Talk:The Gufs

Overlinking

Please stop creating a wikilink to so many words in this article. The reader is expected to have a basic understanding of English. I cannot see a reason to link to the article city from this article. This article is about a band. Too many wikilinks is distracting. What you are doing is called Overlinking, and is frowned upon in Wikipedia. Royalbroil 05:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Please add reliable third-party sources

The band passes WP:MUSIC as notable, but this article currently fails WP:V as lacking any reliable third-party sources. That's grounds enough for deletion. If they're as notable as they seem, it shouldn't be too hard to find something on them. –  Anþony  talk  05:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a good start, probably keeps it safe from deletion, but ideally, we shouldn't be relying on self-published blog posts[1], merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report performance dates[2], or primary source interviews[3]. Remember, the goal is that everything in the article should be attributed to a reliable source; if this is all there is, there wouldn't be much to talk about. –  Anþony  talk  22:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I remind you of the guideline Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I am very disappointed that someone would even consider deleting an article in the presence of many notability claims by well-established (especially ranked) contributor. A six year hiatus makes it way more difficult to find second party sources to substantiate events on the fast-paced web. It passes WP:MUSIC on points 1,2,4,5,7. Royalbroil ^T : C 15:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no doubt that you and the other contributors are acting in good faith and I'm confused why you think otherwise. I said explicitly that the band is notable, but you should be aware that notability is not the only requirement for an article on Wikipedia. All content must be verifiable, even if it concerns notable subjects. It may be the case that The Gufs' lack of recent noteriety has lead to a lack of online material, but unfortunately WP:V doesn't make exceptions for that.

I'm not trying to get this article deleted. I'd rather see it improved using independent third-party sources as its backbone. So far, the sources provided are a little lacking, but hopefully there are better ones out there. Surely there should be some reviews of the band and their music. –  Anþony  talk  18:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

You sure have high standards for references. I seriously doubt this article will ever be considered for featured article or even good article. How can you consider the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel to not be an excellent resource? VH1.com and rhapsody.com are excellent unbiased national and international resources in my mind too. Allmusic.com is referenced by the WP:MUSIC guideline: "A good online resource for music and musicians is the All Music Guide (http://www.allmusic.com/), which gives a level of indication as to what a band or musician has done".

I didn't add the Watertown Times reference, but it does include much more than just the date of a concert. It verifies that the songs Smile and Crash (into me) had some level of popularity. At least enough to deserve a mention in Wikipedia. It also verifies that The Gufs toured with matchbox twenty, and that Rob Thomas of matchbox twenty sang backup on the song “Give Back Yourself.”

I did find a review for their current album, but I have not added it because I don't think reviews add anything to the article except someone's opinion. I strive for only encyclopedic material. I would add it as an external link if you can convince me why.

The To Do list on your page currently says: 1) Check up on serenity definition in a few days and propose deletion if no one is interested in improving it. 2) Ditto on The Gufs. Cheers! Royalbroil ^T : C 20:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

First off, I'm sorry if you took offense to the note in my user page. I do intend to propose serenity definition for deletion because I don't believe it belongs on Wikipedia. I quickly added The Gufs to the list without being more specific with my intentions, just to remind myself to check in on the article. Since there are editors here trying to make this article better, getting it deleted is not my goal.

As for my high standards on sources, I'm only reflecting Wikipedia's standards. You're right to say that VH1 and Allmusic are typically good sources, but in this case they offer no information on the band beyond a basic discography. Rhapsody also doesn't have any information about the band, it just lets you listen to the music.

The Watertown article can confirm those basic facts you mentioned, but not much else. The Milwaukee Talks article is good, in that it includes a short bit about the band, but it's almost all a primary source interview, which should be treated carefully. You could make an article out of those two sources, but it wouldn't be very long -- not that there's anything wrong with keeping the article short.

Reviews can be useful to establish a band's place in the world. A good review is going to need to give the reader context, so typically they include a description of the band and maybe a little of its history, which is good fodder for an encyclopedia article. When reviewers offer their opinion, it may well be worth including if it is properly attributed to the reviewer and it typifies critical response. Reviewers also often make comparisons and connections to other music which we can not, as doing so would be original research. –  Anþony  talk  21:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, with 15 citations so far, it's well on its way to Good Article status... =) I never thought I'd see an article for a band like this so comprehensively sourced (well, maybe I already have)... Kudos to Royal for taking this entry under your wing. Chubbles 06:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Gufs. 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.madison.com/archives/read.php?ref=%2Fwsj%2F2006%2F10%2F05%2F0610040281.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/19970716075053/http://www.thegufs.com/ to http://www.thegufs.com/

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) 16:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Live album?

I wonder about the classification of Circa 89 as a live album. The live classification is usually for live in concert albums rather than live in studio albums. As an example, The Trinity Session, by Cowboy Junkies, is classified as a studio rather than a live album. I believe the same should apply for Circa 89. TreeRol (talk) 11:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)