Jump to content

Talk:Keane (band)

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Elan Morin Tedronai (talk | contribs) at 12:41, 8 September 2006 (→Keane). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconAlternative music Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.Alternative musicWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative musicTemplate:WikiProject Alternative musicAlternative music articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Hi, Apologies for making a total mess of this - I'm a wiki newbie. The idea that Tim Rice-Oxley created the name Coldplay is FALSE - as verified by Tim Rice-Oxley here > http://217.154.142.24/keane/forum/viewtopic.php?t=31937&start=15#800697.

I'm also slightly disappointed at how much my site (http://www.keaneshaped.co.uk/faq) has influenced this page, is there any way of crediting this? (to keaneshaped.co.uk and/or Chris Flynn)


--ChrisFlynn 18:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC) --[reply]

Hi Chris! It's very nice to see you here. Sorry for taking info for your website. I'll as soon as possible include credits for you at the bottom of the pages, on a "References" section. The link to your site is on the bottom of the page on the "Fansites" section of the article. However, if you don't want your info on the article, just post it here and I will remove all information from your site. I will also post a message on the edit page for avoiding that info from your site to be posted here on the future. In this very moment I'm retiring facts on both Keane and Coldplay articles about the names. Hope you like the place and decide to stay :) Fluence 00:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Early Years

Again on the subject of names - there seems to be little consensus about Keane being called Coldplay originally. Still, the June 2 article from the Irish Times does indeed contain a quote from Rice-Oxley that says, "We though the Coldplay name was too depressing so I ended up giving it away to a guy I knew at college - Chris Martin." However, the citation #1 is not for this article, though it appears to be citing the information I just quoted. That citation is irrelevant or possibly should be used in the next paragraph. The correct citation should be [1]. It's from the Irish Times June 2, 2006.

Charts confusion

  • "..."Everybody's Changing". This single quickly reached no 3 on the UK charts."

I removed the preceeding text from the aritcle. I assume that it was supposed to say, "Somewhere Only We Know", as this was the first single released from Hopes and Fears and it reached #3, but I'm not sure. Can anyone provide more information?

Acegikmo1 06:02, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Keaneshaped discography may shed some light. The site is linked to from the official Keane homepage, so it carries some weight.

Greg K Nicholson 03:28, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)


Vandalism

Could someone protect this page for the time being, so that the same person(s) don't continue to vandalise the page? Thanks. Vandalism blows, especially when it's of the non-creative variety.

--Madchester 04:59, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)

If the page is vandalized, you can revert it. Just go to the history list, click on the date and time of the last good version, and click edit, then save. If an article is protected, then no one can edit it. Arundhati bakshi 15:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could be wrong, but in any interview i've read of Keane, they have never revealed where they got their name from. The nurse connection on the main article page doesnt have a source.

I didn't put it there, but I'm fairly sure I've seen it mentioned somewhere on either the official site or the groups forums - JVG 12:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard it somewhere too, but on TV. It was a while ago, during an interview on 4Music. - andy29 00:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keane were originally called The Lotus Eaters, like the Liverpool band of the same name, but never gigged. The name "Keane" is a shortened version of "Cherry Keane," which they did gig with, and indeed supported Coldplay with. The lady from whom they took their name did not inspire their musical ability, nor was she a schoolteacher, dinnerlady, nurse; she was simply an old lady who looked after Tom and Tim when they were young. Gs83 07:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I read on the BBC that Keane were named after Roy Keane the footballer as they are manchester united fans. Luke C 12:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keane

Since Keane is a very general term, I have restored it as the main dismbiguation page.... just like the ones for Kasabian or Joy Division. It covers more ground, since not all people typing in "Keane" are simply searching for the band, when I heard the name I always think of the two footballers. --Madchester 16:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly believe that the band should be at Keane. I understand your point, but the footballers are obviously best at their full name and I think that most people wanting to view their article will search directly. Looking at the incoming links shows that most of them are for the band. Perhaps we should go through WP:RM proceedings, though I note that has almost ground to a halt. violet/riga (t) 09:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Most internal links are towards the band, because Wikipedia has a wealth of music releated articles; whether its chart results, award pages or simply lists of songs (starting with a certain letter, from the 2000s, etc.) The most important issue is that someone simply typing "Keane" into the searchbox is not necessarily searching for the band. Likewise, someone typing in "Athlete", "Travis", "Elbow", "Oasis", "Love", and "Kent" are not necessarily searching for the band; the band pages are tagged with the additional "(band)" label.
I find it interesting that an RM went forward, but all involved parties were not invited into the vote. I was the one who brought up the issue in the first place, yet I was never asked for my opinion before the vote was closed. --Madchester 18:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

