Talk:Keane (band)/Archive 1

message: Apologies for making a total mess of this - I'm a wiki newbie.
The idea that Tim Rice-Oxley created the name Coldplay is FALSE - as verified by Tim Rice-Oxley here > http://217.154.142.24/keane/forum/viewtopic.php?t=31937&start=15#800697.
I'm also slightly disappointed at how much my site (http://www.keaneshaped.co.uk/faq) has influenced this page, is there any way of crediting this? (to keaneshaped.co.uk and/or Chris Flynn)
--ChrisFlynn 18:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Keaneshaped.co.uk

message: Could someone protect this page for the time being, so that the same person(s) don't continue to vandalise the page?  Thanks.  Vandalism blows, especially when it's of the non-creative variety.
--Madchester 04:59, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
:If the page is vandalized, you can revert it. Just go to the history list, click on the date and time of the last good version, and click edit, then save. If an article is protected, then no one can edit it. Arundhati bakshi 15:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: I could be wrong, but in any interview i've read of Keane, they have never revealed where they got their name from.  The nurse connection on the main article page doesnt have a source.
:I didn't put it there, but I'm fairly sure I've seen it mentioned somewhere on either the official site or the groups forums - JVG 12:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard it somewhere too, but on TV. It was a while ago, during an interview on 4Music. - andy29 00:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Keane were originally called The Lotus Eaters, like the Liverpool band of the same name, but never gigged. The name "Keane" is a shortened version of "Cherry Keane," which they did gig with, and indeed supported Coldplay with. The lady from whom they took their name did not inspire their musical ability, nor was she a schoolteacher, dinnerlady, nurse; she was simply an old lady who looked after Tom and Tim when they were young. Gs83 07:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I read on the BBC that Keane were named after Roy Keane the footballer as they are manchester united fans. Luke C 12:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: OrigLink titlein of name

message: There seems to be no good reason for a minor pop group to sit in the main name space; as the dab page indicates, there are many Keanes, of whom a number are at least as well known as the band.  User:Violetriga's moves to the current situation have provoked something of an edit skirmish, including cut-and-paste moves, so I think that the issue should be sorted out more formally. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 21:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you'll find that my move was actually undoing a move that someone else did, and the Keane article has been about the band for quite a time.  Calling it an "edit skirmish" is hardly fair, with two moves being undone, one because it was a copy/paste.  violet/riga (t) 22:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And the Travis article was originally about the band, but even the band itself has been move to Travis (band), which was more appropriate in the end. --Madchester 18:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
*Support, for the reasons given above. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 21:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Apply that to Yes. Jooler 20:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The same applies in principle, though Yes (disambiguation) offers nothing that's as substantial or lasting as the band, let alone more so. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 21:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

text: That really is some of the most flawed Google stats I've seen in a long time. violet/riga (t) 16:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think it looks right.  Love the band, but they really shouldn't be occupying the Keane article on its own. --Madchester 06:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm trying to think of something to say to respond to that, but I can't think of anything more than "the Google stats presented here are a load of crap".  violet/riga (t) 10:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it that under this circumstance the stats are crap.  I followed the same keywords and garnered similar results. --Madchester 18:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The choice of keywords, not the results.  As an example, if I search for "Dog" (143m results) and "Dog -corgi" (129m results) I cannot claim that there are 14m pages about corgi dogs.  Likewise, searching for "corgi dogs" doesn't mean there are only 17,500 sites about corgi dogs.  Dale has misused quotes and exclusions, leading to obscure results.  violet/riga (t) 19:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: Here are my reasons for Keane to contain the band article:
#The band are not "minor", having an album stay in the UK album chart for well over a year.
#There is only one other article that could claim to have the Keane name and that is Keane (firm), which is certainly not more notable that the band.  The other articles would not usually be referred to by their surname alone, at least not in an enyclopedia.
#The vast majority of incoming links are related to the band.
#A search for "Keane" on Google massively favours the band.
I certainly think that this is a clear case for primary disamiguation.  violet/riga (t) 22:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Apply that to Yes. Jooler 20:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The same applies in principle, though Yes (disambiguation) offers nothing that's as substantial or lasting as the band, let alone more so. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 21:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

text: That really is some of the most flawed Google stats I've seen in a long time. violet/riga (t) 16:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think it looks right.  Love the band, but they really shouldn't be occupying the Keane article on its own. --Madchester 06:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm trying to think of something to say to respond to that, but I can't think of anything more than "the Google stats presented here are a load of crap".  violet/riga (t) 10:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it that under this circumstance the stats are crap.  I followed the same keywords and garnered similar results. --Madchester 18:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The choice of keywords, not the results.  As an example, if I search for "Dog" (143m results) and "Dog -corgi" (129m results) I cannot claim that there are 14m pages about corgi dogs.  Likewise, searching for "corgi dogs" doesn't mean there are only 17,500 sites about corgi dogs.  Dale has misused quotes and exclusions, leading to obscure results.  violet/riga (t) 19:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 01:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Decision

