Talk:U2/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Sunday Bloody Sunday sound sample is broken

At least from what I can tell, the file is corrupted and won't play, whereas the other sound samples in the article play fine. Could anyone re-rip the sound sample of the song and upload it? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 06:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Why did you remove the sound files agreed to here? PLease read the discuss and seek consensus before doing. --Merbabu (talk) 04:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

And why did you swap UF for Pride? Please stop edit warring without discussion - seek consensus *first*.--Merbabu (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Sound files

Below is from the previous discussion on sound files:

Sound files that are here should be chosen to directly support what is being described in the article - they should not be chosen simply cos they are great or very famous songs. They should contribute context to the written information, not be there to show off U2's most famous songs.

We have four sound files of which i think two are a good, supportive choices. ie, Sunday Bloody Sunday and Vertigo are both representative of the hard hitting sound strived for on their albums. Furthermore, SBS has that political flavour of the War album while Vertigo has that "boys and their rock'n'roll" sound to it.

The other two, Pride and One, although great songs, are not good choices. Being the most conventional U2 sound of their respective albums, they do NOT showcase the new sounds, ie the basic idea, of either of these albums. I suggest they be changed. For the Unforgettable Fire, I suggest "A Sort of Homecoming", or "The Unforgettable Fire". They are both more representative of what is being said about that album. As for Achtung Baby, One doesn't represent that album's mood like "Zoo Station" or "The Fly", or maybe even "mysterious Ways".

Does anyone know how to create new music files? --Merbabu 12:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we should limit it to 4 files, that is ample. The thing to remember is that the files must be representative of the text and not just showcase U2's "best" or most popular songs. We're not an advertisement, but we can try and plot the development of the bands music. Thus, i think the original files still stand:

• Sunday Bloody Sunday - representative of the hard hitting sound strived for (as described in the article)
• The Unforgettable Fire - representative of the new sound (as described in the article). Pride is just the biggest song on the album, and actually the one most in keeping with their previous sound. Alternative could be A Srot of Homecoming but we already have UF which is probably more representative
• The Fly - quite obvious - representative of the new sound (as described in the article). Alternative could be MOFO but we already have the fly an it's just as good.
• Vertigo - representative of the new harder hitting sound. Or perhaps you could put in Beautiful Day - ie, straight up and down rock representative of the article.

Again, i think four sound files is enough. Otherwise it is gratuitous and the article's already cluttered. --Merbabu (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Dude, take a chill pill. There's not "one right" version of this article - an edit that doesn't agree with your's is not an edit war. People aren't going to stop editing it just because it reached Featured Article status. For one thing, I don't see much of a consensus on that archived discussion. It looks like everyone had different ideas, but nothing was really agreed to.

Secondly, I agree that the sound samples should be representative of the band's sound, but there should be some hits in there, too. I'm not saying we have to put the band's greatest hits on the page, but before I edited the page, "Sunday Bloody Sunday" was really the only well-known song on the page, and it's sound sample is corrupted and won't play - hence, why I removed it and in its place, added "Pride" and "I Still Haven't Found". "Pride" is relevant to the article, since it's a song about Martin Luther King, Jr., whose influence on Bono at the time is discussed in the article in the section on The Unforgettable Fire. Furthermore, it's a well-known song of the band's, which makes it, in my eyes, more valuable than the relatively obscure "The Unforgettable Fire". I also restored "Vertigo", which was curiously absent, even though it appears it was one of the song's people were pushing for. Lastly, if The Joshua Tree is one of the band's masterpieces, shouldn't we at least have one song from it? "I Still Haven't Found" exhibits gospel influences, which is discussed in the section on The Joshua Tree, and the song is mentioned as "rhythmic gospel "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For", quickly went to number one in the U.S". These weren't just random song choices. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be a contentious issue, so perhaps we should re-open the discussion on which sound samples should be used? For the record, I'm fine with the current selection but I'd hate to see an edit war break out. MelicansMatkin (talk) 00:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

So, you've said you agree that the sound files should be representative of the band's sound, then you say that UF shouldn't be there because it's obscure. Isn't that contradictory? There is limited space, so why just put all the hits that people know? Particularly in the case of Pride vs. UF where Pride actually is less representative of the atmospherics of the album we are describing. As for Vertigo, I thought that was always in there so thanks for putting it back in. If you only want the big songs in there (scratching my head here), then way not swap it for Vertigo - i could live with that because it is also the most representative of the change described in the section and you'd like it because it's a big hit to show off.

So, we have a start with agreement of Vertigo and perhaps my suggestion to replace it with BD. --Merbabu (talk) 00:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

PS, the point of difference in the previous discussion was that there should be more sound files - one per album(!?!) - yet no-one followed it up. --Merbabu (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen any contention with The Fly, so that seems as if it will say. On another note, while I think "The Unforgettable Fire" is a good choice for the article, I do find it a little odd that one of the arguments for its inclusion is that it is indicative of a change in U2's sound at the time, but the previous sound is not included in the article. MelicansMatkin (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

My point is to balance songs that are hits with songs that represent/supplement the material being discussed in the prose. I have absolutely no problems with "Sunday Bloody Sunday" (but it's sample is corrupted, so temporarily, I put in something for The Joshua Tree instead). I doesn't matter to me whether we put "Vertigo" or "Beautiful Day" in - both are illustrative enough of the band's sound at the time and recognizable enough hits. I realize "The Unforgettable Fire" is illustrative of the ambient sound from the album, but I just think it's too obscure, even if it does demonstrate their changed sound. "Pride" might not necessarily demonstrate their changed sound, but it's subject matter is very much relevant to the article - MLK Jr. was a big part of the album. What are your feelings on "I Still Haven't Found"...? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 01:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The trouble there is that Sunday Bloody Sunday, Pride, I Still Haven't Found, Beautiful Day, and Vertigo were all hits. Personally I quite like the fact that The Unforgettable Fire is in there because it is not only more encompassing of the new sound than Pride, but also because it is obscure. People tend to judge U2 based on their hits. A relatively unknown track is by no means a bad thing to include. As for I Still Haven't Found, I'd rather not have it's inclusion. It's just anothr hit, and there is already another track from an album that is (arguably) an even greater masterpiece in the form of The Fly. MelicansMatkin (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The debate over whether Joshua Tree or Achtung Baby is an interesting one. But still, I feel like, being that Joshua Tree is the band's best seller, at over 25 million, there should be some kind of representation. Maybe not "I Still Haven't Found". Perhaps a different track ("Where the Streets Have No Name"? "Bullet the Blue Sky")? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I would be fine with the opening 30 seconds of Bullet; it's not a "hit" but it is one of the tracks that has probably stood the test of time and relevance better than most others. I do think that if a track from The Joshua Tree is to be included though, five song samples in the article ought to be the limit. Any other thoughts? MelicansMatkin (talk) 01:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the focus should be on using tracks that very clearly exemplify the major themes of the article. Thus, while Bullet is not popular, I question how it links directly to the article - although, perhaps the music and words do dwell on American foreign policy. --Merbabu (talk) 07:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyone able to re-rip the "Sunday Bloody Sunday" sample yet? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 06:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Bono's loss of the lyrics for "October"

I'm surprised there's no mention anywhere of Bono's famed loss of the lyrics to the "October" album while touring the United States during their "Boy" tour. The lyrics disappeared just two weeks before they were to begin recording the album. As a result, Bono wound up improvising the lyrics in the studio as the band recorded the album, creating a great deal of tension for everyone.

In recent years someone in Oregon actually came forward with the lyrics and returned them to the band. Turns out they had been stolen during the tour.

Looking through the archives I see where this was mentioned in some detail on the talk page back in 2006. I think the information about this incident should be included in the main article, as it's relevant to the character of the "October" album. Unfortunately I don't know where to find unbiased documentation of the even according to Wikipedia's guidelines. Spiritquest (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Huh, I'm kinda surprised too. I'm sure that we can work in a sentence or two relating to the matter. I took a look at October (U2 album) to see what sources regarding the incident were on there and found a working link to a BBC news article. I'll add in the information now. MelicansMatkin (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I added in a sentence that I think explains the lyric loss nicely. If anyone can improve it, please do. MelicansMatkin (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Revising section on Achtung Baby

Right now, I don't the article flows very well from the end of the section on Rattle and Hum to the section on Achtung Baby. The following is the text the way it is now:

With a sense of musical stagnation, Bono announced at an end-of-decade concert that U2 had come to the end of an era and had to "...go away and just dream it all up again". In November 1991, U2 released their seventh studio album, Achtung Baby.

There's too much backstory behind the recording of Achtung to simply explain it after you say the album was released. The band was in conflict and almost broke up - this isn't some kind of afterthought or footnote that should follow the statement that they released their seventh album. This is a significant part of the story the article should be telling. Thus, I think the section needs to be in chronological order. It needs to be explained that the band felt they had to "dream it all up again", that they tried to come up with a new sound, and that it was a source of conflict in the band. Only after they struggled to figure out their direction did the album actually get released. It's important that this flow is illustrated in the prose. Furthermore, it makes zero sense that we title the section with the years (1990-1993) if we start off talking about 1991, only to go back to 1990 afterwards. Accordingly, I think the revised version below is much better:

The band initially work on a new album in East Berlin in October 1990 with producers Daniel Lanois and Brian Eno, seeking inspiration and renewal on the eve of German reunification. Stung by criticism of Rattle and Hum, the band made a calculated change in musical and thematic direction. It was not without difficulty, however. In the Berlin sessions, conflict arose within the band over the quality of material and musical direction. While Adam and Larry preferred a sound similar to U2's previous work, Bono and The Edge were inspired by alternative rock and European dance music and advocated a change. Weeks of slow progress, arguments, and tension subsided when the band rallied around a chord progression The Edge had written, creating the song "One". The band subsequently returned to Dublin to finish the recording sessions.

In November 1991, U2 released their seventh studio album, Achtung Baby. Sonically, Achtung Baby incorporated dance, industrial, and alternative rock influences of the time and the band referred to the album as the sound of "four men chopping down the Joshua Tree". Thematically, it was a more inward-looking and personal record; it was darker, yet at times, more flippant than the band's previous work. Commercially and critically, it has been one of the band's most successful albums and was a crucial part of the band's early 1990s reinvention Like The Joshua Tree, it is cited by Rolling Stone as one of rock's greatest.

