Talk:Bananarama

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] SAW

What exactly is a "SAW" approach to music production, and is this article somewhat not NPOV? Pacian 11:00, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I didn't write any of this article, but I'll chime in. My guess is that "SAW" refers to the producers Stock, Aitken and Waterman mentioned earlier in the sentence; they must have some kind of distinct method for producing dance hits, but this article doesn't explore it further. While the article isn't scrupulously neutral (e.g., "dance enticing beats"), there's nothing there that would be out of place in mainstream music journalism. At the very least, it's not an advocacy article, such as an article that might say, for example: "Bananarama is the greatest girl group ever to come out of England, putting the Spice Girls to shame." That would be non-NPOV; this article is reasonably neutral. Vadder 22:26, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Is it accurate? Spice Girls may've outsold 'em, but didn't Bananarama set a girl group record with 23 Top 40 tracks? Trekphiler 18:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

What does TBC mean in the chart information for the US?Jude86 06:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

To Be Confirmed. I don't think it should be there, really. - MightyMoose22 09:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag

New tags were added to this article today but I see that no explanation was offered on this talk page. Going by the discussion above it seemed everything here was cool, but now that isn't the case? -- eo 20:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Only one person said it was cool. I hadn't seen it before. It's not cool. Its not very badly off, but it does need sorting. I suppose perhaps the copyedit tag is enough... Or maybe actually it needs a 'style' tag instead. It is a terrible article and needs lots doing to it, I think it is two tags worth of badness, I agree that it is debatable which two tags it needs. Damiancorrigan 20:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

"...it is two tags worth of badness." haha, I like that. Fair enough. -- eo 20:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I was quite proud of that. Wikipedia is nothing if not a place to try out new expressions in the English language. Damiancorrigan 00:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Website

Whoever changed the description of the band's offical website to "Fan site" should either research properly before making such edits, or leave things alone they know nothing about!

[edit] Grammar

So should it be "Bananarama ARE a British girl group" or "Bananarama IS a British girl group"??? I'm in favour of "are" being the correct grammar, as most other bands on Wikipedia are also styled this way. We also wouldn't say "In 1999 it released a new album", or "It's first number one" we would say use the plural, "In 1999 they released a new album", "Their first number one" so I think the opening statment should be in the plural. Anyone like to discuss?? Paul75 23:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Grammatically I believe "IS" is correct. Although made up of three individuals, the article is describing ONE (singular) group. Its a common mistake people make and ultimately it would take forever to find all the instances of it on Wikipedia, but technically speaking, it should be "IS". -- eo 16:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I can see your point. But would we say The Supremes is a Motown group or The Spice Girls is a British girl group? Is there an English professor in the house?! Paul75 18:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I think in this situation it is "IS". Due to the fact that "Banarama" is clearly singular, where as the likes of "The Spice Girls" and "The Supremes" are clearly plurals, so would become "ARE".Redcar987 18:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
This is a horrifying justification. The style guidelines dictate that this particular grammatical atrocity be allowed to stand in articles dealing with North American bands (The Dolphins score! Miami wins!) , but it is quite definitely illiterate in UK English. Chris Cunningham 19:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Well then change it back. Sheesh. -- eo 19:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Reverted gratuitous change back to US grammar/spelling, fwiw.--194.247.53.233 22:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Australian chart placings

The Wow album peaked at number one in Australia, not number two, although it only held the top spot for one week. The placing of The Greatest Hits Collection at number 23 is also erroneous as it made the Top 10, although I am unsure of it's final peak.. As for Every Shade Of Blue, I understand it did indeed enter the Australian singles charts and peak at the dizzy heights of number 99. It was widely available for purchase in Australia, as was the Ultra Violet album. Can anyone verify??