message: and so I added a clean up sign —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghingo (talk • contribs) 
and I have re-instated it as its still awful --Snecklifter 14:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I think someone the writing is childlike

message: The extensive list of all the songs Keane has ever done seems excessive and not in line with any other Wikipedia band profile page. Does anyone mind if I remove it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supdude (talk • contribs) 
Put a list of albums and then, put the list of songs in the albums, all 'single' songs should be left. MrDark 15:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The list of songs

message: I haven't seen anything on the website confirming that this song will be the next single, all I've heard are occassional unfounded rumours saying it will come out next week which is highly unlikely given the lack of radio play, video showings, etc... - Burwellian 13:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nothing In My Way

message: Hi everyone, I'm sorry if I make a mess of this!
Can we please clarify whether it's okay to quote from the official message board or not, given the comment put at the top of the edit page to the main article?  It's often the only reference point we have in situations and at least one point in the article (Tim R-O's response to Alexis Petridis) depends on being able to cite his post.
If it's a reason of privacy, the band's email addresses aren't publicised and their usernames are very obvious, so given the above point, it doesn't seem to me that citing them makes any real difference - whereas not citing them would make certain parts of the article very one-sided.  (Obviously this doesn't apply to non-band members' posts, though.)
Just confused, is all.
- --Flyingnelly 21:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Message board quotations 

message: Any objections to moving this info to the band page? Richardjames444 17:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree. Tudhope is also a film producer: his bio does not dwell exclusively on Keane. Dev920 12:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: object as per above Chensiyuan 14:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Adam Tudhope]] merge 

message: In my opinion, 1) too much "de Vito is a big fan," etc and 2) references in main text about songs in commercials are confusing. The rest of the article also needs improvement. I will try to do the clean up myself, but the task is not small.--Atavi 14:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean up

message: I've changed some of the minor formatting on the article and thought it best to mention it here for discussion since the tag at the top suggested visiting the talk page before making edits. --Anthony5429 13:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also removed Dominic Scott from current members as he left in 01. --Anthony5429 13:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting 

message: Putting in a formal request so that this page cannot be edited without being logged in.  The revert war is making it impossible to tidy up the page for those of us who want to do so.
Would like to revert to the previous version as it's much tidier, but am afraid I'm going to be penalised for it.  Flyingnelly 16:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert war 

message: Does anyone want to add info regarding the recent cancellation of the North American Tour due to Tom's treatment for drug and alcohol addiction...more info over at the Official Website :: ehmjay 03:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I already have done, in UTIS section, and Tom's rehab has its own section under 'Controversies'.  The problem is that everything about UTIS is subject to change at very short notice, as both the UK and Europe tours are 'under advisement' (ie. they may not go ahead either).  It's highly speculative at the moment, which makes keeping the section completely up-to-date difficult. --Flyingnelly 17:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  North American Tour Cancelled... 

message: Have corrected this for emphasis relating to the Guardian article - the thrust of the article was that the 'cool' reputation of cocaine was ruined by Chaplin using it, not that Chaplin's reputation was ruined by using cocaine!  There's a quote that perfectly illustrates this, which has been lost somewhere along the line - please do not amend this to what it was before, as it's wrong!
Will most likely move this to the Guardian section in future, as it's part of the running scrap the band has had with this particular newspaper.  Best, Flyingnelly 20:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rehab section

message: Just wanted to say I think the midi files for the songs on this page are very well done.  Good job, Fluence.  What do you use to create the midi files?
:Simon 14:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Simon! I only use a Yamaha Clavinova CVP-303. I don't edit that on the computer since I haven't got an editing software. I've got ready Snowed Under--Fluence 14:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Midi Files

message: an anonymous posting from a message board is not a reliable source that can be cited on wikipedia. See WP:VERIFY and WP:RS Richyard 10:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Keane message board

