Talk:Powderfinger/Archive 2

Awards

I think it's more appropriate to discuss any awards and such in here. The awards the band has received that are noted are the ARIA awards, but there's many other Australian music awards, such as Songwriter's guild awards, Triple J music awards and things like that, and I believe that Powderfinger has won at least one or two of each of those, but surely have won others, not to mention some notable internet awards. I know I'm being vague, but that's because it's years since I really thought about it or heard it. I know for sure that Double Allergic won an award on the TV show Recovery for playing "Boing Boing," based on the fact that they chose not to play a single and opted for a general album track. Though that award may not carry the weight that these ones do, there are definitely some other notable awards won by the band. --linca^linca 11:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I did some research, but couldn't find anything. I'll take another look later on. G1ggy! 05:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added in the APRA awards (and the triple J ones earlier :) Auhsor 16:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

List of singles

I just came across this site http://www.ozmusic-central.com.au/powderfinger/song_file/singles.htm which lists all of the tracks that were released on each CD single. As well as images of each of them. Slabba 09:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I've only just come back to editing heavily here. I found some with slightly bigger images at Hindley Site, so I'm using them. I actually own all of them other than "The Day You Come" but they're all under lock and key... and boxes and much other stuff, unfortunately. --linca^linca 13:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Powderfinger.jpg

Image:Powderfinger.jpg 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Triple J Table

Hey Giggy, yeah I was feeling quite keen to create the table. I don't have any refs, I just used the rankings that were already there. The Triple J site would probably have a full list. You were quick to rate the "These Days" article :-) Slabba 03:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm logging off now (soon), so I'll give you the task of checking Triple J for them =P As for These Days, I was editing {{Powderfinger}} and noticed the lack of red link...what are the odds :D - G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 03:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Things can change quickly on wikipedia! I don't think I'll be able to do much in the next 2 weeks, but I'll try and get around to it some time, unless someone else wants to do it? I won't be online for much longer, just had to check a couple of things. Slabba 04:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Linca, if you see this, I was referring to G1ggy, who didn't bold one of the years, not one of the awards. Nothing major. Slabba 05:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to whomever formatted the table, it looks good and I wasn't sure how to do it. If someone wants to add in references, its at http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/hottest100/history/ Auhsor 16:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Added the refs. The year articles such as Triple J Hottest 100, 2004 need to have the sources too, it's now unreferenced. RaNdOm26 17:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it was added. Thank you G1ggy for taking the initiative to add them. RaNdOm26 12:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Expand this section?

Does anyone have in mind what, specifically, needs to be added to this section. I think we need more info in individual albums, but anything else? - G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 22:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Late response, but I was the one who tagged that section. I just think it needs to be broken into 2 sections: One indicating rpe-recording era/"formation" (1989-1993) and a section with "Local success"/early recording era. I just think for a 9 year period, we kind of just skim over where the band actually came from. We make no mention in there of The Blue EP or the next one and just lots of info could be there, but I honestly don't know much about the band before Transfusion (the first EP I got, which was copied onto a tape in 1995). I'm sure we could find out more about Alister Donkin and Steven Bishop and somehow elaborate on their initial participation. Why did they really leave? Did the band ever write any material before Fanning joined the band? If so, what kind of music was it? Was the band a heavier rock band or were they mellower back then?

I know I'm asking more questions than I'm giving answers and that's because I really don't know the answers to these and don't have much info to give up. --linca^linca 13:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I can answer one question; it's quite likely they were heavier rock. Judging by Tail (which I have on the DDatHE bonus DVD), and by the alternative title to Fingerprints (which was "From heavy metal to Centenary Medal"). Giggy _U^CP 22:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I know they were heavy rock, (I mean, I have Parables, Mr Kneebone and Double Allergic, which shows their heavier stuff) but what kind of heavy rock? I used to have Automatic/Transfusion on cassette, and they were pretty heavy, but we have almost no info on The Blue EP and other works from their earlier sessions. I saw them in 95, 96 and 98 and their heaviness reduced in this time, but I suspect before I tuned in, they may have been heavier still (especially considering the heaviness of The Predators and such). Anyway, it's just me crapping on, but I think it needs to be in there, if we can muster it. --linca^linca 04:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Free image?

