| Revision as of 07:33, 17 January 2007 editGimmetrow (talk | contribs)Administrators45,380 editsm →Intro: rm double← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 22:24, 23 December 2024 edit undoJohn (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users215,129 edits →Article quality: spoke too soon |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{Notice|'''This talk page is for discussion of the ] article only. For discussion of articles related to U2 in general, please post at ].'''}} |
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
|action1=FAC |
|
|action1=GAN |
|
|action1date=20:17, 9 January 2007 |
|
|action1date=17:33, 13 August 2006 |
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/U2/archive1 |
|
|action1link=Talk:U2 |
|
|action1result=failed |
|
|action1result=listed |
|
|
|action1oldid=69333543 |
|
|currentstatus=FFAC |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{todo}} |
|
|
{{oldpeerreview}} |
|
|
{{Wikiproject Alternative music}} |
|
|
{{WPBiography |
|
|
|class=A |
|
|
|priority=High |
|
|
|musician-work-group=yes |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{GA-bands}} |
|
|
<!-- Add other templates above. --> |
|
|
{{Talkheader}} |
|
|
{{Archive box| |
|
|
# ] |
|
|
# ] |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action2=PR |
|
==Rattle and Hum== |
|
|
|
|action2date=4 December 2006 |
|
There has been some changes re Rattle and Hum's status as either a studio or live album and some talk behind the scenes. The (difficult?) reality is it is BOTH a studio and live album, not one or the other. Personally, i think it should also be categorised as both including listing it both a studio list and a live list. For me that is a practical solution to the "issue". But i know some "purists" will say it needs to go in one or the other. I refer to its listing both on this article and also on ]. |
|
|
|
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/U2/archive1 |
|
|
|action2result=Reviewed |
|
|
|action2oldid=92095698 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action3=FAC |
|
Some background: R&H was released late 1988 approx 18months after the Joshua Tree’s release in Mar 1987. In that time the band went on the Joshua Tree Tour. ON the tour they wrote and recorded some new songs and in early 1988 lived in the states writing further material and recording material for the R&H album and film. The album and film were intended to simultaneously document parts of the Joshua Tree and U2's professed fascination and learning of American music (ie, Blues, Jazz, gospel, etc). It has 17 songs: |
|
|
|
|action3date=20:17, 9 January 2007 |
|
:*9 previously unreleased U2 studio recordings all copyrighted 1988 (Joshua Tree was 1987) |
|
|
|
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/U2/archive1 |
|
:*6 live U2 performances |
|
|
|
|action3result=failed |
|
:*2 live performances by other artists |
|
|
|
|action3oldid=99569178 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action4=FAC |
|
It has been suggested here in the past that because the live tracks are supposedly "only" '''outtakes''' from the Joshua Tree, then it is not a studio album. I say, even if they are only outtakes, but had never been released previously, then it is still a studio album. |
|
|
|
|action4date=06:17, 31 January 2007 |
|
|
|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/U2/archive2 |
|
|
|action4result=not promoted |
|
|
|action4oldid=104521036 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action5=FAC |
|
But, the 9 studio tracks are released here for the first time and '''all''' recorded AFTER the Joshua Tree was released - in fact 6 out of the 9 I believe were '''written''' POST-Joshua Tree. Thus, the definition of outtakes is a stretch. |
|
|
|
|action5date=18:43, 15 May 2007 |
|
|
|action5link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/U2/archive3 |
|
|
|action5result=not promoted |
|
|
|action5oldid=131053011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action6=FAC |
|
This is similar to Zooropa and Pop. Sure, they were all “completed” and recorded for the albums, but much (most?) of Zooropa were left overs from Achtung Baby, and the same thing for Pop which was largely Zoropa and Achtung outtakes too. Of course, they were incomplete, but heavily worked up for album inclusion. |
|
|
|
|action6date=01:33, 23 January 2008 |
|
|
|action6link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/U2 |
|
|
|action6result=promoted |
|
|
|action6oldid=186242946 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action7=GTC |
|
<div class="references-small" style="-moz-column-count:2; column-count:2;"> |
|
|
|
|action7date=05:34, 31 July 2010 |
|
The 9 studio songs... |
|
|
|
|action7link=Misplaced Pages:Featured topic candidates/U2/archive1 |
|
* Van Dieman's Land |
|
|
|
|action7result=not promoted |
|
:*''written'' - (i don't know) |
|
|
|
|action7oldid=376249226 |
|
:*''recorded'' - at The Point Depot (1988) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|topic=music |
|
* Desire |
|
|
|
|currentstatus=FA |
|
:* ''written'': post Joshua Tree tour 1988 |
|
|
|
|maindate=May 26, 2009 |
|
:*''recorded'' - at The Point Depot (1988) |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=FA|vital=yes|listas=U2|1= |
|
* Hawkmoon 269 |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|musician-priority=Top|musician-work-group=yes}} |
|
:*''written'' - post Joshua Tree release on Joshua Tree tour. Bono quotes in Into The Heart about sexual frustration of being 28 "card carrying man" on the road. JT released when Bono was 26. |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject U2|importance=top}} |
|
:*''recorded'' - recorded in LA 1988 post Joshua Tree Tour |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Rock music|importance=Top}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Alternative music|importance=Top}} |
|
* Angel of Harlem |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Ireland|importance= Top}} |
