Jump to content

Talk:Traffic (band)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1


Live at Santa Monica

I added lineup for the Feb 21, 1972 Santa Monica concert; see http://www.stevewinwood.com/releases/details/det.traf.livesanta.htm

72.130.181.15 (talk) 00:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Joe Cocker

Wasn't Joe Cocker in Traffic? --67.42.33.65 11:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Check warr.org

No, but Steve Winwood played with Joe Cocker. Other members of Traffic may also have played with Cocker. 02.06.06 LT Munich, Germany

How prolific was Traffic?

Was Traffic a very prolific band when they were together? Their first two albums were very different between the US and UK versions, and wasn't Last Exit a hastily cobbled together contractual obligation album after they'd broken up for the second time? Joinery1 (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

A couple of points

It may be the case that Traffic were influenced by The Band, but they 'got it together in the country' in April 1967, which is at the same time The Band moved into Big Pink, and certainly not an imitation of them. I've changed the wording here.

In addition, I've changed the date of the band forming to 1967. Winwood, Capaldi and Mason may have had a few jams in late 1966, but Winwood was still in the Spencer Davis Group until March 1967, and recorded and toured with them in early 1967. Traffic weren't officially unveiled as Winwood's next move until April 1967. [See CD booklets to 'Dear Mr Fantasy' and 'Eight Days A Week' (Spencer Davis Group)] Clear air turbulence 23:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to add some references here and expand the article, as I did with Family (band)

--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Traffic an influence on progressive rock?

I don't really see this one as being true. I can't find a cite for it anywhere - I always viewed Traffic as more of a psychedelic band. What do you all think? I don't hear many prog bands citing Traffic as an influence.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I Agree

Traffic was not an influence on progressive rock, I agree. Traffic does not have enough in common with the prog rock genre to be linked to it in any major way. If Traffic were to be classified at all, I'd think it would be more appropriate to call their music psychedelic rock, art rock, and jazz rock. User: Uriah is Boss 4 October 2007 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 15:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the whole article needs expansion. It has the potential to eventually become a featured article but I doubt enough people are interested.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 21:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree! And what happened to the photo of Traffic? Someone put it back! The article is dull without it. User: Uriah is Boss 15:52, 27 November 2007

This is the right article for me to try to get to FA status

Per User:Yannismarou/Ten rules to make an article FA, I think it's probably the best choice right now. I both know a lot about the subject and believe that finding sources online should be easy enough.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

But I don't know if I'm going to muster up the courage or find the time to attempt it now that I'm busy. The fact that an article I worked hard on, King Crimson, didn't reach FA was disappointing... GA is cool though.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I have serious doubts about whether I'm going to find the time to do this, but I'd love to see this article at FA. I don't have any book sources, but I'm sure there's enough on the internet to make FA or at least GA possible.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 21:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove fair use images of the band

No consensus to remove the images. Number 57 18:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The free use images of the band present in the article are not necessary in my opinion, because there is already a Creative Commons-licensed image of them in the infobox. As a fan of this band, I am aware that its lineup has changed over time, but I still believe the fair use images to be superfluous. So, remove them or keep them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs)

  • Remove File:Traffic Virgin.jpg. The rational for using it is "The image confirms to readers they have reached the correct article, and illustrates the group." This seems particularly weak seeing as there is a photo presumably showing the whole band. Ambiguous about File:Traffic1.jpg. If the infobox one was clearer I would agree with you, but it is very dark and looks like it focuses on non-members of the band (I am not familiar with this group so I could be wrong). Therefore I feel a case could be made for including this one. AIRcorn (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Not sure how to say this without sounding simplistic, but pictures make the article look better and help break up all the text. If there's no question about the accuracy of the pictures or their copyright status, why not keep them to enliven the article? Useitorloseit (talk) 21:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Non-free files have quite a few restrictions on them, which many editors (myself included) find complicated. NFCC#3 and NFC#8 appear relevant - and #8 is quite arbitrary. To my mind policy number 3 means we should not have two non-free images showing the same band members which probably disqualifies File:Traffic Virgin.jpg if File:Traffic1.jpg is used. AIRcorn (talk) 06:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Traffic (band). 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) 01:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Traffic (band). 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) 01:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Traffic_(band)/Archive_1&oldid=1090583700"