Jump to content

Talk:New Radicals

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleNew Radicals is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 30, 2007.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 25, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
February 8, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
March 3, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
June 9, 2009Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

Vandalism/Featured Article

[edit]

Shouldn't this page be locked now that it's featured on the main page? Much vandalism occurring... thegreattim 18:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured articles of the day are usually only protected against moves. See Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection for reasons why they aren't fully (or semi) protected. --Fritz S. (Talk) 19:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Walk To Remember?

[edit]

On the page it says that Mandy Moore and Switchfoot both did a cover of "Someday We'll Know" in "A Walk To Remember". But I own that movie, and as far as I understand it, "Someday We'll Know" was, indeed, part of the movie's soundtrack, but it was the original version. And Mandy Moore and Switchfoot were, indeed, also in the movie's soundtrack, but both were doing versions of Switchfoot's "Only Hope" song. 209.137.226.65 07:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might have this confused with New Radicals' "Mother, We Just Can't Get Enough", which really is the original on the soundtrack. But in addition to the two versions of "Only Hope", Moore and Switchfoot's Jon Foreman also did a cover version of "Someday We'll Know" as a duet. See [1]. --Fritz S. (Talk) 10:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

[edit]

Shouldn't all of Gregg Alexander's post-New Radical exploits be listed under his own article? This article is already pretty much a Gregg Alexander fanboy lovesong. It doesn't seem like any of the solo stuff he (or Danielle) did is really relevant, except to say that "After the breakup of The New Radicals, Alexander, Danielle, et al. have continued on with solo careers." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kthejoker (talk • contribs) .

I think the short mentioning that currently is in the article is relevant, as Alexander was mostly hired due to the New Radicals' success. His song "A Love Like That" is relevant because it includes lyrics that originally appeared in the booklet of Maybe You've Been Brainwashed Too. Also, please note that prose is usually prefered over lists in Wikipedia, so don't listify information that already is in prose. --Fritz S. (Talk) 11:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

This article is no where near up to the quality of what one would expect from a featured article. Seems more like one of somebody's favorite bands getting a plug.

This type of behavior is what makes Wikipedia seem like a unreputable reference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.5.192.73 (talk) 02:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

"seem like an unreputable reference"? Wiki is a joke, grossly inaccurate, poorly written, amateurish - just try pointing out errors or incorporating non-trivial information and see what kind of response you get from the "experts" lurking around it. Reliable information? You'd be better off using on some kid's 8th grade term paper as a reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.66.153 (talk) 02:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree entirely.. I read Wikipedia on a daily basis whilst at work, and until now I have never once been motivated to comment on a featured article.. I can't find a single fathomable reason as to how or why this article passed certification to become Featured.. The previous contributor, above, who described this as a pointless "Gregg Alexander fanboy lovesong" was right on the money..
"Relevancy and importance in the grand scheme of things" is not a Featured Article criteria. Which is probably for the best since determining a subject's "relevancy and importance in the grand scheme of things" would be hopelessly subjective. See Wikipedia:Featured article criteria.--RevWaldo 15:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the part on "widely considered a one-hit wonder" in the third paragraph... i thought such phrasing is frowned upon in WP. Chensiyuan 17:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is not that bad for being a featured article, but your criteria is really confusing. I've came across FA on the Spanish Wikipedia which doesn't even have one reference. But you'll say that's another project and blah blah.--Fluence (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discography

[edit]

I think it is not necessary to list all unofficial bootlegs and live recordings in the discography, and neither should cover version of their songs by other artists be listed, as these clearly are not part of the New Radicals' discography. So, unless there are any objections, I'll remove those parts. --Fritz S. 10:32, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

With any other artist I would agree with you, however given the limited material we're working with, I think it's appropriate. YGWYG at Leno isn't that unofficial either, I mean it was an appearance on a popular talkshow. M.C. Brown Shoes 12:05, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yet, I think we should try to have some constancy in Wiki, therefor leave it out. Plus, if one includes these, we'd also have to include all other live performances there are mp3s of, like the Much Music performance, etc. And the covers also would be a very long list, especially if we include covers on concerts. --Fritz S.
Much Music performance? There's an MP3 of that? Do you mean the Gregg Alexander interview? And what other covers have there been? M.C. Brown Shoes 13:03, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No, I don't mean the interview. They also did one song. And there are so much crappy covers of "You Get What You Give" I lost track... Most of them should be mentioned in the forum on newradicals.net. Still I think none of this really belongs on a Wiki article. --Fritz S.
Yeah, but they're all amateur covers by dodgy bands like "Full Flavor", I hardly think they'd rate a mention. The Covers section would only be for established artists. Incidentally could you send me that mp3? :p M.C. Brown Shoes 13:10, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Even if one excludes unsigned bands there are still some of them and in my opinion covers fit the songs' articles better (if at all) than the band's discography. Imagine The Beatles' discography listing all covers...
As for the House of Blues and Tonight Show appearance, both are already mentioned in the history section and I think that should be enough. --Fritz S.
But then, we are hardly dealing with a broad discography spanning decades, dozens of albums and countless bootlegs, as with say Prince. When there's only three covers by established artists and only *one* complete live recording available, I think information about them is appropriate for Wiki visitors seeking information about the New Radicals. M.C. Brown Shoes 07:17, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's not like the information isn't there. As I said, it already is in the history section. And to keep it in style with the rest of Wikipedia, I'd omit bootlegs and covers by others from the discography, even if these are small section for the Redicals. And there were more than 3 covers by established artists. Ronan Keating for example also did one. --Fritz S. 10:29, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Ai'ight, I see where you're coming from. M.C. Brown Shoes 13:36, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hey also, just out of interest, what other covers are there of YGWYG? I'd be interested to hear them. M.C. Brown Shoes 07:20, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Don't have a list at hands, but - as I said - most of them should be mentioned in the fan forum. --Fritz S.

