Talk:2 Unlimited

Country of Origin

2 Unlimited were not a Belgian / Dutch band. They were a Dutch band consisting of Anita Dels and Ray Slijngaard until the producers, who owned the name 2 Unlimited, recruited Romy and Marjon to take over. Jean-Paul and Phil were no more members of the band than Pete Waterman is a member of Steps. Triangle e 18:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

YES THEY ARE... GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT.

well that was a well thought out argument. How do you protect a page on here? Triangle e 14:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it. In the description we can read how 2unlimited is the brainchild / was created by the 2 Belgian producers. The Dutch singers were 'recruited' after the band existed. They were even signed on a Belgian label. At least it's a Belgian-Dutch band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.246.205.194 (talk) 14:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

It should be decided whether it's a Belgian or Dutch band or both

Depending on articles, the band is presented as a Dutch or Belgian band. It should be clear for readers and contributors.

I think it can be quite simple, based on facts:
1. producers are from Belgium and singers from the Netherlands. Producers changed the name of the band when they recruited singers.
2. most songs are credited to (written by) De Coster (BE), Wilde (BE), Doth (NL) and Slijngaard (NL). (see Discogs)
Based on this, it's obvious it's both Belgian and Dutch.

BUT

producers Wilde and De Coster own the brand 2 Unlimited. Consequence of this: producers decided to hire other singers than Doth and Stijngaard in 1997-1998 and Doth and Stijngaard cannot use the name 2 Unlimited for their own projects (see article Ray and Anita). So strictly speaking, it's a Belgian band.

What do you think?

Arkestra (talk) 20:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

18 million records sold?

The article states that the 1st album "Get Ready!" has sold 2.6 million units, and the 2nd album "No Limits" has sold 3 million units. It is simply not logicial for the 3rd album "Real Things" and the their best of "Hits Unlimited" to have sold 12+ million units alltogether. I would not rely on a source of reference coming from 'Artist Direct as it isn't anything official. And as far the units of singles go they need to be stated separately as we all know singles are put out there to push the sales of albums. Harout72

I assume that the 18 million figure also includes the 16 singles. And early 90s dance acts do not use singles to push album sales. Most early 90s dance acts didn't even release albums. That's a late 90s - 00s pop / rock view on the single. Triangle e 10:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"No Limit" (the single) alone sold 2.5 million copies so it sounds like a plausible figure. AcerBen 21:31, 8 August 2007 (BST)

2 Unlimited (Ray&Anita)sold to date 70 Million Albums,Singles and Digital Downloads! Don´t forget the fact in the 90s you have to buy a CD!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=485JRGshVSI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.202.131.207 (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Possible Good Article candidate

I think this article should be presented for a Good Article evaluation. However, one thing which should be worked on before that is the Trivia section. Such sections are generally frowned upon as this is material that had better been incorporated into the article text. __meco 17:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Why thank you for this suggestion! I'll see if I can work the material into the main text. Technohead1980 17:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I've done it - and have improved the discography. AcerBen 23:26, 12 August 2007 (BST)

Quick look (not a specialist on the topic); and I think a lot is there towards getting GA, but also some things need to be improved before GA can be achieved.

• Referencing maybe problematic: The citation needed tags need to be solved; there are sections (towards the end) without any reference.
• Style and structure: A thorough copy-edit aimed at improving style and readability for the lay-reader is probably needed (for example the opening line of the article proper: "Jean-Paul DeCoster and Phil Wilde met in their hometown of Antwerp,[2] Belgium," makes no sense for someone who does not know anything yet. The introduction is too short (should be a three to four paragraph summary of the main points).
• Supporting material: There should be some graphic material, photos, album covers, concert tickets, concerts shoots, whatever to support this article. Be careful about copyright though.

I hope this helps, good luck Arnoutf 09:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for the pointers. We DID have album covers but they were removed due to being "not fair use". We also had a photo that was a screen cap from the Here I Go video, which we believe to be fair use but was deleted. Unfortunately, there seems to be NO sort of picture that the wikipedia admins are letting us use.

• Referencing is also a major problem. Unfortunately, wikipedia seems to frown on referencing from books and magazines. 2 Unlimited aren't covered enough on the net to reference using internet sources. I'm tempted to scan in some of the material I have in books and magazines and host them on a site like photobucket in order to use the info. Although for all I know, this might not be allowed either. Technohead1980 10:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe references from books and magazines are fully sufficient. However, as they are harder to come by for editor's checking to verify sourced claims, it is important that the citations be as complete as possible, including page numbers and also employing the "quote" field of the cite templates to show the full context of the cited claim. As for un-free images, I think that an argument centering on the fact that it would be impossible to obtain new, free photos of a dissolved ensemble, whether or not the individual members are all still alive, should be pursued. I would think such a rationale should stand a good chance of being accepted despite previous problems using photographs under the fair use doctrine. __meco 12:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no problem citing books and magazines, if you do it carefully (actually it is preferred as Internet content changes); there is a strong preference for English language sources though.