There seems to be no good reason for a minor pop group to sit in the main name space; as the dab page indicates, there are many Keanes, of whom a number are at least as well known as the band. User:Violetriga's moves to the current situation have provoked something of an edit skirmish, including cut-and-paste moves, so I think that the issue should be sorted out more formally. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find that my move was actually undoing a move that someone else did, and the Keane article has been about the band for quite a time. Calling it an "edit skirmish" is hardly fair, with two moves being undone, one because it was a copy/paste. violet/riga (t) 22:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And the Travis article was originally about the band, but even the band itself has been move to Travis (band), which was more appropriate in the end. --Madchester 18:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

Discussion

Here are my reasons for Keane to contain the band article:

  1. The band are not "minor", having an album stay in the UK album chart for well over a year.
  2. There is only one other article that could claim to have the Keane name and that is Keane (firm), which is certainly not more notable that the band. The other articles would not usually be referred to by their surname alone, at least not in an enyclopedia.
  3. The vast majority of incoming links are related to the band.
  4. A search for "Keane" on Google massively favours the band.

I certainly think that this is a clear case for primary disamiguation. violet/riga (t) 22:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  1. They're a pop group; their ephemeral success in the charts is unknown to most people, even more don't care, and it will soon be forgotten by everyone except pop-trainspotters. (I don't claim, incidentally, that the pair of pig's-bladder kickers are any less ephemeral; I don't have any interest [in any sense of the word] in any of the contenders.)
  2. You seem to be supposing that the main criterion for deciding what goes where is the way articles are named, but surely it's what people are likely to be looking for. We wouldn't call an article on the footballers "Keane", but people looking for them might enter "Keane". My view generally is that the main namespace is best assigned as a dab page when there are multiple likely objects of search unless one article is clearly and hugely more likely to be that object. I don't think that that's the case here. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Apply that to Yes. Jooler 20:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The same applies in principle, though Yes (disambiguation) offers nothing that's as substantial or lasting as the band, let alone more so. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just now did some Google searches on "Keane", and found that the band may well be third behind Roy and Robbie! — Dale Arnett 21:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Keane" by itself: 11.4 million hits
  • "Keane", excluding "Robbie": 9.06 million
  • "Keane", excluding "Roy": 8.44 million
  • "Keane" + "band": 1.71 million hits
  • "Roy Keane": 2.42 million 1.1 million
  • "Robbie Keane": 1.83 million 0.26 million
That really is some of the most flawed Google stats I've seen in a long time. violet/riga (t) 16:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think it looks right. Love the band, but they really shouldn't be occupying the Keane article on its own. --Madchester 06:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to think of something to say to respond to that, but I can't think of anything more than "the Google stats presented here are a load of crap". violet/riga (t) 10:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How is it that under this circumstance the stats are crap. I followed the same keywords and garnered similar results. --Madchester 18:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The choice of keywords, not the results. As an example, if I search for "Dog" (143m results) and "Dog -corgi" (129m results) I cannot claim that there are 14m pages about corgi dogs. Likewise, searching for "corgi dogs" doesn't mean there are only 17,500 sites about corgi dogs. Dale has misused quotes and exclusions, leading to obscure results. violet/riga (t) 19:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Decision

Template:Notmoved Ryan Norton T | @ | C 01:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I should have been notified about this vote, since I made many edits to make the switch to Keane (band)... as you can see from my comments above, I would have been Supporting the request move. --Madchester 06:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Feud?

Hi. Just an opinion but I think the section "Feud with the Gallagher Brothers" should be removed as the title is the longest part of the section. There's just not enough text to warrant its existence. I would remove it but I don't want to be accused of vandalism. Maybe this information could be added to text under another section? Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.54.202.226 (talk • contribs)

I think someone the writing is childlike

and so I added a clean up sign — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghingo (talk • contribs)

and I have re-instated it as its still awful --Snecklifter 14:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The list of songs

The extensive list of all the songs Keane has ever done seems excessive and not in line with any other Wikipedia band profile page. Does anyone mind if I remove it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supdude (talk • contribs)

Put a list of albums and then, put the list of songs in the albums, all 'single' songs should be left. MrDark 15:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed from the list all songs that have been unreleased - the others can be found in the Keane's singles/album pages, as album tracks or b-sides. (Supdude 23:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Nothing In My Way

I haven't seen anything on the website confirming that this song will be the next single, all I've heard are occassional unfounded rumours saying it will come out next week which is highly unlikely given the lack of radio play, video showings, etc... - Burwellian 13:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UK Chart Position for "Everbody's Changing"

can anyone tell me how this song has charted at #122 on a chart that only goes up to number #75, i have attempted to remove it once but i won't try again unless there is some kind of support for me removing it. If someone can defy the UK official charts and prove that such a chart position exists then all the better, but i doubt anyone can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by cryo_enix (talk • contribs)

The Top 200 is available to industry personnel I believe. Jim.

Message board quotations

Hi everyone, I'm sorry if I make a mess of this!

Can we please clarify whether it's okay to quote from the official message board or not, given the comment put at the top of the edit page to the main article? It's often the only reference point we have in situations and at least one point in the article (Tim R-O's response to Alexis Petridis) depends on being able to cite his post.

If it's a reason of privacy, the band's email addresses aren't publicised and their usernames are very obvious, so given the above point, it doesn't seem to me that citing them makes any real difference - whereas not citing them would make certain parts of the article very one-sided. (Obviously this doesn't apply to non-band members' posts, though.)

Just confused, is all. - --Flyingnelly 21:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. Somewhere on a post Tim said that many reporters started leaking information from the forum. The wikipedia is, first of all, a public source of information, so everyone, including reporters have access to the articles. If the access to the forum is everywhere, it will make easier for people who wants information or private information (e.g the fact tim is married) from the forum, or the things the fans say or think.
And remember the forum is for Keane fans or people who likes them, so people really interested in the band will look for this forum and soon find it.

The point is to avoiding references (or links) to the forum since several information is found on Chris Flynn's site, Keaneshaped Fluence 22:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


You seem to think that the forum isn't in the public domain - which it is, anyone can read it without signing up. There's actually a pretty strong unofficial code of conduct amongst fans posting on there about the band's personal lives, which I think mostly prevents what you're concerned about, ie. tawdry gossip becoming commonly accepted as fact. Also, Tim's comment was actually that some journos were (apparently) using the forum as source material for tabloid fodder - not that previously private info was being leaked. Again, a side effect of the fact that it's a public forum, not a private one.

And as I said, it is very difficult to fairly document certain aspects of the band's history without referring to posts they have made with the intention of being public. People will go and find the forum of course, but if you're not going to allow those citations, then things such as the 'controversies' look like they've been unresponded to and potentially accepted as fact, which makes for a much more inaccurate article.

The forum has been invaluable in the past for the band communicating with their fans and the world at large, and any official responses to things (like Petridis) much more often than not come through there rather than in the form of formal statements or demands for newspaper retractions. As valuable as Chris's site is, when it comes to band posts I'm sure he would agree it's a second-hand source. And given that the first-hand source is in the public domain by design, it pretty much renders the 'privacy' argument moot.

However, I do agree that posts made by non-band members shouldn't be cited - too unreliable, and a lot of posters are far too sarcastic. :-)

--Flyingnelly 00:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Tudhope merge

Any objections to moving this info to the band page? Richardjames444 17:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Tudhope is also a film producer: his bio does not dwell exclusively on Keane. Dev920 12:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
object as per above Chensiyuan 14:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keane

I realise that there are fans of Keane like Fluence and some others, who have contributed to this article.. That's great. But bear in mind that we are not making a publicity page of Keane and we are not obliged to conform with your wishes to have just that. I am trying as some people to have good and informative articles about these bands. Not publicity page with many info about what kind of shoes bandmembers are wearing. This information about just how well and where the band is received by the public is highly redundant and irrelevant to the type and goal of band's articles. If you browse in other post-Britpop and Britpop bands you wouldn't find any kind of information, found here. So, please, try to be reasonable and try to assume some good faith, as some people like to hoarse around. I know that it is hard to see all of you've written to go down the trashcan, but we are working on collaborative project and we are not obliged to conform with hard-liners, who want to have their "dream article", where the band are on high pedestal. The best thing you can do is to help us. But, please, please do not hinder mine and other people work.

