Talk:Genesis (band)

Have the band broken up?

I know a discussion has previously been had on this topic but it wasn't conclusive. The band has not been musically active since March 2022, there is no sign of plans for them to be from what I have seen. this article says Rutherford says they are over, as well as on this interview on BBC breakfast (I know this video is a copyvio, as the BBC don't post clips from this show them self). Collins announced that the band will be over after their final show, at said show, as seen in this video Banks has also said they are over in this article.

I would like to continue this discussion, see what other peoples interpretations of the evidence is. Also seeing Kiss's article was changed to was, the day after their final show, shows that some editors would consider the band as over. Mewhen123 (talk) 14:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it is less likely that they have "broken up" vs. retired outright. In their last performance, Collins noted it would be their final performance and that everyone would have to get real jobs [1]. While the latter half of that is far from the truth for any of them - it is obvious that if Collins were to tour again - they'd need to wheel him out on a hospital bed. Perhaps the other members will continue on, and introduce new members as well (Nic did an amazing job on drums) - but that would all be speculatory as no official announcement outside of the statement on stage has been released. Short of citing official statements from the band or their management - it's all conjecture at this point and discussing it here without sources would probably violate WP:NOTFORUM. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

In my post I have shown all 3 members have said the band are over. A more reliable one for banks would be this one. It's been almost two year since their final show. No announcement of any new works have appeared and the only thing members have said about the band is that it's over. What more clarification are we waiting for. A Facebook post saying "Btw we're over"? Mewhen123 (talk) 23:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

There are multiple quotes and cites within the article itself from multiple members at multiple times stating "it's over" as far back as 1996 and well into the 2000's - yet for them only to get together and tour again, or change personnel. As far as "new works" - they haven't done any of that since 1997, and they all consider that work to be illegitimate anyhow. Using the "2 year rule" there would have erected the headstone by 2000. You are most likely right - they are done. But how many times has that been speculated before? If you want to includes your cites as ref for statements of what the different members said - they are more than valid to report here in WP with those cites. But you, me, anyone else editing this page, and WP as a whole are in no position to make any official proclamation. All we can do is document the statements and reliable sources, and then edit the article again in the future when/if there is a change. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mewhen123: Agree completely. There's been every interview quote and sign going that the band are over but still people saying, "Welllll, remember last time...14 years..." etc. How long would the article have to wait before it has been long enough: 20 years? :-) It's been years now and WP readers must think it pretty ludicrous. If there's not the words 'disbanded' on a stone tablet that seems to be wanted, that doesn't mean the alternative is true and the article can still state they're together. For a band, it has to be what's closest to the truth as understood. For a couple of years, that's pretty clearly that they've stopped for good and aren't a band any more. They had to stop eventually. In the eventuality that the very unlikely happens and they do something: change the article to say active again. Articles are amended when new albums are released etc. But otherwise the article's stating 'active' on something that's by every account all inactive and no active, so that's just wrong. Feels like this has got out of hand, so it's time to be pragmatic. (I saw one of their final shows btw, great stuff.)ToaneeM (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia's goal is not to try and convey something like "the truth". What Wikipedia tries to do, is to summarise what is already mentioned in reliable sources. As long as we don't have a reliable source stating they have disbanded, I propose that we do not write they have disbanded. Mark in wiki (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Counter point. We don't have any sources to suggest they are still active. Mewhen123 (talk) 18:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

We don't have any sources to suggest _anyone_ is active. Yet we don't write "disbanded" every time a band ends a tour or releases an album... Mark in wiki (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Counter counter point - active/inactive ≠ together/disbanded. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, it's time to be pragmatic. People are suggesting waiting for something that's just never going to happen. Whenever bandmembers make statements in interviews that it's over, it's discredited as not a reliable source. If the article didn't say either way, it'd be fine but it makes a statement that the band exists. The band have made multiple statements that the band's well and truly over, but not one statement saying they even might continue, so the default public position is: band over (or prove they're not), not the opposite. This has felt for years like it's being dragged along forever by just a few here, very well-intentioned I'm completely sure, but in a pretty pointless diehard exercise. The stone tablet isn't coming and this WP article must be the last place left saying they're definitely still a band. That's a pity if WP aspires to be the best place for basic accuracy. Not writing it in this article is kidding no readers who know the band, seems they're just bemused by what they read. It's time now to make progress.ToaneeM (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

And again - ended/over ≠ broken up. This is the original question posed, and answered in this discussion thread that now deeply violates WP:NOTFORUM, and is quickly treading into realms of WP:OPINION. I agree with you to a point - everyone knows that the band is done touring and creating music. But that is a far cry different from disbanding & breaking up. It simply means the story is over. Status should be changed to inactive. @Mark in wiki wrote above about the lens that WP needs to maintain for all articles, and he is right on the money with it. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

i don't see how it is violating WP:NOTFORUM, we are discussing how to improve the article. Mewhen123 (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Is this discussion gonna go any where is it staying dormant for the foreseeable future. My question is what will it take for the lead is being changed to were. Mewhen123 (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the discussion has run its course, and the article can remain as-is for now. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 20:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

