Talk:The Cure/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Killed

I killed several of the links here, as they were common names pointing to empty, non-existent or irrelevant pages. Links to distinctive names that aren't likely to be used for anything else have been left alone in case a Cure fan wants to write some stuff about the albums... --AW

Of course Killing an Arab was an anti-racist and anti-Imperialist statement. An English band, talking about killing Arabs - are you making the connection at all to history? Eh? -SV(talk) 06:38, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That might be your interpretation, and I'm not saying it's not valid, but I've never heard of Robert Smith characterising the song that way. He has said it's based on The Stranger, however (several other Cure songs have been based on stories and books too). Exploding Boy 13:22, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)

Well of course he's not going to state openly its an indictment of English colonialism. Jeez. -SV(talk) 20:46, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Why not? Thehalfone 10:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Where is the photo? ~SLR

Logo

Who designed the original dropped-C logo? I'd love to know

Web page for Andy Anderson

I've noticed that some a--hole deleted all that stuff about band member Andy Anderson and inserted it with stuff about some basketball player. I'll fix it later.

Done (actually I reverted, merged some stuff from Andy Anderson (musician), and made that into a redirect). --ajn (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Some jerk once again deleted all that stuff about band member Andy Anderson and inserted it with stuff about some wrestler born in 1989. I fixed it, but I wish whoever keeps faddling with the page would stop. Shaneymike 14:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop Faddling w/the Photo!

I've noticed somebody keeps faddling with the photo at the top of this page. One minute it shows the current lineup, the next it shows the previous lineup. For God's sake, make up your mind! I'd personally prefer that you leave the way it is showing the current lineup i.e. Robert, Porl, Simon, Jason.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.116.205 (talk • contribs)

- Ok, we're going in circles here. I asked people not to remove the previous photo showing the current lineup, and they did. Who keeps doing that?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.116.205 (talk • contribs)

Who keeps doing that? The people who are desperately trying to follow copyright law, despite editors who ignore it. You can see what happened from the history [1]. I removed the photo from the article, because the photo was about to be itself deleted as a copyright violation. The photo was uploaded with a specious claim for fair use, and got removed. If I remember rightly, it was using the 'MagazineCover' claim. However (from memory) it was (a) NOT a magazine cover (unless it was cropped to remove the title) and (b) not used to illustrate the magazine. The MagazineCover fair use claim specifically says it cannot be used to illustrate the subject, only the magazine. I see another image has been uploaded, with no licensing information at all, and frankly no chance of fair use. Please do Wikipedia a favour and only upload photos that will not cause copyright issues! By and large: the photos you take. . Notinasnaid 15:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The current pic (1995-2005 era) was used a while back, but was deleted when it became orphaned as it was replaced on the page with that 2006 picture. It was re-uploaded in May (only to be replaced again by the same picture), but the uploader forgot to add the copyright info. I've now given it the tag it had before. MightyMoose22 ^{>Abort, Retry, Fail?_} 16:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be getting closer, but it is still vulnerable to deletion at any time. In particular see the note: To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information. The source is crucial. It must be possible using the source, to confirm that the image was released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media, such as advertising material or a promotional photo in a press kit. The image originally had a source suggesting it was found on MTV, and if it was, that would not be a valid fair use claim. Notinasnaid 15:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Photos for the Members Individual Pages

The only two members who have photos on their individual pages are Robert Smith and Boris Williams. For a while, Simon Gallup had one too until somebody removed it for some reason. Am I the only one who thinks that Simon and all other members who have served with The Cure for more than ten years - Lol Tolhurst, Porl Thompson, Roger O'Donnell, Perry Bamonte, and Jason Cooper - should have photos on their individual pages?

The Cure as Self-Proclaimed Mainstream Band

I could be wrong, perhaps Smith has changed over the years. However here is a quote which indicates that Smith did not regard The Cure as essentailly belonging to the mainstream:

Even in the mid-'80s we became more popular, but we never became a mainstream band. It's kind of like we've bridged two worlds, or fallen between two stools, between alternative and mainstream. To a lot of mainstream programmers, The Cure is still a bit too weird. To an alternative programmer, sometimes we're a bit too mainstream. Sometimes we've benefited from that and sometimes we've kind of suffered. I actually enjoy that kind of position because I think it reflects what the band does. I would hate to be forced into the position where everything we do has to be "alternative." At the same time, I would hate to think that we're trying to fit into whatever the mainstream is at that time. I think we've been accommodated by the mainstream when it has suited the mainstream. So even though we've become successful, I feel that we represent an alternative, just not the alternative. (December 1999)user: BernardL august 5. 2005

