Talk:Arctic Monkeys/Archive 1

message: Hooray I am the first on the page! Go Me...
If you found this randomly (well done you) and go to 
www.ilovethesheriff.com/arcticmonkeys.html
theyre absolutely amazing and i love them
luv kayleigh
x
: heh, as I MADE the page I think its fair to say I was here first :p. and yes they are amazing. Kafuffle 10:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: First here

message: I've created a page for I Bet You Look Good On the Dancefloor add put in the standard stuff.  There's loads more to be said though, so some contributions from people in the know would be good.  Deano 12:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: IBTYLGOTD

message: Does anyone know whether or not Beneath the Boardwalk is the same EP as Five Minutes with the Arctic Monkeys?  If not, what is it?  Deano 22:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Beneath the Boardwalk was what "the sheriff" tagged the mp3 files as when he released them on his website here. (link was taken down) He was handed an EP by the band simply named Demos and decided to rename it to something more original. There was a thread about it somewhere on the old forum. I'm not sure whether it deserves a mention here. Kafuffle 09:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The title Beneath the Boardwalk came from where the recordings were. The band recorded them "Beneath the Boardwalk" which is a bar/club in sheffield. :D Arctic —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.79.58.128 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, although retagged "Beneath The Boardwalk" by a fan, the famous Arctic Monkeys demos were recorded across town at the (now fully booked) 2Fly studios by Alan Smythe, a friend and former band-mate of the Arctic's manager. (mh) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.38.179.9 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Spoke to Alan Smythe last night, and it was indeed he who recorded the famous demos. I also found this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/southyorkshire/content/articles/2005/02/04/arctic_monkeys_feature.shtml, an early interview, which includes the line "Arctic Monkeys have yet to release a single or album but their demo, recorded at Sheffield's 2Fly studios with 'local genius' Alan Smyth, has attracted considerable industry interest."  Markhadman 12:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Beneath the Boardwalk

message: When I created the page for I Bet You Look Good On the Dancefloor I copied the name directly off the image of the CD cover that is displayed on the page.  Amd accordingly all wikilinks have been directed there.  BUT, looking at MY copy of the single today, "on" is in small letters...
I'm confused.  Deano 10:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Prepositions are not capitalised in titles. It should be 'on'. --Moochocoogle 00:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ''On'' or ''on''

message: I think the song list is unnecessary now, a more comprehensive list of demos in the Discography section would be better, especially as many songs in the General List have actually been recorded.
--Ebz 07:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I agree.  If someone could sort that out that'd be sweet.  Deano 13:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

text: No it is not - look at the external links relating to it.  It doesn't need to be changed.  Deano 18:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Song List 

message: Sources for:
* The Jam 
* Pulp 
* The Streets 
Also, Alex Turner namechecks Pulp and Mike Skinner in an interview somewhere.
The references could go inline in the intro, but they make it look a bit noisy to my little eye.
chocolateboy 07:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison Sources

message: why are they being removed? theres no reason to keep doing it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anthrt (talk • contribs).
The mardy-bum is arguabl;y spam. the other linkl is duplicated not 10 lines above. 2 looks like commercialsim, SqueakBox 23:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. GeeJo (t) (c) •  17:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  fansites 

message: Did Matt and Alex meet at Barnsley College in 2002 like the article says, I don't think so.. .they were at school together, can someone clarify. - Simon 03:08, 28 January 2006
::The citation has a referenced link with it.  Use that.   Deano (Talk) 16:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Matt and Alex

message: Any attempts to yet again duplicate the arcticmonkeys.com link will betreated as spam and the editor as a spammer. Wikipedia is not a web directory, SqueakBox 18:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spam warning

message: What should we do about the movies that the band is making for "When the Sun Goes Down"? In case you don't know, they're making two movies that tell the story of the song in two different perspectives.
::If you have enough reliable information then feel free to add it in a new or relevant section.  I was going to wait till more information became available one way or another.   Deano (Talk) 14:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Movie

message: I'm turning Alex Turner (musician) and Matthew Helders into redirects as neither currently justifies their own article. Here's the content so that the notable elements can be included in this article once it's unprotected. —Whouk (talk) 10:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the page is only Semi-Protected, so I've included some of the content - i.e. the relevant non fan cruft stuff - in a new 'members' section. This could do with expansion, however, and I'm not sure about whether there really should have been a redirect anyway, paticularly for Alex Turner, who's NME coolest person award shows a wider notoriety than as just a band memeber. Robdurbar 13:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects 

