Talk:Grandaddy

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


Untitled[edit]

i can see there's some real fans of grandaddy out there - but i think the hyperbole could be lost from the article

Article organisation[edit]

I am not too familiar with the Wikipedia style guide, but I get the feeling this article would look and read a lot better if we got rid of the huge logo, downsized the band photo, and had all the discography on one page. It's not warranted splitting up such a short article over several sections. Galaga88 14:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eh?[edit]

"The feeling at the meeting was described by Lytle as the result of a breakdown in communication between the band members" - is the band simply the members as a whole? Conflicted individuals...

Awesome random notes, Mr. anonymous. Burn my bridge for me. Sleepy_boy_on_the_tracks

Needs Fixing[edit]

One of the "Split Singles," Alan Parsons... is not in fact split, and that article mistakenly says that it is a non-album single. In fact, it was released on the It's a Cool Cool Christmas Compilation. Additionally, the "compilations" section puts all bootlegs in there, which aren't really compilations. - Zeichman —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zeichman (talk • contribs) 02:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Grandaddyphotoshoot.jpg[edit]

Image:Grandaddyphotoshoot.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 15:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indietronic Link[edit]

The linked word 'indietronic' just links to the electronic music, which doesn't mention 'indietronic' as far as I can see. --Notquitethere (talk) 13:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger[edit]

A moderate amount of the article Alan Parsons in a Winter Wonderland should be merged into this article at which point the former article should be replaced with a redirect. The most important section from "Reception" that should be merged is the quote from Scott Miller as that is the only review that specifically relates to Grandaddy. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles for several of Grandaddy's singles. It makes no sense to merge one of them into the Grandaddy article, as if all the others don't exist. Most of these articles are short but many can be expanded. It would be much better to merge of all of these together into a separate article or a section of the discography rather than merge odd ones into the band article. I'm a bit puzzled by the statement above about the reviews - they all discuss this song by Grandaddy, so how can only one of them relate to Grandaddy?--Michig (talk) 06:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Michig. Lachlanusername (talk) 08:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is merged into Grandaddy, it would require a significant reduction of the information found in the article. In my experience with biographies, it is most appropriate to include the information most relevant to the subject of the article. The fact that the song was downright silly might be relevant to the song but not to the artist. The fact that Scott Miller stated that Grandaddy deserved immortality is the only thing that would add information about Grandaddy to the article about him. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Grandaddy is a band, not a person. This isn't a biography. This article really needs a lot of expansion to cover the band properly. I would suggest that when that's done it will be easier to judge how much information is relevant and where it fits best.--Michig (talk) 09:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Laughing_Stock_(song) ... I commented there that this discussion was happening and linked to this discussion. It should be considered in the Merge as well. Hopefully a relist will happen to give a bit more time for it to happen. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 19:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone fancies improving the articles in this area, the Grandaddy discography article should ideally be expanded to include fuller details of the releases - labels, dates, tracklistings etc. This would eventually adequately replace a lot of the shorter articles on the band's singles. When that's done, we can see what information we have left and determine what is best to do with it. And please, people, consider merging and/or redirecting as options WP:BEFORE taking these articles to AFD.--Michig (talk) 21:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the It's a Cool Cool Christmas article to include most of the content from the Alan Parsons article. I would suggest that redirecting there might now be the best option.--Michig (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead with a redirect. Both editors now agree that the article should not be in place and a redirect seems like the best option which both should agree with. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Grandaddy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 12:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lachlan, I'll be glad to take this one; sorry you've had to wait so long for a reviewer. Comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for all your work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On first pass, this looks quite good for prose/sourcing/neutrality. In particular, the prose is clean and readable compared to a lot of nominations I've been reviewing this week! Thanks again for your work on it. Just a few small questions/action points so far. Next I'll do source and image review.

  • "In 2011, he released his third All Smiles album, Staylow and Mighty." -- tagged since June as needing citation.
If I may…? I just had a quick look, it's not on AllMusic but Rocksucker.co.uk has this, which was the first thing I looked at, and describes the album as "out now" on 1 September 2011 (scroll to the end), any good? I see that Rocksucker.co.uk has been cited in a number of articles, but I didn't find any mention of it at WP:RS/N. Nortonius (talk) 14:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that looks fine--thanks for chiming in! I'll add it in a minute. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, done. Nortonius, if you also want to untangle that bit about Burtch, this is ready to pass. Otherwise I can take a look later; I'm working on another review at the moment, so popping back and forth. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure, thanks for taking this on Khazar2. Nortonius (talk) 14:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Burtch has been in a band" -- why the "has been" here instead of "was"?
  • "Burtch and Lytle, along with Earlimart's Aaron Espinoza and Ariana Murray, have since formed" -- so did Burtch not rejoin Grandaddy? Or is he in all three of these bands? The timeline's a bit unclear in this paragraph; it also seems redundant with the above discussion of Admiral Radley -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some changes, does it look any better now? Nortonius (talk) 14:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist[edit]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. One paragraph needs a bit of clarity (above). Spotchecks show no evidence of copyright issues.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). One statement is marked as needing citation (above)
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. Pass as GA

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 40 external links on Grandaddy. 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) 06:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Grandaddy&oldid=1195538344"