Talk:Klaxons/Archive 1

Cleanup

Can someone with more knowledge of the band clear up the intro a bit... it's pretty messy and full of seemingly random facts. -Ally 17:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the intro is a bit lengthy. Also, I think the trivia section might need some citations, particularly the part about Muse and Klaxons performing together. (Incandescent 15:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC))

Psychedelic pop? Someone needs to look up the meaning of these words before they apply them to the Klaxons. jonchapple

That's what they say on their MySpace - Psychedelic/Progressive/Pop! I'm thinking of trying to clean this up... We'll see how it goes. (Incandescent 04:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC))

I've tried to present the sections in a more logical order (e.g. the list of band members is now presented -before- references to 'Jamie' or 'James,' etc), moved a lot of the 'random facts' to other sections where they act more as supporting material than...well, random facts, and have worked a lot on cleaning up the grammar, spelling, subject-verb agreement, etc. Unfortunately, someone needs to take it upon themselves to do a complete tear-down and rewrite of this. It's a shame, because there's a lot of material already here, but working around the original author's syntax is difficult, since it really is written informally.

Furthermore, a lot of this stuff is simply too...involved. Obviously whoever wrote this knows a lot about the band, but I'm in my initial excitement over them and -still- find a lot of this completely unnecessary in an encyclopedic sense. There need to be some objective decisions made here about what really belongs in the article and what doesn't, and it seems prudent to restate some of the more intimate details in a way that makes them accessible to an audience unfamiliar with the UK music scene.

Again, I call for a rewrite. Someone needs to look this over and write a more overarching article based on this wealth of tidbits. Phatt138 22:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

this article is sub-par at best - someone who knows something please label this in need of serious cleanup —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.173.254 (talk) 04:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Klaxons or The Klaxons???

I know that in their albums it just says "Klaxons" but the BBC refers to them as "The Klaxons" in the Music Charts. Manm hk 17:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

On their website they're only ever referred to as Klaxons, so I'd assume they're just Klaxons. Ian 14:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The band might be referred to as just "Klaxons" but the Wikipedia article just clearly does have grammar errors. A sentence should begin with "The Klaxons". "Klaxons" at the beginning of the sentence simply makes no sense at all. Anyone else agree? Manm hk 20:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Many bands are tagged with 'the' at the beginning of their name even though it isn't part of their name. If they are listed as "Klaxons" on their myspace and albums then surely that is their name. For example "Arcade Fire" are sometimes known as "The Arcade Fire". It shouldn't matter about "Klaxons" being at the beginning of a sentence as it is a name and in that context it is not a plural. Ao7hin 22:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Their name is NOT "The Klaxons" (I own almost every Klaxons release (cue abuse ;)) and there is no "the" on any of them. To refer to them otherwise would be incorrect, and I do not believe it would be grammatically incorrect to do so. JimmyIsSuperDuper 21:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Definitely just 'Klaxons.' The thing is, 'Klaxons' isn't technically self-referential; it's not a 'The' band because the band members are not 'the' klaxons that the name references.

Apparently, it relates to F.T. Marinetti's 'The Futurist Manifesto,' in which a centaur's birth signals the coming of another age. Klaxons are sirens, usually of the warning-air-raid variety, and the band's original name was Klaxons (Not Centaurs). So the name (and a lot of the lyrical content) seems to be heralding dark times to come, in a mystical sort of sense. It seems safe to assume that Klaxons feel that the next age will be heralded by 'klaxons, not centaurs.' Hence, no 'The.'

All of that being said, it's hard to discuss a name in plaural like that, especially when you're talking about multiple people in one band named after multiple objects. Gets tedious.

Phatt138 07:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

James Ford clarification

James Ford is not a member of Klaxons. He is a member of Simian Mobile Disco and also a producer. He produced Klaxons debut album and provided drums in the studio versions of the tracks in the absence of a full time drummer at the time. Since then, Steffan Halperin has been recruited as a new member and full-time drummer for the band.

Just a clarification because a user had added James Ford as a member of the band, which he isn't.

I've listed his drumming/producing duties in the trivia section instead, though, so the information is still there. Scam 10:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Steffan Halperin clarification

sorry, the only source I've got is my brain (more or less): Steffan Halperin was recruited as a new member about a month ago (their myspace-site said something like: "officially 4 members now" and then they used this band-picture: http://a416.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/28/m_508329c851e52d8ad99fabd0b8cbc6bf.jpg ) but now he isn't the 4th member anymore; at the concert in Cologne, Germany, 2007-03-24, the band presented itself as "we are the Klaxons and Steffan Halperin"; after the concert I asked Steffan "weren't you officially in the band?" and he answered yes, but he's no more because he doesn't like fame, was his resonse.

• Steffan is an official member, I think that he isn't seen in the media as an official member because- as the band have said many times in response to questions about his status in the band- of his shyness. However back in February it was announced through the NME website that he was finally an official and permanent member. I think it's just not easy to randomly integrate an official fourth member after most people have seen them as three.

I also think he just doesn't want to do interviews and the like but the band have been forced to come up with an answer to the "What exactly is the deal with your drummer?" question.

Subject: Dirty Rigs

Can anyone prove that this Dirty Rigs EP does actually exist? It's not mentioned on allmusic.com, and all the music magazines i've checked cited Xan Valleys as their first release. In fact, even if one just googles the phrases 'dirty rigs' and 'klaxons', Wikipedia is the ONLY result that says it is a Klaxons EP.

I'm removing it until someone finds em,....what the hell it is. Oh, and the guy that made it has made like 5 edits ever, none particularly notable - no offence...just like, cite stuff, please, guys.--SteelersFan UK06 16:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Atlantis7".jpg

Image:Atlantis7".jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Golden Skans.jpg

Image:Golden Skans.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:KlaxonsGravity'sRainbow.jpg

Image:KlaxonsGravity'sRainbow.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

Since the Trivia section had been long tagged as unnecessary, I made an attempt to integrate much of it's content into the original article or articles regarding the singles/videos mentioned. It has now been removed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.156.6 (talk)

Well done. I used to hate WP:TRIVIA, citing Klaxons as pretty much the main reason - I felt that the information that they had in their section was relevant to the article but couldn't be placed anyone else. Now, I'm fully behind it - they make the article look messy, especially in the fact that in the past while the information You've grasped the nutshell view of being bold by the balls. --SteelersFan UK06 04:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Name History

can someone make an appropriate citation to the fact that the futurist manifesto is the source for the name of klaxons. From my multiple readings and a search of words across the manifesto, I have yet to see a reference to klaxon or klaxons. I know that it is in articles, but the proof doesn't hold up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahawley (talk • contribs) 15:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Fansite

I think that any further input of fansites on the wikipedia page should be discarded. Considering there is no one "official fansite" for Klaxons, they have several listed in the links section of their own site, and it isn't particularly relevant to Klaxons as a band. Therefore instead of having this ongoing addition and deletion of links- it's likely best that they just be left out. They were taken out originally for a reason, it's probably best that it stays that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.19.137 (talk) 21:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with you there. Fansites are not relevant to the artist and therefore should not be added to the article. I have checked the Klaxons' site and this is true, there are links to fansites but there is not reason to add these links to Wikipedia as they have no benefit to the reader. Thundermaster367 13:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Genre

Psychdelic pop??? You need to check your facts! Thundermaster367 08:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Proposal that all band member articles should be merged to the main article in accordance with WP:MUSIC guidelines, "members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases." and the principle of notability not being inherited. A considerable amount of the articles in question are unsourced and of the small amount that is sourced there is a large overlap with this page with some copy and pasted text. Non currently assert any notability under the guidelines at WP:MUSIC. Suggest that relevant source info is merged into this main article as a 'band members' section and any subsequent sourced info be added here too until such a time as a split might be required. --neon white talk 21:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest Keep Jamie Reynolds, not too sure about the rest. Reynolds was #2 on NME's Cool List last year, as well as work with The Chavs. Also tye-ins with New Young Pony Club. Needs a tidy though. --^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 23:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by tye-ins? As far as i can see he only played a hadful of times with the chavs and wasnt a member. Being on a 'cool list' isnt significant coverage. --neon white talk 22:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

He is a member of The Chavs, when there were rumors flying around about The Chavs recording an album Tim called Carl & Jamie to a 'band meeting' for it. I say keep them all since they have useful information for each - this page would be way too cluttered with information on their personal lives/bithdates/birth towns/families/equipment etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youtalk (talk • contribs) 06:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

By tie-ins i meant that he was getting married to Lovefoxxx but i'm talking crap, that's Simon Taylor-Davis. Don't keep all of them, the page wouldn't be cluttered because the above information isn't notable to keep in the main Klaxons page. Only keep per above Chavs statement. --^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 12:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

To be fair this is wikipedia, people are going to try and put that crap in anyways if the single pages are deleted. Plus a lot of the information about them on their own pages isn't readily available in another biography or single article somewhere else, and even though it is relevant ot them it wouldn't be relevant to Klaxons.

I imagine people will try and re-create the pages eventually even if they're taken down, since Klaxons are a rather large band the personal pages aren't really irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.140.178 (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)