Talk:Suede (band)/Archive 2

Intro
I noticed that someone removed the citations in the articles intro. Is this a common practice to have no citations in article intros. If it's not then i would like them reverted.PhilisOak (talk) 19:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears to me that citations go in the bulk of an article and not the lead section (intro). The intro should be basically a summary of the rest of the article. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 20:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The London Suede
There is no need whatsoever for The London Suede tag to be given such prominence in the lead of the article. The alternative name is mentioned in the infobox and detailed in the article itself. The band are barely known in the US (and never have been - the bands last album didn't even get released there nor did the band tour their post 1997) and their main audiences are in the UK, Europe and Asia - the US is the only territory where TLS tag is used and any US fans following the band will be aware of their real name, which isn't The London Suede.

92.5.51.220 (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Impact on other artists
Please discuss the impact of the band on other artist. This needs to be quite specific, not a passing mention and requires multiple sources please. One journalist finding Suede to be an inspiration on one specific band is not sufficient. It requires reliable sources. Karst (talk) 13:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC) , - let's discuss instead of reverts please. Karst (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I share the same point of view. I withdrew several artists supposedly influenced by Suede only when nothing in the sources supported it. One needs a source with a quote from each musician. I mentioned the legacy section at Kate Bush 1, one sees that there isn't any hypothesis of a journalist there. Woovee (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "One needs a source with a quote from each musician"
 * Says who? You keep making this claim, yet continually fail to provide the WP essay that outlines this requirement. You seem pretty certain that a direct quote is needed, so it should be no problem for you to produce the relevant essay. I look forward to your response. 193.107.85.194 (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, I think that one has to check the facts before mentioning such supposedly historical facts. This is my point of view Woovee (talk) 20:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I did notice that in the Kate Bush article, the reference to Charli XCX is not an interview, but what looks like the Allmusic article by Heather Phares. Similarly, in the K.D. Lang interview the journalist makes the assertion, not the artist, that Bush is an inspiration. This makes the approach ambiguous. I would urge you to do an RfC on this actually to gain wide-spread consensus. And to avoid further edit-warring. Karst (talk) 12:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I added in the Kate Bush article better sources with interviews for both artists. The rest of the sources is fine: there isn't any assertions from journalists anymore. I dunno if a rfc is necessary for this Suede article. There is only one ip that disagrees with the both of us, and a third user understands our point of view according to this edit 1Woovee (talk) 14:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC on legacy

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Do you agree with this. '''One journalist finding Suede to be an inspiration on one specific band is not sufficient. It requires reliable sources with quotes of concerned musicians'''. Woovee (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support see the discussion above. Woovee (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support I agree with statement. I consider a journalists opinion to be weak and misleading to readers. Also using AllMusic for many bands is poor. Radiohead have never been influenced by Suede, not from my knowledge anyway as a Radiohead fan. Quotes of given artists are definitely mandatory, which is why I added The Long Blondes to the section with a quote from a strong source.Quiggazi (talk) 09:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC) (user blocked as a sockpuppet of The abominable Wiki troll)


 * I can't go on. I just can't say no more about it because I'm getting upset. 193.107.85.240 (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support Neither agree nor disagree . But reliable sources are needed for all wikipedia content. I don't see a requirement for a quote from the musician, just as long as the content comes from a WP:Reliable Source.Polyamorph (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * A RS like Allmusic here writes assertions like The Smiths were influenced by Echo & the Bunnymen and Joy Division but both neither Johnny Marr or Morrissey have ever stated anything particuliar about these two bands. These lists of Allmusic are full of approximative influences. Another instance, Allmusic says that Kate Bush has influenced Radiohead which is inacurrate, they have never said anything about Bush in interviews. The list of instances like this is endless. Woovee (talk) 04:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't necessarily call allmusic a reliable source. Polyamorph (talk) 08:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, you've convinced me. Though I wouldn't necessarily say a direct quote is needed. It depends on the source and how well researched it is. Polyamorph (talk) 09:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support mostly. Journalists/reviewers can compare band A to band B, and maybe even theorize that band B was influenced by band A. If they do, that content should be accurately paraphrased in the article for band B. However, someone from (or otherwise representing) band B must say band A was an influence before it should be mentioned in the article on band A. Otherwise, it's taking one journalist's guess and repeating it as fact, which begins a cycle of Circular reporting. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * This RfC could have used more background, but the way to typically handle disagreements like these is to put it as one source's opinion. E.g., AllMusic wrote that X was an influence on Y. If another source conflicts, you can say so after, but the onus is on the reader to determine which source is right. All we do is weigh the secondary sources appropriately. By the way, AllMusic is certainly a reliable source—look at their editorial staff and seeWikiProject Albums/Sources Eye close font awesome.svg czar  23:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't share this view if a source is filled with random stuffWoovee (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Incorrect information
Ricky Gervais was indeed acquainted with Simon Gilbert, but he was never Suede's manager and he was in no way responsible for introducing Simon to the band. Source: Coal Black Mornings, Brett Anderson. 12.231.44.176 (talk)CJD, 11/13/18 —Preceding undated comment added 22:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Images
The first two images should not be used because they repeat what is already said next to them in their captions. The other two should not be used as well. Only the final two images near the bottom of the article should be used. Dean12065 (talk) 14:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * An image doesn't repeat text. --Michig (talk) 17:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you're going on about. Get consensus before making any more removals. Multiple editors now have objected. Sro23 (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is an argument against the image captions, not the images. Do you have an objection to the actual images? Also, we expect captions to briefly summarize important points about images and their context, regardless if information contained in the main body of the text, as not all readers read articles fully, completely, and in strict order--many will skip around, and image captioning should allow for this. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That is the point of most illustrations on Wikipedia. They aren't supposed to have new information under them, just provide a picture of information already present.  danny music editor  oops 14:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)