Talk:Bloc Party

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleBloc Party has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 6, 2008Good article nomineeListed
May 21, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 25, 2008.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that when playing at the 2008 NME Awards in support of their triple-nominated single "Flux", indie rock band Bloc Party were stunned by the scale of the gig?
Current status: Good article

Universal?[edit]

I can't find a source referncing Universal, on their CD's and albums listed here, nor on http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/ so I'm removing the reference in the artist info box. -VirianFlux

Band name[edit]

I dispute this sentence, “... names such as Superheroes of BMX, The Angel Range, Diet, and Union, before settling on Bloc Party”.

I happen to know that they were officially the Angel Range, then Union, then Bloc Party. The names Superheroes of BMX and Diet can only have been unofficial, or perhaps suggested, from the days before the band officially formed as a unit. More likely they are fabricated. I feel the text should be amended to reflect this, or these non-names removed - unless someone provides a valid reference to back this up, presumably as working titles for the embryonic group pre-2001. (signed no-name)

Well, I'm not sure about Superheroes or BMX, but here you can see that "Diet" was also their official name, what d'you think about that? It would be great if you rememberd to sign your posts :) Eyesglare 20:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to dispute that particular information, but at the very least would suggest that this ‘short-lived’ name was surely unofficial. If anyone has more info I would be happy to hear it. Thanks for replying. (signed no-name)

This article now says, "They bumped into each other again in 1999 at the Reading Festival and soon after formed the band Union." As I have stated, they were officially the Angel Range, then Union, then Bloc Party. Union was only a short-term interim name, which was dropped because another band was also using it, between the Angel Range and Bloc Party. This period came well after 1999, when the current unit of members had assembled - I think around 2002. This whole name issue is still incredibly misleading, guys. (signed no-name)


On a separate point, the name "Bloc Party" might not be a play on "Block Party" but could be referring to the word "Bloc" itself, which is "a group of persons, businesses, etc., united for a particular purpose." as dictionary.com puts it (amongst others) - and certainly sounds like something Bloc would do... Kudasai 23:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course, but they've already explained in an interview where the name comes from, hence I think it's more appropriate to rely on what they stated ;-) --Eyesglare 08:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Period on name?[edit]

Yeah, I've got a question. Is it Bloc Party, period, or Bloc Party? 'Cause some magazines added one.

Was it at the end of a sentence? :> BabuBhatt 22:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not just magazines. On the cover of their album its Bloc Party., with a dot.

Yes, would someone please answer this. Is the name of the band <Bloc Party>, or <Bloc Party.> ??? - I would go with the latter since the album covers include the full stop.--Macca7174 14:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's just Bloc Party is period a full stop?

iTunes has it as Bloc Party without the full stop, so I'm inclined to think it is —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.234.157 (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

iTunes also doesn't understand proper song capitalization (at least not the gracenote cddb lookup it uses), so I wouldn't really rely on that argument. At the very least I think there should be something at the top of the article that says "often/always typefaced 'Bloc Party.'" since the period is on all of their album covers and I've seen a few band articles with similar notes. Or whatever; it really doesn't affect me all that much. Jay Bones (talk) 10:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The name was not intended to be an allusion to the Soviet Bloc; the absence of a 'k' was purely for aesthetics."

bullshit. have you seen the cover of the banquet ep? their old names? what's the source for this?


Question: Is "Bloc Party" the name really a play on words of block party? Or were they using a play on words, but literally trying to say "a party in a block of flats (bloc)?" Thank you. --Jeff Supodsson 08:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


"Bloc Party is Friends with David Searston" even if true this isn't the right place. Redkaty

But I think it should be mentioned that he was a past member of the group.

Anyone want to add something about the appearant Anti-Bush sentiment on the album?

Kele Okereke has mentioned that at least the song "Helicopter" is not about Bush (see http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/interviews/b/bloc-party-05/), so I'm thinking its not appropriate to mention this. Wikipedia brown 20:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Kele Okereke (Voice and Guitar)Gay - currently dating Russell Lissack

Russell Lissack (Lead Guitar) Gay - currently dating Kele Okereke

Is that necessary?

Andrew T: I didn't know that, but it's probably not that relevant.

I don't even know that it's true...it would probably be on other websites if it were. So I took it out.

It is true, or at least very likely too be true. http://www.theage.com.au/news/music/preciously-private/2005/07/14/1120934357864.html?oneclick=true

i dont think it is true though i think that kele is just shy and he thinks that all of this is irrevelant to what he does and that is make music why should we care so much about who they are dating or what they are wearing or what car they drive when we should be more focused on the music which in most cases is the reason why we listen to certain band because we like their music.

