User talk:Michig/Archive3

Thanks, I'm aware of the WP:MUSIC guidelines. I can only see one album on a notworthy label, and point 5 asks for 2, hence the tag. You might want to update your user page ("Categories not displaying when previewing a page") - if you scroll right to the foot of the page (below the edit box) in preview mode, you'll see the categories. Happy new year! Lugnuts (talk) 10:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just thanking you for saving (and improving) the My Teenage Stride entry. I know it was rather incomplete but... I just wanted them here. Well, thanks. E-roxo (talk) 09:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure--Michig (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michig Hi What's your role in Wikipedia, formal or informal and how does it work then.. in about a paragraph please

Tricia Tricianeal (talk) 14:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry :( I see Discos Fuentes been sourced quite well now. I AfD'd as it went unsourced after its prod tag was removed for several hours and I should have used a cleanup or {{unsourced}} tag instead of submitting to AfD. Most of the time, I do the research first and I'm spot on with my AfD submissions, but this is the third time a situation like this has happened in the past few days, and sometimes when I'm tired or rushed I don't take all the nessacary preliminary steps before proposing deletion and there's no excuse for that. Mr Senseless (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you've put in a lot of good work maintaining the state of the Franz Ferdinand (band) page. You may be interested in a dispute about the Franz Ferdinand page. It used to point to the disambiguation page as, despite there being more searches for the band than the archduke, users will be interested in both topics. Unfortunately, it has recently been changing to point directly to the Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria page. Could you read the discussion on the Talk:Franz Ferdinand page? I think your input would be of value. Thanks, Wardroad (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine if you still favor delete, but I wanted to see if you had re-read the article now that it had reliable sources and more info toward notability.Lawikitejana (talk) 04:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am new, so I want to know why this does not fit under WP:CSD#A7. Which part of the article do you consider to be an assertion of significance? I may need to adjust what I consider to be an assertion of significant. Sam Barsoom 20:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on User talk:Sam Barsoom.--Michig (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on User talk:Sam Barsoom. Sam Barsoom 20:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, I have created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Less (band) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cover, Protective, Individual and made my arguments. I welcome your opinion there. Sam Barsoom 21:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mind you, the ratings are largely subjective, and exist primarily in order to help determine what articles should receive priority over others in the project. Don't stress too much about it; it's self-reference for the project. However, there are some things I'd like to point out, just for general information:

• RE: Your examples. Bauhaus are British. Very British. Big Black are American.
• Echo and the Bunnymen are primarily a post-punk band, and are included in the project larely because they outlived the post-punk era and their later material is considered alt-rock. However, they don't have the historical impact, influence, or sales contemporaries like The Cure, the Banshees, and New Order have had. Thus, Mid-importance.
• Pearl Jam were moderately successful in the UK, but they have sizable followings everywhere else. They play Eurpoean festivals all the time. Their worldwide sales are tied with those of Nirvana at 50 million albums sold.
• Aside from Nirvana, R.E.M., Smashing Pumpkins, and Husker Du, I am largely interested in British alt-rock, which I have spent some time researching, so whenever people claim a bias against the UK whenever I make an edit, it amuses me (nothing against you, it's just happened before when people make assumptions just because I'm American). WesleyDodds (talk) 11:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm well aware of the nationalities of those bands, thanks, I just feel that Big Black are way more important than say Wilco in the realm of alternative music. Echo & The Bunnymen were one of the first big 'alternative' bands along with U2 and Simple Minds - all could have been described as post-punk at one time, but they all also are/were 'alternative'. As for the bunnymen not having the historical impact or sales of say The Banshees, that's just absurd. They influenced loads of bands, and when they played the Summer Sundae festival last year, loads of people from other bands (e.g. Sonic Boom from Spacemen 3, and young bands such as The Strange Death of Liberal England) came out into the crowd to watch them play. Quoting worldwide sales seems to be missing the point. No Doubt have sold loads of records, but largely mainstream pop - it's irrelevant. I wasn't accusing you specifically of bias, it's just that the project as a whole seems biased towards big, fairly commercial american bands, and non-american bands that were big in the US. I guess this is understandable to some extent given the demographic of the contributors but I'd like to see the project take a broader view.--Michig (talk) 11:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the project name is 'Alternative music', not 'alt-rock' - there's a huge difference.--Michig (talk) 12:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The project does to adhere to a larger view (also, "alternative music" is a synonym of "alternative rock"; I named the project "WikiProject Alternative music" to maintain consistency with other music WikiProject titles). The Top importance bands are those that are essential to the understanding of the genre (Ex. R.E.M., Nirvana, The Smiths, The Cure). This is a very small category. High importance is most bands people would recognize. This means both highly commercially successful bands (Smashing Pumpkins, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Foo Fighters, No Doubt) and essential "cult" bands that influence many bands (Pixies, Sonic Youth, Replacements, My Bloody Valentine, Stone Roses), or bands that are both but aren't quite Top Importance (Blur, New Order). Mid importance is virtually everyone else, as Low importance is reserved for songs, some albums, and barely-notable bands. And yeah, the Banshees have had more of an impact than the Bunnymen; they had far more hits, sold more records, and unlike the Bunnymen, they are one of the key bands of a particular style of music: goth.

