Talk:Porcupine Tree/Archive 1

General Discussion
Where's all the Fear of a Blank Planet info? It doesn't seem like it's been updated for ages.
 * Fear of a Blank Planet has more information at that link. Kerrow 01:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Simply amazing band. It is not often you come across such a band that are so good in their original style of what they do. -- Xzen [9:44AM, Thursday, 1st June GMT+12]

Come on, the following sentences found in the article aren't right for wikipedia. This is supposed to be a neutral article - the "shouldn't come as that much of a surprise" phrase sounds like something we'd read in a rock magazine in the introductory paragraphs for a feature on the band.

"All this shouldn't come as that much of a surprise, given the fact that self-taught audio engineer and producer Wilson is very well famed for being a hard worker, and listens to many different genres of music for inspiration, as he once commented: "I like so many different types of things and they all go into the melting pot if you like that produces the music of Porcupine Tree." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Station82o (talk • contribs) 01:41, April 1, 2006

Awesome band. --Bookmastaflex 18:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Probably the best band I have discovered in at least 10 years. I especially like their recent direction on the last two albums ( Deadwing & In Absentia). Very finely crafted and produced music. It is complex and beautiful and delivers a punch where intended. They deserve much wider recognition than they have now. A tour with a well - known rock/ prog band (such as Rush) would open them up to many new fans. - Mike Hgl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.146.42 (talk • contribs) 17:34, January 9, 2006

Agreed, really wonderful band. - Rmzy717 AT SCHOOL, 16:14, January 23, 2006

Bookmastaflex 18:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

What could I possibly add? Oh yes... Steven Wilson is a genius. --Psychedelic Contributor 20:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't care if this article gets a featured status or not, I improved it in every possible way for the people who visit the site to enjoy, and most of all because I love this band so much. --200.68.215.172 01:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. That's my IP address on the signature above. --Psychedelic Contributor 02:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Excellent work :) ComaDivine 04:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I just looked at the subpage about why this wasn't a featured article. Most of the criticism it got was that the page doesn't explain what the band sounds like very much. Wow, that would be so hard to categorize. Should we add a section about "what they sound like"? Faerielinds 16:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:PEACOCK Avoid peacock terms. Jesus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.141.64.28 (talk • contribs) 16:07, March 18, 2006

I've been a big fan of PT for several years (and I'm excited about seeing them in concert next month!). I'm also a Wikipedia fan, and this article seems off for a Wikipedia article. It feels more like a fan page. There's a lot of love in the details of the history, but that's probably more interesting to a fan. I couldn't possibly try to rewrite the article from scratch - it'd never be accepted - and this seems to be a Wikipedia problem: it goes for local maximums. I can improve wordings here or there, but I think the whole framework needs to be rethought. Is there some way I could create an alternate PT page that could be worked on and revised and, if it becomes better than the original PT page, could eventually replace the main page? -dvs- 21:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe Subpages allows for creation of a temporary page as a subpage of this talk page for this type of work. For example, something like Talk:Porcupine_Tree/temp_page.  Perhaps a better option would be to create it as a subpage of your user page (see WP:SP) . --Beezhive 03:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with those above who've said what a great band this is. Kelpin 13:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

PROGRESSIVE METAL
i wouldnt say that they're progressive metal... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.167.95 (talk) 08:42, September 7, 2006

me neither... it's not because they have metal elements in their song that it makes them a progressive metal band. it's a rock band, imo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.211.131 (talk) 15:20, 1 August 2007

I'd say definitely prog (and they have said as much I think), metal on the other hand. Yeah it's there in places, but not really the main bit of the genre.140.232.146.171 (talk) 04:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

On The Sunday Of Life
What do people think about putting On the Sunday Of life under Compilations, rather than Studio Albums, as it is a mix of Tarquins Seaweed Farm and The Nostalgia Factory? --Radioactive turnip 11:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Tarquin's Seaweed Farm and The Nostalgia Factory were not available commercially, so On the Sunday of Life should be treated as a studio album. Debut albums usually contain material from unreleased demos and are never called compilations. --Molnart 02:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Voyage 34 - Compilation ?
The official PT site lists this release as a regular studio album. Shouldn't we move it to the studio albums category ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Molnart (talk • contribs) 01:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC).


 * "Voyage 34" is neither a Compilation nor a regular studio album but a Single, since it contains just one track (see Voyage 34). What they're refering to in that case is Voyage 34: The Complete Trip, a record that compiles Voyage 34 and Voyage 34: Remixes. Synesthetize (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Lasse Hoile
Added Lasse Hoile to see also section as he has important part in PT's visual side of things. I just started the Lasse Hoile page so if anyone has any more info feel free to add. It does seem extremely hard to find information on him though. Blackserenity 03:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Citations Needed
I've added tags to the direct quotes, as per WP:CITE. I'm sure that there are quite a few more places within the article that should provide inline citations as well, but I'm a little unsure of where to put them. I believe that the article should probably be tagged with (perhaps here on the talk page). --Beezhive 17:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I added what I hope will pass for adequate citations. Sorry if they were done wrong, I'm still getting used to the way this all works. Let me know if there's anything I should fix. Kerrow 21:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for helping out with that. I'm fairly sure that some more citations are needed in non-quote sections, but I'm still trying to figure out exactly what to do myself.  I may tweak some of the references a bit to match what's done in featured articles such as Pink Floyd or Zion National Park, specifically adding retrieved dates (which I believe to be required for URL references) on the assumption that they're done correctly --Beezhive 23:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, think I'm done for now anyway - I'm fairly confident that the citations are the way they need to be now. Please let me know if you find any problems.  Now comes the fun bit - figuring out what other pieces of the article need citations. --Beezhive 02:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Fear of a Blank Planet
Why does the album title keep being removed, one minute its there, the next its not. The band have officially announced the title on their website —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.69.24.171 (talk) 17:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC).


 * I'm not sure what the issue is - as far as I can tell, it was only removed once (by me) before the album title was officially announced on the band's website. It currently remains in the article, both at the end of Growth (phase three) and in the Discography sections. --Beezhive 20:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyright Status
I'm a bit worried about the copyright status of portions of this article. Some of it looks close to verbatim copy from the Porcupine Tree Bibliography. I don't have the time to fully investigate at the moment, but I think the pages need to be compared. If nobody else gets to it, I'll do it when I've got some free time. --Beezhive 02:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I know that some of it was, from my previous edits, and I've been trying to catch it when I find it and get reword it, or something of that sort. Still some work to be done though. Kerrow 05:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

"Recordings" not really a Compilation?
Any opinions on moving Recordings to another album section? It's currently listed as a compilation, though it only shares one track with another album that had been released at the time, so far as I can tell. The song, "Buying New Soul" was released as a Bonus track on a special edition of Lightbulb Sun, which was only released three months prior to the release of Recordings. Also, the | Porcupine Tree web site has it listed as a regular old album, only noting that it was "limited to 20,000 copies." Kerrow 23:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, according to the band website, all 3 of the albums currently under "Compilations" should be under the general Albums section. I'm not sure that I agree for Stars Die: The Delerium Years 1991-1997 since that's fairly clearly a compilation of tracks from over the years.  Recordings and Voyage 34: The Complete Trip probably could be, though.  If they are moved, their respective wikipedia pages should probably be updated as well. --Beezhive 00:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Moved Voyage 34: The Complete Trip but left Recordings after doing a bit of research on it. It's compiled mostly from B-sides on the other albums, which aren't listed in many places. Voyage:34 is still more likely a studio album than not. Kerrow 03:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This appears to have been rolled back by 71.126.21.110 on Jan 13 (no justification/comment). --Beezhive 15:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm still a bit new, is there any sort of precedent for what to do about these kinds of things? Kerrow 21:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My take on it is to make the change again and if it gets reverted, leave a message on the user page asking them to discuss it here. The only related policy I know of is the three revert rule, which we aren't even close to.  Since we're in agreement on the changes (and nobody's voiced a contradicting opinion here), I think it's safe to make the change and have done so.  I've left a note on 71.126.21.110's talk page as well, for what good it'll do. --Beezhive 04:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm putting Voyage 34 back under compilations - that way it'll at least agree with its wikipedia page. --Beezhive 13:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Picture/Logo
I believe that the previous picture was better for the profile. I also think that perhaps it would look better without the logo or perhaps have the logo down the article a bit??? Blackserenity 14:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The current picture is really awful. It's missing Richard Barbieri and Colin Edwin is in showing his back. John Wesley is in the front while he's not the member of the official studio line-up --Molnart 14:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The logo is decorative and is usually accepted to have it in the infobox. As for the picture, yes, it is not as good as the other. However, the other images are pending investigation at Commons and Meta since their license are not clear, and until the investigation is finished, it is better to use another free image without problems. Note that we can't use a fair use image because we have a free image, per our Fair use criteria. -- ReyBrujo 15:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps if the logo was a .gif file with a transparent background so it would blend in with the background would be better?? Just an idea.. Blackserenity 07:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hah, without even looking at this discussion, I switched the image to a PNG I put together myself yesterday. The ugly white background annoyed me a bit. Nadim Scolris 20:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let me say that what I was doing yesterday is to replace the old out of date logo for the new one corresponding to the forthcoming record (if you don't believe me just check out the definitive cover artwork. And Molnart, you're totally right in your reply, any people who's really competent about the band knows that John Wesley is a concerts-only member. Whatever, I think you may consider replacing that old logo for that new one I've uploaded, it has transparent background: Image:PT Logo.gif.

Meanwhile I'll keep on looking for a free image to replace that crap of live shot.

ReyBrujo, I understood the policy anyway and I won't try to download Image:Photopromo.03.jpg again despite the fact it has fair use. Just a question, are images taken from MySpace Music free??

Respect the music -- Chinese lucky strike 06:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No. Every image in the internet is copyrighted by default (if you take a picture, you are the copyright owner). What you need to find is a free image, an image the author has purposely released under a free license. Such images can be found in Flickr, in example, under a Creative Commons license (either Attribution – CC-BY – or ShareAlike – CC-BY-SA –). As for the logo, they haven't updated their official page with the new one. I would suppose we should wait until the it is the confirmed new logo (as in, every instance of the old logo is replaced). We are not a news site that needs to have the latest information, we are an encyclopedia that delivers confirmed content. Until the new one is printed and released, it can be changed. -- ReyBrujo 12:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll just add this in. Use of the logo on a CD case doesn't necessarily make it the 'official' logo. Perhaps the font and style used just fits the covert art and content of the album better. Kerrow 21:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

i take away the "logo" because it's not representative at all, only on one album... kernitou talk 07:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Name Controversey
My daughter, who was eight at the time, had never heard of the band Porcupine Tree. However, as we passed by a pine tree she pointed directly at it and said, "Look daddy, a porcupine tree". Therefore, in addition to the list, it seems logical that the term "Porcupine Tree" could simply be slang for a Pine Tree.

192.236.20.217 22:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Robert Weidner
 * The section on the band's name's origin was removed because of a lack of sources. Kerrow 17:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Changing article picture
I read up a bit on the fair use criteria, and I feel that the current free image doesn't adequately portray the band in the way that would be best for an encyclopedic article. I suggest using a promo under fair use such as until a better photo is found. The current : Thoughts? Kerrow 03:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Candidly portrays the subjects of a serious article in a semi-humorous fashion (perhaps making it better fit for a subsection)
 * Doesn't give an actual view of the full band (Colin Edwin is placed towards the background, and turned away from the camera.)
 * Just doesn't seem to capture the spirit of the band and the band's music.

Right.. I think I'll just change if no one else offers a counter-argument in the next day or so. Kerrow 02:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Changed the image; I'd ask that before any changes are made, it's discussed here. Just to avoid any conflict, etc. Kerrow 05:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Since the image has been changed, 20 days passed without news of a free replacement. I will wait another three weeks, but if by then there is no news about a new free image, I will switch it back. Having a blurred image or an image that does not have all the musicians is the best way to encourage people to get a replacement. See the articles about Dimmu Borgir and Within Temptation, in example. -- ReyBrujo 17:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That makes sense.. This image might work better. It has Barbieri, and it shows all the members in full. Sorry to trouble you then. Kerrow 17:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem with that image is that it is under investigation because the license is unclear. You can use it, but it may be deleted in the near future unless the license is clarified. -- ReyBrujo 17:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oi, hard to get a break, eh? I'll keep looking then. Thanks. Kerrow 17:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Nobody said freedom came for "free" :-) -- ReyBrujo 17:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

citations fictional band members
Citations for Still showing the spirit of his joke, Wilson included an 8-page inlay, containing information about obscure band members like Sir Tarquin Underspoon and Timothy Tadpole-Jones.

http://www.voyage-pt.de/swdisco.pdf

--86.87.66.216 23:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedians who listen to Porcupine Tree
There seem to be quite a few fans of the band on Wikipedia so I've created a category for us. If you want to be added to this page simply add this line of code below on your userpage: . I tried to add a link on the main page but couldn't figure out how to do this. If anyone knows please can you do it for me. Thanks. Kelpin 17:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've created the WikiProject Porcupine Tree for the same subject. Synesthetize (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Logo
There's already been some informal discussion in edit summaries over the issue of whether or not the logo should be kept and I'd like to argue in favor of keeping it. My reasons are three;
 * The logo is aesthetically a good addition to the article
 * It is representative of how the band styles themselves, having appeared on one of their most recent albums.
 * The name of the band already appears large as life at the header of the entire page, there's no need for a smaller iteration of the same exact text. (This can point back to the first point, if you like)

Thank you for your time. Kerrow (talk) 03:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Multimedia items
I ensure you I have the best intentions on enhancing the article by placing multimedia samples for people can attend and better understand the evolution of the band's sound. You can be sure I acquired all the legal terms and fair use guarantees. I don't have any meaning to trouble the person who created and/or administrates the article, I'm just wanting to help this article to be featured. Any correction, collaboration, suggestion or advice is welcome. To begin with, you can make your suggestions on which songs do you think should be selected for showing in the page. I can even place such samples by inline links instead of using the media-item side boxes. Synesthetize (talk) 07:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Lead section
''Porcupine Tree's latest studio album, Fear of a Blank Planet, was released on April 16, 2007 in the UK and Europe, April 24 in the US and May 1 in Canada, featuring Rush guitarist Alex Lifeson and King Crimson's Robert Fripp. The promotional tour for the new album began in the UK in April. The band played their first-ever show in Mexico on October 6, 2007 at a sold-out Teatro Metropolitan.[2]''

None of this belongs in the lead, per WP:LEAD.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 17:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed the bit about Mexico. I disagree on the rest though, I think that relevant information on the current status of an article's subject can go in the lead. Kerrow 05:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Mistake in link
Something I found in the "History: Beginnings" -section:

"Looking forward from the original Porcupine Tree music, Wilson took steps to move his project towards newer, more contemporary kinds of music. This new goal scored the band with their thirty minute long music, Voyage 34. Released in 1992, the song mixed together the ambient trance music of earlier groups like The Orb and Future Sound of London."

The word "music" links to this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_%28music%29, but it seems to be a mistake. The word should be "single", which would then link to the Single (Music) -article. Perhaps someone could change that, I do not quite know how yet.

Cheers, 88.114.104.243 (talk) 11:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Fixed, thanks. –Pomte 11:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"Shallow" in the Burnout Revenge videogame
I checked the Burnout Revenge/Legends Soundtrack from this encyclopedia and from many websites and the song does not appear in the list. I placed a Fact template next to the sentence stating the song being part of such soundtrack to encourage people find a source. Anyone could contribute a reference to this? Or else it will have to be deleted per WP:V. Thanx Synesthetize (talk) 11:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Cleanups
I've started trying to clean up the grammar and phrasing of the article. If anyone objects to my edits, please don't hesitate to revert them.

I've noticed that there is an apparent grammatical issue relating to the plural status of the band - I'm of the opinion that the band should be treated as a singular noun as opposed to plural (for example "Porcupine Tree was" as opposed to "Porcupine Tree were"). Am I incorrect in this assessment? I didn't want to change it without at least soliciting opinions, as there are quite a few places in the article that would need to be changed. -- BeezHive (talk|contribs) 04:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I must agree with your work since some parts of the article were written by me being Spanish my native language. I also agree with thinking of "band" as a singular noun, when comparing with Spanish language where we refer to "a band" in singular tense. Here we're talking about ONE band:"Porcupine Tree", not about two or more bands. It would be different if we were talking of "Steven, Colin, Richard and Gavin". And since taking other band's articles as comparison I think it's the correct way to express it. You're doing the good work, it helps a lot. Go ahead if you find more grammatical issues. Synesthetize (talk) 14:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

What about WP:ENGVAR? does that hold up to anything? articles like Iron Maiden and Judas Priest use British English and since PT are from England then shouldn't they use it as well? − ₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪  kaiden  07:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes its supposed to be PT are, because it is a British band and we use British English. See: Blur (band), Oasis (band). indopug (talk) 11:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If you're going to change this you should do it with the whole article, not only with the first sentence and then leaving the rest of the work to the others. Change it but change it in the whole article. Synesthetize (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible source
I can't find an obvious spot for this, so I'll put it here and let those more in tune with the article's structure pick it up :) From 25-27 April, Porcupine Tree toured Australia for the first time. Just before this tour, Wilson gave an interview to the The Courier-Mail newspaper in Brisbane, which can be found here: The print cite is as follows:  In it he discusses in part how the internet has changed music marketing. Orderinchaos 14:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)