Talk:Zoo TV Tour/Archive 1

Archive 1

Needs references

This article needs some references! The intro seems like it was copied or paraphrased from something I've read before. I remember this 4/5 page, 4000? word commentary on the tour on a special edition of Mojo a few years ago. --Madchester 21:18, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

A lot of the statistics comes from issues of Propaganda Magazine and also the back of the Zoo TV video, but the text itself is written entirely by me apart from a few bits I took from the original Zoo TV section on the Achtung Baby wiki. ----User:AndrewT 16:49, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Merchandising

There should be some mention bout the merchandise at the shows... from your standard tees and hat, to the Zoo stamps, Zoo labels for beer cans, and Zoo Ecy funny money. They needed to sell A LOT of merchandise like in Ireland.... cuz the shows needed to reach 85% capacity before making a profit. --Madchester 14:57, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Tour name conventions

Should concert tour names be in italics? Quotes? Or just be a plain proper noun? Existing usage in the U2 articles is inconsistent. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles) doesn't list them for either italics or quotes. I think plain proper noun is best, because a concert tour is an event (think World Cup or Super Bowl or World War II, which don't get italicized or quoted). Also, doing it this way helps visually distinguish the name from other contexts, e.g. The Elevation Tour is different from the song "Elevation" and The Joshua Tree Tour is different from the album The Joshua Tree. So I plan to change the tour name usages to plain proper nouns here and in the other U2 articles unless I hear strong objections. Wasted Time R 12:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I've thought about those same situations as well, but I was under the impression that specific cultural items/events like movies, television shows, plays, and perhaps concerts should be italicized. May need to do some fact digging.... --Madchester 13:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I've tried to look for any style guide that explicitly addresses names of concert tours, but haven't found anything. It's not like a film, television show, or play in that it isn't a particular artistic work but rather an overall logistical arrangement or process for presenting a collection of artistic works. For example, the Zoo TV Tour article talks about trucks and lighting rigs and in-between acts and so forth, none of which are artistic works. By comparison, a DVD made of a particular Zoo TV concert, such as Zoo TV: Live From Sydney, does belong in italics, because that's a specific, released artistic work. But I think Zoo TV itself should just be a regular proper noun. Wasted Time R 17:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Just as a postscript, the "regular proper noun" approach to concert tour names is now used throughout Wikipedia. Wasted Time R 15:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Show openings correction

In think you should add more information. When its says the following. "The shows opened with a seven minute piece created by Emergency Broadcast Network, which wove looped images from Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will with various war and news imagery sources." It has to be noted that this was only on the Zooropa and Zoomerang parts of the tour. During Zoo TV and Zoo TV Outside Broadcast it was the Television Drug of the Nation by Disposable Heroes of Hiphoprisy. With visual of George Bush singing "We will (bomb) you" interspeded with Sadamm Hussein, bombs and grabs form CNN footage.

I don't have very good grammar but if someone could add this info it will enhance the article. --mako@porpoiserecords.com 21:18, May 11, 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedic tone

Hey “wasted time”. Yeah, some fine work there on the ZooTV article – it was my favourite U2 period (I think!). I’m even in the Sydney video. You will notice I went back and did some more editing since your last (see the article history for my specific reasoning). Some of your recent changes I kept, others I changed and others, sorry, I disagree with. But, hope we can keep up a collaborative and communicative approach in the best of wiki tradition. Two general comments: we should be careful about our style. I.e., this is meant to be an encyclopedia for factual information, rather than a fan-site for promotion of the band. We both obviously love U2 – it’s why we are both here on this page - but that can’t excuse us getting sloppy with our language. Second point is – I think it is best to not waste words. Try and get the point across with as little words as possible. This is Edge’s philosophy when writing songs – although he uses notes, not words. I.e., I Will Follow, and WOWY are very minimalist. Cheers – drop me a line any time. --Merbabu 23:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Merbabu, I agree wholeheartedly with your second point, and you have definitely improved the article (including some bits that I originally wrote) in that regard. However, I disagree strongly on your first point. I have worked on many popular music articles in WP, I am careful about my style, and believe me I have pulled out lots of fancruft. But in this case, I believe that my (and others') wording that you have changed was indeed factual. Indeed in your edit comments you agreed that the original content "was correct" or was "no exaggeration", just that you don't think those words are encyclopedic.

Well, writing about popular culture is not like writing about botany or geology. The phrasing doesn't have to be totally dry or totally reserved, even in an encyclopedia. Look at some other music encyclopedias, put out by Rolling Stone (rock) or Penguin (classical) or I forget whom for jazz. Their writing is not dry, rather it attempts to capture the passion of the art. Otherwise what's the point? To say that "One" is "beloved" rather than "popular" more accurately conveys to the reader the role that the song has assumed — it's finished top 5 or even first in several all-time song and lyric polls "One" needs to be distinguished from, say, "With or Without You", which is also one of U2's most popular songs but has not had nearly the audience impact.

