Talk:Foo Fighters

Their connections with the AIDS-related organisation Alive and Well should be added here. Reubot 12:12, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to agree. If they're endorsing a group that believes that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, that should be a matter of public interest. Andjam 04:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the fact that they no longer publicly support the group. Doesn't mean they don't still support them personally (I believe Nate is the most supportive), but they no longer publicly affiliate themselves (and haven't in several years). -- ChrisB 03:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even more reason to mention the allegations so the details can be clarified, I guess. Andjam 10:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They still have mention of Alive and Well on their website with a direct link to it.

I moved this because there were more links to it here than at Foo Fighters (band), and all appeared to be about the band. I think anyone looking for foo fighters wouldn't be using upper case. Morwen - Talk 19:51, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think US and UK charts peaks are sufficient enough, especially as all the info is there. Adding Australian peaks - especially in such a spotty manner - seems superfluous, seeing as the single peaks are generally so low. It doesn't really add to Foo Fighters' profile.

PetSounds 13:52, 19 June 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Band photo

Why isnt there any photo of the band, just besides the "contents", like everywhere else ? Vivek Malewar 13:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Added a small publicity photo at top JackFP 02:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xinger's Singles Chart

In order to stave off an edit war, as per Wiki's guidelines, I've added a survey to discuss the inclusion of Xinger's Singles chart. If you have a chance and are willing to participate, please visit the survey and contribute. -- ChrisB 14:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My table provides more information, including the most important charts to rock artists (Mainstream and Modern Rock -- two MAJOR charts). It doesn't leave out any information from the alternate format. It allows quicker and easier comparison of the singles' chart performance. On top of all that, it just looks much neater. Site-wide consistancy is a good thing. Xinger 16:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Images in Album Section

The album chart should really be converted to a simple list, or at least a text-only chart. The images ought to be removed for copyright concerns (the images are displayed at each album's separate article, so the album covers displayed in this article may not be fairly used). If I don't recieve any valid objections, I'll remove the images in the near future. — Prizm ^(talk) 23:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like the album cover images. I don't know anything about the copyright/fair use concerns thought and if you're correct, then we have no choice but to remove them (as you've already done). David Björklund 11:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think they look nice, too, but we shouldn't use copyrighted images more than is necessary - the covers are already featured on the albums' respective articles, so any further use could be considered excessive. I personally doubt that the use of cover thumbnails in this article would bring any repercussions, but it's best to play it safe and not be over-reliant on fair use. Thanks. — Prizm ^(talk) 16:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Generator single

On the page dedicated to the Generator single, it says it was released in 1999 and features 2 live tracks recorded in 2000. Is this even possible? - MightyMoose22

Charts!!!

Learn To Fly was No. 13 on Billboard not No. 19, go here to check it out here.

I assume that's why you've already changed it then, no? - MightyMoose22

- Yes, for some reason they have put the charts for the Best Of You single under albums at that site.

Top of the page

Now, I've noticed a pattern here. Every so often someone adds a single to the list, only to have it removed (usually by ChrisB). As far as the list goes as it stands, I can't see any logic to which songs are worthy of inclusion and which aren't. It claims itself to be the "biggest" singles but the #8/#12 single I'll Stick Around is there when the #8/#11 Breakout isn't. No doubt this is also what the stream of newbies have trouble with, which is why they keep adding to the list. Getting to the point, I propose the initial list be cleaned up to adhere to stricter guidelines. For instance, make it only the top half dozen or so, or only the singles that broke the top 5 or something like that. Something more clear cut than the current list of "11 biggest", when someone who makes it 12 is told it's too long. - MightyMoose22 04:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm for that. The sentence had six songs a few months ago, but people kept padding it with their personal favorite.

To be honest, I'd rather strike the whole sentence. There's no concrete way to judge which singles are "worthy", and, even if we set some standard, somebody will stop by and add their favorite.