Please consider these things. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 00:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem with that change; I think the added context in the development of the album makes sense. MelicansMatkin (talk) 00:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

What part is new? As far as I can see, the change was removing the first two sentences (ie, the main point of the AB section), part way into the section. THe part about UF providing context of the change is removed and no extra material was added. If there is new material that crazyjoker is suggesting, then lets look at that, but as far as I can see, it's a re-write that is obscuring and watering down the point. You need to state the important things up front, not bury them in the detail. --Merbabu (talk) 01:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing new, from what I saw the change was only switching parts of two paragraphs around to give a little more context to the development of the album. I agree with Y2k that saying when the album was released and then delving into the details of making it is a little strange. MelicansMatkin (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While chronologically this is fine, the 2 punchlines are lost part way through (ie, release and name, and the big change). That's why the following 2 sentences goes at the front, and the rest is detail:

In November 1991, U2 released their seventh studio album, Achtung Baby. Stung by criticism of Rattle and Hum, the band made a calculated change in musical and thematic direction, their most dramatic since The Unforgettable Fire.[73]

While chronologically as crazyjoker is proposing always has an allure, in this case it means the main point gets lost. Just say the main point out front (and keep the UF fire reference to give it some context). --Merbabu (talk) 01:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The section title already mentions it's about Achtung Baby so it's not necessary to begin the section with In November 1991, U2 released their seventh studio album, Achtung Baby. If your point is to indicate the changed direction in sound and image was for this album, then why don't we keep what I have, but make some changes:

The band began work on a new album entitled Achtung Baby in East Berlin in October 1990 with producers Daniel Lanois and Brian Eno, seeking inspiration and renewal on the eve of German reunification. Stung by criticism of Rattle and Hum, the band made a calculated change in musical and thematic direction, their most dramatic since The Unforgettable Fire. It was not without difficulty, however. In the Berlin sessions, conflict arose within the band over the quality of material and musical direction. While Adam and Larry preferred a sound similar to U2's previous work, Bono and The Edge were inspired by alternative rock and European dance music and advocated a change. Weeks of slow progress, arguments, and tension subsided when the band rallied around a chord progression The Edge had written, creating the song "One". The band subsequently returned to Dublin to finish the recording sessions. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 01:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced, but am grateful you are trying to find alternatives - and that you propose using the UF reference. Let me mess around with the existing and your new, and see what I can come up with. What about - just say - moving the last sentence of THe R&H section (or a versions of it) into the Achtung Baby section? Just a thought. Let me see what I can come up with.--Merbabu (talk) 01:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to move the last sentence from the R&H section - it's relevant to the Lovetown tour. But I do have a good idea on how to get the point of their reinvention across better.:

Stung by criticism of Rattle and Hum, the band made a calculated change in musical and thematic direction for their next album; the change was their most dramatic since The Unforgettable Fire. The band began work on Achtung Baby in East Berlin in October 1990 with producers Daniel Lanois and Brian Eno, seeking inspiration and renewal on the eve of German reunification. The sessions were not without difficulty, however. In Berlin, conflict arose within the band over the quality of material and musical direction.... Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 01:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Not bad at all. The first sentence captures the essence of the whole section - very nice (and I don't think we really need release dates in the first section). The only question then is does the opening sentence or two need to say something about it also responding to new trends in music at the time? It is mentioned in that section, but later on. Ie, the album was a response to both the U2 thing of the 80's and the new music of the time. just a though, apart from that nice work. --Merbabu (talk) 01:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Years for "Reapplying" and No Line sections

As it stands, the years listed for the last 2 sections of the band's history are as follows:

• "Reapplying for the job of best band in the world (2000-2007)
• No Line on the Horizon (2008-present)

I disagree with the way we have this. The "Reapplying" section actually has nothing from 2007, while the No Line section has several things about 2006 and 2007 mentioned (recording with Rick Rubin, recording with Lanois/Eno). Every section in the article already has the album recording sessions included in the section about the finished album, so it makes sense that the album recording time is accounted for in the years mentioned in the section titles. The sections should really be titled as below to be completely accurate:

• "Reapplying for the job of best band in the world (2000-2006)
• No Line on the Horizon (2006-present)

Both sections have things that are occurring in 2006 that you can't separate into disparate years (e.g. 2000-2006, 2007-present). The Vertigo Tour went into 2006, the tax controversy was 2006. Those things belong in the "Reapplying" section. The new album recording began in 2006, but this is the beginning of a whole new topic. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I agree that these years can be messy. Some years they were particularly active, others not. Now we have a problem where nothing really fits into one section (partly because there's been such a long wait between albums). As for the post 2000 years, I don't really agree with your suggestion, but then again, I can't say that mine would be particularly satisfactory either. IN my mind, things like the late 2006 vertigo tour, U23D, the graphics on U2.com all suggest that we were still in Vertigo/HTDAB mode. While it is correct to say that the band were looking at the new album back in 2006, the rest of the world didn't know that and up until a month or two ago, we're still in old mode. The other is, it would be nice to start each section with the start of a new campaign (ie, now its NLOTH). It would be good to have a distinct start to each section, rather than monotonous but notable info about tax, movies, etc.

It's difficult. Thus, here's a radical thought: what would happen if we simply removed the years from the headings? The years are still mentioned in the text and we could leave a hidden comment next to the headings to show editor's the broad intent of the sections. have a look at the page, and imagine what it would look like without. If necessary, minor tinkering could be done with the text --Merbabu (talk) 01:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the years help illustrate at what points in history the sections are referring to, at least if you're looking at the article's table of contents. I think to resolve this problem we have having, we can move U2 3D into the "Reapplying" section and explain that it was recorded during 9 different shows from the Vertigo Tour, with just a quick mention that it was released in 2008. I think then, the "Reapplying" and No Line sections distinguish themselves pretty well. Take a look at the edit I'm going to make to the page to see what I mean. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 01:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good. Indeed, I think I beat you to it but have done something similar here. What do you think? Although, the mention of the new sound was completly off the top of my head and with references. It's there to be an indication - please add references, and re-word as you see fit.--Merbabu (talk) 01:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

That was pretty much the idea I had, but it still seems like we could tweak it a little more. I still think the years should go 2000-2006, and 2006-present, but it's better than it was. Still, the Live Nation thing can't be in the "Reapplying" section, since it happened in 2008. I will try to revise its mention so that it doesn't jump out so much. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 01:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

2004-2008 & 2009-present

What's wrong with starting the section in 2009 and making a clean break for the the new album (as each other period does in the section)? That we refer to Rick Rubin involvement in 2006 within that section is fine. Then we have live nation and tax (ie, business) in a 2000-2008 section. Ie, just like this version but with the headings changed to 2004-2008 & 2009-present. --Merbabu (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

There's never going to be a clear-cut chronological solution to any history-based article. We wrestled with this in the John Howard article (Australian PM for 11 years) and I'm struggling with it now at History of Indonesia. Ie, you can get it broadly chronological, but sometimes you need to group by themes. Other wise, we are just writing a timeline - which reminds me, I reckon we should start a Timeline of U2 article. he he. I'm a sucker for punishment. --Merbabu (talk) 02:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it's very difficult. But I would oppose starting the No Line section with 2009 because the recording sessions are relevant to the album - they should be in the same section - the recording and release of the album are essentially a theme. It would not be consistent to have the years start with just the release date - it doesn't work like that for any of the other sections. Maybe we could disconnect Rubin's sessions from the Lanois/Eno's sessions? Rubin's mention goes in the "Reapplying" section, then we can split the sections by 2000-2006, and 2007-present? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 02:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No, i think the Rubin sessions must stay with the album stuff - they're intrinsically linked, whereas the Live Nation or U23D stuff isn't. But, it's an incidentally item which can be referred back to. as I had in this version. There is nothing wrong with referring back to a 2006 event if relevant within a section nominally stated to start at 2009. It's just messy now with bits and pieces thrown on either side. --Merbabu (talk) 02:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Archive

Would anybody be adverse to my archiving this talk page up to and including "Was vs. Were"? It seems to me that this discussion page has reached a length (~89 kilobytes) were an archive is in order. MelicansMatkin (talk) 01:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

good idea. --Merbabu (talk) 01:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. MelicansMatkin (talk) 01:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Collective nouns?

As I'm reading this I constantly see that U2 are is used instead of U2 is and when I went to fix it I saw the notice at the top of the page. Having never seen U2 referred to as plural before I looked at UK English and it says:

In British English collective nouns may be treated as either singular or plural, according to context. A example provided by Partridge is: " 'The committee of public safety is to consider the matter', but 'the committee of public safety quarrel as to who its next chairman should be' ...Thus...singular when...a unit is intended; plural when the idea of plurality is predominant."

And in the case of U2 it would appear that it is being referred to as a unit. Correct me if I'm wrong but shouldn't it be used in the singular? Alexfusco⁵ 21:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This is something that has come up before. Previous discussions and interpretations can be found here and here to explain the current rationale. MelicansMatkin (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok I see and I apologize for not reading archives first but I still find it a little weird that this article is the first time that I've ever seen U2 use plural verbs in the past. Thanks for clarification Alexfusco⁵ 22:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem at all; there's a lot of archives to go through, and I'm glad that I was able to help :) MelicansMatkin (talk) 23:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Dates in the headings

Regarding recent changes in where the dates are placed in the article headings; should they placed before describing the event, or after? My understanding is that dates are typically given afterwards. I'm bringing this up for discussion in an attempt to avoid edit-warring with Lurulu. A full discussion with the user so far can be found here. Apologies in advance for my last comment, which was unnecessarily rude. So, this is a relatively simple matter. Should the headings stay in the present format of Formation and early years (1976–1979) or change to (1976–1979) Formation and early years? MelicansMatkin (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest either after the heading (ie, per the status quo) or not at all (although I'm not sure about not at all though). I certainly don't think they should be before the words, but I would like to hear why the proponent of this change thinks it's better. --Merbabu (talk) 01:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The proponent of this change (dates before the headings instead of after the headings) thinks it's better because it's much more readable !!! The chronological information is much more attractive that the factual information. According to me, a "time marker" is much more evident than a "fact marker". I can't explain better than this because it's too obvious for me ! Lurulu (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree; putting the dates first looks hideous, and this hasn't been an issue up to the article's promotion to FA. Dates are typically placed afterwards anyways. MelicansMatkin (talk) 01:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

de la Parra, 1994

There are several in-line references here, that refer to (de la Parra, 1994). There is no such work cited in the General References subsection, there is only a {de la Parra, 2003). Does anyone know what source is that reference about?- Andrei (talk) 22:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it this one?- Andrei (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

1994 is the edition I hve on my bookshelf, and it is the edition I seem to remember using for the article. I will check and fix later tonight. Cheers --Merbabu (talk) 00:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

What U2 mean to Dublin

A U2 home concert is the equivalent of Ireland winning the Grand Slam five times in the one season at home. It is like having three All Ireland Finals back to back. These aren't just Irish concerts, they are truly international events with fans travelling from Brazil to Canada, Australia to Japan -- this is Croke Park and the city of Dublin on show to the world. Just thought I'd leave it here for someone to put to good use. --candle•wicke 02:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

"Anthemic... Impassioned... Textured"

Clearly just compliments to the band. Everyone wants to be considered "impassioned" and "textured," and for any band you can make a case that they have them. We might as well say "they were known for their great music." It would be fine to report that some sort of notable source had given them such compliments, but Wikipedia's purpose is not to suggest that completely subjective compliments are an absolute truth. Personally, I (and many others) consider Bono's voice transparent and bland, and the guitar playing quite basic and not very different from a typical pop melody, but I'm not here to impose my opinions on the world. I wouldn't even mention such ideas unless I found a notable source that I could mention for having suggested them. Andrew Nutter  Talk | Contribs  23:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

just so I'm clear, you're proposing nothing in it's place? I actually don't think these are value judgements but descriptions. I'd agree with your concerns if you were talking about value judgements (ie "great") but don't agree if u are suggesting no descripting words. Perhaps u could suggest alternatives. Are suggesting Bonos singing is not passionate (although u could suggest alternatives). Are u suggesting that their is not an anthemic quality to their music and/or that this is not a major factor in their popularity?--Merbabu (talk) 02:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Featured article on Main page 2x?

