Talk:The Vibrators

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Germany[edit]

In 1978 or 1979, in Germany, where such things were illegal, members of the band were arrested for wearing Red Army Faction badges (made by Better Badges at the behest of Joe Strummer). While this was probably just casual radical chic it gave them a solid and enduring reputation in that country as radicals. I can't find any citation but I know this to be true. Wwwhatsup 04:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Improve or To Tinker?[edit]

It should go without saying that Wikipedians have a responsibility to improve articles in which they have an interest and / or knowedge. One of the functions of this page is to discuss changes. This not only helps create a consensus, it dissuades people from mere tinkering. Add sometime substantial! Fully reference it and be prepared to justify it. Yozzer66 (talk) 20:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking[edit]

There's way too much linking going on in that first paragraph. Readers of punk rock articles know what drummers, guitarists, singles, producers, are. If this was an article about music or record production such links would be appropriate. I await comment before delinking. Personally I don't believe linking dates has any value either. Wwwhatsup 00:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Personally I prefer drummer, guitarist, etc. links to be in the info box next to the appropriate band member. Yozzer66 11:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. You could move that info over to the box. Wwwhatsup 12:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peel sessions[edit]

Do we really need to know what studio was used for the Peel sessions? Currently the cite is generic and the dates are munged. I suggest that dates be abbreviated to month,year but cited individually to the appropriate page on the bbc site. Then those that care for details can easily follow up and gain full info. Wwwhatsup 00:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This whole page is still looking a little messy. Whilst I was responsible for the Peel session bit, with the benefit of hindsight, I think your correct in your observations. The studio only has any kind of significance for Brits of a certain age. Yozzer66 11:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. In fact, conveniently, there's one page per band on the BBC site. So only one ref needed.Wwwhatsup 12:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Deming's review[edit]

I'm sorry, but I think this has to go too. 1) In the article it reads like it's a Guinness review; 2) The cite is no good; and, more importantly, 3) reviews generally speaking, if not by well-notable critics, are POV and have no place in articles; 4) I'm not sure the assertion is even true - see next para. Yozzer66 17:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented it out for now. And also, similarly, the V2 review extracts.Wwwhatsup 12:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(1) I disagree. To quote Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD/NPOV, "opinions are desirable. However, they must be cited"; (2) The cite is easily fixed. That's a petty point; (3)In areas of popular culture such as Punk Rock it is not as easy to establish reputable sources as it is in, say, economic history or chemistry. I am very uncomfortable with the tendency to privilege some sources over others merely because they are published by a large multi-national corporation; (4) I really don't understand the point you are attempting to make. Yozzer66 16:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright I give you that. I don't think opinions necessarily help the article. If one's writing a promotional piece, or something to be entertaining, fine, but if one's making an easily understood biography of a band, it comes over as fluff. Summarize and put it in the cites IMHO. I also notice those same guidelines will knockout the 'See Also' section. Wwwhatsup 17:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like Spylab's edit today. Wwwhatsup (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to admit it, but so do I. I must be mellowing! Yozzer66 (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Troops Of Tomorrow[edit]

No mention? Surely one of their most significant songs, socio-political content, famously covered by The Exploited? Yozzer66 17:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stuck it in.Wwwhatsup 21:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone provide a citation for its 'punk anthem' status? Personally, I can't stand the track... The Exploited's version is even worse! Yozzer66 17:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reference got deleted somewhere along the way, probably because of the "punk anthem" claim. So I have just re-added it without that claim. Robman94 (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bio details on band members[edit]

I also believe the bio information of date and place of birth is not needed. Either the musicians, as in the case of Knox, are that notable that they have their own article, where the info belongs, or not, In either case we don't need to know in this one. Wwwhatsup 12:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, surely info more appropriate for the info box? Yozzer66 16:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's needed there either. I've chopped it, but here it is. Just in case.

The band was founded by Ian "Knox" Carnochan (born Ian M Carnochan, 4 April 1945, Cricklewood, North West London), bassist; Pat Collier (born October 1951); guitarist John Ellis (born 1 June 1952, London) and a drummer known as "Eddie" (born John Edwards, 1 April 1951).

I've added instrument info for current members. Any chance of digging up that for all the former's? Wwwhatsup 16:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done up until the 1980s. Yozzer66 17:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Track Records[edit]

In the infobox. Is this true? Seems chronologically unlikely. Wwwhatsup 17:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appariently, the band's 2002 album 'Energize' was released on Track. Cat. no. TRK 1016CD. However, I don't know whether there is more than one Track Records. As you know, it is often the case that label names are recycled. Yozzer66 17:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Same one. There's some good info on their site.Wwwhatsup 21:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Vibrators. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Vibrators&oldid=1206198744"