Talk:The Choir (alternative rock band)

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

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

Opening heading

Changing reference to original name to "Youth Choir". Neither the album art nor the band's current web site uses "The" before "Youth Choir". Szarka

About Singles as a category

The recent addition of the category "Singles" raises an issue. "A Million Years", though re-recorded, was still a song from the album. I guess you could make an argument that it belongs in the non-album singles category, but using Amy Grant's Heart in Motion as an example, all her singles were remixed versions of songs available on the album, so they wouldn't be considered non-album singles. Just different versions.

So, if we're going to have a Singles category, then we should list everything the band ever released to radio, along with its chart positions and all that. Otherwise, I think the Discography should be simply that--a discography of all the band has released, with the Non-Album Singles category for those songs that were truly never part of any of their albums (even if some showed up on the box set). --TARDIS 07:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Tardis. I can try to look up the chart info for them for this section. If I remember correctly, only "All That is You" really placed on the CCM "pop" charts but I think they had a couple "Rock" places over the years as well.GBrady (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Mightycdcover 364.jpg

Image:Mightycdcover 364.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 ensure 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 00:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1960s garage rock band

Is it really necessary to have this section in the article? Those searching for the Cleveland group could get there via the disambiguation link. I wouldn't expect the page for Little Anthony and the Imperials to include a section in the article saying "By the way, there is a blues band AND a gospel band that uses this name, too, and here's a little bit about them..." GBrady (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That text has been in this article for years, from back before the other The Choir had their own article. It is no longer needed so I'm removing it -- Foetusized (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved to The Choir (alternative rock band). Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Choir → The Choir (Christian Rock Band) —

I request moving this page to a more specific name. Reason being: The Choir (disambiguation) demonstrates that there are widespread and varied uses of this name (including two very different popular British TV programmes and a book) and none really merits the unqualified title "The Choir" alone. I have suggested "The Choir (Christian Rock Band)". "The Choir" should redirect to the disambiguation page.7ofclubs (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to redirect all of the articles to the new locations before the move. And 15 minutes seems a bit too short to really respond. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

15 minutes is just how long it takes for the move request to get listed at the requested move noticeboard. The discussion typically goes on for at least a few days.Ocaasi (talk) 10:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest move to [[The Choir (Christian alternative rock band) as it is better suited. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Christian alternative rock band" is four modifiers when two would probably suffice. If the The Choir (garage rock) is one band's article (and I think that's a bad title because it's missing a noun). We would go with (band) if this were the only band. Since it's not, one modifier distinguishing it from the other (band) is the most elegant solution. Both are rock bands, so (rock band) doesn't work. Either go with (garage rock band) and (Christian rock band) or (garage rock band) and (Christian band). I vote for (Christian band) because it's simpler and it avoids the future debates about genre that often arise on other bands' talk pages. Mitchell k dwyer (talk) 01:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While we are fixing article names, The Choir (album) is actually an EP -- Foetusized (talk) 02:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, but it's not "by the above group" as it says on the disambiguation page. I was going to do something about it but thought I'd wait until this is finalized. Mitchell k dwyer (talk) 12:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems with the move and placing the disambiguation page here, but they're not Christian rock. Does it matter how many adjectives are used? If you think that "The Choir (Christian alternative rock band)" is too long, then my second choice would be "The Choir (alternative rock band)". Third choice would be "The Choir (Christian rock band)". I cannot support "The Choir (Christian band)". It would set a precedent that I am not interested in discussing other than to say that it is not correct. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It seems like there are many legitimate contenders for The Choir and no clear primary use. Ocaasi (talk) 10:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support many possible uses, this is definitely not primary. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 22:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support move, but not to The Choir (Christian rock band). I can't come up with any good reason not to move the article. I DO agree with Mr. Görlitz that the band should be primarily identified by their sound (alternative) and not their faith (Christian). I would prefer The Choir (alternative rock band) and The Choir (garage rock band) for the two groups' articles, and The Choir (album) → The Choir (EP) -- Foetusized (talk) 15:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I've gone ahead and moved The Choir (album) to The Choir (EP). What's next? Moving The Choir (disambiguation) to The Choir? -- Foetusized (talk) 03:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may not be able to do that last move, but feel free to try. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But before you do, please move all these links to point to the new article page. It is inappropriate to have all those 127 articles point to a disambiguation page. That was my initial request before the move. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't make the move, since The Choir exists. I think that a bot should be around to move the links, according to the message when I moved the EPs page -- Foetusized (talk) 03:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which bot is that? I don't think there's a bot that deals with moving links to a redirect automatically. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't give a name for the bot, just said it would happen. I've been working through the pages linking to The Choir and fixing the ones that were references to the Ohio band and the BBC TV show -- Foetusized (talk) 04:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know of anything I can do to help here. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 10:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discography

I've added the band's latest digital EP, and in the process, reverted the Discography to a simple list format, which is used on popular pages like U2, Katy Perry, Steely Dan and a multitude of other musician pages. The previous format required the reader to scroll endlessly down the page, and is much less easy to digest. The simpler list matches the format of the other existing lists and allows the reader to much more quickly read the band's discography comprehensively. No offense intended towards other editors; perhaps we can pool our time and resources to create a separate Discography page with song chart rankings, etc. TARDIS (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Red Oaks

I tried to add the fact that The Choir's song "Tears Don't Fall" appeared in season 2, episode 4 of the Amazon television series Red Oaks. The episode, entitled "The Bris" debuted in 2016. I don't understand why this was removed. It's easily verifiable. Just watch that episode and look at the credits. And it's definitely relevant information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glstacks (talk • contribs) 20:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason it was reverted on Shades of Gray (album) and was discussed at Talk:Shades of Gray (album). Seriously, Wikipedia:Verifiability is a key policy and Wikipedia:Reliable sources is the guideline that supports it. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information such as appearances of songs in obscure television programs, it's a collection of encyclopedic information about a subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are two reasons this fact should be included: Red Oaks is not an obscure TV show. The episode in question was directed by Amy Heckerling (who also directed Fast Times at Ridgemont High, National Lampoon's European Vacation, Look Who's Talking, and Clueless). Hardly obscure. Second, this band is an underground band. The fact that one of their songs made it into this show is a big deal and marks a significant cultural moment for this band. But apparently, if you don't agree then it doesn't make it onto Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glstacks (talk • contribs) 00:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it were important, it would have been covered in the media of the time: CCM Magazine or similar. You seem to think I'm the only gatekeeper, but you apparently did not read the policies and guidelines I linked to, or if you did, you didn't understand them. We don't include random facts about subjects. Period. You're free to write a blog about it. You're free to make a Facebook or other social media post about it. Unless you can support the use of the song in the episode, it likely won't be included, and I won't be the only one telling you about it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But just to draw a fine point on this issue, @Glstacks: would you be so good as to show me a policy, guideline or similar here on Wikipedia that indicates that we should include every instance of a song included in any other media? I'd be happy to add the song back myself if you can. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Show me a policy that says that such posts are inappropriate or that there should be a universal policy for all bands, and I'll stop thinking that you're being petty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glstacks (talk • contribs) 23:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Journey to independent status - 2024 Revision

After four months of compiling numerous sources (newspapers, magazines, podcasts) and lots of writing and editing, I restructured the article to include the section Journey to independent status using these sources. I would strongly argue that the “why” behind this shift, which does add length to the section, is key context for the reader to know. Not only has the band discussed their journey in depth several times over the decades, it makes sense to finally cover this topic which wasn’t previously addressed. The subsections that follow should now make more sense within the new structural revision. In addition to the new section, I also added sources to existing material where needed. TARDIS (talk) 05:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]