|
:*''written'' - unclear. sources refer to listening to American music on tour. thus the Joshua Tree tour? |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Irish music|importance=Top}} |
|
:*''recorded'' - recorded in sun studios during Joshua Tree Tour |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Apple Inc.|importance=Low}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors|date=7 September 2007 |user=Galena11}} |
|
* Love Rescue Me |
|
|
|
|blp=yes|collapsed=yes}} |
|
:*''written'' - written in LA during JT tour |
|
|
|
{{tmbox |
|
:*''recorded'' - Sun Studios |
|
|
|
|type=content |
|
|
|
|
|
|text=Before starting a new discussion regarding the usage of "are" vs "is", please read ] of past discussions.<br>For a list of commonly used sources you can use for U2 articles, see ]. |
|
* When Love Comes to Town |
|
|
|
}} |
|
:*''written'' - not clear. Either 1986 pre-Joshua Tree when U2 first met BB King, or during 1987 Joshua Tree tour |
|
|
|
<!-- Add other templates above. --> |
|
:*''recorded'' - during Joshua Tree tour |
|
|
|
{{Hiberno-English|date=September 2010}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
* Heartland |
|
|
|
|target=Talk:U2/Archive index |
|
:*''written'' - basic form a confirmed outtake from Joshua Tree |
|
|
|
|mask=Talk:U2/Archive <#> |
|
:*''recorded'' - reworked and recorded 1988 for R&H. |
|
|
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|indexhere=yes}} |
|
* God Part II |
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
:*''written'' - post Joshua Tree release, about tour and celebrity "madness" |
|
|
|
|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} |
|
:*''recorded'' - reworked and recorded 1988 for R&H. |
|
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 140K |
|
|
|
|
|
|counter = 8 |
|
* All I Want is You |
|
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
:*''written'' - post Joshua Tree tour, same time as writing Desire (1988). Bono states it was a development on With or Without You |
|
|
|
|algo = old(100d) |
|
:*''recorded'' - recorded 1988 for R&H. |
|
|
|
|archive = Talk:U2/Archive %(counter)d |
|
</div> |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
:: I would probably classify it as a studio album because the majority of the songs are studio, while only a few are live, including two which aren't even U2 songs, one of which is less than a minute long... also, I agree with the statement that even if they are outtakes, they are still a studio album, look at "Unreleased and Rare" an album made entirely of outtakes, and still an official album. But, in relation to this album, I'm not sure if that's a good argument to use, as a lot of these songs are NOT outtakes; Desire, Angel of Harlem, When Love Comes to Town and Hawkmoon 269 were actually recorded when they went back into studio in between Joshua Tree and LoveTown Tours, though Hawkmoon was already an idea at the time of the Joshua Tree, and the rest of the studio songs are indeed outtakes. Finally, on a side note, Zooropa was definately made up almost entirely of outttakes from Achtung Baby recordings, but only "Wake Up Dead Man" and "If You Wear That Velvet Dress", both appearing on Pop were outtakes, but the rest of Pop was new recordings. --D//E |
|
|
|
|
|
== Moved from Island records to Mercury == |
|
|
|
|
|
Someone should add this info. -- ] 02:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:] --] 02:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::I'll try to, but hope a native English speaker does rewrite it if needed. Also thinking about the place I'd put it, or should be another place, section, or even its own? -- ] 08:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Good article?== |
|
|
With all the fact tags, how can this article be called good? ] 05:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
: What about the references it does have? 41 so far. I have seen many GA's with a lot less references. at least they have been identified and are continually being filled. ], ] and ] are all GA's with much less referenced material - and incidently less fact tags. Maybe the editors here have higher standards. I am sure those references will continue to be found. ;-) --] 05:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Well, I do agree that there are may refs all ready, it's just that the article looks spotty. I spent some time looking for a few refs, but the Net must be drained; have to hit the books/mags now. ] 14:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Good idea. I know it looks a bit scrappy now, but it is for the best. At least it is a flag for others. I'd help out too, but it is not a priority for me now - other real life and wikipedia priorities. I'll see what I can do next week --] 22:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Current ratio of references to citations needed, <b>46:26</b>. And some of those 26 I really don't think need to be referenced. For example: "Following the Popmart Tour, the band played a brief concert in Belfast in May 1998, three days before the public voted in favour of the Northern Ireland Peace Accord." Why is a citation needed there??? We might as well have a citation for "The associated Unforgettable Fire Tour saw U2 playing indoor arenas for the first time." ] 01:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::You have a point. In theory, to have a reliable reference for everything would be great, but as you point out, it is a lot of work, and having a citation tag there that is never going to be filled can be distracting. Give me a week or two, when exams are over, and my job is quieter, and I will have a go. I might buy U2 by U2 soon, so there will be a heap of things that be quote from that. nice work so far with the references (and to others) --] 01:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Thanks and don't worry this article is not going anywhere! Also, I added some more refs -- new ratio is <b>51:21</b>. ] 05:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I was the one who added the fact tags. My goal was to get people's attention to the absence of references throughout the article - maybe I exaggerated a little, but it worked... we have many more references now. --] 13:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::: The tags needed to go in. IN my old wiki age (6 months?) I am becoming a citation nazi, but it is all for quality. I agree though the tags look bad. But they are a necessary evil. OK, basically i agree with everyone. --] 13:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::: Then we all agree to agree? (Sorry, just had to say it.) ] 13:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::: Yes, lets all agree. But what are we agreeing on again? I think we all agree, this article is getting there, slowly but certainly surely. It's a lotta fun.