Talk:Lostprophets/Archive 1

Burn Burn: a cover?

I have a friend who is absolutely convinced that burn burn is a cover of a dance band from about 10 years ago. I have searched google and lyrics sites but can find no evidence of it. Is it true? Unstoppability 20:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hell no. Why on earth does your friend think this? U-Mos 20:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a clue but she's convinced Unstoppability 20:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Ian just sings it the way Seal sings "Killer" that's all, not a cover. Shrimpster —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.149.129 (talk) 00:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge members

All of the band's member pages are rather stubbish, while this article isn't really that long. If no one has any objections, I'm going to merge them all in here. - Lifefeed 15:58, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Lostprophets: Christian band?

Quick question. Not to suggest Lostprophets' music genre is a specifically Christian one (it's clearly more Alternative Rock/Emo/Metal/Etc.), but they ARE listed under Contemporary Christian Artists on this site ... along with other bands like U2 and MxPx, who don't necessarily advertise themselves as Christians, but who are, in fact, Christian. I know Lostprophets is an openly Straight Edge band and their lyrics have a lot to do with hypocrisy and conformity and being above that (for lack of better words). Something not really addressed here is ... are they Christians? Is their message Christian? It sure seems like it, but I wasn't sure.

For instance, was "Rooftops" about proclamation or self-expression? Or both? It seems like the latter to me; clearly, this song's about making a difference ... and also about a message being spread, something really personal.

"The New Transmission" was definitely about conformity-- about taking the world's lies and totally rejecting them.

"To Hell We Ride" was really convincing. It was all about half-heartedness, running without a destination, and procrastination ...

All this stuff just got me wondering. In any case, I love this band and their message, just hoping it's a higher One, you know? If anyone can give me a straighforward answer, I'd appreciate it.

Being Christian doesn't make a band a Christian band. Their message isn't Christian. Speaking on hypocrisy and conformity and rejecting lies isn't something strictly Christian, neither is being lost (running without a destination). Imasleepviking 19:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on how you look at it. For instance, Flyleaf was asked if they were a Christian band in an interview, and the answer they gave was something to the effect of, "Yeah. I mean, we are all Christians, and I think whatever you believe comes out in your music." Most of their music is secular, though. The themes are really general--usually about taking a bad situation and perservering. Sound Christian? Definitely. Sound secular? Yeah. Could be the same deal here. Anyway, so I'm guessing you mean they are Christians, but they're just not a "Christian" band ... per se. I also get that conformity isn't a strictly Christian message ... well, in the sense I mean it, it is. After all, in the Christian sense, it's about being transformed and set apart for Christ. In a secular sense, it's more about being set apart to be set apart, or to escape hypocrisy, or even just for image or self, etc., etc. "Lost" has a pretty bad connotation though ... Usually someone who isn't a Christian is what comes to mind when someone uses the term; in Scripture, it's a different deal. It's used to term the believers who've gone astray. It's lost a lot of its impact though; it's too cliche now that most give it little real consideration, little consideration to what it means to be lost and to be found ...

Anyway, thanks.

<<we're most certainly not a christian band... not one little bit>> thats mike lewis' answer on this question on the official forums

The question as to whether or not a band is Christian or not is usually settled by whether or not their music is marketed in the Christian market, which Lostprophets is not and they never have been. Lizz7372 21:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

Redirected all band member name stubs back here, they had no useful content and the band members are not notable for anything else apart from the band. Djbrianuk 22:00, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

lostprophets wrote "Sweet Dreams My L.A. Ex"!?

Ermmm I don't think so...

then who did? - Bagel7

Cathy Dennis wrote it.--Shrimpster

thanks - Bagel7

Name of Band

Does this need a technical limitations headline? Is the band name "Lostprophets" or "lostprophets"?

lostprophets, I'm almost certain. --Kiand 18:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen "lostprophets" as the correct spelling/referral by/from hardcore/hard-line fans. I believe the technical limitations tag is called for. --Zeryphex 14:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

its definitely lostprophets - Bagel7

No, it's "Lostprophets". It only ever appeared as all lower case because it looked better in the font they did an early logo in (Ian used to do graphic design and has a decent feel for that sort of thing). VKPS 21:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my earlier comment, I'm going to change this to the correct name in a day or two unless anyone objects. This has been confirmed by Cat from Dragonninja (the only fansite thanked on every LPs album) with the band in the last fortnight; who has already corrected MusicBrainz. VKPS 16:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Must object. The title on their official website is lostprophets, all lower-case. Check for yourselves: [1]. --86.34.216.200 21:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The banner says LOSTPROPHETS and before the redesign the title on the top bar said LOSTPROPHETS too. As noted in the article different spellings are often used but the proper way is Lostprophets. CfW 10:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Best

I recal reading somewhere (maybe the DragonForce website) that lostprophets beat out the band DragonForce for the band of the year in the UK in (I believe) 2004. Might be interesting to note. --Silvermoonburn 03:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

then note it - Bagel7

They also won best uk band at the pop factory awards this year.--Shrimpster

Liberation Transmission?

Could somebody please reference where it was confirmed the the third album will be titled Liberation Transmission? I know that it says "Liberation Transmission: June 27th" on their Myspace, but I wouldn't put it past Ian Watkins to edit their Myspace like that as more of a teaser than an actual confirmation of title. Thanks.

Liberation Transmission is the name and its out Pyromaniac589 15:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The PRP--Shrimpster

ilan rubin

he hasn't been confirmed as being the actual new band member he's only been confirmed as being the new drummer for the past wales tour in April and for GIAN 2006

ok now he's been confirmed from a site

Citation issues

I have a number of concerns about the lack of adequate citations in certain parts of the Lostprophets article: As per the comments made during the Featured Article debate, the article makes the claim that Lostprophets are 'widely credited' with popularising certain aspects of fashion. Not only is this claim rather questionable and reeking somewhat of post hoc ergo propter hoc (obviously, we can't definitively point to the tipping point of those phenomenons, but in the case of trucker hats, are we to believe that Lostprophets had more to do with popularising them than Marc Jacobs or Von Dutch?), without a citation (preferably more than one) to qualify 'widely credited', the sentence becomes even more inappropriate for the page.

In addition to these, the article's use of citations is pretty unacceptable - while the references section briefly lists a number of articles alluded to (without corresponding inline citations to indicate which claims come from which interview), so many claims in the article lack proper sources, something which is essential for Good Article status.

I wanted to bring this up on the talk page rather than going straight to remove the article from the good article list to give the active editors a chance to re-evaluate the page in accordance with the GA criteria, but if after another couple of weeks the article still doesn't shape up, I'll request a review of its GA status. Cheers. Idp 21:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)AMIE[reply]

Name Pt. II

The home page says LOSTPROPHETS; the MySpace says Lostprophets. Neither suggest the band preferring a lowercase l.

The band themselves have noted that. - Bagel7 07:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Source? DragonNinja (big LPs fansite) investigated this very recently and the band told them otherwise. The original logos were all lowercase because it looked better in the fonts being used, not because it's the band name. VKPS 16:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noted what? That the l should indeed be lower-case? --213.40.131.66 12:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Town Called Hypocrisy

Someone has listed Town Called Hypocrisy as the second single from Liberation Transmission. Where was this information got from? I couldn't find anything of the sort on the internet.

Right, stop adding this. If it has been confirmed as a new single, post citation with it. If not, do not add it. How hard is that? 217.43.18.40, you have been warned! U-Mos 17:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! Told you it was the next single before the album was even released.—Preceding unsigned comment added by YesMapRadio (talk • contribs)

Yes, well done, now please look into your crystal ball and tell us all the future holds (sarcasm). DO NOT ADD A NEW SINGLE UNLESS IT HAS BEEN CONFIRMED, NO MATTER HOW LIKELY IT IS! U-Mos 11:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article: Delisted

As the numerous flaws I addressed a couple of weeks back have still not been addressed - indeed, as when they were brought up in the peer review and featured article nomination, they were simply ignored, I've removed lostprophets from the list of 'Good Articles'. Suggestions for improvement can be found under the heading 'citation issues' as well as in the peer review and featured article nomination page. Idp 00:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Oliver Disambiguation

I'm not sure what Wikipedia's policy on this is, but I thought I'd bring it up anyway. Even though Ian Watkins doesn't have his own page, he appears as part of a disambiguation page if you search for him (the link redirects to this page). Should the same be done for Jamie Oliver? I would do it myself, but I have no idea how to go about it.

