Talk:U2/Archive 4

message: Would anybody mind awfully if I took the flag down? I recently removed the Union Jack from The Clash and I think the same argument I used there applies here as well. Flags seem more appropriate on say national football teams and the like. U2 are a national symbol of Ireland, but I do not see them as being particularly nationalistic; indeed they are internationalists. --Guinnog 20:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: good idea. 'lower' the flag please. Merbabu 11:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done it. --Guinnog 17:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well done for listing all those examples, but there's the small matter that we don't use Wikipedia itself as a reference point. - Dudesleeper 20:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not talking about RHCP's flag here but about whether this article on U2 should have one. The state of one article should not influence the state of another, unless a policy or guideline exists to point in a particular direction. I'm not convinced that is the case here. Wikipedia shouldn't be self-referential or operate on precedent, but on consensus formed by discussion. See also this. --Guinnog 09:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: hear, hear - we are not talking about any other article. As i said in my removal, precedence the worst justification for anything. Yes, you are correct - people's support for removing something from this article, doesn't mean they are interested in removing it from others, nor is their any obligation to do so. Merbabu 09:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Believe what is "worthy of an encyclopedia"? Look at it this way... should we do something, no matter how pointless, simply because it has been done elsewhere? If it adds no value then it should go - even if it does no harm. It's a flag. What benefit does it give the article?Merbabu 11:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't say it's aesthetic at all. Flags in the infobox are too prominent and draw the eye away from the text. - Dudesleeper 13:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: We seem to have a problem getting you past comparing with other articles. Therein lies the problem. - Dudesleeper 13:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Edit conflict: :Please discuss this article. Yes, i think changing other U2-related articles would be a good idea, but I have refrained from this as no doubt it would be pointed out that this is a violation of WP:POINT. Merbabu 13:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no policy idea that I know of, but it would be a good idea on not using the flags for the infoboxes. It will bring up issues that are certainly not needed on Wikipedia. We already know where they are from, why need a flag to denote it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hear hear. I've attempted to kickstart a more centralised debate at this page and I hope you may feel able to join it. --Guinnog 19:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag 

message: This was recently added. I don't think it is necessary. In fact, is there already such a list on wikiepdia? If not, it can be created and the article directed there.Merbabu 11:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of Grammy awards

message: I've expanded the campaigning section as was requested during the FA nomination. Please give it a look-see and ADD REFERENCES for me (only fair, because chances are I've added a reference to your writing, if you've written for this article!). Wikipedia brown 02:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is VERY long. I'd say almost too long. While this would suit an article on Bono I think it overwhelms other more important musical aspects. Ie, there is only 1 or two short paragraphs on Acthung Baby and The Joshua Tree.  What they did as a band is actually quite limited, apart from playing many benefit concerts over the years. I am not sure though that just listing them is the way to go. For example, I suggest the Nicaragua visit should go in the Joshua Tree bit as it's significance was not really campaigning but its influence on Bono had a huge impact on the Joshua Tree (so he reports anyway!). PLease don't misunderstand me, this section is a whole better now after the expansion and no doubt involved a lot of work/time (THANKS!), but it probably needs some refinement and polish. I will have a look soon myself.  Merbabu 00:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wouldn't mind if the solo work section of campaigning was sent to the individual articles, and the other stuff tightened up a bit. That should make it short enough that it doesn't overwhelm the article. As for the Nicaragua visit influencing JT, I think there really needs to be that section called "Style and Themes" where it is discussed or this should be mentioned under the Joshua Tree subheading of the History section. The reason is that I think this section should be about U2's humanitarian work and should not have any specific information as to how their campaigning or travels affected their music. By the way, no need to say thanks Merbabu, the satisfaction of having written something that somebody someday may find useful is why I do this. Wikipedia brown 06:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Campaigning section is now LONG AND BORING 

