Talk:Bee Gees

Origins
Manchester or Redcliffe? G. Picanço (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's arguable, like so many aspects of Bee Gees history. Barry, Robin and Maurice certainly performed as a trio in Manchester, but did not adopt the name Bee Gees until Redcliffe. WWGB (talk) 00:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. Which is exactly why we have edit notes asking people not to add anything into that field. Tvoz / talk 01:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Years active
Should the infobox report "years active" as 1958-2012, or with a hiatus as 1958–2003, 2009-2012? Better to avoid an edit war over this. WWGB (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi WWGB, I think it should have the split, especially because Barry and Robin talked as if they did not plan to perform again (but eventually did). I’ve recently learned that Barry and Robin did do two shows in 2006 together so those should probably be included as well. I know they were among a number of artists who collaborated on a song for charity in 2005 (if I believe), but I have not heard it so I don’t know if they sing together or separately (or if we should count it). I think the brief 1969/1970 split is too confusing to explain in the years active section, because it seems like sources differ if Barry and Maurice split in December 1969 or early 1970 (and of course they were reunited by late August, so less than a year regardless, if that helps). EPBeatles (talk) 05:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Band name
Shouldn't the band name be "The BeeGees"? We write, for example, "Apes, Pigs & Spacemen (a.k.a. AP&S) are a British rock band", and "Art Bears were an English avant-rock group", all without a preceding "The", and this is just fine. But would one write "BeeGees were a music group formed in 1958" without article? --Lambiam 09:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd say not. There are several bands (e.g. Carpenters, Eagles) which commonly appear with the definite article prefix, but who have specifically expressed that that isn't their band name. Bee Gees are one such case, even if the internet is riddled with references to 'The Bee Gees'. Michaelfromtheuk (talk) 17:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

British
Why doesn't the page say 'The Bee Gees were a British musical group'...like on every other wiki page for a band originating in the United Kingdom? - Romano23 (10:27 GMT 11/02) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.230.249 (talk) 10:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Bee Gees above. WWGB (talk) 11:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Doesn't really answer the question. The trio were from the UK - why aren't they described as such? All their individual wiki pages say 'British'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.230.249 (talk) 12:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)


 * This issue is complex. It has caused massive, sometimes unpleasant debate in the past. There are good arguments for them being Australian, and good arguments for them being British. Best we encourage people to read all the details about the origins of the Bee Gees so they get the full picture, rather than a simple, potentially misleading, one word description. HiLo48 (talk) 03:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

There is no debate here, they were not only British, they were Manx British to be specific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.159.247.72 (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The band name Bee Gees was coined in Australia in the early 1960s. Two early members of the band were Vince Melouney and Colin Peterson, both Australian. So, not as simple as you might think. WWGB (talk) 02:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)


 * And this thread illustrates the point. We've been over this so many times, and this has been the best solution.  By the way, at least two of them, maybe all three, were American citizens and lived in the US longer than anywhere else, so an argument could be made that they are an American group.  I'm not making that argument, but the history of this article makes it clear that the only way we are able to reach some stability is to spell it out the way we have. Tvoz / talk 21:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The Gibbs may have lived for a time in Australia and started the group there, but they're all ethnically English, they were all UK citizens and the vast majority of their music career was based in either the UK or USA. There shouldn't be any problem with describing their origin as British or British-Australian right up front. At least one would think. 2600:8801:710E:7E00:17:8D63:94B2:7CE1 (talk) 04:23, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Is it possible to add British-Australian? FireDragonValo (talk) 04:38, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Bee Gees 1992.JPG

Recent revert
Hi Tvoz, you recently reverted my addition of qualifying the brothers as British and the band as being formed in Australian, stating that it goes against consensus. I believe my edit actually resolves that dispute (or at least doesn't violate any consensus that came from it), because it doesn't qualify the band's nationality—it's just two uncontested facts, which are that the brothers are British and the band was formed in Australia. ꧁ Zanahary ꧂ 04:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the good faith attempt - but if you look back at the extensive history on this subject, you'll see that in fact it is contested - for example, by the Manx faction - and we finally achieved stability on this matter so consensus to have it in this somewhat unorthodox manner is the best way to avoid needless edit warring. Tvoz / talk 19:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I propose merging The Rattlesnakes (1950s band) to Bee Gees as it seems like most of the sources documenting the Rattlesnakes are almost exclusively due to the Gibb brothers or their later band, the Bee Gees.

Note: This was originally a merger proposed by @Josedm a few days ago but it seems like he abandoned it. OhHaiMark (talk) 08:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello. Sorry, my native language is Spanish and I don't know how to speak English well, so I didn't know how to do the whole procedure. I appreciate that you took the proposal since I didn't know how to proceed. Thank you @OhHaiMark. Josedm (talk) 09:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it would be far too much detailed material to absorb into this Bee Gees article. It is a classic spin-off article, not unlike Quarrymen vis a vis The Beatles, where a summary is in the main article and details in the daughter. Of course the references are to the Gibbs and Bee Gees but in my opinion the detailed content about this early group is best handled in its separate article as it is. Tvoz / talk 03:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Tvoz so the article should have been proposed for deletion, since it mentions The Quarrymen, although they are essentially about the same thing, stories that are more like a chapter in a biography book than encyclopedic, the difference is that the Quarrymen made two professional recordings, Later the group reunited with the surviving original members, recorded and published albums and continues to operate today. I'll give another similar example: Smile, the band before Queen, also made several recordings, which have been published in bootlegs. The group reunited twice with its original members, on both occasions they made new recordings, the most recent in 2018. Against that, The Rattlesnakes loses.It didn't come to anything, in the same article it says that the first "real" performance was in 1957, the following year the band was already dissolved. To tell the truth, the article is not that long, it has a few very short sections that can easily be summarized or accommodated in the Bee Gees article. The Rattlesnakes was more of a hobby than something serious. Josedm (talk) 06:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)