Talk:This Picture (band)

Untitled
did the sad sacked bass player write this profile?

Hillarious and sad. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.35.32.101 (talk • contribs).

No the sacked bass player did not add this entry, that would really be sad. However what is sad is your spelling....

Cleanup
I've tidied up a bit. They appear to meet WP:MUSIC but with 260 ish google hits it's pretty close. Megapixie 05:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do NOT delete this band entry. I understand it's being potentially deleted because they aren't considered an important enough band to live on these pages. That couldn't be more wrong. This band was a class act with beautifully written and performed work. I'd like to see half the bands that are considered to be worth keeping compared side by side- and it should be clear that This Picture is superior. Worth is not always defined by record sales or popularity, and much an Encyclopedia exists whether someone looks up a subject only rarely- so too, Wikipedia should all this information to exist for those that want it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Climbingivy69 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

CD Entries
Pulling out my CD's and adding track listings for the discs I have. I know the format isn't what anyone would consider "tidy" or "Wikipedia standards" but wanted to get the info there hoping someone would add more as well as clean up the content. If I can find the last remaining CD's out there that I don't have (those I don't have track listings for), I'll scan all the covers and put those up as well (and clean up the formating to match more mature music pages). --McHale (talk) 04:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Large quotation added b y McHale 8 Nov 2008
A large section of text has been added verbatim from a review of the band. Not sure that cut-and-pasting a review from another website is really what wikipedia is about. Apart from which there are copyright issues. If you look at the bottom of the page you will see that the copyright is owned by Macrovision Corporation. This section should either be written so that it uses the odd quotation from the original article or removed completely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.68.2 (talk) 08:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 24 February 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved 1st one and 2nd one is Not Moved per consensus. (non-admin closure) X ain36  { talk } 08:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

– A WP:TWODABS situation that is clearly back to front; the short-lived UK band gets |This_Picture_(song) about 25% of the page views and some of that is no doubt from people looking for the song. PC78 (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412  T 22:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This Picture → This Picture (band)
 * This Picture (song) → This Picture
 * Support first and oppose second 2601:541:4500:1760:8F:FFDC:784B:363A (talk) 12:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This isn't a vote. If you don't agree that's fine, but you should do the courtesy of explaining why. PC78 (talk) 11:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A band that lasted 6 years isn't really short-lived. I don't see why a fairly unremarkable single about which there will never be much to write should be considered the primary topic over a band that released two albums and received plenty of coverage. If the song gets more hits that's probably just because it was more recent. --Michig (talk) 11:50, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Six years isn't a long time, two albums isn't a lot. The band seem rather obscure and I think you'd struggle to argue that they or their material are well known or well remembered. At best there is no clear primary topic. PC78 (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Six years, two major label albums, and a charting single - neither short-lived nor obscure. --Michig (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * One single which spent one week at #98 and two non-charting albums. Seems pretty obscure to me. PC78 (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Compared to an article about a single that only spent 2 weeks in the UK Singles Chart, didn't receive much coverage, and didn't make the top 50 anywhere else. I don't see a good case for changing things here. --Michig (talk) 17:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Then please refer to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. In terms of usage it's clearly the song as the pageviews show. In terms of significance I don't think it's either. In any case, I don't think there's any reasonable argument that favours the band. PC78 (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support 1st and Oppose 2nd. A disambiguation page should be created at the basename of "This Picture". There doesn't seem to be a clear primary topic. Given that, above, some users above see the song as the primary and some users see the band as the primary, indicates that. Paintspot Infez (talk) 23:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. 75% of page views for the song is enough, especially with only two pages. In any case, it's clear the band doesn't meet WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Nohomersryan (talk) 03:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support first, but oppose second - WP:NOPRIMARY - its not clear that the song is the primary topic, so a dab page should be created instead --DannyS712 (talk) 06:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Clearly reversed WP:TWODABS situation, as per nom. Dohn joe (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.