message: This is the second time this article has been nominated in only a few weeks. Both times it has been done unilaterally and without consulting other editors. It is far to premature and i doubt very much it will get FA. If it does, then FA is meaningless. On the other hand, the current FAC is getting a lot of useful comments and attention, the majority of which i believe should be implemented. (while the peer review process didn't get much feedback at all). 
Please consult other editors before nomination again. thanks Merbabu 02:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I really should've consulted folks before nominating. Looking back, there were two reasons I didn't think to do it. #1, someone had nominated earlier without any discussion, and #2, the comments that came from that FA nomination led me to believe that by just fixing the problems highlighted there, it would be clockwork to get it through the process. I wish more people had weighed in in that first nomination to highlight the structural flaws with the article. If they had, I wouldn't be so quick to nominate it again. Anyways, I was a bit too overzealous (and naive in thinking that it was so simple to make an article a FA), and for that I apologize. Wikipedia brown 06:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to apologise. I will respond further in the next day or so. I think we can get it there, but needs lots of work. At least the two FAC's (particularly the most recent one) did give us good ideas. Merbabu 04:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Current FAC

message: There seems to be a fair bit of disagreement over what the info box should contain. I have two issues:
*My opinion is that the info box should show the band members main roles. This is fundamental information – I’d suggest even more so than a list of albums or formation dates. Thus, such a prominent position is justified. There is, to my knowledge, no other mention of this in the article. The only justification so far given is “every other article is like this” – well, precedence is the dumbest of all reasons – why should we do something nonsensical simply cos others do it? Also, a recent reason for its omission was that people "disagree" on it content. its amazing what conformity (as distinct from a valid reason) can justify.
*However, I do not believe that Bono’s harmonica playing should be there. This a rare thing when considered over the band’s whole career. I can only think of 3 songs where the harmonica is used. One of those songs hasn’t been played for almost 20 years, one was recently resurrected and then put back out to pasture (Running to Stand Still) and Desire, well it’s common enough but doesn’t mean that Bono’s harmonic playing is actually a notable role for him. He also plays tambourine or maracas on the odd song, and both Adam and Larry play keyboards on one song on the last tour. I doubt anyone suggests we should put those in. The inclusion of the harmonica gives it way to much emphasis, giving the wrong impression. Wikipedia does not have to list EVERY fact, only NOTABLE facts. Its inclusion pro--Merbabu 04:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Their main roles should go in the main text ("vocalist Bono, guitarist The Edge..."), as is the standard elsewhere. Their less-prominent roles should go in their own articles. Your going with "common sense" over the infobox guidelines opens it up to abuse, which is largely what you're doing. - Dudesleeper · Talk 04:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my experience, accusing good faith editors of "abuse" is not the most effective way of influencing them. Perhaps you should make the changes to the main article, rather than simple deletions. having said that, precedence is still the lousiest of justificationsMerbabu 04:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article was fine as it was until you had your brainwave. Unfortunately, your gratification over your brainwave is clouding your correct thinking. I've stated my case (based on protocol), so I'll delete as necessary. 'Night. ;) - Dudesleeper · Talk 04:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My 'brainwave'? I'm not sure what you are referring to. Merbabu 05:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: There's no reason to simply put "vocalist", "guitarist", etc. in the main article and have nothing in the infobox that more accurately defines the band members' roles. Even in most of the bands' CD booklets, the roles that are listed in the infobox are as they are listed in the booklets (minus Bono's guitar-playing, which isn't very crucial). I don't see the big deal that Dudesleeper has with keeping the specific roles within the infobox. I suggest he finds something better to do with his time rather than sitting at his computer and throwing a hissy fit when someone touches "his" precious infobox. Cry about it, seriously. - RattleandHum 04:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: there's a list of artists that have made cover versions of their songs, presumably the one's who's covers were a bit more famous or well known, yet, no where does the article mention mary j. blige's collaboration with u2 with 'one' which charted pretty well.... any explaination? Jgrizzy89 04:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be notable in its own right, but is it really notable to the story of U2 and hence to this article? Merbabu 05:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the cover version of The Chimes notable? Because if it is, than the Mary J. Blige cover version definitely is. Especially because The Chimes are seriously only known for about two songs. Plus the fact that Blige won Grammy Awards three times and is widely known as the "Queen of Hip-Hop Soul". That seems more a bit more influential. However, The Chimes' cover version did go to number one on the chart, I think it might still be worth noting U2's influence stretches even to R&B with someone with high credentials in that realm... It's up to whoever else feels it good to add. I will not add it if there is any controversy over it... U2 is definitely not mine and I will not make that kind of executive decision... : ) Jgrizzy89 04:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: duly added (although, we need to monitor that only notable performers go in there - not every high school band and church group who ever covered a U2 song - lol) Merbabu 04:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although it would be fun to laugh at some of the crappier covers that are out their (With Or Without You by the Christian Rap-Duo GRITS) - I think it would take forever or be near impossible to do that... Jgrizzy89 04:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influence section lacking? 