Wikipedia has over 2,000 Featured Articles. Why would this one end up as the Main article 2x within the past few months? Ed8r (talk) 02:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

When do you think it was on previously? Gimmetrow 02:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Featured articles are only ever displayed on the main page once. U2 has only recently (within the last few months of '08) become a Featured Article, and it has never been displayed on the main page. U2 factoids - Magnificent (U2 song) and White as Snow (song) for example - have occassionally appeared as part of Did You Know, but those are different articles and a whole different category. The actual U2 article has never been featured (excepting today of course), so there's no need for you to be concerned. MelicansMatkin (talk) 03:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'll take your word for it. I would have sworn I saw it on the Main Page within the past, say, 3 months. Is there no history for the Main Page that would confirm or deny my impression? Ed8r (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 2009. You can cycle through the months from there to see every Featured Article on the main page since 2004. I checked the article history and U2 first became a Featured Article in January 2008, so it wouldn't have been featured prior to then. MelicansMatkin (talk) 18:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Over-reliance on Rolling Stone as a source

A very interesting read, and well done to all concerned. One thing strikes me - there seems to be an over-reliance on Rolling Stone as a source for criticism, commentary or appearance in its Top 100 lists. A quick search shows Rolling Stone gets 43 mentions including refs; in the text itself Rolling Stone seems to be cited almost to the exclusion of any other source. For a more balanced (and less US-centric) view of the band, there should be more from other music magazines and critics: Q and NME spring to mind but I am sure there are others. This over-reliance on one source makes the article appear unbalanced. 86.133.244.36 (talk) 08:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Noted; I'll take a look in my spare time and see if I can find some other reputable sources that contain the same information. MelicansMatkin (talk) 00:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

There's two reasons that Rolling Stone is used: (1) as a reliable source to verify information and (2) and the fact that Rolling Stone said something can in itself be notable. Certainly those Rolling Stone references that are used for the 1st reason could have other references added - on the other hand, i suggest more care be taken in addressing (2). Eg, the fact that Rolling Stone called U2 the "band of the 80's" in 1985 is notable in itself. --Merbabu (talk) 06:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

"U2 are a band..."

There is a chance that I'm wrong, and all my time editing on WP I've been doing the wrong thing, but should it be that U2 "is" a band? The subject and object of the sentence are both not in plural form so I don't see why the predicate is. I am assuming if it went through the FA process, it should be pretty throughly copyproofed... 67.188.39.143 (talk) 03:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

yes that jumped out at me to. Assuming its correct, it certainly is awkward and sounds odd. Dman727 (talk) 03:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I think someone answered this during the talk Talk:U2/archive4 number 18, it confused me to. SADADS (talk) 03:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This matter is explained in the hidden comment at the beginning of the article. Please read it. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It should at least be consistent. The next sentence should be "The band consist of..." 04:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Baller McGee (talk)

I think the proper names of organizations are often referred to with plural verb agreement in British English.Synchronism (talk) 06:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Numerous bands/company/groups are often described by is and are. Why? For example, for koRn Wiki starts "koRn 'is' a...but for U2 (Today's featured article) 'are' is used. It puts all of us in a confusion wheather to use are or an is before bands. We have to clarify this to one rule. Note 'is' is more used than 'are' in most cases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoRngear (talk • contribs) 09:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

"U2 are" is British English. See hidden comment at the top of the article. GregorB (talk) 09:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't. Such as statement is the ridiculous acceptance that common usage makes things correct. (Vide four wickets in four balls now being accepted as a double hat trick on Wikipedia.) "U2" is the name of the band, and is a collective singular. In the last sentence, would ANYBODY actually say "U2" are the name of the band and are a collective singular"? Wikipedia does not deserve to have its reputation sullied by poor grammar on the front page. 11:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

U2 is a rock bank not U2 are a rock band —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.228.88 (talk) 10:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

British English speakers tend to follow collective nouns with plural verb forms, but I suspect many British English teachers would not defend that usage as being strictly correct. Eric ^talk 14:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, even if "U2 are" is grammatically correct, I find no reason to use this. UK English is UK English for UK people; American English is far more generic and should be the default for internet resources. If you believe this thought to be arrogant or ethnocentric you are just being blind; Americans and American English make up the largest chunk of internet communication, and American English is the expected language to be used. Regardless of this fact, conjugating a verb following a collective singular as if it is plural is just wrong in any form of English. Most people make grammatical errors when communicating; does this mean that we should apply all of the common ones to Wikipedia? Andrew Nutter  Talk | Contribs  14:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR (Emphasis is mine) - The English Wikipedia does not prefer any major national variety of the language. No variety is more correct than another. Editors should recognize that the differences between the varieties are superficial... An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation... If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. U2 are from Ireland, a country that is part of the United Kingdom and that uses British English. Topics about America uses American English, topics about Canada use Canadian English, etc. Please tell me where on Wikipedia (aside from your opinion) it says "American English is the expected language to be used". MelicansMatkin (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The Republic of Ireland is not part of the United Kingdom. Just thought that needed clearing up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.77.187.221 (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, yoiu're right about that; don't know how I mixed that up with Northern Ireland =S. But still, to quote again from ENGVAR: If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. MelicansMatkin (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Even though the Republic of Ireland isn't part of the UK, it uses Commonwealth/British English spellings. The arrogance of some of the contributors above in stating that American English grammatical constructions should be the default in Wikipedia is ... well, no great surprise, considering. There's a whole other world out there guys - try exploring some of it rather than demanding it conform to your standards and expectations. 86.148.50.58 (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm another person who came here because the article is on the front page, and the first two sentences are simply jarring. "U2 are a rock band from Dublin, Ireland. The band consists…" How can it so casually flip from plural to singular, while talking about the same entity? See, I wouldn't expect to see "U2 are a rock band" any more than I would expect to see "The band consist". But, it seems that this argumenting has happened before. I'm not entirely convinced that the lead represents British English, but I suppose I'm not in a position to say otherwise. A cursory search of BBC online shows how wrong I was. God save the Queen! U2 are great, and the band is terrific! -BaronGrackle (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It didn't; looking through the page history I see an IP earlier changed it to read that way. Thanks for catching, I'll restore. MelicansMatkin (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have any evidence to support the view that "U2 are" is British English? I speak British English and this doesn't chime with me as being true at all. I've just checked the "Oxford Guide to English Usage" and it appears to be unequivocal that "U2 are" is wrong, and "U2 is" correct. I strongly suspect that people who are claiming otherwise really mean "this is what I usually hear from British English speakers" which is quite a different thing - but I'd be more than happy to be proved wrong here. SP-KP (talk) 17:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

All I know is, when I type a search for U2 on British media (mostly BBC), I find that the plural form is pretty much exclusively used. As an American, I'm not ready to challenge the majority of U.K. media sources as not being representative of British English. :-) -BaronGrackle (talk) 17:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure the BBC are right. But I'd be less confused if BBC didn't tell me that ""BBC Parliament is shown". Those clever Brits—they can tell when "U2 are" and "Parliament is" correct. Cheers - Williamborg (Bill) 19:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Since U2 is an Irish band, not a British one, I decided to see which verb the Irish Times uses. The answer: are. So I think we should stick with that usage. Academic38 (talk) 21:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not too familiar with usage conventions for names of rock bands. Would it be agreeable to say 'U2 is the name of a rock band', at least in the lead? SlowJog (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

While it may be accurate, it certainly looks inaccurate and pulled me into the grammar as opposed to the content of the article. Surely this can be reworded in an accurate but non oddball way. Dman727 (talk) 21:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

How would you suggest this be done, keeping in mind that the rest of the article also uses British English? MelicansMatkin (talk) 21:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

How? Correct the article. I cannot believe that "U2 are" is correct English anywhere. It looks like the featured article was written by some highschool dropouts. Siggerty (talk) 23:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

U2 are a rock band? Please go. The Rolling Stones are eh is plural. Wikistar lost. -DePiep (talk) 21:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Huh? British English says to use 'are' in such cases. Americans would use is. Hence the difference between Oasis and U2 and an article on an American band. Enigma^msg 22:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the BBC uses (or is that use?) "U2 are" says more about declining standards than what is correct British English, if you ask me. I feel a letter to Barry Took coming on. Except he am dead, weren't he? SP-KP (talk) 22:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This wiki writes: "The Beatles were a rock and pop band from Liverpool etc". Plural, not "was". -DePiep (talk) 22:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:CIRCULAR. I said earlier that we need evidence to support the view that "U2 are" is British English, and I haven't yet seen any. SP-KP (talk) 23:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I changed "the band consist" to "the band consists". While proper nouns may be referred to in the third person plural in BrEng, "the band" is a common noun and should follow English conventions. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

the Rolling Stones are a band- U2 is a band- U2 is a plural noun but only in that it has members which make up a unit which is if it were a pplural object that would superced the unit facility Masterknighted (talk) 04:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The Who are a rock band The Beatles are a Rock Band Steppenwolf is a Rock Band R.E.M is a Rock Band Lynyrd Skynyrd is a Rock Band the current usage is not a variance it is a fantasy this editor will leave it be because the quorom has has decided that way but this poster strongly disagreesMasterknighted (talk) 07:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Oasis (band), Blue October UK, Hijak_Oscar, etc. Lynyrd Skynyrd is an American band, so naturally... Enigma^msg 07:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"this editor will leave it be" Well, you certainly put the lie to that statement. Enigma^msg 16:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey Guys, do you think that The Official Website of the British Monarchy might know how to use British English? Because hey, look at some of the sentences I found on www.royal.gov.uk: "Every year the Royal Family as a whole carries out over 2,000 official engagements throughout the UK and worldwide." "The Royal Household aims to provide exceptional support and advice to The Queen, enabling her to serve the nation and its people." It's quite obvious that "U2 are a band" is not proper British English, let's change it please! Siggerty (talk) 03:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this might be one of the dumbest disputes I've seen on Wiki yet. "U2 ARE" might be pedantically correct, but its awkward, looks incorrect and sounds like it was written by a 9 year old who hasn't yet mastered cursive. "U2 is" is apparently wrong, even though that is the syntax used by virtually everyone who doesn't write encyclopedias and sounds natural because..well it is. Perhaps an entirely different phrase can be used??? One that sounds natural and isn't pedantically incorrect by some obscure measure? Dman727 (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I let it be Enigma until I realized that it could be both rather than one or the otherMasterknighted (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Temporary protection

"U2 are and or is..."? I'm sorry, but that is just ridiculous. From reading the above discussion over again, it seems to me that the majority accept "U2 are" as being correct. MelicansMatkin (talk) 15:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I didn't believe that comment so I counted. There are 8 people who want it to be "are", two of which were rather weak in their support. 9 people want it to be "is", and I can't tell if one of the unsigned comments is actually two separate comments (which would make it 10 people). Everyone else made comments that did not express an opinion. But seriously, don't you realize you're against the Queen on this one? For shame! Siggerty (talk) 02:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Not against the Queen, but for what the sources and the British English language provide. MelicansMatkin (talk) 03:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This isn't rocket science - British English speakers most commonly accept "U2 are a band"; American English most commonly accept "U2 is a band." It's not that one is "technically correct" and the other is "colloquial" or whatever. It's just two different standards. It's like "center" and "centre." A poll is not going to resolve the issue either - that will just end up as a survey of the number of British English vs. American English readers happen to have seen it.

