Talk:The Searchers (band)

message: Exactly whom, of the originals, continue as members?  There should be a clear list of membership. Thank You.hopiakuta 17:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually John has been the only original member since 1985 when Mike left. And there is a clear list of membership in the article. WWGB (talk) 11:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  1959 - 2006? 

message: I removed this link *The Searchers' Records because it was broken... here in case it comes back up 72.221.106.140 (talk) 06:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed link 

message: In the section The Searchers (band)#Band history, the birthplace of Frank Allen is listed as Hayes, Middlesex.  It is unclear to which of the two possible locations this should be resolved to. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Resolved → Hayes, Hillingdon. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthplace disambiguation 

message: Under the section ‘The Searchers in the US and in stereo’, (previously headed ‘Trivia’) I have removed the not NPOV, personal opinion, contention, unsupported claims, the long-winded, confusing, and the ungrammatical. After a necessary restructure of the still possibly unviable remaining information, there is very little left that warrants a separate section.
  
Due to the confusion of the previous text, the current edit may not be factually correct, as some dissection for possible meaning was necessary. I give this as one example of poor editing among many:  “....the US Kapp label issued all of their (sic) albums in stereo... “. Given that the subject of the sentence was “the US Kapp label”, did the editor really mean all records by all artists issued by the label, or all Searchers’ records issued by the label? Blog-style words and phrases such as ‘sloppy’, and ‘one wonders how’ and ‘so there's little reason to prefer the mono mixes’ are not encyclopaedic, unless they are a direct quote from a verified published source, that source not being a promotional web site, fan site, or blog.
Provisionally, I have changed the section head to ‘The Searchers in recording’ as when the original un-sourced confused jumble was removed, there was very little to do with the US, and very little to do with recordings for that matter. Perhaps an editor with good detailed knowledge of the history of the ‘ins-and-outs’ of Searchers’ recordings, with linked and verified sources, can make this section viable. As it stands, previously and now, it deserves to be deleted.
Acabashi (talk) 18:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article section: The Searchers in the US and in stereo, previously headed Trivia.  

message: It seems to me that they are all songs that the Searchers covered so that subsequent covers might have nothing to do with the Searchers. They recorded "Twist and Shout on their first album. Does that make El Rayo-X's version a Searchers' cover?  Are all subsequent versions Money (That's What I Want) to be laid at their doorstep too? The list will be almost endless if we go this route.  How about Brian Wilson's Sweets for My Sweet?  Etc, etc. etc.  Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, removed. WWGB (talk) 00:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am not at all happy with the section called "Cover versions of songs by The Searchers" 

message: The article mentions "pick-up groups" towards the end of the Band history section, what are "pick-up groups"? Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 13:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: See Pickup group. WWGB (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pick-up groups 

message: "Their first album, sung mostly by Jackson Meet the Searchers was released in August, 1963 and reached #2 on the British album charts by the next month.[4] A slightly changed version of it, including the song "Needles and Pins" hit #22 in the US album charts in June 1964.[5]"
Only four tracks out of twelve overlap. Five on the US album are from their second UK album and presumably the other three are either singles or were on the third UK album. I'd say that calling it "slightly changed" is incorrect. 71.190.92.212 (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meet The Searchers 

message: Hello - the reference below the discography refers to Knapp issuing the Searchers in stereo.  The lps were also issued in mono for I have a mono copy of "Meet the Searchers" - KL-1363.  OneHistoryGuy (talk) 06:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kapp issue of Searchers lp in mono also 

message: This article is short on citations and contains some inconsistencies. I’ve been searching relevant archive media articles and interviews, plus relevant published biographies and histories. I’d like to propose some updates based on information I’ve found. Every change I’ll propose will have supporting reference material. Does anyone have a strong opinion on whether I should post proposed changes on this talk page for discussion or just go ahead and edit the article? Ukebloke (talk) 16:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit away and we'll see what you do.  WP:BRD.  Just like on any other article.  7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article revision (October 2015) 

message: NB Talk:The Searchers (film) In ictu oculi (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I am unhappy with the decision that was taken on this. Just as the guy who apparently moved the page was surprised to see "The Searchers" as a disambiguation page, I was surprised that it wasn't one and believe it still should be. I can grant that the film article gets around a thousand views a day while the group gets "only" around four hundred, I don't think this proportion merits designating the film as an obvious primary topic. Since unanimous consensus is claimed (I'm not sure the editor concerned didn't round up some of his buddies, but who knows), I don't think I'd get anywhere protesting just by myself; but maybe if a group of editors took issue with the move that was made, we might be able to get it reversed. I guess I don't really care all that much, but I think the stature of the band is enough for it not to be relegated to relative nothingness. If nobody's interested in contesting the move, fine, I'll drop the matter. But if anyone is, please get in touch with me. Thanks. –Roy McCoy (talk) 05:32, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: The Searchers page move discussion