message: I see:
McCormick (ed), Neil (2006). U2 by U2. London: HarperCollinsPublishers, pp.46-48. . 
U2 Limited (2006). U2 by U2. London: HarperCollinsPublishers, 151. . 
Adam Clayton:U2 Limited (2006). U2 by U2. London: HarperCollinsPublishers, p.147. . 
The Edge U2 Limited (2006). U2 by U2. London: HarperCollinsPublishers, 151. . 
Bono, The Edge, Adam Clayton, Larry Mullen Jr U2 by U2, pg. 249, 2006, Harper Collins, ISBN 0-06-077675-77 (mine, oops)
These are all the same book. Since it is listed as a "source", can't we change all of these to "McCormick (ed), 2006, pg#"? Wikipedia brown 01:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, very good point. it was pointed out in the FAC that since these books are referenced in full in the general links section, that they only need referencing like this: McCormick , Neil (ed), (2006) p. 6 Merbabu 11:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need to come up with a consistent format for citing U2 by U2 

message: I'm not sure I didn't mention before and you guys dumped it, but U2's first product was a set of badges ordered from Better Badges in the UK in 78, saying "could happen to anyone"  They are illustrated on this page.  At Better Badges at the time, we ran under the slogan Image As  Virus - Disease As Cure an informal punk equivalent of the GFDL. Bands submitted artwork, ordered a few, and then we disposed of as many as possible, and encouraged reproduction. These designs were very much in that spirit. Joly (ex=BB) Wwwhatsup 11:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Badges

message: I don't necessarily think the word usage for the statement under their activism section that says: "The ONE Campaign, has been shaped in no small way by his efforts and vision" is worded properly... Couldn't it just say: "The ONE Campaign, has been shaped by his efforts and vision." ? It just sounds better... Any objections? Jgrizzy89 05:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good suggestion. I went ahead and made the change. Since I wrote this section, I don't think there have been many changes. I think it's a good idea to review it (shorten it if possible) and maybe even move the Solo work stuff to separate articles, since it doesn't really apply to the band. Wikipedia brown 16:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Word Usage 

message: This has to be spelled out, apparently. From the Infobox musical artist template (italicised emphasis my own):Current_members (groups): Current members of the group, listed in order of joining with no other notation than names. - Dudesleeper · Talk 15:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thinking RattleandHum's input on the matter will be minimal to say the least due to his/her affinity for removing any kind of conversation put his/her way.
but why keep deleting anyone's further input WITHIN the article, listing full instrumentation? yes, true, let us keep the info clear of it, but let's have a compromise, wouldn't you agree? what has been put anyway is what appears in their CD booklets, there really is no reason to delete it.
69.182.90.72 21:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Instruments, and why they shouldn't be listed in the "members" section of the infobox 

message: Guys, I haven't seen much in the way of activity on this page in the last couple of days, so in order to stir things up a bit (I do love playing the role of the rabblerouser), I've added a first stab at a styles/themes section. Please feel free to add, refine, and remove detail as you see fit. I will add references shortly. Hope to see some constructive edits made to this much-needed section! Wikipedia brown 07:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A cucumber is not the same as a pickle. So what? What does this mean? Please elaborate. (and sign your posts with 4 tildes). Thanks. Wikipedia brown 04:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Musical styles and themes 

message: Stevie Wonder now has 22 Grammys after this year's Grammy awards (he won for best collaboration with Tony Bennett, which interestingly enough was up against Mary J Blige's rendition of One with U2). This means that U2 is now tied for 1st. Wikipedia brown 06:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then maybe we need to say that 'no other artist has more' or something like that. Merbabu 07:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed to Merbabu's suggestion. Wikipedia brown 05:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stevie Wonder now has 22 Grammys too 

message: Wouldn't it make sense to have the single releases in the discography section as well? I am not much into editing music articles, so I honestly don't know. -- RichiH 11:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The discography there is intended as a summary. If you go to U2 discography article (linked in the article) you'll see that is a mountain of singles. Thus, best to have them on a seperate page. Merbabu 12:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks :) -- RichiH 12:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single releases in discography? 