Both sides need to stop claiming that their alternative "sounds natural." It does sound natural, probably, to you, because that's how people you know talk. It's nothing deep or meaningful - it's just preferred usage by two groups of people.

To speak to the "The Rolling Stones are" vs. "U2 is" this is how American English uses it. It looks to the syntax of the word - "Stones" is plural, so it uses "are" where as "U2", collect or common in meaning though it may be, does not appear explicitly plural, and so uses "is." But again, this is just a difference in usage across dialects. I would think Wikipedia would have a more general policy about these sorts of questions? 99.141.26.119 (talk) 14:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC) 99.141.26.119 (talk) 14:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Check out Tampa Bay Lightning Minnesota Wild (two NHL hockey clubs) both use 'are'.... Perhaps it is a Canadian thing, but to me (a Canadian) are sounds right, and that may be because of our use of a more British version of English. I am perfectly happy with U2 are. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm a Canadian too and I use both Canadian and British English. "U2 are" sounds correct to me too because of this, though as the IP above noted this is because it is the dialect we are used too. Since the rest of the article uses British English, I see no need to change "U2 are" to the American English equivalent, "U2 is". WP:ENGVAR. That "U2 are" sounds awkward to some people is, I think, primarily because they are used to using American English instead of British English. Changing it to "U2 is" because some people are used to their version of English instead of the one used throughout the article would just be plain moronic. MelicansMatkin (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not as simple as American v British English here. In AmE, it's simple - you use "is". In BrE, it is accepted practice to use "is" when emphasizing the group as a unit, and "are" when talking about the individuals that make up the group. So U2 is the greatest rock band in the world, but U2 are not all native Irishmen. See Fowler's Modern English Usage for a more detailed explanation. My interpretation would be that "U2 are a band" is pushing it - to me U2 are musicians, but U2 is a band... CupawnTae (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, so Fowler's AND OED both agree on this. Given that IS is acceptable in both American English AND in British English, and that ARE is not acceptable in American English and only (doubtfully) acceptable in British English, why are we still debating this? SP-KP (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, this usage is not limited to bands. See also Sunderland A.F.C. and Ipswich Town F.C. (both FAs). On the other hand, see Derry City F.C. and Dover Athletic F.C. Bottom line: both forms are accepted. The Manual of Style says that if the original form is acceptable, there is no reason to change the style without a substantial reason (besides style). Dabomb87 (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly; per the MOS and WP:ENGVAR there is no need or reason to change. MelicansMatkin (talk) 05:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:CIRCULAR your last point is invalid. I thought you would know that. Are you just trolling here? Siggerty (talk) 00:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly invalid; we're not using other Wikipedia articles as a source of information for this article, we're looking to see how other articles that use British English are structured in an attempt to clear up whether to use "are" or "is". Besides, other sources outside of the Project (such as the BBC) have already been given that uphold the same point of view. And given my contributions to the Project (and this article in particular) in the past, and the fact that I was the one who requested full protection in an attempt to solve this dispute, I seriously doubt that anyone could consider my comments or edits to be "trolling". Given that your only five edits in the last 22 months have been to this talk page, and all of those since the article was featured on the main page... You might want to think about what you say before you accuse another editor of something like trolling. Now if you wouldn't mind getting back to the discussion instead of throwing out accusations of trolling? MelicansMatkin (talk) 03:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I feel that saying you're trolling this discussion is somewhat justified. Using other pages on Wikipedia to prove your point is against the spirit of that policy if not the letter, and I think you're trying to take advantage of that. You're using logical fallacy and your own opinion as 'proof' that your point of view is correct so I don't think you're above sleight-of-policy. You ignore points brought up by others, and declare that you have a majority supporting your POV when that's clearly not the case. At the very least this is unprofessional, bad faith conduct. I don't believe you're interested in any kind of unbiased discussion on the matter either. During the time of your requested protection, CupawnTae and SP-KP made points which you ignored; after Dabomb87 chimed in to support your view you leapt in with both feet to agree and declare the matter closed (again).

If you would like to join the discussion instead of ducking valid points, then please first explain why you insist on using the straw-man argument that "U2 is a band" is solely American English usage and therefore not acceptable for this article, even after it's been pointed out to you that it is valid British English usage as well. Siggerty (talk) 02:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Please explain what policy I am going against by looking at the structure of other articles that use British English to see what the second word in this one should be. Note that I never "declared" that there was a majority supporting usage of "U2 are"; I said It seems to me, which was a rough guestimate I made by taking a quick look at the comments made by people who weren't just saying the equivalent of "It looks/sounds wrong/is stupid", but actually provided sources to justify their point of view. I've already explained my points multiple times, and this has been backed up by sources provided by other editors. I see no need to mention them again, but apparently you don't feel the same way. So here we go.

1. This article uses British English;
2. WP:ENGVAR states "The English Wikipedia does not prefer any major national variety of the language. No variety is more correct than another. Editors should recognize that the differences between the varieties are superficial";
3. U2 are an Irish band, and Ireland uses British English;
4. Searches on British media (which use British English) and Irish media reveal a clear preference for "U2 are";
5. Looking at other articles on bands from nations that use British English (such as Oasis, Blue October UK, The Beatles, Queen, Pink Floyd, The Verve, etc.) for examples on their wording show a predominant usage of "are";
6. The Manual of Style states that (to quote Dabomb87) if the original form is acceptable, there is no reason to change the style without a substantial reason; a preference for style does not count;
7. Formal and Notional agreement; given that this is part of a Wikipedia policy (which is what we should be adhering to), I'm pretty sure that at least some thought and research went into it since it's, you know, a policy;
8. There remains no consensus for a change.

Even if "is" may be acceptable in both dialects (and I have seen no direct source saying so), the Manual of Style states that there is no need to change from one to another without a proper good reason. "Are" is acceptable in British English. This article uses British English. Therefore "are" is acceptable for use in this article, and as there is no substantial reason to change (again, style is not included in this) why bother with it? And please show me where I ever stated that the discussion is "closed" multiple times (exact diffs that explicitly show me saying "this discussion is over" or "this discussion is closed" would be welcomed). MelicansMatkin (talk) 19:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

No you haven’t explicitly stated any such thing, but I think you're trying to imply a consensus in your favour. I’m fine with retracting the statement though.

The only numbered points I disagree with are 4, 5, and 7. I find it suspicious that you readily accept usage by whatever unsourced media you’re referring to, and at the same time dismiss the usage at www.royal.gov.uk. In my view the British Monarchy is a higher authority than the BBC or whatever zine you chose to look up on Google regarding British English usage. Trust me, they've been doing it for a LOT longer. The IP guy up above said it best when he complained about “the ridiculous acceptance that common usage makes things correct”.

Point 5... I really don’t understand how you can’t see that using other articles on Wikipedia to support your point of view does not contradict WP:CIRCULAR. Whether statement of fact or grammatical usage, if your source is another Wikipedia editor it is not usable. Spirit of the law plain and simple.

Point 7... Excuse me, that’s not a policy. It is an article, and one in need of improvement according to the box at the top. No wonder I have to question whether you’re trolling this discussion.

Now, about Point 6. This is really the only leg you have left to stand on, and I do agree with ENGVAR that if two versions are correct there’s no reason to switch from the original usage. But go over to this page here, and take a look at how this article was ORIGINALLY written...

Now we are all in agreement that since the wording has been changed from the original article without substantial reason, it should be changed back to the original wording. Per WP:MOS Siggerty (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The website for the British Monarchy contains no info on U2; therefore it's not a source on what the band should be referred as. You are completely misinterpreting what WP:CIRCULAR is about, and your argument using it is invalid. You cannot use a Wikipedia article as a source for another Wikipedia article. So I could not use All I Want Is You (U2 song) to source a statement in U2 about the Lovetown Tour, for example. However, looking at the structure of other articles and comparing them in a discussion on a talk page about an issue does not violate CIRCULAR. You might as well say that referring to WP:RS in a discussion or as a rationale for a revert violates CIRCULAR since it too is technically an article. If you still can't see that distinction then I'm afraid I can't help you any further on that. Given that your only contributions to Wikipedia since July 2007 have been to this talk page since it appeared on the main page, I really have to question why you have a sudden interest in this article and this article alone.

Unsourced media? Lets try the following. A quick search of RTE (Irish media) shows over 150 results for "U2 are" compared to just 15 for "U2 is". Likewise a search of BBC.co.uk (British media) shows over 260 hits for "U2 are" compared to 65 for "U2 is". A search of SPIN (ironically an American publication) shows 6 hits for "U2 is", and a whopping 329 results for "U2 are". NME has 196 hits for "U2 are" and 102 for "U2 is". MOJO shows 106 results for "U2 are" to only 3 for "U2 is" (only one of which actually uses "is" as a collective noun). Is that enough sourced material for you? I think you can see now that, as I said above, searches of British and Irish media show a preference for "U2 are".

In regards to your last point, please see WP:CCC. The consensus changed from the first draft of the article to what it is now, and you have not yet shown that consensus has swung the other way again (especially as we are now the only two people discussing this). You are correct that my link was not a policy; my apologies for the mkistake, I initially thought it was part of WP:ENGVAR. However, if you look at the sources that back up the section I linked to (specifically the text source Peters, Pam (2004). The Cambridge Guide to English Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-62181-X), you can see that my point still stands.

If you're interested in reading similar debates, you should check out Talk:Orange (colour) ;-) MelicansMatkin (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I am British, speak British English, have been brought up on good grammar by reference to Fowler's Modern English Usage and others, and will never, ever, say "U2 are a rock band." To misquote Terry Pratchett, "Just because it's now done in a certain way does not mean it is right. A hundred million dead people can't be wrong." If we allow this kind of uninformed rule by consensus, we accept that Wikipedia can be wholly responsible for the acceptance of that which is wrong. The availability of incorrect information to generations of people to come, simply by the consensus of those who are not as well informed as they think they are cannot be correct. WillE (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It's been pointed out numerous times above that both are correct, but per Wikipedia policy there is no need or reason to change it. You are reviving a now old debate and arguing over a single word. Get over it. MelicansMatkin (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I take it that user:Andrew Nutter and others who share his opinion forget that British/Commonwealth English is used in countries big and small around the world including, uh, CANADA and AUSTRALIA...you know, those two pretty large continental countries...ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 06:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Really - aren't there better ways that people can spend their wikipedia time? There are so many more pressing issues or shortfalls that need our attention. Move on. --Merbabu (talk) 07:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Protection?

Someone explain to me why this article is not protected. There is alot of vandalism that goes on here. I my opinion, all featured articles should have this.

Articles hosted on the main page as "Today's Featured Article" are almost never protected as a matter of principle. The only two exceptions I can think of are Bulbasaur and 4chan. MelicansMatkin (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Lock Needed

A lock on this article is currently needed, in my opinion, this article continues to be vandalized, and some person added gobbledy-goop which I had to erase. The top part of the article is now erased thanks to the person who typed the junk that I had to get rid of. Oh joy.

