Talk:The Scientists

Untitled

Ok, just thoughts.

• The Scientists are a notable band. They sold moderately well and made a bit of a splash. However, their primary notability expressed in this article, probably accurately, is their scene. They were notable as a first punk act in Perth and one of the early punk acts in Australia. As such, their actions and effects deserve discussion. However, I feel that the lineup changes are not warranted for a band of this level. It ought to be enough to say, "Numerous members came in and out of the band over the next two years." Listing each, his dates, what he did, etc. seems to me to drag the narrative and to imply that each individual is a major figure. If each is, then a parenthetical mention is sufficient. For example, someone writing about The Modern Lovers in their first line up could say "had Jerry Harrison (later of Talking Heads), Brucewhoeverhewas (later of The Cars), and thatotherguy." Now, that other guy went on to many other bands, but none were headline acts. So my first criticism is that the line up changes should be handled by a gracefully quick stroke.
• Secondly, although the band had two iterations, more of a description of how they are stylistically distinct (if they are) needs to be in place to justify the section split. Otherwise, there is no reason to do so. Instead, you'd say, "After a brief breakup, the band reconvened with a new lineup in London." Presumably, the two versions of the band didn't sound the same. If so, if they really are like 2 different bands, that needs to be described. (I've only heard them in their London version, and they were one-hitters in the US underground.)
• Third, there are numerous, numerous breakouts implied by all those redlinks. I would rather that someone needing to create articles on those notable people go back and bluelink than to have people only notable for this band redlinked now.
• Fourth, the article seems to really exist to talk about the singer songwriter. This diverts attention. If the guy is that important to Australian punk, then let that go there. Otherwise, it's two articles under one heading, drags the narrative, and splits the reader's attention. Geogre 17:41, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Scientists.jpg

Image:The Scientists.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 00:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Thescientists.jpg

Image:Thescientists.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Scientists. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071214051436/http://harpmagazine.com:80/articles/detail.cfm?article_id=5095 to http://harpmagazine.com/articles/detail.cfm?article_id=5095

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) 17:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)