Talk:Siouxsie and the Banshees/Archive 1

singles table
Xinger: DO NOT change this singles table back to your template. Again, your template has problems with it - not just with me, but with several members of this community (your own Talk Page documents these discussions, which you choose to ignore, as well as the Foo Fighters vote page). If you want to add Modern Rock Tracks information to their chart history, why not just add your column to the already-existing table? You're being ridiculous. And I would bet that you'll ignore this request to stop just like you have all the others (not just from me) and you'll revert my changes anyway. -- eo 15:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The Banshees are British, and you have placed the UK singles chart column last in your table. It's also the chart in which most of their songs have had success.
 * You continue to use the "#" symbol, which looks sloppy.
 * The singles table now looks completely different from the albums table, which looks sloppy.
 * Columns are varying widths - sloppy.
 * Your template has question marks, for pete's sake.

Template
Is the "singles table" the table at the bottom of this Wikipedia entry, the one that seems to be inaccessible to the community for editing? I see no edit link. I wished to add, under "related articles", a link to Wikipedia's article on "Gothic subculture". I feel that a link to an explanation of "Goth" and "gothic", when used in the context of late 20th century music, is necessary. Mooncaine 00:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I put the link to the template on your talk page so you can edit it. - eo 00:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Racism
does anyone know if Siouxsie was racist? I know the swatsika was shock value, but what about the song hong kong garden? it has a LOT of anti-chinese sentiment invested in it. look at the lyrics of the song and tell me you dont detect anything wrong with it.


 * Here are one set of the lyrics that I found on the internet, but I'm not sure if they are right, they look like somebody may have transcribed them from listening to the record with a few mishearings. I always heard the first line as "Prawn ball elements in the air..." Anyway, these certainly do look rather dodgy... I always thought the song was just about her local Chinese take away restaurant...


 * Harmful elements in the air
 * Symbols crashing everywhere
 * Reap the fields of rice and reeds
 * While the population
 * Junk floats on polluted water
 * An old custom to sell your daughter
 * Would you like number 23
 * Leave your yen on the counter please
 * Hong Kong garden
 * Tourists swarm to see your face
 * Confuscious has a puzzling grace
 * Disoriented you enter in
 * Unleashing scent of wild jasmine
 * Slanted eyes meet a new sunrise
 * A race of bodies small in size
 * Chicken Chow Mein and Chop Suey
 * Hong Kong garden takeaway
 * Hong Kong garden


 * BTW, Siouxsie also infamously sang "Too many Jews for my liking" on the original version of "Love in a Void", although changed the words by the time the song was officially released (my friend has a bootleg of the original demo version with this lyric intact) quercus robur 10:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I will say those lyrics are a bit more suspect that I would have thought, but I think I would mostly disagree that she was a racist in regards to the Chinese. Which lines in particular strike you? To me, the "slanted eyes" may be the most obvious, but in 1978 was that a big deal? As for racism in regards to Judaism, I think her/their recording of "Israel" ought to stand as some sort of defense. Folkor 19:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * This is all very interesting, but what exactly is the point? Is it going to be placed into the article somewhere?  It seems rather speculative to me. -- eo 19:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, I don't think it makes sense to write something in the article about it. I mean, we are merely speculating, and anyone can do that, just as anyone can look at her lyrics and the band's choices of songs and make a decision. I find no need to write something in.Folkor 08:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Its probably relevant in that there was alot of questions raised around whether Siouxsie was rascist and/or anti-semitic in their early years, in particular by Julie Burchill who reviewed their first album in the NME in 1978, and who made much of the 'too many Jews' line. It would be appropriate for this to be included in the article, but I can't rmeber that much more about it... I know it was quite a big deal at the time though... quercus robur 09:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well if a source or a quote or an external link can be added to the page which refers to the NME article and the questions that were raised at the time then that should be added, but I don't think its encyclopedic to just say something like "Siouxsie could possibly be racist..." etc. etc. without a journalistic source. Perhaps there is also a response to Burchill's review by Siouxsie herself? -- eo 17:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

We could insert it to the Banshees or Siouxsies page to add to the nazi patch and racist accusations, im sure this fueled some of it. I was wondering if any of you knew. Itts not just the slanted eyes lyric. She seems to be pointing out all the faults, and is rather negative about it all. I dont believe she was a racist, I think there is certainly something behind this though.


 * Siouxsie is definitely NOT racist. Read the biography on Siouxsie & The Banshees and you will see. Siouxsie wrote the Hong Kong Garden to complain about the insults the staff members of her local take-away had to suffer, and about the racism rising which worried her. The lyrics are supposed to be taken as someone else saying the things, and Siouxsie actually that way wants to bring pointless racism into attention. The lyrics are definitely no racist outing and are meant as an anti-racism song (although I agree you have to know the story behind it, otherwise it seems dodgy). The song Israel and the usage of the Star of David was also written for anti-racism purposes, as the band was tired of hearing that there was a racist touch to their music, so they wrote a Christmas song instead and came up with a song about the Holy Land. So definitely Siouxsie is very anti-racist and the lyrics that seem otherwise have to be seen as shock value and not to be taken literarly.


 * Siouxsie and the Banshees also used a collage by Anti-Nazi John Heartfield on the cover of the single "Mittageisen"/"Love In A Void". It should be remembered that it was the latter song which originally featured the line "...too many Jews for my liking..." - a relic of their shock tactic past - but which was suitably amended for commercial release. Siouxsie and the band were stating their position concerning accusations of Nazi sympathies in a typical manner.LessHeard vanU 22:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The song 'Hong Kong Garden' is not about racism, neither is it pro nor anti racist. It is about displacement, and uses the Oriental immigrants and their radically changed lifestyles as metaphors. Siouxsie's flirtation with the symbols of Nazism was entirely in keeping with the bad taste ethic of early punk. As late as their early 1978 US tour Johnny Rotten of the Sex Pistols wore a swastika t-shirt (it can be seen in the 'Live At Longhorns' DVD) Her statement a few years ago that she liked the look of Nazi uniforms echoes a feeling so widespread as to be almost redundant. This was a subjective aesthetic viewpoint on her part and although slightly provocative, does not prove her a racist. Many people liked those uniforms. Some inevitably still do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.101.96.7 (talk) 10:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sid Vicious
John Ritchie (only later known as "Sid Vicious") played drums at the 100 Club gig; Severin has been the bassist since inception. Ritchie was learning to play bass when with The Flowers of Romance and was recruited to the Pistols, on the basis of his look, when Matlock left.LessHeard vanU 20:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Similar artists, etc. section
I have to say I don't like the similar artists and list of influences. I'm not sure if those lists belong on this page, as they are quite subjective and sometimes seemingly unfounded. Siouxsie and the Banshees are similar to Placebo? I like both, but that seems a stretch. And Depeche Mode? Again, another band I like, but they focused so thoroughly on their synthesizers. I really don't think the lists should be there. Is there precedent for such lists on other good band pages? Folkor 04:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. The "similar artist" is far too subjective, and the points you made about DM and Placebo are right (IMO). Since it doesn't mention the Yeah Yeah Yeah's or Altered Images it could hardly be called comprehensive, either. 10 out of 10 for enthusiasm, but... The "influences" are reasonable, but I think they are/should be mentioned within the article; indicating in what manner they influenced the band. Do you wish to wield the axe?LessHeard vanU 21:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I noticed that The Beatles are not mentioned as an influence, on a band that recorded two of their songs - having a hit single with one of them. I'm sorry, those sections will have to go - but I will be nice in the edit text.LessHeard vanU 21:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The reason why I added some the bands on the list of similar artists wasn't because their music was similar nessesarly but I found that a lot of fans of The Banshees also were attracted to bands with a similar look or infulences which is why added bands like Placebo and Suede who are both very theatrical and glam based. I'm sorry for adding those contributions, thinking back they're in poor taste.
 * I don't want to lengthen this discussion much more, but... Everytime I hear the beginning of "Unwritten" by Natsha Beddingfield for some reason I always think of "Kiss Them for Me" (Siouxsie & the Banshees, of course).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.179.111.17 (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Can Someone Find The Reference To Back Up This Fact?
Bold text I've been wondering for a while the accuracy of Siouxsie and the Banshees selling nearly 50 million records. I think Siouxsie and the Banshees are a amazing band but I just have a hard time believing that with their cult status that they've sold that much. Can someone support this?
 * I've asked at one of the fan sites. If there is any good reference (and more accurate figure) I will put it in.LessHeard vanU 21:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look good. The record company has been asked several times, and has never given a definative answer.LessHeard vanU 12:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I actually remember reading a long time ago thta they sold 10-15 million which I think is more reasonable then 50.
 * This is just pure wrong. This was added right after the same number was (correctly) attributed to the Cure on their wikipedia entry. I love the Banshees to death but they have not sold the same number of albums as the Cure, not even close. If you go to www.riaa.com you can see the shipping sales information for all artists in America. The Cure have several platinum (1,000,000) and gold (500,000) certifications while the Banshees have none, though that could change in the future with Superstition or Peepshow eventually achieving gold status. For the sake of accuracy I removed the entry.

skellington77

Pronounciation?
Could someone add the pronounciation of "Siouxsie" to the page? I'm sure there's a lot of people including myself who have no idea how to say that. --Scott 22:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Take a look here. --Oxygene123 20:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Too Limiting?
I love Siouxsie and the Banshees, I love everyone of their albums and releases and I feel that for a band as good as they are, labels like "goth" or "post punk" or even "punk" and "alternative" are against what the band is all about. They hate labels and feel that they've carved out their own path in rock so I would like to change all the labels in their discography and on th main page to just rock.
 * I wouldn't suggest doing that. Yes, the band rejects labels and their sound spans many different sub-genres, but that's the point: they've touched upon all the genres listed in the infobox throughout their history.  Regardles of what the band members want, the public does place labels and descriptions onto them and for the sake of this being an accurate encyclopedia, I think all the descriptions should be there, in order for readers to follow those links and read the articles about the different musical genres.  If anything, I'd say add to them, not substract.  "Rock" is way too broad. -- eo 18:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * They're also quite influential in those particular genres. Anyways, in the authorized biography they actually own up to their influence on goth.  WesleyDodds 10:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You could also comment on their influence on, for example, fashion - but it doesn't make them into clothes designers. However, I do agree with eo that the catagories are those that have been assigned by critics, fans and the industry. As a tool for getting results from typical search parameters then it is essential they stay within the article - and the more (as long as they are relevant) the merrier.LessHeard vanU 11:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Bandname / Origin
The article states that "The band got their name from Edgar Allan Poe's Cry of the Banshee".

