Talk:24-7 Spyz

message: According to Jimi Hazel and Rick Skatore Walter Rattamus is one of the only three founding members of the band that remains.
This may not be a human member--but they view him as an integral part of the team.
Since, it appears that you've done the majority of content on this page--I'd like to ask that you keep Walter--even if he is listed lower as their ICON and Soul Counselor.
Jimi seemed awfully happy to see W.R. on the page when I talked to him today. He's getting out all the various incarnations of W.B that he and Rick have so that we can add them.
Your move, Senor.
Lastly, I scanned a new iteration of This Is... with a cleaner look and better colors. Somehow it came off without someone noting the talk/diff/history aspects. Do you mind tossing it back in? It looks ever so much better.
Rick Raymo
::It's not the issue of having the character mentioned. It's the listing of him as a member. For all I care, list a section down below about the mascot itself and the history of it. Listing him as a member though is just silly. I'm not concerned over Jimi being happy with its inclusion. In fact, putting the mascot's history in its own section within the article is a better idea than giving it its own article, which I see you started, if only because I guarantee that someone will try to merge it anyway, if not delete it. JohnBWatt 04:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Walter Rattamus

message: The genres sections of the Infoboxes on both the band's main article and album articles are cluttered. The rule of thumb is to aim for generality. Every album page lists the same genres, even if some of the albums might not represent some of these musical styles. (Sugar Bear 23:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genres 

message: There seems to be some debate over whether Spyz counts as rap metal - they've had rap in a lot of their songs, so I'm not sure why it shouldn't be listed.. Thoughts? Luminifer (talk) 06:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The links weren't really necessary for an encyclopedia. The myspace pages of individual band members should be kept to any wikipedia page made for said band members. Prophaniti (talk) 09:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree... However, many of these band members are not super-famous, and don't have their own wikipedia pages (even Jimi Hazel does not have one) - I suspect that if they were to be created, they would just be merged with the 24-7 Spyz page, in which case, the links would belong here... Luminifer (talk) 15:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you really want them in, I'm not going to push it or owt. I'd feel that if they're not significant enough to have a page, then the need for a link to their own myspace is unnecessary, and would feel like a fan-page kind of addition. But hey, it's nothing worth arguing about. Prophaniti (talk) 19:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My initial reason for including them was so that people interested enough in even reading an article about the band could follow the whereabouts of current and former members beyond the article. I find it odd that so many people are all for adding official websites of bands but not their myspace pages. These days, more and more bands are opting to use their myspace as their official site instead of getting their own domain. So, in my eyes, it shouldn't be a big deal listing the myspace pages of bands and their members. The other links were direct links to information on current projects of former band members. I too feel that it's very relevant. JohnBWatt (talk) 20:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rap metal 

message: Someone just removed a whole bunch of links that I thought were pretty useful and relevant to the band. Does anyone else have any thoughts? Luminifer (talk) 06:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The links weren't really necessary for an encyclopedia. The myspace pages of individual band members should be kept to any wikipedia page made for said band members. Prophaniti (talk) 09:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree... However, many of these band members are not super-famous, and don't have their own wikipedia pages (even Jimi Hazel does not have one) - I suspect that if they were to be created, they would just be merged with the 24-7 Spyz page, in which case, the links would belong here... Luminifer (talk) 15:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you really want them in, I'm not going to push it or owt. I'd feel that if they're not significant enough to have a page, then the need for a link to their own myspace is unnecessary, and would feel like a fan-page kind of addition. But hey, it's nothing worth arguing about. Prophaniti (talk) 19:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My initial reason for including them was so that people interested enough in even reading an article about the band could follow the whereabouts of current and former members beyond the article. I find it odd that so many people are all for adding official websites of bands but not their myspace pages. These days, more and more bands are opting to use their myspace as their official site instead of getting their own domain. So, in my eyes, it shouldn't be a big deal listing the myspace pages of bands and their members. The other links were direct links to information on current projects of former band members. I too feel that it's very relevant. JohnBWatt (talk) 20:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed related links

message: i think this might be another title for temporarily disconnected. does anyone know more about this? Aisha9152 (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the album cover on your Amazon link. It says nothing about 24-7 SPYZ. Amazon just has it has it wrongly grouped as such because of the term 24-7 being used on the cover. Twenty 4 Seven was is/was apparently a Euro dance group in the 90's. JohnBWatt (talk) 02:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: oh thanks. for some reason i dont see an album cover at amazon but i believe you. Aisha9152 (talk) 16:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  i wanna show you 

message: Why is this distinction "dubious"? I think its pretty cool that that happened. Why not say "unique distinction" or something? Maybe the original editor will explain the thinking so I won't change it at this point.
*That edit was made anonymously over three years ago. So I doubt anybody is coming back to explain it. I never really noticed it myself but you're right. It's not really dubious. I fixed it myself. NJZombie (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "dubious distinction of being the first video on MTV to air on the specialty shows 120 Minutes, Yo! MTV Raps, Hard 60, and Headbanger's Ball."