--] 14:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::Yeah, I agree. --] 15:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::Only 10 "citations needed" left!!! Let's finish them off before Kristbg adds more! ] 04:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::You better hurry, my fingers are itching... --] 12:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::Added a few more references. We're almost ready for a peer review! --] 20:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::Only two left. The one from Rolling Stone should be easy, but I'm not so sure about the other one... It actually sounds like original research. --] 21:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::Ye-ah! I managed to put one in myself today. ''Under a Blood Red Sky'' was a very good concert, even if I did see it on MTV. Those were the days... Go-go Peer Review. ] 22:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::YEs, those were the days. Certainly quaint and no doubt good at the time, but now so much better. lol --] 23:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::::Well, we're down to one now. Does anyone have access to that RS magazine? --] 13:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::::...and we're done! Thanks for adding the last one, Merbabu! --] 13:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Million Dollar Hotel == |
|
|
|
|
|
I think there should be one or two sentences about Ground Beneath Her Feet and songs off the soundtrack (Stateless mainly). I'm going to add something under the collaborations sections since I can't seem to figure out where to insert it into the main text (came out in 2000 before ATYCLB). Thoughts? ] 01:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
: How to insert into text? Click "Edit this page". ;-) Seriously though, I think the "other projects" section is good. I'd keep it very limited IMO. Maybe just 1 or 2 sentences. --] 01:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Thanks for the suggestion! That "Edit" button is a well-guarded secret :-O Seriously though, I managed to keep it to one sentence, despite my penchant for detail. I also added another "citation needed" so we're back up to 5. ] 01:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Speaking of collaborations, it dawned on me when I read this section, where is ''Duets'', or ] mentioned? I didn't see anything over at ] either, but that's another article that needs attention. So, does "I've Got You Under My Skin" fit in here or at Bono? ] 02:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::]. Don't worry, we'll edit it if we don't like it - ;-) --] 03:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Window in the Skies== |
|
|
Hasn't one of U2's new singles 'Window in the Skies' to be released on their new Greatest Hits album just been leaked onto the internet? See xfm.co.uk for details.{{unsigned|Pechark}} |
|
|
|
|
|
* it's out on u218.com, but haven't listened to determine if it's complete--] 02:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Passengers == |
|
|
With careful research, one finds that U2 wanted to release Passengers as a U2 album. Bono has stated that he had a marketing idea to make it work. The record label said no, but accepted releasing it under a different name. Don't put this in the article without sourcing.--] 02:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Where did you find this? Could be interesting. The source i quoted in the article (U2's own book) has the band and their manager deciding on Passengers and I paraphrased this in my edits a week or so ago. --] 02:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Removing references? == |
|
|
|
|
|
What's up with 30-odd references being removed? I as well as others worked hard to find many of those and put them in. What's the rationale? ] 18:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:You're better off asking ] personally, though if he's as enlightening as he is in his edit summaries, you'll probably still be in the dark afterwards. - ] 22:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::I've requested on his user page that he comment here. I can't see any logic to it. I clearly remember many of these references were put in their because it was the info was challenged, or people wanted to to put inconflicting versions. Even if the info was not up for dispute, having the references can only make it a better, more verifiable article. I am inclined to reinstate them until convincing explanation is given.--] 22:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I agree. I don't see how references can take anything away from an article, and many of these add depth to claims made in the article. ] 23:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Did some more investigation into this. Looks like ] is a self-avowed . He has removed substantial amounts of material from an article without discussing on the talk page before (see ). Maybe I don't fully understand the philosophy of "Be Bold", but it should not allow for wholesale removal of material without discussion should it? ] 02:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Well, i also agree that articles shoudln't ramble on - I'm always chopping out words from this summary article, but it's never hard info, or if it is, it is only because I move it to another detailed article when it doesn't belong here. Remember we had something like 4 paragraphs and a whole section devoted to the U2 iPod and related cross promotion. There was a whole paragraph in this page on the differences between the first model and the re-release! |