Please sign edits to Talk pages. That article wasn't accessible unless I went through Google News, but it didn't have much to say except that Okereke guards his privacy, and this has only heightened fan rumors about such things as his sexual orientation. Doesn't say anything about Lissack other than that they co-founded the band. --Dhartung | Talk 20:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if the name is Bloc Party. or just Bloc Party without a period. I made a redirect from Bloc Party. to Bloc Party. – SilverBulletx3talkcontributions 16:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question? what do you care if Kele is gay? Surely, in a day of such openmindedness as today, you shouldn't care at all. Oh, and by the way, the band's website has no period/dot at the end of their name, and i think the band itself is the highest authority on this issue.

I agree, but the lack of signatures on the comment and the fact that this isn't even in a heading of its own in this discussion just leads me to back the argument that we really shouldn't care even more. It'd also seem a little dubious to post something which is still rumour on the main article. Sinnyo 18:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree also. It is noones business but his and he may even be ashamed for it to be placed on Wikipedia. elevenzeroone 19:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Kele is now prepared to be more open (but still a bit confused) about his sexuality and that there are songs on the new album whivh refer to it (see http://music.guardian.co.uk/rock/story/0,,1984350,00.html). It's not a big deal IMHO but may help and understanding of lyrical intent.Redkaty 15:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Headline text[edit]

The Angel Range!!!

The time when the band was called 'The Angel Range' has beeb missed out from the article. [1]

Hey Gordon's link is screwed. It is annoying. I don't know how to fix it.

Trivia section[edit]

This section is without citation from reliable sources. Can any be provided? - brenneman {L} 00:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not why you said you removed it. If you want to delete unreferenced trivia that you don't think is correct, go ahead. And the unreferenced tag you've added is fine. I'll have a look now for some references. Iorek85 01:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There you go, most of it is now referenced. I deleted the first one, not because it was incorrect, but just not notable. --Iorek85 02:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. - brenneman {L} 02:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's tagged by Machchunk for cleanup. Can we have some more details, please? You've just said 'trivia section needs severe help', which isn't helpful in the slightest.--Iorek85 00:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needs Citations[edit]

Some facts in the trivia section need citations. The statement of just "Their largest show so far was played at the Greek Theatre in Berkeley on August 4, 2006 with Mew, The Two Gallants, and Broken Social Scene opening. Songs from their new upcoming album were played." is vague on the main concept of being their "largest show" because it gives no proof or numbers to prove that it was their biggest show. Joely08 Sunday, August 6, 2006 05:50 UTC

2005 Mercury Award Nominee for Album of the Year: Silent Alarm[edit]

You might want to add this honor. And thanks for omitting rumours from an encyclopedia. -joanjettson 8/06/2006

Connect Sets?[edit]

One of my reasons for dropping by was to find out a little more about Connect Sets, presumably a demo only released in the US if this shopping page is anything to go by. As it sounds much like Bloc Party's style, only more punkish and disconnected, can I presume this is a genuine anomaly that might be worth adding? Somehow I ended up with 'The Answer' from it as an MP3, hence my query. I'm afraid I know next to nothing about the band's history, so I'm in no position to research it myself.

Sinnyo 23:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Biggest show" date[edit]

The article currently lists it as Aug 3 and Aug 4 in different sections. Can someone work out which it is please?--Eyetie 11:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thrasher claims?[edit]

in the November 2006 issue of Thrasher, they say that this page once said the band had a biography from Amazon. Is this true, or are they just making things up to ruin Wiki's reputation? I don't have the time to look through the history, so someone else post here if they found a revision that did. --Machchunk | make some noise at me 22:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leak[edit]

I know this is also being discussed on the Weekend in the City page but I do not understand why certain people are determined to remove this information from the article. Although leaked albums are becoming commonplace now in the music industry these are also reported on the band's wikipedia pages. In this case the leak is shockingly early and I don't think there are any other example of high profile bands having an album leaked a whole three months early. It's just speculation but you might argue it has the potential to impact of the eventual sales of the album. The point being that having their album leak this early is a part of the history of the band and shouldn't be airbrushed out. 87.81.110.119 23:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Break section is inaccurate[edit]

Read these interviews with Kele Okereke, in them Okekere's telling of what their big break was is different from what is said in the current version of the article which is that Franz Ferdinand was their big break. Alex Mauger (2006), Drowned In Sound (2003) and The Times (2005). For one thing, it's obvious that Kele never even thrusted a copy of their single into Alex Kapranos' hands. Franz Ferdinand got to know of Bloc Party when Kele sent them their demo tape. I think a rewrite is necessary. - kollision 12:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genre[edit]

The genre of the band should be descriptive of the music that they play, as after all, this is an encyclopedia and not a fansite. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.47.122.57 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 27 January 2007.

pop rock? what the fuck... and who keepes removing 'art rock' from the genres? STOP IT list a reason why it should be removed before anything

God Bless Bloc Party DVD[edit]

Someone who knows more about it should ad some info on this DVD.--Jimmyjrg 02:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Prayer Single UK[edit]

Released Mon - 29th 2007, got to UK #4. Not #13.