AFAIK no story called "Cry of the Banshee" by Edgar Allan Poe exists. There is, however, a horror movie of that name that is supposedly based loosely on Poe's "The Murders in the Rue Morgue". Can someone clarify this plz ? 81.210.189.211 00:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I was coming here to make the same observation. This should really be clarified. I put a "fact" tag on the line. --Midnightdreary 16:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Quote.
I have removed the following quote from the article:

"She described it as "high camp, not death camp.""

This quote was not spoken by Siouxsie, but rather a reporter in the Guardian Weekend from January 14, 1995. 

Dead link
"A poor-quality recording of the concert is available at http://www.untiedundone.com/"

Apparently their first show is no longer available here. The setlist is still there though. 195.24.16.69 01:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Not racism, but irony.
One must consider the possibility that racist lyrics were ironic, and coming from a persona, as in a dramatic monologue. The context of Siouxsie's songs, culturally, was particularly rich with that kind of irony. Such deadpan irony represented a different way to protest authority that stood in contrast to the previous generation's forthright, sometimes prosaic protest music. The stance of the 1980s punk was more an angry, somewhat affected nihilistic acknowledgement that humankind is generally selfish or evil, in contrast to the optimistic cajoling of his parents' music. Sentimentality was rejected as hypocritical, and imagery of hate, destruction and chaos was deployed, but ironically -- these artists wished to portray their disenchantment with moral values they perceived as falsely valued... yet the punks and goths who moaned and shouted were, indeed, behind their ironic detachment, both heartfelt and sentimentally earnest. Mooncaine 02:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

to user:212.234.92.35
I have left messages at your ip talkpage, which you may not have seen (click the blue link in header).

Thanks for all the inline cites added. You obviously know how to edit in the WP style. Are you able to go through the rest of the article and do the same there? It really would help, even though your contributions are already proving useful. Thanks. LessHeard vanU 20:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

minor revert war in intro
I don't see the point of merely reverting disputed content. If there is an argument that it doesn't belong in the intro then surely placing in the appropriate place is the answer (or at least part of the discussion)? I am aware of the identity of 212.234.92.35; or at least I have spoken to him in the forum of of one of the Siouxsie internet sites/forums we both belong to. I know he is very knowledgable about the band and has a lot of literature from which he can provide cites and stuff. I would urge editors to allow everyone a go at adding content, and would point out that bad faith reverting (and no attempt at discussion) is not part of the wiki-way. LessHeard vanU 22:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Free image
I will make a request at some band fansites I belong to for pictures. Hopefully something will be gifthorsed. LessHeard vanU 22:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Miscellanea

 * "Peek-a-Boo" was the first number-one song on Billboard magazine's Modern Rock Tracks chart on the week ending September 10 1988.
 * Siouxsie and the Banshees used the alias "Janet and the Icebergs" for three gigs in 1980, Siouxsie's "real" middle name.
 * The band reportedly got their name from Edgar Allan Poe's Cry of the Banshee (though there is no such work by Poe by that name) and "Siouxsie" as a tribute to the Sioux tribe because Siouxsie Sioux "hates cowboys".
 * Their single "Kiss Them for Me" was their highest chart placing single on the Billboard Hot 100 and "Dear Prudence" was their highest on the UK singles chart, reaching number three.
 * When Boy George was splitting up from then-boyfriend Jon Moss, he played parts of "Drop Dead/Celebration" on Moss' answering machine.
 * Siouxsie and the Banshees state their influences among others as: T Rex, David Bowie, Nico, Iggy Pop, The Stooges and The Velvet Underground.
 * Prior to the Banshees signing to Polydor Records in 1978, a diehard fan started a "Sign the Banshees Do It Now" graffiti campaign which was put on most of the major labels in London at the time. Siouxsie Sioux once said "It was actually a big fan of ours who'd probably be really embarrassed if he knew I told you, no no no! it was actually Les Mills who went on to manage The Psychedelic Furs. He had blonde hair, a leather jacket and studs, with SIOUXSIE on it.  For those two years (prior to the Banshees signing) he was pretty obsessive about it, then he got his own band together."
 * The song "Face to Face" features on the 1992 Tim Burton film Batman Returns.
 * The artwork for both the album A Kiss In The Dreamhouse and its single "Slowdive" was based on Gustav Klimt.

When Sid got his name
According to the Sid Vicious article, the surname part came after the Nick Kent chain whipping event - although he was already known as Sid by some after Rottens hamster. Sioux, Severin and Pirroni would have known him as John or maybe Sid, but not as Vicious which he first used when he was putting together the Flowers of Romance. If it is to be changed from this long standing version you will need a cited source. LessHeard vanU 19:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Musical Genre
Greetings from the goth side, Wikipedia. I'd like to point of that, while Siouxsie and the Banshees' styles are many; their most infulential nature in styling and fame is within my subculture, goth. Granted; some of their songs have a pop- feel; yet their spotlightted aesthetic still is clearly Gothic. On the topic regarding 'labels' one can still argue that the Banshees are a band remaining unclassified. Sure, some of their songs can be cited as punk as well. Yet those within the punk movment (such as Paul Cook of the Sex Pistols) agree that Siouxsie and the Banshees are the founders of goth music. Of course Bauhaus is the original, yet this band has the same speciality within it. The punk movment, whether enthusasits of the music or bands on their own boundries; noticed the Banshees' introducing of new stylings to punk music. Play Join Hands and The Bollocks at the same time. Even then there's a certain melodic feeling toward their gloomy and brooding music. Even post-punk held out of place aesthetics and music (with the sole espection of Joy Division), differing from Siouxsie and the Banshees. Hear Sexgang Children, Specimen, and even Bauhaus. Clearly the influence of this band is displayed. And proudly. So please, I'd like some of you to think of my subculture, goth, and the Banshees' eternal influence on it. This clearly is the style the band projected from the late 70s to even the 90s. While some will disagree, the lyrics, style, and legend of Siouxsie and the Banshees is most definatley not a 'POP' band. Despite some of their songs (yet a limited number) having that sound toward it. Goth Forever (unsigned comment moved from top of page, September 6 2007)

I'll modify the piece of text that says they're a punk/post-punk band, an that they also encompass goth and alternative... I think it should say that they're mainly a Post-Punk/Goth band AND that they also encompassed punk and alternative (although I think alternative is a stupid label, and there's no need in using it, but I'll keep it). The Banshees are one of the three main gothic rock bands, and it's like saying that Blondie is a punk band, which also encompassed New Wave. Siouxsie started as a Punk band, but I think they became post-punk/gothic very quickly. Even in first albums like "The Scream" you can't say they were strictly punk rock. If anyone thinks different, comment here, I'm open to different opinions, and I might be wrong. Phibrizoq 23:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Any comments about the recent edit that added the Shirley Manson quote? I'd say her opinion is not so relevant as to be worthy of inclusion. I'd suggest something like: While the band, and many others (ref to Shirley Manson) don't consider the band true goth, they are nevertheless pillars of that genre. The Creatures would be more aptly described as art/experimental. Wwwhatsup 18:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Good goth. Listen people, the Shirley Manson quote is not relevant. Why the hell put that in there? She is, of all, the WORST persont to have quoted in this article. Why is it people care what "celebs" think of this band? That quote is textbook irrelevance, really.

I am saying this: As a goth, I see clearly there influence on my scene. Sure, they have their credit toward the punk movment; but a friend of mine who is from that era directly SAW their evolution. Those in the punk movment as I stated, identify this as a goth rock band. I don't really care of what Shirley Money-Maker Manson thinks of us, I just want justice to be given credit.

They will not be remembered as foremost as a punk band, nor will they as a so-called "unclassable" band; because as stated ONCE AGAIN, the majority goth bands before 1983 cite Siouxsie and the Banshees as an influence, and in their music it's clear. The things Siouxsie wore had a punk influence, granted, but not quite as punk as, let's say, The Pistols.

Please, whoever made this uneeded quote remove it now. No one will care. I don't, and many others don't either. It gives no explaination of the band. The only it'd be there is if SM was a member of The Banshees, which I highly doubt. And to hell with "Garbage" and Manson; they have no authority to judge this band. Ugh. Will Siouxsie be remembered as a punk icon? No. Will Budgie? I don't think so. Is Kaliedescope and JuJu "nEWxWave?" You're kidding.

