ SilkTork moved the page Sweet (band) to The Sweet Per WP:NATURALDIS: "Natural disambiguation: Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly. Now that the categories have come up for speedy renaming, let's have a formal discussion on the name. Pinging the previous participants who are still active, E-Kartoffel and IbLeo. – Fayenatic London 20:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The band are known as "Sweet" and as "The Sweet". Sources used in the article refer to both names. We could use either name. Arguments in favour of using "The Sweet" are that the band have websites which are named "The Sweet" - examples: [1], [2], [3], [4]. They are on tour this year as The Sweet: [5]. The article has been named The Sweet for four years. In the band's most successful period, during which they became famous, they were known as The Sweet. We cannot call the article "Sweet" as that redirects to Sweetness, so we would need to disambiguate with parenthesis as "Sweet (band)", but such a disambiguation is only used "when none of the other solutions lead to an optimal article title" (per WP:QUALIFIER). Parenthetical disambiguation is clunky and unnatural. While someone could write "The Sweet" in an article and link it by simply and quickly using [[ ]], to link "Sweet" here would require writing [[Sweet (band)|Sweet]], and other - albeit minor, still additional - fixes, such as when adding a find sources template in the talkpage. Given that The Sweet is a commonly used name, used when the band were most popular and still used today, and is used in at least 50% of the sources, that it can be used on Wikipedia without any additional technical fuss, that it is the natural name, and by our own guidelines is the name we should be using, and is the current established name, it is the name I feel we should keep. SilkTork (talk) 09:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per SilkTork. I think the average person would type "The Sweet" into the search box and not "Sweet (band)". Any subtle differences about the name can be covered in the lead. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lineup

[edit]

I couldn't find a reference to where the current lineup is from. What's on their website does not match what's on wikipedia: https://sweet.thesweetweb.com/line-ups/ Quadrow (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

State of this article

[edit]

This article is in a sorry state. There is way too much that is completely unsourced, much of it is extremely trivial. For instance, I don't know how the reader is expected to follow, or care about, the detailed ins and outs of every musician who ever passed through the various incarnations of the band. All without any cites, of course. The names stream by, where they come from we do not know. So the article would be better for being rid of them.

There are also a number of unsourced claims that, had the subjects not been dead, I would have removed on sight. As it is, it does no service to their memory to have these remain without any supporting, reliable sources. A fair bit, by the way it is expressed, is hearsay.

The article has the air of a fan's perspective and research in more than a few places. Which is all very well, but Wikipedia is not the place to publish this. Some of it may be sourced to books in the bibliography section, but it's impossible to tell or verify.

I propose returning and doing a clear out of the unsourced trivia and contentious in due course. Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One man's trivia is another man's significant fact. But you do you champion and let the smugness grow. 2001:8003:8825:4600:E4C6:B88D:DB30:1D4B (talk) 11:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Scott's Sweet

[edit]

I propose that Andy Scott's Sweet be split into a new article. That is, if it meets notability to do so. It's more of a suggestion, the groups been going on for forty years, and have released many albums, and have an album (Full Circle) that was in the top 20 in Germany just this year. Haymrsapceman (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is is a bit of a mess

[edit]

There are two 'Sweet' bands. One in, primarily, US/Canada. One in, primarily, UK/Europe. There is currently no "Andy Scott's Sweet" (this name was dropped decades ago) or "Steve Priest's Sweet" in websites, concert billing, releases. This article looks like it's all been shoehorned in by a fan with a bee in their bonnet about something. The split and shared use of the name should of course be explicit and, perhaps, neither should take any 'precedence'. But a particular fan's view of "No Brian Connolly, no Sweet" (or similar) doesn't matter. Reality does. It needs further verification but I believe the last sentence in this piece accurately summarises: https://blabbermouth.net/news/andy-scott-blasts-other-version-of-sweet-band-which-has-nothing-that-ties-them-to-the-original-group 2A02:C7C:E4EF:F200:5D3C:AE32:C28F:A5B5 (talk) 19:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Sweet&oldid=1264638222"