message: The political website Counterpunch.org carry articles that often critique U2 & Bono's social activism. I feel the need to add this 67.53.78.15 04:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The following was removed from the article on May 3rd noting lack of citation. U2 and Bono's social activism have not been without its critics however, as the political newsletter Counterpunch have often carried articles critical of their being too close to power and their attempts to help as doing more harm than good. So I should cite a specific article that notes more harm than good rather than the wikipedia article about the Counterpunch newsletter. 67.53.78.15 17:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is counterpunch, and is their opinion important and well-founded, or do they just not like U2? --Merbabu 05:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I re-added a paragraph on criticism of U2& Bono's activism. 1) it is needed because it exists and is noteworthy. 2) I noted authors and other activists have written criticisms and that this type of criticism is often reprinted by the politically left Counterpunch. 3) noted that there is criticism from the political left, since issues concerning "helping Africa" often bring to mind debt relief. Noting merely criticism might cause one to think the political right. 4) two generalities of what the criticism is. Readers can follow the link if they want to know more details.  There are other sources of such criticism, for sure. Counterpunch, which has advertised in "The Nation" news magazine, I chose because a) it is this type of source that I just happen to know best, and b) it is politically the left, which one typically might not think of criticizing the activism surrounding issues important to Afica. If one knows of or wants to find and add criticisms of U2 & Bono's activism that happen to come from politically right sources, feel free.  I am sure they exist.  Also, I have no idea whether they (Counterpunch editors/writers/etc) like u2 or not. 67.53.78.15 00:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: U2 @ Counterpunch

message: See above. 212.85.12.94 11:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's been up two times already in 3 months (see records). While it has come a long way since then thanks to maybe 2 or 3 editors, there are still things that need to be done. There is much unnecesary info, but much missing too. But, you do inspire me to get on and do the work necessary. Watch this space. Merbabu 12:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ready to be featured? 

message: U2 are a rock band from Dublin, Ireland.
Shouldn't it be U2 is a rock band from Dublin, Ireland?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ootmc (talk • contribs) 20:05, 31 March 2007
:Hi!  Thanks for your concern, and thank you for not editing the article itself.  You're using the talk page the way it should be used!  Band names are plural nouns in British English.  U2 are a "collective" rather than a "thing" in British English ( and also Irish English, which is why it's used in this article ).  For example:  In America you would say "It is" and in Britain and Ireland you would say "They are" in place of "U2".  I hope that clears it up!--JUDE talk 20:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Either way, my view is there are more important things to get hung up about. I used to revert any moves away from the British plural form, but i just ignore now any moves back and forth as long as they don't interefere with any other part of the article. Save your efforts for something else. :)  --Merbabu 01:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I'm sorry :).  I didn't edit anything.  I was just explaining the difference.  I didn't mean to start anything serious.  I understand that there are more important things, but I wanted to answer their question since I felt like I knew the answer.  Sorry again.--JUDE talk 02:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to apoligise at all. YEs, i think it is good to discuss issues. And, i don't think you started anything serious. Your answer was good and I was merely stating my opinion. Again, don't apologise. Merbabu 02:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  U2 are? 