No it hasn't run it's course, no conclusion has been reached. Mewhen123 (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Even if the band never "broke up", any further Genesis activity is not going to happen. The band itself has already stated there will be no future touring or new music, essentially making the band inactive. What exactly are we waiting on? DaveTheBrave (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, I also find it ironic that as soon as Kiss played their "final show", their article was changed, whereas it has been two years and this article still can't be changed. Mewhen123 (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Nowhere on the Kiss page does it say they have broken up. Their years active in the infobox has been updated and reflects correctly. Just like Genesis'. And when Kiss goes on their next tour it will have to be updated yet again. Just like Genesis' was. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 18:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I was referring to the was in the lead, as this discussion is about. Mewhen123 (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah - but that has not been your position here. Your position has been that they have broken up. Kiss did not break up - and the article does not state as much. It does state retirement. Let's also not forget taht Kiss had done a farewell tour back in 2000 and retired then - only to then come out of retirement multiple times and multiple farewell tours since.

Your entire platform in this thread (which you started) is that Genesis has broken up. My very first reply was that of retirement - not breaking up - and you have continued to disagree with this. So - if you want to use Kiss as the example - then do indeed use Kiss as the example. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 13:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

no my main stance has been to change the opening paragraph to were Mewhen123 (talk) 13:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. Because that I would concede to. You had not stated that in this entire discussion. The thread is even titled "Have the band broken up?" . Throughout the thread you also mention "disbanded" and "over" - your words! :) So - if we are looking to change is to was/were (BritEng and all that) - no problem. I'd even endorse "retired" (and said as much). But ended/disbanded/broken-up I would not be in agreement with. So long as we keep that distinction - I'm good with even updating it myself :) . --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 13:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad we've come to an agreement, I apologise for the bad title of the discussion Mewhen123 (talk) 22:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

"Genesis (band" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Genesis (band has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 21 § Genesis (band until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Spinoff

Is Brand X a Genesis spinoff? I highly doubt that. 2003:D5:D746:EB91:9C72:AB4C:CC8:719F (talk) 03:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, neither is GTR a 'spin-off'.

The title is wrong in the header block: it should be 'Associated acts'.

'Spin-off' is a daft phrase for it. ToaneeM (talk) 09:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Please see Category:Pages_using_infobox_musical_artist_with_associated_acts, and the lengthy discussion it links to. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 13:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@Picard's Facepalm Thanks. I've looked through it but I can't see a people saying 'spin-off' is good, just the problems they've found with other terms ('Associated acts' ?). 'Related acts' was mentioned and seems much better. I'd say 'spin off' is worse (more inaccurate) than what it replaced.

Meanwhile, Brand X clearly isn't a 'spin off' of Genesis - Brand X didn't descend from Genesis. The trouble with 'spin off' is it pretty clearly insinuates that one is a descendant of the other. Here, it's suggesting that Genesis led to Brand X, which it didn't. (Same goes for Talking Heads and Tom Tom Club.) ToaneeM (talk) 16:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, and I am inclined to agree with you. Another example is Mike & The Mechanics. Clearly not a spinoff - but is listed as such. Unfortunately - the infobox template has had the associated_acts field stripped from it - replaced with spinoff and the others, as a result of almost unanimous support in that discussion to do so. This is not a situation we can resolve here in this talk or article, so I would recommend re-raising the issue perhaps on the infobox talk page. I would voice my support for it (regenerating associated acts, or invoking related acts), for sure - pending my doing a much more thorough review of the discussion that already took place to verify that has not already been exhausted. If you do decide to raise it - please post the link here so others may also chime in as well. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 18:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Binksternet here. In my opinion both the parameter "spinoff" is and the parameter "associated acts" was an invitation to list each and every related band in the infobox. I believe the infobox should only list the most relevant info about the subject of an article, and I don't think side projects like Brand X or Mike & the Mechanics (not to mention GTR) are particularly relevant for the infobox. These of course are relevant to the history of Genesis, and as such are mentioned in detail in the article already, but I think that's enough. Mark in wiki (talk) 08:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

were/was

whether the band have broken up or not, isn't there some sort of wp style guide for collective entities such as bands? I actually prefer "genesis *were*..." myself, but seeing it written down here, I can't help feeling it's wrong. duncanrmi (talk) 22:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

It's "were" because this is a British band and the article uses British English. The manual of style page on plurals has further information. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)