Talk:The Kinks

Did they break up in 1996 or 1997?
Infobox says 1996. Article says 1997. Only two people have membership in the band ending in 1997. Others have it ending in 1996.

This needs clarity. 73.25.226.14 (talk) 19:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

 Tkbrett  (✉) 20:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It is debatable. There was no formal announcement. Here is a bit from Doug Hinman (2004, p. 342): "During the evening of Monday February 3rd [1997] Ray threw a surprise 50th birthday party for Dave at the Clissold Arms pub on Fortis Green in North London. Kinks members Rodford, Henrit and Gibbons and many of the remaining Davies family were present. It marked a turning point after which Ray and Dave's professional relationship seemed to fall apart. [...] No formal break-up of The Kinks was evident, and plans for future band activities were floated well into 1998. The Rodford/Henrit band was evidently long off retainer by 1996 and no longer an active outfit by 1997. During the autumn of 1997, Ray and Mick Avory were both in contact with Pete Quaife, and all three were willing to undertake a strictly recording-only Kinks project, design to fulfill an outstanding obligation to Guardian Records for that label's second Kinks album. Dave, however, was not in favour, and despite public airing of the plan it never happened. Quaife came down from his home in Canada to New York City in May 1998 to catch back-to-back solo shows by the Davies brothers. On the 23rd he attended a performance by Dave at the Bottom Line and sat in on bass for "You Really Got Me". The following night, Quaife saw Ray in performance at the Trump's Arena's Shell Theatre in Atlantic City, NJ, but didn't even get to speak to Ray. Any further thoughts of reforming the original band were essentially put to rest, and the Kinks just seemed to fade away."

Short format notes
I've been making a few careful copyedits to this article, which I hope have improved a few things. I notice that the footnote style is very erratic and could do with sorting out. I can do that if there are no objections, but I wanted to bring it up on the Talk page first as it's quite a big alteration to the article. I'm talking about using the sfn template for pulling in all the repeated source citations, e.g. Doug Hinman's book is cited a massive 66 times (!) with full citation details, where a brief sfn link down to the cited book in the Sources section would suffice. The article currently contains only two short format links (Rogan 2015 refs. 34 and 93), whereas the Rogan 1998 refs (40, 56, etc.) are bare footnotes. There is no consistency and I'd really like to get it sorted! Incidentally, I'm fairly sure this issue could lead to a FAR notice. Regards, Rodney Baggins (talk) 12:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I thought about converting the mess to sfn myself, but it seemed like quite an undertaking. If you are willing to do it, that would be fantastic. We could also split the work, if you'd like.  Tkbrett  (✉) 12:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm more than willing to do it myself, just wanted to check it was OK with others. It wouldn't take too long once I got started. Rodney Baggins (talk) 13:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you – also, I do not expect to hear from many other editors here, as the main author of this page has been inactive for the last decade.  Tkbrett  (✉)  14:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I've completed the sfn conversion apart from one that I can't track down. Any idea what Rogan, Johnny (2004) is referring to in refs. 10, 83, 138, 146 and 149? The only 2004 book I can find is his Van Morrison biography. Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:20, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry
I was removing some genres from the infobox I found unnecessary due to the encompassing nature of the "rock" and "pop" listings, but I accidentally got rid of the lead image and do not know how to return it. I'm really sorry Ded Meem (talk) 04:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)