Talk:Fightstar

Fightstar is

The introduction of the article should be

Fightstar is a British alternative rock band from London, formed in 2003.

as 'Fightstar' refers to the band as a unit. Treating 'Fightstar' as a plural noun is only grammatically acceptable when referring to the members of the band. ~Peter Dzubay (talk) 04:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Busted

I've tried to add Busted as an associated act for years, but it keeps being removed. 2A02:C7D:5BA8:1800:742B:CCA4:6AF7:BFE7 (talk) 14:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

That is misuse of associated acts. There must be multiple members shared, not just Charlie. A less common but still acceptable use is multiple guest appearances on songs that have either charted or are otherwise proven notable. Busted fits neither of the criteria. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 16:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The Busted page needs Fightstar removed then 2A02:C7D:5BF3:8500:CDC7:8618:91C6:325F (talk) 02:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Tom Bryant, TeamRock.com Inclusion

I thought I'd open this up to the editors. There's been some debate on the inclusion of teamrock.com's opinion piece on why Busted reformed. Personally, I don't think it belongs in a Wikipedia article as it appears to lean in bias toward this idea Simpson rejoined the pop band for financial gain which he has denied in the past. I'm not too knowledgeable on the source either, but is teamrock.com acceptable according to Wikipedia standards? I thought it would be something of a minority source, and I can't seem to find anything online to back up the author's claim.

Also, I'm happy to include it if majority decides but could we also get something similar to the Busted page with direct quotes from Simpson in regards to his decision? Something similar to this line?

Regarding his decision to rejoin the band, Simpson told Newsbeat: "I reckon I said it [so many times], privately and publicly, and I meant it every single time. But as I say I have changed my mind and that has been down to the circumstances changing. I never thought we would get to a point where we were in a studio writing music we all got behind creatively and that was a huge shock to me".

Thanks guys!

Bottomlivefan95 (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:ALBUM/SOURCE lists TeamRock as reliable. The album Wikiproject usually qualifies anything as reliable for anything related to music, in fact. I can add something about Simpson's comments, too. dannymusiceditor ^oops 15:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Danny, happy to meet in the middle there using that source you provided. Are you okay to write it up and I'll check on it later? Thanks for providing info on teamrock.com. Once again, discussion still open for any other contributors out there! Bottomlivefan95 (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Neutral third party who knows nothing of the bands in question but noticed arguments over this: I think it'd be pretty easy to come to a compromise on this. Both can be included really. Team Rock is a reliable source, and the conclusion they come to seems pretty reasonable. (Modern rocker goes pop to pay the bills is a pretty common scenario in modern music.) But it does sound like it's more of a suspicion than a fact. So I just think it needs to be altered as such. Just tweak it to say something to the capacity of "Some outlets/music journalists, such as Team Rock/its writer speculated that it was due to Fightstar never being particularly financially successful, but in a Newsbeat interview, Simpson stated that he was swayed due to the chemistry in the studio". Or whatever wordings you need to make it accurate to what the 2 sources say. (Personal note: If there's any suspicion that Simpson's quote about studio chemistry is PR nonsense, then he'll likely say that in retrospective statements once the new Busted album cycle is done with, so that can always be added in years future too.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed with Sergecross. If this can be edited in such a way that we include both reasons, I'm happy. Although, I am wary of including speculation on a Wikipedia article rather than official statements. I concede that it is something debated amongst the band's community but until a member of Fightstar or Busted outright state something contrary to what Simpson has said in interviews, I don't really think it is needed. The section ending on:

On 10 November 2015 Simpson reunited with Busted to record new music and tour,[78] saying that Fightstar would continue to tour and release music as a "passion project" for its members.[79]

is actually a good stopping point until Fightstar's next project.

But again, as a compromise has been made I am more than happy to see it included. Thanks for your input.

Bottomlivefan95 (talk) 17:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Speculation is generally considered acceptable as long as it is 1) from a reliable source and 2) portrayed accurately as such. And again, it seems like a pretty likely situation. They're not speculating it was due to some crazy situation with drugs or sexual abuse or something. They're saying a band member from a lower selling rock band went back to his better selling pop music project for financial reasons. Not exactly a hot take. Sergecross73 msg me 17:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Third party but a fan of both bands. From my short time on here, I can see that speculation is generally acceptable and as it stands, I see nothing wrong with including the Tom Bryant piece as long as a statement from Simpson is included. In fact, I think having this in the article will avoid appease both fan bases and avoid unnecessary edit wars/vandalisation in the future. Also, would love to quickly compliment on the quality of this article. It really is fantastic. EditHelp62 (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Alternative metal

@DannyMusicEditor: What is needed for alternative metal to be included in the infobox? More sources? If so, I can find more sources. Bowling is life (talk) 03:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

TL;DR: yes. Full explanation: The way I structured the article ages ago, it fits best if we had at least two sources which gave solid support toward it in order for it to be infobox-level of noteworthy; I explained this to you once, but you didn't keep it on your page. This diff gave my explanation on what sources should be used in the first place, and as I recall it, you agreed with it. The Rolling Stone article somewhat did this, so I allowed it to stay in style, but Digital Spy really didn't offer much content at all, let alone any analyzing their sound. dannymusiceditor ^oops 05:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh yeah I forgot about that. I don't know why I removed that from ny talk page. Well, thanks for the explanation. I might try to find really good sources that really analyze thier sound but that probably isn't going to be easy. Bowling is life (talk) 05:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

If its that difficult to find a source for something, chances are it may not be the best choice for infobox placement. It shouldn't be so prominently featured in the article, like in the infobox, if it's not prominently used to describe the band... Sergecross73 msg me 18:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Associated acts

How is Fightstar an "associated act" on Busted's page, but not the other way round? Either have both bands as associated bands or neither. 2A02:C7D:5BF3:8500:CDC5:DD29:7029:97A0 (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)