Talk:The Smiths/Archive 1

message: More so than the Sex Pistols?  Or Led Zeppelin?  (I know most Smiths fans, including myself, aren't into heavy metal, but LZ and Black Sabbath have been hugely influential on a very large number of rock bands).  I've just removed a few of the more over-the-top claims, and I think this also needs to be toned down.  The Smiths attract a certain kind of over-dedicated fan, and this article should be encyclopaedic, not a gushing fansite.  "Pioneers of indie music" is another dodgy phrase - there's a reasonable case for Buzzcocks having been pioneers five years before the Smiths started, but the Smiths signed to a label which had been putting out indie music for years already.  If you're defining "indie" stylistically that's also debatable. --  ajn</span> (talk) 23:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Most influential rock band after the Beatles" 

message: The word "indie" was already in use when the Smiths formed, so this is clearly not true.  If people are going to insert claims that the Smiths were the first this, or the most important that, they need to provide some sort of reference - this may seem a bit anal, but Wikipedia is intended to be an encyclopaedia, and if you think the Smiths were important, sticking to the quality of information expected in an encyclopaedia is important.  If they really have been (incorrectly) cited as the first "indie" group, where and by whom?  --  ajn</span> (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, good call. --Hn 10:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  First "indie" group 

message: I'm after opinions as to whether a singles gallery would work on the page. It would be quite a few images (16? 17?) but there are some really, really nice covers there and they do sum up the aesthetic qualities of the band quite nicely. Thoughts? I'm prepared to do the legwork if there's no strong objections and we can always get rid of it if it doesn't work I suppose. --Hn 02:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Singles gallery? 

message: Having listened to the Editors album, I must say there's an undeniable influence there. I think they belong on the "influenced by" list...any objections???
Chris 1127 10:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there's already too many groups listed to be honest. It's appropriate for a page on The Editors, but I don't think it really is for a page on The Smiths. --Hn 00:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editors Influence 

message: I am fairly certain that the Smiths did NOT reunite. I believe that was just a rumor. Is there a link to an article proving that they did in fact reunite? --jc2k6
*They have not reunited. Folkor 05:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reunion 

message: I think the Wiki should include the compilations made by WEA; i.e. BEST .. (1), BEST .. (2) and The Very Best of The Smiths.
I too was surprised that these were not included in the discography. Were they released against the wishes of the band members? If so, that in itself would not preclude them surely? Vans74 11:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and so have added all of the above plus the 1995 compilation Singles.  MFlet1 11:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WEA Acquisition of Smiths catalogue 

message: :EMI should not be listed under record labels.  Although the band signed to EMI in 1986, they split up before releasing anything on that label.  In the UK all Smiths records came out on Rough Trade originally and have since been re-issued on Warner Bros.  The only exception to this is post-1992 compilations which have always been on Warner Bros.  MFlet1 11:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  EMI 

message: According to his obituary in The Times, Scott Piering managed The Smiths for 3 albums. If this is true, and as Piering now has an article, you might want to mention it/link to him. --kingboyk 14:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Scott Piering]] 

message: I moved this here from the article page:
This could also be a reference to Dave and Maureen Smith (Maureen was Myra Hindley's sister), who both feature heavily in Emlyn Williams's indepth book about the Moors Murders, "Beyond Belief". It is clear that Morrissey was influenced by this book as evinced by the song "Suffer Little Children", and it is well known that Morrissey was and is fascinated by these tragic and most awful murders.
Unless we can be provided with some strong verifiable citation confirming that, out of the millions of Smiths in the world, this one (the married name of a Moors Murderer's sister) was the one the group had in mind, I think this has to stay out of the main article. "Suffer Little Children" is already mentioned in the article, so really this content is only adding the claim about the band's name, plus somewhat superfluously plugging a book (it seems to me).--DaveG12345 19:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's often mentioned as a tangential possibility that informed the name choice but it's not primary. --Tothebarricades 06:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, shouldn't Suffer Little Children be referred to as from their debut rather than as a B-side?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.36.61 (talk) 22:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncited claim re band name origin 

message: The Smiths are widely recognized to have had a major influence on the Britpop movement, which is not purely "feelgood" music. Regardless of whether one considers The Libertines to be Britpop, they have certainly been influenced by The Smiths. Members of The Libertines often declare as much, notable music reviews often claim this to be the case, and a discerning ear can hear it to be true. Dunne409 08:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Libertines/Britpop 