I'm reverting the article back in form.

Regards: Painbearer 21:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Due to the recent re-revert war between me that of Fluence, I called for help at the Request page of the Wikipedian Association of Members' Advocates, where I hope that we will have some resolution. I am certainly highly disappointed by his attitude and the attitude of people, who decided to shut their eyes and ears and didn't expressed their normal opinion about the state of the article. I hope that as soon as possible we will have some real judge, who will tell what should we do (in case that it's only me thus so far, then it is I).

Thank you and no thank you.

Regards: Painbearer 08:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, are you discussing again? I thought you said you didn't want to again. If people had "shut their eyes and ears" is becuase their opinion is contrary or neutral to yours.Fluence 23:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Chris Flynn (another person whose name I won't tell for protection) and me are the only Keane fans on the Wiki. All the other 42,715 fans think Wikipedia is a trash can but will act if Keane gets involved for a bad way here. However, you cannot block 42,715 IPs, can you?--Fluence 01:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not true, Fluence - there are many fans using the wiki. I certainly don't think you should bracket yourself with Chris in terms of being knowledgable about the band either, considering the diligence of Chris in building his own off-wiki band FAQ has provided much of the content for this page. I think you seem to miss the point of the Wiki - that there is merit in the edits and opinions of others. While I won't claim to know exactly the details of this 'revert war', I do think that you can be rather over-protective of this wiki page in a way that is counter-productive. Bear that in mind. D-r-i-n-k-y 01:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, I forgot you. Of course I know there are many other fans but they do not reveal their names. I'll count. Chris Flynn, Victoria Eleanor-forgotting the protection-, Fanny Chaplin, Flying Nelly you and me. Sorry if I missed one. I do respect other people edits. Many other massive edits had been made in the past. For example, Badlydrawnjeff deleted several of my articles and mixed them with other. It was logical after thinking it for a while so I thank him for letting me know my mistake.
I asked Chris for permission to use his content after seeing his message and I consider himself as knowledgable about the band because he has took time to recollect several information about the band in a place. Part of the edits by Painbearer delete the message I posted crediting Chris also.
I don't know if you're the same Drinky we all know from the forum but I want to tell you about a comment you made some time ago about Tom:

Your comment was, as you said, joking. However, someone took it seriously (or even joking) and posted it on the Keane article of the Wikipedia. This kind of comments are often taken very seriously by the external media. If you don't want the band to result affected, stop making sarcastic comments.Fluence 18:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Are you really a Keane fan? Because you don't look like--Fluence 21:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to revert the article at it past normal state. I am requesting permission from all the people, contributing to this page, who are in clear state of mind and who can see that this article needs great turnaround in the way it has been so far. I think that we needn't some pubescent uber-fans, who want it their way and can't see more than what they are seeing with their own eyes.

Regards: Painbearer 10:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not all have your same state of mind. I think just the ones who are here becuase you told them to or the ones who linked the Articles needing clean up tag are with you. We don't need also pseudo-adults interested on things out of their bussiness. I mean, does it affect you? No. And neither the Wikipedia--Fluence 00:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fluence, you need to read WP:OWN, and wp:npa. 10:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Richyard 10:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me?? COME ON. One. I do not own the article but now I wish that since SOME people is destroying it. Is the first time I do this. Two. Personal Attacks me?? I'VE BEEN ATTACKED BEFORE AND I'M NOT SAYING ANYTHING. Now I'll need help...--Fluence 15:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fluence, please stop reverting the article back to a poorly written, non standard English version of the article that contains non verifiable content and personal opinion. Also, please see wp:3rr Richyard 16:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richyard, the information is verifiable but since someone on the request for featuring told me not to post only references from Keaneshaped I deleted them. If you want to verify it ask Tim Rice-Oxley. Serious.
And it's not personal opininion, tell me where and I'll tell you why. Don't care if I get blocked. Thanks for warning me, didn't know that. Now I'm prepared but I'll let you know I won't give up. I've advised the forum. About the poor English, that could be fixed not deleting information you know. It's easier delete rather than correct isn't it?--Fluence 23:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fluence, please write on the talk page, the information that you think should be included in the main article, as well as references, and it is very likely that it could be included in the article. You could either write the text yourself in the main article, after the discussion decides that the text is relevant, or have someone else write it.--Atavi 01:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this article is in severe need of clear-up. It is biased, in poorly written English, and makes a habit of not citing first-hand sources in favour of a second-hand collation of information. I have made a start by attempting to tidy up the 'Controversies and Criticisms' section today. I am frankly amazed that there was no real substantative mention of Tom's stay in rehab, as even by 'non-fan' standards it is one of the more significant events in the band's history to date, and potentially represents a crossroads for the band - so it needs to be represented on here in detail I feel.

