Talk:The Police/Archive 1

Shouldn't "The Police" be singular?
Article begins with "The Police are...". Shouldn't this be "The Police is..."? We aren't talking about an actual police force here, but a single band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tech Lovr (talk • contribs) 01:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

small mod to part about copeland breaking his drum head
It's a little silly to say Copeland is "known for excessive force" so I modified that. He's known to most drummers as one of the finest rock drummers. His style is known for it's combination of clean simplicity in the groove along with tremendous creative energy to his coloring on top of the groove. It is true that he is known for a very forceful backbeat on the snare and very tight snare head, but the original statement would tend to mislead people about his approach to the kit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.172.93.234 (talk) 20:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Article Maintenance
I think this article looks a bit dated. There's no section listing or a picture. More external links would be nice. There's lots of information in it but... with a little more effort it would look a lot better. -thealexfish 6/3/05

the last sentence of the first paragraph has a grammatical error... a "." after 2007 where it shouldnt be. wont let me edit it :-P

Break up
It is inaccurate to say they broke up in 1983 because there never was an official breakup, just a hiatus that has gone on and on... user:Daniel C. Boyer It was allegedly reported in the 1983/84 time range that the "break up" began on the eve of the last North American Syncronicity tour show in Atlanta Georgia. I recall a report that Sting indicated to the other members that "this" was the end of the Police. The EBYT Singles sessions also may have fueled the break up - apparently Stewart and Andy expected Sting to bring new material for a new album, only to learn that he had no new material, and the sessions where DSSCTM'86 and De Do Do Do'86 were recorded were acromonious at best.Soar2hi 02:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

reunion
Recent reunion: who knows more about this? --Daniel C. Boyer


 * Hm... just found this: http://www.tickets4u.com/boston-concerts.asp, look for Concerts at Fenway Park at the end of July... no details, though --HorstHorst

Wedding reunion
Should also be mentioned. --65.174.35.65 20:00, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? It is in the article already:

"In 1992, Sting wed Trudie Styler. Summers and Copeland were invited to the ceremony and reception. Aware that all band members were present, the wedding guests pressured the trio into playing, ultimately performing "Roxanne" and "Message In A Bottle". Copeland said later that "after about three minutes, it became 'the thing' again.""


 * Maartenvdbent 17:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, thought it was february 2007, oops Maartenvdbent 17:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Amnesty International - Conspiracy of Hope Tour -86
the band reunited for a number of the shows. Soar2hi 02:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Strontium90
What about Strontium90 (see Mike Howlett)? Andy Mabbett 00:23, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Reggae
This article describes reggae as an "African-American" music form, which isn't really correct, it's an Afro-Caribbean music form. But I can't think of a better phrasing at the moment for the section comparing The Police to Cream. Maybe someone else can improve this bit...? JW 12:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Cream
Why is Cream mentioned multiple times in this article? I don't think there is any strong link between the two groups. They are completely different stylistically. And how is 'Message in a Bottle' like 'Sunshine of Your Love'?


 * And since when are the blues "non-western"? This parallel seems like a poorly thought out and expressed theory of a lone contributor. - Ncsaint 14:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Copeland nationality
I think that Stewart Copeland was born in Egypt, not America —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.146.33 (talk)
 * That's incorrect; see Stewart Copeland. He grew up in various Middle Eastern cities where his father, CIA officer Miles Copeland, Jr., was stationed. --Dhartung | Talk 16:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Movie mix up
Sting's debut was not Brimstone and Treacle as stated, Quadrophenia came before it.

Original Record Label
I believe they were signed to A&M Records, Ltd., the UK division of A&M Records.

De Do Do Do, De Da Da Da, Is all I want to say to you. --69.67.231.77 03:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

U.S. Modern Rock Chart
I don't understand why this column is in the table of the singles -- the chart was not established at all until 1988, long after the Police broke up according to the article, Modern Rock Tracks. Thoughts on removing the column? Spebudmak 20:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I decided to 'Be Bold' and I removed it. Spebudmak 01:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Origin of the name
I don't see any information about that, and it's something I've always wondered about. If anyone knows. . . Rostov 03:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Stewart picked the name because it was so common it was automatic publicity anytime anyone read a newspaper. I don't have a reference for that info, though, just something I read in an interview a million years ago. 172.166.118.134 03:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC) funniegrrl

Australia
There is way too much information regarding Australia in this article for an encyclopedic entry.

