Talk:Porcupine Tree

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Porcupine Tree article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	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 1 General Discussion 2 PROGRESSIVE METAL 3 On The Sunday Of Life 4 Voyage 34 - Compilation ? 5 Lasse Hoile 6 Citations Needed 7 Fear of a Blank Planet 8 Copyright Status 9 "Recordings" not really a Compilation? 10 Picture/Logo 11 Name Controversey 12 Changing article picture

[edit] General Discussion

Simply amazing band. It is not often you come across such a band that are so good in their original style of what they do. -- Xzen [9:44AM, Thursday, 1st June GMT+12]

Come on, the following sentences found in the article aren't right for wikipedia. This is supposed to be a neutral article - the "shouldn't come as that much of a surprise" phrase sounds like something we'd read in a rock magazine in the introductory paragraphs for a feature on the band.

"All this shouldn't come as that much of a surprise, given the fact that self-taught audio engineer and producer Wilson is very well famed for being a hard worker, and listens to many different genres of music for inspiration, as he once commented: "I like so many different types of things and they all go into the melting pot if you like that produces the music of Porcupine Tree." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Station82o (talk • contribs) 01:41, April 1, 2006 (UTC)

Awesome band. --Bookmastaflex 18:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Probably the best band I have discovered in at least 10 years. I especially like their recent direction on the last two albums ( Deadwing & In Absentia). Very finely crafted and produced music. It is complex and beautiful and delivers a punch where intended. They deserve much wider recognition than they have now. A tour with a well - known rock/ prog band (such as Rush) would open them up to many new fans. - Mike Hgl —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.227.146.42 (talk • contribs) 17:34, January 9, 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, really wonderful band. - Rmzy717 AT SCHOOL, 16:14, January 23, 2006

Bookmastaflex 18:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

What could I possibly add? Oh yes... Steven Wilson is a genius. --Psychedelic Contributor 20:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't care if this article gets a featured status or not, I improved it in every possible way for the people who visit the site to enjoy, and most of all because I love this band so much. --200.68.215.172 01:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. That's my IP address on the signature above. --Psychedelic Contributor 02:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Excellent work :) ComaDivine 04:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I just looked at the subpage about why this wasn't a featured article. Most of the criticism it got was that the page doesn't explain what the band sounds like very much. Wow, that would be so hard to categorize. Should we add a section about "what they sound like"? Faerielinds 16:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:PEACOCK Avoid peacock terms. Jesus. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.141.64.28 (talk • contribs) 16:07, March 18, 2006 (UTC)

I've been a big fan of PT for several years (and I'm excited about seeing them in concert next month!). I'm also a Wikipedia fan, and this article seems off for a Wikipedia article. It feels more like a fan page. There's a lot of love in the details of the history, but that's probably more interesting to a fan. I couldn't possibly try to rewrite the article from scratch - it'd never be accepted - and this seems to be a Wikipedia problem: it goes for local maximums. I can improve wordings here or there, but I think the whole framework needs to be rethought. Is there some way I could create an alternate PT page that could be worked on and revised and, if it becomes better than the original PT page, could eventually replace the main page? -dvs- 21:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe Wikipedia:Subpages allows for creation of a temporary page as a subpage of this talk page for this type of work. For example, something like Talk:Porcupine_Tree/temp_page. Perhaps a better option would be to create it as a subpage of your user page (see WP:SP) . --Beezhive 03:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PROGRESSIVE METAL

i wouldnt say that they're progressive metal... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.136.167.95 (talk • contribs) 08:42, September 7, 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On The Sunday Of Life

What do people think about putting On the Sunday Of life under Compilations, rather than Studio Albums, as it is a mix of Tarquins Seaweed Farm and The Nostalgia Factory? --Radioactive turnip 11:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Tarquin's Seaweed Farm and The Nostalgia Factory were not available commercially, so On the Sunday of Life should be treated as a studio album. Debut albums usually contain material from unreleased demos and are never called compilations. --Molnart 02:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Voyage 34 - Compilation ?