|
|
:::::So while i agree that tightness of an article is good - particulary this main article, I am not sure how this apply to references. I don't think it does actually - as long as the refs are GOOD and not some bloke on a U2 forum. I particularly agree that Be Bold doesn't mean one chops a large amount of info without explanation - particularly when these citations were requested in the past as they were points of dispute.--] 02:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Why I removed? Well, there are a lot bunch of references that just are plain, useless. The article has a huge list of references, about things, that... do they really need to be refered really? Because, thinking about one statement of Bono or another, I cannot be convinced that the article needs so much references. |
|
|
|
|
|
I realise I needed to ask beforehand. For this I apologize. However, I think that from this huge portion of references, not more than 1/3 of the references are needed. Thus I think the article will be better. With so much references, I don't think the article stands for it "Good Article" candidature. |
|
|
:Regards: ] 09:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Er . . . the more references, the ''more'' adequately an article adheres to Good Article criteria. ] 04:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Please tell me what good removing sources and references could possibly do. If anything, you WANT a comprehensive bibliography that backs up content in the article. ] 18:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:The only reason to remove them would be if they were flimsy and poor quality sources. As long as they are reliable I think more can only be good. Although let's be sensible, we wouldn't need to reference, for example, that Bono is male or that Dublin is the capital of Ireland! --] 02:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
All I wanted to say is that there is an overload of references and that a portion of them is unnecessary. If you think that flaming me or calling me names will do any good to the article - that's your opinion and feel free to act in a corresponding manner. I expressed my opinion as best and as reasonably as possible. The decision is a collaborative matter. |
|
|
:Regards: ] 13:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Who flamed you or called you names? --] 13:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Which references do you think are unnecessary? When it comes to removing citations on any article, it's best to explain why you are doing so first, either in the edit summary or (preferrably) on the talk page. Please keep this in mind in future. ] 21:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe someone should consider removing the bit at the end of the next album section, with the band and crowd bit, it doesn't show when I go to edit it but its certainly there when your viewing the page.--] 04:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Which part do you mean? Band and crowd? Maybe you could paste in here the part that concerns you. regards --] 04:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
: Don't worry got taken out; it wasn't exactly a reference but this seemed the most appropriate section to put it in. It was a rather humourous and colourful remark about Bono, pandas, and intercourse. Oddly enough it didn't show up in the edit screen. ] 04:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Next Studio Album Recordings- Split Up == |
|
|
|
|
|
I think that we should split up the Next Studio Album Recordings section into a section that covers "The Saints Are Coming"'s performance and recordings together with the released of U218 Singles from the rest of that section, because now that "Saints" and "Window" have already been recorded and U218 released, why should they still be under the next album? Any one think differently? |
|
|
|
|
|
] 03:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:I made some changes . Basically, neither of these topics deserve their own sections. They are in the news now, but are not major events in the greater scheme of 30 year history. This page is more a summary, and for example, doesn't need a description of the 3 different release versions of a particular current single. Although, that info can of course go on that single's own article. regards --] 22:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The Books about U2 must be done. Now We Have a Biography on Book written by them, but none in the entire page. |
|
|
] 13:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Trivia section== |
|
|
I removed the trivia (listed below). There are many reasons - fundamentally though, trivia comes from the word trivial which means unimportant. Most of these facts are - the ones that are important are already in the article!!! Remember, this is an encyclopedia. That Bono's favourite colour is (apprently) amber is of no consequence for an encyclopedia article on U2, no relelvance at all. You might want to put it into a pop magazine though. |
|
|
|
|
|
*Bono's favourite colour is ]. |
|
|
*His favourite ] (stated in a performance in Dublin in 1997) is Paddy from the Dockers, a pub in Dublin. |
|
|
*Bono is fluent in ], ] and ], and also knows some ]. |
|
|
*Bono is the only person,who has been nominated for an ], ], ],and a ]. He won the Grammy (See below), Golden Globe (For The Song ']' from ]). He did not achieve success in the Oscars (nominated again for The Hands That Built America) or The Nobel Peace |
