Jump to content

Talk:Porcupine Tree

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article candidatePorcupine Tree is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 20, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 31, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former featured article candidate

About citations placement

[edit]

The placement of the citations before the punctuation is because of the style of the article. Please, read WP:REFPUNC. Please, do not modify it. Synesthetize (talk) 08:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I think only the Official Website link is relevant as an external link for this article. What do you think? Synesthetize (talk) 09:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary paragraphs, passages and sentences

[edit]

"Looking forward from the original Porcupine Tree music, Wilson took steps to move his project towards newer, more contemporary kinds of music. This new goal scored the band with their thirty minute long single, "Voyage 34"."

Should this be reworded? It doesn't seem like a 30 minute single would bring them (or anyone) to "more contemporary kinds of music"... Sergecross73 (talk) 13:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC) [why?][reply]
What do you mean "why?"? Because most contempory music/songs aren't 30 minute long singles! Sergecross73 (talk) 12:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I agree to remove the part of Voyage 34, since I think we should focus on their main discography in order to shorten the article a little. Synesthetize (talk) 20:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if I came across as rude, I just didn't think that required that much explanation...Sergecross73 (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's ok. Exchanging opinions is always necessary. So, I slightly changed the topic of this discussion to make it more comprehensive coming up to the article's issues mentioned in the last assessment. I think there's this other sentence that is unnecessary:

"In addition, Snapper released the opener song, "Even Less," as a one-track cassette in a plain white sleeve with the words "Who Is This?" written in ink, a number 1 in the top right hand corner and no catalogue number, and delivered it to record stores and radio stations only[12]."

When there's a concensus of all those unnecessary sentences, paragraphs, etc. we should start shoulders on the wheel of the cutting. Synesthetize (talk) 06:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the bit about "Even Less" needs to be changed. As it is, it doesn't really go anywhere or contribute anything to the article. I think it should either be fleshed out, or deleted. Sergecross73 (talk) 02:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Wesley in member section of infobox

[edit]

Why is John Wesley present in the member's section of the infobox when he is only a live member of the band? That section is meant for present members of the band who record on the studio material. That's how it works with every other band page I've seen on wikipedia. I therefore suggest that John Wesley is removed from the infobox unless someone can provide an adequate reason as to his name being present there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SAULGNRFAN (talk • contribs) 10:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If what you're saying is true, I fully support that. I didn't know one way or another, that's the only reason I didn't remove him myself. Sergecross73 msg me 14:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep - he's primarily a touring support musician. His only other contributions to the band are some very occasional backing vocals and working with Steven Wilson on some of the guitar parts. But he definitely isn't a full band member and isn't credited as one - 90% of band photos don't include John Wesley, for instance. Una LagunaTalk 17:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Essential Prog

[edit]

Kscope calls the music Porcupine Tree 'Post Progressive' rather than prog-rock.

The band seem to adhere to select ethos of punk rock.

Fear Of A Blank Planet, for instance, seems to attempt to raise awareness over society's excess surrounding the use of psychiatric drugs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.107.189.66 (talk) 22:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Music Categorization

[edit]

It's contradictory to state that Porcupine Tree is a progressive rock band, and then immediately after that say that they are difficult to classify. Not sure about the best course of action, but my vote is that they are actually progressive rock, and the difficult to categorize comment should be eliminated.

Obviously, one of the two should. For the sake of the article, I'm not sure it matters which. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.10.203.105 (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No,it's not. They're called "difficult to classify", not "impossible to classify". Especially considering the definition of progressive rock to begin with... Sergecross73 msg me 21:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Progressive rock is a genre and a style; much like "rock" or "metal". Many wildly different sub-genres exist to fill various niches, and so while the music of a band may be hard to describe or classify, the use of syncopation, odd/changing metres, suites, eclectic lyrics/instrumentation and long periods of improvization all contribute to their classification as a "progressive band".
And of course, what the boneheaded critics say also seems to matter, for whatever reason...
That being said, it could be worded better- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 21:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shifting Albums?

[edit]

From the third paragraph of the In Abstentia section,

The album received great praise worldwide and went on to become the band's best selling album,[citation needed] shifting over 100,000[citation needed] copies in its first year of release and charting in several European countries.

Is the word "shifting" appropriate here? It doesn't make sense to me, and looks like "shipping" was the intention. Google yielded no clarity on the matter.

Greqrg (talk) 02:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's fine. "Shifting copies" is a common colloquialism when discussing sales of music, books, etc. BenedictPoole (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Porcupine Tree. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Porcupine Tree. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 14:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 31 external links on Porcupine Tree. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2022/23/24 Sources

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Porcupine_Tree&oldid=1225173688"