Shut the fuck up, Australia is #1

^You're biased.^

The Police are getting back
According to the Daily Mail :

"Sting is in talks to re-form The Police and tour with the group - 30 years after they were formed."

The article can be found here : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=425595&in_page_id=1766&ito=1490

Anglo
The description is very odd: "The Police are a three-piece Anglo-American rock band" The term "Anglo" is not commonly used in the U.S. and the term "Ango-American" sounds totally made up. What is wrong with saying "The Police are a three-piece rock band" or "The Police are a three member rock band"? 68.161.140.229 16:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)AR

(edit : oops ! haven't seen it was already in the wikipedia article ...)

Neitsa 12:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Modified date of first release of "Every Little Thing She Does is Magic" from "1997" to "1977". 70.181.150.156 03:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

King of Pain / Wrapped Around Your Finger Release Dates
The charts lists Wrapped Around Your Finger as the second Synchronicity single. I'm fairly certain it was King of Pain.Kevdo 18:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * King of Pain was the second single in the US (and the biggest Synchronicity hit after Every Breath You Take). It was however the fourth single in the UK and the rest of Europe (and the world). Wrapped Around Your Finger was the second single in the UK and the biggest Synchronicity hit there. The table lists the single on the basis of release date in the UK (as stated above the table) because the Police based their succes in the UK and had the most singles released in the UK. Maartenvdbent 17:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I added this information to the King of Pain article. Maartenvdbent 18:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

the police reunion is attracting many people this days, as i .searching for cheap tickets foud web name doctorticket.com now i can say that i will finnaly see the police live....

"The Police" is plural
Some (anonymous) people keep editing this article, changing "The Police were founded" to "The Police was founded". Well, apart from the fact that they only edit that sentence and do not consistently change sentences like "The Police are a three-piece..." to "The Police is a three-piece...", it also isn't proper English...

Let me quote something:

Aggregate nouns are similar to collective nouns in that they refer to single collections that are made up of similar individual parts. For example, email and radio are both individual components of communications. However, unlike collective nouns, aggregate nouns usually use plural verb forms and have no singular forms. They cannot be used with a or an. Example: With the development of the Internet, communications are being revolutionized at a dizzying speed. Many aggregate nouns have plural forms, but many also are not plural in form, though they use plural verb forms. Example: The police are still looking for the Olympic Park bomber. Some aggregate nouns can use either singular or plural verb forms: Example: The data [is/are] inconclusive on that point.

I hope that makes things clear. Maartenvdbent 22:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The issue here is that different standards of collective nouns are used between the United Kingdom and North America. See American and British English differences for a treatise on this.  When it comes to Wikipedia articles, we choose the form that suits the country of origin: Led Zeppelin were an English rock band; Sly & the Family Stone was an American rock band. A lot of back and forth happens on a variety of Wikipedia articles due to peoples' lack of understanding of this difference. -/- Warren 04:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * But there is no difference regarding the word "police". Try search google on "the police is", you'll get no significant results. Probably all results come with a plural form of the verb: "The pregnancy police are watching you", "The Vitamin Police Are Suiting Up", etc. I don't believe an American would say "The police is investigating the body" (do you really?).


 * If you only see The Police as a name of a band (and not as a law enforcement body) and therefore advocate the use of the American way of putting it, it still doesn't make sense in this article I think, because The Police based their succes in the UK and the article is written in British English. Furthermore, as said, the anonymous edits only changed one sentence, despite the fact that the whole text should be revised if you would use a singular form. Maartenvdbent 05:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Correct, as American and British English differences notes, "Proper nouns which are plural in form take a plural verb in both AmE and BrE." --Mrwojo 02:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * *shrug* I found this after 30 seconds: "The Police is commemorating its 30th anniversary this year." ... and that's the Examiner, a fairly major news agency in the United States. -/- Warren 19:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

So then...."The Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra" is plural?? Or should I say "are" plural??? Please explain. That's the name of a big band, just like The Police is the name of a band. A band is one unit, just like an orchestra is one unit. And one unit of anything is singular, regardless of the language.


 * That's how you Americans look at it. A British person (and me too, since I was taught BrE at school) would say "The Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra ARE playing" (not is playing). Maartenvdbent 15:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

In America, the pluralization of proper nouns only happens if the actual word is a plural word. For instance, we say, "Led Zeppelin is..." but also "The Beatles are..." In the UK we would pluralize The Beatles because they are a group, but in America, we pluralize it due to the fact that "Beatles" is a plural word to begin with.

