Jump to content

Talk:The Homosexuals

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

Untitled

[edit]

Despite having little major recorded output, this band is highly influential and I feel it should have an article on wikipedia. They are listed on allmusic and discogs.com and their records are for sale on [http://amazon.com/s/ref=sr_nr_i_8/002-6559624-8844841?ie=UTF8&keywords=homosexuals&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Ahomosexuals%2Ci%3Apopular&page=1 Amazon]. Furthermore, the record label on which their music has been re-released has its own article on wikipedia in which The Homosexuals are called "critically acclaimed," and the archive of the proposed deletion of an article on a side project of one of the band members mentions The Homosexuals multiple times as proof of notability. Re-releases of the band's music have been written about in The Village Voice, The Wire, Forced Exposure, Dusted Magazine, Pitchfork Media, and elsewhere. They meet WP:MUSIC criteria 2, 4, 5, and arguably 7. If Die Trip Computer Die is to be considered "notable," then they also meet criterium 6. --TeN 07:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the link to the unofficial discography as it is now a dead link. Unfortunately there doesn't appar to be any redirection...Datapanik (talk) 19:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

[edit]

Article today was given a notability tag. I believe, while the article definitely needs tightening, and sources added, there is little doubt that, given such, it would pass WP:BAND. While there has not been that much in the way of recorded output, mainly due to the band's defiant anti-professionalism 1) they were an important force in the early days of UK DIY, 2) uniquely disco-oriented as such, and 3) have toured internationally, and there will be press to back up all three. Wwwhatsup (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow

[edit]

This reads like it was written on speed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.241.73 (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is in keeping with the Bruno Wizard persona! Rewrite is definitely needed to bring it up to Wiki standard. I'll extend the tagging to reflect that. Wwwhatsup (talk) 22:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it a serious cleanup. References for much of what remains would still be good. A lot of what had to be removed was subjective personal opinions, which has don't belong in the article, and whimsical writing stylings.Greg Fasolino (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]