[edit] Discography

Hi all: Should "Waterloo" be included in the discography somewhere? I don't know if it was ever actually released as a single, but they did make a video of it. (It is mentioned in the Career section but not in the list of singles/songs.)Banzaiboy 04:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

My vote is no. It was a one-off recording and there was no single made available for it. Was it played on the radio or anything? Mentioning it within the article is sufficient, I think. -- eo 11:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
One option might be to create a list or section for non-album, non-single recordings such as:
1. "Riskin' a Romance" from The Secret of My Success soundtrack
2. "Cairo" (can't remember which soundtrack that was on)
3. "Love, Leave, Forget"
4. "Waterloo"
I think there are some other songs as well from their early days. Any thoughts or suggestions? --Banzaiboy 05:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd agree with something like that... perhaps even a full list of B-sides? If we get that detailed, I'd suggest sticking it on the discography page rather than in the main article. -- eo 11:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I added a section to the discography page as suggested but please feel free to restructure it. Also, feel free to add b-side songs if you think it's relevant. Thanks.--Banzaiboy 01:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Correct grammar for numbers

Correct English grammar for numbers for single numbers to be indicated by the word (i.e. number eight) whilst double or more digit numbers are indicated by the number itself (Top 40, 26th) NOT written as twenty-sixth, top forty etc. Can anyone else agree or disagree?

I believe standard English has the spelling-out of numbers lower than 100. Abbraviations such as 26th (as far as I know), may not be a standard internationally, which is why I personally don't use them, but I may be wrong about that one. -- eo 02:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I've never heard of a guideline that numbers be spelled out below 100, I would normally use numerical values for anything which obviously represented a statistical value rather than a mere observation. I'm rather more concerned about the undiscussed change to US English, which I've now reverted. Not only was it piecemeal (leaving all sorts of plural pronouns), Bananarama are English and the style guidelines dictate that this means the article should preferably be presented in UK English. Chris Cunningham 19:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Standard English in England spells put numbers below 10, every thing else is indicated bt the number. 26, not twenty-sixth etc. As it is an Englsih band I propose we stick to correct English grammar
I was always taught that one to twenty were written as words, and that 21 and above are numbers, with exceptions for scientific measurements, or for poetic effect or for emphasis. However a publication's style guide trumps all else. Wikipedia's style guide says that "in the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers (from zero to nine) are spelled out; numbers of more than one digit are generally rendered as digits, but may be spelled out if they are expressed in one or two words (sixteen, eighty-four, two hundred, but 3.75, 544, 21 million)". The problem is that Wikipedia's style guide is part of the Wiki model, and is liable to change like the wind. And see also this, which argues that you should "write out all numbers between one and sixty-seven point three two, with THIRTY-FOUR to FORTY-SIX set in small caps". -Ashley Pomeroy 17:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Partial Chart Performance

I have added extra information to the page about their chart performance in the charts in the USA as well as other charts other than just the billboard hot 100. You can fin this information there.Angel,Isaac 03:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

This article sorely needs some references. I didn't see a single citation, and the external links don't look like valid sources. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2007 Album reissues

I think that something should be changed, as London Records did not release this albums in 2007, but Rhino, through Warner Bros UK did. I think it's more correct this way, don't you think? We could also mention that previous cd issues by Collectibles were below par and these are not the best either, as some bonus tracks are badly remastered and from vinyl, badly edited with cuts before songs end as well as other mistakes.Dollvalley 09:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, yes this should be corrected. I do have the first 4 album re-issues.... they definitely have the Rhino logo on them, along with London Records logo... so I suppose London licensed the music to Rhino? - eo 12:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
London Records is now part of the WB group or whatever it's called now. Warner Bros's Rhino label in the UK reissued them. I think it would be best to say Rhino reissued them. Dollvalley 13:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I've updated this info in this article and within the articles for the six re-issued albums. - eo 15:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Eric, however after reading it now, i wonder if the 12" inches and GH & MMM are also from Rhino lol. I will look at them. If they are, we should consider quoting the same label for all of them. Dollvalley 14:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know who is issuing those sets... Warner Music maybe? I've noticed there seems to be some editing back & forth with the re-issues - going from Rhino to London and back again a few times. - eo 14:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] News and Info?

Hi, I´m a Spanish Bananarama fan. I want to know if somebody (non Ericorbit) can write information, show photos and edit this page. I wrote Spanish charts info, and Ericorbit deleted it.

Hi, Eo. I´ve changed your page. I think it is better. EncicloCharlie. 01:21, 17 November 2007.

[edit] Goodbye

Hi, I´m Spanish Bananarama fan. I did 3 pages (from Bananarama videography). And I think some info is not correct. But Eo deleted all info. If I can´t do anything, I will not enter here. Sorry. Goodbye. EncicloCharlie