Jump to content

Talk:Foo Fighters

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CAYA (talk | contribs) at 07:02, 8 July 2006 (→Learn To Fly , Bilboard 100). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.


  • 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]

For starters, I'm not the one who asserted the #19 issue. It was asserted by User:BGC, but without providing a source. So I researched Billboard Hot 100 charts, and came across the March 4, 2000 chart which said exactly what he asserted: that the song peaked at #19.
The chart's final column is "peak position", and I saw several charts from February and March of 2000 that said the same thing: #19. And I wasn't looking at the Adult chart. Billboard posts the "5 Years Ago" Hot 100 charts on their website, and most of the early 2000 charts were still available via cache until a couple of months ago.
Everything I could find said the same thing: Billboard's summary is wrong. And AllMusic takes their results from Billboard's summary, so we can't use that as a second verifying source.
I don't have a Billboard subcription, so I can't look up the real charts in their database. However, the downtown branch of my local library used to carry Billboard magazines in their periodicals. I'm going to be downtown early next week, and I'll see if they still have those magazines in their archive. -- ChrisB 21:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Found the answer. "Learn to Fly" peaked at #19 on the Hot 100 on the January 22, 2000 chart. It debuted at #80 on October 16, 1999. Its last charting was at #50 on March 4, 2000, a total of 21 weeks. And, yes, THIS IS THE HOT 100. Billboard's site is wrong, period. -- ChrisB 06:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Date 1/8 1/15 1/22 1/29 2/5 2/12 2/19 2/26 3/4
Position 26 20 *19* 22 26 30 35 42 50
This is original research, and you have edited this 4 times. Please refrain from editing this again unless you can actually prove what you are stating and not just stating it as fact. It is your word against published material, and thus the published material stands. Contact billboard to get this figured out. Bsd987 02:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're kidding, right? Looking at the actual Billboard charts constitutes original research? ALL OF THOSE ISSUES WERE PUBLISHED. And the March 4, 2000 issue says that it peaked at #19. So don't hand me the ridiculous argument about "published material", when I've got that source right there: the March 4, 2000 issue of Billboard Magazine.
Oh, and stuff threatening to report me. Read WP:3RR and see what the guideline actually says. -- ChrisB 02:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you cannot provide an internet source that says it charted at #19.billboard itself says its #13.if you have proof where is it?Provide an internet source or you will be reverted,peiod. P.S. AND YES I READ IT AND YOU HAVE BROKEN THE 3 REVERT RULE.

It's three reverts in 24 hours. Read it here: WP:3RR.
Sources don't have to be on the Internet to be verifiable. It'd be kind of difficult to cite biographies and whatnot if we required that they be on the Internet.
However, if you're going to continue being a douchebag about this, this person has archived the 2000-era Hot 100 charts, and they match the Billboard Magazine listings:
Then there's this guy who independently tracked the Foo's chart stats: [3] If you can't understand the instructions at the top, the first blue number is the peak, the second is the number of weeks on the chart. You'll notice that the other stats match what we have.
I've got more if you really need to see it. -- ChrisB 03:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorry but these sources are unreliable also as far as we know this could be made up.give us an OFFICAL source or it will continue to be reverted.(This is an independent site).Why can't you find anything o the internet possibly because your wrong.(quit the language or I'll have to report you.

Yeah, 'cause there's a giant conspiracy to deny the Foo Fighters of their rightful place at #13. And it all started in 2005 with a post on a UK message board. It continued with the "5 Years Ago" charts that Billboard posted on their own website last year that said the same thing. (Which are all now offline because Billboard only allows access to their archives to current Billboard subscribers.) It moved on with some kid in Japan who decided to fake a whole bunch of charts.
The verifiable source is the March 4, 2000 issue of Billboard Magazine. I don't actually need to provide anything else. Not every information included in Wikipedia comes from an Internet source - in fact, a very high percentage of it does not.
Why do I owe you any respect at this point? I've done everything possible to follow the guidelines, and you've reverted them for no legitimate reason. My note about the chart is a) verifiable, b) sourced, and c) NPOV. I've done everything I can to make a good faith effort to show that I'm not just pulling this out of my head. -- ChrisB 05:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, many things on wikipedia do not have sources but this is a disputed claim.As far as we know you probably made this up.Your claim is A UNVERIFIED B UNSOURCED if it was verified and sourced we wouldn't be having this arguement.ALSO you have been very rude.what are you talking about I've been reverting your UNSOURCED UNVERIFIED claim 'for no legitimate reason'?.YOU HAVE BEEN PROVEN WRONG,period.

