A news item involving Tim Smith (Cardiacs) was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 23 July 2020. |
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
All that really needs to be said is that this man is a genius!
I concur! "Tim Smith is a bloody genius"... What the hell else is needed, really?!? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.125.60 ( talk) 05:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I have completely revamped the Tim Smith biography page. I have added more detail and a discography. I am aware that more work has to be done.
Drterror666 ( talk) 14:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
You did a fine job, my friend. Keep up the great work!
-Richie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.0.2 ( talk) 04:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I've rewritten the intro and first few paragraphs to remove any weasle-words. Ironho lds 05:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
The page looks great, i'm very impressed with the changes, ihope everyone else is too? All the new info is very astute and well referenced. Love it.
(----) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.129.175 ( talk) 14:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Quite a lot of material on this page is being let down by vague or non-existent citation (in particular, the Influences section - how many of these bands have actually cited Cardiacs as an influence? I've tidied up that section in particular, but could other posters please consider either removing or verifying some of those names.
I noticed a few pages noted as references which, when read, did not support the sentence they were used as a reference for. I've removed those particular refs when I've seen them.
Also, beware of using anonymous/pseudonymous comments (or reviews on forums) as referenced support for stated facts. - Dann Chinn ( talk) 00:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Hear hear. I have ripped out a few offending examples but more work is required. See here for guidelines: Verifiability.
Vernier Gauge ( talk) 18:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
The article is looking the best it ever has! Wicked stuff guys or girls!
All the stuff in the personal life section is totally valid and factual. But i think it's early days to state whether or not we can assume Tim Smith has brain damage...so i think maybe leave that out for now.
But damn good job otherwise!
(----) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boylucid ( talk • contribs) 20:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
It was suggested back in November '08 that the page for the Sea Nymphs' "Appealing to Venus" reissue be merged with the page for its original release - but nobody has commented either way, so I thought I'd bring the discussion over her as the conversation seems slightly less dead. Any opinions...? ~dom Kaos~ ( talk) 21:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Right. I've made some fairly major revisions to this article, mainly because as others have noted it was in danger of reading like a hagiography, and I felt some of the information included(especially with regard to the groups listed in the "Influence" section) was questionable and misleading. I've also reduced the number of song and interview quotes down to a sensible number and taken out the section referencing "math-rock", which I just felt was irrelevant. The "History" section I've mostly left alone, except for a couple of minor additions. Hopefully the core of the article remains intact, I've just tried to make it read a little better. - Phil A ( talk) 23:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
So somebody just pointed me to this article as a bit of a lost cause. I'm planning to, first up, get rid of all the first party sources. The massive, massive number of first-party sources. GAH. Then I'll get rid of anything that isn't properly sourced and not self-evident; like all the gushing nonsense about bands that haven't even heard of these guys being influenced by them. Once that's done, we'll see if there's even enough to justify an article and we can look at finding properly sourced information. Shouldn't be too difficult to be honest, just needs some due care and attention. - Rushyo Talk 13:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Removed Discography for now. At best it belongs on another page (see WP:DISCOGRAPHY). - Rushyo Talk 14:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 00:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
upon what basis are the listed bands included in this 'family'? some sort of citation needs adding or else it's just hearsay/OR.
A news item involving Tim Smith (Cardiacs) was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 23 July 2020. |
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
All that really needs to be said is that this man is a genius!
I concur! "Tim Smith is a bloody genius"... What the hell else is needed, really?!? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.125.60 ( talk) 05:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I have completely revamped the Tim Smith biography page. I have added more detail and a discography. I am aware that more work has to be done.
Drterror666 ( talk) 14:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
You did a fine job, my friend. Keep up the great work!
-Richie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.0.2 ( talk) 04:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I've rewritten the intro and first few paragraphs to remove any weasle-words. Ironho lds 05:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
The page looks great, i'm very impressed with the changes, ihope everyone else is too? All the new info is very astute and well referenced. Love it.
(----) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.129.175 ( talk) 14:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Quite a lot of material on this page is being let down by vague or non-existent citation (in particular, the Influences section - how many of these bands have actually cited Cardiacs as an influence? I've tidied up that section in particular, but could other posters please consider either removing or verifying some of those names.
I noticed a few pages noted as references which, when read, did not support the sentence they were used as a reference for. I've removed those particular refs when I've seen them.
Also, beware of using anonymous/pseudonymous comments (or reviews on forums) as referenced support for stated facts. - Dann Chinn ( talk) 00:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Hear hear. I have ripped out a few offending examples but more work is required. See here for guidelines: Verifiability.
Vernier Gauge ( talk) 18:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
The article is looking the best it ever has! Wicked stuff guys or girls!
All the stuff in the personal life section is totally valid and factual. But i think it's early days to state whether or not we can assume Tim Smith has brain damage...so i think maybe leave that out for now.
But damn good job otherwise!
(----) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boylucid ( talk • contribs) 20:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
It was suggested back in November '08 that the page for the Sea Nymphs' "Appealing to Venus" reissue be merged with the page for its original release - but nobody has commented either way, so I thought I'd bring the discussion over her as the conversation seems slightly less dead. Any opinions...? ~dom Kaos~ ( talk) 21:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Right. I've made some fairly major revisions to this article, mainly because as others have noted it was in danger of reading like a hagiography, and I felt some of the information included(especially with regard to the groups listed in the "Influence" section) was questionable and misleading. I've also reduced the number of song and interview quotes down to a sensible number and taken out the section referencing "math-rock", which I just felt was irrelevant. The "History" section I've mostly left alone, except for a couple of minor additions. Hopefully the core of the article remains intact, I've just tried to make it read a little better. - Phil A ( talk) 23:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
So somebody just pointed me to this article as a bit of a lost cause. I'm planning to, first up, get rid of all the first party sources. The massive, massive number of first-party sources. GAH. Then I'll get rid of anything that isn't properly sourced and not self-evident; like all the gushing nonsense about bands that haven't even heard of these guys being influenced by them. Once that's done, we'll see if there's even enough to justify an article and we can look at finding properly sourced information. Shouldn't be too difficult to be honest, just needs some due care and attention. - Rushyo Talk 13:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Removed Discography for now. At best it belongs on another page (see WP:DISCOGRAPHY). - Rushyo Talk 14:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 00:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
upon what basis are the listed bands included in this 'family'? some sort of citation needs adding or else it's just hearsay/OR.