Talk:Cardiacs/Archive 2

Tidying up and consolidating
Some of you may have noticed that there's currently a drive on Wikipedia to identify articles (particularly in the area of popular music) which can be judged as being poorly researched, poorly written and full of so-called "fancruft". There's a risk that the Cardiacs article may fall foul of this, partly due to the enthusiasm of those contributing to it without following up with effective references.

I'm aiming to improve the Cardiacs article to avoid the risk of having it tagged, and would welcome other constructive input. As well as ongoing improvements to the text and editing, I'm currently carrying out the following actions:


 * Increasing the number of useful references (predominantly from other webpages, though it would be useful to cite more print reviews).
 * Creating a Cardiacs portal (95% done) to link together the variety of Cardiacs-related articles.
 * Creating a separate discography page (80% done) which will be linked via the portal and an in-line Wikilink. The current list will be simplified. (This is along the lines of other articles on major bands).
 * Creating a separate page for Cardiacs-related musical projects (meaning projects which feature, or have featured, Cardiacs members) which will be linked via the portal and an in-line Wikilink. Possibly production clients will be included. This will replace the list in the current article.
 * Checking each of the bands on the huge, horribly undisciplined, paragraph-long list of acts which are alleged to be influenced by Cardiacs. If I can find a solid enough web-based or text-based citation for a band's Cardiacs influence, maybe they can stay. If someone's just added a band to the list due to a half-remembered conversation after a gig (or a conviction that because an instrumental part or vocal squeak in one of the band's song resembles Cardiacs, it's automatically some kind of tribute or steal) then that band will have to removed from the list.
 * Trimming out injudicious hype, including my own. It's just not good enough to add text saying that Cardiacs are philosophical, poetic, mysterious and beautiful - you need to cite a source for such a statement other than your own love for Uncle Timmy and all of his works.
 * Trying to continue to include anyone else's useful, disciplined input.

As I've done before, I should state very clearly at this point that this is not a case of me establishing ownership of the article, and that I welcome constructive contribution from others. This is an attempt to strengthen the article in a manner appropriate to Wikipedia. Leave a message on my talkpage if you'd like to exchange some ideas away from the discussion page. In the meantime, please take a look at some of the well-established articles on major bands (Roxy Music and Rush are two I picked as examples) and see how certain article functions are approached or avoided. Thanks for reading - Dann Chinn (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Navbox
With such a massive amount of albums and related pages, I figured a Navbox might be in order, so I pounded one out. I wasn't quite sure how to handle a Navbox with so many components, so any editors out there are free to fix/add whatever they want before I start adding it (unless there are objections).

Category:English rock music groups templates Category:Progressive rock groups templates Skibz777 (talk) 06:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Genre source breakdown
Can we post sources for the genres that Cardiacs has been described as playing to try and narrow down the genres to things that are actually verifiable?


 * Progressive rock - one source describes them as "progressive punk", not entirely verifiable -https://books.google.com/books?id=kXyFAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT1430&dq=cardiacs+progressive+rock+band&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAmoVChMIhcbXi9q4xwIV0jWICh0jQQMH#v=onepage&q=cardiacs%20progressive%20rock%20band&f=false
 * indie rock - http://www.allmusic.com/artist/cardiacs-mn0000531346/biography
 * pop - "atonal pop" http://www.allmusic.com/album/on-land-and-in-the-sea-mw0001174232

I can't remove any of the genres, since none of them are verifiable, and I can't add anything new or round off what's already there to the best-sourced genres because nothing listed in the article to describe the band's music is verifiable -- I.E. that at least three sources agree that Cardiacs are a genre. --JuggaloProghead (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * A To X of Alternative Music describes the band as "pronk" and a fusion of punk and progressive rock, so I'm going with that. JuggaloProghead (talk) 00:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 one external links on Cardiacs. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717202015/http://www.rock-metal-music-reviews.com/live-review-cardiacs-the-wedgewood-rooms-22nd-november-2007/ to http://www.rock-metal-music-reviews.com/live-review-cardiacs-the-wedgewood-rooms-22nd-november-2007/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090903062643/http://www.classicrockmagazine.com:80/news/ginger%E2%80%99s-secret-history-of-rock%E2%80%99n%E2%80%99roll-pt-7/ to http://www.classicrockmagazine.com/news/ginger%E2%80%99s-secret-history-of-rock%E2%80%99n%E2%80%99roll-pt-7/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101215222635/http://furious.com/perfect/cardiacs.html to http://www.furious.com/perfect/cardiacs.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101205151605/http://www.readbookonline.net:80/readOnLine/884/ to http://www.readbookonline.net/readOnLine/884/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090630233958/http://www.cardiacs.org:80/exhibits/documents/docs_interview_time.html to http://www.cardiacs.org/exhibits/documents/docs_interview_time.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090817121745/http://www.angelfire.com:80/wy/cardiacs/cardiacs/cdxgiglist.htm to http://www.angelfire.com/wy/cardiacs/cardiacs/cdxgiglist.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080921155250/http://www.angelfire.com:80/wy/cardiacs/cardiacs/cdxhistory.htm to http://www.angelfire.com/wy/cardiacs/cardiacs/cdxhistory.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071009052738/http://www.cardiacs.com:80/vexed-questions/your-vexed-questions-october-2005/ to http://www.cardiacs.com/vexed-questions/your-vexed-questions-october-2005/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101207164238/http://www.cardiacs.com:80/reviews/album-reviews-guns to http://www.cardiacs.com/reviews/album-reviews-guns/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110515200128/http://www.cardiacs.com/reviews/london-astoria-2004/ to http://www.cardiacs.com/reviews/london-astoria-2004/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