Edit: Thankfully, someone looked into reverting the edits. Kudos! 66.128.244.231 (talk) 21:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I semi-protected the page for 45 minutes. If it was not Today's Featured Article, believe me, I would protect for a lot longer. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how that helps, though. It will continue to be hit repeatedly as soon as protection expires. Current FAs are simply impossible to maintain without protection, but it's always been policy not to protect. Oh well. Enigma^msg 22:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Just coming here to report the same thing. There has been an endless stream of new user accounts with gibberish usernames. Those have been, almost without fail, created for the sole puropse of vandalizing this article. Most of the edits are repeating characters and the edit summaries are seemingly legit. So, any admins on new user patrol should block gibberish usernames without warning at this point. Not all of the edits ahve been from accounts so named, but the edit summaries and vandalism are similar. I hate these sorts of coordinated attacks. These guys are too stupid to be clever and way too stupid to contribute anything worthwhile. Kudos to those who bought this arrticle to FA status. It's a work of art. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment I'm still trawling through the article history and finding vandalism that was not reverted. Oh, the joys of being on the main page... Enigma^msg 06:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I just compared the current version to the last version on May 25 (over 220 edits!), and it seems like all the vandalism has been removed. I can't see any in the differences displayed anyways. A massive thanks to everyone who worked to keep it clear from vandalism yesterday. MelicansMatkin (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I sorted through all the edits late last night. I found a bunch of IPs had vandalized other articles as well, so I caught that. Enigma^msg 20:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

U2 are not British

The first sentence of the article reads "U2 are a Irish & British rock band formed in Dublin, Ireland." This is incorrect ... U2 are Irish. None of the members are British. And none reside in Britain. The sentence should read "U2 are an Irish rock band formed in Dublin, Ireland." I'll leave the discussion of whether the word band is singular or plural to others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueteeshirt (talk • contribs) 19:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, both The Edge and Adam Clayton were born in England and currently hold British passports. But regardless, the band have always identified themselves as being an Irish band. Don't know when the above change you cited above was made, but it has been corrected back to the original form. MelicansMatkin (talk) 20:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Edge is technically Welsh but moved to Ireland at age 1. Adam Clayton was born in England but moved to Ireland at age 6. Bono and Larry are both entirely Irish. All four members of U2 have lived consecutively in Ireland since 1967. Claiming U2 to be British is like claiming Oasis to be Irish. It just does not fit. All four members of U2 grew up in Ireland, two are completely irish, and all four identify themselves as Irish. Nationality is about experience and culture. Their's is Irish.

What about "U2 IS.....?" Simple grammar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.92.156.222 (talk) 03:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Would the American population please take note of the fact that U2 'are' an Irish band, and therefore should not be written about in the different form of english to which 'is' would be used for collective nouns, i.e. English (USA). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dokerz (talk • contribs) 17:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Changed it to Irish. This is one of the only biographical articles of music bands that leaves out the nationality on the first sentence. The default is now Irish. They cannot be classed as 'Irish/British' (too conflicting and doesn't flow with the article), 'Welsh' (The Edge, born in Wales is Welsh-born, not Welsh and he's the option of dual citizenship but chooses to be identified as Irish) or 'English' (Adam Claytondoes have an English passport, but he grew up in Ireland and is the unchallenged minority in the band; which leaves 'Anglo-Irish' frivolous and un-needed). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Sheridan (talk • contribs) 18:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar to everyone

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I'd love to be able to give this barnstar personally to every single editor who kept this article free of vandalism while it was featured on the main page, but there are simply far too many people for me to do that. So instead I'll post it here in the hopes that everyone who reverted the vandalism will see it. Thank you to everyone who did such an amazing job. MelicansMatkin (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

No Line on the Horizon...

When the article becomes unlocked, if ever, I want to add info on the new album and how it's sales weren't as expected. Even now it is at #56 after only 12 weeks. Something like:

"The album, which was released March 3, sold only 484,000 copies in its first week. U2's last disc, 2004's How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb, sold 840,000 units in week 1. Reasons may have been the lack of a hit single; "Get On Your Boots," only peaked at 37 on the Billboard Hot 100."

I'm not a U2 hater, but I think it should be mentioned that the album didn't do as well as other U2 releases, or as well as expected. Comments? James Dylan (talk) 19:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

You'd need citations for it, but keep in mind that the first week sales for HTDAAB were an anomaly for U2. That album was released at a time where record sales are among the highest of the year. HTDAAB sales discounted, NLOTH actually has the highest first-week sales of any U2 album (source); more than The Joshua Tree, Achtung Baby, and even All That You can't Leave Behind. If anything, sales of NLOTH were exactly as expected, if not higher. MelicansMatkin (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

U2's decision to move their financial business to Amsterdam

Since this is a page about U2 the band, a section discussing their recent decision to move their financial operations to Amsterdam - thus avoiding paying tax on royalites in their native Ireland - should be included in a section in this article.

Theblako (talk) 12:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It's already discussed. Did you read the article? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 13:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I hardly think the issue of U2's deliberate tax avoidance can be justifiably described as 'discussed' when there's only one sentence mentioning it. Granted, there's a link to further reading on the subject. However, considering the amount of space devoted in this article to the band's activism/campaigns, I think it's only fair that this particular topic should be expanded on with further detail, such as U2's justification for moving their operations, the tax exemption status the band enjoyed previously etc. Theblako (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, there wasn't as much information in there as I thought; I was thinking of a different page. Added a bit more information with sources. Considering the length the article is already at and the amount of detail put into the other mentions of campaigning, I don't think there's really any need to expand it further beyond what it now is. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 19:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Firstly: Expanding the topic on another page, such as Bono's individual entry, would be pointless given that it was U2 the group who moved their business operations to the Netherlands, thus intentionally avoiding the payment of tax.

Secondly: This move by U2 is not a 'campaign', it was a deliberate and conscious action, and it has received widespread coverage in the Irish media and been condemned by many charitable groups. This page should only concern the history and career of U2 as a group; whether that history is perceived as positive or negative. Considering the amount of space dedicated in this article to U2's 'positive' work, outside the music sphere, I think it's only fair that a proportional amount should be allocated to criticism the band receive relating to their career, which in this case is the point. Otherwise, it may start to resemble nothing other than a fan page, where any justified criticism the group receive is ignored or mentioned fleetingly. Theblako (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Woah, where's all this negativity coming from? I expanded the information as you requested, and the mention of the Bono article was because the issue is discussed there as well. I wasn't proposing we discuss it there instead, I was saying that I confused the two articles since they both mention the same information. I also wasn't calling the move a "campaign". I apologize if I worded it badly, but what I meant was given the amount of detail included on the individual "campaigning" acts, the information on the tax move is now propotional to that. If you read your own comments above, you'll see that you discussed "activism/campaigns" before I did, so my choice of words was in reference to that.

This article covers over 30 years of history, and is already more than double the recommended article length of 40 000 bytes. The amount of information regarding the tax move is now in proportion to the rest of that history. I really don't see what the big deal about it is. I addressed all of the points you requested above when I expanded it, so I don't see where this sudden outburst is coming from. And please, when you're taking part in a discussion indent your comments so that it becomes more readable. You can do this by using the colon key. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 19:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you for expanding the point. Secondly, I mentioned 'campaigns/activism' because it is within that section that the subject we're discussing was mentioned previously. Thirdly, this isn't a sudden 'outburst' or 'negativity' - precisely how stating a blatant, proven fact concerning U2's business dealings can be considered as 'negative' is beyond me. Furthermore, the high levels of criticism U2 have received, from a vast number of media commentators, due to their tax affairs over the past year can hardly be described as a 'sudden outburst' can it? Would it be better to sugar-coat their deliberate avoidance of tax payment in order to appease any U2 fans reading the article? Or is it better to state the facts pertaining to the matter? Personally, I don't have any in depth knowledge of, or opinion on, U2's music and therefore am not qualified to amend any of this article - I'll leave that to U2 fans, such as yourself. However, when I do read an article, which is rated as 'featured', it should provide, amongst other things, a well balanced and factual history of the subject matter and not skirt over, as this article did previously, one of the most controversial decisions the band ever made. Theblako (talk) 13:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, just saw this response now. I apologize for stating that your comment seemed negative; you'd brought up a point, which I addressed, and it seemed when reading your response that the changes that had been made weren't enough for whatever reason, and so I thought the change of tone was just deviating into an angry rant. Again, I apologize for misunderstanding the tone of your comment. There is no sugar-coating of the topic, and it's certainly not a fan page; it would never have become featured if it was not written in a neautral point of view. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 05:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

Would a criticism section benefit this article? Some pretty harsh words came from David Byrne the other day, which can be found here. I know they aren't the most popular group in the music sphere, and I'm sure there's more wiki-worthy criticism out there... SweetNightmares (talk) 05:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No, per WP:NPOV. Criticism sections are by their very nature not neutral, and so they are being phased out of all articles with the relevant text being integrated into the rest of the article. And really, beyond "I don't like their music" and "they're old", what criticism is there regarding U2 the band (not including the tax move since that's already covered in the article)? Everything I can think of is aimed squarely at Bono (whose article already contains a whack of it). I don't even see what Byrne is critiquing in there. Looks more like a rant because his Letterman spot was switched to me (which he basically admits to in the last line). MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 05:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

"U2 are a rock band," This is the first Wikipedia page i have seen where the nationality of the group was not specified. Can someone please put in "U2 are an Irish rock band". For such a massive band, they aren't even certified a nationality on the biggest Encyclopedia in the world. Come on lads, get your act together. But all in all its a pretty solid article User:Jamie Kelly

There's actually been a pretty comprehensive discussion on this before; it's somewhere in the archives, but the eventual consensus was to not specify their nationality. I can't remember why, you'd have to check the archives. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Found it, from August 2006 (they may be more recent ones, or older, I just scanned through the tables of contents). It looks like the point of contention was the fact that two members, The Edge and Adam Clayton, were born in the UK. Its an interesting thing to bring up though. Deserted Cities 02:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Who cares? There's nothing wrong either way. That two members were born in the UK is irrelevant though to this question - both have grown up in Ireland, continue to live in Ireland and identify as Irish. Further, all sources on the band itself as an entity overwhelmingly refer to it as an Irish band. --Merbabu (talk) 03:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I totally agree with you. I was just answering the question posed by Jamie Kelly. Deserted Cities 03:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I really don't understand this then, if you were to look up Bono on Wikipedia you will clearly see it saying that he is the lead singer of the Irish rock band U2. So if they can specify that U2 is Irish on another page then why not on their own page!? That seems a little hypocritical, there has to be a compromise at some point User:Jamie Kelly —Preceding undated comment added 21:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC).

