Talk:The Church (band)

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

The Church[edit]

The Church redirects here? You cannot be serious. An Australian rock band is not the image that appears in your head when someone says "The Church".--Ferox117 (talk) 09:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on where your head is at. If you type Church, you get a wider selection. Eyedubya (talk) 22:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Church refers to the Catholic Church--58.170.7.127 (talk) 08:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For Catholics, maybe, but for everyone else, that'd have to be 'The Catholic Church'. Eyedubya (talk) 10:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Catholics number in the billions; "The Church" would be lucky to have a million fans--Ferox117 (talk) 10:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC) What? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billy Tallent (talk • contribs) 19:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Band history article[edit]

A translation of the huge German article into English is on it's way, so be patient for the most exhaustive history about the band you've ever read. :-)

timetunnel 20:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jawoll, höhö
Fandorin 20:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to see this page getting so much development of late. I was the one that expanded this article from a stub about a year ago, but I haven't taken the time to do much more since then. The history section certainly adds a lot of background to the band's article, but I'm pretty concerned about its length. Encyclopedic articles on here should be informative, but concise. With no offense meant at all - as there's much in the way of valuable information in there - it's a bit over the top and will kind of overwhelm and/or bore casual fans and users. I think we should try and cut it back some, just to make it a more professional and compendious. I've put in a few small edits and will do some more over time, but as the idea behind this site is one of a collective effort, anyone else of course feel free to pitch in.

Xerius 14:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your rewording of the parts of the history is well done. It shortens the sentences and is more fluent to read. I have done the translation of the German article together with some other guys, because fans demanded an English version. But I won't spend much more time in polishing that article now, I'd rather maintain the German version. This one here has to be maintained by others, like you, Xerius. I will only drop by from time to time to check that no-one passes by and wrecks the article (like these internet trolls do).
I think you're right that casual readers might be annoyed by the length. But on the other hand the interested reader will be delighted. Now, who wins? I'd go for the one who really wants information. But there's not only lots of information there but it shows the development of a band over a long period of time. Compare it with the article about the Beatles, for example, which is even longer.
timetunnel 19:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly much of the material in the history is valuable to readers, so I'm trying to be selective about what to snip. The last edit actually only resulted in a reduction of one kilobyte (and there was at least one paragraph that turned out longer than previously!). One suggestion made on Wikipedia's page on article size was to divide some of the content into separate pages. The sort of ideal is somewhere around 32kb (we're currently looking at 46kb and that Beatles page is a whopping 55kb), but that isn't necessarily ironbound. I suppose one option, if it came down to it, would be to create separate pages for each/some of the albums and shuffle some information there. That's more of a chore than I really want to deal with at this time though, and perhaps won't even be necessary in the long run.

I'm wondering if some of the 'Style' section is a little superfluous. That may be one area that could be trimmed more. Also, perhaps solo and side project details in the history would be better placed on each respective member's page. Anyhow, I've really only just started here and I'm sure more work may well be needed once I finish, so any suggestions are welcome.

Xerius 04:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's definitely some content that overlaps between style and history chapter. Could be reduced. But I think the idea of a separate style chapter is still a good one. If it wouldn't be there people had to rummage the history to get some clues about the band's style.
timetunnel 08:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've just put in the edits for a couple more sections. Another one kilobyte drop. Really, there wasn't a big change in terms of conciseness here, but I drastically reorganized the Starfish section. I tried to keep the most pertinent information, but at the same time reorder and rephrase it. It's a time-consuming process, though it'll (hopefully) pay off eventually.

Xerius 16:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Early days[edit]

A factual question; I don't think Steve and Peter played in several glam bands in Sydney. I'm pretty sure it was Canberra. For example, the article in Shadow Cabinet about Baby Grande says they were a Canberra group. Worth checking, I think. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.255.108.148 (talk • contribs) 11:39 AM, 23 December 2005

Disambiguation[edit]

Someone redirected this page to a disambiguation page without fixing the link on the disambiguation page itself. I've fixed it now; looks like the new page is The Church (band). Pjmorse 21:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV?[edit]

A lot of this article reads as either POV or unsubstansiated claims. For example, it is claimed that the making of Priest=Aura took place under the influence of drugs, particularly opium. How on earth can this be proven (and how does the author know?)? Also, it is claimed that this album met with critical disdain. Yet several of the songs (particularly Ripple and Feel) enjoyed considerable airplay on many U.S. Alternative stations (89X in Detroit is a good example) following the album's release. I'm not trying to cast stones at anybody, but a LOT of this article seems very heavy on POV and very short on cited facts. westmt01 3 Aug 2006