The Prayer Single Australia[edit]

Is at #20 not #12. :| Edited. 211.30.195.154 12:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bloc Party Featured in...[edit]

I swear there used to be a section on what games, movies, and television programs Bloc Party songs were featured in. I know there are several games and television shows. Where did that go? I ask because a song was featured on tonight's episode of FOX's "The OC"--These7enthprophet 04:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I moved most of it to the Silent Alarm article because it was getting to big and because it relates more to the album. If it's a song from another release you can add it to its relevant article. - kollision 07:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The O.C. information has already been added to the "I Still Remember" article. - kollision 09:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American definitive[edit]

"Bloc Party are an English indie rock band" seems correct, but I notice that sometimes Americans will say "U2 is touring at the moment" as opposed to "are touring".
An example of it (from the article under discussion) is here:
"Bloc Party has been together since 2002"
To me, that should read "have been together since 2002".

Is it just me, or is this an American thing?


And why was this comment removed?

Would it be 'is' or 'are'? I guess it would depend on if you were refering to the band as a group of people or just the band as an entity unto itself ;D 65.167.69.231 19:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- The dispute has to do with the whether one considers a group to be a singular or plural entity. In British spelling, a group such as a band is plural, while in American spelling a band would be singular.

I.E.: British: Bloc Party are my favourite. American: Bloc Party is my favorite.

I think as Bloc Party are British it should be "Bloc Party are"...

Yes, I think you're right, I've just edited the first line.

P.S. Remember to sign your posts --Eyesglare 07:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Bloc Party are an English rock band" makes it sound like each member is Bloc Party and they come together to still make Bloc Party. It's like saying "Voltron are a robot." ChesterG (talk) 08:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FA status[edit]

What can we make to improve this article to FA status? --ometzit<col> 01:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Art Rock?[edit]

On the individual pages for the members art rock is stated as one of the genres.

So why isnt it used for the band?

If all four members are "Art Rock" musicians then why shouldnt the band be?

honestly...

88.106.207.226 19:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:89zm.jpg[edit]

Image:89zm.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 14:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Jfgjbloc.jpg[edit]

Image:Jfgjbloc.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 04:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Singles[edit]

There is a helicopter US single, kinda like the Tulips one. That should be added. I added it a long time ago before I had a wiki account. Why was it taken off? Second, we do not know what the next single is, so I took off that it is waiting for the 7.18. (LAz17 23:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)).[reply]

I fixed up some stuff... so now there is a "Banquet/Staying Fat" single. And also, I made a page for the Little Thoughts signle - the previous link used to send the page to the EP, not the single. I will do more work on this and post updates on here. (LAz17 00:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)).[reply]

The Two More Years single was separated from the Two More Years EP. There's still work to be done on the singles though. We could use some fixing up of Little Thoughts as well as Banquet/Staying Fat, and maybe some more info could be added to Two More Years. (LAz17 17:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)).[reply]

Tours: Reading 907[edit]

when stating that kele dedicated a track to people from tilehurst a source must be given since i'm fairly certain it was the bassist who was from tilehurst. Is this really necessary though, since in 6 months time will anypone care about these unremarkable dedications? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.194.189.183 (talk) 02:09, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

rename Use of music in television/film[edit]

We should rename the use of music in television/film to Miscellaneous Use of music they where featured on the NHL 2K8 (video game) and theres no need to make another section —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warmachine021 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

anti american sentiment?[edit]

the "anti american sentiment" seems awfully biased...am i the only one thinking this? 68.115.104.27 (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I've removed it. It was added only recently. Feel free to remove unreferenced POV when you see it. :) Iorek (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Post punk revival?[edit]