Second Homecoming

I just redirected the article U2 second homecoming, about an album they released, to this article. I noticed that there wasn't any coverage of it here so I'm wondering if someone can write one in. I realise this is a featured article so I'm hesitant to write in myself because I have no specialized knowledge about the band or where this album would best fit in here. ThemFromSpace 19:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no such album, though it may refer to The Unforgettable Fire remasters being released later this year. They certainly don't have a new title though. I'm inclined to guess that the article is a hoax. Thanks for catching, but it should probably be deleted instead of redirected. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 19:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Huh, looking at it again it seems more like an article made about a bootleg release. They do occassionally find their way into record stores, and may even be illegally distributed by record companies looking to make a profit. Definitely not a legitimate release either way. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 19:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Name

So -- are they named after the spyplane? Maikel (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

No; I don't have the exact passage in front of me, but I recall that they only found out about the plane after they had chosen their name. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The first official U2 biography, the unforgettable fire (Eamonn Dunphy) stated that Steve Averill, a punk Rock musician they knew in Dublin, gave them the name. He had known about the U2 spyplane and the U2 incident, but the band themselves didn't know about it Laurencedunne (talk) 17:11 12 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.200.27.9 (talk)

images resized

MoS no longer encourages default thumbnail size, which is usually wastefully tiny. I've resized some of them. I wonder whether someone could review arrangements and locations: couple of instances where they might be spaced better. Also, one sound file opposite a block quote was squeezing text anyway.

Great article. Tony (talk) 11:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Well.... THere are a few issues here. Firstly this article, I think the pics were a bit too big (270 to 300), and inconsistent. So, I made them all the same size and in the spirit of compromise shrunk them marginally to 250px. And, it seems to have improved the spacing problem a bit. How about 220px??

As for the MOS changes, if pics are going to be forced, I'd rather see them at say 220px. Ideal would be default size at 220 or 250 but I admit I don't know anything about the technical issues or the discussions on the MOS change that (presumably) would have taken place. regards --Merbabu (talk) 12:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Cats by album

I started creating categories for each U2 album. I thought it very useful. I have since stopped due to a current category for deletion. I guess this is as good as any place to get regular U2 editors to comment in support or against the proposed cats. Here. regards --Merbabu (talk) 04:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

now deleted. --Merbabu (talk) 03:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

U2 Album Sales information

The information on U2 Album sales is outdated (145 Million) and was never really correct to begin with. It was based on a statement from LiveNation in March 2008 stating that U2's eleven studio albums had sold over 140 Million albums. This figure was repeated by David Letterman when he interviewed U2 the week of NLOTH's release. It appears to be a compilation of all U2 sales for studio albums prior to March 2008, and does not include the red rocks album (which was not a studio album), Wide Awake in America or NLOTH, nor does it include legacy album sales in the last year and a half.

worldwidealbums.net keeps lists of shipments by album by country and has estyimated U2's total sales as follows as of October 2009:

The Joshua Tree: 28,500,000
Best of 1980-1990: 18,500,000
Achtung, Baby: 17,500,000
Rattle and Hum: 14,500,000
All that you can't leave Behind: 12,000,000
Live Under a Blood Red Sky: 10,000,000
How to Dismantle an atomic bomb: 10,000,000
War: 10,000,000
The Unforgettable Fire: 8,500,000
Zooropa: 7,500,000
Best of 1990-2000: 7,500,000
Pop: 7,000,000
U218: 5,000,000
Boy: 4,000,000
October: 3,500,000
No Line On The Horizon: 3,500,000
Wide Awake in America: 2,500,000

GRAND TOTAL: 170,000,000

Does anyone have any reason to believe/disbelive this information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.200.27.7 (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The article says "over 145 million". 170 million is "over 145 million" so the article is not incorrect at all. Sales figures breakdowns are kept in the U2 discography article. They are not for the main U2 article. Besides that, the website in question labels it as "estimation"; Wikipedia deals only with facts, not speculation. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 21:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Worldwidealbums.net mirrors the United World Chart, one of the original reasons that WP:BADCHARTS was created. Information from there cannot be relied upon.—Kww(talk) 21:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

One thing that has long been missing, is mention of this figure in the article text. Yes, it's in the lead, but there shouldn't really be info in the lead that's not in the text. see WP:LEAD. Any suggestions on how and where? cheers --Merbabu (talk) 03:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Bono's Biography on the Spiderman website (http://spidermanonbroadway.marvel.com/ lists U2's album sales as 170 million BEFORE the release of NLOTH. I think that's authoritative enough to make 170 million a conservative figure and demonstrate that 140/145 million is out of date.--Laurencedunne (Talk) 16:32, 6 Janaury 2010 (UTC)

U2 Singles Sales

U2's sales statistics are always limited to album sales. Does anyone have any reliable information as to how many singles u2 has shipped over the years. With 35 UK top ten hits and several number ones in most countries abround the world, I would think they have shipped 30-40 million singles. However, I cannot find any statistics on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.200.27.7 (talk) 21:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

U2 song articles infoboxes...

I think this is probably the best page to get some U2 song article discussion going...

I've been removing "extratracklistings" from U2 song articles. In my mind there are two main justifications:

1 - the more popular songs such as "With or Without You" can have up to 4 (even 5) such tracklistings (see this version) which in my mind is overkill, and

2 - there is little point in having one for "One Tree Hill" here when there is no article for "Exit" or "Trip Through Your Wires" (why is the 8th and 10th songs only of particular note?). While I haven't raised this on a discussion page til now, I have been clear in my edit summaries, and I read some support in this comment and this discussion.

The removals I made today were reverted by an editor - who I hope responds here - on the basis (as I understand it), that there is no consensus, and that they disgree with my assertion they are excessive and useless. I note that over the last week or two of my removals, this is the first revert on what I know are watched and edited pages.

Given that almost all U2 song articles are singles, my suggestion is to keep only the infobox tracklisting for the "Singles chronology" - ie, one can indeed click thru the singles without interuption. And I have been editing accordingly. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 02:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

PS - there is also the "U2 singles" nav template at the bottom of the page, and there should be no reason why the article prose - which are the core of a wikipedia article rather than nav boxes and infoboxes - cannot contain mention of and links to album releases that contain the track. --Merbabu (talk) 03:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the other editor that there was not much prior consensus here. I agree with Merbabu that if U2 song articles are mostly singles, there isn't much point to the "extratracklisting" entries, since most of the songs on an album won't have articles. And I think "extratracklisting" entries are totally meaningless for compilation albums, since the sequencing on them is unimportant. However I disagree with the underlying premise that U2 song articles should only be for singles. U2 is not, and never has been, a "singles" band. I would make the case that "Moment of Surrender" is more important than any of the singles released off No Line so far, and that "Ultraviolet (Light My Way)" is more important than "Who's Gonna Ride Your Wild Horses", and that "Bad" is more important than 4/5 of all U2 singles. (Well, "Bad" does have an article, but I'm sure someone's tried to delete it or redirect it along the way.) The Beatles editors and the Dylan editors and the Zep editors and so forth seem to understand that non-singles are quite important, but here it's fallen on deaf ears ... Wasted Time R (talk) 03:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm - you've drawn out a few different issues here, albeit all significant. Let's not cloud them all.

• Firstly you raise the issue of consensus. I don't think anyone would question the right to WP:BEBOLD as it's fundamental - when this boldness is challenged, then we should discuss as I have done here. (ie, WP:BRD).
• Then there is the actual originally intended issue of this section - the extratracklistings on original album articles and compilations (my views above).
• Then there is the issue of what songs should have their own articles. The starting point is that all singles should have their own articles. Then we can assess which non-single songs should also have their own articles. I suggest "Bad" and "Bullet the Blue Sky" at least - and they do have articles. But, can we have this important discussion in another section rather than cloud this one.

cheers --Merbabu (talk) 03:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:BEBOLD and WP:BRD work okay for one article, but I think when changing many articles at once it's better to go for agreement up front. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I would be "the editor" mentioned above who disagrees with the removal of the extra track listings from the infoboxes. I restored the additional track listings on a few of the articles for a few reasons, most notably because the reason for removal was tagged such asthis in most instances.

• 1 - the more popular songs such as "With or Without You" can have up to 4 such track listings because they are included on 4 releases. Inclusion makes known the releases on which the track is available.

I do not agree with the inclusion of a link to the youtube.com video for the songs but an example of the page in such a state is buried deep in the page history somewhere i didn't find.

• 2 - none of the edits that i was in disagreement with included adding mention of additional availability of the track to the prose of the article. Arguing that the preceding and following tracks on an additional release do not have the notability to warrant their own article does not negate the inclusion of the track on said additional release as worth mentioning.

• 3 - The U2 singles template only further serves to direct to other singles, not to any of the albums on which a song, be it a single or not, is available on. One would still have to search every article on the albums in order to gather the availability of the track.

• 4 - The argument to remove the additional track listings could be extended to the removal of additional chronology for releases such as Go Home which have both a video and audio release.

The comment to the excessiveness of infoboxes was generated as part of a on the deletion of U2 album categories. The consensus was to delete the group of categories. The categories served to gather the songs of a particular album. The additional track listing serves to make easily known the albums where a particular song may be found.

Considering our fundamental disagreement the discussion was mutually agreed upon to be moved from our respective talk pages to the talk page of the main U2 article to receive further input. delirious & lost ☯ ^TALK 04:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't single out one edit summary that is not representative of my edit summaries, and then say that it is representative of "most instances" - ie, your "most notable reason" is thus flat-out misleading. Editors can read my contributions for themselves without having you misread them. Anyway, it's better than unreasoned reverts - but this is all beside the point. As for Deliriousandlost's numbered points, to me the first three are essentially the one argument, and I don't understand the fourth...

• 1 - Five tracklistings is excessive for an infobox - it's very long - as WastedTime above alludes to.
• 2 - This is the same point as above really. The listings can then go into the prose.
• 3 - Is this different to the point above?
• 4 - I don't quite understand that point. Could you clarify.

If it is really important to mention in the infobox that, say, I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For can be found on the U218 compilation (note my scepticism), then why not just say "Available on" and then list the releases - why have the preceding and subsequent songs lists - particularly when there is no link to that song? Is the preceding and subsequent song actually important? If it was, then why not list the whole album/s in the infobox?

I still don't get how this would help out a track such as One Tree Hill (song). --Merbabu (talk) 08:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Other examples...

• Zooropa (song) - is it notable to reference Babyface in the infobox?
• White as Snow (song) - info box already lists that it's on NLOTH

--Merbabu (talk) 09:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems more appropriate, rather than delete my post, to just say that since you don't want to seek a consensus that it is not worth my time arguing with you. One other person who has a split-decision on the matter is not an open discussion. If you were putting the track listings into the prose as you say can be done then there would be no great issue. Citing multiple examples wherein i am in agreement with you does not validate where i am in DISagreement with you. delirious & lost ☯ ^TALK 09:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Who says i don't want to seek consensus? I asked above if there was value in including in infoboxes the releases (eg, U218 singles) on which a track might appear. But I don't think it's a great idea, i offered it in a spirit of consensus. --Merbabu (talk) 09:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

PS - does it mean you agree with me on One Tree Hill, Zooropa, and White as Snow? Please advise. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 09:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You ask on 2 of 3 wherein i am somewhat more so in agreement with you if i am thus in agreement. White As Snow & Zooropa.... whatever. If you want to take the time to remove the track listings from those i see no great issue. Though the argument is there that for songs not given a commercial release as a single yet do have their own article it is simply convenient for the reader who is a novice to U2 to have at least one sequence of track listing in the infobox. I do however have issue with One Tree Hill. Considering it is an unlisted (on the sleeve art) bonus track i feel it has great value to include additional track listing for TBo80-90. It is presently not there. The additional track listing for OTH on TJT is a more flexible matter, though i still feel it can have value. Like myself, the first thing many people read on any article is the infobox. It serves as a comprehensive summary of the article more so than the lead paragraph does, be it music or political office or BLP. Literature articles might be an exception to that.