Members' see also

[edit]

I moved the see also link in the members section back to the bottom, as I think it doesn't make as much sense to readers before they read the members section and know that there weren't any real members. I know that WP:MOS suggests it should go to the top of the section (although I find that a little inconsequent, as the See also section always goes on the bottom of the article, why shouldn't a single See also line not go to the bottom of the section?), but I think in this case we should ignore the rules and put it at the bottom of the section, to make it a better read. --Fritz S. (Talk) 11:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Mother" single and remix

[edit]

The "small" online stores selling these probably only sell test pressings. If this had been properly released it'd surely be listed at www.amazon.de and there'd be way more used copies floating around.

In accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines, I also removed the lengthy paragraph about the remix, as it lacks reliable sources and (if genuine) should not be covered in this extent in the main article, but rather in the article about "Mother". -- Fritz S. (Talk) 19:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LMC

[edit]

I decided to add the LMC single to the discography: it counts as New Radicals cause they're named on the front cover as an artist, similar to Enya being charted for I Don't Wanna Know by Mario Winans, and it's currently charting so it's relevant. What do you think? M.C. Brown Shoes 15:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I've taken it out for now cause it occured to me that we'd have to put "Don't Let Go" in as well. But then that might be considered more of an NR release anyway as it had Gregg's actual vocals in it. Again, what do you think? M.C. Brown Shoes 15:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd leave it out. The single I found does not list them on the cover [2] and from what I've heard it's actually a cover version ("Don't Let Go" was a remix, but that was never really released - apparently due to leagal reasons, because they weren't allowed to use the original vocal track; Seems like that's why they released it with Rachel McFarlane). --Fritz S. (Talk) 15:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Album certifications

[edit]

Unless I'm mistaken, platinum and gold certifications are for numbers of albums shipped (and not sold, as it currently says in the article). I didn't want to change it without discussing first though, because this article appears to be well-referenced. Extraordinary Machine 21:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about this, but in the main article (Music recording sales certification) it also says "sold", not "shipped"... --Fritz S. (Talk) 09:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess they mean sold to distributors. The Wikipedia article says the same thing. Gdo01 04:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

all feautured articles should be locked, they're ussually vandalized every time. Just lock it for the day they are feautered.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.104.39.227 (talk • contribs).

I agree, this page has been vandalised 10 or more times in the past 15 minutes....

Link9er 14:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is typically answered with Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection. That is... unlikely to happen.Circeus 18:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been watching this, mainly for personal edification as I'm working on an article of similar scope. So I did the article diff for the entirety of January 30, and it looks like all it gained was... a flagicon in the infobox (which we're actually starting to turn against, I think), a trivia item about Ice-T, a date fragment linked, and, somehow, both overzealous typo correction and a couple of new typos.
I'm for front page featured articles being unprotected, but I was a bit disappointed that so little was changed during this article's moment in the sun. –Unint 05:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that. Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster did slightly better, but not by much, I'll admit. They are actually seriously considering making semi-protection of the featured article the norm. Circeus 14:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is already a near-perfect article, why should we allow unregistered users editing it? Most of them are vandals. See it this way: disbanded group; no new albums on sight. Then, what can be added? If it was an active band, it shall remain unlocked. But what's the point then?--Fluence (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's unprotected because we assume good faith (even from unregistered users) and because semi-protection "should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred". If you look at the article's history, there have only been around 5 edits per month this year. Even if all of that were vandalism (which it isn't) that would be hardly enough to justify protection. In fact, there hasn't really been any vandalism to this article since March, and even that was minor. --Fritz S. (Talk) 08:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gregg Alexander, the writer and the producer

[edit]

I am not sure, but there are so many songs that he has helped write and or produce. For example, many are listed on this website: http://www.angelfire.com/ca2/TechnicolorLover/

Another one is "Ain't It Better Like This" sung by Mónica Naranjo on her CD "Chicas Malas" from 2001. The song is written and produced by Gregg Alexander. Maybe is it possible to have a seperate section called something like: Gregg Alexander: song writer and producer. What do you all think? 05 Feb 2007, callarse1 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.148.164.7 (talk) 10:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I think a section like that would be misplaced in this article (where the focus should be on the New Radicals). However, there already is such a list in the Gregg Alexander article. --Fritz S. (Talk) 11:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much but I know I love this album! Pure genious... So sad no more came out of this group!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.116.52 (talk) 23:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on New Radicals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New Radicals. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on New Radicals. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 17:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on New Radicals. 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) 15:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Radicals&oldid=1204264812"