Jump to content

Talk:Fishbone

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

Individual pages

[edit]

Do all the individual members warrant pages? I've created a redirect page for Chris Dowd, but that's just my bias (me's my favorite!). Linguistixuck (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Best band article on Wikipedia

[edit]

I just want to say that this is probably the best band article on Wikipedia. Good job to everyone who has contributed! --Mr. Anon 00:51, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

thanks ! --Denis

Large saxophone

[edit]

Does anyone know what is the huge size of saxophone is that Moore plays in Fishbone? I think it is a bass saxophone but I'm not sure because nowhere on the Internet is this information available, and their albums just list "saxophone." Any Fishbone/saxophone experts out there who know, it would be appreciated. Badagnani 00:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • as far as i can tell, by deduction, it is a bass (it's definitely not a contrabass, but imo a bit larger than the regular bass saxophones). The smallest size Angelo plays is the curved sopranino. --Denis

Excellent--that took some time, but now we know. I thought I'd seen a very small one used in performance, as well as an alto, in addition to the bass. Badagnani 10:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a Bass Saxophone. He has also been known to play a Bent Soprano on occasion. AV (207.225.143.253 15:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)).[reply]

Article looks good

[edit]

As a Fishbone fan of many years, I agree with Badagnani....Umph's edits were correct

My problem with the edits is not the factuality of the content Umph added. My problem is the visual aspect of the article:

  • Personnel box – This can easily be shown with the bulleted list that used to be on the page. This has also been added to Yes and Deep Purple (possibly by Umph) without discussion. Because of this, I'm considering whether or not it is useful. However, my argument is that:
    • it is much too big for the article
    • it is not placed well
    • it is way too "linked"
    • Readers don't need a year-by-year breakdown of members of the band. Instead, they can put the pieces together by their dates of membership palced next to their names in a Personnel section.
  • Discography – I don't understand what was wrong with the old discography. It included both EPs and full-length releases, bulleted in proper format. The discography has now been reverted to an incomplete and un-bulleted list.
  • External links – These need to be bulleted and annotated correctly.
  • Linking inside the article – According to the Manual of Style, only make links that are relevant to the context. Many of Umph's changes were linking years and linking words that were already linked.

My main point is that the above complaints/problems could be fixed by reverting back to the old version. I've already stated that Umph's edits weren't original. They were simply changes added from older edits (I can't stress this enough). Compare: December 28, 2005 (after Umph's edits) December 12, 2005 (before my edits) December 27, 2005 (right before Umph's edits) and for comparison October 28, 2005

If I were to clean-up this article at this moment, it would look like the version before Umph's edits, plus the infobox.

One thing I mentioned on Badagnani's talk page is that the band infobox should stay. I have no problem with it.

Now as I stated on Badagnani's talk page, I'm not about to edit the article only to get into a revert/edit war, especially since the consensus at this moment seems to not be in my favor.

--Kevin McManus 09:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I would say make three separate listings for the Current Lineup, Original Lineup, and Former Members. There's no reason to relist 6 names because one guy left or joined the band. Anybody that has followed Fishbone for any length of time knows that it is a common occurance for newer members to join and leave the band regularly. It makes far more sense to list band members in the three categories with the years that they were a part of the band. I would even go as far as listing the Fishbone albums that those members are credited with recording. I don't see any point in relisting the entire band 3 times in 3 years because one guy left the band. As it is right now, the personnel list stretches way beyond the already content rich main article. You can get the same information more easily from the three more relevant categories than you can from the confusing constantly rotating list of band members by year.

To summarize:

I think the infobox should stay and list the current lineup.

There should be two sections added to the article.

  • Original Lineup and dates (and albums?)
  • Former Members and dates (and albums?)

-- Randomgenius 01:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


dude it is a Baritone sax, From Troy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.23.149.35 (talk) 04:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know?

[edit]

"Readers don't need a year-by-year breakdown of members of the band."

How do you know what everyone likes? I find this to be one of the most interesting things about band history.....and Wikipedia is actually the only comprehensive website to get lineup changes right. Line-up changes define a band's history, and if you look at many other groups with frequent changes, the breakdowns have been kept on Wikipedia, probably because readers find it very interesting.

Who cares if Umph's reverts weren't original. If the content is correct, it doesn't matter who re-inserts it.

This is the most comprehensive detailed breakdown of Fishbone's history on the Internet. Leave it be.


Line-up changes define a band's history, and if you look at many other groups with frequent changes, the breakdowns have been kept on Wikipedia, probably because readers find it very interesting.

A quick check to a list of featured musicians and bands shows that (from the top half of the list) the following bands list personnel the "traditional" way:

While only Duran Duran does a breakdown.

I find this to be one of the most interesting things about band history.....and Wikipedia is actually the only comprehensive website to get lineup changes right.

Correct, and Wikipedia can still get them right without having to show an almost year-by-year breakdown. You can put the pieces together.

Does one band member change warrent a whole new table row? Fishbone has only had 16 members that we know of. Yes, this is substantial, but why do we need to dedicate half the page to it?

Also, the table prevents you from just seeing an overview of the members of the band. If you wanted to see when Spacey T was with the band, you'd first have to find the first row where he appears. Then you'd have to find the last year he appears. This is way too much work for someone just looking for his active years.

The table also has a distorted timeframe. 1979-1989 (10 years) has only one row. 2004-2005 (1 year) also has one row.