Has anyone seen Powderfinger in concert/live, and got an image of them? A GFDL image for this article would be quite useful! Giggy _U^CP 23:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

GAC

I've nominated this article for GA - I'll keep working on copy-editing etc. during that time, but I think the content is mostly good. Giggy ^{Talk | Review} 04:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's almost ready, but I don't know that it'll pass on a few merits: There's not really anything here that discusses the band's musical style and I still think we need some expansion from the early era. I'm not ruling out the possibility of GA approval, but this definitely needs to be addressed before going to FAC, but it wouldn't hurt to be addressed now. --linca^linca 04:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Go for it - I'm not in a research mood, but if you OR it I can source it :) Giggy ^{Talk | Review} 04:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I just went through the article and made a few minor grammatical changes, it's looking pretty good. However there is some conflicting info on the ARIA awards, in the intro it says they won 14, but on the awards page and down the bottom in the table it mentions only 13. Does someone want to confirm this? Slabba 06:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Powderfinger awards lists 13 - I've gone ahead and changed the intro, unless someone can verify/prove that it's 14. Giggy ^{Talk | Review} 07:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

There's 14 on here. I'm feeling too lazy to check which one's missing from out listing, but feel free. The whole list's right there. I'll get onto writing up a style section (much as I did the one for the crowdies). --linca^linca 07:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try to get that streamlined before I'm deleted :P Giggy ^{Talk | Delete} 07:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I found it. It was Odyssey with highest selling album. I've updated it now, and used the actual ARIA site as a reference for it, too. --linca^linca 07:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I was about to hit myself for counting 14, then I realised you'd changed the page at Powderfinger awards...should check my watchlist more :P Giggy ^{Talk | Delete} 07:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

GA review

Here you go, my invaluable "The Rambling Man GAC critique (tm)" comments...

• Don't wikilink individual years.
• Too many capitalisations in the lead, Drums, Bass Guitar, Backing Vocals" etc - they're not proper nouns so use lower case.
• "..settling in 1992." - I'd find it better to say something like "...their lineup since 1992 consists of...".
• I'm no expert but I don't think the band photo can be used under a Fair Use rationale because they're a current band and all someone needs to do is take their photo as a group.
• "..an recipient.."? Copyedit time!
• The album sections are short and contain a lot of single-sentence paragraphs. I'd attempt to merge them into a couple of chronological sections (so not by album, but, perhaps, by era/style/lineup) and merge the sentences into paragraphs.
• Personal opinion but the album covers would look better all the same size. The last one is slightly larger and thus looks a bit strange.
• If you use the {{main|blah}} template then don't wikilink the same blah straight away, overwikilinktastic.
• [34] ref needs to be moved to other side of full stop - check all others while you're there...
• Hmm, so you've got a section for each album then a discography section which is a list of each album you've already discussed. I would definitely look at sectioning the previous sections differently...
• I don't think you need all the See also links, well, at least, not the ones that are already linked to with the main template.

So, several comments. I'll place it on hold. Get on with it! The Rambling Man 16:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Won't have much time myself for the first part of today, but tonight (ie. the time I asked TRM to review it last night) I'll be on, and will get to it (unless somebody beats me to it). Yay! Giggy ^Talk 22:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll mull over these and see what I come up with. --linca^linca 03:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

A couple of things, wikilinking individual years is what we're supposed to do in cases of "Tom was born on 21 July, 1927" but not when it's "Tom was born in 1927". Is that what you mean? Because the dates need to be wikilinked otherwise they don't parse and change for different user settings (see WP:MoS#Date for why this is important). Secondly, I'll leave the image there for now, but I'll update one when I can, but if that's the only thing holding us back (once I correct everything else) can it be overlooked as I try to source one? Flickr and the other sources seem to be a bit light on, just like my wallet being why I'm not going to the concert. --linca^linca 03:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, you're correct on dates. And you're richer then me :P Actually, I left a request at WT:AUS Giggy ^Talk 03:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Y All done, except for an image of the band. I'm still looking for a decent one. Otherwise, I've made some adjustments, such as adding in the external link for Hindley Site. I know it's a fan based site, but as per WP:EL, external links need not be the official site, but simply a reliable and valuable resource. I'm not advocating a bunch of EL, but just the one fan one in addition to the 2 official ones. So, if it's holding up the GA acceptance with the picture, please let us know asap and we'll do what we can. otherwise, all of the review items have been addressed. --linca^linca 04:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I added a link to Powderfinger Central too, because quite frankly, it's my preferred site :) I'll also take a look to see if any other copyediting is needed, but as usual, Linca beat me to it (same reviewer as when we did Dream Days, and same result!) Giggy ^Talk 04:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I'm no expert, I'm just afraid that the image really doesn't qualify for Fair Use since it is possible to recreate the article with a free alternative - the band are still alive and together. In my opinion, if you can't find a free image then, for the sake of the GA, I'd just remove the image. It's not required for the GA and its absence wouldn't preclude me passing the article, but its presence is a worry. The Rambling Man 07:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed the image as it does not qualify as fair use, the band is still active. RaNdOm26 08:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the band is still active, but we aren't able to go out and take a photo of them (now). Are you? Anyway, with the image removed, is it GA worthy? Giggy ^Talk 08:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Allow me a bit more time to re-review and I'll let you know Giggy... The Rambling Man 09:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Almost there

