The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that while performing their song "Sing" on Top of the Pops, Scottish band
Travis engaged in a pie fight?
Current status: Good article
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sing (Travis song) article. This is
not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
Image:Sing (Travis).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 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.
BetacommandBot11:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Spring of 1999
I checked the 2 refs used in the BG section, and the Independent only says Sing was written in 1999 (no mention of "spring"), while the yeoyl.tripod.com one seems to be a fansite(?) that posted transcripts of the band's notes on the song. If this is correct, is there an actual reliable secondary source that specifically mentions "spring of 1999" that could replace it? Otherwise the wording in the BG section (and the lead) should be changed to just say "...in 1999", as we're supposed to avoid seasonal phrasing for dates anyways. --
Carlobunnie (
talk)
06:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Carlobunnie: I had a feeling someone was going to bring
WP:SEASON up, and I'll honor that. As for the fansite, I used it because I checked Travis's official site but couldn't find this information anywhere. I even checked several archives but came up empty (hence the "via" param in the ref). I'll run through the archives again and see if I can find it.
ResPM (
T🔈🎵C)
12:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Okay, Carlobunnie, I had to go back almost 20 years, but I've found the original source. I also managed to procure some information about the development of the music video, so you can expand that section if you want.
ResPM (
T🔈🎵C)
15:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Yeah I figured so from the "via" but it's gotta be a rel. 2ndary source or no dice, y'know? I was actually going through Wayback archives of the Travis website myself last night to see if I could find the one the fansite was referencing, but hadn't come across anything as yet when I left the above msg, so I'm glad you found it. Re the MV section, idk how strict or not another editor will be when they review the page, since primary sources (and the info they support) can easily be contested (and removed altogether) for various reasons, but if there's any acceptable secondary coverage of it you can in the meantime, that would give you a better leg to stand on. Will take a look in a bit when I'm more awake—woke up not that long ago and only firing on two cylinders rn. --
Carlobunnie (
talk)
21:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Lead & Critical Reception
The lead section seems a bit long and overly detailed. Granted, it's only three paragraphs, but they are pretty meaty. A lot of minor details do not really belong in the lead. For example, "although retrospective reviews have been more mixed, with British website NME calling it a "characterless mandolin dirge" in 2005." Judging by the well-written Critical Reception section, NME is the only negative review out there and including it in the lead casts a somewhat negative slant. I'd remove this and other details, if the article is to be considered for GA. Any more thoughts?
Leoseliv (
talk)
18:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Leoseliv: Yes, the paragraphs do seem a bit "meaty" now that you point it out. If you could, would you please take a look at
this revision and tell me if the information provided in the lead there is satisfactory? It's the edit immediately preceding the expansion.
ResPM (
T🔈🎵C)
19:34, 29 April 2021 (UTC)reply
@
ResolutionsPerMinute: Yes, as far as the lead is concerned, that 'pre-expanded' revision is better and more concise. But even then, I would cut down on some detail, for example in the the last para - the music video. Is that TOTP performance really worth mentioning in the lead? Was it that significant? The bit about the then format precluding live performances definitely has to go - it's sufficient to cover it in the corresponding Music Video section. Don't get me wrong, it's a good article but I think it can be made better for GA and, perhaps, FA nominations.
Leoseliv (
talk)
20:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Leoseliv: I've tweak the lead accordingly, but I'm going to keep the TOTP bit for now since it was a memorable send-up. If I receive this suggestion a second time, I'll remove it. Thanks for your feedback.
ResPM (
T🔈🎵C)
21:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Shouldn't it be consistent with the track listing section: "Ring Out the Bell", "Killer Queen", "You Don't Know What I'm Like", "Beautiful"? --
K. Peake14:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The third sentence should begin as "The song was released as the album's lead single..." before giving the initial date and the labels, as well as the airplay mention
"the song "Swing" but eventually changed it to "Sing"," → "the melody "Swing" but eventually changed the title for the song,"
"loved one as a form of healing." → "loved one for healing." but the lyrical meaning is not properly sourced in the body
I'm paraphrasing what Healy says in the Comp section: feeling free enough to cut loose and sing in front of someone you love, although the bit about healing may have been too far of a leap. I'll take that out.