|
|
*The band has won 22 Grammy awards, the most for recording artists. |
|
|
*U2 made their first appearance on US television on ] hosted by ]. It aired on ], ], and the band performed ] and ], followed by an interview. |
|
|
*The Hype performed a farewell show for ] (The Edge's brother and former Hype member) in March 1978 at the Community Centre in ]. Dik walked offstage halfway through the set and later joined ], a fellow Dublin band. The remaining four members finished their performance as U2. In May of that year, ] became U2's manager. |
|
|
*The Edge is an admirer of the writer, ]. |
|
|
*U2 appeared on ]. It was on the 200th episode called ] which aired in April of 1998. In the episode the PopMart tour visited Springfield. |
|
|
*U2 are one of only 4 Bands to appear on the cover of ]. The others are ], ] and ]. Time proclaimed them 'Rock's Hottest Ticket' in ]. |
|
|
*Reportedly, Bono actually wears his fashionable ] becuase he has an allergy to ]. |
|
|
*U2 but especially Bono and The Edge, are huge ] fans and punters. |
|
|
*Bono and his wife ] own a clothing named EDUN (spelled Nude backwards) together. |
|
|
--] 22:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Image fails fair use == |
|
|
|
|
|
I tagged the promotional photo from the infobox, ], as failing the fair use criteria. If you disagree, I encourage you to bring it up on the image's talk page. —] 17:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Themes == |
|
|
|
|
|
I'd like to start a section called "Themes and Style" perhaps before "Other projects and influences". This one will be a bit harder to write (don't want to include Original Research), but there is a need for it as suggested in the peer review. Here are some general notes: |
|
|
|
|
|
Themes: |
|
|
|
|
|
* Emotional: lonliness, yearning/longing, regret, woe (lots of references available) |
|
|
* Religious/Spirtual: ubiquitous references to God, prayer, Christianity (see all of October album) |
|
|
* Social/Political/Humanitarian: ] in Ireland (Sunday Bloody Sunday), MLK (Pride), Aung San Suu Kyi (Walk On), Africa (Crumbs from your Table), etc |
|
|
* Songs usually have deeper meanings and work on multiple levels |
|
|
* Add links to U2 MoL (Meaning of Lyrics) site for more references at the individual song level |
|
|
|
|
|
Style: |
|
|
|
|
|
* Edge's echo and delay effects, unique atmosphere and ambience |
|
|
* Bono's tenor range, "soaring" vocals |
|
|
* U2 usually sounds different than conventional music of the time - |
|
|
* Lack of improvisation during concerts, although they do tend to vary the set lists (May be OR, but I definitely noticed this after going to five shows during the Vertigo tour in 2005) |
|
|
|
|
|
] 10:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:That's an excellent idea! Go for it! --] 13:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::It is indeed excellent idea and I support it. BUT, it must be well sourced with no original research or personal musings. By well sourced, i don't mean flimsy blogs or advertising material, etc, but from respected sources such as Rolling Stones, even academic articles if they exist. if not, material should be removed. oh, also be careful of the language used - don't make the adjectives too colourful. Remember, this is a "boring" but factual and verifiable encyclopedia, not a rock mag. --] 22:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::On second thought I'm not sure if I'll have the time that this section deserves until early January, esp considering the importance of well-respected sources as you mention Merbabu, along with the fact that I don't want to make a half-assed effort. But thanks to you and Kristbg for the support, and I definitely think this section would help transform this article from a "history" article to a more general article (so feel free to start on it without me!). Looking forward to collaborating with both of you on this. ] 06:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Misplaced Pages brown, in my opinion, it is better that you make your "half-arsed" effort and we can then polish that. Ie, that is what collaboration and hence wikipedia is about, right? Whether that effort is on the talk page or the article itlsef, we need to get the ideas flowing. We are band members, not solo artists, and we need to feed off each other for inspiration. What ideas do you have?--] 15:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
Perhaps, initially this section should go towards the end, but if it gets to be good, it could go right at the front before history. I will give it some thought - i hope other can too. --] 15:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
This article definitely needs a "Musical style and influences" section. Conceivably this could be worked into the history in order to showcase their musical phases, but nevertheless there should be more on the band's roots in the post-punk movement (which pretty much explains why The Edge's guitar-playing sounds the way it does), the use of political and spiritual imagery, unique tics like The Edge's guitarwork and Bono's falsetto, the influence of Lillywhite and Eno on their sound, and the referencing of American (the 80s) and European music (the 90s) in distinct periods of their work. There's lots of places stuff like this can be referenced from. Pull out an issue of ''Guitar World'' or and interview in ''Rolling Stone''. ] 18:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==The intro is awful== |
|
|
I got to say, the current intro is really poor. The first (!) paragraph lists minor instrumental assignments — it's utterly irrelevant in an overview that Bono sometimes plays harmonica or guitar, or that Larry sings once in a blue moon. The second and third paragraphs are okay by themselves, but give no sense for what U2 are or what their musical importance is. How about something about the group's initial signature sound, built around Edge's guitar? How about something about how they then radically changed this sound at least twice, |
|
|
first to the Eno-influenced soundscapes, then to the 1990s industrial/whatever influenced sound? How about something about U2's landmark concert tours, which are at least as important as their record sales figures? The goal of an intro is that if someone just reads it, and nothing else in the article, then they get an accurate (if abbreviated) idea of the nature and importance of the subject. This intro fails that test badly. ] 21:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:I agree 100% with the first paragraph Do we still have larry and adam as key board players (Yahweh and COBL, respectively). A compromise - which was worse actually - was to say that Bono was an occassional harmonica player. GAAAH!!! |
|
|
: I also agree that the lead is a little dull and needs improvement and it is important to give, as you say, "an accurate (if abbreviated) idea of the nature and importance of the subject." We should be able to do this better than merely quoting the album sales. I don't think this should excuse free-reign to write what we want as if it was Rolling Stone mag (good to reference it though). It is afterall an encyclopedia, and this article has a lot of discipline (a good thing!) that are sorely lacking in ] and ] which I think most agree would be two of the most important U2 sub-articles. --] 23:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::There's a quote I'd like to put in the intro from Simon Reynolds' book ''Rip it Up & Start Again: Postpunk 1978-1984'' that says (paraphrased from memory), "U2 took the puritan post-punk guitar sound and made it huge" to sum up their musical importance. ] 11:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Dreadful Main Image == |
|
|
|
|
|
It's blurry, irrelevant, and doesn't do the band justice. Revert, SVP. ] 00:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:The other image a 'Fair Use' image was deleted as it was deemed, in accordance with ], that because the band is still around it is '''theoretically''' possible to create 'Free' image (as is the case with the current poor image). The fact that it is '''in reality''' virtually impossible (as distinct from theoretically) to get a better 'Free' picture was completely irrelevant in the disucussions for deletion. The suggestion has been to take a photo at the upcoming Grammy awards in which it is understood U2 is attending. No, i have no idea how we are going to source a free image from the Grammys. It's another few years til the next tour, presuably, and extensive searches on Flikr show existing photos to be either poor quality or copyrighted. --] 00:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::PS, you can see the discussion here. .--] 01:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. Which user felt the original image was incorrect just because it wasn't 'free'? It was a promotional photo meant to be used as far and wide as possible. After all, who minds getting publicity? If it had been replaced with something like it would have been OK. Larry is playing keyboards! That is NOT his regular instrument. I vote for putting back the original pic. |
|
|
|
|
|
Who changed the Main Photograph? Definitely moderators of this U2 entrie are not members neither U2.com or @atu2. Dissapointing. --] |
|
|
|
|
|
Hopefully some fans out there would have a free image to hand over that at least shows the four members playing their actual instruments. If anyone has taken photos at a concert that is better than this please submit it as opposed to this one. ] 01:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Musical artist Infobox == |
|
|
|
|
|
Finally. I feel vindicated; someone used to refer to it as 'childish'. ] 02:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:I think you are talking about me, and I think I might have used the term Fisher Price. But you are close. Compared to the previous one it does indeed look "childish". ] 17:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Oh, I'm sorry, but I can't recall who exactly said what... but if you ask me, 2.02 Billion USD (2005) revenue ain't so bad. (see ]) ] 04:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Remove some info == |
|
|
|
|
|
I'd like to remove the following from the Popmart section. It's discussed in the ] article, and I feel that it's too much detail for this article: |
|
|
|
|
|
"Although the extravagance of the tour was visually and technically impressive, in the early stages, Popmart was occasionally marred with less-than-par performances. The problem stemmed from the band booking their tour before the album was finished. Originally set to be released in November 1996, Pop was not in stores until March 1997. As a result, the band had to spend time recording that had originally been allocated for tour rehearsals." |
|
|
|
|
|
Any objections? ] 03:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:I think perhaps it can be removed. As long as the article still clearly states that the album and tour weren't as well received as previous ones, particularly in American audiences.] 06:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Flag == |
|
|
|
|
|
Would anybody mind awfully if I took the flag down? I recently removed the Union Jack from ] and I think the same argument I used there applies here as well. Flags seem more appropriate on say national football teams and the like. U2 are a national symbol of Ireland, but I do not see them as being particularly nationalistic; indeed they are internationalists. --] 20:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:good idea. 'lower' the flag please. ] 11:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Done it. --] 17:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Yes I actually DO mind and I'm putting the flag back up. It seems pretty "dumb" to say the least to take the flags off of the Clash's and U2's whilst leaving these high profile bands's infoboxes with their flag. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regards, ] 16:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Well done for listing all those examples, but there's the small matter that we don't use Misplaced Pages itself as a reference point. - ] 20:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Snow patrol also has the flag , If you where truly interested you would take that flag off, seeing how its controversial in its own country and not even official, with half the population pretty much hating it. |
