Jump to content

Talk:Dan le Sac Vs Scroobius Pip

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

Untitled

[edit]

If this is not deletion-worthy........ oh, for *(&*(^&~!'s sakes. I can't even bring myself to start building an argument as to why "dans le sac vs Scroobius Pip" (wow!) may or may not merit deletion along with the 5,000 WP articles deleted DAILY.... Jeezus kee-rist, people -- NOT EVERYTHING THAT EVER MADE IT INTO PRINT IS WIKI-WORTHY'... (argh -- looking for inert objects to kick, stalking back and forth, throwing hands up into the air in disgust that this is even apparently a debatable issue to sundry paint-thinner-sniffing non compos mentis's...) A Doon (talk) 05:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Are you high? There's a LOT less meaningfull stuff on wiki! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.199.106.170 (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Is a brief mention in NME enough to warrent an article? --Darksun 15:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, Perhaps not, but it did take the coveted single of the week slot and prompted an interview with the artists as a result. The track was only released on CD format yesterday, so how much an impact it makes in the long term remains to be seen. --User:Evil Stu

It was also single of the week in the UK's Guardian newspaper (within the the "Guide" section, which is where I heard of it first - perhaps deletion should be delayed until we see if the single lives up to the hype! GerryHillman 10:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC) gerry hillman[reply]

They did get A LOT of radio play on triple j (australian radio station)... i think theyre well known enough for an article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.187.193 (talk) 04:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*I* think they deserve a mention

[edit]

I'm Canadian, and I was introducted to these guys after an American blogger I read linked to their "Thou Shalt Always Kill" video on Youtube. I looked 'em up on Wikipedia, and I'm glad the entry was here.

I've been e-mailing the video link to my friends, so I wouldn't be surprised if the page gets a few more hits.

Cat

130.63.176.77 23:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


This article seems alittle premature, the band have yet to sign a record deal and little is truly known of them yet. They are currently culturally relevent and will over time warrent alittle space within Wikipedia but at the moment this seems like over kill. There has been alot of press in the uk, the Guardian, Big Issue, Daily Mail, Observer, the Sun, Dazed & Confused all giving them column inches, also they've been interviewed on MTV2 (gonzo), XFM (John Kennedy), BBC Radio 1 (Rob da Bank, Zane Lowe, Trophey Twins). The single is however is not being released on CD, its just a digital download and a 7" single but on downloads alone it did manage to reach 34 in the UK Top 40. cheers d

update..

[edit]

i have cleaned up the article. information specific to "thou shalt always kill" belongs on that page, not about the artist, so i have removed it. Long quotes from myspace are not relevant either (about powerstations!?!). don't post information just to fill up the page; if there is little available, the page should be small. They have charted at #30 in the UK top 40, so they fit the notability rules; "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart." Bungalowbill 18:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"dan le sac" seems to be lower case in all the references I've seen. —Ashley Y 20:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amar Halarh

[edit]

Where is the source for this? Searching the name pulled up no Google hits at all, so calling this 'highly publicised' seems somewhat dubious. Jacob1453 15:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The biography of dan le sac is all lies. dan le sac was born daniel stephens in Braintree Essex. contact spam@danlesac.co.uk for more info.

Sorry - all wrong. He's David Meads from Stanford-Le-Hope, attended RC St Thomas More High School for Boys in Westcliff, Essex from 1992 to 1999. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.24.133 (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This week's issue of Music Week has their surnames down as Stephens and Meads. Technohead1980 (talk) 16:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Dan Le Sac Vs Scroobius Pip.jpg

[edit]

Image:Dan Le Sac Vs Scroobius Pip.jpg 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 insure 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dan le sac vs Scroobius Pip

[edit]

Appears to be the official name, opposed to "Dan Le Sac vs Scroobius Pip". Big Luth (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree (although "vs" seems to begin with a capital) per these two links [1] [2]. Nev1 (talk) 20:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assertion of notability lacking

[edit]

I see no assertion of notability in the lead. The article body make only passing reference to a few interview and the Q Magazine clips list. I've tagged the article with {{notability}}. Can someone who knows more about the band add something that explains why they are noteworthy.—C45207 | Talk 20:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discography section should make it pretty clear that dls vc SP is notable, but failing that Wikipedia's notability guidelines states that a subject must be discussed in reliable third party sources. A very quick Google search threw up this and there will be much more, even if only the surface is scratched. As such, I have removed the notability tag as dls vs SP is clearly notable. Nev1 (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It did seem that the band is notable: I did not mean to call that into question. However, we should probably say something about their notability (apart from the charts). It is my understanding the the {{notability}} tag is to be used in these circumstances, until we have a sourced assertion. That is to say, {{notability}} does not call the notability of the subject into question, but the expression of notability in the article.
Should a brief prose mention of the chart positions be added to the lead? Basically, it seems to me that the biggest indicators of notability are buried in tables at the end of the article.—C45207 | Talk 21:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I see you're point and have expanded the lead a little. However, the template questions the notability of dls vs SP as it says: "This article may not meet the general notability guideline". Nev1 (talk) 22:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your expansion. The lead is much better now.—C45207 | Talk 03:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Separate Articles for Dan and Pip?

[edit]

I think especially in the light of Pip's solo album reaching 7th in the iTunes charts and 35th in the UK Top 40 we should possibly give him his own article and keep it separate from the le sac vs Pip one (and then do the same for Dan)? I have no idea how to do that anyway, just wondered what you all thought? BenAGR (talk) 17:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I second this, Scroobius Pip definitely deserves his own page, especially because of particular-ness and the lack of easy-to-access articles on him. Hell, I've listened to so many songs of his that I think you can learn more about him from those than articles. Of course I can understand if those songs aren't exactly the most reliable of sources. All in all, it would make sense to make Scroobius Pip his own article. LotsofSpace (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved by requester. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dan le sac vs Scroobius Pip → Dan le Sac Vs Scroobius Pip – Artist's name is routinely formatted with standard capitalisation in sources. See Guardian, Pitchfork, NME, Independent, BBC, etc. Wetdogmeat (talk) 01:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, the V in 'Vs' should be capitalised too, and I can move it myself in that case - Wetdogmeat (talk) 01:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dan le Sac Vs Scroobius Pip. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dan le Sac Vs Scroobius Pip. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dan_le_Sac_Vs_Scroobius_Pip&oldid=1200422696"