ResPM (
T🔈🎵C)
13:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Oh wait, I think I just combined two source to reach a conclusion that wasn't stated by one source. Oops.
The release and airplay info does not belong in the second para
The first sentence of the second para should start as ""String" received acclaim from contemporary
music critics, who often praised its"
"It became the band's" → "The song became the band's"
"reaching the top 10 in New Zealand and several countries in Europe," → "reaching the top 10 in several other European countries," adding France after the comma and New Zealand at the end of the sentence for correct order due to the UK being in Europe
"where it rose to" → "peaking at"
"it reached the top 40" → "the song reached the top 40"
"the band attending a sophisticated dinner" → "Travis attending a
dinner party" with the pipe per
MOS:LINK2SECT
The pies being thrown is not sourced, plus it is written that they re enacted the video not made an allusion
I've tweaked the Music Video section accordingly to reflect this; one of the sources mentions the pies but not the video. I think I got too
circular with that one. Since this relationship is now severed, should a Live performances section be created for this bit?
ResPM (
T🔈🎵C)
13:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Maybe you could create a section titled live performances and other usage, mentioning the cover at the end? --
K. Peake14:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)reply
British colloquialisms aren't exactly my strong point. I swore I saw a user changing "lyrics" to "lyric" on several articles, but then another British user changed them back. This is confusing me, but I'll make the change for now.
ResPM (
T🔈🎵C)
14:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Shouldn't you mention "Piano" from [1], or was that only included during the recording? Also, reception mentions the song includes guitar so you could add this here because it is notable for comp.
I've been searching to the end of planet Earth for the musicians, and it was literally in the only ref that was present before I started editing this article. How embarrassing.
Remove wikilink on London, as it is too obvious
Remove "swelling" because the source does not use the word or anything similar
"consisting of several guitars" → "consisting of
strumming guitars" with the wikilink
Are you sure the AllMusic source is referring to this as a love song? Also, the lyrical info here does not properly source what is written in the lead.
"repetition of the word "sing"." → "repetition of "sing"." since the lack of capitalisation makes it clear you are referencing the word
"and he explained that" → "and he elaborated that"
"partially inspired the song's lyric," → "partially inspired the word," because we know what word is being referred to
I can't see all of the info for the above sentence since Orlandon Sentinel is not accessible and the archive is broken
Wayback Machine only saves redirects of this source. As I said before, I'm not a technical user, so I'm not sure how to fix this.
ResPM (
T🔈🎵C)
14:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Yes. I can view the ref just fine here in the US. The passage from the source that I'm citing is this: The listener feels the joy in his voice on the banjo-led opener "Sing," a sentimental song about his wife's unwillingness to sing for him.ResPM (
T🔈🎵C)
12:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Critical reception
"positively reviewed the song," → "also positively reviewed the song,"
"its lyric as "playful", "silly", and" → "its lyrics as "playful", "silly" and" per British English
"praising its "infectious" hook, and" → "praising the "infectious" hook and"
"and noting how the band and its producer,
Nigel Godrich," → "while noting how the band and producer
Nigel Godrich"
"of its production" → "of the song's production"
"did not besmirch the band's" → "did not besmirch Travis'"
Remove comma after previous album
"said that the banjo in the song set the track" → "said that the banjo sets the track"
"the lyric was "banal" and the song as a whole was" → "the lyrics are "banal" and the song as a whole is"
"voice was "passionate and expressive"" → "voice sounds "passionately expressive""
"gave the song a scathing review in 2005, labelling it" → "gave "Sing" a scathing review in 2005, labelling the song"
"Pop Rescue wrote that Healy's vocals were a flawless compliment to the instrumentation and" → "the staff of Pop Rescue wrote that Healy's vocals flawlessly compliment the instrumentation and"
"In the United Kingdom, "Sing" debuted at number three, its peak, on" → "In the UK, "Sing" debuted and peaked at number three on"
"It was Travis's fourth top-10" → "It was Travis' 4th top-10" per
MOS:NUM on comparative values
"on the country's chart for 14 weeks, the most weeks" → "on the chart for 14 weeks, the longest period"
"and was the band's" → "and was Travis'"
Is there really supposed to be a dash in top 40?