message: For verification: Today I met a friend and we began talking about local bands. He's someone who is not given to making things up; he's a quiet Australian of Scottish descent who I've known about 10 years. He recalled being in Carlisle, Cumbria in 1979 and seeing a sign on a pub for a band playing that night: U2. He went to the gig and "there were about 20 people there including the band". He said that, among those present, were Kate Bush and Sid Vicious and he talked to both of them. (My friend said Sid gave Kate some tickets to a gig, and she passed them to him, "my Aussie friend".) This is where I'm beginning to get the jitters about the story, as Sid died in February 1979, and Kate was just then a new star. He said the pub was the "Seben Stars" (sic; yes, I queried him about the spelling!) Is there anyone from Carlisle who can verify the venue or the occasion? (The pub name does not come up on any search engine I've used.) Peter Ellis 06:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: hmmm - my understanding was that U2's first shows out of Ireland were in London only in Dec 1979. There were numerous British shows from 1980 onwards. My copy of the book 'U2 Live' doesn't have a listing of a show that could be the Cumbria show. hmmm - are Australians and Scotsman are known for tall stories! he he. By the way, there's a chance someone will tell us off for discussions not directly related to improving the encyclopedia, but that's OK. Merbabu 07:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is to get data on early U2 shows that can be incorporated into the article. An example of an early U2 gig that has Bush and Viscious would show their profile and standing among fellow musicians. Peter Ellis 16:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That they actually played that venue in 1979 needs to be verified. All relevant sources I have suggest they didn't. Furthermore, even if it was true, is this "profile and standing" (1) also verifiable or just synthesised original research and (2) is actually notable? There might be a point to mention about U2 being punk influenced (and hence maybe a possible Syd Viscious connection/influence) very early on but once again, it depends on WP:ATT. kind regards Merbabu 01:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recollection from U2's formative years

message: I don't like (sometimes detailed) running commentaries on developing events in an encyclopedia which I should feel should move a bit slower an record things that have actually happened and are significant. Thus I don't know that we need to list a so-far non-existant U2 album in the list of albums, and the article should only make a brief description of the work towards it. If we want up to date but transient information we should go to a newspaper or rock journal. In fact, i just removed it. Merbabu 04:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. MelicansMatkin 06:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I also agree with you. No need to document minor events like rumors of a new album or the spiderman musical thing I mentioned above (which makes me laugh ... spiderman musical? What are they thinking?). In fact, is there a way to add to the next album information a message to editors not to include rumors and such, unless a major event happens (pre-released album is stolen or leaked or Adam Clayton decides to quit U2 and become an astronaut, thereby causing next album to be cancelled) ??? Rumors are really a dime a dozen ... Wikipedia brown 13:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, no place for pointless rumours in an encyclopedia. Is Adam really leaving U2, though?  ;) Merbabu 14:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, these guys have been together for more than 25 years, so I'm guessing if really Adam wanted to take a trip into space (which I'm sure he could afford), he would have to take Bono, Edge, and Larry with him (although maybe not Larry, I get the feeling he's afraid of heights!) Wikipedia brown 17:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've been hearing for *how* long that there's a new album coming? I heard the other day that they were doing a regular album and a Passengers-esque collaboration. Who knows? Neranei (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New album

