Talk:U2/Archive 1

message: Good job to everyone who helped with this article, it is now a GA.False Prophet 18:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that was fast! Thanks! --Kristbg 18:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA

message: Somebody has edited your mentioned line, Kristbg. Thanks for bringing that up.
-Wikipedia Stubmechanic 10:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE: Too much opinion 

message: "U2 is the biggest rock band in the world today..."  Really?  I think the Rolling Stones and even the Who may have something to say about that.  The use of that line should have no place in an encyclopaedia.  Let's deal in facts, not fan-speak.
:Oh, but we tried to take it out. A lot of us did. --Kristbg 22:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much opinion 

message: They are an Irish/English (Anglo-Irish) band.  Adam Clayton is from Oxford, for goodness sake.
To add to this The Edge was born in Essex to Welsh parents.
:Have to disagree with you there.  I guess it depends on the fine print under your definition of "Irish band", but please consider the following:
:All four lads were raised from a young age in Ireland, depsite Edge and Adam being born in England.
:As a band they formed and developed within Ireland, regardless of individual places of birth.
:They've always identified themselves as such.  For example, Bono used to introduce "Bad" saying: "We're an Irish band.  We come from Dublin City, Ireland."
:My 2 cents.  --U2met86 06:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: agreed.  All four grew up in Ireland.  They continue to live in Ireland.  Only 2 were born in another country and moved to Ireland at a very early age.  They themselves identify as being Irish.  Alternatively, we could change the article to U2 is 99% Irish, 0.75% English and 0.25% Whelsh. ;) --Merbabu 04:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, calling them Anglo-Irish is a bit absurd.  I like your suggestion, Merbabu, I mean, if we're going to be absurd, let's go all the way.  Seriously, though, they're Irish, so let's just leave it at that.  Oh, and there's only one h in Welsh. --Charles 05:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irish band? 

message: What is your source for Peter Martin being in U2? I've read many U2 biographies and I've never even read that name. MrTroy 11:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for citing a source. MrTroy 19:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peter Martin? 

message: Another cliché-ridden music article. Can't people write articles on music without sounding like a rock magazine? This is meant to be an encyclopædia, not a music magazine. FearÉIREANN 23:07, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clichés 

message: I am curious to find out how many albums U2 has sold total and per album.
:Estimations are around 100 million+ albums. The Joshua Tree went 10X platinum, Achtung Baby was 8X. Both numbers are in the US. --69.145.122.209 00:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many albums have U2 sold? 

message: Ehh... this article needs a picture. I've looked in a good few of the PDISs but with no luck. Anyone else had any luck? It takes from the article not to know what they look like. Ludraman | Talk 23:00, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: The started to practice a lot in the high school gym. As more practice went by, they all realized that Bono did not know how to play the guitar and couldn't sing that well either. The other three talked about kicking him out of the band and finding somebody else, but there was just something about Bono's energy that made them decide to keep him./ 
Is this a hoax, is´nt? --ThomasK 07:26, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
:It's an apparent copyvio, that I've reverted twice now.  Intellectual property issues aside, it is still profoundly unsuited for Wikipedia and inferior to what was already there. Tuf-Kat 07:35, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
::As far as I know, the above (bono nearly kicked out of the band) is true, but the whole section is probable copyvio, and certainly not that well written. Plus the boxed source link was completely inappropriate. Zocky 14:10, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: paragraph