Grammatically, only when it's being used as a compound adjective (top-40 hit; top-20 single). I think it looks better when the numbers are spelled out. In cases where "top [number]" being used as a noun, a hyphen isn't needed. Does this work differently for British English or am I being a little too Grammar Nazi?
From my experience with positions and dashes, I think it is the same just wasn't sure due to top 40 being lower than most. --
K. Peake08:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Add (BPI) in brackets
Silver should not include capitalisation
"of over 200,000." → "of over 200,000 units in the country."
"and coming in at" → "and ranking at" to avoid confusion, as the former may sound like its last position on the weekly chart
"number eight on 9 August 2001." → "number eight on 9 August."
"of number two on 29 September 2001." → "of number two the following month." to avoid overly detailed info
"It spent 23 weeks" → "The song spent 23 weeks"
"earning a Gold certification in October 2001" → "as well as earning a gold certification in October of that year"
Healy's video diary mentions it after he talks about the directors and their families: Later in the day we don some slightly more formal atire and go outside to shoot our arrival at the snobs party.
"took place, and the cast" → "took place and the cast"
"prints were gradually made and" → "prints were made from the takes and"
Synopsis
"of food, and the" → "of food and the" on the img text
Sources need to be added for the synopsis at parts since
MOS:PLOTSOURCE only allows a lack of sourcing for the summary
This is a problem, since no webs source talk about the synopsis except Travis's website. Which parts need to be edited/cited?
ResPM (
T🔈🎵C)
14:44, 11 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Parts about the summary, e.g. how the video begins, do not need sourcing per the MOS guideline, while lists of differing events do. Try and use the website to source parts like these, otherwise cut this down unfortunately... --
K. Peake08:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)reply
A minor point regarding the band performing on television. The television set itself cannot be black-and-white as the OSD is clearly shown to be in green (Seen as the monkey increases the volume), so the video itself must be monochrome. Not sure how to best re-word the relevant part though. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2A02:908:1260:8400:DEB9:93D:3597:45 (
talk)
18:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Shouldn't you create this section using the liner notes, as there is not only writers/producers but people who played strings too?
Yes, I probably should. Credits are scarce on the liner notes for some reason, so I'll have to search through the notes and refs. Give me a minute.
ResPM (
T🔈🎵C)
15:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Another user added this cover in, and the article was short at the time, so I decided to keep it. Should I just remove it since it doesn't meet
WP:COVERSONG? It didn't experience popularity or win any awards.
ResPM (
T🔈🎵C)
14:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)reply
I think it should be removed, plus retitle the last section to Live performance since there's only one after the song has been out for 20 years. --
K. Peake08:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as
this nomination's talk page,
the article's talk page or
Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
... that while performing their song "Sing" on Top of the Pops, Scottish band
Travis engaged in a pie fight? Source: "Travis stopping playing 'Sing' for the last 30 seconds to have a monumentally messy custard pie fight" (
[1])
Reviewed: Exempt (first time nominating)
Comment: If possible, I'd like this hook to be featured on 28 May 2021, the 20th anniversary of the song's physical release in the UK.
Y Article is a GA, nominated in time (became GA on 13 May, nominated same day), and article is within policy.
Copyvio tool says there's a 8% chance of copyvio, but the things it's highlighted are all short quotes, which are perfectly acceptable, so no valid copyvio issues found
Y Hook is short enough, in the article, interesting and well cited
Y QPQ exempt, as the user has
0 previous DYK nominations
Overall, this nomination passes, congratulations. I will post a note on
WT:DYK for it to run on 28 May (there is currently 1 space in the prep area for that day, so should be fine to run that day).