Until you can provide a source, this claim is no more accurate or verifiable than mine, and since mine's more recent I"m reverting. Exploding Boy 22:19, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Critical Reviews

Please people, leave your opinions of a album or song, or the band in general, out of the article. This is not a place to review albums or songs whether the review is positive or negative. Many people think the cure is the greatest band ever, and some think they are aweful, would it be appropriate, depending on the whim of whatever editor happens to be editing to give there opinion of the band in general? No! So why would those editors who have been putting comments such as "x was the greatest album ever!", or "x had poor cover art and poor quality songs" when refering to specific songs! Its OK to mention how the album was recieved by the fan base and critics in general, just don't say how it was recieved by you personally, it violates too many wikipedia standards to even go into! --Brentt 06:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

New picture

Any chance of getting an updated picture with Porl and minus Perry & Roger? - MightyMoose22 23:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Number of albums

The 2006 album will definitely by the 13th album, not the 15th. Just look at the "Albums" sections of the article. Japanese Whispers and All Mixed Up (or whatever you were talking about) are not considered studio albums. --Hotdoglives 05:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Many albums!?

On the front page it says: "The Cure have sold more than 100.000.000 million albums worldwide (40.000.000 million in the USA)." 100.000.000 million? That's 100.000.000.000.000 albums, that a pretty damn lot! Someone needs to change that! ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.93.203.236 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 1 February 2006 UTC}

Fixed by making it "100 million" and then commenting it out with a request for a citation. If it can be verified,then it can be placed in the text. Hu 02:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

They've sold "more than" 28 (or 27?) million records world-wide, not 100 million. See http://www.planetdis.com/cure/didyouknow.html (point #11), http://www.sanity.com.au/product.asp?intProductID=499108&intArtistID=3695 (the text seems to be a generic press release text which record companies release for new albums...).
However, I feel we should put 28 million records, quite simply because that is what atlantic records claims. See http://www.atlanticrecords.com/thecure/. Also, the "Rock wall of fame/Hollywood's RockWall" claims 28 million sales world-wide in the inductee blurb for The Cure. See http://www.rockwalk.com/inductees/inductee.cfm?id=152.

By all means, make the change to the number that you can back up. Folkor 06:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Change made! The--dud 12:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Guitarist?

Robert Smith played bass for Siouxsie and the Banshees, not guitar...

• Um, no he didn't. Read the liner notes to "Hyaena" or "Downside Up", or consider the fact that Steve Severin never left the Banshees, thus not requiring a musician to fill in on bass, whereas the Banshees' guitarists were not as constant. Folkor 06:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

..or watch the Banshees' Nocturne video! (and please sign your comments) NickW 16:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Picture

i just added a picture with Porl Thompson Circa 2006. RancidRice 03:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

the crow / hendrix

The following sentence down in the lineups bit is wrong,

"Short period of time in 1994 when Porl left. The Cure did a cover of Jimi Hendrix's "Purple Haze" for The Crow

it should either be they did the song "Burn" for the Crow or the hendrix cover for "stone free a tribute to hendrix". Could somebody clarify which than change it (as i've looked and can't work out which!). cheers! extraordinary 13:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Erm, yeah. It should've been both. It's fixed now, anyway. - MightyMoose22 10:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Three errors spotted, please correct

1. BDC was a minor hit in USA, you write. As far as I know NONE of the 1978-1982 singles was released in USA. BDC was however released on b-side to LGTB!!! by Elektra USA in 86. It didn't chart. (Source: Page 102 in Ten Imaginary Years book from '86). LGTB was also released in USA in 1983 as Cure's first single there but failed to chart, and then Elektra gives it a second chance 3 years later. Some story isn't it?

2. A Single, should be Hanging Garden.

3. The 1984-93 period is known as Smith/.... etc. period, you write. But Lol was a member until 1989, even thou not participating on Disintergation sessions.

Also worth pointing out that most of the material on Side 2 of Concert cassette and on Side 2 of Standing On A Beach cassette is out on CD now. On the 2-CD editions of the four first albums.

Bjarnulf, Oslo

The Cure : A gothic rock band ?!?!?!?