message: U2 is a rock music band, what is their exact genre and/or subgenre of music?User:Lironos
That´s different,for example sometimes  they play classic rock,then they play modern rock.--ThomasK 02:52, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks.
I'm doing a work on genres and subgenres, so if you are a devoted fan, can you tell me a little about their albums?--Lironos 03:13, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think classic rock is the phrase to describe any of their albums. When I think of classic rock, I think of Led Zeppelin and the Stones. Definately not U2. I would say the albums you describe as classic rock are maybe a mix of classic rock, folk rock, post-punk rock, and pop. Oh and the Pop album, I would call electronic dance rock. Its not really pop at all. --Nathan 21:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I prefer to call all of them just "rock"... I think the only U2 album that qualifies as a Christian Rock album is October. --Kristbg 23:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It looks like this category was added to all of U2's albums last month by User:Jason Gastrich, who has also included U2 on the Christian rock page.  The U2 article mentions the religious aspects of their initial albums and 3 members (all but Adam), but I have a hard time viewing any of their post 1990 work in this category.  I'm tempted to delete the "Christian album" category listing, but wonder how far back to go.  --Spiffy sperry 02:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it, all the way if you want. The phrase "Christian rock" IMO refers to music which has stayed in the "Christian bubble" (which is much like the "indie bubble", in terms of exclusivity). U2 have definately stayed outside of that bubble. So go ahead and get rid of all those references. --Nathan (Talk) 05:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When I think of classic rock, I think of Led Zeppelin and the Stones. Definately not U2.  That made me laugh when I saw it, that tells me that you, like me, are getting old.  Let me explain: I am a U2 fan from way back (can you believe that Joshua Tree is almost 20 years old?!?), and I also have always thought of Led Zeppelin and the Rolling Stones as classic rock, however, we are at the same point as our parents when Led Zeppelin and the Rolling Stones made the transition from "contemporary rock" to "classic rock"...  The only thing that I can think of is that this now means that we're old.  A friend of mine was recently playing music at a birthday party for a bunch of 9 and 10 year olds, he played a song that was popular only 5 or 6 years ago...none of the kids recognized it, and immediately classified it as "old."  Yikes! --Easter Monkey 09:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate to ruin you're theory here, but I'm 20. I've been into U2 since I was quite young, but I'm not old enough to say "from way back". I'm guessing around Zooropa, but I can't really remember. But I think it'll be a while until U2 fit the genre of classic rock. I mean, they are rock, and they've released some (read as "lots of") classics, but classic rock in the genre sense will have to be redefined, which I'm sure it will in time. Just not now. --Nathan (Talk) 00:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't mean to offend, if I took the time to explain myself in much greater detail you'd see that we're on the same side of this one.  And yes, I had seen your user page that says you are 20 before I wrote what I did, I maintain that my theory is utterly un-ruined.  I'm 30, does that qualify as old?  Getting older has a way of sneaking up on you...it's all a gray (grey) area anyway, the Stones are still releasing new albums, does that mean that their new stuff is "rock" while the pre-U2 era, well, pre-disco really, is their "classic rock" stuff?  Anyway, enough devil's advocate for today.  --Easter Monkey 02:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's ok. You didn't offend. But damn, sneaking up on me already? And yeah, I guess we are on the same side. --Nathan (Talk) 12:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we're basing "classic rock" on a sound rather than a time period it seems silly to class Led Zeppelin and the Stones together. Led Zeppelin was all guitar-led hard rock and the beginnings of metal. Rolling Stones was all about blues and rock 'n' roll - indeed, quite similar to Rattle and Hum. I would definitely define Joshua Tree and All That You Can't as classic rock - what else could something like Streets or Walk On be described as? Not sure about Unforgettable Fire though. 130.126.76.27 08:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it might be helpful to point out that Bono doesn't consider U2 a rock band. He thinks U2 is a folk band. A very loud folk band. --69.145.122.209 01:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What kind of rock?

message: Wikipedia says that:
U2 is an Irish rock band featuring Bono (Paul David Hewson) on vocals and guitar, The Edge (Dave Howard Evans) on guitar and pianos, vocals, and bass,Adam Clayton on bass and guitar, and Larry Mullen Jr. on drums.
As far as I know, members are:
* Bono, Paul David Hewson
* The Edge, Dave Evans
* Adam Clayton
* Larry Mullen Jr
I recon it has to be changed. Is there a U2 freak out there who can do it right?
:I reverted it. I couldn't find anything on Google that would say otherwise. Silly anon, leave the misinformation to the Ministry of Truth. ~~Shiri —  Talk~~ 16:47, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
Ignore google searches BTW. They are worse than crap too. Yup the lads as above. (Personal knowledge, not a google search) FearÉIREANN\(caint) 17:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Names of members: 

message: "The Hands That Built America" was not released as a single. "Electrical Storm" was that compilation's analogue to "Sweetest Thing."
"Hands" was slated to be released as a single, but this never materialized. It was released as a promotional single, but that's it (and if you include every promo release on that list, it's going to get very, very long).
If someone can't prove it was released as a full-fledged single within a week, I'm going to remove it from the discography list.
--typhoon 09:31, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Hands That Built America 