Joseph2302 (
talk)
16:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that while performing their song "Sing" on Top of the Pops, Scottish band
Travis engaged in a pie fight?
Current status: Good article
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sing (Travis song) article. This is
not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
Image:Sing (Travis).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 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.
BetacommandBot11:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Spring of 1999
I checked the 2 refs used in the BG section, and the Independent only says Sing was written in 1999 (no mention of "spring"), while the yeoyl.tripod.com one seems to be a fansite(?) that posted transcripts of the band's notes on the song. If this is correct, is there an actual reliable secondary source that specifically mentions "spring of 1999" that could replace it? Otherwise the wording in the BG section (and the lead) should be changed to just say "...in 1999", as we're supposed to avoid seasonal phrasing for dates anyways. --
Carlobunnie (
talk)
06:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Carlobunnie: I had a feeling someone was going to bring
WP:SEASON up, and I'll honor that. As for the fansite, I used it because I checked Travis's official site but couldn't find this information anywhere. I even checked several archives but came up empty (hence the "via" param in the ref). I'll run through the archives again and see if I can find it.
ResPM (
T🔈🎵C)
12:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Okay, Carlobunnie, I had to go back almost 20 years, but I've found the original source. I also managed to procure some information about the development of the music video, so you can expand that section if you want.
ResPM (
T🔈🎵C)
15:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Yeah I figured so from the "via" but it's gotta be a rel. 2ndary source or no dice, y'know? I was actually going through Wayback archives of the Travis website myself last night to see if I could find the one the fansite was referencing, but hadn't come across anything as yet when I left the above msg, so I'm glad you found it. Re the MV section, idk how strict or not another editor will be when they review the page, since primary sources (and the info they support) can easily be contested (and removed altogether) for various reasons, but if there's any acceptable secondary coverage of it you can in the meantime, that would give you a better leg to stand on. Will take a look in a bit when I'm more awake—woke up not that long ago and only firing on two cylinders rn. --
Carlobunnie (
talk)
21:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Lead & Critical Reception
The lead section seems a bit long and overly detailed. Granted, it's only three paragraphs, but they are pretty meaty. A lot of minor details do not really belong in the lead. For example, "although retrospective reviews have been more mixed, with British website NME calling it a "characterless mandolin dirge" in 2005." Judging by the well-written Critical Reception section, NME is the only negative review out there and including it in the lead casts a somewhat negative slant. I'd remove this and other details, if the article is to be considered for GA. Any more thoughts?
Leoseliv (
talk)
18:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Leoseliv: Yes, the paragraphs do seem a bit "meaty" now that you point it out. If you could, would you please take a look at
this revision and tell me if the information provided in the lead there is satisfactory? It's the edit immediately preceding the expansion.
ResPM (
T🔈🎵C)
19:34, 29 April 2021 (UTC)reply
@
ResolutionsPerMinute: Yes, as far as the lead is concerned, that 'pre-expanded' revision is better and more concise. But even then, I would cut down on some detail, for example in the the last para - the music video. Is that TOTP performance really worth mentioning in the lead? Was it that significant? The bit about the then format precluding live performances definitely has to go - it's sufficient to cover it in the corresponding Music Video section. Don't get me wrong, it's a good article but I think it can be made better for GA and, perhaps, FA nominations.
Leoseliv (
talk)
20:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Leoseliv: I've tweak the lead accordingly, but I'm going to keep the TOTP bit for now since it was a memorable send-up. If I receive this suggestion a second time, I'll remove it. Thanks for your feedback.
ResPM (
T🔈🎵C)
21:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Shouldn't it be consistent with the track listing section: "Ring Out the Bell", "Killer Queen", "You Don't Know What I'm Like", "Beautiful"? --
K. Peake14:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The third sentence should begin as "The song was released as the album's lead single..." before giving the initial date and the labels, as well as the airplay mention
"the song "Swing" but eventually changed it to "Sing"," → "the melody "Swing" but eventually changed the title for the song,"
"loved one as a form of healing." → "loved one for healing." but the lyrical meaning is not properly sourced in the body
I'm paraphrasing what Healy says in the Comp section: feeling free enough to cut loose and sing in front of someone you love, although the bit about healing may have been too far of a leap. I'll take that out.