According to Pete Scathe, they also described their album Join Hands as Gothic, and Steven admits to it. Hell, I even think Siouxsie's "denial" is visible lies; because the music and aesthetic is what truthfully makes a band goth rock. And if you're gonna shut it off with this limiting "POP" label; then so help me Wikipedia will have the most laughable reputation since when it was accused of having the CIA edit the articles. Goth Forever


 * The current version of the article only provides a good cite for post-punk, there isn't a good one for punk rock, Gothic rock and Alternative rock are mentioned only the genre field of the information box and are not mentioned once in the entire article (excepting a passing reference to Gothic rock in the lead which is uncited), I am therefore going to remove those two, obviously if there are easy cites to add in, it should appear in the text before allowing them back into the genre field.--Alf melmac 15:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

may i remind you that siouxsie was a member of the bromly contigent and actually had sid vicious as a member in the early days, most people agree they are post punk, but i should point out that they have had large impacts on goth and punk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.237.16 (talk) 22:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Discography
I've restored the partial discography on the main page as it is standard practice for there to be a limited one even when there is a separate discography article and a navbox at the bottom of the main artist's article. You can see this by looking at FA-class biography articles for musicians. --JD554 (talk) 13:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

thebansheesandothercreatures and myspace/Siouxsie and the Banshees
I have just reverted the removal of the above sites from the article, and per WP:BRD I am opening up this matter for discussion. I would argue that, firstly, this content has remained on the page for some considerable time and that a consensus is needed for the removal - which should centre around the interpretation of relevant policy. Secondly I would note that thebansheesandothercreatures is linked to from the official band website, and is a far more comprehensive repository of information than said official site. It is true that the site has a forum and an active social character, but the link is to the informative homepage. Lastly, the myspace site is maintained by a former member of the band and is an appropriate avenue for references by those who are familiar with that domain (it does my noddle in, but then I am ancient enough to have seen this band in 1978). If there are legit reasons to still remove these links then I should be grateful if they were laid out here and debated. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

A editorial problem / The 1986 picture
This picture from 1986 is ugly and dated. Choosing an image of an artist with the worst look if her career is not neutral. People who absolutely want to let this pic on-line want to convey a cartoon image about the band. Yet, generally on a wiki artist page, one picture in the frame is judged enough by most of wiki users. It's for instance the case for the Killing Joke article where only one picture is appearing where as there are a lot of killing joke pictures archived on wikipedia commons. This is a editorial choice. There's also a difference of treatment with other articles like The Cure article for instance when there are no unflattering pictures of Robert Smith from 1982 with red lipsticks around the eyes.. Same Remark for Depeche Mode when no one has the idea to put online unflattering images form Martin gore, shirtless with SM leather belt around the chests 'cse this look is too dated. Here again, it was a relevant editorial choice made by the depeche users. For the issue about the SATB article and this pic from 1986, I tried to contact user JD554 (who is a fan of the cure and Bunnymen) to ask why it is so important to him to put this un-glamourous 1986 picture but he hasn't replied me. I'd also like to underline that user Jd554 hasn't never added one relevant thing to the SATB article and yet he reserves himself the right to be the sensor which is rich. Same remark for user Ericorbit who hasn't edited anything regarding the history of the band since my arrival on wikipedia, 17 months. There's only one picture on The Smiths page ; so I wonder why one pic in the frame wouldn't be enough for the Banshees too. Carliertwo (talk) 16:58, 14 september 2008 (UTC)
 * As long as I comply with with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, what I edit or why I edit is not up to you. Your constant attempts to remove the image from the article without gaining consensus is a problem. Just because other articles only have one image is no reason why this one should only have one (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) especially as I can point to other band/singer articles with more than one. The fact that Siouxsie has stated (as you claim) that she doesn't want there to be any pictures of her smiling, is in itself noteworthy in my opinion. The image has a free licence and there is therefore no reason to remove it. Because you simply don't like the picture your attempts to remove it appear to be bordering on POV-pushing. --JD554 (talk) 17:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you also read on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS the following sentence. "If you suspect POV-pushing is happening, please remember to assume good faith". The problem is I suspect that you have NOT got "Good Faith" on this issue. Aren't you partial because I proove that your constant attempts made on 4 august 2008 on the [Siouxsie History page] page were the instance of bad faith. Remember, you're pretending that there was a consensus against me regarding the influence on "other artists part". Strangely, your point of view is a double of wesley doodds. Another time you tried to revert my contributions on The Cure and once again, your point of view was a double of wesley doodds. I resume, I put you down wesley doods and you down on two major contributions and both of you are partial. My point is it's better to not choose a picture showing an artist with a look that appears to be completely dated today. That's why there are no pictures of Robert Smith 1982 era, no other pictures of depeche mode 1985 era and other pictures of killing joke singer. This Sioux'picture of 1986 was also taken in un-promotional circomstances oustide a motel ! So, I ask you one question. Would you mind if this picture was replaced by another picture, of Siouxsie, this time taken in normal promotional circumstances, in concert. If you're good faith, I presume that this won't annoy you. In the opposite case, I would conclude that you and wesley dodds only want to let this unimportant image only by revenge of the cases I had the final word against both of you in the past.
 * Carliertwo (talk) 16:58, 15 september 2008 (UTC)h*
 * *sigh* I am not WesleyDodds and WesleyDodds is not me. You can either believe it or not, I don't particularly care. I would object to you replacing the picture with another one (even assuming it was a completely free licensed one) as you have not provided a valid reason to remove the current one. I would not, however, object to you adding another free image to the article. Good/bad faith doesn't come into it. By the way, you don't need to add a message to my talk page when you reply here as this page is in my watchlist. --JD554 (talk) 19:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Response, four things.
 * 1) The point-of-view that this image of Sioux is "ugly", "dated", "unglamorous" and "the worst of her career" has only been brought up by one user: Carliertwo. It has been months now and although consensus was reached earlier, here we are again after numerous Talk Page messages were left, still about this one image.  OK, fine... discussion reopened.
 * 2) The frequency that I or JD554 edit this page is irrelevant to the issue at hand. I've contributed to this article, as well as Siouxsie's solo article, her Mantaray album article, all the Mantaray singles, the Creatures article and the Banshees' discography article and I created all of the Banshees' song articles.  In fact, many of the edits I've made to the Banshees' (and Siouxsie's) main article in the past 17 months have been formatting cleanup of Carliertwo's edits, even after I've asked him on his Talk Page to capitalize proper names, such as countries and months of the year and to watch punctuation.
 * 3) I have no idea what the photos on Eurythmics' or The Smiths' articles have to do with this. Carliertwo contacted me months ago about bands whose photos singled out specific members and I left a list on his Talk Page.
 * 4) I will repeat the response I left for Carliertwo on JD554's Talk Page here, as this summarizes how I feel at this point.
 * "Again, the image in question can be used per WP:FU policy, not whether or not Sioux herself 'likes' it. If there was a fair use image of Depeche Mode, complete with Gore in S&M bondage outfits then that image could also be used.  The members of a Sioux message board may agree with you but canvassing for a consensus is certainly not going to look good (I am however open to reopening the discussion on the Talk Page, provided there is no flood of new editors being directed from a forum).  If there is a different and decent fair use image of Sioux that can be found then by all means upload it.  We're not talking about an awful picture of her, say, with a big booger on her nose; she just happens to have a slight smirk on her face.  I don't think this has anything to do with putting her on a pedestal or not.  I saw a slew of photos taken when she had an in-store signing for the Mantaray album — she was joking, laughing, smiling and acting cheeky and obviously having fun.... if I happened to be there and took a picture with my own camera and gave permission to upload it to Wikipedia it would be the same scenario." - eo (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You're can read the answer I gave just above to jd554 in addition to what follows. I know that you assumes good faithin this case. When I look at your contributions and the kind of bands you listened, I conclude that you must be an old fan of Siouxsie. So, I understand that this picture of 1986 looks good to you. Me, I didn't know the band in the eighties as I was too young. My position is also different to yours as I'm not a goth fan and like many anynymous persons and famous persons like Morrisey or Shirley Manson like Garbage, I don't consider the Banshees as a gothic rock band in the common sense but that's another issue. This picture of 1986 annoys me 'cse it conveys a very cartoon image of the band. So, to conclude, like for jd554, I ask you one question. Would you mind if this picture was replaced by another picture, of Siouxsie, this time taken in normal promotional circumstances, in concert. Last year, I remember that it didn't bother you when this 1986 picture was replaced by the live picture of edinburgh on the Siouxsie solo page.
 * Carliertwo (talk) 16:58, 15 september 2008 (UTC)


 * Dated? That's perfectly fine, because it's from 1986. It being from 1986 is great for historical context. Ugly? I really don't think so. It's a pretty decent picture. Also, it's free, which is great for our purposes on Wikipedia. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wesley dodds is the perfect case of a user that one can suspect of bad faith, in reply to what is written here on wiki "If you suspect POV-pushing is happening, please remember to assume good faith". Wesley dodds is partial when there's an arguement with me on crucial points. Here are several facts that prove it. 1) He is the only opponent who has been trying to erase a major contribution I put on The Cure page (see the following link prooving it.[]. 2) On the Siouxsie page, he was also the only opponent who tried to revert another one of my major contributions. The reference is here proving the problem []. 3) he wanted to erase onother one of my contributions learning that The Banshees directly influenced two trip acts, Massive Attack and Tricky. see the following link [] That was already completely partial.
 * His attitude in the instances mentioned above, is due to the fact that this user tries to convey on wiki the idea that The Cure are the only influential post punk act. So, all the very important informations proving that The Banshees are also very influential are erased by him. He even once tried to put the name of The Cure in the lead of the SATB article, as if the banshees were followers of the Cure! So, this is clearly the case of someone having bad faith and who wants to take his revenge against me. He's logical with himself, so this reply of yesterday is not a surprise at all. User LessHeard vanU can confirm that this user tried to revert many contributions from me.
 * Carliertwo (talk) 18:38, 15 september 2008 (UTC)
 * User:LessHeard vanU is not going to get involved in a slanging match... However, I would comment that people's contributions get amended all the time, which is why there is the message, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." under the edit window - nothing should be made of the fact that contributions get edited, it is the natural way of a wiki. The other point is that if there is another picture available on a free license then there is nothing to stop someone substituting it for the current one - it is exactly the same as the prose edits; it is the way of a wiki. My last comment is, since Siouxsie is/was as much a style icon as an innovative and individual singer, that the argument can be made that one representation of her does not do justice to her influence on fashion and therefore more than one "generic" image may usefully demonstrate this. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