I really like "The Cutter", by the way. Awesome song. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banshees - 18 UK top 40 hits, 13 UK top 40 albums (2 of which went top 10)

Bunnymen - 15 or so UK top 40 hits, 8 or 9 top 40 albums (at least 5 of which were top 10), huge influence on many bands from the mid-80s onwards - Mighty Lemon Drops, Mary Chain, etc.

Doesn't look like much of a claim for the Banshees being more important.

...and lots of 'alternative music' bands are not 'alt rock' - if the project is only looking at the rock end of the spectrum (which although it officially isn't, it effectively seems to be) it should perhaps be renamed.--Michig (talk) 12:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a genre term, yes, all alternative music is rock music. In the sense that "alternative"=underground music, well, that why it's just easier to call it underground music. Makes things less confusing, since when alternative is used in conjunction with music, it's connotated with rock music. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If indie pop and weird electronica is 'rock' then it's all alternative rock. Maybe it's the definition of 'rock' that's causing the problem?--Michig (talk) 13:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, indie pop is considered rock (key point: indie pop bands almost always have a backbeat. Right now I have the Shop Assistants' "Saftey Net" in my head, and despite its "poppiness" it has a very standard rock song structure). The recent influx of indie rockers messing with electronic does make things confusing, but generally you can pick out the alt/indie ones from the outright electronic ones based on their use of song structures. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The real question is: "shoegaze" or "shoegazing"? (This still drives me crazy) WesleyDodds (talk) 12:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, some (mainly US) editors' view of "shoegaze" (pretty much any alt rock with lots of distortion and/or feedback) makes it a completely different genre to "shoegazing", which arguably wasn't a genre at all when the term was originally used. I've almost given up on that article due to the number of editors who only want to push their own opinions, rather than finding sources.--Michig (talk) 12:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might interest you to know I looked up a bunch of old MBV articles when working on Loveless (album) and virtually all contempory sources agreed that shoegaze/ing began with Isn't Anything. I'm talking 1990/1991 here. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe Isn't Anything was the key influence on the Shoegazing bands, although "Shoegazing" wasn't used to describe it when it came out. --Michig (talk) 13:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Shoegazing" was definitely in use by the time Loveless came out: [1] WesleyDodds (talk) 13:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. It was in use from 1990.--Michig (talk) 13:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like Nowhere better than Loveless. Discuss! WesleyDodds (talk) 13:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found Nowhere a bit of a disappointment at the time. There was a real buzz about the early EP's, and they seemed to have run out of steam a bit by the time the album came out. I never listened to Loveless much - I always preferred Isn't Anything and the You Made Me Realize EP tracks. The first Chapterhouse album was pretty good.--Michig (talk) 13:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Editing, Dusti^talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Surely deserves an article. Wwwhatsup (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely - he's on my Todo list--Michig (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - I've started the General Echo article. Must try to get hold of more of his records.--Michig (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be a wonderful live tape in circulation (DBC) of him and Madoo, with a lengthy piece of innuendo about getting his car started. There is no doubt that he directly inspired a whole generation of MCs, particularly Yelloman.Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michig! Thanks for "clarifying" that I was the one transcluding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glomp (fifth nomination)... but I was deliberately leaving my name off it. I'm the poor chump who clears this backlog, nudging new editors in the right direction, solving coding snarl-ups and generally putting things right where I can. Wikipedia being a place where no good deed goes unpunished, when I do that and clearly mark I'm doing it, I still get credited with the deletion rationale and I still get all of the flack and none of the glory. So now I plan to not say anything. With a little shake of WP:AGF over my actions, this may make sense. And this is why I'm reverting you. ➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 20:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine - I wasn't trying to credit/blame you for the nomination. No offence or flack intended.--Michig (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems I wasn't the only one who found it confusing, however.--Michig (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being so annoying i'm new to the editing thing but i am just trying to get rid of a page and it's suprisingly hard... Can you take a look at it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gingers btw i had no other way that i know of to contact you so i am writing it here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jai-dogg (talk • contribs) 16:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

replied at User talk:Jai-dogg.--Michig (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good that you rescued the article when it was on almost a week, hadn't noticed it for a while and the one putting it up for speedy deletion didn't even tell me about that. Good that someone else understands that they're notable. --Flesh-n-Bone 21:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you recently voted in AFD concerning an unreleased album. I invite you take part in the conversation here Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(music)#Unreleased_albums any input you have would be appreciated. Ridernyc (talk) 09:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]