message: Though it can be debated whether or not these bands have influenced U2, they are not major influences. The bands that are listed as major influences (The Who, The Clash, The Ramones, The Beatles) are frequently brought up by the band themselves as large inspirations and even tributed to in their sound. Of course, the band has other influences -- but this section should be for major influences only; otherwise, it'll make the article -- and that particular section, of course -- too long, as the article is pretty long as it is. If we were to put every influence of U2, or any band for that matter, it'd need it's own page to list them all. Therefore, the four that are listed are enough for major influences.
155.43.23.114 17:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is the band do consider them major influences, particularly in their early years; they just don't talk about them much. Bono makes a number of appearances in the 1994 New Order documentary NewOrderStory which I've been citing; for some reason Bono's always talking straight into a camcorder he's holding over his head in his scenes. The most important items are when he says U2 "worshipped" Joy Division, and when Quincy Jones says (paraphrased) "Bono once told me that New Order is the band that's influenced them the most but they really don't tell anyone." Important additional items of note: the song "A Day Without We" from Boy was written about the suicide of Joy Division singer Ian Curtis, Bono vowed to Tony Wilson (owner of Factory Records, Joy Division and New Order's record label) to take Curtis' place as top frontman of his generation after his death, and U2 is rumored to be contributing a track to the soundtrack to Control, the upcoming film about Curtis. WesleyDodds 09:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I kind of agree with Wesley on this one...though I wasn't aware of their devotion to them, either, even after reading U2 By U2, twice...ah well. RattleandHum 16:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I haven't any opinion on the matter one way or the other.  I, quite frankly, think that it is a minor point.  If it is documented that the members of the band have stated they are a major influence, then it should be left.  A concensus on the issue needs to be reached here, though, before any further changes are made to the article.  ---Charles 23:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the original poster...they should not be included. Even if they are influences, they aren't NEARLY as influential to U2 as the ones already listed and that's what that section is for: the major influences. Any diehard U2 fan can tell you The Beatles, The Who, The Ramones and The Clash are their biggest inspirations: look at their catalog and so on, they're constantly brought up; Joy Division? Hardly. Yes, Joy Division had some influence over their earlier sound but that's pretty much it, and just because Joy Division "became" New Order doesn't mean they influenced them as well, that's pointless. I say we keep the influences to the original four and those four only. 155.43.22.126 16:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WesleyDodds has made an excellent case for the inclusion of Joy Division & New Order with citations saying that the band does consider them major influences.  You say "any diehard U2 fan can tell you..." blah blah blah.  Well, that is not a citation, nor is it relevant.  Wesley provided sources for the assertion, you provide nothing other than your opinion.  Furthermore, I suspect that you are, in fact, the original poster, with whom you say you agree.  Stop changing the article to fit your opinion. ---Charles 17:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Joy Division/New Order should NOT be under Influences

message: user TheFuzzyFive had changed the lead to cover potential confusion between YouTube and U2, I am not sure this could occur and reverted it; thoughts? --Parhamr 03:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dont worry I was just joking.  Simply consider it an act of vandalism.  Cheers, TheFuzzyFive 03:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Take a look at his talk page and you can see he makes a habit of this kind of "joking". ---Charles 03:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion between YouTube and U2? 

message: The result was no merger. -- Crashintome4196 05:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have to say no to that because another page for the 16th album would have to be created sooner or later.  I've also seen a lot of the fandom anticipate that a new album will be released by this time next year (although I admit that, with U2 of all bands, prediction is impossible). MelicansMatkin 04:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an encyclopedia, not a news service of 'fandom' gossip/rumour site. An encyclopedia should list things that are notable, not things that haven't happened. It doesn't have to be up to the date by the second like news must, and articles certainly shouldn't be based on speculation and possibilities. Chop it - and it shouldn't be listed here in the discography. Merbabu 09:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I agree that there should not be an article on U2's yet unreleased album, I'm against merging it to this one - it would do more harm than good. U2 is currently a FA candidate, and adding four paragraphs with the latest news to it defnitely wouldn't help. The information already on this article (with six linked references) is more than enough. --Kristbg 19:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, certainly shouldn't be merged into U2. It's all speculation from fan sites. In fact, their is already too much of that in U2. Merbabu 01:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge [[U2's 16th album]] into this article 

message: In regard to the question of whether Joy Division/New Order should be considered a "major influence" on U2, it looks as if this anonymous user is the only one who objects.  I strongly suspect that the IPs [], [], and[] are actually the same person, who continues to delete content from the article not in keeping with his POV.  As this is the case, can the article be protected to put an end to his vandalism? ---Charles 18:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article protection? 

message: In the "Other Projects" section, please include that Bono and the Edge scored the London stage version of Italic textA Clockwork OrangeItalic text in 1990.  I was in London and saw it at the time.  It was forgettable.  65.208.235.66 21:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it was forgettable, then there's no need to mention it here, right? In any case, let's just hope that the Spiderman musical is not as humdrum (but I wouldn't bet on it). Wikipedia brown 21:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clockwork Orange 

message: The FAC has been closed. I'd like to get editors' opinion. The last two FACs, maybe the last three, have been 'drive-by' nominations by editors who have had nothing to do with the article and failed to contribute to the FAC process after nominating. They made no effort to consult with regular contributers. It is now twice that I have found myself supporting an FAC for a half ready article. 
Thus, i suggest that next time the article gets such a non-consensus nomination that we go ahead and remove it on sight until there is consensus that the article is ready. I for one would certainly support a regular/significant editor who removed such a FAC nomination. What do we think? --Merbabu 03:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone against my own article before under different circumstances.  Didn't see the point of supporting mine when it wasn't up to snuff yet.--Berol 16:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FA closed