Also, The Police was founded by Stewart Copeland, who was an an American. Therefore, we will use the American grammar rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.29.180 (talk) 22:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

policia
a compliation of songs made by the police that were rerecorded by modern bands is "!policia!: a tribute to the police". Somebody might want to add something about that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.219.11.114 (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC).


 * See Policia! - A Tribute to the Police Maartenvdbent 12:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

NEW material
Anyone know if a new album is posible? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.79.36.91 (talk) 10:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Foxnews.com just had a story about this yesterday (04-10-07) that said there were absolutely no plans for any new material and that they would also only be playing Police songs on the tour (i.e no Sting solo stuff). Of course, Sting also said he was never interested in The Police reuniting either...

Official Website
I see no reason why there should be any objection to having www.policetour.com as the official website in the infobox. [www.sting.com The sting official site] states "For complete tour & ticket information, fan club memberships and more visit: http://www.thepolicetour.com/. " www.policefile.com may have been the official site for a number of years, however, now that the band is back touring together, surely it makes more sense to put what is the now official site up. ...adam... ( talk •  contributions ) 14:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Was it ever "the official"&trade; site? I see no evidence of it being so. It's not uncommon to have multiple fan sites for popular bands, policy is to provide links to the officially endorsed ones only, unless it's changed recently.--Alf melmac 14:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ThePoliceFile.com is and has always been a FAN SITE, it was NEVER an official site. I find it very annoying that people keep adding this site as the official site. ThePoliceTour.com was launched after the press conference of The Police as the official site for booking tickets, fan club membership, background information about The Police etc, so THAT SITE IS THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE! (So I do completely agree with you Adam, I only wanted to air my frustrations here :)) Maartenvdbent 16:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Discussion's gone pretty smoothly then - I have no idea why the site keeps getting put back on, but there we go. Apparently the site is classed as spam now anyway, so it keeps getting removed by bots now anyway. ...adam...  ( talk &bull;  contributions ) 17:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The only reason why this site was placed back again is because it was removed on a number of occasions by other members, even from the external links page... why are we not allowed to be listed on the external links page and why does the ip address not get blocked for that reason? does anybody care about that and could this not have been the reason for this silly up and down changes all the time?, lets be reasonable and not be like children. The police file has been around for many years and has more then 10.000 members, let anybody compete with that even an official site, whoever claims it to be, it still has the right to be listed in the external links —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.241.219.56 (talk • contribs).
 * I have no problem with it being in the external links. However, I do have a problem with it being placed above official sites and I do have a problem with it because it's apparently on Shadowbots spam list. My point was that the website in the infobox should be the most official one - and I don't think there is any reasonable argument to suggest that that is not policetour. Number if members and age of the site should have no weight in the discussion about which site is the official one. My main concern with policefile is that it is being marked as spam - and I suggest that if anyone has a desire to include it in the external links, their first port of call should be to see why that is happening. After that, of course, there is the question of whether adding policefile to the list of external links adds anything (I personally haven't looked at the site in any depth and so feel I am unable to answer this last question). ...adam...  ( talk &bull;  contributions ) 18:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

