Talk:Lilys

message: The 'notability' tag was re-added with the comment "No sources were added, only sources provide notability". I added three sources. The band has released several albums on important labels, had a top 20 hit in the UK, and there is evidence of multiple significant coverage in reliable sources. If notability isn't clear can I suggest the following course of action: (1) read the article, (2) compare my version with the previous version and note the sources that were added, and (3) if notability is still unclear, explain on this talk page why you believe this is the case. If nothing appears here in the next 24 hours to explain the 'notability' tag I'm going to remove it.--Michig (talk) 12:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ...or even better, improve the article yourself with some of the many examples of significant coverage easily found from a Google search, e.g. , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . There's lots more on Google News. Happy editing!--Michig (talk) 12:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

text: It's already sourced earlier in the article. Chart Stats and Strong's book both confirm the chart placing. There's no need to add a source in two places for the same thing.--Michig (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thank you for pointing that out.  I'll look over the cite when I can. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 20:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, now we have some good sources. These should be cited in the article, but since they do exist, I'll go ahead and remove the notability tag. (For all of those above fretting over what single hit what position, please note that only sources establish notability. Showing that multiple substantive reliable sources exist showed notability beyond a doubt.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've started working through these sources to improve this and the album articles. I'm pleased that you've finally relented with the 'Notability' tag, but you have added it back twice after the top 20 hit was sourced with two good references, with multiple sources also demonstrating significant coverage. I would urge you to discuss these issues before re-adding tags in future, particularly when other editors have already taken the issue to the talk page.--Michig (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: This section is written a bit negatively, yet all references are nothing but good reviews? If this tone isn't changed, I'll probably just do it.  72.191.173.147 (talk) 06:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's written negatively - the only part that could be construed as being negative is the mention that Lilys have been seen as very derivative of other bands, and since this has come from several sources if justifiably mentioned.--Michig (talk) 16:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Musical Style

message: Should the opening description read "Lilys IS an American indie rock band..."?  I never thought the band name was intended to imply plurality.  In fact, the plural of the word 'lily' is 'lilies'.  Also, any mention where 'Lilys' is prefaced with 'the' is, in my opinion, incorrect.   Not one album cover or liner note refers to them as 'THE Lilys'; the name is written, simply, 'Lilys'. Limesparks (talk) 16:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Singular or Plural?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lilys. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081021022132/http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/19406-lilys-the-3-way to http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/19406-lilys-the-3-way
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lilys. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091204081852/http://citypaper.net/articles/2003-05-22/music.shtml to http://citypaper.net/articles/2003-05-22/music.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified