Talk:Tim Smith (Cardiacs)

Untitled

All that really needs to be said is that this man is a genius!

I concur! "Tim Smith is a bloody genius"... What the hell else is needed, really?!? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.125.60 (talk) 05:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

New Tim Smith Biography

I have completely revamped the Tim Smith biography page. I have added more detail and a discography. I am aware that more work has to be done.

Drterror666 (talk) 14:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You did a fine job, my friend. Keep up the great work!

-Richie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.0.2 (talk) 04:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite

I've rewritten the intro and first few paragraphs to remove any weasle-words. Ironholds 05:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The page looks great, i'm very impressed with the changes, ihope everyone else is too? All the new info is very astute and well referenced. Love it.

(----) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.129.175 (talk) 14:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Citations and references

Quite a lot of material on this page is being let down by vague or non-existent citation (in particular, the Influences section - how many of these bands have actually cited Cardiacs as an influence? I've tidied up that section in particular, but could other posters please consider either removing or verifying some of those names.

I noticed a few pages noted as references which, when read, did not support the sentence they were used as a reference for. I've removed those particular refs when I've seen them.

Also, beware of using anonymous/pseudonymous comments (or reviews on forums) as referenced support for stated facts. - Dann Chinn (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hear hear. I have ripped out a few offending examples but more work is required. See here for guidelines: Verifiability.

Vernier Gauge (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Wicked stuff

The article is looking the best it ever has! Wicked stuff guys or girls!

All the stuff in the personal life section is totally valid and factual. But i think it's early days to state whether or not we can assume Tim Smith has brain damage...so i think maybe leave that out for now.

But damn good job otherwise!

(----) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boylucid (talk • contribs) 20:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Totally valid and factual? Many of the so-called references STILL don't lead to pages which actually support the statements, and an awful lot of what's mentioned here is gossip. As Cardiacs have historically been surrounded by disinformation (which has generally played a part in their art), anything put on here which is directly based on personal assumption or interpretation - and which is unsupported - needs to be taken with a big pinch of salt. As it stands, this page currently needs a nice big sprinkling of "citation needed" tags.

If contributors are going to speculate or repeat gossip, could they at least indicate that their assertions are possible/probably rather than factual? And could they also remember the guidelines on Original Research? It's true that a lot of us walk a fine line between academically sound contributions and hearsay, but there needs to be limits.

I cautiously applaud the enthusiasm going into this article (if not some of the insensitivity - certainly let's not speculate invasively regarding Tim Smith's health). But could contributors please remember that writing Wikipedia articles which are sloppily researched, over-personalised and poorly controlled actually damage the reputations of the article's subject, the article's writer and Wikipedia itself? Sorry to rant, but things are getting a bit out of hand again. - Dann Chinn (talk) 18:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Further to my posting yesterday - I have taken a look at the article and, while I've not removed much or any of the statements therein, I have removed many of the inadequate references - in several cases replacing them with a "citation needed" tag. (I'd invite other contributors to do the same where appropriate). I've also tagged the article as regards the need to improve these references and the use of neutral point of view.

This is not an attempt to absolutely dismiss the information (in several cases, I believe it to be correct). However, it is an attempt to steer the article back towards a level of reliability appropriate to Wikipedia, especially as an example of "biographies of living persons". I invite other contributors to provide effective and appropriate references to support or modify the information here, and also to consider what's appropriate for a Wikipedia article and what should stay as pub/gig gossip speculations in forums.

To be fair, many of us (including myself, sometimes!) add information to articles which is not supported by external evidence to full Wikipedia standard. However, this should be done sparingly if at all: and this article is risking becoming overbalanced in its ratio of stated opinion/hearsay to effective referenced fact. - Dann Chinn (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Appealing to Venus - proposed merge

It was suggested back in November '08 that the page for the Sea Nymphs' "Appealing to Venus" reissue be merged with the page for its original release - but nobody has commented either way, so I thought I'd bring the discussion over her as the conversation seems slightly less dead. Any opinions...? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, as this will strengthen the entry. - Dann Chinn (talk) 22:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

A bit of an overhaul

Right. I've made some fairly major revisions to this article, mainly because as others have noted it was in danger of reading like a hagiography, and I felt some of the information included(especially with regard to the groups listed in the "Influence" section) was questionable and misleading. I've also reduced the number of song and interview quotes down to a sensible number and taken out the section referencing "math-rock", which I just felt was irrelevant. The "History" section I've mostly left alone, except for a couple of minor additions. Hopefully the core of the article remains intact, I've just tried to make it read a little better. - Phil A (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Good start. More could be done. There's a lot of duplication between this article and the Cardiacs one (and a few things which could be moved from here to the Cardiacs article). This article should be a Tim Smith overview and contain things which would otherwise bloat the Cardiacs article (TS's production and video work, for instance).

Editorial ...Trimming

So somebody just pointed me to this article as a bit of a lost cause. I'm planning to, first up, get rid of all the first party sources. The massive, massive number of first-party sources. GAH. Then I'll get rid of anything that isn't properly sourced and not self-evident; like all the gushing nonsense about bands that haven't even heard of these guys being influenced by them. Once that's done, we'll see if there's even enough to justify an article and we can look at finding properly sourced information. Shouldn't be too difficult to be honest, just needs some due care and attention. -Rushyo ^Talk 13:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Removed Discography for now. At best it belongs on another page (see WP:DISCOGRAPHY). -Rushyo ^Talk 14:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

"cardiacs family"

upon what basis are the listed bands included in this 'family'? some sort of citation needs adding or else it's just hearsay/OR.

duncanrmi (talk) 05:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)