Talk:Furthur (band)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article name[edit]

I'm going to be bold here and rename this article, from "Further (Bob Weir/Phil Lesh Band)" to "Furthur (band)". Relix says that the name of the band is Further, but All About Jazz says that it's Furthur, which was the motto of the Merry Pranksters, and also the name of their bus. The name was also used for the Furthur Festival concert tours of the late 1990s. I'm looking at http://www.phillesh.net/, http://www.rat-dog.com/, and http://www.thefoxoakland.com/. All three of them have the band mentioned on their main page at the moment, and all three of them have it as Furthur. So, it seems that Furthur, with a second "u", is the name of the band. There's already an article called "Furthur", about the bus, so the name of this article needs to be disambiguated to "Furthur (band)". Usually renaming an article should be discussed first, since it's a big change, but I've got a high confidence level on this one, so here goes. — Mudwater (Talk) 12:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this works for me, thanks for the help!Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a slightly separate note, and one that probably shouldn't be added to this page's content, there was a band before this one which used the sic word "Furthur" - Furthur Abuse was an indie rock band based out of Philadelphia, opening up for acts on major labels such as I.R.S. and Epic during the . They later did opening acts at local spots such as Spelunker's. After playing for 3 years they released their first CD, “Avant Gardian Angel”, via lowercase records. The album received airplay on Philly-area stations such as WDRE, WYSP, WXPN and WKDU, as well as a few local college stations. Even KSCR in southern California played the band's music, on its high-rotation list, no less. Since then, they've played at The Trocadero and JC Dobbs among other, smaller venues. Not much has come of the band recently, though. I don't think they've played a live show in the past 5 years, at least. Their music was, however, featured very briefly in the 2004 movie "Lost" directed by Darren Lemke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.141.140.124 (talk) 01:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there is alaso a link to their band I believe near the top of the page.... Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns with Concert postings.[edit]

I'm not too sure we should be booking the dates of concerts. I base this off WP:NOTNEWS and while a blurb or two on a completed tour would be preferable when we give an entire summers future lineup it seems mmore like fan site then ecyclopedia. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Songs?[edit]

It would be helpful to tell us if they do any or mostly Grateful Dead songs or what. (WP:COI admission: I'm going to see them next week and want to know :-) Plus I'm sure others do too. Mostly having band dates is a bit strange. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, mostly Grateful Dead songs. See this page on their web site for a lot more info. I agree that the article should mention this. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relation of Furthur band and Further (bus) might be explained by those particularly interested in topic also. It was a fun gig on St Patty's day with lots of wearing of the green. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these issues have been address in the recently updated History section --Snpollack (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing images[edit]

It appears that the image, File:Furthur 20100925-01 RedRocks.jpg, has been replaced twice in the past few days with another image, File:Furthur Jones Beach.jpg, without any explanation in either the Edit summary or Discussion page. It is therefore unclear why the image has been replaced. Assuming that the goal of an image in this circumstance is that of depicting and identifying the band and its members as accurately as possible, the former image satisfactorily meets that goal by displaying all seven current members of the band and their relative arrangement on stage. The latter image, in contrast, displays only three of the seven members of the band, and also includes a number of audience members in the foreground, which arguably detracts from the image. I therefore feel that the original image is a more appropriate choice for this article, and accordingly, I am reverting to it. I would suggest that if an editor feels that another image might be more appropriate, that any replacement of existing images be preceded by a discussion on this talk page. Thank you. — PAIRdoc •talk• 01:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Related Projects section[edit]

I'm inclined to delete the entire thing. It adds more trivial and unencyclopeadic info then I consider appropriate. Raising it on a talk page first to see if anyone has any disagreements before I hack it off. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting question, but my initial reaction is that it's not all that trivial, and it is directly related to Furthur, so I think it should be left in the article. Also, what do you mean by unencyclopedic, exactly? It's pretty factual stuff, and it does have a bunch of good references. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is that it seems trivial. It is like a chronicle of everything they did and what happened even when it wasn't notable. I can understand that the studio itself may have a mention but it seems like gushing fan nonsense. Consider this small excerpt as a example
"On Tuesday, June 7, 2011, Furthur performed live at Tamalpais Research Institute (aka TRI Studios) in San Rafael, CA. TRI, a virtual venue, is the brainchild of Bob Weir, and is a state-of-the-art multimedia performance studio designed with the purpose of broadcasting live high definition (HD) video and audio streams directly over the internet.(A great fact to include) The event, billed as Furthur Experiments at TRI, was broadcast in real time over the internet in HD video with stereo sound and was available to those who ordered the pay-per-view event for $19.95. The performance included 13 songs (counting Terrapin Suite as one song), had no break, and lasted about two-and-a-half hours, beginning 6:00PM PDT.(why do we have to says exactly how many songs there was how long and when it started?) "
I understand the importance that they've made a virtual concert venue but the rest seems like overkill and more akin to a fansite or neverending newspaper story covering a concert then to a encyclopedia. I realize my viewpoint is not everyone's however it strikes me that the article is best suited saying this is the band. They toured these years and this was the lineup. If they have notable things that happen great let's record them but as is I read those sections and I'm asking why is this important other then maybe that first sentence. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic and trivial are two different things. Not to get too hung up on the terminology, but the Related Projects section is really not unencyclopedic. Also the section you've quoted, in my opinion, is quite far from "gushing fan nonsense". It's actually pretty factual, with a minimum of hyperbole or "peacock words", and, like I said before, with really good references. And as far as that goes, I'd be in favor of removing the Advert ("This article appears to be written like an advertisement. ...") and Fansite ("This article may be written from a fan's point of view, rather than a neutral point of view....") tags that you added. I really don't see an issue in that area. With all that being said, it does seem to me that the Related Projects section is somewhat on the detailed side, within the context of an article about Furthur. So, I have a different idea. The article could be split up, with the two sub-sections of the Related Projects section -- Tamalpais Research Institute and Terrapin Crossroads -- each becoming a separate article. As well referenced as those two subsections are, they would each hold up as a separate article. So, I'm going to propose a split of this article. But if you like that idea, let's be sure to give other editors plenty of time to join this discussion and state their opinions. — Mudwater (Talk) 03:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No issues from my side Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because of a brief wikibreak, I am just now learning of the proposal to remove the Related Projects section of the article. While I can certainly understand the point of view posited about the information being unencyclopedic and trivial, I don't entirely agree with it. I think that the topics in this section, TRI and Terrapin Crossroads, represent significant projects that are outgrowths of the band and its founding members, and I believe are notable. When the topics were first added to the article, only a few sentences about these virgin projects were written, and didn't justify separate articles. However, now that these projects have each established a bit of a track record and more content has accordingly been added, I agree that overall relevance to the band has become increasingly less, and that dedicated articles for the two topics would be most appropriate. I have, in fact, actually felt this way for some time, but have not had the time to devote to the task. There is considerable additional information that can be added to each of the two topics. I do have additional commentary I would like to add about this topic, as well as the deletion of other sections of the Furthur article, which I hope to post this weekend when I have a bit more time. Thanks. — PAIRdoc •talk• 00:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's been more than six weeks, and no one has objected to the idea, so I've split off Tamalpais Research Institute and Terrapin Crossroads into their own articles. — Mudwater (Talk) 21:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Website and Ticketing[edit]

I'm restoring the Website and Ticketing sections, which were removed on January 10th. These sections add good information to the article, and are entirely appropriate. Yes, the website and ticketing information is not as important as the musical history of the band and its personnel, but they will be of interest to some readers. Also, both of these sections are well-written, and each has several good references. In my view these sections should not be removed from the article unless there is a discussion on this talk page establishing a consensus among editors that the article would be better without this information. — Mudwater (Talk) 22:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the website and ticketing section. It was a spam albeit well sourced and advertising fest and reeks of promotion. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Staff and Crew[edit]

Is notability gained merely by being a crew for a show. I think that the staff and crew section should be removed because they do not have a notability that would need to be documented with teh band and reeks of promotionalism. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia notability guideline says that something needs to be notable if it's going to have its own article. Something does not need to be notable to be discussed or mentioned in an article. As it says at WP:NOTE, "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list." (Emphasis copied from the guideline.) Also, I'm not sure what you mean when you say that talking about the staff and crew of a band "reeks of promotionalism". It's not like the article is promoting the brand of electric guitars they play, or the brand of soft drinks they drink. I'm not getting any reeking sensation at all. Anyway, feel free to let me know if my first point, about the WP notability guideline, makes sense or not. — Mudwater (Talk) 03:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, about the website and ticketing information that you recently removed again, with this edit, I still think it should stay in the article, for the reasons I mentioned in the talk page section immediately above.
I would request other interested editors to give their opinions about all this. — Mudwater (Talk) 03:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When I say it reeks of promotionalism...why are we listing staff that hasn't been awarded anything. What is gained by listing people that aren't notable? It doesn't add to the article. And again why are we listing times and shows for non special shows that doesn't stand out or have passed. What are we gaining by saying they have webcast this show or that if it's not a notable show. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're talking about whether or not the people, concerts, or other things mentioned in the article are notable or not. But the Wikipedia notability guideline -- "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." -- applies to whether or not an article should exist. It does not apply to the contents of the article. So, it's perfectly fine for the article to talk about things that are not notable, in the Wikipedia sense of the term, as long as the subject of the article itself -- in this case, the band Furthur -- is itself notable.
It's appropriate to discuss whether or not certain information should be included in the article, and there may be legitimate reasons not to include certain information. For example, maybe information about a particular past concert is not helpful to the reader in understanding the subject, or maybe it's just too trivial to mention. Or maybe someone put some promotional material in the article, and said that when the band members are relaxing backstage they drink lots of [name of soft drink brand]. But that has nothing to do with notability. — Mudwater (Talk) 14:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Furthur (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Furthur_(band)&oldid=1207332401"