This is just an un-important picture of her on which she wears an old fashioned coat that made her look as an has-been. So, I propose to put instead a neutral picture of her, taken live this time with neutral suits. I once again have to make a comparison with other articles to explain why I find it would be better for the article 'cse it's the only way to make understand my point of view. Wiki doesn't show pictures of R.Smith, Martin Gore and Dave gahan from 1985 when they are dressed down, isn't it. So why for Siouxsie, can't we put a live picture of her where she doesn't wear an awful old fashioned coat ? Other Point, a few months ago, a visually beautiful live picture from edinburgh 1980 used to appear in the main SATB article. This picture was changed and transformed to become a part of a photo montage without the permission of the photographer. This photo montage is both visually ugly and historically incorrect as it mixes pix from 1985 with a picture of 1980. So, I propose to put the 1980 picture back as it was from last year til this summer. eo and LessHeard vanU, can you post a reply to these points ? Carliertwo (talk) 18:38, 16 september 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to pinpoint that no one stands when important historical contents are erased by user wesley dodds. (dodds had been trying for weeks to erase that "Tricky was strongly influenced by SATB"). To the opposite, people who posted above in this topic, stand these days for an un-important historical picture. Carliertwo (talk) 21:38, 16 september 2008 (UTC

"Associated acts" and The Cure
Well, apart from the "fonders" (I, too, am fond of the founders) being part of the so called Bromley Contingent who were the earliest Sex Pistols fans and style leaders with the group for the punk (anti) fashion, who had a pre Pistols Sid Vicious/John Beverly as their first drummer and used the services of Steve Jones on an album, I think there is a big case for The Cure being listed as an Associated act in the template. Smith twice played with the band, once on the Join Hands tour when McKay/Morris split plus a couple of television appearances, but more importantly when he replaced McGeoch both as a touring member and band member (with writing credits). Not only did Smith contribute to The Banshees, but the Banshees (especially the first time) seriously effected the way that Smith viewed and wrote music for "his" band, The Cure. So, not only is there the case of two contemporaneous bands sharing members but also the cross pollination of influences. Also, Smith and Banshee founder Severin became friends which, while also leading to The Glove, further influenced (not always positively re The Banshees) the internal workings of both groups. So, not only are the two bands associated by sharing one person at the same time but neither group would likely have turned out as they did had they not influenced each other. For these reasons I feel that The Cure should be listed as an Associate act in the template box... Oh, yeah, and they are both cited as being the inspiration (and sometimes leaders of) the UK goth scene. Opinions? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1)Smith was officially a Banshee once (1982-1984) : in late 1979, he was just a borrowed musician who helped to perform the last dates of the Join Hands tour. 2) the peers of the Banshees (Radiohead, Morrissey, eccetera, eccetera) praised the music of the Banshees because of McGeoch'era. At the opposite, Smith'era is viewed to be the least inspired musically by all the critics. By the way, Smith never influenced the Banshees (it's the contrary, the creative heyday of the band stopped when he started to compose with them. 3) Lots of younger people who listened to the Banshees don't give an interest to the goth scene and don't care of the Sioux'look. They see the band as post-punk and alternative rock and arrived to their music via Morrissey, Garbage or Massive attack in the middle of the nineties. Other thing, you didn't deign to reply to the 2 comments I put on 16 september 2008 which I don't. In this present "big" case, you should write to jd554, eo and wesley dodds. There's a good chance that they stand on your sides.:) Carliertwo (talk) 15:36, 8 november 2008 (UTC)

One puts here only the "associated acts" of the 2 band's founders who are Sioux & Severin. NOTE : "the Slits", "Magazine" and "the cure" are mentioned in the main article Carliertwo (talk) 11:26, 8 november 2008 (UTC)
 * Severin and Smith are friends, and they formed a group together - and Severin has guested on Cure records and side projects (the "Siamise Twins"); so the connection with one of the founders is well established. I would suggest that, with Smith as guitarist, the Banshees became a more pop orientated group - given that "Dear Prudence" is the UK's best known SatB track, with Smith on guitar - rather than an act that put out challenging singles. Your opinion on Smith's contributions (one that I share, but that is beside the point) is just that, an opinion and therefore Wikipeidia:Original research. No matter how his input is regarded, it is fact that he was a band member and that he was also involved in The Cure at the same time - therefore there is a clear association between the two groups.
 * As for your previous comments, I made it clear that I was not going to get involved in a dispute between two editors - there are methods of dispute resolution for that, and as is obvious I am far too close to this subject to be able to be impartial. Finally, this is an encyclopedic article; it should speak to all who visit it, not just because of some recent connection to a popular artist. I am in the happy position of buying the first singles by both Siouxsie and the Banshees and The Cure (and on the Small Wonder label at that), the first albums in the first week of release, and seeing the bands before they became big - or in the Cures case, huge. That does not mean I feel that the article should reflect my views of the groups, but should encompass the entire history of them - and for that reason I do not care to partake in the petty arguments of The Ice Queen vs. Fat Bob. You might take a few moments to consider why so many of the editors of this article seem to take the other side of the argument to you; could it be that you are wrong? LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I added dakrwave
i added it because songs like peek a boo are dark cabaret, tho they are one of the first goth rock bands! CHEERS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.51.9.51 (talk) 13:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Poorly written
Yeah, there's lots of syntax and grammar shit going on that makes this look really sloppy. It comes off as if it were written in a rush by a high schooler. I think it really needs some reworking or at least correction of all the syntax stuff so it'll look more professional and cohesive. 65.68.204.230 (talk) 00:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Ampersand?
Apologies if this issue has already been discussed. I notice that the band's name has an ampersand ("&") rather than the word "and" - although the majority of album covers have the latter. Has a consensus ever been reached on whether we should keep this page as "Siouxsie & the Banshees" rather than "Siouxsie and the Banshees"? If people agree to move the page and sort out internal links and redirects, I'm happy to do the actual work ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of their studio albums were released under the banner Siouxsie "AND"... from 1978 until 1984. As this era is considered to be the peak of their career, it would be more relevant to make "AND" appear instead of "&". Let me know if you can make the change. Carliertwo (talk) 14:25 31 January, 2010


 * As discussed on our respective talk pages, I'll leave it a week to see whether anyone else comments: if nobody raises any objections, I'll do all the necessary changes, redirects and so on ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry for coming to this late, but Wikipedia has a manual of style which we should follow. The manual of style which covers band names (and "and the" type of band names in particular) can be found at WP:MUSTARD which states that we should use an ampersand instead of the word and. This means we have a consistency throughout the encyclopaedia, see WP:MOS and WP:MUSTARD for further information. --JD554 (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There's a consensus : in 7 weeks, no one complains apart one user. --Carliertwo (talk) 17:57, 25 march 2010
 * Looking at the editing history of the article since the move in January, it has mainly been you and a few anonymous IPs who probably wouldn't know about Wikipedia's manual of style. As I said above the manual of style is there to provide consistency throughout the project, please respect that. I can see no compelling reason why Siouxsie & the Banshees should be any different to bands such as Paul Revere & the Raiders, Goober & the Peas or Echo & the Bunnymen. --JD554 (talk) 06:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Two points; First, policy and guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive - most of them note that they are a preferred model and there are exceptions. The nutshell at WP:MUSTARD notes there may be exceptions. Two, WP:Consensus is not just policy, "(it) is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making." Therefore consensus outweighs almost every other consideration. However, consensus must be universal - so a consensus by a small group of editors cannot be used to deprecate a policy or guideline, it must be shown that the arguments used in one instance would be acceptable outside of that particular case. Although the band did use the ampersand in some of their album lettering in later years, and in accompanying publicity and tour literature, I find the argument that during their commercial and artistic peak they invariably used a plain "and" in the band title to be quite compelling. I would also point out that most of the references appear to use the "and". I think that this is an instance where the exception to the guideline is permissible. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no preference either way, just as long as all the appropriate "what links here" links are updated and correct. - eo (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There is one another important exception on wikipedia, Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds. By the way, Sioux has always considered herself as banshee and not a singer with a backing band. The "&" makes a difference and create two separate entities : it also makes a kind of hierarchy between the singer and the band and Sioux (contrary to Tom Petty and Bob Marley) has always claimed that her voice was an instrument in the banshees. --Carliertwo (talk) 19:00, 27 march 2010

Page move war
Can we please not continue the page move war until a decision is reached as to the appropriate article title? Next time there is a page move before the conclusion of the "ampersand" discussion I will move protect the pages and block the editor responsible (and since the next move will be to the ampersand version - which is not my preference - I will not be acting to ensure "my" version is protected, and can then block the editor without claim of bias!) LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

song links to a page for an album
I put "song links to a page for an album" because it avoids to make a repetition in a sentence by having to put this kind of useless words "this song comes from this album". This way, it gives a better readability. This also represents a gain of time for people who make research to know from which album this track comes from. Ericorbit undid this []. Carliertwo (talk) 19 may 2010 17:44
 * If I understand you correctly, you're talking about how you added wikilinks for song titles (e.g. "Tattoo", "Killing Time") for which there are no articles. You used piped links to point to, e.g., the A-side ("Downside Up") or the relevant album (Boomerang (The Creatures album)). And your complaint here seems to be that User:Ericorbit has changed your links to, well, non-links. Do I understand you correctly?
 * If that's the case, then I have to say EO is on the right track. I think it's entirely appropriate to make the revisions he did. (I've actually had a close look at all of his recent edits, since I saw you ranting a bit on his Talk page, and I consider them all to be good ones, except for the mangled thingy, which I'm going to try to fix, myself.)
 * I commend you for bringing your concerns here for discussion, but I think the edits by EO are good. He's been around quite a while and I respect his judgment. I respectfully suggest you consider his advice. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As a long, rambling, nearly unintelligible harangue was left on my Talk Page, I'd also like to remind Carliertwo that he does not own this page nor the solo Siouxsie page. His edits and actions have caused quite a number of conflicts in the past (with multiple editors), and seeing that his edit history consists entirely of Siouxsie-related articles, as well as his habit of blatantly reverting anyone else who dares to edit his work, perhaps he needs to take a step back and see what others are doing before disregarding it.  My edits yesterday were nothing but formatting fixes (without the removal of any content) and minutes later these were undone.  If I left a ref tag open, it takes only a simple, minor edit to fix rather than an insulting message directed at me.  Just because a mistake has sat unnoticed for ____ amount of time with no correction does not make it OK to just leave it there.  You are not the authority on Siouxsie Sioux, Carlertwo, and it does not help any of your arguments to advise me stay away from your Talk Page and then turn around and mention my name here. - eo (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's really bad faith from ericorbit's part. First, he posted a long condescending message on my talk page yesterday and when I reply him on the same mode today on his, he protests. And he carried on, pushing further inappropriate advices. I had problems with some users because I was right and they were wrong as I have always won in the end by consensus and ericorbit lost a few times at this game. Do I have to remind him that he said quite a few times that my contributions were good before I had disagreements with him. Secondo, "Less heard than you" can tell that I've been doing for years a good work of research to add depth and content to these pages. It's not to bother and spoil. When I undid, it's justified. When people corrected errors in syntax, it's always welcome as English is not my first language. Anyway, I'm waiting for the point of view of Less heard than you as he's always un-partial and sensed in his replies. Carliertwo (talk) 19 may 2010 21:22
 * Again, my edits yesterday did not remove any content. I have not assumed any bad faith here, as it was my edits that were blindly reverted by you.  This "I win/you lose" mentality is not beneficial to Wikipedia or to other editors, and I wouldn't be so quick to declare yourself "right" in all past disagreements either (just read this Talk Page, for one).  Calling someone out as partial or biased just because they disagree with you doesn't make your assertion true and lashing out at people who edit your contributions does not help. - eo (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Quotes and excerpts in ref citations
Do we really need these? Their use on WP is rather rare, IME, and I've never seen them this long. Many of these excerpts (or portions thereof) seem unrelated to the statement they're supposed to support, anyway.

My understanding is that quotes like these are used to support some conclusion or paraphrasing on our part, or mention of disagreement among researchers. Here, we seem to be using portions of the excerpt verbatim in the article already, so readers can just click through to the ref's URL if they want to (and if we've provided one).

I'd like to do some trimming if not total removal of these excerpts, but perhaps the editors here find them useful for some reason. I'd like to hear the reasoning for including them, esp. since I don't see how they help the reader, and certainly don't make our editing any easier. But maybe I'm missing something; any tips? &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Several points. First, you added several times here in the notes of the main article [1] the following sentence : "Original article title unknown. Apparent copy of...not available on Web. ". Yet, this kind of sentence appears anywhere in the notes on other pages about post-punk acts and this is annoying to read. Two, you submit an idea in this discussion with the words "I'd like to do some trimming if not total removal of these excerpts, but perhaps the editors here find them useful for some reason." So you ask other points of view before to start... but you have already made some changes ?! Three, if you want to withdraw or erase any content, I'm afraid we're gonna have a huge arguement as most of it comes from me. Four, at the opposite, of course, you can add historical facts if it's sourced, especially if you've got acknowledges about the history of this band... Five, these notes exist as they are since a lot of time. A lot of people find them relevant as no one undid them or ever said anything about them. And to finish, you never contributed to this page before but you wrote yesterday that you're a reader/friend of Ericorbit's talk page. Thank you for this information.Carliertwo (talk) 20 may 2010 17:23
 * No editor is under any obligation to maintain your edits just because you made them, nor because said edits have been there for ___ amount of time. JFP's cleanup has nothing to do with whether or not he knows me (we've had minimal direct contact although we edit some similar articles).  Article content is based on consensus, not just your contributions, and no one is limited to only correcting your syntax errors.  Personally I find the long quotations cumbersome and would encourage a more succinct and streamlined format.  I also think it is unnecessary to have the "legacy and influences" section duplicated word-for-word here and in Siouxsie's solo article. - eo (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * But you didn't write your opinion to the First Point of my reply. That's an important issue. See below.Carliertwo (talk) 20 may 2010 18:02
 * I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that you personally do not like the wording of "Original article title unknown. Apparent copy of...not available on Web" in all the citations?  If these are items taken from publications not available on the internet, how would you propose this be cited?  JFP: Did you find this wording in other articles and/or in a Wikipedia style guideline?  This method may be an acceptable practice per Wikipedia guidelines, in which case it shouldn't be a problem to keep them, annoying or not (unless a proposal is made to change the style guideline). - eo (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The wikipedia style guideline for a note (and its link to its source) is to put near the url : "| title = ,| Publisher =.... etc..." One knows it. It's not to make like JFP in blue "Original article title unknown". This is not of practice. No one has ever done that on wikipedia. It's better to put in BLUE the title of the article, or its publication like everyone makes it on other pages. Two persons don't make a consensus to change politics and guidelines.Carliertwo (talk) 20 may 2010 19:11
 * No one here is trying to gather a consensus to change a guideline. By "blue" I assume you mean as a web link (don't know what else you could be talking about)?  If the title of a source is available then of course that is shown, but the quotes used as sources in this article do not have the titles of the article(s) from which they are taken; I think that is the issue.  So what text should be placed there to show this? - eo (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Blue = web link. I'm gonna take 1 precise instance : note 26 in the SATB article edited by JFP. The text of the blue web link now displays "Original article title unknown" where as it should be "A Kiss In The Dreamhouse review" (that's what I did before). That's one problem as one has never seen that on wikipedia before. The other is, next to this, one has the following sentence "Apparent copy of". This is also weird as it puts a kind of distrust on the source. It's a pity 'cse I source everything correctly. "Not available on web" is also redundant.Carliertwo (talk) 20 may 2010 20:11
 * But you don't know that the article's title was "A Kiss In The Dreamhouse review"; that's something you made up to describe it. It's a good description, but it's not the title.
 * I felt compelled to use "Apparent copy of" because we're getting these texts off some Web site. I can have a Web site up by the weekend with bogus reviews from a 1966 issue of Cash Box magazine criticizing the Beatles for hiring that no-talent Carliertwo as their saxophone player. Do you see what I mean? We don't know any more about the material we're using than what we can reliably access ourselves, and all we can access is these two sites with random texts and no titles. If these sites are so reliable, where are the titles? Why don't they identify the publisher of the site? Who's behind them? Under what permission do they publish these alleged reviews? What rights do we have to access/use/republish them? None of that's clear, and as a guy sitting here at my computer, I can't be even reasonably sure that these texts are accurate representations of the articles they're claimed to be. And as an editor of WP, I don't have the right to claim more authority or verifiability than I have.
 * Yes, it does convey a certain kind of distrust on the source. It's nothing personal about you; it's the material. It is appropriate that we reveal exactly how trustworthy the sources are. That's what makes us trustworthy. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 01:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * When you write, "The wikipedia style guideline ...", I wonder which one you are talking about. Perhaps you could provide a link so that your meaning is clear.
 * What I think you mean, when I've read the rest of your sentence, is that we should use or similar, and those require url, title, publisher, etc. parameters. Is that what you mean? If it is, it points us to the very problem we face because we don't have the original articles in front of us: what do we enter in the   parameter? If we enter something like "Juju review", then we claim an incorrect (more likely than not) title (|"Juju review"). If we leave it blank, we get an error. (And JFTR,  templates are not required.)
 * When you say, "No one has ever done that on wikipedia," I think, "now, how does he know?" It seems this must have come up somewhere. But if it's truly never been done on WP before, maybe it's because including sources for which the bare minimum information is unavailable is quickly reverted.
 * It is better, as you say, "to put in BLUE the title of the article," but we don't have that everywhere. What we've mostly got is two Web sites that apparently scanned in a bunch of printed reviews and articles, then published them on the WWW without permission. I had the impression that one of the sites (thebansheesandothercreatures.co.uk) has some association with the band itself, but I could just be suspicious. I'd feel better if we had the original variety of media as the sources for our work, but it is, we're trusting whatever unidentified people it was who typed or scanned in portions of copyrighted material like this. It's all very anti-verifiability, in my view. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I own myself many vintage papers of the 70's, 80's, of the NME, Melody maker, sounds regarding SATB. I bought them via Backnumbers(now it's also a website), from a person based in London. And I can assert that these 2 web sites, Bansheesandothercreatures.co.uk and Untiedundone.com have exactly reproduced reviews, articles and interviews in full versions, word by word. They did not distort anything. Carliertwo (talk) 21 may 2010 15:21
 * Well, this is important. At least it helps me a teeny bit, because I don't know anything about these sites, and they don't lend much confidence themselves. Unfortunately, readers of the article don't see your note here, and don't know you personally, so they cant't judge the reliability any better than I could. I hope you will not be at all insulted when I say that your (or anybody's) assertions don't count as reliable sourcing.
 * But do you have any copies of the issues (NME, Melody Maker, Sounds) mentioned in the article? If you did, we could use the titles from them, and point our references to those written sources, and there would be much jubilation and rejoicing in the streets. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for responding, Carliertwo. Ericorbit has already touched on some of the same points as I would have, but first I'll try to respond to your numbered points:
 * "Original article title unknown...." is a bit unpleasant, I agree. However, we have the problem that we don't have the actual title of the article/review. I sure wish that we did, but we don't. So we have to put something, but when we do, we need to make clear that we don't have the real title, and that's what this is supposed to be. It's rather unsatisfying, I know. But I did it that way because I saw it as correct and honest. I did not find any WP guidelines telling me to do it this exact way. (By the way, the diff you provided seems to contain none of the new citation text you're concerned about; it's mostly just dashes per WP:MOS.)
 * I asked for other points of view before I started what I thought might be controversial. I think that's the right way to do it, and it's the recommended way on WP, apart from WP:BRD. I didn't wait for permission to correct the formatting of the citations themselves, for example, because I felt secure about those edits; they didn't conform to WP citations (any of the styles used on WP) before, but now they do (most especially, they match output of the templates).
 * If we decide to delete things, I hope and expect it will be because it improves the article. If you are arguing against it because most of it came from you, then it sounds as if you have ownership problems. Those will keep you from effectively working on WP.
 * I would add historical facts if I had them, you are right.
 * I don't agree that a lack of perceived complaint over things which have been here a long time is equivalent to universal approval or acceptance. We don't know how many people on Earth have even seen the bottom portion of this page. And I almost choked on my own tongue when I saw the (same) notes cluttering up Siouxsie Sioux. Let's reverse it: how many people have said they benefitted from these long notes here?
 * To finish, I can't say I'm a friend (or reader) of Ericorbit, and I'm definitely not a friend of Ericorbit's talk page (although I am a reader of same). I don't see how that matters much, though. It is true as you say that I never contributed to this page before. I don't see how that matters, either. Every page I ever edited was a first time for me once. What point do you mean to make?
 * I'll address some of the other points later (and more appropriately placed). &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is questionned the verifiability of a source on wikipedia. This issue is very complex. One is gonna take for comparisons The Cure's page. In the bottom of that biography, there's a similar case to ours. For reference 37, it's written : Kent, Nick. The Top review. Melody Maker. 5 May 1984. There's no external web link to check up and read the whole review. However, a part of the Cure's biography is based on that review, it's this one : Melody Maker praised the album as "psychedelia that can't be dated", while pondering, "I've yet to meet anyone who can tell me why The Cure are having hits now of all times. There's also a problem of verifiability here but users of The Cure's page acted like this :
 * one trusts the person who's got that newspaper with that review.
 * no contributor of the cure's page wrote next to this reference 37 a sentence like Original article title unknown. Yet, for every review published in the Melody Maker, there's a title : it's certain (I've got many Melody makers at home).
 * At the end of that Cure's reference 37, no one also put a comment like Apparent excerpt of The Top review from Melody Maker, not available on Web.
 * Yet one simply can not check up the verifiability of that source. As Melody Maker doesn't exist anymore, there's no official web site. Another similar paper, The NME, still publishs but doesn't make their old reviews/interviews/articles available on their official site. This is to say that when a contributor puts a sentence based from one of these old papers, the readers and wikipedia users trust them. One looks at the profile of the person who provided the source. There's never suspicion from any sort and comments of distrust of any kind included in the notes on the wikipedia biographies.
 * For this SATB article and note 26 concerning the Melody Maker's Dreamhouse review, the reader can click on the web link and read the entire review available on the bansheesandothercreatures.co.uk site. It's a site made by a person who doesn't work for the band, this person reproduces material with no benefit.
 * So, to sum up my point of view, I'd like that regarding the notes of that SATB article including the reference 26, one makes like for The Cure's reference 37 : displaying the writer, magazine, the title of the album's review and if one doesn't know it, one simply write review of that album. Note that all the sources don't come from the archives of the thebansheesandothercreatures.co.uk website. Carliertwo (talk) 21 may 2010 15:03
 * You make some good arguments here. Please let me think about it some more and see if I can find any help in the WP pages. Probably, I will change these titles back myself. Real life is calling but I'll look at this some more and come back here and/or make some fixes to the refs in the article.
 * Of course, then we've still got plenty to argue about regarding the long excerpts. ;-) &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Online copies of lost paper sources
This headline really applies to the topic we've spent most of our discussion on in the above section, but I'll use it to cover what I hope will finish our talks on it. It would be nice to focus more on the inclusion of the long excerpts if further postings up there.

