Talk:Be-Bop Deluxe

I simplified

I simplified the discography section by separating studio albums from live albums. I also removed track listings from the collections (best ofs) since there are more collections and retrospectives than studio albums from the group. A link to the discography page at Permanent Flame should suffice for anyone interested in further details (in fact I'm not sure we need full track listings from any of the albums). Ahkond 20:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The band name: Be-Bop Deluxe

If you research, you will see that *four* of their five original studio albums are credited to Be-Bop Deluxe, not Be Bop Deluxe

• Axe Victim (1974)
• Futurama (1975)
• Sunburst Finish (1976)
• Modern Music (1977) (as Be Bop Deluxe)
• Drastic Plastic (1978)

see here for example: http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=540655 (E-Kartoffel (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC))

All their albums are credited to Be-Bop Deluxe, the Modern Music credit is only a variation on the cover, on the label it is Be-Bop Deluxe (E-Kartoffel (talk) 23:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC))

trimmings

I took the following off the intro section: (albeit often hidden beneath Nelson's quirky lyrical and musical metaphors). While perhaps an accurate assessment, it is also editorializing as there's no cited source for the opinion.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Be-Bop or Be Bop?

Don't know which it is, don't really care. But the article looks half-assed if the title of the damn thing doesn't match the text. I reverted back so it matches, and suggest that there be a consensus reached before changing basic elements of the article like the subject's name. PaulCHebert (talk) 07:03, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

British English

Be-Bop Deluxe were a British band, That's why we have the {{Use British English|date=July 2016}} pasted at the top of the article code. In British English musical groups are usually referred to in the plural, e.g. "are", "were", "they" etc. For the purposes of comparison why not look at the articles for other UK bands such as The Beatles, The Who, The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, etc. etc. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

As in the date formats, we go by what the article was first created for whatever format is to be used. Hopefully, that WAS British English.

Yes, it seems it was, back at 17:06 on 23 January 2006‎. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Original Research

This section contains a lot of unreferenced statements. Look, I like the band, you like the band, but making up your own opinions on albums and group direction is a huge no-no. Blogs - unless coming directly from a band member - are NOT Reliable Sources. Let's get this article cleaned up, folks. That probably means deleting a lot of stuff from this section.50.111.35.97 (talk) 12:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

list of members....

.... ought to include mick (or possibly mike) close, who appeared with them on the whistle test playing "terminal street"; I can't find a citable source for this, however.

duncanrmi (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes on rhythm guitar. Although not on the album, he was recruited for the 1976 Modern Music tour. Here's a video of the 16th November 1976 slot on OGWT (although note, "may not be copyright compliant"). And here's a few details I found on a stevehoffman chat thread. I'd expect there to be some kind of gig review source that mentions him somewhere. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Discography page?

I made a draft of a discography page: Draft:Be-Bop Deluxe discography, but it was rejected, saying that there's not enough detail and suggested a merger. However, I don't see any good way of making this happen, keeping all of the details on this page without bloating the article.

Any thoughts? Fundgy (talk) 22:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Fundgy. I sent you a barnstar for your Bill Nelson discography, as I thought it was such an improvement. It looked fine. Hard to understand how "a merge" here would be better. That would simply take us back to an article that is too cumbersome. Also not sure how "more detail" could be needed. "More sources" is usually the demand. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:04, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I think the reviewer was trying to say that the discography isn't complex enough to warrant a standalone page, though I don't know by what standard they're measuring it. It's not like the current section here would be wiped out. It's just not as well-suited for the finer details. Obviously the band's discography isn't as vast as Nelson's solo work, but stuff like the 12 compilations is something that, to me, justifies a standalone page.

Hypotheetically, if a merge did occur, it would take up something like a third of the article, which is a problem. Replacing the tabular format with the more typical bulleted list for a band's discography section would lower that space taken up, but it's difficult to justify retaining all of the detail of the release dates, labels, and charts that a standalone page is meant to solve.

I'm quite confused as to what the course of action is here. I submitted the draft a month ago, before submitting Bill Nelson discography, but it didn't get reviewed until now. Since then, there's hasn't been anything that desperately needed more detail, so resubmitting it now may prompt the same reviewer to swiftly reject it again. Based on the commment they left and the "here's how to learn to edit" template they placed on my talk page, they for some reason appeared to assume I'm brand a new user, so my odds here ain't looking great. Fundgy (talk) 07:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I must admit, I'm quite baffled. There's no justification for that template on your Talk page. Looks like a knee-jerk reaction. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:03, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I've resubmitted it with a comment asking for a second opinion. The last reviewer, at the top of their talk page, said they don't typically re-review the same draft. We'll see what happens, I guess! Fundgy (talk) 03:36, 20 June 2025 (UTC)