There's a dab line on Jamie Oliver. The name would need more meanings to warrant a dab page.

i have now made pages for most band member and BTW the guys real name isnt jamie oliver is it so there is no need to do anything--Childzy_talk^contribs 21:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link on the main page to Jamie Oliver the chef has now been changed to the right person. There's no need to have to go through that article when a single link does the trick. Josh 11:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Band Picture

OK - that band pic is VERY out of date! May I suggest [2] as a replacement? I can't upload it myself because I'm not a registered user. Anyway, you might be wondering why the picture only features five members - not Ilan Rubin. Seeing as he does not feature on the new album, and so isn't on any promo pics etc., I don't think he should be in Wikipedia's picture. So can someone please upload that picture and replace the old one with it? Thanks 213.122.68.204 18:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And while we're at it, could someone please use [3] as the title of the infobox? It would look really awesome! 81.131.70.96 18:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a great idea as those images are the most updated of the band, but the Wikipedia upload file states that unless those images are public domain, they are not to be updated. Could someone verify whether or not Imageshack hosted files are public domain? --DJFrank 09:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are emphatically not public domain. In my experience, the best band photos for Wikipedia's purpose are press release photos. This does not mean any old photo used in the press -- just because it's published in a newspaper or magazine does not make it fair game -- but we can use a photo issued by the band's record company or management in a press kit. This is a packet sent to newspapers, radio stations, and sometimes music retailers to promote the band, and usually includes an "official" band photo that is intended to be used for purposes like ours. See if you can locate one of these -- they often have a white border with band information in small text at the bottom. (See Nick Rhodes for one example.) Upload it with the {{promophoto}} tag and be sure to include information on where you got it -- the pic is much less likely to be deleted if another Wikipedian can verify that it's okay for us to use. Good luck! — Catherine\^talk 14:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a different version of the same picture's been uploaded by someone. The quality's a bit rubbish, but it's better than the oudated pic from before! Clearly if anyone stumbles upon a better version it would be appreciated - and using their logo as the title would be awesome! U-Mos 16:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genre

I'm glad that somebody changed their genre to pop-rock instead of alternative metal.

Oh, please... and it was changed back anyway - and quite right! 213.122.132.25 17:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we add emo to their genre. DavidJJJ 07:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think they are emo (which in and of itself is hard to define these days) and Ian even said on their Myspace page a while ago that they don't consider themselves emo. If you buy the new album and upload it to iTunes, the genre comes up as metal, but I think they are more alternative rock.Lizzysama 21:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rock is a good choice for the genre at the start of the article, as lostprophets have songs that could be classed as a billion different genres. Fake Sound if like post-hardcore meets nu metal, the new album is like We Are Scientists covering The Cure.

please remember to sign posts with ~~~~ thanks, Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 15:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i think that they arnt emo than they are Alternative Rock—Preceding unsigned comment added by Captaincookie (talk • contribs)

they're not really emo. they're lyrics aren't that emo, more politically aimed kinda. also, bands like sum 41 remind me of hawthorne heights, but hawthorne heights is emo cuz of their lyrcs, and sum 41's lyrics are sometimes political instead. i would mostly say alt-rock,with some punk and post-hardcore influences. a little like what taking back sunday's wikipedia page said before it got changed.

They could be considered emo nowadays, with the backing vocals and the dramatic style of vocals. The earlier Lostprophets were more of hard rock. Their image is beginning to look more emo aswell, the long, greasy hair and make-up. --Soetermans 16:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dammit guys, emo looks doesn't make a band emo. if that was true, a lot more goth and punk rock bands would also be considered emo. it's the music that determines if a band is emo. now this band is more political than emo, and you guys know it. songs with the names of "a town called hypocrisy", "shinobi vs. dragon ninja" and "last train home" aren't emo songs! i'm ok with nu-metal, and would even consider adding metalcore because i think the old music like "the sweet life of swing" actually has some metalcore. 66.57.12.148 22:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The Sweet Life Of Swing"...? Surely it's "the handsome life of swing" 86.131.148.137 (talk) 07:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you're focusing on what the lostprophets used to be, and less who they are now. Liberation Transmission does not reflect the image that thefakesoundofprogress originally suggested. This may be due to the lostprophets abandoning their independent label, or losing one or two of their members. Currently, the lostprophets reflect the image of an emo band through not only their hair, makeup, and clothes, but their lyrics as well.
The lyrics of the song rooftops are a great example of this. ^{<Removed lyrics due to possible copyright infringment Seraphim ^Whipp 00:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)>}[reply]
I believe these lyrics are very emotional, and would definately fit the stereotype of an emo rock band. For this reason, along with the band's new look and their change of label, I vote to describe the lostprophets as an emo rock band on wikipedia.
Litanss 07:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You make a fair point, but the fact is that "emo" nowadays is more a derogatory term than a musical genre. Therefore it shouldn't be used. U-Mos 11:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

guys, guys. i'm tired of the alt metal pop rock new wave w/e arguement. could we also add post-grunge in? i believe that AMG has listed that as a style in every cd they came out with. and to continue on with hthe arguement, liberation transmission was a short departure from their old style of music. it was only becasue they had so much pop in them, that they had to let it out. they said their 4th album's gonna return to their roots. Itachi1452 03:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Opinions

I want to add somewhere that their new album is a piece of garbage, how can I do this? ````—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.151.219 (talk • contribs)

Well you go to a forum, and voice any (completely wrong) thoughts of yours there, not here. And you sign comments with ~~~~, not ````. U-Mos 09:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

who says its completely wrong. its opinion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.235.3 (talk • contribs)

Fair enough, but this is still not the place to voice them. U-Mos 18:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is in fact absolutely terrible. Jesus. Why the hell did they change their sound so drastically? Ian seems to think that using "Were you wearing the same clothes 5 years ago" as an answer is acceptable. But its quite clearly a fucking weak explanation.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.245.171 (talk • contribs)

Reading Kerrang! it would appear they're not entirely happy with it. Ian describes it as "the record they needed to make at the time" and that they needed to get the pop stuff out of their system. They also say if it was any more poppy then it wouldn't be them. This all bodes well for the next album :) CfW 10:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And what have their clothes got to do with the music? Anyone who says that clearly hasn't listened to the album properly or they'd see how much effort had been put into it. You don't like it? Fine, but don't blame their image and don't say it's through lack of trying. And for the record, I think their image rules. And CfW (who makes rational arguments), I don't think that means they're unhappy with the record at all, just they don't want to make anything like it again. Which is great, cos no one (except possibly our outspoken friend up there) wants to hear the same album again. And Ian's expressed many times that is favourite song on the album is Can't Catch Tomorrow, which is undoubtedly the poppiest of the lot. U-Mos 18:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listen. Wikipedia has a Neutral Point of View, and is an encyclopedia, not a place to broadcast your opinion. If you want to do this, go make a weblog, Usenet, forum or whatever. Wikipeida is an encyclopedia. Salaskan 20:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External Links

Any requests for changes to the external links section go here. DO NOT request that their myspace is included, as it is found from lostprophets.com. U-Mos 19:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"DO NOT request that their myspace is included, as it is found from lostprophets.com."

This should be added to the do not edit comment in the article edit box.