I've been chocked by seing in the "genre(s)" place : "gothic rock" !!! As Robert smith himself said many times that his music shouldn't be taken as a gothic one, I believed that someone writing an article about the cure knew this ! I think it shows how you're informed about the band... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.196.148.193 (talk • contribs)

Despite what Robert Smith says, albums like Faith, Disintegration, and Pornography are landmark albums in the history of gothic rock. The band shares a number of musical characteristics with other major goth bands like Bauhaus and Siouxsie & the Banshees (especially since Smith served as guitarist for the latter group). The Cure certainly aren't exclusively a gothic rock band (this is a band that also wrote "Boys Don't Cry" and "Friday I'm in Love" of course), but they have contributed to the style and are probably the genre's most recognizable band. WesleyDodds 01:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't have said it better than Wesley Dodds did. Folkor 16:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The Cure is most definately not a goth group. The entire article on goth subculture here on wikipedia is quite erroneous as well. I won't bother changing any of it simply because it will be reverted by someone less informed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darkwren (talk • contribs) 12:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Revision as of 15:21, 3 May 2006

Why do you have delete nearly half of this page with a lot of information ??? Can someone return to the previous version please ?

Done. Heather 11:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Heather.

Unsubstantiated content everywhere

OK, aside from the fact that this article references Join The Dots and lists a few books, it is heavily opinionated and needs some work to conform to a NPOV policy. Even if the source texts contain "fan opinion" and similar content, that does not make it encyclopaedic fact. A few examples:

History - 80s

• The most commonly cited song from Faith today is the cryptic and lovely "All Cats Are Grey" - POV, unless you can reference many places where it is cited
• a listener would have difficulty distinguishing the live performance from the studio record - hard to substantiate after 25 years
• Pornography is, today, possibly the band's most respected record among fans - POV
• S. Sauer, feels the song "Cold" is the Cure's most brilliant track - who is S. Sauer?
• the song that appears to have the most appeal for fans is the aggressive opener - POV
• Standing on a Beach became the record those new to the Cure usually purchased first - totally subjective, could just as easily be called a mixed back with no continuity, which would also be heavy POV
• [Disintegration...] remains the most influential Cure record in America - for a cultural reference, could cite South Park 112 again here, in which one of the kids yells "Disintegration is the best album ever" (or similar) after Robert Smith defeats Barbara Streisand
• "Pictures of You" became well-known enough to be used in a 2004 camera commercial - cameras... pictures... find a song about pictures... adverts are based on simple association, NOT popularity of music.
• "Plainsong" is often cited as being one of the most beautiful tracks - this is getting ridiculous

• Assertion of crystal meth used in the early 80s - an interesting claim as crystal meth was not widely abused in the US until the mid 90s, and was certainly unheard of in the UK until even later than that

History - 2000s

• probably the most pervasive influence of any band in the history of the alt-rock scene - if it says "probably", it's not fact
• careful employment of cycles and repetition were picked up by subsequent bands - cycles and repetition? you mean music? I'm sure they were influential, but listing a few post-rock bands is a very narrow take on this.

Lineups issues

• Claiming that the Disintegration lineup didn't include Tolhurst is factually incorrect - he was on the payroll, he appeared in videos (for Lullaby he had a brass instrument (tuba? trombone?) but was cut from the final video, see the "making of" bit on Picture Show to see him in costume).
• Also "although Perry may have been a member at the time" and "'This Is a Lie' may have been written at this time" are hardly factual - if these can't be confirmed they shouldn't be here
• Also also, why not list the drummers who featured on Wild Mood Swings, including (on This Is A Lie, I believe) ex-God Machine drummer Ron Austin?
• Perhaps reworking the lineups into a timeline would take less space and be less confusing? "year X, person Y joined, person Z left..."

...and goodnight

I really don't want to start a flame war, I don't want those who contributed to feel persecuted for letting a few opinion pieces creep in - I know fans are the most likely people to contribute to Wikipedia, so this is natural. However I have seen some band pages, and others, spark big rows over undiscussed edits, so I am not about to slash and burn through the article. Nor am I about to go through putting in dozens of "citation needed" markers, though many direct citations from books and the web would be useful.

I hope this articles creators and curators will keep up the good work and fix up the not-so-good work, time for me to go and calm down. Skewer 08:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I aim to do a full overhaul of the article once I get done with The Smashing Pumpkins. Anything you can do in the meantime is much appreciated. WesleyDodds 08:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi WD, long time no see (been ignoring the nu-vs-alt-metal debate for months now...). Glad to see someone with a good track record on the page! :) Skewer 13:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all the bulleted-list above (as of 18:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)) although I don't think people should hold back brandishing the "citation needed" markers or hold off making contentious edits: be bold! -- Jon Dowland 18:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Who Keeps Changing How Much The Cure Have Sold?