message: May I just say that the way this Discograpy is arranged with the track list on this page (instead of having to click to the album's article) is awesome and extremely helpful. Please use it on other band pages! -CunningLinguist 06:40, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While we're on the topic, we may want to consider splitting off the extended discography onto its own page (say, U2 discography, like The Rolling Stones discography) and only featuring the studio albums on the main page since it's getting a bit long. --typhoon 07:32, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I did just that. I left a list of albums on the main page, but I left out the cover thumbnails and track listings because that's a lot of information to maintain on two separate pages. It's all on the discography page, though. --typhoon 21:58, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discography/Track Listing

message: Should this album really be listed as an U2 album? I mean they released it under a different name (Passengers) for a reason. Furthermore Brian Eno, Pavarotti and Holi are listed as members of the Passengers. So I think this album is from another band which happen to include the members of U2. What do you think?
:I think it should:
*It involves every member of the band (and Eno's practically the "fifth Beatle" anyway; Pavarotti and such are credited in the liner notes as "additional Passengers," for whatever it's worth).
*It was originally started as a U2 album. I get the feeling it was only released as "The Passengers" for commercial rather than artistic reasons (although this is debatable).
*"Your Blue Room" and "Miss Sarajevo" have both been re-released as U2 songs.
*It fills a nice gap in their discography. Even though it's often overlooked, I feel it represents an important stage in the band's musical exploration, sort of the summit of their atmospheric experimentation with Eno.
*It keeps us from having to give the Passengers their own page ("The Passengers" redirects to the "U2 (band)" page).
*There's some precedent for this sort of discographical simplification (like lumping Freak Out! under Frank Zappa instead of The Mothers of Invention or Are You Experienced under Jimi Hendrix instead of the Jimi Hendrix Experience).
*The Original Soundtracks No. 1 page clarifies the whole mess anyway.
:I'd be interested to hear more opinions, though.
:--typhoon 07:32, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Original Soundtracks No. 1

message: Does anyone else have a problem with this line about Sunday Bloody Sunday?
"Though not regarded musically as one of the best U2 songs (they had yet to hit the musical heights that became their trademark later), it is generally regarded as one of the most fascinating examples of their linguistic abilities." 
I have to ask, regarded by whom?  And 'they had yet to hit the musical heights'.  What exactly are musical heights and who decides when a band reaches them?
:I agree. There needs to be a qualifier on that statement or it should be removed. As most of the hardcore fans believe as such, somebody should just state that. --jonasaurus 08:04, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Too POV

message: I went ahead and changed the * in F*ck to a u. We're all enlightened individuals here, and understand that such language is not harmful. Especially when in the particularly cogent context of denouncing violence. Also, I don't believe that euphemistic phrasing has any place in wikipedia. --jonasaurus 08:06, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's uncensored on the Rattle and Hum page too. I agree that it looks pretty silly starred out in an encyclopedia. --typhoon 22:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of * from F*ck 

message: At the Milwaukee concert on September 25th, the band mentioned it was "29 years to the day" of the band's formation in Larry Mullen's kitchen.  Should the phrase "The band was formed in Dublin in October 1976" be changed to "The band was formed in Dublin on September 25, 1976"? --144.62.206.39 18:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On their October 6, 2005 appearance on Late Night with Conan O'Brien, Bono said 29 years this week, which would put the formation date as October 1976. Hawaiian717 11:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that as well, so there's obviously a discrepancy.  Having been at that concert in Milwaukee, I'd be more inclined to go with the September version—a date also supported by Neil McCormick's book Killing Bono. --Mcmillin24 00:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formation date? 

message: Someone deleted the Next Album Recordings section. I think this section is valid, despite being speculative, because its written in an encyclopedeic (sp?) fashion. I brought it back for now... lets see what happens. I'm sure theres a speculation taglin that can be inserted, but I can't find it, so if anyone knows what it is, could you please add it? What do people think? --Nathan 20:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure that the person who added it didn't mean to not give due credit to @U2 for the information. I added a reference now, that should be OK. (By the way, congrats on the website!) --Kristbg 19:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, Kristbg. Thanks for the footnote. I recognize your name from ... where? Pleeker 22:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next Album Recordings (2006 - 2007) 