message: That timeline is worthless. Dear god. rvilbig
:I agree -- The Smiths had, for the most part, the same line-up through their tenure together. What exact purpose does the timeline serve? ――Anthonylombardi 00:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, that's two movements to remove the timeline -- unless somebody else disagrees & provides a reasonable argument, I'm doing away with it within the next few days (pending further opposition). ――Anthonylombardi 22:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline 

message: in the singles section, it's not mentioned how the smiths released " the headmaster ritual" from "meat is murder" as a 12"single in germany. also released as a 12"single on orange vinyl was "some girls are bigger than others" , from the "queen is dead".also in germany. Wampazz 20:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The discography section only lists UK releases.  MFlet1 11:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 more singles 

message: The use of images not in compliance with our fair-use criteria or our policy on nonfree content is not appropriate, and the images have been removed.  Please do not restore them. -- Merope 18:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey - wait a minute! "Please do not restore them"? How about "let's discuss them"? That's more in keeping with "our" policy, I would've thought. Thanks for playing the online cop. But "our" policy obviously involves "us", I would've thought. A key aspect of the art of the Smiths is their cover art - no understanding of the group can be complete without an appreciation of their record sleeves, all commissioned and designed by their lead singer, as explicitly referenced by the article itself. This ain't Blink 182 we're talking about here. This is serious symbiosis of music and cover graphics. So - please feel free to respond below, thanks. But please do not just delete a bunch of stuff without justifying yourself in rather better terms than "I have spoken - Please do not restore them". Thank you. :-) --DaveG12345 01:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Our policy on fair use images is pretty cut and dried, I'm afraid.  You can check out WP:MUSTARD, specifically WP:MUSTARD#Discographies, or a much more detailed explanation can be found here.  I admit that I was copying and pasting the same warning on to several pages, hence the lack of a personal touch.  Individual album covers can still be used on the articles about the album itself, so there's no real harm done.  At any rate, I have removed these images again, per the aforementioned policies.  -- Merope 05:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discography - Fair Use 

message: Is that really appropriate for an encyclopedia? Maybe it's just me, but I find it a bit fansite-ish. Anyone else? faithless (speak) 23:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox logo picture 

message: I started the article The Smiths – Cover artwork some weeks ago. This article described the records' motifs. It was deleted by Majorly. There was no deletion request and no information on my discussion page as author. Please see the Deletion review. Thank you. -- Simplicius 15:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Smiths' record covers - deletion review 

message: It would make a lot more sense to replace the 'Shoplifters' live pic with a 'Strangeways' cover. And also the autographed poster is too similar to the first album cover and I think it's unnecessary. It seems a previous 'Strangeways' pic was deleted, but presumably a pic could be uploaded and used under fair use. SteveRamone 01:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: What prevents me from trying this myself is the fact that I don't have access to books about the subject. What do people think? There are many, many online resources, but not having the books is kinda outwith the Alt Rock WikiProject's standard.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 00:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Google Book search will allow you some access to the books (I used it during the COTW on "This Charming Man"). There's also a lot of sources available online. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  To go about making this a possible FA 

message: Weren't The Smiths from Stretford/Salford, both in Greater Manchester, not the City of Manchester? -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably correct, but in general use, "Manchester" means "Greater Manchester". Like saying Spurs are a football club from London.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.164.105 (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Uggh I hate Gr8er Manchester. And I hate the implication that Salford is part of Manchester. Salford is a City - in its own right. As is Bolton, Wigan, Oldham, Rochdale, Stockport, Bury... they are in Lancashire. Check a map. 216.227.250.50 (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking on any map made after 1 April 1974 will show that Salford, Bolton, Wigan, Oldham, Rochdale and Bury are in Greater Manchester. It is over 37 years since any of them were in Lancashire. Stockport has never been in Lancashire. 31.64.17.1 (talk) 11:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manchester? 

message: Pardon my ignorance... 
OK, just found this link about how they met in a clothes shop
http://reelaroundmanchester.tripod.com/id1.html
Is this true? Anyone know more?
It's quite a crucial historical moment in music that is lacking in this article...
92.6.195.171 (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  How did Morissey and Marr meet? 

message: Can't help thinking there should be a way, within the infobox, of distinguishing the "classic" line-up of the band (Morrissey, Marr, Rourke, Joyce) from the other members who were in the group fleetingly - when people refer to the Smiths they're not usually including Dale Hibbert in that.
I tried to do this by putting the main four under "current members" and the others under "former members" as per the Beatles article, but this is wrong apparently.  MFlet1 (talk) 12:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't need identifying in the infobox, it is in the prose of the article. --JD554 (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Line-up 

message: just because in america people refer to some stuff like paisley uunderground like "jangle pop", you cant translate that to smiths as "indie pop" , their early sound, sure influenced lots of bands, but they are not indie pop in anyway.
at least "indie rock", and even that on the british terms what that mean (nothing to do with little fame , obviously)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.73.162.246 (talk) 12:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The previous discussion concluded that it should be included, I see no valid argument or consensus here to say it shouldn't. --JD554 (talk) 11:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Indie pop. --JD554 (talk) 12:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indie pop 

message: I don't see why Jangle pop can't be included in the genre list in light of Alternative rock being already listed, because Indie pop is also a sub-genre of Alternative rock.  The Smiths are well known as pioneers in the genre of Jangle pop.  It's even mentioned in the article.  For a relatively underground genre, The Smiths are one of its biggest and most successful examples.  Is there an identifiable wikipedia policy that favors listing all music by genres that are as generic as possible? Thorburn (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been exactly one month since I posted my concerns over including Jangle pop in the genre list.  So far, my discussion has gone unanswered and when I make the edit to the article I have been almost immediately reverted by anonymous ips with few to no edits, save for The Smiths article.  So far only JD554 has been the only registered user to remove my edit and recently claimed there was a consensus against my edit.  For someone with so many contributions under their belt and barnstars, JD554 has yet to make any mention in this discussion topic.  I don't want to jump to conclusions, given this user's many contributions, but the lack of any meaningful discussion on this issue and the many anonymous ip reverts lends me to suspect this user is simply using sock ips from proxy sites in order to avoid a real discussion.Thorburn (talk) 08:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the history again, I'm not the only registered to user to remove it. IPs are allowed just as much of a say. We simply don't need another genre, the primary genres this band are known for are covered by Alternative rock and Indie pop. Jangle pop is a little-known genre that isn't of much interest to the majority of readers and so doesn't need to be highlighted as so important. You say you don't want to jump to any conclusions, and the do so. If you want to accuse me of socking, feel free. --JD554 (talk) 11:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

text: The Smiths had jangly guitars on occasion, but they weren't jangle pop. Jangle pop was a primarily American style, ie. R.E.M., Let's Active, etc. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jangle pop 

message: This has already been decided, if you read above. There is no reason to change it to indie rock.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.241.105 (talk) 02:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Smiths ARE indie pop 

message: Anyone care to upload the image for their self-titled album? Appears to have been deleted Titan50 (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: --JD554 (talk) 07:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-titled album image 

message: I'd like to remove - or greatly condense and reposition - the Chloe Veltman quotations that end the article. They express an odd, highly opinionated view by a non-noteworthy writer that Morrissey's cultural influence is limited to The Smiths. Their positioning gives them the added emphasis of appearing to be a conclusion. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chloe Veltman 

message: should probably only include morrisey and johnny marr, as the others were paid 'a wage'like session musician and morrisey even expressed that 'theres only 2 members in the smiths', himself and marr 90.199.157.143 (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  members 

message: There is a sentence following this  saying, "Relations between Joyce and Rourke cooled significantly as a result of Morrissey's statement which claimed that Joyce had misled the courts. Morrissey claimed that Joyce had not declared that Rourke was entitled to some of the assets seized by Joyce's lawyers from Morrissey."
I've got two questions:
1. What does that mean exactly?
2. Where's the proof?
Unless I'm mistaken that sentence is supposed to mean that relations between Joyce and Rourke became sour as a result of Morrissey's statement. However, the two of them went on to document their experience in The Smiths in a DVD called Inside the Smiths, which I have. And the two of them seemed pretty tight. 
Or am I missing something here? Shaneymike (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BRD encourages you to change the article. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that part should be taken since there's no reference to back it up. So if nobody objects, I'll go ahead and do it. Shaneymike (talk) 23:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Court case 

message: I'm pretty sure that a lot of the songs listed in the Videos section did not have promotional videos. I don't think they started doing promo videos until (from memory) the third album, although there were some recordings for TV programmes. So where do all these in the list come from? --Michig (talk) 19:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Videos 

message: The "repackaging" criticism seems rather tendentious. For example: Hatful of Hollow is adduced as an example...yet there are no recordings in common between it and the first album. The songs in common are completely different recordings. That's not "repackaging." It was quite common in those days for singles to be different mixes, even different recordings, from album versions (more in Britain - but in the US, the single of R.E.M.'s "Radio Free Europe" is different recording from the Murmur version). 2fs (talk) 02:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Repackaging"? 