I've noticed that for a while now, someone has been editing how much The Cure have sold from 28 million to 30 million to now 50 million. I really want to find the source of these calculations because although I think The Cure are a great band, I don't think they suddenly sold 20 million albums in a couple of weeks.

The "Robert Palmer Incident"

Interesting? Yes! Amusing. Sure! Worthy of inclusuion in this article? No way. Are we going to include every juicy Cure story we can think of? If so, this page would be unbearably long.

Robert's MySpace

I'm pretty sure that the link to Robert's "official" MySpace is fake. It does not look like a real profile, and only has 14 friends. Not the real Robert Smith. Hotdoglives 14:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

14 friends makes sense to me. I reckon the real Robert Smith would be less likely to accept countless friend invitations from people he doesn't know than somebody trying to convince us he is Robert Smith would. I'm not saying it's real, I'm just saying we shouldn't instantly dismiss it as fake, either. MightyMoose22 ^{>Abort, Retry, Fail?_} 00:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it's really him or not, a link to his MySpace really has no place here, I don't think. Spartacusprime 17:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It's him, and he already said he only made it because there was a fake Robert smith.

Lineups

This section needs sorting, badly. I think it's too long and complicated to be in the main article, and should be split off to its own page, as I did with The Who. Of course, the most members The Cure have had is 6, and they've always been official members, so in that way it would be simpler. Any thoughts? MightyMoose22 ^{>Abort, Retry, Fail?_} 13:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I've done a test at user:MightyMoose22/sandbox2. If nobody has any objections, I'll move that into article space sometime soon. MightyMoose22 ^{>Abort, Retry, Fail?_} 12:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Likely deletion of photo

I will just post a note here; it may be that a comment in an earlier thread here was missed. The group photo does not have proper source and copyright information, and therefore is vulnerable to deletion at any time. If anyone can provide accurate information on the source, which demonstrates that it was (as the fair use claim states) " released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media, such as advertising material or a promotional photo in a press kit", now is the time to do it. Notinasnaid 09:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Curefans.com

This link does not belong here, and has been added multiple times by the same IP address. I think that this constitutes vandalism. I'm getting sick of it being constantly added/removed. Is there anything we can do? --King Bee 17:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Look, I even added the template for "no more links," and User Talk:200.48.115.155 still posted it. What are we going to do about this? --King Bee 20:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Apart from a block, which will only be semi-effective and not likely to last long considering the lameness of the user's trolling, I don't think there's much that can be done. It's just one of life's little annoyances. MightyMoose22 ^{>Abort, Retry, Fail?_} 20:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Ahh well. C'est la vie. --King Bee 20:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Qué Será, Será. MightyMoose22 ^{>Abort, Retry, Fail?_} 21:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I just notice the King Bee message on my mailbox. He believes to put a link constitutes vandalism, and I think exactly the same about someone deleting every time the links from others. There were some more good links about The Cure and many of them are gone already. Just the official Cure page and the good Chain of Flowers site are there yet. What about the biggests cure fans communities members over there?. They share lot of information about the band. Apologies to everyone who took this as vandalism. Again, I thought exactly the same about someone who delete -what I think- is a good collaboration. By the way, King Bee, I just read today my mailbox and readed your message about no more links posted. In my opinion, there are some sites who would deserve to be in the list, despite your thinking that they do not belong there. Curefans.com, among them.But do not worry, I won't post any link anymore.Dsanchez 19:28, 01 September 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:External links: "On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate, marking the link as such. Fanlistings are generally not informative and should not ordinarily be included." So the question is, which one fansite to include (at most). Notinasnaid 19:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

What he ^^^ said. King Bee 19:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Notinasnaid for your message. I agre with that, many fans sites are not informative and should not be included in the external links list. But if you just look the quantity and quality of the information people share in Curefans.com -not to mention the bootlegs they also share-, I would really think it should be included. A Pink Dream forum is another big one, but is mostly in french and would fix better in the french Wikipedia version. Just my thought. Dsanchez 19:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Also from Wikipedia:External links: "Blogs, social networking sites and forums should generally not be linked to unless mandated by the article itself." This includes both Curefans and A Pink Dream. MightyMoose22 ^{>Abort, Retry, Fail?_} 04:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Bloodflowers

First, I don't think you can demonstrate that the Cure have said every album will be the last. Second, even if you could, that doesn't bear on the relevance here, though it would bear on keeping the info here. Third, the fact that Smith said he'd only do solo stuff after this is a dependent of this though it is independently interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.149.54.179 (talk • contribs)

Taken from the source you added yourself - Robert Smith: "When we were making the album I told the band, as I usually do, "This is the last album." They said, "Yep, of course it is." I've said this since DISINTEGRATION, and each time, I actually mean it."