its marked as spam because you people say its spam while its not... how clearer can this be ?.. if our site gets removed all the time by other members because of some unknown reason (maybe because we attract to much members etc?) ofcourse we are going to list it again and again every time its removed so maybe thats why you considered this a spam ? we are not very familiar with wikipedia so if we have done any breaches we will be more carefull next time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.241.219.56 (talk • contribs).
 * I have no idea why it is marked as spam - it, sadly, is not as clear as I say it's spam so it is. I did not say it was spam, the reason I was drawn to this article is because of the conflict over the main infobox. I suggest, again, that if you would like to know why policefile is listed as a spam site then you should talk to the owner of the bot which has decided as such Shadow1.
 * As far as a breach goes; you say that if the link gets removed you will just replace the link - because of this I strongly suggest that you read the three revert rule, as you may get into hot water if you just continue to revert a particular edit. This is why the discussion is here, so a consensus can be reached. Other policy that is well worth reading is WP:SPAM to see if there are any problems, and WP:EL. It is the latter that suggests that the number of external links should be kept to a minimum - if policefile is not a spam site, as I suspect it is not, then I think that if you want policefile to be included in the external links you have to come up with a good reason. What does the article gain from having the site at the bottom of it? As I said before, age of the site and the number of members on the mailing list are no reflection of its encyclopedic worth. I'm sure Hotmail has more members and is older than policefile - but obviously it shouldn't be included in the external links. The burden of proof is on you to explain, here on the talk page, why the link should be included - what does the reader gain that isn't already in the article or on one of the official sites? Please understand, I'm not against having the site on the list, just you've got to stick with the policy.
 * Finally, you say your site - if you are in charge of the site in any way, you should definitely read the wikipedia conflict of interest policy before you even think about putting the link up again, and you should definitely disclose that fact when you give your rational for including the link. Wikipedia has no point of view and it is crucial that this is preserved.
 * In summary, if Shadowbot clears the site as not spam, and you can come up with adequate reasons to include policefile in the external links, and a consensus is reached, then the link deserves to be in the article - and anyone removing it without giving rock solid reasons is then going against policy. ...adam...  ( talk &bull;  contributions ) 20:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

sounds pretty complicated to list a simple url on wikipedia, but never mind, we dont need it i guess, this is to much talk and no action. We shall inform our members about it and see if they can all vote regarding this on wiki —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.241.219.56 (talk • contribs).


 * That is not how it works - wikipedia is not a democracy. It doesn't matter if you "have more votes" - there is no vote. You have to prove that the site adds something to the article before it can be added. I am sorry that you disagree with all talk and no action, but that is how the wrong actions are prevented - through adult debate. I suggest that you don't mail all your members telling them to put the site up, as this is a blatant example of causing disruption to prove a point. If you think the site should be included - tell everyone here what it adds. So far you haven't given any reason apart from you want to, and that just isn't good enough. ...adam...  ( talk &bull;  contributions ) 20:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I'm not from police tour, I have nothing to do with the site. But it is obvious to everyone, including those of us with no interest in the band, that it is the official site. And please note that all the links in my last two comments are links to policy. I suggest that you read them all. ...adam...  ( talk &bull;  contributions ) 20:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

there is no need to explain everything here again while all the information is on the website, why would we do that, to fill up with more content this area ? Never mind about it, but we still have the right to do what we want including mailing all our members that our site was removed from wikipidia. shadow1 was the first to mention we should mention this in the discussion page regarding to place us back, but since we receive only critics from one person, this will lead to nowhere as far as we can see. the only thing we wanted is our link back in the extra links area. You want us to sit back and read some policy guidelines what is that going to help you disagree anyway right? Lets forget it, i guess wikipidea will be long working on donations this way, yikes. and ps: this is not personal towards you. We are happy we can atleast communicate with somebody so we do appreciate and respect your response. Its just that it leads nowhere really to be honest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.241.219.56 (talk • contribs).


 * So scrap the entire article in favour of just putting up a link? We're meant to be making an encyclopedia here, not a directory of links to where people can find the information. Shadow is right, this is the place to discuss it - but you haven't said why the site should go in the article.The burden of proof is on you to tell everyone why it should go in.
 * This discussion can lead somewhere if you follow the procedure, but you seem singularly reluctant to follow policy. It's not me you're going against here, I'm not the gate keeper, I don't say yes or no - all I'm asking for is you to give valid reasons why the link should be included. If you can't do that then even you must see that the link shouldn't go into the article as it doesn't add anything. All I'm asking for is for you to play by the rules.
 * You do have the right to tell all 10000 people on your mailing list to put the link in, but you don't have the right to go against policy, and all that will happen is the article will get protected again. Can't you see I'm actually trying to help you here. If you can give a good reason why the link should be included the no one can remove it. If you can't give a reason, well as I say - then even you must realise that the link can't go in. ...adam...  ( talk &bull;  contributions ) 22:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * (In response to the bit you just added) - just give a good reason! Just tell me what encyclopedic value your site adds. If it's good then it gets to stay. How is this unproductive? And how can you not read the policy? It's not there to help me, or preserve the status quo - it is there to preserve the integrity of wikipedia. All I have asked is for a good reason why you should put the link in - if you can't think of one why do you want it in? If you can't think of a reason then the link is spam. If you think the site should be in, share that opinion and see where it gets you - what do you have to loose, you seem to be throwing in the towel anyway.
 * And yes - wikipedia contributors do work long and hard getting articles right, but that is the only way the truth will out. If something's worth doing - do it properly. You didn't have NASA going "why are we messing around in the lab, lets just point a car at the moon and hit the accelerator." If you have a big project (collecting the sum of human knowledge...) then it takes time. This isn't personal, just the policy (that you should read to help you become a better contributor) ...adam...  ( talk &bull;  contributions ) 22:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