— Michael 21:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Can't Catch Tomorrow (Good Shoes Won't Save You This Time)

I heard this was going to be the next single.—Preceding unsigned comment added by YesMapRadio (talk • contribs)

a) Sign comments with ~~~~, b) no new singles should be added until they are confirmed - so until there is no doubt and c) tomorrow is spelt tomorrow. U-Mos 14:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://uk.sonymusic.co.uk/forums/lostprophets/showthread.php?t=11434 - is this considered a valid source? Dragonninja seem to be taking this as true and say it's the new single on their main page. 82.6.67.134 21:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Cf[reply]

This does seem valid, however the post does say they are PLANNING to release it. I have added this to the liberation transmission section of the article, but it should not be added to the singles table until there is more concrete evidence that it is the next single. U-Mos 12:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capital L

The MySpace and message board both have the band's name beginning with an upper-case L. Relevant?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.209.212 (talk • contribs)

This has been discussed many times; look up! It's lostprophets. U-Mos 10:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, look it up. it's Lostprophets with the capital L. the only reason people think it's lostprophets is cuz it's always either all capital case or all lowercase letters. trust me, when i got liberation transmission, both itunes and windows media player read it as Lostprophets, and i also looked it up, and confirmed on the band's site that it's Lostprophets. Itachi1452 19:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Introduktion

Why does it say that Lostprophet is a "GAY welsh POP band"?? That is for the first untrue! The second thing; all the articles are supposed to be written from a neutral perspective! This is my report to the articles introduktion and I think it should be rewritten or removed!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dewiee (talk • contribs)

It was reverted U-Mos 18:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert it yourself, Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia ;-) Salaskan 19:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Image

I'm not sure how to do it, but if I could, I would change the current image on the page. Maybe to the first picture that was there, or any other old picture prior to "Liberation," since they dressed much simply for the majority of their career (As opposed to the New Romantic image now up.) I know this makes little difference and is just a matter of opinion, but I don't feel their current image represents them well. But it's the music that really counts.

Couple of changes

- I've removed the part about controversy and press in the introduction. Felt like this wasn't needed here. Perhaps one or two lines about SS and LT?

- I've removed the quote about ATCH being the next single. Now it's out it's not really needed.

- I've removed the quote from months ago about LT's sound. Now the album is out it's not really needed and also it was an old blog on myspace so it can't be referenced.

- I've removed the "Liberation Phase II" name for the tour. I've not seen it called this anywhere and the citation needed has been there ages. The fact there's an upcoming tour is enough.

Hope there's no objections to any of that. 82.6.67.134 21:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Cf[reply]

Those are good edits, well done for being bold and doing them. U-Mos 12:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charts

Do you think a paragraph about LT's chart performance is appropriate? Namely that LT has fell from the charts quicker than SS did, and the fact that though it did get #1 album it did so with quite low sales compared to other #1s (see the 2006 in uk music page). Also the fact that ATCH only got 23, which for a second single is quite low when you compare to SS's singles. Only Shinobi and Goodbye Tonight charted lower then that. 81.106.195.9 11:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Cf[reply]

All that would be useful, but I think it would be better off on the Liberation Transmission page. U-Mos 16:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Former members

There needs to be some citation for the listed former members. How do people know that there was previously a guy called Shane, Greg Knight and DJ Stepzak in the band? And as for Rahul Srinivasan, I am almost certain this is vandalism but I don't want to remove it in case it is true! However, if citation is not added to the article or listed here, I will have to remove these former members from the article. U-Mos 10:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genre Issues and Reverting

I reverted the article due to the inaccuracy of the latest edits:

- in the Current Line-up section: "Mike Richards - Vocals" (?);

- in the Start Something section: "taking a break from bumming each other"(?!);

- in the Genre tag: "Emocore/Nu metal";

While the first two are obvious vandalisms, I'm sure the genre issue will continue to be argued.

I think a solution to this problem is to consider the description stated by the lostprophets official page on myspace.com, which is "Rock / Alternative / New Wave". We should keep the genre debate on the talk page not in the article itself. Does anybody object? Violethope 17:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think just "rock" band in the summary along with "alt metal" "alt rock" and "hard rock" in the summary on the right are accurate enough. They don't need changing, so unless there's a consensus reached in the talk page that it should be changed then just edit any changes people make to it. Especially change it if someone puts emo :/ CfW 18:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glorified Demo

That £6000 needs a source... As with the former members ultimatum let's give this a week before we wipe it off. CfW 22:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found and added a source for thefakesoundofprogress recording cost. Seems that £6000 was wrong. Violethope 16:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative metal?

This isn't alternative metal. It's poppunk. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.89.24.41 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 10 October 2006.

By practice, we will first classify them according to websites and reviews. In the absence of that, we will go by popular definition. But failing both of that, we come up with our own categorisation by our own experience of their music.

As a listener of their music myself, I agree it's hard to classify their music. In that scenario, we usually give artistes multiple categorisations, or put a section explaining the debate on categorisation. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 15:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think "rock" in the introduction is fine. thefakesoundofprogress can be classifed as alt metal so it's valid to have that in our genre list. I don't think i've ever seen anyone refer to them as pop punk before. We currently have Liberation Transmission classified as "pop rock" rather than "hard rock" as it used to be. I left this edit be as I agree with it, but it was done without any discussion. What are other people's thoughts? CfW 17:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The band are not alternative metal. They're a hardcore-influenced mainstream hard rock band, mouthful though that description may be. --Switch 08:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the band's altmetal. if you think they aren't, you probably just heard liberation transmission or any of the singles from it. but if you were to listen to their old songs, especially from thefakesoundofprogress, you'd hear the dramatic difference. those songs are definetly alt metal.Itachi1452 22:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative metal, but not hard rock —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.123.241 (talk) 11:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect?

There have been alot of anon users vandalising this page recently, and most useful edits come from registered users. I think it might be a good idea to request semi-protection for this article. Comments? U-Mos 21:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a great idea. This article is trashed on a daily basis. I'd love to read it for good information not just to clean it up :) . Violethope 19:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I've nominated it for semi-protection. Now we wait... U-Mos 14:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name, again

"The band is named after a bootleg recording of a 1988 Duran Duran concert in Italy[1]. The name is intended to be spelled out as all one word, all in lower case."

That note doesn't lead anywhere. As much as I personally prefer "lostprophets" to "Lostprophets" I'm finding it very difficult to find somewhere to confirm this. A recent addition to the dragonninja faq says the proper way is "Lostprophets". The lp website forums has it listed as "Lostprophets". The lp myspace page says "Lostprophets" and they sign their bulletins with "Lostprophets". The visible noise website seems to use both variations, so they're not much help.

Any chance of a source stating definitively that it's "lostprophets" as at the moment "Lostprophets" seems to be the correct way... CfW 09:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it as it is until there is definite confiormation either way. I think it should be lostprophets. U-Mos 10:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is definite confirmation. The update to the Dragonninja FAQ came from Cat (the owner) speaking to Ian Watkins (the lead singer) about it. VKPS 22:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.moacsupreme.co.uk/faq.php

Q: How is the band name spelled? "Lost Prophets," "The Lost Prophets," or "Lostprophets?"

A: The band name is one word, "Lostprophets." No space, capital L and the rest lowercase, no "The." Why? Because that's how the band wants it. How do I know? Because Ian told me so himself.

As much as I prefer "lostprophets" I think the evidence points to it officially being "Lostprophets"... CfW 16:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give until Friday evening for a source to be supplied saying it's "lostprophets", otherwise i'm gonna change it. CfW 19:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Also added a few sentences about the different spellings. CfW 16:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, although I hoped it would be lostprophets *sob*. U-Mos 17:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So did I, it's soo much better. At the end of the day though we've gotta go with what it is on here :( CfW 19:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why has so much been deleted?

Huge sections of the article have been removed with no discussion on this page about it. All the stuff about people leaving Andrew WK gigs after lostprophets support set and the stuff about them getting bottled at Deconstruction and the stuff about Donatella Versace flying them to her home and giving them free clothes because her kid was a massive fan is all true and can be found in the articles cited in the references section at the bottom of the page.

Almost everything about the backlash against the band has been removed, as well as stuff about them cancelling gigs including their slot at the Reading and Leeds festival before the release of Start Something. Reverting now will be a pain in the ass because some good updates have been made to the Liberation Transmission section which will need to be kept.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.61.200.145 (talk • contribs)

This was done a while ago by Xinit. Although annoying, everything removed was done so because of it being POV and/or unsourced. Basically, the info previously there could be readded if it was reworded slightly and given a verifiable source. U-Mos 15:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The New Transmission

I don't think a forum post by some (what appears to be) random guy really qualifies as a source for this being the next single... CfW 21:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about this, but I think people can look at the citation and decide for themselves whether to believe it. I have added into thie singles table that it's not confirmed though. U-Mos 13:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did go a bit overboard there... I've added a line to the history section with a link to the forum thread. U-Mos 18:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh or British vote

Thought this would be easier as a vote. I have put the article back to Welsh, and this should NOT be changed until a consensus is reached (which won't take long, I feel). Just put your username under Welsh or British and any and all comments under the comments section. U-Mos 11:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh

British

User:87.127.54.17

Comments

I've reverted this a couple of times already, but don't want to get into an edit war over it.