Certain photos maybe fair use or public domain. But that is not my speciality. Wikipedia has to be very strict as this all free project can (obviously) not afford copyright law-suits; that is a thing you need to figure out with copyright protection specialists.Arnoutf 15:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:No Limit file.ogg

Image:No Limit file.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Influential?

Let's get this straight... 2 Unlimited is supposed to have initialised hardcore (techno)? All the harder forms of electronic dancemusic mentioned developed way earlier than 1992. Got me a video at home (VHS) dating from 1991 showing large crowds bouncing to 180 bpm+ Ah well... check Wiki on 'gabber', and you'll find out... In this case I'd say L.A. Style's 'James Brown Is Dead' has been of much more influence on the hardcore/gabberscene Besides: The claim that 'with out them the music scene would be very different indeed' is ofcourse completely POV... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.159.97.4 (talk) 13:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sales & Charts

Sorry??? Every album sold more than 20 Mio. copies??? Good joke! Furtheron they had never a top-10-hit in the US and No Limit is the only number one in France and UK! --85.181.136.136 (talk) 10:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't see anywhere in the article where it says that every album sold more than 20 million. Technohead1980 (talk) 16:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

all the uk chart positions are wrong. they only had 1 uk number 1, not 6! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.109.170.232 (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Someone has been silly! Luckily they've all been corrected back again. Technohead1980 (talk) 09:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Unlimited Too Fan Club

I would like to propose adding a link for the Unlimited Too Fan Club (http://www.theutfc.com). It was their Internet fan club when they were 2 Unlimited, and it is running once again. Utfc (talk) 20:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Synth

What is the vintage synth they frequently use in their songs? 2607:FEA8:10E0:1C00:A8FB:D31C:D8C4:F1AE (talk) 21:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Country of origin redux

Hi. I'm the one changing the origin of the band to Belgian/Dutch. I lost my login so I made the changes unregistered, but I registered again to be able to start this discussion with you. I'm wondering what your problem is with calling it Belgian/Dutch, when it's obvious that the project is indeed Belgian/Dutch and even the official facebook page states it is. Like I said before : producers, songwriters, musicians (mixing the music) and distribution was all Belgians ; only the performers were Dutch, so it's very unfair to say it's only Dutch and nothing else. You also state the band was founded in the Netherlands, but there is no confirmation at all for this claim. It is however well known that the idea for the project started in Belgium and the Belgian producers and songwriters already had a song. Afterwards they added the Dutch performers and the band was signed by a Belgian record label, so why the claim that the band was founded in the Netherlands? I think we can both agree that if the performers were Belgian, the project would have been 100% Belgian, so why is it impossible for you to see it as a Belgian/Dutch cooperation? All I ask for is to correct 'Dutch' to 'Belgian/Dutch' and add 'Antwerp-Belgium' as origin in order to give credit where it's due. It's perfectly possible to do this and it makes a lot more sense to other users who read the article about the band. As it is now, people just get confused. I hope you can see the logic in my stance on the topic and we can make peace with calling it a Belgian/Dutch band, giving credit to the 2 countries that made 2 unlimited the legend it was/is ;-). Kind regards, Gery Wind (talk) 16:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello Gery Wind, thank you for registering an account, it is much easier to have a conversation with someone when they are not hiding behind an anonymous login. Thank you also for reaching out in a civil manner. I've explained clearly what my problem is with the Belgian/Dutch origin. As per WP:Musical artist#Parameters – origin (I linked this in one of my last reverts), where a musical project is launched is what determines its origin on WP. Since I've started editing and watching the 2 Unlimited article, it has always stated that the project was launched in Amsterdam, and as such, and as per WP protocol, it is a Dutch project. I don't have a vested interest in this debate, being neither Dutch nor Belgian, and honestly not caring very much where the band is from. My motive for preventing the changes you have been making is simply in order to preserve the protocol and not confuse readers (something that you claim is the case by calling the project Dutch).

I'm reluctant to change the origin of the band from Amsterdam to Antwerp because I haven't seen this claim supported by a reliable source. If you can provide one, then by all means, change the origin.

As a side note, Facebook is generally not considered to be a reliable reference source on Wikipedia.