Secondly: the message board posts from the band, which I know I've raised before but was never adequately answered. At least one such post - the open letter from Tim Rice-Oxley referring to Alexis Petridis - deserves to be cited in full, rather than merely having a quote pulled from Keaneshaped. To not do so would be to potentially change the bias of the entire article. As Chris makes every effort to cite his sources on Keaneshaped first-hand, so should we.

I disagree with the assertion that the equipment the band uses is irrelevant information. A large part of Keane's reputation is based on the fact that they don't use a guitarist - and especially with 'Under The Iron Sea', I'm sure those more musically inclined than I will wish to know exactly how they've gotten those sounds out of a piano. However, I do agree that country-by-country information is irrelevant and unnecessary.

Fluence - we're all here trying to make this page better. But if you will insist on reverting it to a poorly spelt, badly-referenced and biased article, that makes the band look bad. And personally, I object to your earlier comment to Drinky that because he made a sarcastic comment, clearly designed to be tongue-in-cheek, that he is not a fan. This is not a page you personally own, the whole point of Wikipedia is open use; please be reasonable and let those who wish to clean it up, do so.

Flyingnelly 09:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, finally someone reasonable who understood the point. Repair without deleting. Good for Flying Nelly. I hope we don't have this kind of discussions again. Peace and good night-- Fluence 00:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Painbearer: yes it needs clean-up. But you just deleted the clean-ups I spent 3 hours doing last night and so now I have to put them back. So boo to you. :-P

I think the controversies section needs to stay, at least in some form. Again, there is no way any unbiased article on the band could avoid the issue of Chaplin's current 'residence', as it's likely to have a major impact on the way the band do things from here on in. However, I reckon the feuds, saving Guardian which is an ongoing scrap, could all be merged into a couple of lines. Agreed? Flyingnelly 19:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree. This is getting difficult to revert as many good changes had been made. I'm trying to keep the information you consider important. If I made anything wrong let me know :)Fluence 01:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I agree with Painbearer, too much of the article reads like a publicity page for Keane. That's not the point of wikipedia.Richyard 07:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even more than that, it's badly organised and very difficult to find the relevant info - which is much of what I've spent the past couple of days trying to sort out, before it got reverted. I personally think the info about rehab needs a separate section, because its impact is threatening to extend beyond the Under the Iron Sea 'era' and there's beginning to be uncertainty about whether they'll even come back - to me, it makes sense to keep the two separate rather than repeating the same info in two separate sections. Can we agree on that possibly? I do agree the other things in that section are unnecessary and so could be removed, save for Guardian which is a running scrap with a history.

I'm a fan as well, but I am trying to make the articles as unbiased and fair as possible - I certainly agree with the majority of the criticisms levelled at the article about bias and grammar. After all, it doesn't do us any good to have a Wiki page that's impossible to follow and reads like a PR piece, does it?

PS. I'm pretty new to Wiki, so am still figuring stuff out - thanks for everybody's help so far. :-)

-- Best, Flyingnelly 08:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is finally at some normal state. Unfortunately, there are too many ill feelings between me and Fluence, because of his mulishness and refusal to acknowledge obvious facts. This revert war wasn't one of the most pleasent things that happened to me, but I think that it is worthy to have better article now than the the complete mess before. Anyways, from time to time I will hop in to see where it is. Please, don't make it shit again. I just hate shitty articles. Sometimes, I'm affraid of people's possible ill feelings, when I try to make some shitty articles to good articles.

Regards: Painbearer 12:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up

In my opinion, 1) too much "de Vito is a big fan," etc and 2) references in main text about songs in commercials are confusing. The rest of the article also needs improvement. I will try to do the clean up myself, but the task is not small.--Atavi 14:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

I've changed some of the minor formatting on the article and thought it best to mention it here for discussion since the tag at the top suggested visiting the talk page before making edits. --Anthony5429 13:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also removed Dominic Scott from current members as he left in 01. --Anthony5429 13:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Keane_(band)&oldid=74515378"