hi adam, i noticed on the site that the page was editable again. I also noticed that one of my collegues in the office tried to edit it again as we have a fix ip address here. Would it be possible to place our link back in the extras page. Basically, our site provides information to the police group, links to videos, albums and individual songs. We also offer tickets to via third party companies and have a mailing list of up to 10000 members and growing. anyways, please let me know if you need more details. best regards. the police file web site.


 * Policefile site; as the link that you want to add is your own, I cannot stress strongly enough how important it is for you to read WP:COI - our conflict of interest policy. I believe that you have a conflict of interest here and as such you should (and I quote from the policy)


 * "avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
 * participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
 * linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
 * and you must always:
 * avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, attribution, and autobiography."


 * Considering this, I do not think that policefile belongs in this article at all for the following reasons, in no particular order:
 * No one except people working for the policesite website have put it forwards as a link, so WP:COI would suggest that the link was unnecessary.
 * The site, as far as I can tell from what has been said here, is of no encyclopedic value to the article, so WP:EL also suggests that the link is not needed.
 * The people adding the link have persistently added it as the official url despite the fact that policefile is not the official website in any way shape or form, an example of breaking WP:SPAM.
 * The url has been added/moved to the top of the EL links time and time again for no reason at all except for "look at me" factor, another tell tale sign of WP:SPAM.
 * The discussion element to this has been completely ignored by the users who want policefile to be included - as soon as the page was unblocked they reverted despite the distinct lack of reasoning, going against WP:COI and WP:SPAM.
 * Threats to WP:DISRUPT to prove a WP:POINT were made when policy were not in their favour, which is back to breaking WP:COI and WP:SPAM.
 * I really don't see the need to put policefile into the external links - wikipedia is not a place to advertise your site, it is an encyclopedia. No one, apart from yourselves, have tried to put policefile into the article - and when you have been confronted with policy and reason as to why your site shouldn't be included you have reacted by saying you will just re-add the link, accusing "people from policetour" are removing it, claiming that policetour is "the official site, which it is not" (which it so obviously is) and then just asking an admin to replace the link so as to bypass debate. I would just like to clear something up here - I'm not from policetour. I was drawn to this article from Special:Recent Changes because I saw an anonymous IP edit "The Police" and assumed the article would be about policemen and that the edit would be vandalism (ie writing pigs somewhere, or putting up some NWA lyrics). What has kept me interested in this is that you seem to be going against policy, and that just cannot be.
 * So no, in my humble opinion policefile doesn't deserve a place in the external links and I think that it is right that shadowbot is reverting any inclusion of it. 212.50.187.108 23:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC) ( ...adam... ( talk &bull;  contributions ) )
 * Also, the same user who put policefile as the official url made this edit around the same time - why did you think that the site you added was the official one in any way shape or form? This, to me, is symptomatic of what you are attempting to do with The Police article - changing links for your own reasons, which is by definition WP:SPAM and WP:COI.

Problem seems to persist
Still some anonymous editors REPLACE the official thepolice.com link (which is hyperlinked as "Official website", which it is) with thepolicefile.com, which is definately not the official website. These anonymous editors seem to be the people behind thepolicefile.com. I do not have a problem, and I think nobody here on wikipedia has, with the website being in the external links section (a problem might be that it is in conflict with WP:COI). The very problem is that you replace the official link with thepolicefile.com, which is definately WP:SPAM. Please stop that, otherwise the website will be blacklisted again. Maarten 16:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use
Please bear in mind the tight restrictions we have on non-free content. All the members are living public figures so their pictures are replaceable. Unfree music samples should be used for a specific encyclopaedic purpose (critical commentary), not just in a gallery of samples. Album covers are not required to provide a discography, this can be done freely and adequately with text. ed g2s • talk 11:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Why does this policy only apply to The Police? Almost every other band on wikipedia has a discography with album cover images (see U2 discography, Coldplay discography, R.E.M. discography, Depeche Mode discography, Red Hot Chili Peppers discography etc. etc. etc.). The articles on these bands also include many music samples. I understand your arguments (though I do not agree with them), but what strikes me is that this policy is put in effect arbitrarily. Why only The Police? What's the reason to remove only The Police's music samples and artwork? Maartenvdbent 12:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It applies to all articles, this just happens to be an article that I have stumbled upon. ed g2s &bull; talk 19:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Unplugged Album
On the heels of their opening show in Vancouver, The Police have agreed to perform an MTV “Unplugged” set this summer.