Okay, I just noticed this:

• "Powderfinger is a rock band ..." vs "Powderfinger are highly successful..." - the usual "is" vs "are" argument for collectives. Now I'm not fussed either way, but I think consistency needs to be maintained across the article.
• First paragraph of "The era of side projects (2005–2007)" and last para of "Personnel" section are both uncited.

I've merged a few of the paragraphs, hopefully in a suitable fashion - I don't like lots of small paragraphs, it looks nasty and is choppy to read. Besides the two comments above, we're ready to go... The Rambling Man 09:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime, I found two images which may suffice - [1] [2] (not sure if the first contains everyone). I've asked Random to take a look at these, and if you want to as well TRM, that would be great. In the meantime, I'll take a quick look at the issues noted above. Giggy ^Talk 09:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Of those images, I saw the first one when I went through flickr before, but didn't like that Haugsy's not in it. Other than that, it's a nice shot. Giggy, can you look for refs for the "era" and personnel sections? ta. --linca^linca 11:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and Powderfinger is a band, not are. Collective decisions when referring to collections of people should be referred to as a singular unit (Aus/UK grammar, and I belive it's the same in the USA). --linca^linca 11:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. In the UK, say I was talking about Oasis, then I'd definitely 100% say that "Oasis are a band", not "Oasis is a band"..., that's UK English for you. The Rambling Man 22:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, I'd say "Powderfinger is a popular Australian band", or "Bernard Fanning is a solo artist", contrasting with "Powderfinger and Drag are Australian bands", it reads better and would be the correct Australian grammar. Slabba 00:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it now says "is" (not "are"). Era section - you want refs on paragraph 1? I'm on it, and I'll take a look at personnel at some stage. Giggy ^Talk 00:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Personnel section - I did as much as I could find. I can't find anything on Alex Lloyd appearing in Odyssey though. I'm going away for a week now, so I won't be able to do the era section...hopefully it'll pass before I get back! Giggy ^Talk 01:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my bad going from memory, but it was Bernie and Sharon who appeared on Alex Lloyd's album Watching Angels Mend. So I removed that. --linca^linca 05:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

GA

For the time being, I've removed the image and passed the article as a good one. An image is not a pre-requisite of a good article, and all this one was doing was making the GA impossible to pass. Well done to everyone involved. The Rambling Man 11:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Rambling Man! 2GAs now! WOOT! Time to get it upt o FA. =p --linca^linca 01:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That's great news! Well done to everyone who contributed. What's next on the agenda? :-) Slabba 08:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

FA! BTW, Nice work on O#5, Slabba. I've taken a leaf and expanded more in there also (as you can probably see by now). --linca^linca 11:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

To-do

Anyone have info on what early covers they used to do? I reckon that'd be interesting to go in if this will end up at FAC. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...other then the obvious - "Powderfinger" by Neil Young, I really don't know (I'm too young :P). If it's anywhere on the net, it may be here [3]. Giggy\^Talk

Great resource that - should makethe job alot easier :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

(OT) I'm glad they had some nice words to say about Juice (a defunct Oz band lacking an article page...hmmmmm) who I knew a few of...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• Also - any information on what some landmark songs such as "These Days" etc. would be good to include - any old magazines with interviews etc. may be good here.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Alister Donkin