Regards, Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 16:52, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Hey! Happy to discus this :-). It can be doubted where it launched as the idea and first song were already formed in Belgium before the performers were added. You say there is no reliable source claiming the origin is Belgium, but neither is there a reliable source supporting the claim it's from the Netherlands. And the fact that the page already mentioned the Netherlands when you started watching the article : Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source either, is it? I do know that the loud Dutch love claiming that something is theirs and it's always the ones who shout the loudest that are heard (lol). You can see in the 'Talk' section that some people have mentioned in the past that 'Dutch' is confusing them, where Belgian/Dutch would be more logic. I'm not asking to remove "Dutch", "Amsterdam" or "the Netherlands" anywhere in the article ; I'm only asking to add "Belgian", "Antwerp" and "Belgium". Can you in all honesty read the article and say the band is 100% Dutch (without the Belgians there never would have even been a '2 unlimited' to begin with)? Multiple articles in Wikipedia about bands with mixed nationalities mention 2 countries as origin. This can very easily be another one of those. And about the Facebook-thing : maybe it's not reliable, but 2 unlimited's VERY OWN facebook page? If we can't even take that into consideration than nothing is a reliable source (many of the references in the article are not really reliable either). Gery Wind (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Gery Wind, you are right to point out that there is no reliable source to support the claim that the band originated in Amsterdam. However, as per WP protocol, when an editor wishes to make a change to an article, they need to support it with credible references. In the absence of references, it is preferable to leave the article as it exists prior (unless it makes blatantly false claims, of course).

Comments like "I do know that the loud Dutch love claiming that something is theirs and it's always the ones who shout the loudest that are heard (lol)" are not helpful in this discussion. In fact, what this does is illustrate a bias you may hold towards Dutch people. If that is the case, it works against you in this argument, as I hope you can understand.

I'm not claiming that I personally think the band is Dutch. I'm saying that I would prefer to stick to the criteria that WP uses to label a musical project.

With respect to the Facebook thing...I don't make the rules, I'm just pointing out that Facebook is not considered a reliable source.

I'm going to move this discussion to the 2 Unlimited talk page (where it should have been in the first place). My suggestion to you is that you request a third opinion on the topic here: WP:Third opinion. I will gladly comply with the majority decision :) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Hey Revirvlkodlaku. Sorry for trying to keep the conversation light with a joke. Won't do it again. I'll file for a 3rd opinion as we clearly are not going to come to an agreement. In the mean time I'll hold on to the reliable sources I found that do mention it as being Belgian/Dutch (just shows how 'reliable' all those 'reliable' sources are). I would (try to) add those to the article but you would probably just undo it any way. I'll read up on the 3rd opinion and what steps to take. Thanks for the replies. Gery Wind (talk) 10:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Gery Wind, I would just undo whatever you add to the article, regardless of its credibility, is that what you're suggesting? Your original air of good faith is quickly fading, which is disappointing. Going forward, I will only respond to your comments if you avoid making snide insinuations and "jokes" that are in poor taste. Good day. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@ Revirvlkodlaku. No further actions needed. I made changes and added 11 references that the band is at least Belgian/Dutch (some even that state it is Belgian). Some references state that the country of origin is Belgium (or at least lead you to conclude that from the story), so I corrected that too. Gery Wind (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Ooh, I better go undo all of it ;) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 05:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Hey Revirvlkodlaku. I probably chose bad wording that made you misread what I said (english is not my native language). When I said "try to" I meant that I didn't know exactly how to add resources and I would probably mess things up. And when I said "you would probably undo it", I meant you would probably undo it because I messed it up and didn't follow the proper guidelines. I didn't mean to attack your integrity. I just wanted to make that clear. Thanks for cleaning the article up a bit (I did make it a little bit messy, didn't I :-S) and Happy Holidays! Gery Wind (talk) 09:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC) Hi Gery Wind, thank you for clarifying that. You are right, I read your words as a personal slight, as if you were insinuating that I'm engaged in a petty effort to undo all your work. I'm glad that's not what you meant, and I appreciate the fact that you took the time to explain it to me. I'm glad we were able to come to a workable compromise on the topic. Happy holidays to you as well! 😀 Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:27, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring and...country of origin, once more.

Hi Synthwave.94, you recently undid my edit, itself a revert of your previous edit. This constitutes edit warring and is not appropriate. Additionally, your explanation of the revert is inadequate. You can't simply state that the sources are unreliable, as if doing so makes it a fact. As you may or may not be aware (if you took the time to read through the talk page comments and peruse the article's recent history), this has been a contentious issue, and simply pitching up and undoing other editors' work, especially when they already went through a similar process, trying to reach a consensus, is not only impertinent, but disrespectful. Please explain your reasoning for the revert in a clear manner, and do not edit war. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC) Synthwave.94, please take the time to respond to my concerns regarding your edits. Thank you. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Article issues and classification

This article has had 581 editors so maybe someone can take a look. The B-class criteria states, The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited.

The article has inline "citation needed" tags" from December 2021 and July 2022. There are also numerous unsourced paragraphs and subsections. -- Otr500 (talk) 04:40, 4 March 2023 (UTC)