If we make a big thing of it for BF, then we'd have to also make a big thing of it for WMS, Wish & Disintegration. I've also spoken to a few people who remember Mr. Smith saying the same thing about Kiss Me x3, but I can't be bothered to find a source for that. He had also been promising a solo album for a few years at the time, and the fact that he said the same things after this album that he had by then been saying for over a decade is not particularly notable. MightyMoose22 ^{>Abort, Retry, Fail?_} 06:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I remember that too, but regrettably can't find out cite about One Million Virgins being the last. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Standing on a Beach 1978-1985

This has been suggested changing it to 1978-1986. This is because ("A Night Like This", "A Man Inside My Mouth", "New Day") were included on Quadpus in '86.

I disagree, because as I said, there isn't a single track on there that hadn't already been released before '86. I'm not saying there aren't some that were later released again, but they had all already been released before '86. MightyMoose22 ^{>Abort, Retry, Fail?_} 22:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The album is a compilation of the first 13 singles, the last of which ("Close to Me") was released in September 1985. The CD was the only one with a different title, but as seen here, it was also released under the same name. MightyMoose22 ^{>Abort, Retry, Fail?_} 22:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"Other Instrument"

I think the credits on the album Disintigration mentions Lol Tolhurst for "Other instrument", not "Other instruments". By this, Robert Smith probably wanted to hint that the contribution of L. Tolhurst had been inexistent or at least neglectable. Pilot.pirx 19:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right - I've edited the article accordingly. NickW 10:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone should look up cites for what I remember in several places, Tolhurst disputing Smith's version of events about level of involvement in Disintegration. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

He's interviewed in the Cure biography I've been citing. He does dispute Robert Smith's account of his work on Pornography, but oddly his argument rests on his speaking to people who have told him he did work on the album, but he himself doesn't remember it because he was drunk the entire time. WesleyDodds 03:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Robert Smith

Baring in mind the page Robert Smith exists, should we be listing his side projects / collaborations here? Thehalfone 10:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

related projects

hello, first post to wiki from a long-time Cure officianado (since 1982). I would like to make several additions/expansions and corrections, particularly to the biographies on individual members and various bands and projects that they have appeared in. There appears to be a tendancy among contributors to these sections to focus almost exclusively on the fact that a certain musician may have once been in The Cure, or that a certain band has some connection to The Cure, and to provide very little other relevant biographical information concerning that musician or band outside of their Cure connection. Are there any objections to my expanding on pages about Porl Thompson, Simon Gallup, Boris Williams, Matthieu Hartley, Laurence Tolhurst, Andy Anderson and/or other bands and projects that they have contributed to? Being new, please bear with me if I require some wiki guidelines to be brought to my attention on occasion, but I will make every effort to adhere to them. --Te Irirangi 02:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

No objects at all. The main guideline to adhere to is to make sure you have references for all the informaion you include, and that you notate them properly. For more information, see Wikipedia:Citing sources. WesleyDodds 11:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Malice (1976), Easy Cure (1977-78)

Currently the article reads as: "In 1976 seventeen-year-old Robert Smith formed Easy Cure with classmates Michael Dempsey (bass), Laurence "Lol" Tolhurst (drums) and Porl Thompson (guitar) from St. Wilfrid's Catholic Comprehensive School in Crawley, Sussex."

The band formed in 1976 was Malice, not Easy Cure, and the founding members of Malice differ from those named above. Easy Cure formed in January 1977 after several lineup changes to Malice between January and December of 1976. Also, Porl Thompson did not attend St Wilfrid's.