The opium reference has come up here and there in interviews with individual members. I particularly recall Peter Koppes making reference to it around Hologram of Baal. The article reads "allegedly," which means it isn't 100% confirmed - this would likely require asking the band directly, I imagine. Regarding Priest=Aura's success, although not noted in the article, it did quite well on college radio and modern rock charts. That's not the same thing as critical acclaim however and Rolling Stone panned it with a two-star review. The band members have gone on record numerous times saying it was basically ignored commercially and sales were well below that for Gold Afternoon Fix and Starfish.
As for the article being "very heavy" on POV and "very short" on cited facts, if that's the case, someone should start making a list of precise instances of POV that need addressing. Anything that's disputed should be brought up here on the discussion page. I don't know where all the information here originally was pieced together from. I went in and made this thing more encyclopedic a long time ago, but it still needs a lot of work. As far as I'm concerned, that's up to others as I simply don't have the time to devote to this anymore.
Xerius 0:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Sound sample[edit]

Hi, I have uploaded a sample of the Church's "Under the Milky Way". Not sure how it would be best worked into this article but please include it: Image:The Church - under the milky way.ogg. The {{Listen}} template may be of use. cheers. pfctdayelise 05:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Length of article[edit]

I think the article is too long (like The Masters Apprentices!) and much of the info. should be placed in the articles on individual albums. Keep it concise and encyclopedic in the main article. --Design 05:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just fixed the disambiguation page link, so hopefully folks who get redirected there will find this. Pjmorse 21:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's cool, but you probably should have moved the page instead of removing the text and pasting it here... that destroys the edit history of this page (although, yes, it is archived on the "The Church" redirect page, but....). Not a big deal, though, since this article doesn't seem to controversial. Folkor 07:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, that would've been nice, but I wasn't the one who did the moving--I just found the old page redirecting to the disambiguation page, which linked to the old page, which... you get the picture. Pjmorse 15:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, alright. Sorry for the accusation. Folkor 08:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Album pages[edit]

If anyone has time or the inclination, it would be nice to have individual album pages for these releases, with the cover, track listing, and other information. Most bands of the Church's stature seem to have that. We could include some of the commentary that is now in the history section which would make that a bit more concise, especially for newbies. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums has lots of suggestions about how to approach it. Rigadoun 18:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've started putting together album pages and have linked the first few to the main page. Right now they're somewhat barebones, but pictures and the like can be added later. Once they're all created, we should probably go ahead and siphon off the content in the "Style" section of the main page - it's pretty superfluous. Xerius 16:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old talk page[edit]

Anyone know how to move the talk page at Talk:The_Church here without losing the comments here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pjmorse (talk • contribs) 21:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Canberra or Sydney "origin"[edit]

Fact box and intro text conflict. Which is right?Piperdown 13:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Songs on Music Soundtrack[edit]

The song "Life Speeds Up" was on the movie soundtrack "Storm Riders"(1982), should this be noted anywhere in the article? It was actually this soundtrack that I first heard The Church and began buying their albums. Mrhyak 19:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was consensus for move. This a clearly warranted exception to the naming guidelines. The Church now redirects to Church. I have also manually dabbed 71 pages and found quite a number of pages previously pointed here that should not have.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

This is likely not what most people are expecting when typing in "The Church" (ie, probably the Roman Catholic Church instead), so rename to "(band)" and redirect to Church dab page. 70.55.203.112 (talk) 12:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

  • Support. Agree this is an unusual case. Andrewa (talk) 11:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also think this is the most sensible option. Knepflerle (talk) 14:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Useless song sample section?[edit]

Face it, they're red links. Should it be removed? Farslayer (talk) 09:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent Article[edit]

In my opinion, this article is excellent. Much "inside information" but no pandering. Great job on the initial writing and translation. I hope that it can withstand the persistent efforts to screw it up. Loveless Fascination (talk) 04:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In-line citations required[edit]

Article requires more in-line references and some tidying up. I'll attempt to provide these in the next week or so. Other editors are welcome to join in.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Progress report[edit]

  • I've tackled much of their early years up to about 1990s. There are still a number of claims and quotes (generally re: Kilbey) which have no in-line citations.
  • I've created a separate The Church discography leaving behind only the studio albums.
  • I've trimmed the ELs, providing a dmoz link.
  • More needs to be done, especially for the later years but I'm having a hiatus from The Church for awhile.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guitars gone on "Sometime Anywhere"?[edit]

The suggestions that the guitar-based soundscapes were gone on this album, and that the guitar-based sound returned on "Magician" are quite difficult to agree with. There are lots of guitars on "Sometime", including several long solos. The guitars are on the other hand mixed in quite different ways than on the previous albums, with more variable effects. Sponsianus (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article requires a thorough revision[edit]

Although this article is on my Watchlist, I have not been monitoring it closely and, it was only when I updated information today, that I realized the page now reads like a fan website—one section even promoted the record label website that sells some of the band's output. I have inserted templates and some tags, in addition to a cursory revision, but I will endeavor to complete a more thorough revision over the next few days. Please reply if you think my claims are unwarranted. Thanks.--Soulparadox (talk) 05:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Church (band). 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:

  • Corrected formatting/usage for //www.whammo.com.au/index.asp

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: 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Church (band). 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: 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) 10:08, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on The Church (band). 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) 12:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Church_(band)&oldid=1195538941"