See what you think of this: I have started reworking my previous reworking of the refs where we have only the scanned-in (or typed-in) copies of reviews from NME, Sounds, and Melody Maker. I am really pleased with it (although the punctuation isn't necessarily perfect), and I hope you'll like it, too. I took my lead from Say where you found it, which I had in the back of my mind (and even looked at) the other day, but which hadn't made its way into the part of my brain that actually thinks. Anyway, I can use some of Carliertwo's earlier descriptions while at the same time indicating that the title is unknown, and I can name the (putative) original source while indicating the source we're really using.

I have italicized the Web site, as the templates do. I've never liked the fact that the templates do that, because I think italics belong on books, newspapers, magazines, etc., and not on Web sites, but the templates consistently italicize the  parameter values, which are defined as the site, so I've done it that way here, too. I think I can get used to it. The publisher is non-italicized, just as the templates do it.

I've only hit the section First records: 1978–1979 so far, and I must sleep, but I'd love some feedback on how that section's refs look now. G'night! &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 03:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Why beginning another chapter where as this is still about the same issue... I'll proceed to some changes, later as none of my remarks of my previous post (see above : 21 may 2010 15:03) was taken in consideration.
 * In the notes of an article, there is no sentence in the style of Apparent copy, apparent article. This appears anywhere in the notes on a wikipedia's page.
 * no paper source was lost !!! A lot of people have got them.Carliertwo (talk) 21 may 2010 15:03
 * It's another "chapter" (actually another section) because the section above was meant to be discussing the extracts and quotes. That's why I used the heading I did for that section, and why I started writing about that topic there. Our jump into a discussion about "apparent copy" etc. came from you pushing the discussion that way. I thought it appropriate to label that discussion correctly here, and we can discuss the other topic back up there. Besides, that section was getting long anyway.
 * Also, my comments here and my actions on the article page specifically relate to your comments of 21 May 2010 15:03 above. I don't see how you could miss that. I have been using your texts where they fit; I thought you would like that. Or maybe you're looking at something else completely.
 * I don't understand your point 1 here. I've been getting rid of those. My last two edits converted the "apparent copy..." texts to titles like the ones you had before.
 * The paper sources are lost, at least to all of us editors working on this article. That's why we're stuck using incomplete copies of text scanned (probably illegally, maybe incompletetly, who knows?) into some Web sites.
 * Does that clear things up for you? &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, what was the reasoning behind the edits JFP just made being changed again? - eo (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, while I haven't looked too closely, it appears that Carliertwo has been editing only in the Legacy section, where I have thus far (as far as I can recall) feared to tread. I also had the sense that Carliertwo was making ref revisions similar to mine (and doing some other stuff). But again, I haven't studied the changes yet. I've still working from the top down, as I find time & energy. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I did just notice a return of a piped link to nowhere. I'm assuming good faith, though. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * JFP, I didn't look enough carefully at the View History yesterday, I hadn't seen that you have started to change the notes for the first chapters. These new edits you did after 22 may are closer to what one expects on wikipedia. Carliertwo (talk) 27 may 2010 11:17

Sudden new addition of titles
I see from this series of four edits that a lot of new titles are suddenly being added to the refs, where previously we had some form of "title unknown". Carliertwo, where are you getting these from? I know you don't like "title unknown", but if we have any title there, it needs to be the real, true, original title from the article/review. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 13:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * In the past, I bought many vintage music papers (related to this band) by mail order at Backnumbers, a person based in London who buys stocks of papers and re-sells them.
 * However concerning the reviews of records, I started to look at the old Melody Maker and the NME issues. They both didn't always put titles for reviews : only the longest reviews had one (= the biggest release of the week or what they considered the most interesting release of the week). Carliertwo (talk) 28 may 2010 12:20
 * If you source back issues of Melody Maker or NME, you'll have to give the issue number and date. It would help to give the name of the reviewer such as Julie Burchill, etc.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What Jeanne said, plus, I'd want to have the page numbers, too. It significantly affects how we formulate the citation. I won't be making any more changes for a while, if you can bring in this other information, I won't have to revise the revision of my revisions... &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 11:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, page numbers are essential.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Siouxsie or Sioux?
We have to maintain consistancy throughout the article. At the moment one section names her as Sioux, while another calls her Siouxsie. This is disconcerting to readers, so we must decide what she is to be called, and only use the one name. What do the others say? I for one prefer Siouxsie; however, we need to obtain consensus before we change the name.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that "Sioux" was acceptable prior to the release of Mantaray. With that album she kinda shortened things to just plain "Siouxie", which I believe is appropriate now. - eo (talk) 12:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually it's the Siouxsie Sioux article which has the two names. I mistakenly added the comment here. Do you think I should change Sioux to Siouxsie on her article?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have a problem with that, but maybe we should have some other people chime in. It's kind of a weird situation cuz her stage name is technically "Siouxsie Sioux" (as credited on Banshees albums), in which case the proper way to refer to her within the context of an encyclopedia article would be "Sioux," right?  However, her recent solo material is credited to "Siouxsie" only.  Plus it's not even her real name anyway.  And I definitely wouldn't want to move the article from "Siouxsie Sioux" to "Siouxsie".  Whichever way it goes, however, I do agree that it should be consistent all the way through. - eo (talk) 12:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

source of a review
On The Cure's and Joy division's page and on many other articles, we only display the following things for a review : the writer, the title (or the name of the record plus the word review), the paper and the release date of the article. That's all. One also can note that there's never web links that lead to articles that are reproduced in full without permission on external blogs. However, one also notes that it's common use on wikipedia's articles to make references to seminal articles of the British press. So, These web links of this SATB article which lead to sites that reproduced texts in full without copyrights, should probably be withdrawn, I presume. It's true that this article should not be an exception, after all.

I'd like to add this. A new user should respect first the consensus and all the edits made by others before their arrival since years. It's always better to suggest changes for already existing parts of the article, rather than making edits in force. Carliertwo (talk) 30 may 2010 18:03
 * Citations should be formatted per Wikipedia guidelines (i.e. per, see the sections above). If things are done incorrectly in other articles, the solution is not to carry over incomplete citations formatting here.  I have no idea what you are getting at with your last comment, but an editor who is "new" to this article has every right to be bold and contribute, so long as it is not creating a disruption.  The preferences of a user who has a higher edit count on an article are not automatically given more weight with regard to consensus. - eo (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Speaking of consensus, isn't bizarre that a friend of a user all of a sudden posts on a discussion page to support his friend after a row and an issue about consensus ? I'm not dupe. You will always stand to your friend/double point of view and vice-versa.Carliertwo (talk) 31 may 2010 18:03


 * I, too, am a little confused by your last remark, Carliertwo. I think you're trying to subtly tell me not to edit anything, because you've (plural you, maybe) been here so long, and everything's just fine, so I ought to ask permission before every edit. If that's your point, then I cordially reject it; that's just not how Wikipedia works. Even a newbie like myself knows that.
 * As for this article, if it's in such good shape that newcomers like myself would only harm its perfection, how come the references were so unconventionally formatted, not to say misleading and incomplete? Those enormous quotes in the refs were not normal, and that Legacy section, I'm sorry to say, was an oversized chunk of unorganized phrases. There is much yet to be done, and if I get the time and inclination to do it, I will step up to the workbench and start trying to improve the article. There is a great deal yet to be done.
 * As for your suggestion that I'm "making edits by force", I call your attention to the section above, started by me spontaneously and voluntarily on the 20th of May. I did it to start a discussion about, yes, quotes and excerpts in the ref citations, so that we could share ideas and agree before I did anything drastic. You barely answered me, offering only that, "we're gonna have a huge arguement as most of it comes from me." Who's using force here, friend?
 * Finally, if you have the paper articles from which we can get the complete citations which (and I fear I must emphasize this especially) have been missing from this article since its very beginning, which as you are keen to point out was long, long before I arrived, then I must bid you to stop sitting on the materials which are necessary for this article to be properly referenced. As Ericorbit said above, just because other articles are screwed up doesn't mean we should go out of our way to do the same here. Bring in the page numbers, please, and the missing titles, and authors' names, and issue numbers, and anything else an encyclopedia needs for using complete citations to ensure good verifiability. If you can provide missing details, I can help get it formatted nicely. Let's move forward together on this. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 17:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * What is that ? You make a systematic objection or what? It's a pity 'cse you're on bad faith here. Indeed, I took time to reply you in a long text re-read my post of 21 may 15:03 and you even replied me just below that there were good arguements in what I wrote. (problems of memory, bad faith or simply an oversight...) So, writing that I barely replied you is pretty bizarre. Plus, After my long post, you started to make relevant changes and I even said that it was closer to wikipedia standards re-read my post of 27 may 11:10 Will you still say that I barely replied you ?? You did changes for the two first chapters following my suggestion to not let sentences apparent copy etc.... You announced that you stopped for problems of time but now, no more changes? There's a lack of consistency. One doesn't promise that one's going to make changes if it's not followed by in facts.Carliertwo (talk) 31 may 2010 18:03
 * It's a shame we're having such trouble getting along. I assume that I am at least partially to blame for that. I have now remembered that English is not your first language, so in an effort to communicate more clearly, I will try to use simpler and more common words and phrases. I know that when I interact with others in a language besides English (my native tongue), I sometimes miss a nuance or subtle meaning of a phrase. Maybe that is part of what is happening here.
 * First of all, I am not User:Ericorbit's friend in the sense that you appear to mean it. He is a fellow editor on Wikipedia. So are you. I may look like Ericorbit's friend (by which I suspect you mean co-conspirator) to you because he happens to agree with some of my points, which are contrary to some of yours. We "met" when he removed a heading I thought was useful. I then reverted his removal and posted a long explanation on his Talk page, to which he replied. I later invited him to join a discussion, based on his experience with music articles. That's it. Any further accusations that I am here to help him beat you up are unfounded, unwelcome, and disrespectful of what we're supposed to be doing here. I suggest you drop that topic forever.
 * Second, yur post above beginning with "What is that ? You make a systematic objection or what?" includes an accusation of bad faith, but maybe that was because you don't speak English well. You seem to be confusing some things. I wanted a discussion about long quotes and excerpts in the references, so I wrote here about that, using a clear title. You did not respond much to that, but started talking about the "apparent copy..." forms I had added. My point there in my paragraph 3 of 17:50, 30 May 2010 (which is what I believe you are referring to) was that you had not discussed that particular issue much. Now you come and say that you wrote "a long text". It is true that you wrote a lot, but it was not about the issue I raised in that section. You have consistently diverted the discussion to the issue of reference citations. That is all I meant, and if you do not understand that now, then we can forget about it, because it is unimportant.
 * Third, and what is not unimportant, is the issue of reference citations. I believe you understand that we need to provide citations for our text. We agree here, I am sure. I have pointed you already to Say where you found it showing how I wanted to make plain to every reader and editor where the material in this article came from. As I began to make my revisions, which I thought were more like what you wanted, you started saying little things that made me think you might have the actual magazines. Yes, I started making revisions, but (yes) I stopped, waiting to see what information you would bring. So far, I am sorry to say, you have only made some hints that you have some magazines. You have not provided the details we have asked you for.
 * If you have the magazines, provide the citation info. It can not possibly cost you the same effort to enter "Issue 43, p.17" as it does to argue against providing them. You carefully dug up some references from a featured article (Joy Division) that also lacked the requested information. I regret that the Joy Division article does not have the info; it should have it. But frankly, it is beside the point. If I knew you were editing Joy Division and had the actual magazines for the cited reviews, I would insist that you add the basic citation info along with it. It is basic and elementary. I cannot believe you would argue against it. As it is, we are working on Siouxsie and the Banshees, not Joy Division, so if you have relevant material for SatB, please add it.
 * Take a look at WP:CITE and WP:V and feel free to read the entire page of both. I especially draw your attention to When quoting someone, which says, "You should always add a citation when quoting published material, including the page number if there is one." The archives of that page's Discussion page refer to the topic often. The idea is that we provide the most specific information necessary for somebody to find the referenced material, without excluding any part of it. If you find a sentence on page 34 that you want to include in the article, say that it was on page 34, in the article named "The title", by the author A. Writer, in The Publication, Issue 123 from whatever date. Tip-tip-tippity-tip, and you're done!
 * See also the Burden of evidence section, which says, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article."
 * I see that you have been making further changes. These make it look as though you are getting information directly from magazines, but you are providing no more information than we had from the Web sites, apart from a couple of missing titles, and you have removed the Web links at the same time.
 * The things I have suggested above should have been done from the very beginning, or at least should be done now. They needn't take very long. If you have the information, please include it. I do not understand your resistence to this basic principle, unless it means you really don't have the magazines you are referring to. Please remove any doubts readers may have, and fill in the missing info. We can fine-tune the formatting later. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 04:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources: instance of a featured article to follow

 * Joy Division was voted featured article : so a user will have a lot of difficulty to convince someone that a featured article is screwed up.
 * Here's the models to follow for a source (for the newbies and persons who don't know very well the wikipedia rules yet, I include myself in that second category as well as I didn't previously pay attention to this):
 * For an article of Melody maker, the wikipedia standard is
 * Savage, Jon. "From safety to where?" Melody Maker. 14 June 1980. as shown here on a featured article, [1]
 * For a review from melody maker, the wikipedia standard is
 * Murrary, Charles Shaar. "Closer to the Edge" [Closer review]. NME. 19 July 1980. as shown here [2]
 * Carliertwo (talk) 31 may 2010 18:03
 * Actually, this still isn't right. The names of periodicals are italicised, e.g. Melody Maker, and NME. If the publication is notable and has an article, it should be linked in the first citation to mention it, e.g. Melody Maker.  These are also incomplete citations, since they are missing page numbers. Ideally, they would also have location and publisher (i.e., company that publishes the magazine). And the order of the details is non-standard. It is best to use one of the citation templates like, , etc., as appropriate for the medium of the work being cited (or the complicated generic one, ), and just fill in the blanks. The template will automatically format it all properly for you, including italics and whatnot.  And, no, it isn't difficult at all to "convince someone" that not every single facet of a featured article is 100% perfect. Sloppy citations are frequently (though  frequently) tolerated, so long as the facts are cited, even if messily, to an independent, reliable source.  It is generally presumed that after an article is featured, enough eyes will be on it that a lazy citation here or there will be cleaned up by someone. For examples of full citations of various sorts (news, books, government documents, etc.) see for example William A. Spinks, an article I've done a lot of citation work on. A typical mag citation should look something like the following made-up example: "" This will output as: ""  There's no need for   if there's no URL, but adding one doesn't hurt; it's just harmless metadata about when the citation was added in that case. If there  a URL, it's important to add this, as it indicates age of the link and bots can check its validity on a schedule. Hope this helps. :-)  — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 01:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Capitalisation
I believe this article should be at Siouxsie and The Banshees. The "The" leading the name of a band is capitalised, even when preceded by the name of a band leader, because the band is a discrete, named entity. Is there any evidence that the band themselves prefer it uncapitalised? Yes, I'm aware that at least one single has it uncapitalised, but there's a 95% chance that was the decision of some random cover designer at the label, not of the band. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 01:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Ratings info boxes
A couple weeks ago I went through each album article and put these back in:

Why they were taken out in the first place baffles me since practically every other album article by every other artist on here as them. Still someone undid all my revisions and took them out again. Could someone please explain to me why these boxes are being kept out of the Banshees album articles?

Thanks Shaneymike (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I recall removing it on Juju (not sure about other articles) because the only review linked was by AllMusic, whose review I believe had already been covered with prose. I think if the only item in the template is already covered in prose then it is just decorative; if there were more reviews, though, it may serve a purpose I think. Lachlan Foley (talk) 23:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Since the prose does not show the actual rating given to Juju, I think having the template helps. Any type of imagery always helps, which is why I say we keep the templates in all the articles. I do agree though about the importance of adding other reviews to the templates though. Shaneymike (talk) 02:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I completely share Lachlan Foley's point of view. One sees that I wasn't the only one to remove them. To me, they are just useless embellishments. When one put several excerpts of reviews in the text, the review box scores are not necessary anymore. That's what contributors of Disintegration (The Cure album) decided.--Carliertwo (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It is not a rule on wiki: for instance, the featured article, Disintegration (The Cure album), doesn't show them at all and I agree with this. What matters is the text and points of view of professional renowned papers : the rest is decorative.--Carliertwo (talk) 18:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Updated: Shaneymike! I have just seen that once again, you put weird things. On Kaleidoscope, Steve Jones also performed on "Clockface" and you erased that song on that kaleidoscope article. Is it too much to ask that you check the credits of your cd/lp before withdrawing correct information : I presume you must have downloaded that record. Otherwise, you would not have made that mistake (also the source you gave is a fansite, and sometimes, on a fansite, there are mistakes too). Plus you write "and" twice and one reads "and and" next to Paradise place and Skin ! Note that on The Scream article, you once again withdraw one 'r' to Morrissey where there are two in his name ! Thank you to make the necessary changes, as soon as possible, please! I'm afraid I'm gonna have to check several things from your part.-Carliertwo (talk) 18:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't recall withdrawing one 'r' from Morrissey's name but I will correct it if I did. You are correct when you presume that I downloaded Kaleidoscope and if Steve Jones did indeed play on Clockface, then I'll correct that as well. As for the ratings templates, if each of the reviews included do have some of their text included in the prose, then go ahead and delete them. Otherwise leave them alone or incoporate some of their text within the article and then delete them. Shaneymike (talk) 21:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, I just went all 11 articles again and see that five of them - Kaleidoscope, Juju, A Kiss in the Dreamhouse, Hyæna, and Tinderbox have excerpts from their Allmusic reviews incorporated in the text. If the two of you agree that the ratings templates should be removed from those articles and choose to do so, I promise I won't revert your edits. As for the other six that do NOT have excerpts from their Allmusic reviews in the text, I suggest incorporating some before removing the templates from those as well. Does that sound good? Shaneymike (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Any album article which uses the ratings box should also feature the reviews listed in it in prose as well. It's meant to accompany, rather than replace, prose. As mentioned, its purpose is mostly decorative, but that in and of itself should not be seen as a negative—in an article which may be lacking in free images to break up sections of text, an at-a-glance overview of its reviews also serves that same aesthetic purpose. GRAPPLE   X  22:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Couldn't have said it better myself, Grapple X. Still I will wait and see if other people agree that the ratings box should be removed and should they decide to take action, I won't press the issue any further. Shaneymike (talk) 23:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're looking for my opinion Shankeymike: the only time I think this template could be used productively is if it lists ratings for reviews which aren't already mentioned in prose. However, I think if something's going to be in an article at all, it should be mentioned in prose, so I think this template is pointless, and I would vote for its deletion.


 * If your issue is with review scores not being stated within prose; I personally don't think it matters, nor is integral to the subject of the article to mention how many stars it was given, and such.


 * I think infobox images are the only things whose purpose within an article I would call primarily decorational, and I think it should remain that way. Lachlan Foley (talk) 00:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I see your point about mentioning things like album reviews in prose if it's going to be in the article at all, which is why I will definitley work on some other articles I've stated where I included the template but didn't incoporate any excerpts from the reviews I included. When I get the chance, that is. I still like what Grapple said about something being mostly decorative not necessarily a negative and the template being meant to accompany the prose. Again though if you decide to revert the edits I made to Juju or any other Banshee album article where some excerpts from the allmusic review are include, I promise I won't change it back.Shaneymike (talk) 01:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * My 2 cents: The ratings box's purpose is not mostly decorative. The discussion at the infobox talk page that resulted in moving the ratings out of the infobox and into a separate template involved many editors and showed that most valued having the ratings presented in some form, and not just for decoration: Ratings, where available, are a metric for gauging critical reception, and have traditionally been displayed alongside discussion of reception for works like albums and video games. The consensus is that they have value to readers, in conveniently displaying the work's reception via metrics. That said, I typically only utilize the ratings box when there are at least a handful of ratings to display. If I can only find a few reviews, or only 1 or 2 that are accompanied by ratings, then I stick to prose alone and just mention the rating in the prose ("Reviewer x of publication y rated the album z and remarked..."). --IllaZilla (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Note to the users of this page you have to know that IllaZilla is involved in a dispute with me on two articles Control (2007 film) (and now talk of Control) and Join Hands (see here what I wanted to put). I basically wanted to mention on these two articles that Ian Curtis had in his record collection join Hands as his widow related it in the film Control. He refused. He seems now determined to bother me, all my recents edits are followed by comments of this person that go in the opposite direction and this happens here on this talk. Yet, IllaZilla said in a private message to Shaneymike that he is not a person into Siouxie which is fine, but I dunno what to say of the rest. I stop communicating with this person, anyway.--Carliertwo (talk) 20:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Note to Carliertwo what I said above has nothing whatsoever to do with Control (film) or the disagreement we're having there. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Poll to Remove Ratings info boxes
At the bottom of WikiProject Albums/Moving infobox reviews into article space, it is written that putting the Ratings info boxes ''is not mandatory. Album ratings is not mandatory and is intended solely as a supplement to Reception sections containing a written summary or as a means of presenting information that should eventually be summarized in prose.''. Contributors of the featured article Disintegration (album) agree with this idea that what matters is prose : so, they removed the Ratings info boxes. Do you also agree that one chooses this proposal for all the Siouxsie and the Banshees albums. Please indicate below whether you support this idea to remove the Ratings info boxes to focus on the text of the critical reception. Or, please indicate that you oppose to this idea.Carliertwo (talk) 4 September 2012 18:03

Options Carliertwo (talk) 4 September 2012 18:03
 * 1) Support adhering to the WikiProject albums saying that they are not mandatory and what matters is prose. Agree to remove.
 * 2) Oppose. Disagree to remove.


 * Support. Agree to remove. see above my comment. Carliertwo (talk) 4 September 2012 18:03
 * Oppose. It has been agreed at the WP:ALBUMS project level that ratings are something readers look for, utilize, and generally desire, which is why the ratings box was created when the decision was made to remove the ratings from the infobox. Siouxie and the Banshees being a notable group, I imagine that many reviews (including ratings) are available for their albums. The prose on Reception could therefore be expanded in most of these articles, with the accompanying ratings listed alongside as they are in the vast majority of album articles across WP (Disintegration notwithstanding: I looked at a random sample of 10 articles from Category:FA-Class Album articles, 8 used the ratings box). Additionally, I object to the use of a poll as a substitute for discussion; it smacks of gaming the system by Carliertwo because he isn't getting his way. When he didn't get his way in another discussion, he started an RfC. The whole thing has an odor to it. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal. I for one am a reader who finds these extremely useful.  There really is no reason to remove them. - eo (talk) 15:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal; have always found these useful provided they're backed up with prose. GRAPPLE   X  15:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Lachlan Foley (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal. Sorry Carliertwo. You made your point about incoporating some of the prose within the text of these articles and I have begun applying it to other articles I've written but I still find the ratings infoboxes usuful. Shaneymike (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)