Talk:Sea Power

message: Hi, I've just added to the introduction paragraph, I hope it's okay but not sure if it fits the style (should I use the two singles as example of their sound?). Also, how should I go about adding citations? I would like to use the reviews from Pitchfork Media but am not sure exactly how to do it as I'm fairly new to this. Dokijic 11:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: I don't think it is important, or fair, to include this interview link. If you are going to include an interview link then many, many others should be included. It's not fair to just include one. Best to just leave fansite links on, as there are plently of articles and interviews on those. --SaltyWater 12:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean "leave links to my site and not rivals"", then? Andy Mabbett 10:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, because he's a sad person with nothing better to do and has collated a fairly definitive source on the band? And what's so special about that terrible interview? It doesn't serve any purpose. Me677 10:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

text: In what way is the site possibly at all in any case a rival to mine, or any, British Sea Power fansite? Its just an interview - it serves no purpose in this article. Give me one good reason why it should be included. --SaltyWater 11:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Personally I'm not fussed either way. What is it about this interview that makes it worth/not worth including? If we are trimming the links down then surely the Lovely Day Tommorow is the one that should go first, being as it is out of date. Grinner 14:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just don't see any point in including this, or any other, interview. Its not even a very good or interesting one... If one interview is included its only fair to include as many others as possible. --SaltyWater 16:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Threemonkeys Interview link

message: User:Karmafist is threatening to keep reverting this page, if he doesn'tt get his way in another matter. Andy Mabbett 15:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh. For those of you who don't know POTW's sordid history, please check Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Evidence and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pigsonthewing. He's basically trying to describe me the way he acts. Karmafist 16:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I note that you're still spouting lies and abuse. If you're not lying, you will be able to provide evidence of me threating to revert a page, unless I get my way elsewhere, just as I have provided evidence here, when you did so. Andy Mabbett 15:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Pigs, the proof is right there, in that link, that i've shown you a million times, and you've refused to look at for some reason. Karmafist 18:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My name is not "Pigs". I note that you are unable to provide evidence to back up your claim of me threating to revert a page, unless I get my way elsewhere. You are a liar. Andy Mabbett 12:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cor, you really are immature. Leave the revert, accept you're in the minority, the evidence is against you and find some other area of wikipedia to update or add to the page in other respects. There's more important things in life, eh? Me677 21:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Karmafist's threat

message: *Remove. Offers nothing of worth to the article. --SaltyWater 21:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that a link to Wikipedia:Consensus would be more useful. If I may quote from the guidelines:
While the most important part of consensus-building is to thoroughly discuss and consider all issues, it is often difficult for all members in a discussion to come to a single conclusion.....While it is still the preferred method, some contributors have also come to use a supermajority as one of the determinations.
Rough thresholds are given:
*WP:RFA: 75-80%
*WP:RM: 60%
This is not an admin matter, so a 60% threshold would seem fair. Let us see how the "vote" pans out before crossing that bridge, however. Grinner 13:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh dear. Andy Mabbett 20:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The position of the group is that it should be removed, except for you. You have not, despite frequent requests, given a reason for the inclusion of the link. How do you suggest we resolve this, Andy? --SaltyWater 21:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The group's feelings are irrelevant. You still have the cart before the horse; it is for you to give a reason for its removal; though you personally should not be involved, given that you run a rival site. Andy Mabbett 21:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have give a reason. And so have a number of other people. You appear to be ignoring these reasons. And please, it is not a rival site. Give me some respect. Oh and RE: The group's feelings are irrelevant. You can't ignore the feelings of other WP users Andy... this is not your website. --SaltyWater 21:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Threemonkeys interview link vote

message: Wikipedia is not a democracy; it operates by consensus. Andy Mabbett 13:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that a link to Wikipedia:Consensus would be more useful. If I may quote from the guidelines:
While the most important part of consensus-building is to thoroughly discuss and consider all issues, it is often difficult for all members in a discussion to come to a single conclusion.....While it is still the preferred method, some contributors have also come to use a supermajority as one of the determinations.
Rough thresholds are given:
*WP:RFA: 75-80%
*WP:RM: 60%
This is not an admin matter, so a 60% threshold would seem fair. Let us see how the "vote" pans out before crossing that bridge, however. Grinner 13:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh dear. Andy Mabbett 20:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The position of the group is that it should be removed, except for you. You have not, despite frequent requests, given a reason for the inclusion of the link. How do you suggest we resolve this, Andy? --SaltyWater 21:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The group's feelings are irrelevant. You still have the cart before the horse; it is for you to give a reason for its removal; though you personally should not be involved, given that you run a rival site. Andy Mabbett 21:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have give a reason. And so have a number of other people. You appear to be ignoring these reasons. And please, it is not a rival site. Give me some respect. Oh and RE: The group's feelings are irrelevant. You can't ignore the feelings of other WP users Andy... this is not your website. --SaltyWater 21:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Is that really necessary? Just a thought. SaltyWater 21:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can anyone looking at this suggestion please take into account that this user runs a BSP fansite containing a references section. I am highly suspicious that he is attempting to drive traffic to a wiki rival through deletion of this section. Such behaviour cannot be tollerated. Thanks. Me677 22:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  References to people, places and things 