Umph's first edit [1] would be a perfect place to revert to. He has added the infobox, something this article needed.

A breakdown of his other edits show something different, however. This diff shows how he

  • changed "their self-titled EP, Fishbone" (Wikipedia style) to "a self-titled EP" (still Wikipedia style, but definatly not helpful in linking to the article)
  • linked to Truth and Soul twice in the same paragraph
  • linked to the word "Reality"
  • removed the reference to the the Jones kidnapping
  • changed Philip "Fish" Fisher (Fish's real name) to Fish Fisher (definatly not his real name)

By breaking down just this edit, I'm not trying be a nitpicker. I'm only showing how his edits were not helpful. They were destructive, whether intentional or not, and require a revert. --Kevin McManus 19:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personnel box dispute

[edit]

It seems Umph and 68.210.198.164 are persistant in getting the personnel box (the table at the bottom of the page that has a breakdown of band members during certain periods of time) added to the page. I think it would be best if we held a formal vote, so if we reach a consensus we can keep the personnel box on or off, depending on what the consensus is. If you are voting, please make sure to sign your vote with four tildes (~~~~) --Kevin McManus 01:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove. The personnel box gives an inaccurate and distorted overview of the members of the band. Also, it doesn't estabish the current, former and original members of the band in a direct way. See my arguments above as well. --Kevin McManus 01:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove (no personnel box). That's my vote. I have seen the list each way now, and it does seem to be much easier to "wrap one's mind around" the list of names with years each person was in the band, rather than a list that has each complete band personnel list, many of which are the same names over and over except for one or two people. Badagnani 01:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove The article looks less cluttered without the personnel box. That type of member listing would be more relevant on the individual album articles than on the band article anyway. There's a lot of those articles missing now. I think that those would be a more worthwhile effort than a recursion war over an infobox. -- Randomgenius 03:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove it's inacurate, but beyond the point because could be made acurate but at what cost ? the problem is that to make it accurate, you'd need a breakdown into 20 or so periods, and 10 of them for the last couple of years where things have been shakey... it already uselessly clutters the page as it is, imagine with a correct breakdown. i suggest an external link to fishbonelive.org's hall of (not much) fame ([2]) where the precise participation of every fishbone member is available (but i will not put it myself since i have a direct interest). I also second the work on the bio of each individual member. priorities : Angelo Moore and Fish because the largest opportunity for cross linking --Denis (i still have to look for my old login...) 62.197.67.164 08:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC) --OK, now i'm logged in Badmothergoose 09:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I love the personnel box! Great idea...especially for identifying lineups on concert recordings. It has helped me a lot with my Fishbone tapes from 1998 and 1999. It's also helped with other bands......Mahavishnu, Yes, Bad Brains, etc

i dont think wikipedia should be the place to look for that kind of information. what about shows where there are sit-in musicians? i have at least three or four fishbone live recordings with musicians who played just a few gigs with Fishbone. And there were times with many changes within the same year, the current personnel box (with low details on dates) does not help at all for shows in 97-99 or 2004-2005 (did Tori play particular this gig or no?) What about Kid Merv, Elizabeth Lea, Foley, James Grey,... who at one point were part of fishbone. Should these lineups be included in the personnel box too? If there is a personnel box, it should be exhaustive (no reason to leave persons aside). Wikipedia is not suited well to keep this kind of info well organised and i'd just suggest an external link where an as acurate as can be information is kept. --Badmothergoose 21:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think content should come before looks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomoretears (talk • contribs) 19:48, January 11, 2006 (UTC)

The infobox doesn't add content, though. --Kevin McManus 20:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
we could add a Fishbone (timeline) page to old this information organised day by day, for instance --Badmothergoose 21:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a "Past Members" section could be added? --LeakeyJee 12:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Live in Amsterdam

[edit]

This album was actually recorded in 2002. I participated in its postproduction. I am changing it. Kultur 05:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

more precisely november 27th 2002. --Badmothergoose 21:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:B0000028PD.01. SCLZZZZZZZ .jpg

[edit]

Image:B0000028PD.01. SCLZZZZZZZ .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.

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 21:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Boort.jpg

[edit]

Image:Boort.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 02:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Chim.jpg

[edit]

Image:Chim.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 20:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Fishbone-Its-A-Wonderful-L-236925.jpg

[edit]

Image:Fishbone-Its-A-Wonderful-L-236925.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 07:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Fishbone poster.jpg

[edit]

Image:Fishbone poster.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 07:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Henhouse.jpg

[edit]

Image:Henhouse.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 22:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Henhouse.jpg

[edit]

Image:Henhouse.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 22:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Reali.jpg

[edit]

Image:Reali.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 23:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:LiveAmst.jpg

[edit]

Image:LiveAmst.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 00:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Temple.jpg

[edit]

Image:Temple.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 03:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Of all.jpg

[edit]

Image:Of all.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 04:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Nutt.jpg

[edit]

Image:Nutt.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 05:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still have VHS of their performance of Sunless Saturday on SNL in 1991. Correction- Angelo didn't do a back flip. He did a FRONT flip! 71.116.168.163 (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third Wave Band

[edit]

If they started back in 1979 (which is around the time most of the second wave bands started up) wouldn't they have been more of a part of the second wave of ska than the third wave?

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fishbone. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 11:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fishbone. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 07:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fishbone&oldid=1207237351"