Talk:Spice Girls/Archive 1

message: I've tried to tone down the US bias (especially comparissons between "international" and "US" results) in this article, but it needs more work to the same end. Andy Mabbett 20:56, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is so US-centric it's unbelievable. Statements like "this single was a flop, although it reached number one in the uk" abound. Pomp My Socks... To Da Max 02:07, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I intend to remove all the hash signs, there are not used as a symbol for 'number' in the UK, & as this was a British band the convention is to use standard English Markb 10:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: US-centric

message: In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 22:15, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gay Icon Project 

message: I've just come to see what comment was added, went into the history, and saw that the most recent entry was my revert of User:Pacian's edit — though there was no sign of his edit in the History, and I didn't revert anything.  My apologies to Pacian, and could he or she re-add the comment? Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 13:55, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peculiar edit history 

message: WhenI went back to the page History, Pacian's edit had reappeared, so I've retrieved it and added it below. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 14:10, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This whole article is full of non NPOV comments ("fantastic debut album" comes to mind.) The punctuation and grammar are also hideous. I'm making revisions now. Pacian 12:18, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mysteriously disappeared comment

message: http://www.mtve.com/article.php?ArticleId=5615&from=rss
I am highly skeptical on the reliability of the news though. So Unless there is another source to vertify this, I am putting it here. SYSS Mouse 12:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick google news search apparaently shows that it is real. SYSS Mouse 12:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reunion? 

message: This is pretty good - is someone aiming at FAC soon? -- ALoan (Talk) 09:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I'd like that! But not yet... I think the article still needs some more information. For some reason, I think that another image needs to be added. But that's just me. Let's try and make this article as true blue as possible, then we can go ahead and nominate it for FAC. :) DrippingInk 12:44, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:FAC]]

message: This looked really odd where it was.  It belongs in a trivia section I suppose, but there isn't one (and I don't really like them in an encyclopædia anyway; they're more suitable for fanzines and the like).  Any ideas?
:"The platform shoes brand Buffalo Boots model 1310-2 was made popular by the band wearing it in lots of different colour combinations."
--Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 21:57, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine with me.  It can stay here. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 20:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Personally I would say stuff like that would be encyclopaedic in an article on either the brand or make, if someone considers them notable enough to make an article, but not on an article like this, as it really isnt anything that fundamentally defines or explains the Spice Girls and the various other topics that spin off them. It works more like advertising than anything else in an article like this, unless you were to link it into their greater cultural impact by talking about how strong their brand as a group was that they were more successful than most artists at commercialising themselves. In that case more examples would be needed of other items they popularised in a similar fashion to make a supportable point. Sfnhltb 14:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia moved here 

message: I still think that the section requires one more image before we put it up for FAC. Can anyone think of one that would be suitable? And no, not a scene from one of the music videos, though I really do like the "2 Become 1" shot of Emma's head. Uhh... yeah. Any image ideas? 64.231.161.71 01:57, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't find a suitable image, so I re-added the Channel 5 one (after going through numerous copyrights). The bottom of the page looks kind of plain, though. If anyone finds one that would be perfect, feel free to add it. :) DrippingInk 15:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hunt for the image 

message: I can't find the Australian chart peaks for "Say You'll Be There" and "Too Much". Can someone help out? DrippingInk 20:44, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Too Much" peak has been found. Keep an eye out for "Say You'll Be There". DrippingInk 14:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing [[Australia|Australian]] chart peaks 

message: If you look at the Destiny's Child section, you will see that there is a section of the article called "Solo projects" with informating leading up to their reunion in 2004. I think we should do the same thing with the Spice Girls, ridding of the "Current status" section, and adding information on single releases and their poorly-fairing solo albums leading up to the 2006 greatest-hits release. And although the compilation has not been released yet, I still find it acceptable to add this to the article. Any ideas? Winnermario 12:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. DrippingInk 22:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I will begin expanding the solo projects section this coming weekend. The order that the girls are listed in will begin with Geri due to her leaving the group, followed by Melanie B., as she was the first to release a solo single. Next will come Mel C., then Emma, and finally, Victoria. --Winnermario 01:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solo careers 