The official PT site lists this release as a regular studio album. Shouldn't we move it to the studio albums category ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Molnart (talk • contribs) 01:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Lasse Hoile

Added Lasse Hoile to see also section as he has important part in PT's visual side of things. I just started the Lasse Hoile page so if anyone has any more info feel free to add. It does seem extremely hard to find information on him though. Blackserenity 03:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations Needed

I've added {{citation needed}} tags to the direct quotes, as per WP:CITE. I'm sure that there are quite a few more places within the article that should provide inline citations as well, but I'm a little unsure of where to put them. I believe that the article should probably be tagged with {{Unreferenced}} (perhaps here on the talk page). --Beezhive 17:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I added what I hope will pass for adequate citations. Sorry if they were done wrong, I'm still getting used to the way this all works. Let me know if there's anything I should fix. Kerrow 21:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out with that. I'm fairly sure that some more citations are needed in non-quote sections, but I'm still trying to figure out exactly what to do myself. I may tweak some of the references a bit to match what's done in featured articles such as Pink Floyd or Zion National Park, specifically adding retrieved dates (which I believe to be required for URL references) on the assumption that they're done correctly --Beezhive 23:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, think I'm done for now anyway - I'm fairly confident that the citations are the way they need to be now. Please let me know if you find any problems. Now comes the fun bit - figuring out what other pieces of the article need citations. --Beezhive 02:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fear of a Blank Planet

Why does the album title keep being removed, one minute its there, the next its not. The band have officially announced the title on their website —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.69.24.171 (talk) 17:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

I'm not sure what the issue is - as far as I can tell, it was only removed once (by me) before the album title was officially announced on the band's website. It currently remains in the article, both at the end of Growth (phase three) and in the Discography sections. --Beezhive 20:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright Status

I'm a bit worried about the copyright status of portions of this article. Some of it looks close to verbatim copy from the Porcupine Tree Bibliography. I don't have the time to fully investigate at the moment, but I think the pages need to be compared. If nobody else gets to it, I'll do it when I've got some free time. --Beezhive 02:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I know that some of it was, from my previous edits, and I've been trying to catch it when I find it and get reword it, or something of that sort. Still some work to be done though. Kerrow 05:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Recordings" not really a Compilation?

Any opinions on moving Recordings to another album section? It's currently listed as a compilation, though it only shares one track with another album that had been released at the time, so far as I can tell. The song, "Buying New Soul" was released as a Bonus track on a special edition of Lightbulb Sun, which was only released three months prior to the release of Recordings. Also, the | Porcupine Tree web site has it listed as a regular old album, only noting that it was "limited to 20,000 copies." Kerrow 23:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, according to the band website, all 3 of the albums currently under "Compilations" should be under the general Albums section. I'm not sure that I agree for Stars Die: The Delerium Years 1991-1997 since that's fairly clearly a compilation of tracks from over the years. Recordings and Voyage 34: The Complete Trip probably could be, though. If they are moved, their respective wikipedia pages should probably be updated as well. --Beezhive 00:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Moved Voyage 34: The Complete Trip but left Recordings after doing a bit of research on it. It's compiled mostly from B-sides on the other albums, which aren't listed in many places. Voyage:34 is still more likely a studio album than not. Kerrow 03:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This appears to have been rolled back by 71.126.21.110 on Jan 13 (no justification/comment). --Beezhive 15:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm still a bit new, is there any sort of precedent for what to do about these kinds of things? Kerrow 21:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

My take on it is to make the change again and if it gets reverted, leave a message on the user page asking them to discuss it here. The only related policy I know of is the three revert rule, which we aren't even close to. Since we're in agreement on the changes (and nobody's voiced a contradicting opinion here), I think it's safe to make the change and have done so. I've left a note on 71.126.21.110's talk page as well, for what good it'll do. --Beezhive 04:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm putting Voyage 34 back under compilations - that way it'll at least agree with its wikipedia page. --Beezhive 13:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture/Logo

