Talk:Lilys

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Musicians

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians.

Alternative music Mid‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.Alternative musicWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative musicTemplate:WikiProject Alternative musicAlternative music articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pennsylvania Low‑importance

	Pennsylvania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philadelphia Low‑importance

	Philadelphia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philadelphia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Philadelphia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhiladelphiaWikipedia:WikiProject PhiladelphiaTemplate:WikiProject PhiladelphiaPhiladelphia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Notability

The 'notability' tag was re-added with the comment "No sources were added, only sources provide notability". I added three sources. The band has released several albums on important labels, had a top 20 hit in the UK, and there is evidence of multiple significant coverage in reliable sources. If notability isn't clear can I suggest the following course of action: (1) read the article, (2) compare my version with the previous version and note the sources that were added, and (3) if notability is still unclear, explain on this talk page why you believe this is the case. If nothing appears here in the next 24 hours to explain the 'notability' tag I'm going to remove it.--Michig (talk) 12:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...or even better, improve the article yourself with some of the many examples of significant coverage easily found from a Google search, e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. There's lots more on Google News. Happy editing!--Michig (talk) 12:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The single "A Nanny in Manhattan" is claimed to reach #16 on the UK charts. A reliable source for this claim would make a strong case for notability. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 14:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's already sourced earlier in the article. Chart Stats and Strong's book both confirm the chart placing. There's no need to add a source in two places for the same thing.--Michig (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC) And if you look at the examples of coverage above, notability is pretty obvious.--Michig (talk) 19:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you for pointing that out. I'll look over the cite when I can. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 20:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's more coverage: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]. --Michig (talk) 07:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now we have some good sources. These should be cited in the article, but since they do exist, I'll go ahead and remove the notability tag. (For all of those above fretting over what single hit what position, please note that only sources establish notability. Showing that multiple substantive reliable sources exist showed notability beyond a doubt.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've started working through these sources to improve this and the album articles. I'm pleased that you've finally relented with the 'Notability' tag, but you have added it back twice after the top 20 hit was sourced with two good references, with multiple sources also demonstrating significant coverage. I would urge you to discuss these issues before re-adding tags in future, particularly when other editors have already taken the issue to the talk page.--Michig (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Musical Style

This section is written a bit negatively, yet all references are nothing but good reviews? If this tone isn't changed, I'll probably just do it. 72.191.173.147 (talk) 06:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's written negatively - the only part that could be construed as being negative is the mention that Lilys have been seen as very derivative of other bands, and since this has come from several sources if justifiably mentioned.--Michig (talk) 16:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Singular or Plural?

Should the opening description read "Lilys IS an American indie rock band..."? I never thought the band name was intended to imply plurality. In fact, the plural of the word 'lily' is 'lilies'. Also, any mention where 'Lilys' is prefaced with 'the' is, in my opinion, incorrect. Not one album cover or liner note refers to them as 'THE Lilys'; the name is written, simply, 'Lilys'. Limesparks (talk) 16:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lilys. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081021022132/http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/19406-lilys-the-3-way to http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/19406-lilys-the-3-way

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) 22:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lilys. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091204081852/http://citypaper.net/articles/2003-05-22/music.shtml to http://citypaper.net/articles/2003-05-22/music.shtml

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) 09:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]