ResPM (
T🔈🎵C)
13:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Oh wait, I think I just combined two source to reach a conclusion that wasn't stated by one source. Oops.
The release and airplay info does not belong in the second para
The first sentence of the second para should start as ""String" received acclaim from contemporary
music critics, who often praised its"
"It became the band's" → "The song became the band's"
"reaching the top 10 in New Zealand and several countries in Europe," → "reaching the top 10 in several other European countries," adding France after the comma and New Zealand at the end of the sentence for correct order due to the UK being in Europe
"where it rose to" → "peaking at"
"it reached the top 40" → "the song reached the top 40"
"the band attending a sophisticated dinner" → "Travis attending a
dinner party" with the pipe per
MOS:LINK2SECT
The pies being thrown is not sourced, plus it is written that they re enacted the video not made an allusion
I've tweaked the Music Video section accordingly to reflect this; one of the sources mentions the pies but not the video. I think I got too
circular with that one. Since this relationship is now severed, should a Live performances section be created for this bit?
ResPM (
T🔈🎵C)
13:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Maybe you could create a section titled live performances and other usage, mentioning the cover at the end? --
K. Peake14:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)reply
British colloquialisms aren't exactly my strong point. I swore I saw a user changing "lyrics" to "lyric" on several articles, but then another British user changed them back. This is confusing me, but I'll make the change for now.
ResPM (
T🔈🎵C)
14:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Shouldn't you mention "Piano" from [1], or was that only included during the recording? Also, reception mentions the song includes guitar so you could add this here because it is notable for comp.
I've been searching to the end of planet Earth for the musicians, and it was literally in the only ref that was present before I started editing this article. How embarrassing.
Remove wikilink on London, as it is too obvious
Remove "swelling" because the source does not use the word or anything similar
"consisting of several guitars" → "consisting of
strumming guitars" with the wikilink
Are you sure the AllMusic source is referring to this as a love song? Also, the lyrical info here does not properly source what is written in the lead.
"repetition of the word "sing"." → "repetition of "sing"." since the lack of capitalisation makes it clear you are referencing the word
"and he explained that" → "and he elaborated that"
"partially inspired the song's lyric," → "partially inspired the word," because we know what word is being referred to
I can't see all of the info for the above sentence since Orlandon Sentinel is not accessible and the archive is broken
Wayback Machine only saves redirects of this source. As I said before, I'm not a technical user, so I'm not sure how to fix this.
ResPM (
T🔈🎵C)
14:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Yes. I can view the ref just fine here in the US. The passage from the source that I'm citing is this: The listener feels the joy in his voice on the banjo-led opener "Sing," a sentimental song about his wife's unwillingness to sing for him.ResPM (
T🔈🎵C)
12:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Critical reception
"positively reviewed the song," → "also positively reviewed the song,"
"its lyric as "playful", "silly", and" → "its lyrics as "playful", "silly" and" per British English
"praising its "infectious" hook, and" → "praising the "infectious" hook and"
"and noting how the band and its producer,
Nigel Godrich," → "while noting how the band and producer
Nigel Godrich"
"of its production" → "of the song's production"
"did not besmirch the band's" → "did not besmirch Travis'"
Remove comma after previous album
"said that the banjo in the song set the track" → "said that the banjo sets the track"
"the lyric was "banal" and the song as a whole was" → "the lyrics are "banal" and the song as a whole is"
"voice was "passionate and expressive"" → "voice sounds "passionately expressive""
"gave the song a scathing review in 2005, labelling it" → "gave "Sing" a scathing review in 2005, labelling the song"
"Pop Rescue wrote that Healy's vocals were a flawless compliment to the instrumentation and" → "the staff of Pop Rescue wrote that Healy's vocals flawlessly compliment the instrumentation and"
"In the United Kingdom, "Sing" debuted at number three, its peak, on" → "In the UK, "Sing" debuted and peaked at number three on"
"It was Travis's fourth top-10" → "It was Travis' 4th top-10" per
MOS:NUM on comparative values
"on the country's chart for 14 weeks, the most weeks" → "on the chart for 14 weeks, the longest period"
"and was the band's" → "and was Travis'"
Is there really supposed to be a dash in top 40?