What is up with the edit warring about if Donkin was a member of Powderfinger? By the way, a basic google search didn't give further info about the person (they were copied info from Wikipedia), and the reference which was cited before never mentioned the name. Could the people involved who are reverting again and again and leaving warning messages would please stop? RaNdOm26 18:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

So are you saying that Alister Donkin wasn't a former member? I'm confused... The Alister Donkin page is pretty messed up at the moment too. Slabba 02:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You're a bit late to the party Random26, I'm afraid. I've asked a major contributor to the article to look into this. But thanks for your interest. If you can find any information that would help resolve the issue that'd be great. The Rambling Man 10:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

For your delectation, the thread I initiated is here. The Rambling Man 10:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Auto Peer Review

Just noticed that it contained a surprisingly large amount of suggestions, so here goes:

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?]
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 17 additive terms, a bit too much.
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

Enjoy! Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 08:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

New images of Powderfinger

Over the weekend, myself and RaNdOm26 (talk · contribs) hit a goldmine of freely-licensed Powderfinger images on Flickr (see Category:Powderfinger on Commons]]). See the category for images that could possibly be used in the article. Sebi _[talk] 01:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty more images on Flickr from the same user - we should look through them to see if there are images for every band member. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 01:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

We gotta find a picture for Darren Middleton. RaNdOm26 06:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Steven Bishop too, although that'll be harder as he wasn't at the performance. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 23:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Album covers, flags, and myspace

I'd be interested in other editors' views of this edit, which restores images used in breach of fair use (and which are not particularly illustrative of the band anyway), a Myspace link, and a little Australia flag. Comments? --John 14:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe they should stay. What's wrong the the Australian flag? It's used on many pages. Also the "Blue EP" seems justified to stay there. The Myspace link is an official Powderfinger website too. Slabba 23:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The Australian flag seems fine, and the covers for the albums that won the ARIAs for Best Cover Art should stay as well. ~ Sebi _[talk] 23:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The flag should go. Merely decorative, it already says Australia in text. (WP:FLAG) MySpace should stay. Official/Informative, provides things Wikipedia cannot - audio streams, tour information, news, etc. (WP:EL) Album covers is a significance thing. WP:NFCC #8: Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Non-free media files are not used if they can be replaced by text that serves a similar function. Not sure if they are significant enough. - kollision 00:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

User talk:John#Powderfinger - Flags gone, MySpace stays, album covers stay. Any objections to my reasoning?  — Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 07:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD#Images and notation: "The {{album cover}} tag establishes fair use only in an article about the album in question." --John 15:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it says unless a fair use rationale can be provided, for which (I believe, and I'm sorry if I'm wrong) these have all had FURs appended to the image pages in question. If not, one could easily be drafted for each. --linca^linca 02:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You must have missed "Fair use images cannot be used purely for decoration. Fair use images cannot be used in discography sections. Fair use images should be used sparingly. Each image must contribute specifically, uniquely and irreplaceably to the article." Just because you can draft a fair use rationale doesn't mean it's an applicable one. It is a lazy way to illustrate a band article anyway, as well as being bad fair use. --John 04:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

They aren't being used for decoration, and this isn't a discography. They are being used because they contribute specifically, uniquely and irreplaceably to the article - as award winning album covers. I wouldn't object greatly to the removal of the blue EP's cover, but the others should stay, in my opinion, and per my interpretation of MUSTARD.  — Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 07:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) I don't think this article should have any more cover images than The Beatles does. I'd say they are being used for decoration and I don't agree the current version satisfies "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." --John 14:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I say the opposite, but I have a reason for doing so. It's not decoration - it's a demonstration of the cover art they are notable for.  — Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 07:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Since you mention the Beatles, it's worthy of note that only one of their album's received any noteworthy awards for its cover, which was Sergeant Peppers. Another thing of note is that the Beatles article is not a guide for what an article should be. It should be a guide for which all band articles could base themselves, but its standard is not that high any more. It was once a featured article, but just isn't there any more. The article should have a lot more imagery to depict the group. It's actually quite ridiculous how under-imaged the article is. This article passed its GA with these images as they were "tastefully used". The notion that these fail Fair Use may be in the mind of more than one or two users, but that doesn't validate it. They are fair use, as they are directly referenced and bear direct context to the article. --linca^linca 08:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

That's what I intended to say, but I'm just too lazy :)  — Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 08:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