message: Good call, whoever took the second half of the paragraph off the introduction. I almost did it myself. It sounds like something someone who was at the Montreal gig did, just because they wanted to spread their happy news. --Nathan 19:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taking out the Montreal bit 

message: Does an article exist about the Vertigo tour in a similar way to the Zoo TV Tour article?  I can't seen to find one under Vertigo Tour or Vertigo tour, or find one linked from this article at all - surely there has to be one though! -- Chuq 04:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a short, bad, unwikified, poorly named, and orphaned one at Vertigo '05 Tour.  You could move it to Vertigo Tour and expand it and change the U2 article to link to it.  Note that Popmart Tour has an article in addition to Zoo TV Tour, but Elevation Tour does not as far as I can tell, nor any of the ones pre-Zoo.  In my view most rock concert tours do not need or deserve their own article, although Zoo TV is clearly the exceptional case.    Wasted Time R 04:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now done the rename and expand for Vertigo Tour.  As for merit, each of Britney Spears' tours has an article, so the bar is set low :-)   Wasted Time R 14:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Elevation Tour now also exists as well.   Wasted Time R 19:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As does Lovetown Tour.    Wasted Time R 16:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vertigo Tour article 

message: Shouldn't the fact that they're now in it be mentioned in the article? -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 08:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is, mid-way through the 'How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb and "Vertigo" (2004 – )' section.  Wasted Time R 14:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hall of Fame 

message: Great article but fail for not quote the Batman Forever 1995 single.  --Rick Browser 22:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually there, on the "Achtung Baby, Zoo TV and Zooropa (1991 – 1994)" section. Its name it not, though (Hold Me, Thrill Me, Kiss Me, Kill Me) --Kristbg 23:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's Batman Forever single? 

message: I've noticed a small 'edit war' developing on this page - Seems people like to take a dig! Excuse me as I'm fairly new, but what's the criteria to get a page listed on the 'Vandalism Threats' page? It does seem to be fairly under control, but it does seem to be getting rather tedious! What with these 'Mariah Carey' comments and general snide remarks towards the band! Just a thought anyhow. : )--Cavs 22:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Why does this article give something like six theories each on how Bono, The Edge and the band itself got their names? Presumably one is right and the rest aren't; report the correct one as fact and ditch the rest. (Meanwhile the rest gushes like a magazine article; but then, I understand that's pretty typical of music articles on Wikipedia). PurplePlatypus 08:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The stuff about Bono and Edge should be on their own articles. --Kristbg 23:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved Wikipedia brown 08:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV to a fault 

message: Should "Universal Music Ireland" be listed as a label. I'm not entirely sure of their connection, but they DO have some. I know on a lot of (all?) their videos on Yahoo! Music (I think all in IE/UK, and most of them in US one, not sure though) list © Universal Music Ireland. Does anyone know exactly what the connection is? - RHeodt 17:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Universal Music 

message: "After touring with hip-hop star Kanye West, Bono personally stated that the band will "experiment" with newly inspired ideas from hip-hop music"! Can somebody tell me what the hell is going on? I'm a "monster" fan of U2, I know everything about them, but I never thought that U2 is going to mix their music with hip hop! Is this true? Aeternus 16:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Bono actually said something like that in a interview, but then again, Bono says all kinds of things. --Kristbg 16:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: U2 & Hip Hop?!

message: Does somebody know that, when U2 was formed, Adam Clayton didn't knew to play the bass guitar! --Aeternus 16:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Funny fact!

message: Second paragraph might make sense to American readers but it's an odd little paragraph otherwise. The Joshua Tree a breakthrough album? Maybe in the States. 50 million in the US and 150 million in the rest... surely the second reference goes first?
:The U.S. numbers are more authoritative, since they come from RIAA while the worldwide numbers are uncertfied,hhh thus often the U.S> numbers go into 1st.   Wasted Time R 19:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Perspective 

message: While the article overall is good, as so often happens with music articles it uses a tone, style and language that is based on rock music journalism, rather than encyclopaedia standard. It needs to tone down the music press feel of the language (which is all too often full of hyperbole, hype and sweeping statements) to be accessible to a wider readership on Wikipedia. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 02:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clichés

message: http://www.zone-h.org/defacements/mirror/id=3766382/
???--Dgbgg 08:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  u2.com hacking?? 

message: :Image:U2 Pride.ogg 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 this Wikipedia article 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 09:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg