Talk:Spice Girls
|
|
Template:Fac I can't believe the comment I sneaked in about Geri Halliwell being "damn hot" is still there. That's pretty funny. Someone can change it because I guess it's not NPOV. dave 14:12 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
| Contents |
US-centric
I've tried to tone down the US bias (especially comparissons between "international" and "US" results) in this article, but it needs more work to the same end. Andy Mabbett 20:56, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- This article is so US-centric it's unbelievable. Statements like "this single was a flop, although it reached number one in the uk" abound. Pomp My Socks... To Da Max 02:07, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Diverse class backgrounds??
This statement is quite erroneous. Despite one of them being monikered Posh Spice for reasons beyond me, all five members of the Spice Girls would generally be considered "Working class". Class-wise, they were not diverse at all.
Gay Icon Project
In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 22:15, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
change of cat
In the Girl groups category it is said: "This category is specifically devoted to the second meaning, and as such only includes all-female pop-soul groups from the early 1960s" and so I moved this article to the category All-women bands instead.
- I'm afraid I don't understand the logic of that other page. There was a movement in the 60's but I'm not sure whether that would be an accurate way of defining girl groups today. I have put my grievements up on that board. I believe the category "Girl Groups" not only fits them perfectly, they are almost the dictionary definition. Instead you have them lumped in with people like Joan Jett and Heart which I believe is completely inappropriate.--Zoso Jade 20:41, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
- I would agree but I thought that the definition on that category was actually real. I could change it back.
Commercial
How do I put up a picture of the Spice Girls in a British commercial from '96?
Upload the picture from your PC using the 'Upload file' tool on the left of the screen and then follow the steps.--Speedway 12:29, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
Pictures
I added pictures galore. Now the section looks perfect. DrippingInk 20:17, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
- None of the pictures seems to have a copyright template; could you add them? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:58, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
At this point, no copyright anything is going to be added. Not until you quit messing with the page. Then perhaps I will. Believe me, I know where all these pictures came from, but I won't be posting anything until you leave this and Avril Lavigne's article. DrippingInk 23:38, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
- I won't be posting anything until you leave this and Avril Lavigne's article. Then the pictures will be removed from the article every time you place them and will likely be deleted from Wikipedia entirely: there's no "pouting" exception to the copyright/image attribution requirements of Wikipedia. No copyright template, no use. Period full stop. --Calton | Talk 08:44, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't think there was any need to delete ALL the pictures. I added two (the first two) of the Brits 2000 and the MTV Awards, and they have been removed!--Speedway 18:26, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
- None of the pictures on this page had copyright templates, and they all looked as they they might well be copyvios. I do owe you an apology, though, as I was too hasty in assuming that they were all up-loaded by DrippingInk; I should have asked you about copyright before posting them on VfD. If you can supply the copyright details, I imagine that those two can be replaced pretty quickly. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:08, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
So what? That means if I don't add the copyright, they can't stay?! AND I HAVE ADDED COPYRIGHT! You're in trouble at this point. Just wait. DrippingInk 13:33, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
There's no indication that you're in any position to add copyright. You've said nothing about where any of them came from; they look like scans, screen captures, and Web-site photos, none of which is automatically copyright-free. Given that you didn't up-load two of them, how can you assert that they're fair use? Note also that your reversion of the page not only replaces the images, which are still going through IfD, but reverts a number of edits made by me and other editors, and which improve the article in various ways. Your insistence that we're vandals is plain silly, and isn't going to do you any good. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:18, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
OK, this discussion is getting a little heated. As much as the article looks great with the pictures, it really does liven it up, Mel Etitis is the correct one here. It is Wikipedia policy that all images carry appropriate tags, may they be GFDL, copyrighted, logo, etc. I don't think Dripping Ink has responded in the correct way....but that is just my two cents. Please don't abuse me - anyone. I'm just telling you what I think. --Speedway 16:51, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with you that the article would look much better with images (I try to add them whenever I start up or am heavily involved in an article). CD and DVD covers are counted as fair use, and there are probably many genuinely copyright-free images around; they just need to be found. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:13, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, and I'm sure that yours seem to be of "fair use" all the time. 64.231.113.36 17:39, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
You are not helping with the discussion at all. It is this sort of comment that is destroying Wikipedia. User Dripping Ink seems to think that certain pages that he/she edits are his/hers only, and no-one else can make dramatic changes to it. Anyone can edit what they want on Wikipedia - what would be the point if it wasn't constantly improving? --Speedway 18:23, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
- That was not my point. My point was that Mel Etitis was lashing out at me. He did not know that those pictures weren't mine, which means that he really is out to erasing all the edits I make. DrippingInk 20:48, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Images aren't innocent until proved guilty; they have to be shown to be legally usable by Wikipedia. You first refused to do so, then added templates claiming fair use without giving any reason to believe that that was true. You've just reinserted the images yet again, despite all that has been said. I hope that by now SlimVirgin has spoken to you and explained what copyright is, and what the requirements are.
As for the images that I've up-loaded, you're welcome to inspect all of them. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:39, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Peculiar edit history
I've just come to see what comment was added, went into the history, and saw that the most recent entry was my revert of User:Pacian's edit — though there was no sign of his edit in the History, and I didn't revert anything. My apologies to Pacian, and could he or she re-add the comment? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:55, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Mysteriously disappeared comment
WhenI went back to the page History, Pacian's edit had reappeared, so I've retrieved it and added it below. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:10, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
- This whole article is full of non NPOV comments ("fantastic debut album" comes to mind.) The punctuation and grammar are also hideous. I'm making revisions now. Pacian 12:18, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Reunion?
http://www.mtve.com/article.php?ArticleId=5615&from=rss
I am highly skeptical on the reliability of the news though. So Unless there is another source to vertify this, I am putting it here. SYSS Mouse 12:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
- A quick google news search apparaently shows that it is real. SYSS Mouse 12:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
WP:FAC
This is pretty good - is someone aiming at FAC soon? -- ALoan (Talk) 09:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, I'd like that! But not yet... I think the article still needs some more information. For some reason, I think that another image needs to be added. But that's just me. Let's try and make this article as true blue as possible, then we can go ahead and nominate it for FAC. :) DrippingInk 12:44, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Trivia moved here
This looked really odd where it was. It belongs in a trivia section I suppose, but there isn't one (and I don't really like them in an encyclopædia anyway; they're more suitable for fanzines and the like). Any ideas?
- "The platform shoes brand Buffalo Boots model 1310-2 was made popular by the band wearing it in lots of different colour combinations."
--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:57, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Even I did not know that, and I was and still am quite the Spice Girls fan. And I too don't prefer trivia in the sections. Maybe we should just remove the trivia altogether. DrippingInk 19:42, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- That's fine with me. It can stay here. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hunt for the image
I still think that the section requires one more image before we put it up for FAC. Can anyone think of one that would be suitable? And no, not a scene from one of the music videos, though I really do like the "2 Become 1" shot of Emma's head. Uhh... yeah. Any image ideas? 64.231.161.71 01:57, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I couldn't find a suitable image, so I re-added the Channel 5 one (after going through numerous copyrights). The bottom of the page looks kind of plain, though. If anyone finds one that would be perfect, feel free to add it. :) DrippingInk 15:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Missing Australian chart peaks
I can't find the Australian chart peaks for "Say You'll Be There" and "Too Much". Can someone help out? DrippingInk 20:44, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The "Too Much" peak has been found. Keep an eye out for "Say You'll Be There". DrippingInk 14:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Article nomination
I think it's time. Who wants to nominate this article for FAC? 64.231.73.125 23:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Check out what this guy wrote:
"Object 1) the lead section is too short and doesnt adequately summarize the entire article. 2) cite your sources. 3) It's an article about a music group, but there are no samples of the group's music. slambo 20:16, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)"
When people like to object to why an article shouldn't be the featured article, I'd really like them to speak in damn English. The third bit doesn't even make sense. 64.231.118.203
- Perhaps slambo would like nuggets of the music in written form -- with minims, quavers 'n' stuff. The article does say very little about the music. But then does anyone care about the music? (One might add: Does anyone care about the Spice Girls? But they do have a certain morbid fascination, I suppose.) -- Hoary 03:10, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
The article does not require a huge sample of the music - this is not HMV or Music World. If he wants samples, he can go download them, otherwise he has no reason to object. And I care about them, as you might have noticed. The Spice Girls could be considered classics now, I mean, if you're called the biggest British export since The Beatles or Led Zeppelin. DrippingInk 13:28, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I have officially cited two extra parts of the article. Someone care to help? ;__; DrippingInk 13:48, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)