message: This is a list of things needed for the article that I'm compiling as I edit the article. I'll add more as they come to me. Strike each item out as they are addressed; the sooner they can can be provided the better.
*The "We need to go back and dream it all back up again" quote from their last show before working on Achtung Baby would be a great way to end the Rattle and Hum section. Can someone source this?WesleyDodds 11:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking about that issue regarding the Pop album when I was editing the section, but I ultimately thought such a fine distinction is better suited for the album article itself. We could rephrase it to say the album emphasizes a experimental techno sound on certain tracks, or quote a news source describing the album as such, but we don't need to mention what the other songs sound like, at least on this page. Oh, and I was just rereading the 2004 Spin article on U2 (cited in this article via a link, but I have the original magazine) and Adam Clayton emphasizes that the album was a dance/electronic records, although that's probably just reflective of his own viewpoint and the sort of divisions in the band that have existed since the making of Achtung Baby. WesleyDodds 10:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Things needed 

message: Hi all. In preparing for another FAC, I've gone through and I have identified areas where our inline citations can be improved. Don't misunderstand me on this one: (a) we already have an excellently referenced article, but there are a number of holes still and (b) I am NOT questioning the veracity of any of the sentences labelled, or suggesting they be removed, rather - they just need in-line cites. 
I can probably find a lot of them and none look too hard. I hope others can help. thanks --Merbabu 07:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the subsequent War Tour, the band performed to sold-out concerts in mainland Europe and the U.S. for the first time.
My reliable sources show that they were selling out European and US concerts before the War tour. Merbabu 13:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation requests explained... 

message: I've hidden the following:
:On the subsequent War Tour, the band performed to sold-out concerts in mainland Europe and the U.S. for the first time.
My reliable sources show that they were selling out European and US concerts before the War tour. Merbabu 13:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions

message: In the lead:
#  → Why don't you name how many albums instead of "several successful", and I got a difficulty to understand what is "a devoted international following".
#  → What is "anthemic sound"? I couldn't find a related wiki article for that. Is it a sound of an anthem? And perhaps due to my limited knowledge about "anthemic sound" that makes me confuse of the relation between Bono as vocals and The Edge's characteristic guitar playing with the band's political and social views. The sentence is meaningless to me.
# I think the second paragraph in the lead has problems to understand. For instance, it says there is a transformation of the band in 1991, but transformation of what? The story jumps directly to a transformation. Okay, you might argue that readers should read the rest of the article, but according to WP:LEAD, the lead should be able to stand alone, which is not in this case. The lead should represent a concise overview of the article, but not without a story flow to follow. In fact, the lead is the advertising part of the article to suggest a reader to continue reading to the rest of the article. I don't think (if I want to study about U2) I want to go further as the first paragraphs have already confused me. I might want to find another website describing about the band.
I have promised to someone to criticize this article. I stop at the lead first. I will continue with the rest of the article later. The current lead is still in a bad shape and it only contains too many overblown terms. — Indon (reply) — 08:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Indon. I've tried to address your points. What do you think? It's hard to explain further in the space limitations of the lead. Also, 'anthemic' is a reasonably common term to describe music - ie, it comes from the word 'anthem' and is meant to describe grand rock songs with big choruses, etc. Merbabu 11:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's better. — Indon (reply) — 19:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some remarks for FA 

message: Three of the band said in Pop interviews (and Brian Eno somewhere, too) that they were going to release Original Soundtracks as U2.  Bono grumbled in print somewhere that the label said no.  He tried to save it with a marketing plan proposal, but it didn't change the label's mind. They were good businessmen and covered it up for 2-3 years which makes sourcing that quite difficult. --Berol 17:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Passengers 

message: I saw in an edit that :Image:U2-teenagers.jpg was missing a licence, because the uploader didn't know. So I've slapped  on it, that should save it from deletion. It already has a FU rationale, so it's good to go. -- Reaper  X 03:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image:U2-teenagers.jpg 

message: I looked at the College Rock article and it had U2 listed. Was that a mistake or is College Rock suppost to be in the Genre area? CRBR 18:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: College Rock?