I think the article should state them as a Welsh band rather than British, because they come from Wales. There is nothing at all wrong with referring to them as Welsh. People from Wales are Welsh, as well as British. The editor suggests Wales isn't a country: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles_(terminology) suggests otherwise.

What are other people's thoughts? CfW 19:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh band. Welsh people are British, but sounds can often be characterised/influenced by particular regions so to call them specifically Welsh seems reasonable. VKPS 00:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely should be Welsh; Wales is so a country! Calling them Welsh is more specific. U-Mos 11:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~I expected these kind of unfounded comments from idiots who base their arguments on groundless nationalism.~~ Even Wikipedia doesn't recognise Wales as a country, see:list of countries. Wales is ruled entirely by the UK parliament, has the same laws, the same citizenship, and there is no controlled border between the two regions. Very few people in North American or European Countries would know what you're talking about if you tried to tell them that you're from "Wales", further adding to the argument that it isn't a recognised country. Having a flag and an anthem doesn't make you a country. Wake up and smell the coffee. The details box should state that they're from the UK and are British, but I have no problem adding later in the argument that they're from the Wales region of the UK. 87.127.54.17 17:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make personal attacks. There is no need for it; I have struck them from the above. Unless you have evidence to support your speculation about people's views of Wales' status, you aren't adding anything to the discussion. Even if there was evidence that few people know Wales is a country, it doesn't mean anything. Most people don't understand the Theory of relativity, that doesn't mean it isn't true. The status of a country isn't determined by popularity contests. Wales has historically been a country, its currently technically a principality which is a type of country. I see no reason why Lostprophets shouldn't be considered a Welsh band. Its precise and specific. Gwernol 17:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are biased because you are Welsh. I have provided evidence to support my argument, Wales is not on Wikipedia's list of countries. If you want further evidence, see the acts of union. Wales has never been and never will be a country, that is fact.87.127.54.17 19:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm not Welsh, don't jump to conclusions based on my user name. The "evidence" you provided also doesn't list England or Scotland as countries, are you about to remove all references to them as well? Even if we accept that Wales is not technically a "country", that doesn't mean that someone cannot be Welsh. Britain is not a true country any more as partial sovereignty has passed to the European Union. Should we list The Kinks, The Rolling Stones and The Who as "European bands"? Of course not. They are quintessentially English bands, and Lostprophets appear to be Welsh in a meaningful sense. Gwernol 19:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many factual inaccuracies in that post. Firstly, Scotland and England aren't countries either, they're regions of Britain, just like Wales. Although England is sometimes used as a synonym for the UK. Secondly, on you EU point, the UK is still a true country because the UK can leave the EU any time it likes, something I'd be keen to see but that's another debate. The EU is a kind of glorified UN and is not a nationality or country. 87.127.54.17 21:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look under Welsh music in Wales, it show that the lostprophets are a Welsh band not English, and, as a point of interest, Scotland was an independent state until May 1707.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cglenholmes (talk • contribs) at 18:03 on November 6, 2006

How is that relevant? I haven't said that they're "English", I said that they're British, which is correct. We're not talking about Scotland, either. 87.127.54.17 19:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that these arguments are missing the point insofar as they consider themselves a prominent welsh band and that would define them as welsh, i would think.Imasleepviking 03:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know these arguments are old, but I just wanted to provide another reason to regard lostprophets as a Welsh band: this is more specific than calling then a British, and therefore more right. - Bagel7^T's 01:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Singles

"I Don't Know" was a US single and so is "The New Transmission" just that they never release b-sides or anything. It's just radio airplay. You could search it on the prp.com or on the official lostprophets forums. -Shrimpster Dec 8, 2006 (UTC)

Radio airplay only=not a single. U-Mos 18:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also as of now The New Transmission is shown as a single which it is not, there is also speculation of 4AM forever being the next single because Ryan Smith's filmography page(http://www.ryansmithdirector.com/filmography.html) shows that he has directed a music video from lostprophets with the title 4AM forever 69.145.148.216 22:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Samples

Err, personally I don't listen to the band, but isn't using 3 songs from the same album as samples quite redundant? -74.111.32.69 03:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine - Bagel7 21:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Grindcore Rules"?

This seems to be a new single or something on their myspace page. Should this be mentioned on the page? And where does this single come from? B-side? - Bagel7 21:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an old song 69.145.148.216 01:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please tell me where it comes from? - Bagel7^T's 01:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Metal

We happy with this? No one has changed it in quite a few edits so i'm reluctant to put it back to rock. CfW 17:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, it's always been listed as that (since November at any rate). I would keep it as it is, as it encompasses the sounds of all the band's major releases. U-Mos 18:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, you mean at the start of the article. Now that I do think should be rock, as it is more general. Any other thoughts? U-Mos 18:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't want to make the classification as general as can be, I think Alt. Rock is fine.Imasleepviking 19:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B-Sides

can anybody put a list of the b-sides,covers and demos in FSOP, Start Something, Liberation Transmission? .Fobluis 18:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I certainly can and will put it on the discography page ASAP U-Mos 17:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, have I still not done this? I'll get on it soon, I swear. U-Mos 15:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genre

Do you think we should add Nu metal and New wave to their music genres, as nu metal reflects their older stuff and new reflects their new poppier album Liberation Transmission? DavidJJJ 18:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think alt metal/alt rock/hard rock is enough to describe the first two albums. Maybe, if consensus is reached, something to describe LT, but for the love of god not emo... CfW 10:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New CD

i think we need to do a article about the band's new album...

Not yet, wait until there's more info. U-Mos 15:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the translation correct?

Para Todas las Putas Celosas is translated in the text as "For all the jealous Whores". However, if you follow the link, it isn't "whores", but "bitches". The person who changed the text back on the 8th February comes from IP address 151.198.191.133, which is a school's IP address, and in going through the list of changes they have "contributed", I have found multiple instances of vandalism. For some reason, this change was not corrected (although the addition of their own name was removed). As a non-spanish speaker, I could not say for certain what is correct. I used a couple of on-line translation devices, but none would translate "putas". Which word is correct? If it turns out "whores" is correct, then the other page will need correction. StephenBuxton 18:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's "bitches", apparently. It was changed on the main page as, according to the user, it is more literal. I put whores originally, but I can't actually remember where I got it from. This is backed up by the song "Bitchez" from the EP, which contains the spanish line. U-Mos 15:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Te Quiero Puta! - The phrase "Te quiero puta!" translates literally from Spanish as "I want you, whore". However, a more idiomatic and more accurate translation would be "I love you, whore". Puta is often mistranslated to the word "bitch". Hope that helps seven+one 20:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So is it whores or bitches? It was "bitches" in the article, but Bineye just changed it to "whores," and I'm wondering which one is correct. - Bagel7^T's 08:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I write more in the spanish wiki at http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lostprophets I talk spanish, I think they wanted to mean bitches, because I know "bitches" is a slang, while "whores" is an official word, and the word "putas" its derived from the word prostitutas (I think) and can be considered like a slang term in spanish. I'm chilean and I'm very happy with the spanish title, makes me proud! in a weird way. It's a good Ep. Cheers Pancho86 (talk) 23:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Early Genre

Im not sure what exact genre Lostprophets should be classified now. But I know for a fact this band used to play under the style Nu-metal on their first album. I was wondering if someone should add nu-metal in their genre box, (with 'early' written down in brackets) so the confusion of this debate can be dampened down a bit?Funkmetalhead16 16:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Alt metal is fine. CfW 17:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External Links

With the new album coming i think there should be a link to:

typically all wiki-music pages have a link to the bands myspace, even if it is linked on the bands site, i am sure almost all bands have a link on there website to there myspace, and there mypsace to website. and in the case of buzz.net being the main site the band seem to use for updates on the new album it should be in there, dragonnija isnt even an official site, and your putting that in.(LemonLemonLemons 15:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Metalcore?