Similarly, to only say that Zoo TV was "an innovative and elaborately-staged multimedia rock show" fails completely to convey the magnitude and gestalt of it. A number of big-budget rock shows could qualify under this description, including ones by Madonna, R.E.M., the Stones, and so forth. The previous "massive, elaborate, innovative, postmodern, multifaceted, multimedia, high-grossing world concert tour" does a much more accurate and appropriate job of describing what Zoo TV was. This is not "fan-site promotion for the band" ... it doesn't say that Zoo TV was the best concert tour ever, or that Bono is an evil genius, or that Edge is a master of the universe, or that Willie Williams is underpaid. It simply states what the scope and ambition of Zoo TV was. In truth there has never been anything like Zoo TV before or since; the only really parallel achievement, in a different way, was Pink Floyd's original staging of The Wall. The WP article on Zoo TV has got to convey its uniqueness, and since many people only read intros and not the full article, the intro has got to convey that uniqueness as well. Wasted Time R 01:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

lol - i disagree with you about the impact that One has compared to With Or Without You. But hey, it's a POV view issue. :D I will write more later. I will also reconsider the opening paragraph taking into consideration your comments. I still feel that Pop Music shouldn't get special treatment to the rest of wiki in it's encyclopedic style, but will try to work in ZOOTV's unique nature that you point out. --Merbabu 01:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that your preferred text — "Zoo TV was an innovative and elaborately-staged multimedia rock show by the band U2. It was almost unanimously applauded for its ground-breaking presentation of sensory overload whilst still providing the profound emotional and spiritual performance for which U2 shows were famous" — has a lot more uncited fangush than the previous text did, which never claimed "unanimous applause" or "profound ... performance". Indeed, later the article goes on to say that a good portion of fans were displeased by Zoo TV precisely because they felt the emotional/spiritual aspect had been badly denegrated by the cynicism et al of Bono's persona and the show; your unsourced intro contradicts that. Wasted Time R 03:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

well, my most recent edit that includes "uncited fan gush" was a somewhat reluctant direct response to your comments that "In truth there has never been anything like Zoo TV before or since; the only really parallel achievement..." and that "The phrasing doesn't have to be totally dry or totally reserved, even in an encyclopedia". lol - i saw it as a compromise that would meet your approval - it is certainly more POV than i would like! As my edit of last week shows, i prefer even pop music articles to be as dry and encyclopedic as possible as per the rest of wikipedia. You know there is actually a U2 wiki site? not much info in there though, unlike say the dedicated Star Wars wiki. OK, i tinkered a bit with the passage again. toned it down. cheers --Merbabu 04:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

As for "One" versus "With or Without You", for any one person it's obviously a question of personal taste. For the audience as a whole, however, it can be measured, via opinion polls, critical lists, etc. And there, we can objectively say that "One" has had a much larger impact. Wasted Time R 03:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe One is more popular (beloved??) but trying to be NPOV about fan surveys and crowd applause to the impact of a song is, well, um extremely POV. Cheers

Zoo TV or ZooTV?

Hi, I have the officially approved book 'U2 Show' by Dianna Scrimgeour and it keeps referring to the tour as 'ZooTV', without the space. Should Wikipedia reflect this? Stuart mcmillen 13:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes - i'd be all for "ZooTV". i may have included that in some of my edits, but i didn't really make a point to change it all. I say go for it.(although their may be an linking issue with the actually page title.) --Merbabu 13:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You can look on the net or on original ticket stubs, posters, etc and see all of: Zoo TV, ZooTV, ZOO TV, ZOOTV. Rock tours are not known for their consistency in usage and capitalisation. This isn't the OED, it's a bunch of people who often left school early because they had other callings. Give the alternate spellings up front and avoid a million edits for little gain. 64.12.116.131 13:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point about the inconsistencies - but is there one more official than the others? Either way, i think the explanation of the the different spellings is not necessary - they are all alike!! if they were completely different names (ie, John Cougar vs. John Mellancamp) then maybe there would be a point to it. cheers --Merbabu 13:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the "official" version is the stylized logo, with the letters TV inside the two "o"s of Zoo - with that in mind, I think any approximization in normal text is acceptable. But how can a redirect be set up, so that a wikipedia user who types in "zootv" in the search box will indeed get to this page as they should? --88.108.147.126 17:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Intro redux

Well, I've let a few days pass, but this intro bit:

It received critical acclaim for its ground-breaking presentation of sensory overload whilst still providing the emotional and spiritual performance for which U2 shows are renowned.

has just got to go. There's no cite for this "critical acclaim", and as the rest of the article describes in detail, there was a big split amongst fans as to whether the old U2's "emotional and spiritual performance" survived intact or not. The "sensory overload" part, however, is quite appropriate and I've retained and expanded a bit on that. Wasted Time R 15:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

General concerns

[from User:Merbabu, copied here from my talk page]

I am, however, concerned that the article still goes into too much detail in simply providing "blow-by-blow" descriptive coverage. But, i will not edit it down too much - for now. BUT, having mentioned the performances of each AB song in some to great detail, i thought it appropriate that each Zooropa song at least get listed.