I'm going to make some small edits to this page to reflect more accurately what band formed when, but rather than include complex and involved name-change/lineup-change info, will just create separate articles for Malice and Easy Cure. --222.154.43.77 00:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC) oops, that was me --Te Irirangi 00:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

We probably don't need new articles for those bands, since their notability is tied to The Cure. WesleyDodds 01:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

ah, sorry. I'd already added one for Malice by the time I saw this. My reasoning, is that inclusion of more accurate info re: Malice and Easy Cure on this Cure article only serves to make The Cure article unnecessarily complex; whereas lack of clarification about the genesis of Malice > Easy Cure > The Cure leads to inaccuracies in the main article about The Cure, as noted above in my comments about when the band formed and who was a founding member. Is there any problem with the Malice article remaining in situ? Also (please excuse ignorance as I'm new) but can you direct me to any predetermined guidelines on a definition of how notable a band should be before being regarded as worthy of their own Wikipedia article? --Te Irirangi 09:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Here you go: Wikipedia:Notability (music). Mind that these bands fit the criteria listed of having members that went on to play in a highly-notable band, but that criteria also suggests redirects to existing articles as a possible option. Basically, I'd say unless you have a bunch of material on both bands to cite and fill out an article on them, they probably should just be discussed on the Cure page or on the pages of the members who were in those bands. WesleyDodds 12:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see Malice (band) and Easy Cure; while I think they need some 'fat trimming' and there are some overlaps of info, I think there's also sufficient material to warrant an article on both (moreso than what currently exists for Lockjaw or Fools Dance, for example, although I'd like to correct and expand both of those too!). For contrast, I think a band such as "The Crawley Goat Band" would warrant mention only on the Robert Smith (musician) page. What do you think? Would enjoy further debate if anyone can be bothered! --Te Irirangi 01:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Tour pages

I noticed that someone made a Curiosa tour page. A nice project would be to make a page for each of the Cure's many tours that included for each: cites/dates, set lists, snapshots, anecdotes, trivia, etc. Perhaps someone with a good collection of concert t-shirts could start this up by typing in the cites and dates from the back of each into a new page for each tour. Brholden 01:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget that anecdotes and trivia (like everything else) have to have a verifiable source. And this would probably be a breach of copyright on the tee shirts unless they print the tour dates and the tee shirts are discussed in the article (but maybe not on concert posters if the concert itself is discussed). Notinasnaid 08:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Tour programmes would be the source to use.NickW 16:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Good comment, however the facts of where and when the concerts were on a given tour are certainly not copyrightable, only the particular expression of those facts embedded into the design of a particular artifact such as a t-shirt, poster, or program are copyrightable, and even that copyright is subject to fair use limitations. Brholden 00:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Just Like Heaven

I'll give a prize to someone who dabs Just Like Heaven (song) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Montchav (talk • contribs) 16:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

I got you a full-band picture

By request, I went out and found a more representative image of the band and got it released under a creative commons license. Please check out Image:The Cure live 2004.jpg and put it into the infobox... I wasn't sure where you guys would want the image of Robert Smith moved to. Have fun! - Phorque 20:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm thinking of keeping the Robert Smith image in the infobox (since he is the sole constant in the band's 30-year career) and I'll put the band image in the bio. of course, if anyone thinks a different arrangement would be better, let us know. WesleyDodds 03:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Use of Cure songs in films?

Would it be inappropriate to include a list of films that use Cure songs, like Six Different Ways in "The Rules of Attraction?" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TopaTopa (talk • contribs) 09:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

I don't think so at all; I was wondering where (in the article) to do this, though. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Put it in the "Cure in popular culture" section. Try to only mention major uses of Cure music in movies, and don't put it in list form; write it out as prose. WesleyDodds 03:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Emo?

I noticed a recent vanadalism that calls this band "emo". They are not. Now, i'm not defending emo, but The Cure are a goth band (if that, since Robert Smith has gone on record dozens of times denying it even though three of their records (Seventeen Seconds, Faith and Pornography) are extremely influential on the genre). There is a difference between emo and goth that many emo bashers do not understand. The Cure isn't emo. neither is Bauhaus, Sisters of Mercy, The Mission UK or any other gothic band that people are proclaiming are. The Red Jumpsuit Apparatus and Hawthorne Heights are indeed textbook cases of an emo band. There's a difference in the lyrical and musical content between the two genres. Emo techincally began with Sunny Day Real Estate in the late 80's (it had been around prior to that however) and was exclusively an American trend of music until i'd say 3 years ago. To make it simple, The Cure aren't emo, kids. They formed before any member of Hawthorne Heights or MCR were even born. I mean Robert Smith is almost 50! Doc Strange 17:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

A question

As there is a fixed policy on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles/Policy saying that the Beatles has to be written with a lowercase 't', I wonder what your thoughts are about using that policy for this page, and if you would agree or disagree. I thank you. andreasegde 16:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Completely diagree. That whole debacle is a joke. Barbara Osgood 17:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)