message: Regarding this:
:It has been reported that Hamilton and Yan are to spend christmas 2005 taking part in a largescale hillside art project in Grasmere, close to where they grew up. The project will take the form of a large lopsided penguin drawn into the chalk hillside as part of a Greenpeace campaign. BSP are believed to also be recording an EP for release in spring 2006 to raise funds for the antarctica campaign.
, please stop referring to justified deletion of this unsubstantiated material as "vandalism". If it's verifiable, cite a reputable source. Otherwise, it has no place in the article. Tearlach 02:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh sorry, Me677 and myself were just having a competition to see who could get banned first. --SaltyWater 13:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed future plans

message: Gallery looks better. Standard on most band pages. User:SaltyWater disagrees. He's a little caesar. Anyone else care to add their two cents?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_Sea_Power&oldid=46778214#Singles
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_Sea_Power&oldid=46779267#Albums
etc.
:That's for galleries not discographies. Makes it hard to people to use. And what I say goes. But thanks for your time. SaltyWater 17:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What you say goes? That is not how wikipedia works. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you'll find it is. SaltyWater 13:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you'll find that trolling cuts no ice with me. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh no. SaltyWater 16:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe include a gallery for the full length albums and EPs, but they have too many singles. SteelyDave 17:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I just keyed in a couple of bands with a few releases and they all use the gallery thing: Morrissey, Oasis, The Libertines. Looks better. Me677 18:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have taken it to the high court. SaltyWater 18:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release layout 

message: You having a fucking laugh mate? SaltyWater 18:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not terrible.  I mean, look around some other pages and by comparison its not all that bad.SteelyDave 19:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article nomination 

message: I've added Template:British Sea Power to the member pages. What do you think? Should it be stuck on all pages? Any changes? Me677 19:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it James. You have my permission to add it to all pages. Thanks. SaltyWater 20:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: ALOL at "Related Articles" Bobyllib 20:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template 

message: Who wrote that line, "sweeping, often epic"?
I think I've seen this sentence in every single issue of NME. RSieradzki 01:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sweeping, often epic 

message: The real names of the members are verifiable facts, and as far as I can see there is no consensus in the talk history for hiding the real names.  There appeared to be agreement about "I think it might be a good idea to refer to them using their so-called "stage names" throughout the actual article, and just leave their "real names" in the list at the top", which is how the article is now.  Can we leave it like this please?  See also WP:3RR.--Michig 17:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Names

message: :Image:BritishSeaPowerPromo2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:BritishSeaPowerPromo2.jpg

message: Would it be useful to include a reference to the band appearing on the BBC2 documentary about John Betjeman, and possibly a link to some of his poetry? It seems relevant as the band are fans of his, and some of their lyrics share themes with his poems --Sparrow 08 (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Betjeman 

message: Yan and Hamilton are brothers, right? Shouldn't we mention this, rather than just calling them school friends? --David Edgar (talk) 17:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brothers 

message: Removed from the article per WP:EL:
* British Sea Power interview at synthesis.net
* British Sea Power interview at musicOMH.com
* British Sea Power interview at Canvey Island for Phoenix FM
* Interview with British Sea Power at No Ripcord
but could be used as references to improve the article. TheJazzDalek (talk) 13:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I hope this helps :) Pogeons (talk) 11:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not correct. "Thalassophobia is the persistent and intense fear of deep bodies of water such as the sea, oceans, pools, or lakes." (Wikipedia) A fear of drowning is just a specific instance of a fear of dying, which is not an irrational thought, which is what is meant by the use of the suffix 'phobia'. --Blurryman (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  ‘Fear of drowning’ should redirect to ‘thalassophobia’ 

message: What’s with all the “Peter Emms” stuff that got added not long ago? All mentions of Eamon have been replaced with this name and the hyperlinks to his Wikipedia article have been removed. Going through the edit history it looks like someone also replaced Yan’s name with him, so I’m more inclined to believe this is someone’s idea of a joke rather than an obscure piece of trivia about the band, I’d appreciate it if someone could clear this up for me, cheers. Lusiwain (talk) 09:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peter Emms?