Does anyone think the band are metalcore? They sound kinda like a fusion between alternative metal and punk rock, which is metalcore. Thundermaster367 14:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No definately not. Their older stuff was alternative metal but definately not metalcore. Metalcore is stuff like As I lay Dying and Every Time I Die. I definately would not classify them as Metalcore. Especially since they've gone more commercial now. I think Alt Metal is fine. RPI 14:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. Thundermaster367 (talk) 09:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hard Rock

Hard rock??? They are more of Linkin Park sort of sound, like an Alt. Rock Alt. Metal crossover. But not hard rock. Hard rock is Bon Jovi and QOTSA. However, it's not Lostprophets. Now if someone doesn't find a source for it in 24 hours, I'll remove it. Thundermaster367 10:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nu metal

It's obvious that their earlier work is nu metal, it has a sort of Limp Bizkit sound to it. Also, having a DJ with scratching is a clear nu metal element. If nobody answers within 24 hours, I will add it. Thundermaster367 12:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No their not Nu-metal for me, the genre's before you added nu-metal were fine and should be left alone.--Brickovic (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, making a post with your argument that no one sees is not considered "discussion" on Wikipedia, time limit or not. Please wait to actually discuss with other people before making such important edits. - Bagel7^T's 04:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't going to discuss. I was trying to see if anyone objected to the changes. ''I Am The Master Of All Thunder'' (talk) 09:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yet it says on page next to the genres of lostprophets: "Please discuss on the talk page first before editing, has been talked through." I had assumed you had seen this and then decided to "discuss" on the talk page by yourself. If you hadn't seen the warning and just acted, that's even worse. In terms of sections of the articles that have that warning, please wait for discussion before making important edits. Thanks. - Bagel7^T's 21:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. They aren't nu metal. I compared them to SoaD (an alt metal band) and they sound a lot alike. Thundermaster^{Thundermaster's Talk} 16:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

post-grunge?

All music guide desribes all of lostprophets albums so far as post-grunge and i can see why, they show a lot of elements of the genre surely it should be added.--Lockebox (talk) 15:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this? Give me a reliable link. Do not add anything yet. - Bagel7^T's 22:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go. http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:d9fwxql0ldte --Lockebox (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well we can take a vote, but if the majority of Wikipedians don't agree, then I don't think we should change it. Personally, I don't think they're post-grunge, and I'm not entirely sure how objective AllMusic is. - Bagel7^T's 07:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lostprophets - Alternative rock, Hard Rock and Alternative Metal vs. Alternative rock, Post-grunge and Punk Rock

When you critisize a band for its musical genre, you have to keep in mind the background of the band. Lostprophet's history is alternative and rock - that's a fact, but isn't it a (big-)little punk or post-grunge? Last train home, Burn Burn, Make A Move, Can't Catch Tomorrow, Rooftops, The New Transmission, Ride, We Are Godzilla You Are Japan ... haven't those songs got some kind of weird punk like sort of vibe? And i don't think it's that Metal of music ...meteoritu (talk) 14:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you think so doesn't mean they are. Do you have any reliable sources to back your opinion up? Do not change anything yet. - Bagel7^T's 22:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nu Metal

Shal we include nu metal (older material) in the genre, as TFSOP seems very nu met-lish, with on-off riffs, lots of DJ-ing, and Ian's vocals seem a bit rap-like in Shinobi Titan50 (talk) 21:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've decided that alternative metal is fine.--Brickovic (talk) 13:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't get it... i don't think lostprophets is metal :/ meteoritu (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listen to the entirety of TFSOP Titan50 (talk) 13:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TFSOP is definately metal. Start something is more of a hard rock approach. And liberation is even more pop rock. Riverpeopleinvasion (talk) 13:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to use ":" to indent each separate post please. TFSOP definitely has metal elements, that's why the genre of "Alternative Metal" is on the page. They are not Nu Metal. And Riverpeopleinvasion's comment is right on. - Bagel7^T's 22:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't give two flying figs what anyone wants to call them, we should only add the genres from reliable cites, everything else should be removed, aggressively.--Alf ^melmac 10:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lostprophets

Lostprophets is a Nu metal band. Their first album thefakesoundofprogress is clearly nu metal and not Alternative metal.--88.88.23.109 (talk) 07:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nu Metal

TFSOP is a Nu metal album. I got proof right her All Music Guide —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alice Mudgardens (talk • contribs)

Might I say, that's what critics call them, only the band can say what the album is, because they were the makers and it's to them the album is meaningful. user:meteoritu 3:05 - March 20th 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 03:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic is a terrible place to use as a source for genres. It is frequently not even close. Plus, unless a band creates a new genre, their sound is typically going to be an influence of several other genres. Alternative metal kind of sums that up - it has metal influences, but also has several others so it's alternative. Fezmar9 (talk) 15:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still it's nu metal. If a song has heavy guitar rythmens it's nu metal jackass. And the band can't choose the gendre to the album. That means that no of the Korn albums are nu metal. --Wellwater Conspiracy (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion isn't closed, that means don't change the genres. It will be changed when a consensus has been reached.Imaslee pviking ( talk ) 20:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many other agrees with me when it comes to that Lostprophets is a nu metal band. You can't say those heavy guitar rythmens on thefakesoundofprogress has nothing to do with nu metal. Even on the thefakesoundofprogress page it sais that the album is nu metal. And songs like Shinobi vs. Dragon Ninja, The Fake Sound of Progress and Burn Burn are also listed as nu metal songs. --Wellwater Conspiracy (talk) 07:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term "nu metal" is too vague and all-inclusive. Aside from that, they've started a transformation and can't really be considered a nu metal band anymore. I don't know if you've heard their newer stuff, but it's not this "nu metal" shit.Imaslee pviking ( talk ) 17:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The songs from TFSOP is nu metal and some of their new song are nu metal like The Dead and Weapon and nu metal is listed as a genre on Lostprophets' untitled fourth studio album. Even if it's vague still most people agree that you got to have heavy guitar rythmens in a song. And many songs by Linkin Park are just as heavy like those on TFSOP and those songs are listed like nu metal. --Wellwater Conspiracy (talk) 21:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with user:Wellwater Conspiracy when it comes to that Lostprophets is a nu metal band. --Well Hater (talk) 14:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nu metal listed as a genre vote

Thought this would be easier as a vote. I have put the article back to nu metal, and this should NOT be changed until a consensus is reached (which won't take long). Just put your username under nu metal or Not a Nu metal band and any and all comments under the comments section. --Wellwater Conspiracy (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Well as of right now, wellwater conspiracy's sockpuppet suspicions, I can't in good conscious allow any "conclusion" be made until an investigation can be made.Imaslee pviking ( talk ) 23:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nu Metal
[edit]
--Well Hater (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Wellwater Conspiracy (talk) 18:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Freedom (song) (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Green Gardens (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Kill Nu metal (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a nu metal band
[edit]
--Riverpeopleinvasion (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Imaslee pviking ( talk ) 19:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~They WERE a new metal band, they're not a new metal band anymore.~~

~~--Fezmar9 (talk) 05:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

The above vote is invalid. Wikipedia does not vote Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy. The correct way to approach this is for both sides to explain why the band is, or isn't nu metal. Provide sources, not opinions. Nouse4aname (talk) 13:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the vote was a result of several discussions with no conclusion. And maybe the lack of a conclusion is the conclusion. I think this band draws in a lot of outside influences and creates a wide variety of sounds throughout several genres and cannot be defined by one single genre. Perhaps the Lostprophets page should resemble the My Chemical Romance page. In their infobox, posted under "genres" is alt rock and "disputed sub-genres" which links to section within the My Chemical Romance page publicly discussing the bands influences and wide variety of genres and is well sourced. Fezmar9 (talk) 15:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is perhaps the best idea. The reason I struck through the above is because it will only cause more problems if people think the situation has been settled by a vote. Nouse4aname (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are no reliable sources that lostprophets are nu metal anyway. Riverpeopleinvasion (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then the people supporting Lostprophets as a nu metal band will have to work hard to back up their claims. Fezmar9 (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Should only be listed as older material Titan50 (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC) As a note, we generally don't do "votes" on Wikipedia, but we do discussions. I'll revert your change of nu metal, because there is clearly no consensus for it. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 06:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nu metal

I don't understand this. I posted nu metal as a genre with a reliable source, the BBC, and an editor constanly removes it. What was the point behind this? I was told that I should go to the talk page but there is nothing here objecting the addition of sourced information. MOTE Speak to me 12:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WE HAVE TO ADD SOURCES

Have you guys an idea for why this was a former FA article. It's because it doesn't have sources. And instead of writing add sources like i've done on the Lostprophets discography. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 16:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genre: Alt. metal?

