Talk:U2

Odd there are only a couple of vague passing references go their religious faith . ..
given the extent to which it pervades their lyrics and themes of their songs. It is not like their faith is a secret. 170.52.155.145 (talk) 10:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

"are" or "is"?
something I've been wondering recently is whether or not Irish use British English and would thereby treat bands as collective nouns, considering that their country—contrary to popular belief—is not part of UK like Northern Ireland (think of Snow Patrol). that said, are bands like U2, Interference, and Stockton's Wing (the latter two articles of which I recently fixed) supposed to use British English, thereby treating bands and groups as collective nouns? Geoyui (talk) 05:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, the originator's style should be maintained, unless agreed to otherwise. GenQuest  "scribble" 05:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The Joshua Tree Tour
Hello! I'm asking for a little help on the article for their Joshua Tree Tour. I did a dozen edits of new information and formatting and the one thing I haven't done is writing to the appropriate dialect of English. Does anyone know Hiberno-English and is willing to fix some of the grammar for me? I think that's my best solution. Thanks. Carlinal (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Merge discussion.
r.e.: (List Class);  (Featured Article)

I think the article Timeline of U2 should be merged into here, the other article is clunky, and could easily be converted into prose, making the other article redundant, and therefore making the U2 wikipedia articles easier to navigate. Geardona (talk) 02:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose If anything, the U2 article (230k length) history section should be split off and added to the timeline article. This article is beyond splitting size. Merging would create an humongous 350k article. I don't see merging as a viable option here. GenQuest  "scribble" 08:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Ok, just to make sure i understand, you are saying the reverse of the merge I suggested? If so would you support that?
 * Geardona (talk) 13:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see the need to make any structural changes to either article, other than to do copyediting of the timeline article and improve references. The main U2 article has a separate paragraph for each 1-3 year period in the band's 47-year history, which seems more than appropriate. The details given there are generally not specific to individual dates, but the timeline article does cover specific dates, as well as other info that a summary from the main band article would skim over. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 21:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. Timeline of U2 should be added. TheWikipedianInMiami (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Agree with @GenQuest. It would make more sense to have the timeline article become a "History of U2" article using the contents of the history section in the main article, in order to lighten the main article itself. Choucas Bleu  (T·C) 15:13, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah, I nominated this, I completely forgot about that! This discussion should be closed soon/now. Geardona (talk to me?) 15:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I will close it then. Choucas Bleu  (T·C) 16:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * For the record, current day me actually opposes this. Geardona (talk to me?) 16:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

U2 is a band, not are a band, etc.
It’s basic grammar. 2604:2D80:ED87:E800:8131:305C:CA9F:28F4 (talk) 05:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * No, it really isn't. Please read the collective noun article, then any article about a group from the British Isles (which aren't written in American English). Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 06:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It's that whacky English styling. We Americans have to get used to that stuff. :-)  GenQuest  "scribble" 05:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)