message: In brief I wanted to make the article of the band Keane, much simpler, to trim in my opinion highly redundant and highly overcumbant information on it. I wanted it to be as informative, as short and as good as possible. I wanted it be like this. Well, an ultra-fan of Keane, called Fluence doesn't want that. He wants his article to be his vehicle. That's why he is reverting my edits, saying that Wikipedia is "a place that storates all human knowledge" and apparently can't give any kind of justification for his edits. That's why I am refering here. I try to assume good faith and try to explain as thoroughly as possible to Fluence, but apparently to no avail and he with indifferent tone say that we will probably revert each other till the end of time. That's highly annoying for me, really. I know it's hard for the guy to see his own material, cut out of the band's article, but as far as I'm concerned I as well as many people are not aiming for for biography/books or publicity pages about these bands,but rather extensive, informative and well-formed articles. Thus I really need someone's help, because things get to blows too quickly. I am trying to be as amiable as possible, but my patience also has it limits.
Thank you for your time
:Regards: Painbearer 07:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want that becuase you're wrong. I may accept there's some redundant information that I've tried to eliminate. However, on its FA nomination nobody mention about an ugly poster or the extra photos or even the list of countries Keane have visited, so that is purely your opinion and it doesn't affects the Wikipedia community. I think you two are the only ones on all the communtity that think that way, so I'm not giving up. And I only reverted the edits you made to the article because you eliminated also important information.
This is not a publicity page for Keane also. They are an important band so they don't need to be published here.
About the Wikipedia, Jimbo Wales said that, not me.
And the next time you wish to protect a page, make sure is really protected--Fluence 01:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I've got nothing else to say but that I support Fluence. Victoria Eleanor 14:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Regards: Painbearer 10:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Painbearer|Painbearer]] [[WP:AMARQ|Request for advocacy]]

message: This is very well written article that is, in general, very good; however there are still many things scattered through the article that still require referencing, some with the  template some without. Until the article referenced better it cannot pass GAC let alone FAC
†he Bread 00:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Failing 

message: I don't think that I can come to terms with Fluence. His stubborness and ostensible refusal to acknowledge my edits are really frustrating. Most of the reasonable people here probably can imagine, when I have worked my ass through editing and doing work and next, when I sit here, I see all of my work gone, because of him. We can't scrap one article, because of one person. I seriously want an advocate on this issue. It's really, really bad we have to come to this, but I just can't take it anymore with that guy. I cannot work with him, really. With his constant reverts to bad structured and biased versions he is antagonizing me and other editors from the article. I really want to ask the advocates to consider this matter. I am amiable person you see, and I fervently try to "assume good faith" as we all like to boast around. But some people doesn't want this. They are irritating and antagonizing personalities with low self-esteem, who can't work with other people. Unofortunately, we have one of them right here.
:Regards: Painbearer 16:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're the only one who keeps this going. You started and you don't want to stop it. About you're work... I'm not really sure... "when I'll meet my end... in a better time you could be my friend"--Fluence 22:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fluence, until you understand that your contributions are of an extremely low quality and learn how to fix them, you will simply be an annoyance to Wikipedia. All of your updates and articles are useless fan cruft. You waste time by nominating it all to be displayed on the front page, and you are are abusive to people who offer criticism, even of the polite constructive sort. You should perhaps focus your attentions on making a Keane fan site, and stop trying to turn Wikipedia into one. Nobody likes Keane, Fluence. They are terrible. The Mekon 19:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Regards: Painbearer 14:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: You're not just trimming. We're the only two left reverting. But just tell me, who works here more? Me adding information or you deleting it? Just tell me...--Fluence 23:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Painbearer 10:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you were really that "mature" you would fix what you think is crap, not just delete it. Is not about collaborating. I've collaborated with many people like Badlydrawnjeff, Bravada or JordeeBec. Again, is not about that. The thing is I think what you're doing is wrong. You think what I'm doing is wrong. Is a neverending story. You have to admit that, if this was the Radiohead page, you would fix rather than delete--Fluence 22:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Painbearer 05:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well... 

message: Their website is down... anybody know why?
:It's running. Go now and see :)--Fluence 22:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's nice, but this isn't a Keane chat room. The Mekon 19:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the Keane talk page. Only Keane here--Fluence 22:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Website down 