The additional track listing exists as an optional part of the infobox because it can be of value. Summarily deleting them just because they are there is of equal dis-service as it would be to stack each article with every compilation and live release. How would you have felt if i had started adding in track listing for Elevation 2001, Go Home, PopMart, ZooTV, and Vertigo 2005? I do confess the idea had crossed my mind over the summer. I didn't do it because it seemed extreme and a pain to do with negligible value. The objective in bringing this discussion here was to find a consensus on the balance between lack of vs too much information. Some people are sleeping. We should allow them time to weigh in on this. delirious & lost ☯ ^TALK 10:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The infobox tracklisting feature as used here in the U2 articles has never made sense to me. If the purpose is simply to show what albums a song is contained on, as mentioned above a different kind of listing mechanism that doesn't involve threading album song sequences could be used. If the purpose is to allow threaded navigation between the songs on an album, then this only makes sense if all or almost all of the album's songs have articles. By Merbabu's absolutist definition, this can never happen for U2 (because, as we all know, "Running to Stand Still" is not nearly as important as "A Celebration", "Mofo", and "Original of the Species" ... this way lies insanity ... but I digress). An alternative is what some other artists' articles use, which is to have the infobox list all the songs on the album. An example is the infobox for the White Album songs, such as "Martha My Dear". (And none of the White Album songs were ever released as singles! They're all "non-notable"! Merbabu I will pay you to try to redirect all of those articles, just to see how you fare with the Beatles editors :-) But I digress again.) This approach is better when there are songs without articles, because you can still navigate. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

If you want all U2 songs to have articles then you need to take it to WP:SONGS - not me. If they let you create Running To Stand Still, then Y24Krazyjoker can unilaterally remove your blurry underexposed flash-from-the-back-of-the-arena photo of the Vertigo performance that you can explain (as no one can see it) how it most encyclopedically shows edge playing keyboards. ;-) sorry - couldn't help myself. --Merbabu (talk) 12:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, the U2 articles do manage to generate their share of drama, don't they! :-) Wasted Time R (talk) 12:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Is the question of importance or is it of notability? NSONGS states - and I'm just paraphrasing here - that if a song isn't a single (that charted), it should only be worthy of an article if there is enough developmental information about the song available. This is why songs such as "Zooropa" and "White as Snow" have articles, and "Drowning Man" and "Slug" do not. But that's not to say that articles that do not exist now can't exist in the future. Probably all of the tracks from No Line on the Horizon have enough developmental information from sources spread throughout the album article for song articles to be created. It's just a matter of actually creating them. Now a song such as "A Sort of Homecoming" probably has the potential for an article, the information just needs to be found from old offline sources. If these articles are created, it will probably make the "extra tracklistings" in the infobox more worthwhile than they are at present.

And to get back to the infobox matter, for me it is a simple situation. If the song was released on just one album, such as "White as Snow" then use the album tracklisting. If the song was released as a single then use the Singles and the album tracklisting. If the song was released as a single and later re-released on several compilations... that is when it reaches overkill, I think. Anything more than the first album and the single is too much. A quick browse of some song articles shows that compilation information is generally present in the article, usually in the Composition section with a similar wording to "the song was later included on A in A1, B in B1, and C in C1." MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 15:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with MelicansMatkin. It's too difficult to make a judgment call about what tracklistings are appropriate for each and every song. The best solution I see is having tracklistings for the single releases and album tracklisting. The order of release for those 2 items is critical to the band's work being understood. The order that songs are in for concert films and compilation albums is just not that important. Since U2 seems to re-release songs on many different works, this is an important issue to solve to resolve a future concern. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Another alternative solution would be to simply use the templates that were created some time ago. In, say, "Who's Gonna Ride Your Wild Horses", instad of having the extra tracklisting in addition to the singles chronology, just use {{Achtung Baby Track Listing}} at the bottom of the article, above {{U2 singles}}. It removes the information from the infobox so it doesn't look too cluttered or long, and contains the full tracklisting in a small size for those who are interested (assuming that they read the article all the way through) with the other songs that have articles all linked for them, so they don't necessarily have to navigate to the album page if they are that lazy but want to read them. Templates exist for every album with the exceptions of both "Best Of's", "U2 18", and the fanclub releases ("Melon" through "Medium, Rare"). And if I'm not mistaken, all song articles (with the exception of oddities such as "A Celebration" and "11 O'Clock Tick Tock") already have this template in the article. The only one I'm not sure about is "Under a Blood Red Sky". I think it could work as a solution. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 19:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not realise that those album templates exist. Putting the relevant template(s) at the end of an article wouldn't be such a bad idea. Creating templates for TBo80-90 / 90-00 & 18 wouldn't be hard. How many songs from Melon have articles? They all go to the non-remix article. Not too many songs from Medium Rare Remastered have articles, and of those that do most have links that presently redirect or disambiguate. Seconds presently has the War template BELOW the U2 template. I think above would be better given the size of the U2 template. It feels hidden putting it below. delirious & lost ☯ ^TALK 22:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

PS i just found out Acrobat has an article thanks to that template added to WGRYWH.delirious & lost ☯ ^TALK 22:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Again though, having too many of the templates stacked on top of each other would just be clutter, a thing that we are trying to remove. I do not think that having the tracklist for a compilation is necessary in a song article; just a brief mention in the text will do fine. I do agree though that the album templates should be above the main {{U2}} for maximum visibility. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 22:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Well while you responded i was making the templates, should they be decided to be used. Demos of them are here. There is intentionally a typo in the word "Category" so that the don't show up unless wanted. delirious & lost ☯ ^TALK 23:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

U2 webcasting on YouTube

Is this notable enough to command a sentence in the article. This is unusual for a band, no? FYI, the link is here. Enigma^msg 04:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I concur, it should be mentioned briefly. Deserted Cities (talk) 04:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't per WP:NOTNEWS. This article is only for the most important details. Cramming in a one-off webcast is unnecessary and out of context. It deserves a place in the tour article, but not here. This is only for the most important details over a span of 30 years, and this doesn't qualify. Don;t forget that they also webcasted in 2001; that certainly hasn't proven to eb notable. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 05:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

In support of Melican's post above, if it really is not news, but something more notable, then let's come back in a year's time with the verification that it's not just a peice of news notable only for a day or two. --Merbabu (talk) 05:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

3 November changes to lead

I’ve restored this to an apparent compromise version of today’s lead changes by Crazyjoker. As there is clearly no consensus for the changes, further changes should be agreed *first* on the talk page. Note, that this version includes changes I don’t like and, in my opinion, is already a compromise position on my behalf (ie, consensus doesn't necessarily mean agreement, but an acceptance to not dispute). I hope that is respected, and it we all keep in mind that wikipedia works by collaboration, rather than force of will. As for the actual changes, I can discuss this later on today, but not right now. --Merbabu (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

What specifically do you disagree with? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 16:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Generally I disagree with most of your changes to the lead – but again I’m prepared to live with some (hence my not removing them, or just refining them) – others not. Also, generally, the apparent sense of change by force of attrition across many U2 articles which I discuss above. As for specifically which you requested, I had hoped my edit summaries were clear – is there something specifically you don't understand? --Merbabu (talk) 00:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Genres across U2 articles

I think it’s about time to get some kind of consensus on the genres used across the U2 articles. They change all the time, and frankly, I find some of the choices weird. I think there are three issues:

1. Actually deciding on a genre. Eg, is Sweetest Thing pop, rock, or something else? Is Even Better Than the Real Thing rock, alt rock, pop, other? Is Mofo rock, alt rock, or dance?

2. How to apply this to an album, or indeed to U2. Eg, because U2 have made a number of pop songs, does that mean we put the

3 Indeed, how is U2 an “Alternative Rock” band? This is actually part of number 1 above, but the description of U2 as alternative strikes me as so odd it can have it’s own little section! Alternative to what? Abba? Genesis? The Eagles? U2 make some of the most radio friendly music around (a compliment), and their sales figures are about as anti-alternative as one can get. Isn’t, say Audioslave, Radiohead, and Mogwai alternative?

One of many examples is Achtung Baby – how is this “Alternative Rock” and “Dance Rock” but not Rock (this was recently implemented)? I’ve gone through each of the songs on that album and listed what I thought were the possible genres – question marks indicate I think a genre I offer below is actually dubious.

• Zoo Station - Rock, alt rock, experimental rock (?), electronic rock(?)
• Even Better - Rock, Pop(?)
• One - Rock, Pop
• Until The End - Rock, alt rock(?)
• Wild Horses - Rock, pop(?), (not alt rock)
• So Cruel - Rock(?), Pop, Cabaret(?)
• The Fly - Rock, alt rock(?), gospel(?), dance rock(?)
• Mysterious Ways - Rock, Pop, dance(?), other?
• Arms - Rock(?), Pop
• Ultraviolet - Rock, Pop
• Acrobat - Rock, alt rock(?)
• Blindness - Rock(?), pop(?), cabaret(?)

Do you agree that a pattern is evident from the AB tracks above?

As a suggestion to the above questions, perhaps we need to agree on a few principals. Let me start by recommending that:

• U2 is first and foremost a Rock band – see the first sentence of the mother article, U2. This should be the default genre in almost every U2 article. Others can be judiciously added, see below…
• If in doubt, let’s not be too exacting in pigeon boxing and drilling down through genres – it leads to trouble – hence my leaning towards “rock” as default genre.
• If we must get into detailed genres, then at least allow multiple genres for listings – ie, the U2 page could have Rock, Pop, alt rock (if we must), etc, etc. This seems to be the intent by labelling U2 as “post punk” – ie, it might apply to a significant amount of their music but not the majority. Hence, by that logic, we should also add the genre “pop” to the U2 article infobox.

Anyway, I wrote the above rather quickly and am happy to hear other suggestions. --Merbabu (talk) 00:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

First thing I wanna say, when looking at the term "alternative rock", you really have to ignore the word "alternative". It's not a very accurate description of the genre, since it has become mainstream and the most popular form of rock music. There seems to be a misconception that "alternative rock" has to be unpopular or eschewing the norms of rock music to do its own thing. You have to read the article on alternative rock to understand just what it is meant to encompass. Secondly, I don't think it is necessary to have the "rock" genre for a song/album if "alternative rock" is already present, since it is kind of redundant. That said, I do think the word rock (whether just as "rock" or in "alternative rock") needs to be present in every song/album article infobox.

