# Talk:Geogaddi

Would one pronounce it "Gee - o - GADDY," or "Gee - O - gaddi?" (The capitalized syllables would have the emphasis)

I don't believe it's ever been clarified; they have specifically left the meaning of the title ambiguous.  Personally, I use the former pronunciation. Pimlottc 13:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It's disastrous. Somebody simply quoted several media critics and slopped them all together. If somebody ever has the opportunity, he or she should tidy that portion up. I can't do it at the moment because I'm quite busy, but maybe I will in the future if no one else does.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutterbutterz95 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC) 

Apparently someone thought it a good idea to bastardize a well written Boards related article by removing information relative to the record, including its thematic concept. This edit can only be undone manually, obviously, and while the unsourced information should not be retained, I believe far more properly sourced information was cut out than necessary. The point is to be informative, at least enough so that your average listener doesn't need to head on over to a band-specific wiki to get information that has a place here - the quote describing the concept behind the record is not exactly "trivia", even if it is not absolutely necessary - there is no reason to cut down the relevant, well written and sourced pieces of information. Countless albums of varying notability follow the standard format that often includes at least one section for information re: theme, tone and composition, influences, events that occurred during the conception and production of the album, etc. - this is preferable.
The article should be improved upon with the omission of that which is not relevant or sourced and that's about it. I would suggest working to restore the article to its previous state with that in mind this time around. I would also suggest that 
Just my two cents. I would also like to suggest the genre remains as it is, despite the fact that it is effectively without a genre, as requiring sources for these labels (applied not by the band but by other publications or critics here, which apparently makes more sense than just putting down what the consensus is) means that in most cases, you can't say much more than "Boards of Canada" in response to the genre. The previous descriptions of Ambient Techno/IDM, Dark Ambient and Downtempo are all perfectly applicable, just as much as any other similar descriptor, but it is better the 'genre' stays "Electronic", as someone will unquestionably cry "genre warring", which remains one of the most pointless and redundant things people do around here, but whatever.
-Swim Jonse (currently not logged in)
72.200.69.99 (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Swim Jonse: We might as well ping the person who made the edit you're talking about, Andrzejbanas. It doesn't look like any of the material that was sourced was removed -- except for one line which cited only a forum. One could argue the red pen was pressed a little hard, but in general the removals don't look inappropriate. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Pretty much what was said above by Rhodo! Whether or not the information was correct, valid, or well written. Its unsourced and was placed there, had tons of time to be sourced, never was. So it should be removed. If you want it back, find the source instead of trying to support articles that fail WP:RS and WP:OR. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Geogaddi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061121001928/http://www.boardsofcanada.com:80/discography.html to http://boardsofcanada.com/discography.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)