Because, of course, I made it up. I paid a guy in the UK to post fake Hot 100 results last year. I paid this guy, too, also last year. (Different person, same result: "1999.10.16 Foo Fighters Learn To Fly (19) 21w" - translated: debuted on 10/16/99, peaked at 19, 21 weeks on the chart.) I also paid some kid in Japan to post Hot 100 charts from six years ago on his site. In fact, I paid him to post the last six years, too, just to serve my point that much more strongly.
I haven't been proven wrong whatsoever. All you've proven is that you'd rather be ignorant and flail your arms around screaming than use your intellect. Good effort, genius. -- ChrisB 06:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't been proven wrong.You have not been proven right neither(and you never will be).You have made this more than it needs to be.You have affended me for no reason whatsoever.Even after giving up and admitting you paid people to lie you continue to insult me and argue WITHOUT RELIABLE SOURCES WHICH BY THE WAY I HAVE [[4]]. where's yours?I don't see anything but a bunch of unverifiable sources.Even if you are right you cannot prove it without proof of your claim WHICH I HAVE[[5]].quit flailing your arms in the air crying like a baby WITHOUT RELIABLE SOURCES.useless,time consuming effort, GENIUS

Holy crap, are you serious? Can you not tell when people are kidding? I couldn't possibly have paid a guy last year to fake Hot 100 charts. I hadn't even heard about "Learn to Fly" peaking at #19 until about two months ago. BCG asserted it, and I researched and confirmed it with the March 4, 2000 issue of Billboard Magazine. All of the sites that I posted above were found via Google.
I "gave up" because Wikipedia demands that its editors try to avoid conflict whenever possible. But I certainly have no hestitation to add that comment back, especially if someone else reads this ridiculous argument and can see for themselves that I'm not making this up. -- ChrisB 07:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean?you admitted it just then.No matter what I still have original research and you got some site you got off GOOGLE?How desperate were you to prove me wrong?Sorry these are the only sites you could find that backs up your claim UNSOURCED UNVERIFIED site.In the end I have billboard itself backing me up.

The problem is, so does he. You do realize that website information can be changed, right? WesleyDodds 19:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As is conveniently demonstrated by Wikipedia. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 20:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So here's the good question. Apart from my sparring partner (who just got blocked for three days), are there any objections to the version I had most recently - ie, #13 in the chart, but note at the bottom pointing out that Billboard Magazine listed the peak as #19? -- ChrisB 01:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. WesleyDodds 06:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I know of. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 18:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me but even if you are right CAYA does have a verified source like it or not.Personally I believe it is 19 but unless you show us an offical billboard arcticle that states that the correct number is 19 it will have to be reverted sorry but thats just how it has to be. User:SOADLuver

You can look it up yourself, though. That's the point of references. Both sources are equally valid. WesleyDodds 09:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to point out again per SOADLuver's comment - I'm not removing the #13 listing in favor of the #19 peak. I'm simply adding a comment that notes that there is another verifiable source (Billboard Magazine, March 4, 2000) that disputes the #13 chart peak. And, again, it must be pointed out: sources do not have to be publicly available on the Internet to be used on Wikipedia. As long as the source is available and verifiable (which is true in this case), it's usable. Take, for example, the citings of Come As You Are: The Story of Nirvana and Heavier than Heaven which appear in the article for Nirvana. Those texts are not available on the Internet - a person cannot verify the quotes simply by poking around on Google. However, the citings are independently verifiable, even if an editor would have to acquire the books to do so.
I re-added the comment per this discussion (though I can practically guarantee that it will be removed by somebody in the next couple days). -- ChrisB 22:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just read this entire discussion after seeing the chart format on the page, and I have to say, this is ridiculous. Obviously, the charts are a more reliable source for chart information than the Billboard.com summaries, which are not always accurate. I see one participant requests an official source from Billboard. It is hard to get Billboard back issues (although you could ask at your public library, as some keep them archived.) However, it is very easy to purchase Billboard books. I would recommend one to those who are looking for reliable sources and seem to prefer a misprint on a website to hard data. GassyGuy 05:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to agree with you and sum up your point by adding that the Billboard.com summary was only typed out once, so it's more subject to errors. Thank you. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 07:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with leaving your comment since you are right.I'm just saying you have to leave number 13 up there because billboard claims 13 is correct (which is a misprint).Any deletion of your factual comment will be seen as vandalism and reverted.-SOADLuver

Actually no ChrisB I am sorry but your comment will need to be removed plain and simply because I have orignal research(which is from billboard itself) and you nothing beside some unverified sources.You say that you have proof than show it to me.Until then I have original research and you don't.And if you want to argue some more you may want to read THIS first. -CAYA

And you should read this: Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I'm not sure you quite grasp the concept of "original research". WesleyDodds 12:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't waist your time.I have read that 2 times already.Thank you though for proving me right.Why?BECAUSE BILLBOARD IS AN OFFICAL SOURCE.when asked about a billboard chart peak i rather trust billboard than anyone else.The moment you shove VERIFIED RELIABLE truth into my face YOU WILL be reverted.-CAYA

I'm not going to even continue this argument. What is so hard for you to grasp about print sources being perfectly verifiable and credible information? What do you think people used for sources before the Internet came along? WesleyDodds 05:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unaware of what people used as sources before the internet came along stop getting off the subject. I am aware that a billboard magazine may have the learning to fly chart peak at no.19 but where's your proof?Huh?oh yeah you got none.right here it says that learning to fly peaked at #13.[[6]]

Laundry Room Studios

I know that the first 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.

foo fighters aerial phenomenon

shouldn't we disambig this page, with links to the band and the aerial phenom, instead of just giving the latter a small link at the top? --andrew 15:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything about the way this was done follows Wikipedia guidelines to the letter. The term has its article at Foo fighter. They each disambiguate to each other via notes at the head of the article. Adding another article to disambiguate the terms would simply be redundant. -- ChrisB 22:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Foo_Fighters&oldid=62690132"