message: I have made my reference to the "Spiceworld receiving higher ratings from music circles and fans". So I see User:Mel Etitis did not remove this fact. However, I have not yet found one for Spice being the girls' signature album. This is fine, as I had not referenced it, but please keep it in the image thumb and I will search for a source immediately. Winnermario 20:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What do editors on these articles mean by "signature" (as in "signature song", "signature album", etc.)?  Its usual meaning in music (apart from "signature tune") is a piece that's used by an artist or band at the beginning and/or end of concerts as a sort of signature.  It seems to be being used here to mean something like "most popular" or "best selling" or the like. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 10:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, people in general consider "signature songs or albums" as a song or album that stands out from any other work the artist has made. Winnermario 22:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I can't. However, User:OmegaWikipedia can. Winnermario 23:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be helpful if he'd provide it here.  --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 08:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

text: It would be helpful if you asked him to provide it here. Winnermario 19:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signature album 

message: the article needs a run-through to conform date wikification to the wikipedia MoS. i'll be happy to do this, since i love the spice girls, but wanted to give notice here; sometimes it's a shock to those who believe that every month and year should be wikified. crazy, i know. Wbfl 01:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  date formats 

message: Suggested items for the to-do list:
* Tighten up the writing. "'Out of Your Mind' did not enter the U.K. charts at number one, but at number two, preventing Beckham from achieving the top position" is merely the worst example. "Say You'll Be There" was not "their massive debut"; "ultimately, there was no stopping them" is manifestly untrue; it was not Melanie Brown who performed "When You're Gone"; "November's end" has passed; and so on.
* Make the solo career sections much shorter, as full detail is available in the articles for each member.
* Merge the "Spice Girls" section into the intro.
* Talk more about musical style and influences, tours, etc, and less about (eventually tedious) chart rankings.
-- Mpt 06:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds good to me, but should the solo sections even exist here? Once the remaining four 'broke up' to pursue solo careers, the Spice Girls effectively ceased to exist. As such, I'd suggest a solitary paragraph along the lines of, "In (x year), the girls left each other's company to pursue... etc. Bunton began work on her first single, Y, whilst Chissolm concentrated on Z etc." The article's clearly long enough at the moment, and doesn't need padding out with advanced solo details that are avaiable elsewhere. - Hayter 16:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea, how about being bold and trying it. Just move the stuff to the individual members and leaving one paragraph. (To do lists are nice, but in general nobody does anything except for some minor edits) KittenKlub 19:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've removed the entire section after checking the individual pages. So far as I can tell, most of them had the same information presented there as well (in some cases in the exact same style). The two that didn't were Beckham (which was badly written on this article in any case) and Melanie Brown which I've since edited to include the extra details. A version of this page with the solo section still included can be seen here. Reading the end of Forever and the Beginning of Spice's Future now, I'm not sure an additional paragraph is required. The article mentions their solo careers and summarises that their popularity has now waned. We could always include a Further details can be found at the member's individual pages but I'm not overly keen on that idea, and I'm not sure the inclusion of a section with a small blurb for each member is really worth the time - it's just repitition of data and in the case of members such as Brown, the individual article isn't really big enough to warrant an 'outside' summary. - Hayter 20:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put the members in the member list. I think that there is a chance that somebody will put long stories back in if you don't mention it, but we can just sit and watch the page as well. KittenKlub 21:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: What do you think of removing the Record Sales Controversy entry. It was put in at three pages with exactly the same story and it is non-verifiable flamebait IMO. And is impossible to get it verified or somewhat neutral. KittenKlub 21:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems rather well written for someone who's just trying to start a flame war; in my experience such people are generally illiterate and much less subtle, but I think if it can't be verified then it should go. I don't like the idea of 'gutting' an article, but the above warrants removal. Regarding the list of the members though, is it needed what with the "See Also" further down the page which lists all five members as well? - Hayter 21:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is well written but the original version concluded that nobody could claim the title and it triggered an edit war at TLC (and DC seems to have deleted it as well). I've just put the girls at the See Also. So that's a recent addition. KittenKlub 21:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To do 

message: It was confirmed from various sources that "Spice" sold 23 million copies to date. 
"Spiceworld" sold 18 million copies (including over 7 million copies in its first 2 weeks of release) and "Forever" did approx. 3,5 million (including 1 million in its first week of release).
There was some edits back and forth about the Record Sales Controversy entry at TLC and after looking at who put the story in, because there was already a remark of staying clear of discussing record sales so it was to delete the controversy because it leads to unwanted reverts. 
It seems like one person put the same story here (except that the group name in the first sentence was changed) as well, so it's upto you to decide what to with that story, but it sounds like somebody wanted to start a controversy. KittenKlub 19:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Record Sales Controversy