message: Just some things I wish to clear:
*Which is the correct conjugation on Wikipedia, are or is? Ask this as I'm not really sure which one to use on the header. Taking 
examples, the Keane articles reads "are" but, others like Coldplay's read "is".
*Here are some phrases or text Richyard has been keen on remove which a do consider relevant pieces of information. Let's say I'll cite the 
phrase and below I wrote the reason I think it deserves to remain on the article.
Reading through the Q Magazine article is clearly Tim's wishes to form the band appeared studying there and not at UCL. Even I as a fan 
didn't know that until I read the article. Really, so I think is an interesting fact to keep. 
Some would believe Richard and Dominic actually saying "Tom, do you wish to join the band? We really need you". The truth is, they were 
really opposed as Hughes has cited several times, notably on the DVD: "giving the loudest person I knew a microphone wasn't something I was really keen on". This doesn't happen with all bands.
First: people could think they were stil playing cover versions
Second: people might ignore what the Hope and Anchor is a pub
There are other reviewers on eFestivals. The mention of Rodwell adds only three words. 
There's no mention of when the tour started anywhere on the article
Not all albums achieve 5,000,000 sold copies and stay on the charts for a year and half
*The "Controversies and criticism" section
OK, I admit it was pretty larger before Painbearer started editing the article but I think it's good at least to mention feuds they've had in the past. I mean, other bands have even separate articles for them...
*The trimming of Keane.at
If you know at least something about Keane (and if you looked at the Notes section) you'll find out how important is this fansite.
Fluence 22:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not exactly true, it doesn't say that.  However it says that you should normally avoid linking to a site that you own or maintain.  WP:EL is a guideline, though, and not a policy.  Policy says that you must assume good faith, you must be civil and you must avoid personal attacks.   User:Pedant 00:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Most of that information is entirely superfluous, and in the case of "Being Hughes and Scott originally opposed to, Chaplin joined the band in 1997", doesn't even make sense, in any human language. The trimmed down article is far superior, but still far from perfect. 82.31.151.135 22:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I said it, you must know something about Keane to see how those fansites are even more accurate than the official page.
OK, this was only to show how advocate are you on removing relevant information and to try to make you change your mind. I've given a coherent reason to keep it so I'll keep reverting until that stays. Get it? Ah, but only Painbearer and Richyard-related edits since they're who fuck all up. I'll therefore respect constructive edits like ReyBrujo's--Fluence 23:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, but the point is this information will be relevant for some people and irrelevant for others so is hard to agree in something. For me, irrelevant, would be Chaplin's father was headmaster at Tombridge (this is even unverifiable) or that they were called "Cherokee" at a gig, or that their neighbours put their houses up to sale during the "Wolf at the Door" recording sessions. That is irrelevant. Even some information I had previously added and removed by Painbearer and FlyingNelly that now, after considering it, is irrelevant also for me.
But there are a lot of articles out there including similar sections to that of Keane's that I've based on to edit the article, so I suggest you to first go for that articles, otherwise I'd believe this is not about Keane but against me--Fluence 14:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Excellent points. I have made a complete revision of the article, correcting grammar and spelling but leaving all information intact (where possible). I struggled slightly with the "song themes" section, which made no sense whatsoever and listed a print magazine that I don't have available as the only reference. I believe this edit greatly improves the article, I hope all agree? Mr. Scare 09:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Last edits by Mr. Scare and the anonymous user gave the article a new soul and I personally think quality is really superior to that of the trimmed version. I agree with the article on its current revision and that's what Richyard and Painbearer should have done, fix instead of deleting. And well, relevant information was kept, thing I'm happy with :)--Fluence 21:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some comments... 

message: From a quick look through the talk page, Fluence wants this article to be listed as featured article. An admirable ambition. The ultimate goal for all articles is to be a featured article one day. Now I have no intention of getting involved with this huge argument that seems to have been on this page for a while, but if you look at the list of featured music articles, and specifically at the articles on bands, none of them mention what kind of piano is used, or the location of the powerbook used to play back pre-recorded bass tracks. There is a reason why this article was rejected not only for featured article status, but also for good article status, and that reason is that it is not good. Now let's try to do this amicably, shall we? We work by consensus here at Wikipedia, so comments such as "I don't care about your opinion" is not only uncivil, but entirely inappropriate.--Dreaded Walrus 00:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Painbearer started all this. I had already reached a concensus with Mr. Scare and Pedant but Painbearer simply deleted the sections without a fair reason. The thing here is, as I've said before, what is relevant to some people, like me, might be irrelevant for other people, like you. Is virtually impossible to reach a consensus this way, I mean, we'll never agree. About the piano facts, The Beatles once was a featured article and had the information about the microphones models. So, if this is not a featured or even a good article, there is no damage including that information. I think what you want is a newspaper article, not an ecyclopedia one. So I'm reverting again. Also, I don't like either the magazine cover either at all but is the only magazine-appeareance of Keane I've been able to rescue.--Fluence 01:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't recall "reaching a concensus". I did my best to make this article make sense but you've continued to try to drag it back to the miserable state it used to be in. Endlessly reverting and comparing the utterly insignificant Keane to the greatest band ever just serves to make you look like an idiot. Shut up, Fluence. Mr. Scare 16:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Regards to Dreaded Walrus: Painbearer 08:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, if you look at the message below's date, I wrote that before reading this. You're just encouraging me to continue. So shut up Mr. Idiot and Dreaded Bastard.--Fluence 21:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And, that demonstrates my first thought. Is just about Keane-hate. people like you shouldn't exist...--Fluence 21:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: May I be so bold as to ask why the personal attack on me? I'm sure you're aware there is a policy regarding no personal attacks, and I would also like to remind you that I have made no such attacks against you.--Dreaded Walrus 22:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that. I got confused by the regards by Mr. Scare--Fluence 23:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article version