re ridiculous bands listed as supergroups i completely agree with this sentiment theres something wrong when there are groups listed as supergroups from a band that forms with members that have been in previous bands does not automatically make it a supergroup the last few bands listed dont belong in this article i don't think it should matter whether the previous bands are household names but i do think they should be removed from the article if they weren't formed with promotion from previous bands for example several of the s bands are promoted as such velvet revolver was promoted as stone temple pilots meets guns n' roses audioslave was promoted as soundgarden meets ratm army of anyone is being promoted as filter meets stp etc in other words bands with promotion like the raconteurs being jack white with a band aren't supergroups because they're widely known as jack white's side project and not white stripes meets the greenhornes mp the preceding unsigned comment was added by talk contribs december utc shouldn't coverdale page be listed here the preceding unsigned comment was added by talk contribs april utc chrisb who elected chrisb as god of the supergroup article i thought wikipedia was about discussion and reaching consesus sorry about the spelling there i've moved this here from supergroup music if there is another meaning of the word i think somebody should write about it before we add parentheses to things it's easy enough to move things back later whatever it is it's pretty thin soup if you'll pardon the pun i'd give you csny elp travelling wilburys and the bloomfield kooper stills session but the rest are pretty much bands some great maybe never even heard of sky that sold a lot of records ridiculous bands listed as supergroups it seems that people are using this page to promote their own bands or own obscure tastes which they find super i agree with the aforementioned and will weed out some of the lesser known acts and those featuring lesser known musicians feel free to restore this page if you believe that i'm wrong the preceding unsigned comment was added by talk contribs december utc i believe the text at the top of the page does a pretty good job of explaining the definition or lack thereof of the term and its use as hype i think a better tactic than removing information entirely would be to move the ridiculous groups or those who are termed supergroups merely because of membership not achievement to a separate heading keep renowned supergroups at the top if you like while putting in an objective criteria for membership in this group number of albums sold perhaps add another heading or two for other supergroups maybe even failed supergroups and move the rest of the entries on the list there i sympathise with your desire to tidy this up but removing information completely is seldom the answer talk dec utc there i've broken it up with the groups you left on the page as renowned expect others to move bands in and out of that section i'm not entirely happy with the result i think perhaps a better structure would be to divide the list by decade i think it might provide a clearer view of which groups have stood the test of time what do you think talk dec utc if none of the members have pages in wikipedia i'm looking at you misery index then it probably isn't a supergroup wow when i last modified this page it wasn't absurd the average person when they end a relationship or employment will go on and find another relationship or job this page is a tracking of famous musicians and all the new jobs they've started with each other the preceding unsigned comment was added by user talk