Grammatically, only when it's being used as a compound adjective (top-40 hit; top-20 single). I think it looks better when the numbers are spelled out. In cases where "top [number]" being used as a noun, a hyphen isn't needed. Does this work differently for British English or am I being a little too Grammar Nazi?
From my experience with positions and dashes, I think it is the same just wasn't sure due to top 40 being lower than most. --
K. Peake08:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Add (BPI) in brackets
Silver should not include capitalisation
"of over 200,000." → "of over 200,000 units in the country."
"and coming in at" → "and ranking at" to avoid confusion, as the former may sound like its last position on the weekly chart
"number eight on 9 August 2001." → "number eight on 9 August."
"of number two on 29 September 2001." → "of number two the following month." to avoid overly detailed info
"It spent 23 weeks" → "The song spent 23 weeks"
"earning a Gold certification in October 2001" → "as well as earning a gold certification in October of that year"
Healy's video diary mentions it after he talks about the directors and their families: Later in the day we don some slightly more formal atire and go outside to shoot our arrival at the snobs party.
"took place, and the cast" → "took place and the cast"
"prints were gradually made and" → "prints were made from the takes and"
Synopsis
"of food, and the" → "of food and the" on the img text
Sources need to be added for the synopsis at parts since
MOS:PLOTSOURCE only allows a lack of sourcing for the summary
This is a problem, since no webs source talk about the synopsis except Travis's website. Which parts need to be edited/cited?
ResPM (
T🔈🎵C)
14:44, 11 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Parts about the summary, e.g. how the video begins, do not need sourcing per the MOS guideline, while lists of differing events do. Try and use the website to source parts like these, otherwise cut this down unfortunately... --
K. Peake08:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)reply
A minor point regarding the band performing on television. The television set itself cannot be black-and-white as the OSD is clearly shown to be in green (Seen as the monkey increases the volume), so the video itself must be monochrome. Not sure how to best re-word the relevant part though. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2A02:908:1260:8400:DEB9:93D:3597:45 (
talk)
18:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Shouldn't you create this section using the liner notes, as there is not only writers/producers but people who played strings too?
Yes, I probably should. Credits are scarce on the liner notes for some reason, so I'll have to search through the notes and refs. Give me a minute.
ResPM (
T🔈🎵C)
15:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Another user added this cover in, and the article was short at the time, so I decided to keep it. Should I just remove it since it doesn't meet
WP:COVERSONG? It didn't experience popularity or win any awards.
ResPM (
T🔈🎵C)
14:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)reply
I think it should be removed, plus retitle the last section to Live performance since there's only one after the song has been out for 20 years. --
K. Peake08:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as
this nomination's talk page,
the article's talk page or
Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
... that while performing their song "Sing" on Top of the Pops, Scottish band
Travis engaged in a pie fight? Source: "Travis stopping playing 'Sing' for the last 30 seconds to have a monumentally messy custard pie fight" (
[1])
Reviewed: Exempt (first time nominating)
Comment: If possible, I'd like this hook to be featured on 28 May 2021, the 20th anniversary of the song's physical release in the UK.
Y Article is a GA, nominated in time (became GA on 13 May, nominated same day), and article is within policy.
Copyvio tool says there's a 8% chance of copyvio, but the things it's highlighted are all short quotes, which are perfectly acceptable, so no valid copyvio issues found
Y Hook is short enough, in the article, interesting and well cited
Y QPQ exempt, as the user has
0 previous DYK nominations
Overall, this nomination passes, congratulations. I will post a note on
WT:DYK for it to run on 28 May (there is currently 1 space in the prep area for that day, so should be fine to run that day).
Joseph2302 (
talk)
16:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)reply