Talk:Smash Mouth
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I put this article up for cleanup because it is sloppy and isorganized and opinionated.-Whatever The Heck My Full IP Address Is.
Kevin Coleman is referred to as both Coleman and Koleman. I don't know which it is, but someone should figure it out and change one of them.
- C is correct. Thanks for pointing that out. Everyking 08:03, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Didn't Smash Mouth appear on Charmed performing a single once? Shouldn't that be under Trivia?
Contents |
[edit] NPOV?
- "Much more laid-back, mature, and retro-sounding than Fush Yu Mang, Astro Lounge proved that the band had matured as musicians."
Isn't this statement POV? 70.106.107.167 22:06, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
- "Get the Picture?, their fourth album, is their biggest flop. Every single ("Looking for a Wall", "New Planet") bombed, and the album was extremely overlooked. While this appealed to younger fans, it wasn't enough. The album sold a dismal 33,000, hovever, recent figures have shown that GTP has sold more copies, but still not enough to reach gold status."
I also think that sounds POV-ish.
It may need some rephrasing, but I'm not exactly sure if the overall meaning should be changed, especially since it cited sales numbers. Someone should double check them, though. Just to be on the safe side. 67.187.113.190 05:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] August Cleanup
Saw this posted on cleanup - tightened up the article and tried to remove redundancies and POVs - perhaps it will be deemed in better shape now. Barrettmagic 10:30 August 11, 2005 (UTC)
I also saw this on cleanup. Didn't feel up to handling the POV stuff, but fixed up a bunch of grammar problems. ~Unregistered user?
I took down the cleanup notice, i think it's good now.
[edit] Better than the Monkees?
I don't like the comment about most critics calling the Smash Mouth version of I'm a believer better than the Monkees version. Where are these critics? Name some names to provide some legitimcay to that bold claim.
- Haha, "critics" = Smash Mouth fans. Let's not be POV while pretending not to be, folks, we're not a newspaper. -- MasterXiam 22:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm deleting that statement until someone can provide a citation.
[edit] Mergefrom Paul De Lisle
Paul De Lisle's only notability is with this band and there's almost nothing in that article. Seems like it should be merged in here... —Wknight94 (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I think the articles on all Smash Mouth members should be merged into the main article.
I agree entirely. There is no point for having so many band member stubs when they can just all be merged in to the bands page.-Nintendonien
-
- Hell no, although I do believe if any band member is to be merged it should be Paul. -Protozoic Waste
I see absolutely no reason to keep them seperate. What does Paul De Lisle have that differs from what he has with the band?
- Merge - there is nothing of note in this separate page that would not fit into the main article. Derek R Bullamore 21:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I have added the suggestion for merger tag to all the current band members and to the top of this article. I agree they need to be merged, but at that time they also need to be cleaned up and referenced some. Also I dont have a good idea on how to format the merged text.Sir hugo 12:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
One again hell no, at least not Steve (Steve is now on TV, so I guess that makes him notable).
- And not jason either, he's been in other bands
Merge all band members into this article. Garrettcobb 12:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
No. Band members deserve pages as well as the band they are in. CoastTOcoast533 02:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
someone should add in how terrible of a "band" these fools are. also, they are not alternative rock, more like pop, or pop rock.
'No. It seems to be pretty standard on Wikipedia for band members and musicians to have their own article. I cannot see any reason why this band should be an exception without a wider decision to alter many other band articles.
I've added this group to the "pop punk groups" category. I found an article from the New York Times which calls them that. I'm not saying that's their many genre, but they have been described as a pop punk band so it should be noted. Here's the link to the article, [1], you might have to log in the view it. Here is a quote: "In Hang On (not to be confused with Good Charlotte's Hold On) the pop-punk band Smashmouth exhorts, Things are gettin' weird/ Things are gettin' tough/ Nothing's makin' sense/ But you keep on lookin' up. " Xsxex 20:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
No, Smash Mouth is a big enough band that the members each deserve a page. Oren0 20:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Merge, there is nothing of merit than can be put into these individual articles, and will never rise above "Stub" status. MDowdal 22:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pop punk description / category
I've added this group to the "pop punk groups" category. I found an article from the New York Times which calls them that. I'm not saying that's their many genre, but they have been described as a pop punk band so it should be noted. Here's the link to the article, [2], you might have to log in the view it. Here is a quote: "In Hang On (not to be confused with Good Charlotte's Hold On) the pop-punk band Smashmouth exhorts, Things are gettin' weird/ Things are gettin' tough/ Nothing's makin' sense/ But you keep on lookin' up. " Xsxex 20:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