Can anyone provide reliable sources stating they are alternative metal? All there is so far is allmusic, which isn't really reliable with regards to metal genres. Prophaniti (talk) 23:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, an update I think: I have since discovered rockdetector.com, a generally accurate website. It definitely counts as a reliable source, as it's written and maintained by Garry-Sharpe Young, author of "Metal: The Definitive Guide", so by wikipedia standards it's most certainly reliable. And looking it over, it's pretty accurate too. Certainly much more so than allmusic. According to rockdetector, Lostprophets are (and I agree with this completely) alternative rock and nu metal. Unless someone can come up with a good reason not to, I'm going to alter the genres to reflect this, removing "alt. metal" and "hard rock". The point is, rockdetector is a much more reliable source when it comes to metal genres/bands (if anyone wants a list of allmusic's blatant mistakes I'll be happy to paste it here). Now, some will of course say "Why can't we incorporate both?" and the answer is they are in direct conflict with one another: rockdetector does use the terms "alternative metal" and "hard rock", and also has no limit on the number of genre tags it can apply to artists. Thus, but not using those tags, it is clearly saying "Lostprophets are not hard rock or alternative metal". So, we are left with two sources, one accurate for the most part, one innaccurate for the most part, conflicting with one another. It really isn't hard to see what to do in this situation. Prophaniti (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No you may not remove Alt. Metal. AM is a reliable source as far as wikipedia is concerned. You clearly do not understand how it works. Both will be used. Should you choose to remove Alt Metel your edit WILL be reverted. No they do not conflict and the source you given did not state explicitly that they are not Alternative Metal and drawing this conclusion based on they didn't list them as Alternative Metal is original reaserch.96.244.79.191 (talk) 20:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not original research. It's not inferring anything, it's perfectly clear: if, for example, the wikipedia page on Nirvana didn't have the genre "Grunge", you would say "Wikipedia says they're not grunge", because it both acknowledges the term and has no limit on the number of genres it attributes to a band. Rockdetector is no different. It -is- outright saying they're not alt. metal, to demand more is unreasonable: no article will ever say the exact line "This band isn't X genre".

Allmusic isn't a reliable source as far as heavy metal genres/bands go, as I have shown previously. It may qualify as a reliable source in other areas, but the sheer number of errors it makes (which is NOT original research, because I make this conclusion based on comparisons with several other, published sources) clearly shows it's lack of accuracy. And anyway, even if it is in some way reliable, it certainly cannot be argued that it is as reliable as rockdetector, so given their direct conflict, it's clear which one should be used. Prophaniti (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is OR, I believe the proper term is synthesis. Unless the sources explicitly states that said band is not said genre, we cannot remove that genre. AM is reliable as far as wikipedia is concerned. Both genres will be used unless you can find a source that explicitly states that they are not Alternative Metal.96.244.79.191 (talk) 04:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find -any- reliable source that says that? You don't get articles/books about what genres a band isn't, and it's unreasonable to demand such. I doubt you could find a source that says "Lostprophets aren't death metal" either, but that doesn't mean they are.

1.) All articles on rockdetector are written by the same person, Sharpe-Young himself, so you couldn't cite inconsistency between authors.

2.) The site does use the term "alternative metal".

3.) There is no limit to the number of genres the site can give to a band.

As such, there is literally nothing stopping the site from listing them as "alternative metal". So, the site not doing so is clearly stating that they are not said genre. Once the three above possibilities are ruled out, the only remaining reason why the site wouldn't call them "alternative metal" is if it says they're not alternative metal. This is not original research. It's no more original research than if I found an article that said "1+1+1+1=4" and I said "2+2=4"; or if I found an article that said "Of the two Lord of the Rings characters, Gandalf and Sauron, one is a hero the other is a villain. Gandalf is the hero." and I said "Therefore Sauron is the villain". It's only original research if I infer something from the site that isn't clearly there already, if it's open to interpretation. Given the logical steps I have outlined above, combined with the fact that you won't really find any reliable source that says the exact phrase "This band is NOT this genre", I don't see how there can be any question as to rockdetector actively denying their alternative metal status. Original research would be, for example, if I found a source that said "This band is alternative metal", and I said "Well, nu metal is a form of alternative metal, therefore this band is nu metal".

To put it succinctly, the only reason left for rockdetector not to term Lostprophets "alternative metal" is if it doesn't think they are that. Can you give me any other reason why it wouldn't? Prophaniti (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about i make this simple ? Allmusic is a reliable source according to wikipedia. Which means that the alternative metal tag is going to stay whether you like it or not. It's staying, so get used to it. Jakisbak (talk) 17:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading and taking in what I'm saying, my logical train of thought, then decide whether you agree with it or not, rather than just dismissing it out of hand.

Even if it is considered a reliable source, this doesn't mean we take everything it says, if there's another source to conflict with it. After all, it would be ridiculous to say that every single published source is equally valid? Which would you say, for example, is more reliable, the Penguin book of Greek Myths, or an in-depth study published by a university professor? It's fairly obvious that some sources are more reliable than others.

Now, this doesn't mean automatically that everything allmusic says can be dismissed. Rather, it means that if there is a source in direct conflict with it (which there is), where only one can be right, the more reliable must be taken. Prophaniti (talk) 17:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your "logical train of thought" constitutes original research. The more reliable one must be taken? According to wikipedia the most reliable sources for music is Allmusic, NME and Rolling Stone. Not another random site maintained by one guy. In this case, allmusic the more reliable source. Jakisbak (talk) 17:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I have explained above, it's not original research. There's a difference between original research (which involes making a jump in deduction that isn't necessarily true) and logical reasoning.

And no, I'm afraid allmusic isn't the more reliable not by a long-shot.

1.) Where is this list of reliable sources in order of reliability?

2.) rockdetector is not "another random site maintained by one guy". It's a site made by Garry Sharpe-Young, author of "Metal: The Definitive Guide". As something written by a published authority on metal and rock music, it is very much a reliable source.

3.) Allmusic has many, many errors when it comes to classifying metal genres/bands. I will be happy to paste the list of those I have found so far, if you wish (and before you say it, that is not original research, because those deductions are based on comparison with other, published works).

4.) Rockdetector is more focused on one area of music than allmusic. A more focused, specific source always has an edge in reliability over a more general one.

So, rockdetector -is- a reliable source, -is- more so than allmusic, and -does- directly contradict it. I've still not seen any arguments refuting those points. Prophaniti (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No matter what you say, allmusic is recognised all over wikipedia, and is considered reliable. Rockdetector is not, and although it may be reliable it still is not as much so as allmusic. Allmusic has always been used as a source for music genres and it will continute to be done so, even if it is wrong in your opinion. Jakisbak (talk) 10:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some people simply won't listen, and it's getting very annoying. This is precisely how so many of my debates on wikipedia go. I make a number of logical points. Other editors will say "You can't do that. That's against the rules." I outline, with complete logic, how it isn't at all against the rules. Said editors simply repeat themselves "I don't care, you can't do that".

If other editors will not engage in logical debate, then I shall simply ignore them. Now, as I have explained (and will not do so again after this, so please listen this time) rockdetector IS a reliable source. As I also explained, I am not saying allmusic isn't a reliable source. I personally feel it isn't BUT I'm not being pushy about that. I'm not suggesting it be banned or never used or anything like that. What I -am- saying is, as I have outlined, it is not as reliable as rockdetector, and in this particular case the two are at odds. Ergo, rockdetector must be taken over it.