message: I'm biased, but I think this a fairly informative Q&A interview with Matt of the Arctic Monkeys. Any chance at putting it in the external links? 
http://www.prefixmag.com/features/A/Arctic-Monkeys/255
::I'll put it in as a reference.  It's a good interview... they're pretty rare with the Monkeys.  DJR (Talk) 11:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: A section on the band's influences please —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.13.13.28 (talk • contribs) .
::The addition of an "influences" section just ends up becoming a huge list of bands.  Relevant influences are mentioned in the opening paragraph - other than that there is no point creating a list of something that can never be definitive.  DJR (Talk) 22:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can provide a reference citing the said influences then it can probably be worked in.  DJR (Talk) 18:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Influences

message: Worth noting that on the night of the Brit awards,when the band won best breakthrough act, their acceptance video (they weren't there in person) featured that bloke from we are scientists accepting their award, rather embarassing the clueless organisers. This is probably worth a mention on the subject of them avoiding the spotlight/being cheeky chappies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.104.171.179 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done - here.  Found a good reference too.  DJR (Talk) 18:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brit Awards 

message: Please STOP removing this, it IS accurate.  See www.newuksinglerelease.co.uk 'coming soon' section if you don't believe me. Mjefm 22:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The said web-site does not cite its sources, and therefore has no encyclopedic basis for its content.  However, I found a more reliable reference and so "A View from the Afternoon" can remain for now.  DJR (Talk) 16:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Single

message: CAN SOMEONE PLEASE SHORTEN THIS INDULGENT AND OVERLONG ENTRY? Opinions?
User:Simon 00:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  DJR (Talk) 20:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not too long though. There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia which are longer. Check out Mozilla Firefox. It wouldn't be a featured article if it's length was a problem. --Nathan (Talk) 00:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Encyclopediae are not meant to be concise, they are meant to be definitive.  It is not that this article is too long, but that comparative articles are too short.  DJR (Talk) 20:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WAY TOO LONG

message: In section "April 2006 UK Tour" The two ticket sales rates are contradictory. Can anyone give a source?
Djh
::They don't contradict - "1 hour" refers to advanced tickets, while 10 minutes refers to general release.  However, references for both would be quite good.  DJR (Talk) 23:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  April 2006 UK Tour 

message: I added the thumbnail version of the album in the discography section. Tell me if you guys want me to do the same for the EPs and singles. Also, we really need to clean up this discussion page.... I just added it for Five Minutes and the singles anyway. No need to thank me (but you can if you want!) -  Vash (Talk)
::Nice job - looks cool.  I corrected a couple of small formatting errors on the singles... but yeah it's a lot better now!  Thanks!  DJR (Talk) 18:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discography

message: Comes to show how kids with half a brain or musical taste but plenty of time in their hand can dominate wikipedia form their mom's basement pc, pathetic, while other important artists get a few paragraphs we get a diatribe on these guys that reads like a press statement from some record exec. Won't bother correcting anything, it's beyond me, just leaving this note for the discerning reader, because the talk pages are for me equally important.
87.202.16.165 02:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All bands should have articles this long at this stage of their career.  Unfortunately, they do not.  This is an example of what all new band's articles should be like - not the other way around.  DJR (Talk) 20:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sub par article... 

message: why and who is tackin them away from the album? if took me ages to get them and the sales part above the album ??????? Bobo6balde66 16:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't remove the information but I'm guessing it was done because detailed chart information is probably better suited to the article on the album itself.  Perhaps only the places where a release has reached number 1 should be listed? --Fozi999 16:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did it - this article is about the band Arctic Monkeys.  Detailed statistics such as those belong on the album's article, which is where they have been moved to.  DJR (Talk) 19:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chart Position ????????????? 

message: I've removed the below section. It seems to me to be a random selection of NME-endorsed bands. What on earth do Interpol have to do with AM? If someone would like to reinstate this with something more accurate, fine, but as it stands its irrelevant, inaccurate and misleading. Damiancorrigan 21:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed 'Contemporaries' section

message: The citation for the article that calles the Arctic Monkeys a ripoff/prepackaged act doesn't link to a working article. It just gives me a page to subscribe to the Guardian. Can someone get working link going? We can't have a citation that forces people to pay just to read it.
:The link DOES work, but it is to Media Guardian, which requires 'registration', not subscription. If you put your details in you can get access, you don't need to pay. Damiancorrigan 22:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Criticism' criticism

message: IP 82.198.250.74 and others in the same group have been spamming vandalism all night. Can anyone source this claim that Alex' girlfriend is called Chloe? - Richardcavell 11:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been going on for at least a week.  I have no idea whether it's true or not but I don't think it needs to be mentioned anyway.  Could we use that restriction where only registered users can edit an article?  I think it's the Sprotected template.  The vandalism I've seen has been from IPs except for one instance so it should reduce further vandalism. --Fozi999 12:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not an admin, but we got an admin to block that IP range.  If it happens again, notify us and we can deal with it. - Richardcavell 05:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alex' girlfriend 

