Talk:Dead Boys

Untitled
Perhaps I'm letting POV get in the way here, but I think "Sonic Reducer" is regarded as a MAJOR punk classic, as opposed to a "minor" one, as this article currently says. I'm not sure how one can quantify that sort of thing. It's on every comprehensive punk rock compilation I've ever seen, though, if that's a valid criterion. Personally I don't think it's just POV since I don't even really like most of the other Dead Boys songs.

Well I'll leave it as it is for now. Does anyone else agree that "Sonic Reducer" is regarded as a major punk classic? Note I'm not asking if YOU think it's a major punk classic, just whether it's regarded as such. :)

Sonic reducer, ain't no loser.


 * I agree, I think it's a pretty important punk song and is regarded as such. It was on Sire Records' recent retrospective compilation of important songs from their history --Avwhite 22:23, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree, its more than minor. if you search google you can see Pearl Jam covered it (no idea why). DanieldaSilva

I think there legend has actally grown over the years.Thier music has aged well,much better than The Lords of The New Church.StivCa 20:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Um sure, there's a ton of references to this band, album and song here: I think you could justify "punk classic" from one of the reviewers there.(Astrocloud 05:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC))

New Gigs
It says on billboard.com  that the Dead Boys are playing a gig to benefit CBGBs - is this true? How? I think the wiki entry should be updated if they've reformed somehow (sans Stiv, of course) methelfilms 07:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I Added a photo onto the page....tom-da-bomb

Fair use rationale for Image:The Dead Boys-Young Loud & Snotty (album cover).jpg
Image:The Dead Boys-Young Loud & Snotty (album cover).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 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 03:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing
Just a little feedback on the sources added by in this edit. Thanks for adding references -- the sourcing in this article, overall, is really thin, so this is one of the most valuable kinds of improvements you can make. I don't think point #2 is a problem in this instance, because the specific facts attributed to this source do not seem especially dubious or controversial. There is a bit of flexibility when it comes to citing straightforward facts. But overall, to substantially improve an article like this, the best thing would be to find some coverage in well established publications with visible and respectable editorial practices, and incorporate those citations into the article. -Pete (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) On a technical level, what you did is good, but there's one more step to most "elegantly" combine the multiple citations to the same source -- look closely at what I did here:  Specifically, after the first instance of the citation -- once you've created it and named it -- you can then refer back to it with a simpler format. So in this case, you can replace the 2nd and 3rd instance of the reference with this simpler text:   
 * 2) In general, I think the source you have added is not especially good, in terms of Wikipedia's definition of a "reliable source". This is probably a challenging thing in the punk rock topic in general, since the topic of punk rock is not exactly an area where you'd expect to find a strong emphasis on the reliability of publishers, documentation of editorial practices, etc. But Wikipedia is not all that flexible on these points. Punk77's web site does not seem to have an "about us" page on their web site, or express anything about their editorial or fact-checking practices.
 * Hi -- I see you're adding more references, looking good! Do look into point #1 above, as reusing reference code will lead to a tidier article, easier for others to edit, etc. -Pete (talk) 18:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 22 May 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) --  Dane talk  06:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The Dead Boys → Dead Boys – Proper band title RF23 (talk) 13:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). --  Dane talk  18:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The cited sources seem to refer to them predominantly as "The Dead Boys". only recently changed the article body to consistently use "Dead Boys". Build consensus on the talk page and find sources. Daask (talk) 17:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The sources are wrong. The band's name is listed as "Dead Boys" on all of their releases, their music on online catalogues such as spotify, apple music, amazon and google play music, allmusic, amongst others. Meanwhile many articles properly source the name. Several sources cite them as the Dead Boys (or The Dead Boys at the beginning of a paragraph/sentence) where that grammar fits, but The Dead Boys is not the name of the band, similar to how Red Hot Chili Peppers are not The Red Hot Chili Peppers and Foo Fighters are not The Foo Fighters, despite being referred to that in articles. RF23 (talk) 18:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand me. The isn't about persuading me or anyone else, but about adding content to the article. See WP:But it's true! Please consider adding mention of the band name to the article, perhaps in a footnote, citing the sources you have suggested, while being mindful of WP:RS. I am doubtful that the catalogs are reliable sources.
 * Upon reviewing your sources, I agree with your proposed title change, but not with your changes to article phrasing, which I have reverted. Virtually all the sources you cited refer to them as "the Dead Boys" in sentences. Daask (talk) 13:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Support: The band knows what their own name is, and uses "Dead Boys". There is no confusion potential, so whether various later sources erroneously tack on a "The" sometimes (as they do with all such plural-form band names, e.g. Pixies and Barenaked Ladies) is ultimately irrelevant. This is a WP:ABOUTSELF matter: the primary sourcing of the band's own materials is sufficient to establish what their name really is.  Support also per WP:THE: We never prefix a "The" unless RS do so with almost totally uniform consistency, and that simply isn't the case here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:THE. Sources do not consistently use the "The" in caps.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.