User talk:Jb-adder/Virtual band cleanup

''This page is for proposed solutions to the problems detailed on the main page. Read them first before posting here.''

Initial proposal
I might as wel get the ball rolling here. This encompasses much of what was originally outlined on the main page: Any thoughts? --JB Adder | Talk 09:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The animated qualifier should allow what is typically considered animation (drawn, computer, Claymation/model animation); however the door should be kept open to allow, as personal definitions allow, for puppetry.
 * Many of the bands listed in Notable artists do not hold any any kind of noteworthiness, nor even hold to the complete definition of 'virtual band'. These should be removed, with only these kept (for various reasons): Alvin and the Chipmunks, Nutty Squirrels, The Archies, The Bots, JuJu Eyeballs (I still consider this band significant, being the first, and currently only, virtual band to appear in Australian mainstream music), Gorillaz, Prozzäk (maybe), Mistula, Crazy Frog. (Artists can be added or removed as seen fit.)
 * Net-based Virtual bands should be removed and put in another article, say, Internet band.


 * Great start. Shall we see these improvements soon?--Webmessiah 18:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)Webmessiah


 * Agree to everything above. Plus, what about the Japanese virtual idols? I believe they should be represented here as well, as that culture has tons of virtual artists worth mentioning.


 * Japanese virtual idols may warrant another entry as this article is only about bands.

I think, though, this is a really messy situation right here, as this article obviously has become a band promotion thing for most "contributors". The artists mentioned above (Alvin and the Chipmunks, Nutty Squirrels, The Archies, The Bots, JuJu Eyeballs,Gorillaz, Prozzäk,Mistula, Crazy Frog) at least have some sense of being revolutionary and noteworthy in them due to their achievements. I think being revolutionary is a main criteria for considering bands to include here as well, as the state of being a "virtual band" should promote "forward thinking", and doing things "out of the ordinary". And so far, this band "The Bipolar Bears" do not meet that, doing NOTHING NEW or NOTEWORTHY. Google search even confirms there are other bands with THE SAME NAME (a Melbourne band formed in 2003; an LA Southern Rock band; even another issues-oriented group). I mean, come on. Yes, they are free to exist and do their thing. But being mentioned as a "notable artist" is a stretch from what they really are and their accomplishments. The same,and I think even worse case with this other band, the Hentaigenes. Using Gorillaz as a way to gain (or lose?) a following? That is such a low act for an "artist". And again, they don't do anything new or worth mentioning (well aside from bashing the Gorillaz without much reason).


 * I agree. This is one of the points I previously raised with JB Adder. The more notable the examples presented, the more convincing and useful the article is to readers. --Webmessiah 03:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Webmessiah