|
|
|
|
|
], it is obviously some kind of wikipolicy to place flagicons in the infoboxes with famous bands. ATM I have seen no real/valid reasons as to why the flag should be removed. The reason why it should be up there is to illustrate the bands origins in an aesthetic way. That is why it is obviously done at ALL the other bands. ] 08:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I cannot find any such policy and I don't find it aesthetic. On the other hand I did find ]. Furthermore your edit seems to be against consensus. --] 08:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
So ], ], ], and ] all can have flags on their pages but U2 cant? Are you going to remove all the flags of all the famous bands pages, or are you just going to keep doing it at U2? ] 08:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== "are" or "is"? == |
|
You speak of consensus, yet on ALL the other prolific bands pages there is the obvious consensus of the flags being there. As to calling you dumb, that was not my intent and I apologise, it just struck me as a weird idea. ] 08:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 ] like ] (think of ]). that said, are bands like U2, ], and ] (the latter two articles of which I recently fixed) supposed to use British English, thereby treating bands and groups as collective nouns? ] (]) 05:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
"indeed they are internationalists." That doesn't say a whole lot, RHCP see themselves as Californians, yet you don't see the bear in their infobox right? ] 08:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:Generally speaking, the originator's style should be maintained, unless agreed to otherwise. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 05:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Merge discussion. == |
|
:I'm not talking about RHCP's flag here but about whether this article on U2 should have one. The state of one article should not influence the state of another, unless a policy or guideline exists to point in a particular direction. I'm not convinced that is the case here. Misplaced Pages shouldn't be self-referential or operate on precedent, but on consensus formed by discussion. See also . --] 09:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{Discussion top|result=Unanimity: do not merge. ] (]·]) 16:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)}} |
|
::hear, hear - we are not talking about any other article. As i said in my removal, precedence the worst justification for anything. Yes, you are correct - people's support for removing something from this article, doesn't mean they are interested in removing it from others, nor is their any obligation to do so. ] 09:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
r.e.: {{la|Timeline of U2}} (''List Class''); {{la|U2}} (''Featured Article'') |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the article ] 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. ] (]) 02:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
You honestly believe that is worthy of an encyclopædia? Do you know the term uniformity and what it means for Misplaced Pages? ] 10:35, 12 January 2007 (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. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 08:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
:Believe what is "worthy of an encyclopedia"? Look at it this way... should we do something, no matter how pointless, simply because it has been done elsewhere? If it adds no value then it should go - even if it does no harm. It's a flag. What benefit does it give the article?] 11:15, 12 January 2007 (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? |
|
|
::] (]) 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. ] (] • ]) 21:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:I agree. Timeline of U2 should be added. ] (]) 20:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Oppose''' - Agree with @]. 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. ] (]·]) 15:13, 12 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:Oh, yeah, I nominated this, I completely forgot about that! This discussion should be closed soon/now. ] (]) 15:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::I will close it then. ] (]·]) 16:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:For the record, current day me actually opposes this. ] (]) 16:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
{{Discussion bottom}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== U2 is a band, not are a band, etc. == |
|
Why do I get the idea that it is not a good idea for the lay-out and contents infoboxes (of similar articles) to be changed at random?? Shouldn't we have uniformity? As I said, the flag illustrates in an aesthetic way the country of origin. ] 11:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:I wouldn't say it's aesthetic at all. Flags in the infobox are too prominent and draw the eye away from the text. - ] 13:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It’s basic grammar. ] (]) 05:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
It seems you are in the minority seeing how pages from American presidents to Kofi Annan and Bono have flags, do you see them being removed? No, but for some freakish reason 3 persons here seem to dislike the Irish flag on this page. ] 13:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:We seem to have a problem getting you past comparing with other articles. Therein lies the problem. - ] 13:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Edit conflict: :Please discuss this article. Yes, i think changing other U2-related articles would be a good idea, but I have refrained from this as no doubt it would be pointed out that this is a violation of ]. ] 13:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:No, it really isn't. Please read the ] article, then any article about a group from the British Isles (which aren't written in American English). ] (] • ]) 06:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
Seeing how ] is not a policy, isn't there some sort of request for a new policy or something alike on band userboxes? ] 13:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:There is no policy idea that I know of, but it would be a good idea on not using the flags for the infoboxes. It will bring up issues that are certainly not needed on Misplaced Pages. We already know where they are from, why need a flag to denote it. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 19:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Hear hear. I've attempted to kickstart a more centralised debate at ] and I hope you may feel able to join it. --] 19:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::Agreed. It's that whacky English styling. We Americans have to get used to that stuff. :-) ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 05:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
== * == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== New collection / album - how to handle == |
|
I added a link to the U2 dictionary. Hopefully some of you could follow that link and check it out. It has very little information at the moment, but if you check out other dictionaries on that site, you will realize how much fun it could be for us. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 19:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> |
|
|
:That's a bad rip off of this article. Don't post it.] 12:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The new collection, sort-of album, tied to a primary album, is out and beginning to garner mentions<ref>https://variety.com/2024/music/news/u2-how-to-re-assemble-an-atomic-bomb-unreleased-songs-1236156849/</ref> and reviews. It has been taken back off the album list, but the article must reflect it in some way, so any proposals as to how best to do that? |
|
==List of Grammy awards== |
|
|
|
] (]) 01:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
This was recently added. I don't think it is necessary. In fact, is there already such a list on wikiepdia? If not, it can be created and the article directed there.] 11:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:I don't see why the main band article needs to reflect it. It's not all that significant in the grand scheme of the band's 48 yr history. It's only available packaged with the 20th anniversary release of ''How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb'' or in a limited pressing for Record Store Day. It's not as widely available as the band's other releases and it has only received a couple of reviews. The best place for the info on the ''Re-assemble'' collection is in the ''Dismantle'' article, where the info has been added already. ] (] • ]) 01:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:: I'd have to respectfully disagree there. It's good it's added to Dismantle, but it's a whole separate publication, wide apart in time, and the band considered it significant enough to release. To be frank, any release by a world top 10 band, single, EP, collection, etc., should have some mention in their article - it's not as if they've released dozens of albums, or put something out every year, so that it would be lost in the detail. But let's have some other editors' opinions... ] (]) 10:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::: And for now, a reference which confirms all original content, to add to consideration - <ref>{{cite web|title=U2, 'How to Re-Assemble an Atomic Bomb': Album Review"|url=https://ultimateclassicrock.com/u2-how-to-re-assemble-an-atomic-bomb-album-review/|access-date=30 November 2024|quote="the newly recovered songs - all previously unreleased"}}</ref> |
|
|
{{reflist-talk}} |
|
|
] (]) 10:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Article quality == |
|
== Campaigning section is now LONG AND BORING == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This article is way too long, contains much duplication and very mixed writing quality. It needs a good trim. ] (]) 18:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
I've expanded the campaigning section as was requested during the FA nomination. Please give it a look-see and ADD REFERENCES for me (only fair, because chances are I've added a reference to your writing, if you've written for this article!). ] 02:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:I've had a look at bringing it closer to a decent standard. I'm glad to see that only <s> one</s> two of my edits were reverted. The article is still way too long, particularly the lead. Not everything needs to be mentioned in the article, which is why we have summary style. Not every album needs to be mentioned in the lead. Phrases like "new musical direction" have a ] which takes away from the article's encyclopedic tone and should be kept out. ] (]) 22:19, 23 December 2024 (UTC) |
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)
The new collection, sort-of album, tied to a primary album, is out and beginning to garner mentions and reviews. It has been taken back off the album list, but the article must reflect it in some way, so any proposals as to how best to do that?
SeoR (talk) 01:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
This article is way too long, contains much duplication and very mixed writing quality. It needs a good trim. John (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
