Talk:Spiderbait

References and External Links

Would it be better if the References section was merged in with the External Links section? Xp132476 07:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ifyooo.jpg

Image:Ifyooo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Some problems with recent edits

Much of the early September 2011 edits by Lachlanusername have made improvements to this article. However I have problems with some of the other edits:

1. Infobox, according to Template:Infobox musical artist:
   1. The genres used are not proper nouns and should not be capitalised (other than the first in a list). They should be separated by a comma delimiter. One should aim for generality.
   2. Years active should use {{start date|YYYY}}–{{end date|YYYY}} (or –present)
   3. Current members list should be separated by use of <br />
2. Style changes:
   1. Infobox: Origin. New South Wales and Australia are common terms in an Australian music article. They are both found at Finley and hence each doesn't need to be separately wikilinked.
   2. hardcore punk (early) is reffed in the infobox: such a ref (and the qualification) would be better in the main text, e.g. adjacent to discussion of Shashavaglava. If the genre is not particularly relevant to Spiderbait then it shouldn't be in the infobox at all.
   3. I changed the ref section into multiple columns in anticipation of having more than 20 refs. I further subdivided this section into General and Specific. Finally, to promote ease of editing the main text and keeping separate the refs themselves I placed the full refs in the relevant section within the Reflist template. I left behind the ref tabs which can be easily duplicated for use elsewhere in the main text.

Rather than revert these edits, I ask Lachlanusername to discuss the reasons for them.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

1. 1. The genres are capitalised because they have line breaks separating them and each genre starts on a new line (just like members in the 'current_members' section). This is seen on hundreds of popular artist's Wikipedia pages.
   2. Sorry, I didn't know that. Thanks for informing me.
   3. I've seen in several guidelines that <br> is applicable – it also looks neater and is faster to type. Are there any drawbacks from using <br> instead of <br />?
2. 1. The city, state, and country are all wikilinked in the example given on the guideline page, though?
   2. I think it's definitely relevant, given that it's the genre of their first album and early live performances (and most likely any EPs released around the same time). I only added a reference in the infobox because there's no 'Musical style' section.
   3. I appreciate that this would have taken a lot of time, but is this method recommended over the one I changed to in the guideline, because I think it makes things more confusing and quite difficult to navigate. Lachlanusername (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

1. Thanks for your prompt replies. My aim is to improve this article, which recently had multiple issues, to a high end B-class and potential GA candidate. I believe following the guidelines assists in this aim.
   1. By delimiting genres (and other entry lines) with a <br /> the infobox becomes unnecessarily lengthened. If they were delimited by the recommended comma then your issue with capitalising would not exist. While on this, I notice Associated acts also has line breaks: they should be commas. Current members (and Past members when needed), however, should have line break delimiters. Whether poor formatting occurs in hundreds of wikipages or not is countered by the fact that better written articles shouldn't do so.
   2. OK.
   3. I don't know what the problem or difference in functionality is between the two but I've had bots come along and change <br> to <br />
2. 1. Yeah, I see that. Leave them in then: it might get challenged at GA if you go forward with this article.
   2. I agree with you that it is relevant but the qualifier of early implies it no longer is. Without a separate 'Musical style' section I'd put the genre and its ref in the main text as described above.
   3. I believe the appropriate protocol is to use whatever ref system is in place and to reach consensus on any changes. When I got to this article, see here, there were two refs for the same fact, an article wide refs needed 'plate and some 20 or so 'citation needed' 'plates internally. Knowing that a lot of work would be required and expecting to do so alone I set up the refs section and used the ref placement style that I prefer. My rationale for this style is given above. However, I concede that its not everyone's idea of 'better' and as you seem willing to edit this article and add refs to improve it then we can go with your preference on this. However, I would still like to use multiple columns (see also MoS Footnotes) and the General & Specific sub groupings. Furthermore, the McFarlane ref is poorly formatted due to the deletion of the General content.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

1. 1. I actually agree (only changed it because thought other method was more widely used). It may as well be changed back, then.
   3. That's strange... well I won't go out of my way to change <br /> to <br> anymore, although I may as well use my formatting for any new line breaks I add given that there's no consensus as of now.
2. 2. Okay, I will move it.
   3. Okay, I'll leave the 'General' and 'Specific' headers, and that's fine, I don't mind moving the full references into the article - it helps me and I'm sure it would help others. Lachlanusername (talk) 21:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

All sounds good, thanks for collaborating on this article. I'm about to create an Awards and nominations section.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Sub-divide main text?

I think the main text should be further sub-divided, the 'Major label signing' is now too long and much of its material relates poorly to this sub-heading. My recommendation is to have the History divided into 'Early years' (1989–1994), 'Major label signing and side-projects' (1995–1998), 'Grand Slam to Tonight Alright' (1998–2004) 'On hiatus' (2005-present). (Note: Year values won't appear in subHeads and are only approx). What do you think?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed it was a bit long, too, and needs to be subdivided. By the way, I've noticed that there are still {{citation needed}} tags following statements in the end of the 'Major label signing' section which already have references. Is that because you are looking to find more than one reference? Lachlanusername (talk) 23:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the given refs fully cover all the claims made in the adjacent sentences. e.g. ref [32] tells us they're on the tour but does not specify NZ. ref [33] does not specify length of hiatus. ref [34] doesn't give info on 'first Australian-themed level'. If you or I can't find a ref then those sentences may have to be modified. (Note: I modified your entry with a nowiki in case a bot catches this page.)shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I've decided to modify the sentences for now, so I could get rid of the cite needed 'plates. I've just assessed the article as B-class.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926235734/http://www.ariaawards.com.au/history-by-year.php?year=1997 to http://www.ariaawards.com.au/history-by-year.php?year=1997

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) 05:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)