So, I am confused now. Is your argument that album covers are fair use in band articles (if "tastefully used"), or that this article is a special case because some (not all) of the images being used won prizes? --John 14:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Both. I've removed one two images, now all of them have won prizes. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 00:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If a reasonable case of fair use can be stated (which it can here due to relevance), almost any copyright protected item can be utilised. Abuse of fair use is where there is no reason for including the images and they are "purely" for decorative purposes, for instance, if I was to post copyright photographs of the Opera House, Harbour Bridge and Uluru to illustrate the images that comprosed the logo for Across the Great Divide tour, that would be questionable (though, in some cases, it could be argued acceptable, even in such a borderline position). Dont get me wrong: I'm not going to do that, as it's purely decorative, doesn't demostrate anything not able to be depicted in words and (in my opinion) would look like shit. These cases are thumbnailed versions of album covers which are directly discussed on the article and appropriately placed near their location of discussion. Now, it could be argued that these images would be better served in the awards list, but that's not the discussion right now (and even if that's the case, it's not an issue to be duplicious; these images could be used there as well as here noting the same information as it bears almost equal relevance in each). --linca^linca 01:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with this interpretation of our fair use policy. The images are not discussed in the article; a mention (unreferenced) in the picture caption that they won an award in such-and-such a year does not justify their use as it does not over-ride "Minimal number of uses. As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary." and "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." from our policy. Finally, you might consider the point that, while I agree that the article needs images, these album covers are rather a lazy way of illustrating it. Wouldn't it be better, and far truer to the spirit of the project, if someone could create free images of the band? Something that should be trivially easy for a band that are still performing I would have thought. "A further goal of minimizing licensed and fair-use material is to encourage creation of original new content, rather than relying on borrowed content that comes with restrictions", as Wikipedia:Non-free content#Explanation_of_policy_and_guidelines puts it. --John 16:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is a fairly recent centralised discussion, relating to the last time I had this argument. It related specifically to the Spice Girls article, and there was also discussion at Talk:Spice Girls#Album images in main article. As Seraphimblade says in that last discussion, "This issue really is already settled". --John 18:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't find the words "cover art" once in Spice Girls, so again, it's apples and oranges. And for the record, there are plenty of free images - don't know why I didn't add them sooner! Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 05:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Now we're talking! Any of these will be better than the fair use images, which do not depict the subject of the article, on which there is no real discussion in the article. Free always trumps non-free on this project. --John 08:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) I replaced the dodgy fair use images with the free ones you helped find. I think it looks a lot better now, as well as meeting our policies better. Thanks for your help in improving the article. --John 15:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

*cough* I really wasn't implying that we replace the fair use images...rather, have both. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 03:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Free trumps fair as I say. I think the article is better now: the album covers are still available on their own articles which are linked from this one, and we have some rather good free images of the band to illustrate the band article. Fair use policy is better conformed with, the article looks better; seems like a result to me, no? --John 04:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Side projects

Yeah, the list of side projects was deleted, so I took it upon myself to add the page's info to the main powderfinger page. I've kept the formatting, since I'm pretty proud of it, but let me know what you guys think. That and the musical style sections should bolster the article when we submit it to FA.... BUT I was looking over some other FA musical artists and bands and think it'd be appropriate if we list a Philanthropy section detailing all of the charity works that the band has done (Wave aid for tsunami, ATGD tourfor Reconciliation etc etc). In fact, this isn't a suggestion; it's a must have, otherwise the FA will fail, I'm almost certain. --lincalinca 03:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I really don't feel that the side projects should be listed here. It's not going to help the article achieve featured status any time soon, and the article shouldn't become a dumping ground for the side projects material. Enough information on each band's page should be enough, we don't need a page to link them all together. ~ Sebi 08:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree in not listing it here. If the article won't be kept, so be it. I'll get a category sorted instead. — H₂O —  08:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry Linca, I just feel that it really doesn't belong there. As for the philantrophy section – GREAT idea! :) I'll try and sandbox something a little later. ~ Sebi 08:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