"Best Known?"
in viewing the introduction to this page, I noticed that there was a section that had signified that the band was best known for the minor hit single "Is This the Life?," and while this may have been true during the band's life span, I wonder if it is truly representative of what the band is best known for as of today. After Tim's passing, and even before that, I do not believe that is truly what they're most remembered for. This band has been hailed as an influence by incredibly influential musicians such as Mike Patton and Steven Wilson, and I truly don't believe the band's legacy is boiled down to that single song. albums like Sing to God and The Seaside have proven influential and legendary beyond that single in particular. perhaps their best known for Sing to God which is an album that came out long after that. This is a band that has lived far beyond that singular single, and probably should be identified as such. Even beyond the typical music criticism prevailing wisdom of the time, they're now an incredibly influential band that should be respected as such, in my opinion at least. Perhaps this is all opinion based and I am speaking out of my depth, but I feel that the page should be updated to better reflect their influence on the modern state of rock music. 2600:1002:B0CE:2BD7:7D56:FF90:DB52:D600 (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I think "Is This the Life?" should be mentioned in the lead, but not referred to as what they're best known for. Humbledaisy (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

The Cardiacs
I think it might be good to talk about whether the definitive article is needed in the lede or not here. I personally feel the name should be rendered Cardiacs. This is not like Bee Gees or Eagles where, though it's not in the official name, the band are usually referred to with a "The" in every day speech. I'd say Cardiacs are more akin to, say, Tears for Fears. You'd be very hard-pressed to find a Cardiacs fan who refers to them as The Cardiacs; I appreciate this is a difficult thing to source and that there are sources that use The Cardiacs, but there are also many that don't and I think therefore it would be safest if we use the name as it is officially.

As far as I can tell, WP:THE doesn't recommend using "The _____" once in the lede and never again. It does say " If a band is officially known without a definite article, but the members typically refer to their group as "the (Name)" in everyday speech, then the definite article should be included in running prose", but this doesn't apply. For example, Jon Poole and Kavus Torabi use "Cardiacs" rather than "the Cardiacs" in interviews. Humbledaisy (talk) Humbledaisy (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Humbledaisy; I don't see any evidence that the band themselves use "the," nor does AllMusic (FWIW). The only good source I've found so far that does use "the" is The Guardian in this article, though this article from The Guardian does not use it. Other good sources not using "the" include The Quietus -, - Brooklyn Vegan - ,, LouderSound - .  We have plenty of plural bands that don't use the article; see Foals_(band), Melvins, Swans_(band), Deftones, Talking Heads, Pixies_(band), Fleet Foxes. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 22:42, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Other bands such as Ramones also have differing naming conventions in sources, but the definite article is still used in the lead. This is also the case with Pixies despite what Jamie suggested. But if no band members have ever used "the Cardiacs", maybe a note could be added instead, akin to the Ramones article. For example:
 * While some sources[citations] refer to the band as the Cardiacs, several others[citations] simply use "Cardiacs", including band members.[citations] Miklogfeather (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Reviewing the existing sources, most sources just say "Cardiacs." Ramones case is a bit different, as a few of compilations actually used the article. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Some various artists compilations also use "The Cardiacs"[1 ][2 ][3 ]. I think at the very least there should be a mention of the band name's use of the definite article somewhere. Miklogfeather (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't object to a note similar to what's used in Ramones, but I think the lede and body of the article should use "Cardiacs." OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Various artists compilations quite often get band names wrong. For example, there are some that use The Monkeys, Mamas and Papas and most pertinently The Talking Heads. Surely we don't need to honour what are clearly errors at all when it is just Cardiacs in the band's official catalogue, on their website and in interviews with the band members. That seems to me to be in line with what's written on the subject in WP:THE. Humbledaisy (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Taking everything into account, I think a footnote would be the best compromise. If there are any objections to my edit please let me know. Thank you all for the input! Miklogfeather (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)