Sources tell me that the date for the show is July 13 and it will take place at a still-to-be-named location in Miami.

“It’s an all-acoustic set,” says a source. It’s also the first time The Police as a group have appeared on “Unplugged,” since the group disbanded in 1983 and the MTV show didn’t start until 1989. Sting appeared on “Unplugged” in 1991 as a solo act.

The "Unplugged" show will come at a great moment in The Police tour.

source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,276379,00.html

Also mentions in The Police Tour Program, ourchased on May 28th 2007 at GM Place.

minor edit
The following was added to the begining of the article. "July 7, 2007, The Police performed at Giants Stadium as part of the Live Earth series of concerts." Dreammaker182 04:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know what this means?
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22052991-2,00.html?from=public_rss

Was it vandalism, or???--Jimbo Wales 20:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It was still on The Police Reunion Tour a second ago. Think it is vandalism indeed. I just deleted it. Maarten 21:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Huge International Tour
I dislike the word huge but could someone out there help with replacing this with the exact number of tour dates. I appreciate that they may add nights and dates as the tour progresses (as most of these tours do). But I think the adjectie huge is lazy and applies to items other than tours.

If I do not get any feedback in the coming days I might just 'be bold' and delete huge. --BustOut 08:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a note
There are references to two of their songs that I know of, in songs that aren't remakes.

#1: Come On Petunia by The Blow EX: Everything little thing she does is magic Everything she do just turns me on And even though my life before was tragic Now I know my love for her goes on

#2: Arctic Monkeys: When the Sun Goes Down EX: And he told Roxanne to put on her red light

I don't really know how to fit that in to the article, so i'll leave it to you guys.

Line-ups
Is it really necessary a table with the lineups of the band? No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 02:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Links to Sting's Wikipedia page
All the links point to a page for Steve Borden, a wrestler. Not sure how that happened. Is there a Sting page out there or does one need to be created? Either way the links need to be changed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sting

Gordon Sumner redirects to the above page as well.

modtang (talk) 04:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, someone unexpectedly moved Sting to Gordon Matthew Thomas Sumner and then copy-pasted the wrestler's bio over the redirect (breaking ~1200 links). It's been brought up over at Talk:Sting. --Mrwojo (talk) 05:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Associated acts - oysterhead
the police have never been associated with oysterhead, its just another band stuart copeland was in, is it correct for this is be here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.37.54 (talk) 00:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Citations & References
See Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the  tags Nhl4hamilton (talk) 09:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

the police are gay in so many ways —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.170.202.210 (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Stewart Copeland audio interview
As an editor at Crawdaddy! and to comply with COI guidelines, I am not posting this link. However, I would like to recommend it, and hope that an editor has a chance to take a listen to some of the interview and consider it as a source or external link. Thanks for your time interview 1986 Asst. Editor, Crawdaddy! FenderRhodesScholar | Talk 18:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Sting's missing leather jacket
If Sting is wondering where his never-worn Versace leather jacket is, it was stolen by my almost-brother-in-law (long story) Jimmy when he was restoring some plasterwork at Sting's London home. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.68.184 (talk) 05:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Members?
Is there a reason the members aren't listed in infobox here? Seems like a pretty straightforward artist to have it... TheHYPO (talk) 04:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Recording Contract
I don't have the time or inclination to fix it up, but the section The_Police has just a fraction of a sentence about the Police's recording contract (basically that they got one from A&M) and most of the section is about the contents and touring support of their first three albums. Although it isn't mentioned in the article what is the actually interesting part about their recording contract (according to sources like http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:gifyxqr5ldhe~T1 ) is that the royalty rate they negotiated was higher than the standard rate in exchange for a smaller advance (perhaps due to the fact that they already had an album and didn't need the advance to produce it.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.96.65 (talk) 04:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)