I believe that the previous picture was better for the profile. I also think that perhaps it would look better without the logo or perhaps have the logo down the article a bit??? Blackserenity 14:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The current picture is really awful. It's missing Richard Barbieri and Colin Edwin is in showing his back. John Wesley is in the front while he's not the member of the official studio line-up --Molnart 14:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The logo is decorative and is usually accepted to have it in the infobox. As for the picture, yes, it is not as good as the other. However, the other images are pending investigation at Commons and Meta since their license are not clear, and until the investigation is finished, it is better to use another free image without problems. Note that we can't use a fair use image because we have a free image, per our Fair use criteria. -- ReyBrujo 15:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if the logo was a .gif file with a transparent background so it would blend in with the background would be better?? Just an idea.. Blackserenity 07:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hah, without even looking at this discussion, I switched the image to a PNG I put together myself yesterday. The ugly white background annoyed me a bit. Nadim Scolris 20:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let me say that what I was doing yesterday is to replace the old out of date logo for the new one corresponding to the forthcoming record (if you don't believe me just check out the definitive cover artwork. And Molnart, you're totally right in your reply, any people who's really competent about the band knows that John Wesley is a concerts-only member. Whatever, I think you may consider replacing that old logo for that new one I've uploaded, it has transparent background: Image:PT Logo.gif.

Meanwhile I'll keep on looking for a free image to replace that crap of live shot.

ReyBrujo, I understood the policy anyway and I won't try to download Image:Photopromo.03.jpg again despite the fact it has fair use. Just a question, are images taken from MySpace Music free??

Respect the music -- Chinese lucky strike 06:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No. Every image in the internet is copyrighted by default (if you take a picture, you are the copyright owner). What you need to find is a free image, an image the author has purposely released under a free license. Such images can be found in Flickr, in example, under a Creative Commons license (either Attribution – CC-BY – or ShareAlike – CC-BY-SA –). As for the logo, they haven't updated their official page with the new one. I would suppose we should wait until the it is the confirmed new logo (as in, every instance of the old logo is replaced). We are not a news site that needs to have the latest information, we are an encyclopedia that delivers confirmed content. Until the new one is printed and released, it can be changed. -- ReyBrujo 12:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll just add this in. Use of the logo on a CD case doesn't necessarily make it the 'official' logo. Perhaps the font and style used just fits the covert art and content of the album better. Kerrow 21:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name Controversey

My daughter, who was eight at the time, had never heard of the band Porcupine Tree. However, as we passed by a pine tree she pointed directly at it and said, "Look daddy, a porcupine tree". Therefore, in addition to the list, it seems logical that the term "Porcupine Tree" could simply be slang for a Pine Tree.

192.236.20.217 22:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Robert Weidner

The section on the band's name's origin was removed because of a lack of sources. Kerrow 17:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changing article picture

I read up a bit on the fair use criteria, and I feel that the current free image doesn't adequately portray the band in the way that would be best for an encyclopedic article. I suggest using a promo under fair use such as this one until a better photo is found. The current image:

• Candidly portrays the subjects of a serious article in a semi-humorous fashion (perhaps making it better fit for a subsection)
• Doesn't give an actual view of the full band (Colin Edwin is placed towards the background, and turned away from the camera.)
• Just doesn't seem to capture the spirit of the band and the band's music.

Thoughts? Kerrow 03:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Right.. I think I'll just change if no one else offers a counter-argument in the next day or so. Kerrow 02:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Changed the image; I'd ask that before any changes are made, it's discussed here. Just to avoid any conflict, etc. Kerrow 05:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Since the image has been changed, 20 days passed without news of a free replacement. I will wait another three weeks, but if by then there is no news about a new free image, I will switch it back. Having a blurred image or an image that does not have all the musicians is the best way to encourage people to get a replacement. See the articles about Dimmu Borgir and Within Temptation, in example. -- ReyBrujo 17:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense.. This image might work better. It has Barbieri, and it shows all the members in full. Sorry to trouble you then. Kerrow 17:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that image is that it is under investigation because the license is unclear. You can use it, but it may be deleted in the near future unless the license is clarified. -- ReyBrujo 17:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Oi, hard to get a break, eh? I'll keep looking then. Thanks. Kerrow 17:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Nobody said freedom came for "free" :-) -- ReyBrujo 17:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)