Talk:Tones on Tail

Refence to Television
I was slightly bothered by the old reference to the band Television in this page. I felt that it isn't appropriate. Television were a late-70's, vaguely punk, indie band with two skilled lead guitarists. Tones on Tail were a mid-80's goth-rock and highly experimental band, with keyboards and effects being the primary lead instruments. Don't get me wrong - I love both bands a lot, it's just that I don't think they are similar. Folkor 22:05, September 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * I am unfamiliar with Television, so I left that reference when I copyedited this article long ago. It has been in need of polishing and expansion for a long time -- do you think you (or other Tones fans you might know) could improve it?  I think there's definitely more to be said.  My expertise is limited to a roommate in college who played Night Music incessantly -- but somehow I still came out of that with a fondness for the band, and I'd love to see a more complete article.  &mdash; Catherine\talk 22:16, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll see what I can do. I'm a big fan of Bauhaus, and one day I read about their other projects, and really liked what I heard of Love and Rockets and Tones on Tail, so I went and bought Everything!, which I really like. When I get some time at some point, I'll sit down and make this more thorough. Folkor 01:50, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

Merge
Albums and singles which do not meet notability standards WP:N WP:MUSIC should be merged to the band. Active Banana (talk) 17:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose!!! SUPER-Famtastic (most notable) compilation album that put together EVERYTHING!!! this ultra-fantastic band had released. Please, also create an article for Pop (Tones on Tail album), and another for Night Music (Tones on Tail album). Both albums had a notable impact!!! Thanks in advance. –p joe f (talk • contribs) 19:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes you love them and think they are great. But do you have significant reliable third party coverage? WP:N WP:MUSIC . Active Banana (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you really want to merge "EVERYTHING!" into this article? There are over 3.3 million articles in the English Wikipedia and it will become too BIG! Seriously, you can not include any details of that album and the two lists of tracks in this article. At most, you can include a couple of lines about it. –p joe f (talk • contribs) 08:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Should I take your resonse as "I dont have and do not expect to find any reliable third party sources that have significant coverage to support a stand alone article." or as something else? Active Banana (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * you MUST TAKE IT as a STRONG OPPOSE and &#147;the presence of THAT PAGE does NOT itself license any editor to refer to any other identifiable editor as "a dick"!&#148; Anyway, editing for Wikipedia is not mandatory. I will help when I CAN and WANT to! –p joe f (talk • contribs) 13:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your contributions to Wikipedia are certainly voluntary. But unless you (or someone else) volunteers to provide the substantial coverage by third party reliable sources that are required to show "notability" that is necessary for a stand alone article, then there will be no stand alone article for that topic, no matter how much you demand on a talk page. Active Banana (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Most of the albums have received significant coverage and are therefore notable. See |ON|TAIL&sql=11:wifyxqr5ldse~T20 Allmusic for example, and look in music mags/papers from the era - the band was big enough to get reviews from multiple sources. They should be expanded and sourced wherever possible rather than merged.--Michig (talk) 16:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If these claimed sources exist, when the content has been sourced, stand-alone articles for the albums can then be created. Active Banana (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Searching on Google should find sources quite easily, for example GBooks returns a substantial review of The Album Pop from SPIN and Gnews a review of Tones on Tail from the Washington Post. Add to these the Allmusic reviews and coverage from Trouser Press and certainly Pop, Tones on Tail, and Everything have enough coverage to justify stand-alone articles. Improving articles on notable albums is surely better than removing those articles, isn't it? --Michig (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:BURDEN If you want to search for and add reliable third party content that you find to the article, feel free to do so. Active Banana (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not completely sure what the preceding text concerns, but the original question was whether the article/topic concerning "Everything," should be merged with the article/topic under the heading of Tones on Tail. Considering the fact that the wiki topic under the heading of Tones on Tail is more than a little bit lacking in content, and also considering the fact that "Everything" was a two LP and/or CD set which was released with the permission of Tones on Tail, and which also comprises most of the hits by Tones on Tail, I would strongly APPROVE of the two articles/topics to be merged. If the powers that and or which be have a decent argument against merging, I would be intrigued. The above arguments for and against appear to lack probity and the opposing ones are rife with turpitude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zackjmack (talk • contribs) 08:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Sufficient sources exist to support a stand-alone article. --Michig (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)