Any future replies you make that do not bear at least some hint of reason or willingness to engage in the issue will simply be ignored, because I'm getting sick of repeating myself over and over and other editors stubbornly refusing to even acknowledge my points. I have made my perfectly valid case and have not seen anything even approaching a decent refutation of it. This is -not- to say I'm unwilling to back down or be convinced. But I'm not willing to do so if I'm not given any reason to. The reason I'm becoming frustrated is that I am saying "Allmusic is not as reliable", and then giving perfectly good, logical reasons why this is the case. But then other editors, both here and many times elsewhere, will simply say "No, you're wrong" and fail to back it up in any way. It being used all over wikipedia, for example, is not a good reason in of itself to say it's the more reliable source. Prophaniti (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that a reliable source classifies them as alternative metal, even if your reliable source doesn't (and saying one source is more reliable than the other DOES constitute original research), so they should both be taken into account. If there was some irrefutable list of reliable sources in specific order it'd be a different story, but without that we're just gonna have to treat both sources as being equally reliable. GeneralAtrocity (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the page to reflect all sources. Howz that ? Jakisbak (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Atrocity: I can see where you're coming from, and I thank you if nothing else for the calm, sensible reply. As I say, I can see the point you're making: that in saying one is more reliable than the other. But I still argue that this isn't original research, that it's just simple logic and no other reasonable conclusion can be drawn by anyone who fully understands all the points involved. If nothing else, we do have two sources contradicting one another, and thus surely if I am guilty of original research by taking one of them over the other, then to ignore rockdetector's denial of the genre is just as much original research.

At the very least, even if people will not accept the removal of the tag, I feel a "disputed" tag should be placed after it, to represent the conflict. Prophaniti (talk) 08:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no dispute to be had. Yes it is original research. Unless the source explitly states that they are not Alternative Metal. Yes sources will state what a bands genre isn't, google Death Cab for Cutie Emo if you don't believe me. There is no contradiction. I have no idea what your personal distaste with Alternative Metal is but wikipedia is not the place for it.96.244.79.191 (talk) 10:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this were simply about my personal dislike of such a patently fake and non-existent genre, then I would simply be removing it everywhere without explanation or justification. I'm not. I'm sticking by the rules and discussing things where necessary. No more personal attacks, thank you.

Now, just saying "google this" isn't anywhere near good enough. Especially when it concerns the term "emo", which is much-derided. Of course there will be plenty of things saying "X band isn't emo!", that's something completely different. The fact is rockdetector -does- deny the alt. metal tag, so it -is- disputed, and at the very least the dispute tag should be added. Prophaniti (talk) 10:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic isn't considered a reliable source for music genres, the bio on allmusic can be used to verify unsources sentences on wikipedia, but it can't be used to verify genres. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since when? Allmusic is used on a variety on article including Slayer which is feautured. Theres no rule saying allmusic can't be used... Jakisbak (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a side-point, I completely agree with Black Sun: Allmusic -isn't- reliable when it comes to genres, certainly not heavy metal genres anyway. Not even close. Indeed, it's about the most ridiculous, inaccurate source I've -ever- encoutered on the matter. If there's a clear mistake on wikipedia regarding a heavy metal genre, there's a 99% chance that if you scroll down, the reference will be allmusic.

However (and this is a big however), as far as I'm aware it is considered reliable by wikipedia and can be used for genres. It's silly that it can when you look at the sheer number of absurd mistakes it's made, and consider that it's a big company behind it (not hard to get published when there's that kind of weight behind you) and has nothing to indicate it knows anything about heavy metal music (as it's name implies, it covers all music, and considering metal's non-mainstream nature, that should mean nothing). But that -is- the way it is. And indeed, what I'm saying is it should in this case either be "trumped" by the more reliable rockdetector, or at least considered disputed (with the tag to go with it). Prophaniti (talk) 16:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be used for music genres, this was discussed on the Wikiproject Music earlier this year. So this is a new rule, thats why you havn't heard about it. I heard about it after i got blocked for edit warring. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet it is still used all over wikipedia....theres no where that says we can't use it. No where says it is a new rule. Jakisbak (talk) 17:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can point (link) specifically to where it says this, then it would make for interesting reading (you certainly wouldn't hear any argument from me). But until then, sticking to the matter at hand, does anyone have any other contributions to this (relevant and sensible ones, of course)? Prophaniti (talk) 23:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well whats wrong with using all the sources? So alternative metal and rock will be sourced, along with nu metal. Thats how wiki works anyway. Jakisbak (talk) 17:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but my point is that's not truly using all the sources, because a source denying a genre is just as valid as one affirming it. If people will refuse to accept that rockdetector is much more reliable than allmusic on metal genres (which it is), then even then a dispute tag makes sense. Prophaniti (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Godzilla and I Don't Know

Okay, so they don't "apparently" match the criteria for articles (despite the fact they did chart) but they were singles nonetheless and should therefore be in the template and discography section, otherwise people will think they WEREN'T singles, which will mean Wikipedia will be giving them the wrong information, blah blah blah, more UNRELIABLITY Titan50 (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Style

Can someone quickly brush up a style section please? Titan50 (talk) 14:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4th album page

the page on the fourth album should not lead back to the main page. it should have its own page so people can view its information —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.102.169 (talk) 15:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a distinct lack of information about it at the moment though (not even a name or release date), so until that situation changes the redirect will remain in place. GeneralAtrocity (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source consensus on genres

This isn’t in any way necessary, but I’ll post it as a gesture of good will.

I’ve changed the sources to “Nu metal” and “Hard rock”, and nothing else. This is because we have 4 sources for “nu metal” and 3 for “hard rock”. Imasleepingviking, please stop removing these sources, this is borderline vandalism (note the “borderline” in there). No, it doesn’t matter if editors have previously come to a consensus, sorry, but sources overrule editors every time. You could have 1000 editors behind you, it doesn’t matter. The sources are there, and editors are not professional music critics. Editor opinion only counts for something in the face of other editors. Against valid sources it, and any amount of logic or reason, is meaningless, that’s how wikipedia works.

This is a gross misinterpretation of how Wikipedia works. It's flat out wrong, and is misinformation. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That covers the removal of what is there. As to what isn’t: alt. metal has been removed because to include it is an unbalanced representation of sources. It has a single source. As well as alt. metal, we also have a source each for: pop punk, emo, alt. rock and post-grunge. If you want to include alt. metal, then we have to include all of those too. 7 genres is clearly excessive, and when the weight of sources is very much towards nu metal and hard rock, it’s painfully apparent what course of action to take. Wikipedia guidelines state that minority views in sources should not be given undue weight, and including those other genres is doing just that. A mention of them in the body of the article is fair enough, but to include them alongside the others in the genre section is not.

That’s all there is to it. Cheers. Prophaniti (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be still dispute about this, particularly today. As I've now made 3 reverts, I shan't perform more until the matter is sorted, and here is where to continue any dicussions, please.

Please note that my removal of the allmusic genres, post-grunge and alternative metal, is nothing to do with my opinion of allmusic of lostprophets. Rather, it's about giving sources too much weight. A styles and influences section is where the various genres a band is given should be placed. The genre field of the infobox is for summing up source consensus. The source consensus, in this case, seems firmly to be nu metal and hard rock. The rest just have a single source attributed to them, a single journalist. To include all those too is nit-picking. Not everything can or should realistically be included there. This is not to deny those sources: it's simply not to give them too much weight either, because they stand out from the rest. In short, if the band really can be called alt. metal and post-grunge, then surely there will be other sources attesting to this too? If not, then it must be a minority view. Prophaniti (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected your misinterpretation of what consensus is above. Please stop edit warring on the subject, it is disruptive, against the consensus of this page, and against policy. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not rule out another editor's writing, no matter how much you disagree with it. My interpretation is perfectly valid, and you've yet to provide a good counter-argument to it. So far your tone is simply coming across as bullying. Prophaniti (talk) 09:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Nouseforaname, for restoring the content. Now, Swatjester, are you prepared to discuss this in a civil manner? Prophaniti (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nu metal as "early material"

A discussion section opened to try to reign in 86.143.232.16's reverts.

"well how come I just happened to see that you have remove Alt metal from most the nu metal band pages, that would lead to suggest that is true"

No, it would suggest that it's a tag that gets applied a lot without reasonable sourcing. And as I've said, that issue has nothing to do with this matter.