message: As an AM fan, I'm a little perturbed by the accusation that AT was arrogant upon collecting his award. He was making a point against the NME writing too much about his band. It went something like -  'you can't write about something that much and not give us best British band . . . know what I mean'. Sardonic, sarcastic, whatever. But get it right! PLEASE CLEAN UP OR GET RID. User:saveourcity 23:22, 01 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno who added it originally, but if you're unhappy with the neutrality of it then then feel free to change it yourself.  I didn't watch the show so I'm not going to change it.  DJR (Talk) 11:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NME Awards Speech/Criticism

message: Currently reads as:
:"On top of this, the release of the EP Who the Fuck Are Arctic Monkeys just three months after their record-breaking debut album has also been criticised by some, who have seen it as "money-grabbing" and "cashing in on their success" .  However, the band have stated their reluctance to "live off old records", and countered that they regularly release new music not to make money, but to avoid the "boredom" of "spending three years touring on one album" ."
Part of the WP:NPOV policy is that all arguments should be balanced and take into account all points of view.  In this case, the accusation is that Arctic Monkeys release new music regularly purely to make more money and cash in on the success of their original record.  The rebuttle is that, in fact, they release new music so that they don't have to play the same songs over and over again.  The fact that money is not mentioned is irrelevant - it is still the counter-argument.  Cook is implicitly arguing against any "money-making" suggestion, as explained.  DJR (Talk) 11:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "money-grabbing" paragraph 

message: Apparently, Artctic Monkeys lies about the EMI deal. In my country (Indonesia) you could see many EMI words in their CD case (all songs published by EMI, www.emimusic.com, and so on). I would lie to show you the pictures, but i don't know how. anyone can help me?
William kadalkidal 05:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just click "upload file" on the toolbox on the left hand side of the page and you will be able to upload images from your hard drive.  It is probable that EMI are simply the distributing label of Domino in countries where Domino does not have a presence themselves... but it will be interesting to see the image. DJR (Talk) 09:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: EMI Deal

message: The quality of this article is improving quite a lot - almost everything is referenced and there is very little POV.  However, it has occurred to me that this page will constantly evolve while the band are around, so it cannot really achieve featured status for the foreseeable future.  However, it could be a "good article"... anyone agree it is worth investigating?  In any case, it will be interesting to see what a non-contributing editor thinks of the standard.  DJR (Talk) 11:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article status

message: Hi - as you may have noticed I've been doing a lot of work on this article over the last few days, and it's grown a fair bit in size.  In order to keep the article within Wikipedia's recommended size limits but without losing content, I propose outsourcing certain parts into new, separate articles.  I've given it some thought, and I propose creating two new articles:- Arctic Monkeys members and Arctic Monkeys tour history.  The reasons for my choice are twofold - firstly they are areas that involve very little overlap in their current form and will thus avoid repetition.  Secondly, these are the two areas of this article that are least necessary within an article about that band, indeed there is always the opportunity to move content about the members onto their own individual pages.  
If unopposed this weekend, I will be bold and do it myself.  Cheers, DJR (Talk) 18:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree entirely.  I was actually thinking of suggesting something similar myself, especially for the tours section. --Fozi999 09:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay I've done the deed... I think it is a lot better as it also gives the opportunity to give more comprehensive details of significant events in a tour.  Any dissenting voices?   DJR  (Talk) 10:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  split article 

message: It was widely reported that AM's sucess came from promoting their songs on MySpace. However, I have recently read an article that one of the members clearly states they had never heard of MySpace until they read about themselves in papers etc, and that their MySpace page was either set up by the PR guys in the record label, or fans of the band. 
I have been looking for the article but I can't find it, so I have not contributed to this Wiki. H/e, If someone could back this up, I think it merits a mention on the Wiki?  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Macca7174 (talk • contribs) 09:59, 11 June 2006.
::The MySpace reports largely came from America where MySpace is the fourth most visited site on the internet.  The verifiable information we have is that the band themselves are complete technophobes and did not do anything themselves.  However, the demo CDs that they gave away were ripped onto PCs and shared peer-to-peer online.  At the same time, Mark Bull made "Beneath the Boardwalk" available for free download on his site.  MySpace does not come into it, and if you check out their MySpace site, you will notice that they have been members since August 2006 - a time when they had already signed to Domino Records.   DJR  (Talk) 10:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay I've changed that paragraph a bit now - I think it explains the MySpace situation a bit better and has a couple of good references.   DJR  (Talk) 12:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Myspace' controversy... 

message: I find it a little overblown to say they went down in history for being the first band to win "Best British Band" and "Best New Band" at the 2006 NME Awards. A great achivement no doubt but seeing as the NME awards aren't as well known as other awards I think it should be changed.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.13.202.160 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 24 July 2006.
:Yeah I'd agree with this. Saveourcity
::"went down in history" does seem a bit much.  I've changed the wording but the fact deserves a mention one way or another.  DJR (T) 22:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Little niggle