Talk:Tim Smith (Cardiacs)

message: All that really needs to be said is that this man is a genius!
I concur!  "Tim Smith is a bloody genius"... What the hell else is needed, really?!? :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.125.60 (talk) 05:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I have completely revamped the Tim Smith biography page.  I have added more detail and a discography.  I am aware that more work has to be done.
Drterror666 (talk) 14:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Tim Smith Biography 

message: I've rewritten the intro and first few paragraphs to remove any weasle-words. Ironholds 05:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: Quite a lot of material on this page is being let down by vague or non-existent citation (in particular, the Influences section - how many of these bands have actually cited Cardiacs as an influence? I've tidied up that section in particular, but could other posters please consider either removing or verifying some of those names.
I noticed a few pages noted as references which, when read, did not support the sentence they were used as a reference for. I've removed those particular refs when I've seen them.
Also, beware of using anonymous/pseudonymous comments (or reviews on forums) as referenced support for stated facts. - Dann Chinn (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations and references

message: It was suggested back in November '08 that the page for the Sea Nymphs' "Appealing to Venus" reissue be merged with the page for its original release - but nobody has commented either way, so I thought I'd bring the discussion over her as the conversation seems slightly less dead. Any opinions...?  ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me, as this will strengthen the entry. - Dann Chinn (talk) 22:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appealing to Venus - proposed merge 

message: So somebody just pointed me to this article as a bit of a lost cause. I'm planning to, first up, get rid of all the first party sources. The massive, massive number of first-party sources. GAH. Then I'll get rid of anything that isn't properly sourced and not self-evident; like all the gushing nonsense about bands that haven't even heard of these guys being influenced by them. Once that's done, we'll see if there's even enough to justify an article and we can look at finding properly sourced information. Shouldn't be too difficult to be honest, just needs some due care and attention. -Rushyo Talk 13:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Editorial ...Trimming

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: upon what basis are the listed bands included in this 'family'? some sort of citation needs adding or else it's just hearsay/OR.
duncanrmi (talk) 05:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "cardiacs family"