message: Hi all.  I am with the League of Copyeditors and have a style question.  I have tried to stay aware of the UK's plural usage when refering to a band by name (i.e., "U2 are..."), but I am struggling with the words "band" and "group".  In American English, these are singular terms that denote a group of people and therefore use a singule-tense verb, (i.e., "The band is..." or "The group is...").  To treat this as a plural, you'd have to specify the indvidiuals in the group, by saying, say "The band's members are".  I've noticed substantial inconsistency throughout the article (is it just a US/UK English issue?) and would appreciate a final ruling before I go in and make universal changes.  Please advise.  Galena11 18:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyedit question re: "band" and "group" and tense 

message: See hidden comments within article text starting with COPYEDITOR'S NOTE for issues/questions that I couldn't clarify.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galena11 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, many thanks. It's a great improvement to have a fresh set of eyes (and wise eyes at that too), so much so that it would be great to have more fresh copy editors. Ie, you've fix so many obvious deficiencies that I overlooked over and over. Do you know anyone else who would be interested? cheers --Merbabu 00:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also note that in many instances, you edited the article to use singular verbs when referring to U2, although British English states that bands are pluralized. Y2kcrazyjoker4 20:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but that's a minor issue in comparison to the vast improvements they have made. Thanks again. --Merbabu 02:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyedit 

message: Shouldn't we put some info about the new album for 2008, the band has been recording for the last year-year and a half? I know that some purists from here don't want any kind of info. But come on guys, the band recorded the album first with Rick Rubin, then with Eno and Lanois, there should be more info about it.
:Regards: Painbearer 00:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New album

message: An anon has added detailed listings to the discography section. This is over the top for detail and should be removed, but they show no sign of discussing, or even leaving an edit summary. --Merbabu 16:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anon adding detailed discography

message: Just wanted to drop a note that the article looks better than ever. I just added refs for all the remaining "citations needed". At this point, I agree with  Reaper  X's comments above -- would anybody be peeved if I submitted for another FA nomination (or shall we go for a peer review)? It's been a while since the last one, and it would be good to get some feedback. Thanks. Wikipedia brown (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA nom 

message: Let me be the first to congratulate everyone who has worked so hard on this article to promote it to FA.  Merbabu and WikipediaBrown, you two should be especially proud of all the time and effort you have put into this.  Congratulations guys! MelicansMatkin (talk) 03:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. Great job, guys! :) Keilana|Parlez ici 03:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks you two (U2? pardon the pun)! I think Merbabu did most of the work sprucing this article up over the last couple of years (his edits must be in the thousands for this article alone) and handling the nomination comments (I couldn't hold him back from it if I tried, which I didn't), as well as writing all that wonderful prose you see in the article. Of course, in addition to his unparalleled efforts, there were many, many others who contributed quite a bit as well over the last two years, so congratulations are in order for all those others too (Y2kcrazyjoker, RattleandHum, Kristbg, WesleyDodds, Dudesleeper, etc). Great work, all!  Wikipedia brown (talk) 04:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the compliments. I was surprised it was promoted as quickly as it was but the article is no less deserving. It was a huge and long collaborative effort; well done to WP Brown in particular for all his tedious efforts to fix countless little things, and for the whole sections he wrote. He was the one with the balls and initiative to actually nominate it - which I didn't have! --Merbabu (talk) 12:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, "Influences" and "Campaigning and Activism" could be tightened both in terms of length and prose. There are stronger sections in the article. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 12:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Please, by all means, there is life after FA. By the way, I noticed in the Formation section, there's no mention of how Adam Clayton got involved in the band at the get go. An oversight? Wikipedia brown (talk) 13:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I must also applaud you two for your work. It went way beyond my expectations when I suggested a retry for FA earlier. Now the article is better than ever. Congrats, you should be proud. -- Reaper  X 04:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: FA Promotion