I'll see if I can come up with a more descriptive intro. -- ChrisB 05:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cool.Well, I've left it a couple of days and have had no objections so I went ahead with it. However, I think the way I put it makes it sound like every single they've released has made it into more than one top 5. I just can't think of a better way to phrase it right now, so I'd be grateful if I could get some help with that. Cheers - MightyMoose22 23:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea - but, yeah, I feel weird having it worded that way, given that there are a number of charts (ie, other countries) that aren't listed on the page. I moved it to an editor's note, just so people can see why those songs are there, and hopefully understand that we don't need to list every popular song of theirs. -- ChrisB 23:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I didn't know that was possible. - MightyMoose22 00:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paranoid?

Their newest CD, In your Honor isn't copiable. I found this out when trying to backup, like I do with all my other CD's, the album to my laptop. They're the only band I know to do somthing like this. It just seems crazy. Somthing should be added to teh article about that.

They are by no means the only band to use Copy Control technology, it's been around for a few years now. Check out this category, although the actual list is infinitely longer. - MightyMoose22 21:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

it's really easy to circumvent the copy protection. when you put the CD into the drive simply hold down the shift key on a windows computer. This disables the CD from installing copy protection software on your computer.

Also, it would be nice if someone could make a change to the last paragraph about how the album isn't nescesarily their last. Dave Grohl has made that statment about every release since "The Colour And The Shape" and that was three albums ago.

stupidkrazykarl

"However, he's also said that he could see the Foo Fighters go on for years."

The article already says that. Does it need to say more? -- ChrisB 23:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i suppose it may be fine as is. there oughta be a better way to write it so it dosn't sound like they'll be breaking up soon, but I doubt I could fix it much so I won't complain.Stupidkrazykarl 16:28 7 January 2006

Rolling Stone

Nice one whoever put the Rolling Stone Mag cover on the page, the Foo's kicked ass back then.

And they dont now? PJB 14:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They have become a different band musically, a lot of people came onboard the Foo wagon when they mellowed out with There Is Nothing Left To Lose. A lot of people jumped off (I almost did)

It's true that There Is Nothing Left To Lose got them noticed and is more mellowed out (best Rock Album at the Grammys), but I personnally don't mind it, but can understand why old fans might have been put off. 'The Colour and the Shape' was their best in my view (although that's not to say I don't like their other albums).

Keep rockin' (yes, that is a very cheesy thing to say) PJB 20:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supergroup

I let it be noted in the opening, that they are a supergroup. It's also one of the categories this article falls under, and this more informs readers at first as to the identity of the group, since they are one of the most popularly recognized contemporary supergroups, and the most exampled of one in the perspectives of most.

The Foo Fighters ARE NOT A SUPERGROUP. Sunny Day Real Estate was not a widely successful or widely respected band prior to Will and Nate joining the Foos. They had received positive reviews, but most of their fame came AFTER Will and Nate joined the Foos. (In fact, SDRE received a significant amount of exposure BECAUSE Will and Nate joined the Foos.) SDRE's second album wasn't released until several months after SDRE's disbanding, and three months after the release of the first Foo album. -- ChrisB 04:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps then, in the list of supergroups on Wikipedia, they should be removed. I don't want a broken reference between the two articles. The link can be found here for the supergroups list.

Okay, done. So what's your problem now? They're no longer listed as a supergroup, so you're going to add them back anyway? WTF!?!? -- ChrisB 06:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here's what we could do. We could put a paragraph into the article that some music fans consider them a supergroup. Problem solved?

Absolutely not. One of Wikipedia's key mandates is no original research. I have never in my life seen any journalistic article refer to the Foo Fighters as a supergroup. If you can find one, that's a different story. But, regardless, they fail all of the guidelines as to what constitutes a supergroup.

But, even beyond that: WHO CARES?!? Why does this have to be included in this article? The Foo Fighters are a group, plain and simple. The article says that, and that's all that needs to be said. Even if there are fans who call them a supergroup, the overwhelming majority do not, so it's superfluous information. -- ChrisB 23:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Learn To Fly , Bilboard 100

Learn to Fly was definatly No. 13 on the Billboard 100. Some idiot always changes it to 19. for some reason ?

It says so at the official Billboard site:[1]

Also at the All Music Guide(although not always up to date): [2]

Laundry Room Studios

I know that the dirst Foo Fighters album was recorded in Seattle at Laundry Room Studios and that Barrett Jones is related (I know his brother). My understanding is that Jones actually opened the studio, I might be wrong though.