I can agree to the pattern you see in certain songs above, but just because there are some influences of a genre in that song doesn't necessarily mean it falls under it (e.g. gospel/cabaret). I also think "pop" is overused as a music term - so often now, it seems to refer to "pop culture" rather than "pop rock". I see most of U2's songs having little similarity to "pop rock", whether there are "poppy" melodies or not. I agree that pigeon-holing can be incredibly difficult and it's best to leave certain songs alone ("With or Without You", "Where the Streets Have No Name", "All I Want is You"). But many songs are distinctive enough that they clearly fall under specific genres. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 01:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Q "Artists of the Century"

An IP recently added "U2 was named one of the 100 Artists of the Century by Q Magazine in December of 2009" to the article in the section of 2006-Present. As I've come under fire recently for the edits I've made to this page, I thought that I'd initiate a discussion here before removing it. My personal opinion is that this is too trivial for inclusion. U2 seems to be put on one of these lists at least once a year, and I don't see what makes this any more notable than any of the other unmentioned lists. At the very least it should be moved to a more relevant section (probably Awards) with a new source (as a fansite, U2start cannot and likely never will be considered a reliable source). Your thoughts? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 05:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I put that up, sorry for not logging in/signing my edit. The reason I included it was because to me it seems like more than just another one of those awards, although that could be debated. Being named an artist of the CENTURY is a pretty big accolade coming from a rather reputable magazine. I linked to U2start only because they had a photo of the upcoming issue with U2 in it--it wasn't an actual article of speculation; they were merely relaying the information that U2 were included in this list and provided the photo of the cover of the magazine. No hurt feelings if my inclusion isn't acceptable. I just thought that "Artist of the Century" was kind of a big deal!Shkee23 (talk) 15:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

U2-related articles to focus on

I think there are a lot of articles in the U2 domain that are on the verge of reaching WP:GA status. I just think they need to be rounded out for completeness and are just missing a few additions that will take them to the next level. Hopefully, some of the editors who have been making their rounds on certain song articles could contribute. Here is a working list of articles I think we should focus on, as they are close to reaching GA quality:

• Zooropa
• The Joshua Tree (Merbabu is currently in the process of conceiving massive changes on his sandbox)
• The Unforgettable Fire
• Pop (album)
• Mysterious Ways (song)
• One (U2 song)
• Ultraviolet (Light My Way)
• Running to Stand Still
• Sunday Bloody Sunday (song)
• Until the End of the World (song)
• The Fly (U2 song)

Cheers. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

In addition, reviews on some of the current GA U2-related articles should probably be done. "Where the Streets Have No Name" has probably sunk well below the GA threshold in terms of sourcing. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 22:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'd add U2 360° Tour to the potential GA list as well. And "City of Blinding Lights" is currently nominated. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 22:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how I forgot to add "Zoo Station". Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 07:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Songs of Ascent

Should it be mentioned that the band are planning to release a new album, named Songs of Ascent (according to Bono), some time during 2010? Or should we wait for it to be released first? (Kiwinil (talk) 06:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC))

There's currently a small blurb on Songs of Ascent under the No Line header. I think it's fine for now, since we don't have many sources to go by as of yet. Plus, we don't want to be crystal balling. ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 06:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

That's okay then, I missed it when reading the article 125.239.240.40 (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I’ve removed it completely now. Some mention has been there almost 12 months, and all the original crystal balling (even though it was referenced) has not eventuated. The way it was presented here has been almost farcical and we should have been stricter on it. For ages it read “the band *confirmed* Songs of Ascent would be released in 2009” – that’s embarrassing for wikipedia. That's exactly why we have WP:CRYSTAL - wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper or rock mag. Indeed, the latest info I removed is looking at best vague, and at worst, about to be wrong. --Merbabu (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Killing Bono

I'm not sure where this will fit in, but should something like the following be said?

Filming has started for Killing Bono, based on the book of the same name, by long time friend of the band and music critic Neil McCormick. The story is about how McCormick, who went to school with the band, was unsuccessful with his bands, and had to live "under U2's shadow" Kiwinil (talk) 07:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

British or American?

Does Wikipedia use British or American English? I was asking because of the first sentence, "U2 are a rock band from Dublin, Ireland."  JackSlice  ^{Questions or comments?} 20:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It uses British, Canadian, American, Australian, and other varieties of the English-language. The type used in individual articles will generally depend on the subject's "nationality". MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to revive the 'Are vs. Is' argument. Someone in the archive has stated that you don't say 'The Beatles is coming.' This is because there is more than one Beatle, for example you might say 'John Lennon is a Beatle' , but you wouldn't call Bono a U2 because U2 isn't plural. JackSlice^Talk _Adds 23:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

There's really not much of an argument to revive. This article uses British English. In British English the correct verb to use is "are". That's just the way the language works. It's really as simple as that. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 23:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. JackSlice^Talk _Adds 20:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

References subsection

I've compiled a subsection of commonly used sources at Talk:U2/References. This should hopefully help editors who are looking for more information for articles that they are working on if they are wondering what references are available. It's incomplete naturally, but with luck it will soon be fairly comprehensive. Cheers, MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 18:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow – this is great. “Snaps” for Matkins! I had mentioned doing something like this before, but I doubt mine would have been to the detail that you’ve provided. Hope you don’t mind if I add to it – if I get the time. Cheers --Merbabu (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Nah, not at all. There's no way this is comprehensive and I could only add what I have, so books like U2 at the end of the World and Walk On: A Spiritual Journey aren't there. It's got a long way to go before it's truly comprehensive! MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 23:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I know Merbabu has "U2 at the End of the World", and I just ordered a copy of the book, so we can add it to the list. I'm a little unsure about the syntax for citing a DVD, though. At least, with the example I have in mind. I'm starting to work on the Zoo TV Tour article, and I want to cite individual documentaries that are included on the Zoo TV: Live from Sydney DVD as bonus material. The "cite video" template doesn't seem to offer much flexibility, aside from citing the entire video. Wasted Time R had the idea of treating a DVD like a book, in that you can cite the documentary as a note, and the entire DVD as a regular video in the references section. Thoughts? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the list, it's a big help. My problem however is that I've got the newer, A5 sized paperback version of U2 by U2. Is this referenced differently to the larger, hardback copy of U2 by U2? Kiwinil (talk) 03:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I and a few others have the large hard cover U2 by U2 - select a few page numbers and describe the contents are (maybe the first and last line of text?) and we can match it up. If both editions use the same layout and page numbers, then it will be much easier. I also notice that Stokes has released a new and smaller version of his "Story behind every U2 song". I have the original but that ends with Zooropa (or Passnegers?). --Merbabu (talk) 03:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I've also pondered the WP:CITET for documentaries. I have the Classic Albums DVD for Johusa Tree, and wasn't altogether confident with the way I had cited it. "King and Nuala" I've called it in, for example, I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For.

As for ZooTV Sydney, anyone spotted me front row at the B-stage. During Stay, RTSS, and WOWY - with a white "One" shirt with the buffalo running of the cliff. --Merbabu (talk) 03:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that citing it like a book could work well; you're right in that the video template doesn't offer much flexibility. Something like what I have in "City of Blinding Lights" describing the Stop Sellafield B-sides is probably the most we could drag out of that. Something like U218 Videos or The Best of 1990-2000 DVDs would probably be done more beneficially with the general template; probably just {{citation}} would be best?

I think there are some differences between version of U2 by U2 and Bono in Conversation With.... The general details stay the same; I think that only the page numbers, edition number, and publication year will need to be changed; possibly location as well, depending on what version each of us has. As for At the End of the World, I'm afraid I don't have a copy of it yet, so if anyone who does have it could add it to the list...

On a side note, am I the only person with a copy of The U2 Reader or Uncut's Ultimate Music Guide? I could probably find details in those for articles if anybody needs them. I know I was able to find some great information on "Sweetest Thing", "Deep in the Heart", and "Silver and Gold" (for I think the "Where the Streets Have No Name" article) from the former that I wasn't able to find anywhere else, including U2 by U2 and Into the Heart, and the latter has some great full-length interviews that haven't made it online to my knowledge. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 04:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

An alternative to citing the ZooTV DVD for the documentaries could be to just cite the documentary itself and not worry about including the rest of the DVD's details. So for example instead of citing David Mallet as director, cite the people who directed the documentary; change the title Zoo TV: Live from Sydney to the title of the documentary; change the format from DVD to Television production; etc. It's a possibility that could probably work, as I assume the documentaries had at least one broadcast as opposed to being made and then left to gather dust. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 04:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

All certification websites that I could find have been added to the page. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 03:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The paperback version of U2 by U2 does indeed use different page numbers, but apart from that is the same as the original. The paper back version was released in 2008. Kiwinil (talk) 02:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah - that's annoying, but it's good to know. I think we'll cope. ;-) --Merbabu (talk) 02:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

For the "influences", does someone who's got the U2 by U2 book could precise in the article the number of the pages when the band mention Siouxsie And The Banshees ? Carliertwo (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2010

"City of Blinding Lights" FAC

Hello all, I would just like to inform you that "City of Blinding Lights" is currently undergoing an FAC. I was told the last time that an article I nominated failed to be promoted that in future I should "aggressively recruit music editors to review [the] FAC". I'm not looking for votes, only for feedback, and I thought that posting this notification on the relevant subject's talk page (since the WikiProject is now inactive) would be the best way to go about that; I apologize if I have done so incorrectly. A similarly-worded notification has also been placed at WT:SONGS. Cheers, MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 01:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Popmart Sarajevo

I know that individual concerts do not normally have their own articles unless they are particularly significent or otherwise notable, but if any concert could qualify I think that the Popmart concert in Sarajevo would. I know that there's some good information in U2 by U2, and IIRC in Bono: In conversation with... as well. I can probably pull up a wealth of articles on the matter too; I know that the Uncut's Ultimate Music Guide has an article dedicated solely to that one concert, and it has some great info on logistics and band quotes too. And I'd be very surprised if the U2 Reader or U2: A Diary didn't have something on it either. What do you think? Would anybody be adverse to a collaboration on such an article? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 06:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I would not want time spent on an article that gets shot down in AFD. If you can find notability guidelines that support it - that would be great. For example, Running to Stand Still would not be notable - except, that enough written material has been found and used. That's why AFD wouldn't succeed on it since the major expansion. --Merbabu (talk) 06:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that an article would meet the general notability guidelines; it certainly gained significant coverage at the time, and has been mentioned often enough since in the band's history. Ample sources exist, and I think that after 12 years it has shown that it's notability was not tmeporary. Eh, for anybody interested, I've started a page at User:MelicansMatkin/PopMart Sarajevo. Mostly a cut-paste-reorganize from the PopMart article so far, but I'll be going through and doing a re-write/major overhaul once I'm able to look at what I have at home (at school right now). MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 21:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd be up for working on the article. I actually just watched the documentary on the PopMart Sarajevo concert from the PopMart: Live from Mexico City DVD last weekend. I think that watching the Miss Sarajevo documentary and reading up on the Bosnian War/Siege of Sarajevo would be a good place to start for establishing some background information, as well as reading up on the band's satellite link-ups to Sarajevo on the Zoo TV Tour. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

In "Background" we could set the stage by introducing the Bosnian War and its aftermath on the people of Sarajevo, then follow with U2's Zoo TV link-ups (including the one woman who shouted that they would do nothing) and the band's determination to play Sarajevo, and then the recording of "Miss Sarajevo". Follow that with logistics, to show how difficult (and initially, how dangerous) it was to set the show up. The concert section would be fairly standard stuff, and I can think of a couple of great quotes that would fit into the Reception/Reaction section. I'm getting quite excited about this now! MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 19:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)