Now, as I have explained to you: burden of evidence lies with the one adding material. If you want to add "(early material)" to the infobox, that's fine, but you need to find a source for it. None of the sources we have make a distinction between their early and more recent material. As such, you inserting that tag is your own POV, and original research. Simply find a source to back it up, and there's no problem. Until then, it's best left rather than continuing into an edit war. See WP:Burden. Prophaniti (talk) 18:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

This infobox is very cluttered. They are not intended to list every possible sub genre you can possibly come up with. the infobox is supposed to be for a quick summary of the band. I may be wrong about this, but just because one source lists a multitude of genres that doesn't mean you should place them in the infobox, that is what a musical style section is for. You are supposed to aim for generality when dealing with the infobox. The genres widely used by reliable sources should be added, but not every single genre you can possibly come up with. Landon1980 (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. This is what happens if every single genre ever used to describe a band is included. The only genres with more than a single source are nu metal and hard rock, so unless other sources are provided for the other genres, I'd say the other ones would be best included in a "styles and influences" section. Maybe I'll have a bash at it if no one minds. Prophaniti (talk) 10:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've now added a styles and influences section. In it, I'm attempting to include the various genres ascribed to them occasionally, while including the more accepted ones in the infobox. Sources aren't being denied here now, simply not given too much weight and cluttering the infobox. It also includes some points about their musical style, good and bad, and everything is (hopefully) properly sourced. Prophaniti (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Thanks! Landon1980 (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emo

Just a quick thing: can folks please stop warring over "emo" being included in the infobox? Take a look at the styles section before making any changes to genre: we have 5 for nu metal, 3 for hard rock, 2 for alternative rock. We have a single source each for emo, post-hardcore, post-grunge and alternative metal, so unless further sources are found for them there's no need to add them in. Indeed, as things stand if any genre should be getting considered for adding in, it's pop punk, as we have two sources that make mention of that. The mentions are not big though, so it's probably not worth adding. But so far, it's certainly better sourced than emo. Prophaniti (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UserBox

Don't know if this belongs here, if not please remove. Just take if its not here no one's ever going to know that it exists.

If you would like to add the Lostprophets userbox to your Userpage add this code in userbox section of your infobox.

Lostprophets USA

added Lostprophets USA* myspace page to the external links.

Lostprophets USA is an initiative to spread the word about Lostprophets in the states to try to convince them to tour here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lps506 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Style of Genres

It doesn't look right to use two styles of formatting on the genres. I suggest we choose one or the other, any thoughts? Thanks, The Mad Muffin!^{Muffin Chat?} 07:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Betrayed

Should some of the information that is in this article regarding The Betrayed be either removed from this page and moved to the album page or just be removed completely. It seems to me that The Betrayed section of the article is taking up a lot of space, especially considering the amount of information on this page regarding the other albums, for which more information is available as they have already been released. TheHavok (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've done my best to tidy it all up. Feel free to make any other changes you feel need doing.GeneralAtrocity (talk)

Thanks for doing that. I was going to have a bash but after writing the album page found I just couldn't be bothered. U-Mos (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claim as a New Wave band

The band's MySpace has the genre "New Wave" on it. What elements of their music would exhibit these characteristics? And if so, is it noteworthy enough to list it as a relevent genre on their Wikipedia page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BAAguy (talk • contribs) 22:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New wave of what? Rehevkor ✉ 22:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Wave as in the genre of music. I don't think it refers to a "new wave" of anything, that's just what it's called. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BAAguy (talk • contribs) 05:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I messed up by editing for the bands singles :(. Now it looks awful :(. Anyone help fix it??

I was tryin to add 'For He's a Jolly Good Felon' in as the new single, then all chaos broke out. I've done it before for Breed77, and it was fine. Im NO computer wizard lol..!!

If someone could fix it then I would be grateful.

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.74.30 (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Straight Edge

They are categorized as straight edge but I cant find any sources to prove this. Please fix this or I'll have to remove the category. No big deal this time :-) IzzyReal hunts idiots (talk) 19:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

genres and sources

All the sources currently used in the article do not support the changes, not one specifically states that just the first album only was nu metal. I do not know and do not care what the genres actually are, this is just what the sources that are used here say. If you want to push your genre changes find sources to support it, simple as. Also Wikipedia articles themselves are not reliable sources, in this case as they do not even provide sources for genres anyway, you yourself seem to have removed nu metal from said articles in the past anyway, with no explanation. Rehevkor ✉ 01:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Post-hardcore?

I've seen no sites calling this band post-hardcore. Cite some sources or remove it. According to allmusic, they are "Heavy Metal, Alternative Metal, Hard Rock, Post-Grunge". This band has nothing to do with hardcore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.98.36.2 (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We Are Godzilla, You Are Japan

this talk has been moved from Start Something (talk)

This song has it's own b-side/ep section. I have the Ep. It contains "We Are Godzilla, You Are Japan (Edit/No random outro thing)", "Lately", "Shoulder to the Wheel (Saves the Day Cover)", "Last Train Home (Acoustic Version)" -- 58.165.183.175 (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is true, I also have that EP. It's a good collection for a true Lostprophets fan. But I do not know why there is no section for it. It probably because it was limited. I got it during the Start Something tour (Australia), it was givin out there. But I'm not sure if it was given out in any other countries/tours. -- thornofhate (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I know right? Me also live in Australia (QLD) and it was given out at my Lostprophets show also. They should have the page about this because it was a real EP, and if it's not on Wikipedia, Wikipedia is giving out wrong information.-- 58.165.183.175 (talk) 06:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why has this been moved here? Rehevkor ✉ 19:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because people were ignoring it when it was on the Start Something article. Since you joined in, what do you think? -- 58.165.183.175 (talk) 06:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 58.165.183.175, it should have its own page/section. And I got my copy of EP from the NSW show -- thornofhate (talk) 06:33, 11 March 2011

If it passes WP:NMUSIC. Does it have significant coverage from third party sources? I suspect not. I can find hardly any mention to a physical release. A previous entry was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We Are Godzilla, You Are Japan, the page itself has been protected to prevent recreation so to re-create it you'd to take it to WP:Deletion review anyway. Thornofhate should know all about this as it was him who got the page protected in the first place using a sockpuppet, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive476#We_Are_Godzilla.2C You Are Japan. G'luck. Rehevkor ✉ 19:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everything seemed quite enthusiastic before, no more input? Rehevkor ✉ 17:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie

I think we should re-create Jamie's page. He provides vocals (not lead) and has worked on album art works. What we already have on his history on Wikipedia, I think we can expand on it. I've also have found this: Jamie -- CDK (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will need more sources than that to satisfy WP:NMUSIC. Rehevkor ✉ 10:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I'm sorry for wasting everyone's time... -- CDK (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this enough for page creation + the link that Chickensdoorknob has provided? --121.217.70.231 (talk) 06:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a primary source and cannot be used to establish notability. Яehevkor ✉ 11:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Burn Burn: a cover?

Merge members

Lostprophets: Christian band?

Redirects

lostprophets wrote "Sweet Dreams My L.A. Ex"!?

Name of Band

Best

Liberation Transmission?

More Links

ilan rubin

Citation issues

Name Pt. II

Town Called Hypocrisy

Good Article: Delisted

Jamie Oliver Disambiguation

Band Picture

Genre

Personal Opinions

External Links

Can't Catch Tomorrow (Good Shoes Won't Save You This Time)

Capital L

Bad Introduktion

New Image

Couple of changes

Charts

Former members

Genre Issues and Reverting

Glorified Demo

Alternative metal?

Semi-protect?

Name, again

Why has so much been deleted?

The New Transmission

Welsh or British vote

Welsh

British

Comments

Singles

Samples

"Grindcore Rules"?

Alternative Metal

B-Sides

Genre

New CD

Is the translation correct?

Early Genre

External Links

Metalcore?

Hard Rock

Nu metal

post-grunge?

Lostprophets - Alternative rock, Hard Rock and Alternative Metal vs. Alternative rock, Post-grunge and Punk Rock

Nu Metal

Archive

Lostprophets

Nu Metal

Nu metal listed as a genre vote

Nu Metal

Not a nu metal band

Comments

Nu metal

WE HAVE TO ADD SOURCES

Genre: Alt. metal?

Godzilla and I Don't Know

Style

4th album page

Source consensus on genres

Nu metal as "early material"

Infobox

Emo

UserBox

Lostprophets USA

Style of Genres

The Betrayed

Claim as a New Wave band

I messed up by editing for the bands singles :(. Now it looks awful :(. Anyone help fix it??

Straight Edge

genres and sources

Post-hardcore?

We Are Godzilla, You Are Japan