Talk:Popular Music References

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Change the name. Seriously. I don't have any suggestions, but it needs to happen. I mean, "Music Band"? As opposed to... non-music bands? Rubber bands? --DorianGray 06:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree — how about Popular Music References? I don't know the intended scope of this page, but it might work. Trey56 06:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I never even heard of half the bands, so I highly doubt "Popular Music References" would work. If it were about references to popular music, that would severely alter the list here. MHarrington 21:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
The ones that are currently on this page, Nirvana, The Ramones, TLC, and AC/DC are all very famous bands. Trey56 23:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I didn't say I didn't know ALL the bands. I do know AC/DC and to a lesser extent the Ramones. But some bands I've never heard of until now. Also, I don't think "Popular Music References" would be a good title; it would take away from the main purpose of the article and confuse the reader. MHarrington 02:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Popular music is not a measure how well you know a particular band. I look at the list and I'm boggled that you don't know who Nirvana is, let alone TLC. Popular music is anything that is not art or classical music and is for widespread consumption. Therefore, I don't know why the rappers were also remove from the list (MC Hammer, Digital Underground, Heavy D and The Boyz, etc.), since that is also popular music. I think that Popular Music References is a better title since there are a lot of them on the site and they cover a wide range of genres; references to Sonic Youth, Tom Waits, Mudhoney, Sex Pistols, Peter Frampton, Fatboy Slim, Vince Guarldi etc. wbwolf (t | ed) 03:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, the main reason I don't think Popular Music References would be a good title is because it would then have to be about different music types (i.e., hip-hop, punk rock), as opposed to bands that play said music. MHarrington 23:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I think that Popular Music References is a good title. The Goblin!! 04:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Alright, fine, I'll change it posthaste. MHarrington 05:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Contents

Other References

I'm not sure exactly how stylistically to add the following things, however. Wu-Tang: In some Answering Machine, Homestar says he's the "goatface killer." The Cure: Doesn't Strong Sad own a 'Boys Don't Cry' poster?

On an unrelated note, why don't TMBG and DaVinci's notebook get boxes that look similiar to the Beatles and Frampton? Flashfight (Talk | contribs) 06:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC) (left unsigned)

Both the Wu-Tang and Cure references are already noted in the list. Boy's Don't Cry poster is not linked to a specific toon since it shows up in multiple places. I believe that TMBG and DaVinci's are treated differently since they worked directly with TBC, rather than simply having their stuff referenced. wbwolf (t | ed) 06:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone think that Cheerleaders shirt in Teen Girl Squad Issue 7 may be a reference to the song Holier Than Thou By Metallica?--\m/ Dude1057 \m/ 18:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Clean up?

I really dislike how this article is laid out. If a band or artist is referred to more than once, everything gets squashed together in one paragraph and it's hard for me to connect each appearance with the correct context. Couldn't we somehow use line breaks to separate the references from each other? – The Chort 15:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I can see what you mean. Rather than <br>, what about subdividing the appearance and context boxes? Is that possible using MediaWiki? If we can, that would make the correlation between the two easier. wbwolf (t | ed) 16:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Two ideas, either one would probably alleviate the problem:
  1. It may be more appropriate if it were not presented in a table, but rather just a regular article with sub-sections for each artist.
  2. Do we really need the Identity column for each artist? I randomly checked a handful of these, and in each case this text is just copied and pasted directly from the summary in Wikipedia. The band names link to Wikipedia already. I suggest just removing that column altogether.  Green Helmet 16:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Eliminating the Identity column isn't a bad idea. There are a number of entries where that overwhelms the reference and context columns. Just a link to the Wikipedia article should be sufficient. As for subsections, would be something like Sports? That's I'm kinda mixed about. wbwolf (t | ed) 16:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
If that column is removed, then the layout might be improved enough that we don't need to do anything else. The sub-section layout would provide some other niceties, the ability to edit just one artist (currently, one must edit the entire table), and it would provide a table of contents, which I think would be a plus on such a large list. The more I think about it though, the Identity column really doesn't belong here, I have yet to find any original content in it — copying and pasting content in wholesale from Wikipedia is bad form in my opinion.  Green Helmet 16:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Another advantage of using an article with subsections is that it would be easier for newbies to edit and therefore accidental glitch-ups would occur less frequently. We could also put images with captions next to substantial sections. The only reason why this article has an Identity column is that Halloween Costumes pages do, and even on those articles the explaination is only a few sentences long. – The Chort 16:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Is there anyway to add a "clear" CSS to the image at the top of the article. Currently, it adds a fairly large right margin to the entire table. If the table started after the image, it could use all of the available horizontal space, which would help the layout a lot too.  Green Helmet 16:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the best format for this article would be subsections. That would give a more familiar and readable format and allow for more images (if it doesn't get too distracting). OptimisticFool 21:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I did a partial conversion here.. how does it compare? OptimisticFool 02:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Now that I've seen a real conversion, I think it might just work. The Wiki link in the header helps clear up some of the clutter and mindless copying of Wikipedia entries. I'm not going to do a "I-approve-of-this-idea" joke. wbwolf (t | ed) 03:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to jump the gun here. I'd like to keep going with this, so if I could just get a coupla more opinions before I decide to complete this, that'd be great. Don't be afraid, the talk page will not hurt you. OptimisticFool 05:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Apology

Sorry about creating pages for so many artists. I just feel that four appearances constitutes a separate page. StarFox 02:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

That's okay. I would probably have done the same thing. MHarrington 18:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

How Much

How much references does it take for a band to merit its own article? There are a few on here that have 3 or 4 references, and since Peter Frampton only has 3 references, then shouldn't all these have articles: De La Soul, KISS, Led Zeppelin, Nirvana, OutKast, Sonic Youth, and Wu-Tang Clan? free 14:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I've set the minimum at four, with Frampton as an exception. StarFox 21:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Strong Sad's Lament

Should we count the songs on there on here? free 22:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup

It's hard to find each artist. Perhaps there should be a way to choose the letter you want? StarFox 23:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

AC/DC

It has five entries now. Should it be split? I mean, Bob Dylan has four entries and it has its own article. --Essence of Ghost Water 01:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Personal tools