Talk:Radiohead/Archive 3

message: In the spirit of how Wiki is SUPPOSED to work, here are some of the things in the article that we seem to be having disagreements over as of January 2007. Discuss if you want.
Years in the intro - The intro has a brief history summary and each album is listed with the year after it, i.e. OK Computer (1997).
Not that my opinion matters, but I personally feel this is appropriate, encyclopedic and provides useful contextual information that someone would otherwise have to click lots of links or read through the whole article to learn. Not everyone reading the article may have a grasp of the typical 2-3 year release schedule in modern pop music either. If the band starts in 1991 some people may hear "fourth album" and think, "hmm that must be in the mid 90s".
Opening acts in trivia - Radiohead's opening acts are listed in an item in trivia. such as Sigur Ros, Clinic, Beta Band, Spiritualized, etc. A few of these bands even achieved greater fame as a result of opening for Radiohead (just as Radiohead did in opening for REM in 1995, another fact that has been deleted by some people from this article). Others are well known in their own right. Either way it is interesting, and certainly "encyclopedic" type of information for the TRIVIA section. Note: TRIVIA. No one is saying this is strictly relevant in the same way as the rest of the article.
OK Computer acclaim - OK Computer is one of the most highly acclaimed rock music albums in modern history, like it or not, but deal with it. The article needs to convey this fact without seeming to take a particular side. I don't see anything wrong with the item in the trivia section that OK Computer has frequently appeared on top lists (there used to even be a Wiki article of this title!) with a mention of several of them. The person who deleted this, also deleted all mention of all lists from the OK Computer article itself, which is beyond the pale. It's a matter of being "encyclopedic". It's not "fannish" if one of the most salient facts about an album (or a band) is the reception it received from critics and magazine polls, its "acclaim" or "overratedness" if you prefer.
Yes there is a danger that such an article would just be reinforcing critical opinion, Wiki's own mention of acclaim serving almost as a list placement in itself (probably why the "albums that have consistently appeared on top lists" articles here were removed- good decision, imo). BUT that is a risk that has to be taken in order not to present a distorted and incomplete picture of the subject, and it's a small risk if this is just an item in trivia. We have cleaned up the intro of many of the more POV assertions, but it's going too far to remove so much that no one would get an idea of Radiohead's "reputation" by reading the article. Imo. 
Removal of other sections of the article and citations
If there's a whole section someone disagrees with, can they either rewrite it, or remove it TO THE TALK PAGE in case anyone wants to comment or disagree on their deletion or restore the text. Don't just delete it.
Also, citations should generally not be removed from the article, and someone should be very reluctant about removing text that has citations after it, compared to other text. In fact, more citations should be added to this article if it wants to have any chance of achieving a better status. It is a huge amount of time and effort to add citations and shows disrespect to people who worked on the article to delete them without discussion. 172.166.129.168 11:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Contentious items of article

message: If you quoted page numbers from books it would help a lot with the GA review. andreasegde 05:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: If you quoted page numbers from books it would help a lot with the GA review. andreasegde 05:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: There's no dispute on the facts of this, it's just how to present them.
*The five members of Radiohead formed a band in the mid 80s. 1985 to be precise, or 1986 if you start it with their first gig. Sometimes other members were also in this band, but from 1985/6 it always consisted of at least the current five members. This band was known mostly as On a Friday, though it had other names at times (i.e. Shindig). The members went to college and had other bands in some cases (Flickernoise, Headless Chickens for Thom) but they continued to play together every few months/years during holiday breaks and had ambitions to return to their original band.
*In the early '90s On a Friday formally got back together, began playing live a lot and releasing demos which they sold in local record shops, trying to get signed. During this time they hooked up with their current managers at Courtyard Studios.
*In late 1991 they were signed by Parlophone/EMI/Capitol and changed their name. They released their first recordings as "Radiohead" in early 1992, their first single (that would be Creep) in late 1992, and their first album in early 1993.
Given all that, which is already adequately covered in the appropriate history sections, what do we say about when they were formed in the sidebar and more importantly in the intro?
I think we can say first, "Radiohead are an English rock band from Oxfordshire, originally/initially formed by school friends in [pick your preferance: 1985/6/the (mid-?)1980s]." [Then we go on to say the stuff about their first single/album in 1992/3, so it becomes obvious they were not publicly releasing music in the 1980s. The "school friends" thing also lets you know how old they were at the time they formed the band.]
The sidebar can stick to "years active 1991-present" and be fully accurate. it's just that for the first sentence of the intro, the band was not "formed in 1991", but long before, even though they have only been active outside their local boys high school or under their current name since after '91. 172.144.0.252 23:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Formation date / Years active

message: Does anyone know if Radiohead has made any official statements on fan taping at concerts? I've always assumed they 'look the other way', but I've yet to hear an official statement from them. Whoblah 22:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Position on fan taping

message: This may seem minor to rock fans, but Radiohead's compositions are quite popular/influential outside of rock.  I like the mention of their compositions for Merce Cunningham's dance company (which I've seen).  In addition, the prominent jazz pianist Brad Mehldau (I'm a fan) regularly adapts Radiohead tunes, on record and in concert.  The classical pianist Christopher O'Reilly has also done at least two albums of Radiohead transcriptions: "True Love Waits" and "Hold Me To This".  This is serious stuff, not the typical rip-off artists you get with lots of cross-over stuff - - like transciptions of classic rock for string quartet, or symphony.
I am but a fan of Radiohead and Mehldau [and wikipedia], not a writer myself.  But I recommend anyone to look into the wider influence of Radiohead in the realm of "serious" music. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.36.20.5 (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crossover influence of Radiohead 

message: The article mostly treats Radiohead as a plural noun but sometimes as a singular one. Make consistent? (But which way: singular makes sense to me)
Moxbib 14:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radiohead single or plural 

message: Excellent article.  Everything made perfect sense to me, as someone who has never heard of Radiohead.  I could only recommend adding some inlines in paragraphs that don't have any.  I'd also recommend a Peer Review to flesh out more problems.  I really enjoyed reading it though.  Nice work. DoomsDay349 21:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Passed GA

message: I did an interview with Ed of Radiohead 10 years ago. (God, time flies.) I don't want to post the piece myself, but if any of you deem it worthy to quote, extract information from or otherwise use, feel free. :-)
http://sheknows.com/about/look/4364.htm
- Nancy
Andwhatsnext 22:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radiohead interview 

message: Please stop using the word "Bandmembers." It does not exist.
Also, if you take the time to add new text mentioning an album, album titles should always be italicized, i.e. Kid A or Amnesiac. Song titles should have quotes around them, i.e. "Paranoid Android." (or "Paranoid Android", with the period/comma afterwards, depending on your country or style preference. I'm not sure the article is consistent). To get the italic effect just put around the word you want to italicize. If it's also a link, put the apostrophes just outside the " " 172.145.206.220 17:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Band members" is TWO WORDS