The AB performances are described at length because they were integral to the themes and concept of the show. The performances of, say, "Pride" and "Streets Have No Name" are not, because they weren't. Which camp do the Zooropa performances fall into? I have the impression the latter, which is why I don't think it's appropriate to list them all out. But I'm willing to be corrected if indeed they did have a thematic significance. But then that significance should be explained; just a list of songs played is unilluminating.

Rather than detailed descriptions on every move in the concert, it would be nice to be a bit more analytical. But of course this can't be our own musings, but from WP:RSs

Both kinds of material are good in my view. You continue to do a good job in weeding out excessive verbiage, but the article itself is not too long; the subject is worthy.

And is there anything we can do to reduce the amount of small sections? What about putting them into sub-sections? --Merbabu 03:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the sectioning as it is. A section represents a cohesive set of material at a parallel level of importance with other sections; Zooropa, Broadcasts and recordings, and Vertigo Tour homage all qualify. There's nothing wrong with a short, pithy section. Wasted Time R 15:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Zoo TV references

Merbabu, do you really want to reformat all the references into that full format? Why!?!? They don't add much and they make the editable text wholly unreadable for other editors. And as you say they are utterly tedious to write, and dissuade future editors from using any citations at all. This isn't a term paper or a law review article! Wasted Time R 15:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The short answer to your question is "yes". :-). I realise there are way too many citations on wikipedia to be formatted correctly, but we should always at least aim high. The aim should be to get ALL articles up to the highest standard (even if it isn't actually possible) - not a term paper, but a PhD thesis!!. As this - IMO - is one of the more important U2 articles, we should start with this one as a priority. Yes, they make the editable text a little difficult to read, but the benefit for the reader must take priority. Being able to read a clear list of referenece titles, authors, etc is much better than just a URL (and your explanatory notes are also good). As for editing, well, it's a little bit of a nuisance, but certainly manageable and on balance worth it. I work with many articles that have a long list of references. See Indonesia and of course U2 - if you have firefox, you will see the notes in two columns. As for dissuading the addition of future citations, I am more than happy to format any URL-only citations you add. ;-) It's no big deal. --Merbabu 15:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing against a long list of citations, and yes the two-column format works well. I'm just objecting to the long-form citation format - which is used in Indonesia but not U2 as you say - it's very unwieldy. Maybe it's appropriate for a country article, but for a rock tour article!? I think it's a little overboard. Even Paul McCartney - which has so many citations it puts them in three columns - doesn't use the long format for refs. Wasted Time R 15:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

well, i can remove the un-used lines from the templates (which is most). I disagree on accepting different levels of quality for different of articles. We should aim to improve all. And if we can put up with 80 cites in U2 and Indonesia which get 20 times more edits, then it is OK for a dozen or two cites here.--Merbabu 15:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Paul Oakenfold role

This bit got added recently:

Paul Oakenfold, who would go on to become one of the world's most prominent club DJs by the end of :the 1990s, appeared as an opening act throughout most of the tour.

Says who he was an "opening act"? u2tours.com doesn't list him once. Just DJ'ing records over the venue sound system does not usually qualify. And whatever his role, was it really for the whole tour, or just the 1993 legs, as one web site seems to indicate? And did he replace BP Fallon, augment him, what? Wasted Time R 12:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

He featured in the Australian leg as did Big Audio Dynamite and an Aussie band i can't remember now - it might come to me. I asked the editor which legs, and he was almost sure it also included at least part of the Europe leg. BP Fallon was not in AUstralia, Oakenfold was. Thus, it woudl be incorrect for the article to imply that Fallon was the MC for the whole tour and not to mention Oakenfold. --Merbabu 12:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've changed the article to say that Oakenfold replaced Fallon later in the tour. Wasted Time R 12:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Remember, he did quite a few remixed a few AB songs. :) --Merbabu 12:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

GA Fail

• 14 citation needed tags
• Don't wikilink years alone, such as 1995
• Fair use images are missing fair use rationales
• References come after punctuation with no space - I'll fix this in a minute
• Unreferenced sections and paragraphs
• Web references all need titles, publisher, date retrieved, author and date if applicable

Main problem is the references direct quotes are not referenced and too many citation needed tags. M3tal H3ad 01:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Personas

Should "The Anti-Smack Commando" be added to the personas? I say no, for the three mentioned before are the true personas, the ones acknowledged by the band. Those have titles and very defined roles. This one had no name I've seen until mentioned here, and was never acknowledged by the band to my knowledge. Plus, he appeared for only a song and a half. Phillies26 22:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

probably just needs a sentence, at most two. Not a whole sub-section and I agree, don't use the "Anti-smack Commando" title unless it can be reliably sourced. Merbabu 12:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)