The genre doesn't seem right. I personally go for "alternative rock". WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN it seems the winds have stopped... 20:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Rock can be misleading, I think just Rock, with Electronic and Punk elements i think would be more appropriate. Indie Rock is also misleading as well i think. (86.157.94.172 (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
How is indie rock misleading? Bloc Party are text book indie rock/post-punk revival. They couldn't be any more "indie" in DIY ethics, sound, image, and fanbase, if they tried. Please listen to a few post-punk bands like Gang of Four, Public Image Ltd, The Fall, Joy Division, and Talking Heads; Bloc Party's similarities and influences are unquestionable. The genres are fine as they are. Ezenden (talk) 00:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GAN on hold[edit]

  • "This article is about the English alternative rock band. For the Canadian political party, see Bloc Québécois." - is it possible to get the 2 confused?
    • IMO, yes, although I'm not Canadian...=P
  • Lead needs expansion; look at Taxiride (recent article by me) for an example
    • Done
  • NME needs italics throughout
    • Done
  • "All the songs on Silent Alarm" - italics for album title
    • Done
  • "political events happening previously" - pretty ambiguous...
    • Removed, I think that's OR, and it's been there for ages
  • "made by the Shoreditch based Minivegas design agency[20] was number one in the NME video charts for 4 weeks." - need a comma under the ref, and change "in the NME" to "on the NME" (and add italics)
    • Done
  • "and includes remixes from" - keep paste tense
  • "though it leaked on the internet as early as November 2006" - reword -- "though it had been leaked previously, as early as November 2006"
    • Done
  • A few short stubby sentences early in the A Weekend in the City (2006–present) section...try and improve the flow
    • Done
  • "with a high of #24" --> "peaking at #24", perhaps
    • Done
  • "the release of AWITC" - just use the full name
    • Done
  • "The set included songs from both Silent Alarm and A Weekend In The City along with the first UK performance of their new single "Flux"" - wlinks here not needed
    • Done
  • ""rawness" of Silent Alarm, but the "experience" of A Weekend in the City" - italics for albums. ANd wlink dates in next sentence per WP:DATE
    • Done
  • "To achieve their unique guitar style, delay effects pedals are implemented and this is particularly apparent on the track "Like Eating Glass"." - {{fact}}
    • Removed that bit at the end and added a citation
  • Ref 32 is not a reliable source. Ref 36 needs formatting. The rest look fine, I think
    • Done

Leave me a note when done. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 04:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This GAN has passed, and this is now a good article! If you found this review helpful, please consider helping out a fellow editor by reviewing another good article nomination. Help and advice on how to do so is available at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles, and you can ask for the help of a GAN mentor, if you wish.

Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This has gone on for over a month now. I am closing this. The result was no consensus. Gary King (talk) 00:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Merger: List of awards and nominations received by Bloc Party → Bloc Party.

I feel that the above article should be merged into the band's main article. The reasons for this are that the article is no more than a list of nominations which the band have received, some for non-notable ceremonies and only including a total of TWO winning awards. Inluding this, the article's leading paragraph is nothing but a copy of what is already written in the band's leading paragraph in their main article, with all pictures and sources copied straight. The only difference is the sentence "Bloc Party have received two awards from 18 nominations."