  Okay, done... how does it look? ~ Sebi 09:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Bummer! Oh well, it was worth a shot. Popping it in there did sort of give it an interlinking kind of thing, but I suppose the category might be the more appropriate use. I'm thinking I might make a change to the personnel section to at least note it there. I'd like to copy the way the personnel section appears in the tables from the Crowded House page, but since we don't have free images for everybody, it can't be done right now. I'll have a lok at your sandbox in a bit. --lincalinca 09:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've proposed an opening line. What do you guys think? --lincalinca 09:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking good Sebi. I don't really know how much more information can be padded into the section, but do you guys think it'd be appropriate to use {{main}} to link to the articles about the works (i.e. Waveaid, Across the div, Black Tears etc)? It would be in keeping with the other uses throughout the article. --lincalinca 12:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I've checked out some other featured music articles with musical style and influences sections, and they don't use {{main}}. Anyway, I've expanded on Black Tears, because I think that being this controversy directly involves the group we should provide some more background info, and I've expanded on the breast cancer concert they did at the Opera House, and + a quote, too :) ~ Sebi 22:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I just thought of the fact that they played at Farewell to the World. That was a charity event also for the Sydney Children's Hospital, which they played for free. I don't really have the time to make that prosal, but that's a start too. --lincalinca 08:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to stick to events that gained some media coverage. I'll Google for your suggestions ~ Sebi 08:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It was the first major charity event they played at. I've added it, plus reffed it. I'm certain it's worthy of adding. I's also the biggest concert in Australian history, so it's definitely worthy of note somewhere, and since it was for Charity, it may as well be there. --lincalinca 09:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Musical style section

Well, the musical style section in my sandbox is going better than I thought it would in my original google diggings. I've managed to track down a few useful sources that touch on influences and sounds of the band – not only do they make for a good read but can actually be of use :) ~ Sebi 03:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice work Sebi. Looking quite good. Needs expanding, but plenty of refs make for lots of content. You should maybe make mention of Tom Petty since there's a few references that IDR was written with a TP&THB feel intended (and appearntly succeeded, according to Benmont Tench). --lincalinca 09:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

"THB"?... I can make out the other acronyms fine (I think ;P), but this one has got me stumped ;) ~ Sebi 09:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers. LOL. --lincalinca 10:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Band members

This is pretty pedantic, but I noticed that Spebi sorted the band members in the template by the order listed on the Powderfinger page. I think it would be better if both the template and the Powderfinger page band members were sorted alphabetically. What does everyone think? Slabba 07:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Generally band members are sorted by their position in the band, that is, lead singer, guitarist(s), bassist, drummer. I think it'd be best if we sort it this way, rather than the current way: Bernard Fanning, John Collins, Ian Haug, Darren Middleton, Jon Coghill – which is, lead singer, bassist, guitarists and drummer. I've sorted them both now, so they display: Fanning, Haug, Middleton, Collins, Coghill. I chose Haug over Middleton because his last name is higher in the alphabet. Spebi 08:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't really think this is the most appropriate listing, though nor do I think alphabetical is best either. There's no hard-and-fast rule as to sequencing members, but wouldn't the ones who're most notable worthy of listing higher, and based on that, I'd say it's Fanning, Middleton, Coghill, Haug and then Collins. --lincalinca 10:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That's fair enough, you've justified your reasoning which I'm happy with. Just thought I'd see what everyone thought. Cheers. Slabba 06:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I always thought it was drummer last. Hrm. Spebi 07:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

In Fingerprints, it's listed Fanning, Middleton, Haug, Collins, Coghill. That's the only time I've seen their names listed (IIRC) on one of their publications, so I think we should use that. Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the band's own usage is something to go by, but their sequence changes on most offerings, so it's a tought call to make. Who legitimately has Dream Days and can say what the sequence is in there? I figure since it's the most recent. --lincalinca 08:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Dream Days lists in the same order as Fingerprints - Fanning, Middleton, Haug, Collins, Coghill. Any objections? Dihydrogen Monoxide 02:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Good Spebi 04:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

FAC?

Anybody got objections to this article taking the FAC plunge? It looks good, just needs a bit of copyediting. I personally think we should put it up when the Dream Days FAC ends - other opinions? Dihydrogen Monoxide 04:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I have objections. I'd prefer to seek advice from other editors involved with bands like Powderfinger, and get a bit more out of the peer review before we take it to FAC. Spebi 04:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose so - that'll be a few weeks anyway. By the way, any comment on the band members (above)? Dihydrogen Monoxide 04:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm in it for that too. More review but then sure! --lincalinca 06:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)