message: The adjective ‘Strident’ is used in two consecutive paragraphs. 203.38.100.131 (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: that is quite strident writing!OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 00:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repetition 

message: The Smiths are a notable jangle pop band, perhaps the most notable to ever exist, so can I garner some support to add it to the genre list? I would personally like to see it replace alternative rock. Lachlan Foley (talk) 19:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right and there are indeed some sources that label the Smiths as "jangle pop" (, ) and I'd support its inclusion; however, I also think that alternative rock should stay. (, , ) Myxomatosis57 (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of jangle pop to genres 

message: Made the following addition to the Visual Imagery section: "Their relatively plain way of dressing is on full display in the recently published photography of Nalinee Darmrong, who followed and photographed The Smiths for substantial portions of their touring schedule during the summers of 1985 and 1986." 
The addition was subsequently removed as a violation of the external link policy, but I'm not sure what part of the policy it violated. I linked to a gallery of newly collected Smiths photos that were taken in 1985 and '86 but kept private by the photographer until just few months ago when they were published in a book and displayed in an art gallery in Washington, DC. 
These previously unavailable photos of the band at the height of their fame capture a significant time in Smiths history, so I thought they'd be a welcome addition. I read the external link policy before I contributed, and this seemed like a case where I had a relevant resource (the photos) that could not be brought onto the page because of copyright, and that it would therefore be OK to link to them. My questions are 1) have I misinterpreted the policy? and 2) is there an acceptable way that I can add this resource to The Smiths' entry? 
I have no affiliation with DCist or the photographer in question, so there's no conflict of interest here, and this is not an attempt at advertising or promotion.
Here's a link to the edit in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Smiths&oldid=731545114
Mrjoethurston (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The external link guideline applies to the external links section, whereas you made your addition to the visual imagery section. When links are added generally within article text, they should do so only when being used as references to verify statements in the text, and it is difficult to see what information can be used from the link you provided, as, apart from the pictures, it is primarily a synopsis of the photographer's career, and is anyway unlikely to be regarded as a reliable source. It is also difficult to see how adding the link within the external links section would be acceptable, as it does not seem to pass point number one (i.e. it does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it were to become a featured article). What the article really needs is similar images to the ones in the Darmrong link, but not under copyright and hence placeable directly within the text. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 16:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newly available photos of the band during their peak years ('85 - '86) may make a good addition to the Visual Imagery section 

message: All through the text, The has been placed with lower case "the".  This is incorrect.  "The" is part of the band name and should be capitalized.
Daniel Burke (DLPB)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.22.158 (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Smiths Title 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on The Smiths. 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/20080926031909/http://foreverill.com/disc/heaven.htm to http://foreverill.com/disc/heaven.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050828192036/http://www.exclaim.ca/index.asp?layid=22&csid=1&csid1=1375 to http://www.exclaim.ca/index.asp?layid=22&csid=1&csid1=1375
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110416084408/http://www.thecribs.com/news.php?id=219 to http://www.thecribs.com/news.php?id=219
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/688N0ArXW?url=http://www.gigwise.com/article.php?contentid=15239 to http://www.gigwise.com/news.asp?contentid=15239
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/688N3BRQk?url=http://www.gigwise.com/article.php?contentid=18006 to http://www.gigwise.com/news.asp?contentid=18006
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/688N5mo0p?url=http://www.side-line.com/news_comments.php?id=26177_0_2_0_C to http://www.side-line.com/news_comments.php?id=26177_0_2_0_C
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Either the band's core line-up (Morrissey/Marr/Joyce/Rourke) should be listed here, or all other minor/temporary members should be included (as outlined in the Members section of the article). While Gannon's contributions to the band are probably somewhat more notable than other temporary members, I don't think they are notable enough to be listed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmio78 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There were no other full members of the established band. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove Craig Gannon from infobox? 

message: The band name - is it in reference to the British government's database identifier tag for individuals, rather than using the terms subject or citizen? -Inowen (nlfte) 07:11, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name