I am not doing this out of anger at the band, as they are one of my favourite. I am doing this in an effort to improve articles on Wikipedia, as i am sure everyone else will commit to. Thanks, SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 18:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't understand how it could cause negative effects. It would cause positive effects, since it could be summed up in one line: "Bloc Party have won X and Y awards, and nominated for Z". A lot of these nominations are non-notable, with the exception of a few, say, NME, BRIT Awards, and possibly The Q Awards. --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 22:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it would cause negative effects - just no positives. Having a random list of awards shoved into an article both looks bad and is difficult to navigate. See List of The Killers awards and List of Arctic Monkeys awards. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 17:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Non-notable? On what basis? At any rate, rudimentary googling suggests otherwise. This list succinctly and tidily lists all the factors relating to their awards and nominations. Whether something exists/has been expanded or not is continually false premises in a deletion discussion: it simply might not have been made yet. To argue on an a) erroneous basis that a) essentially 72 contentions can be presented in one sentence is a somewhat bizarre proposition to say the least. WilliamH (talk) 14:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concur there. Both PLUG Awards and GLAAD Media Awards have articles, which makes them notable in my book. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 17:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's pretty much the method I use to verify notability, too :) Gary King (talk) 23:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here: Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates/Archive_4#Minimum_number_of_items.3F Gary King (talk) 02:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I can see that that article talks about minimum number of items in a list, and that this article meets that. I'm more thinking along the lines of winning awards in comparision to nominations, as it is so few compared to how many nominations. Also that i still feel that these award nominations are altogether not very notable. I mean, if you go on List of Arctic Monkeys awards, they have Ivor Novello's, Brits, NME Awards. I just don't think that the GLAAD awards and the mtvU's have quite the same significance. --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 03:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as the list is a classic example of a content fork from the main article.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: The above is the first comment which has not came from an immediate editor of the article. --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 00:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That doesn't mean anything here. It sounds like you're trying to emphasize this support above the opposes. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And @Gavin.collins'... does that mean that List of The Killers awards, List of Arctic Monkeys awards and all other "awards" articles are POV forks, as well? Should we just be rid of numerous FLs because they are "POV forks", as you claim? I don't see how this benefits the Wikipedia, myself. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply (Both Comments): Firstly, no i wasn't emphasising the supports, i was pointing out that this is only the second editor who has shown opinion from a neutral point of view. You may think that this is not important in this discussion, but it is actually very relevant. Most other users above are all recent editors of the article, and therefore the user's opinions will be more inclined to oppose deletion of their own work. This is true for most deletion/merger proposals, hence why it is included in Wikiprojects and other areas in order to gain opinion from others who are not biased towards the article.
        Secondly, I would say that Gavin meaning behind "content fork" was that it is opinion what is a notable award and what is not, there is no guidline / MOS / notability list of what should and should not be included. I've actually spent time trying to find what is considered notable, as you will see here, and here. If we found out what is then we will know for sure and the debate can be resolved and closed. I don't think this is the same for articles such as List of Arctic Monkeys awards, as they have received awards from BRITS, Mercury and NME amongst others. These are awards which i would consider notable without debate.
        Obviously I couldn't say this is exactly what Gavin meant, and I wouldn't mind hearing him comment further? --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 00:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'd understand it if there was some brief (satisfactory) explanation on this page regarding the nominations and awards. But alas, no, there is not. Additionally, the list itself is contained within two screens (two of my screens, at least, which is 1280 × 1020), possibly less if alternate formatting is employed. --JB Adder | Talk 07:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - rst20xx (talk) 12:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - current article appears both notable and reference-able. PS a content fork does not describe the relationship between these two articles. Content forking describes a situation where a difference of opinion is presented as two separate articles instead of one – essentially presenting two biased articles. Former versions of Armenian Genocide and Denial of Armenian Genocide spring to mind. Having a daughter article (which is what has happened here) is entirely different. See John McCain for example. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 23:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Deleted tag[edit]

Deleted FUTURE ALBUM tag from "Intimacy" section. The album was released in MP3 format in August 2008.

NB, I moved this topic from the top of the page and added the header. Thanks to the IP, too. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banquet video[edit]

I have a vague recollection of there having been a video for banquet run on MTV2, featuring just the lead singer, shot in black and white with yellow distortion overlaid, does anyone happen to have a record of this first video? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.241.9 (talk) 04:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Live At Reading 2005[edit]

This was a download album release (not a bootleg) that came out in November 2005 but there's no mention of it... any reason?

Links: [2] [3] [4] Crashandspin (talk) 04:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, we cannot mention every single thing as per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, especially in biographies. But I'll see if I can put it in Silent Alarm track list. Rafablu88 04:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, another link from The Guardian Crashandspin (talk) 04:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fan talk[edit]

The art is too technical, too based on details of interest to fans. It needs a general introduction - what do they sing about, how and why ? If they got good reviews that's excellent, but it's only really interesting or encyclopedic if we say what they brought which was new 90.11.72.140 (talk) 10:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable photos[edit]

I'm sure i'm not the only one who's noticed that the faces of the band members are not visible in any of the photos in this article. This seems a little silly to me. It would be nice to see photos of the band not standing in the dark or behind clouds of theatrical fog. Just a suggestion. --Tom dl (talk) 23:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but thats the thing about Bloc Party. They're very publicity shy and there aren't a lot of photos available of them where you can see their faces. But if you or anyone can locate any that are available for use, that would definitely be appreciated. --Pritoolmachine2806 (talk) 23:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hiatus[edit]

[5] [6] [7]

following this tour they are going to take a sabbatical? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dienkonig (talk • contribs) 16:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Bloc Party. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 06:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Bloc Party. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 08:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bloc Party. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 06:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bloc Party. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 03:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Bloc Party. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 23:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bloc Party. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 20:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bloc Party. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 19:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Matt Tong" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Matt Tong. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Bait30  Talk? 20:22, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Bloc Party (disambiguation)[edit]

Notice

The article Bloc Party (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Both entries have effective hatnotes.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bloc_Party&oldid=1195538093"