Talk:Matt Bianco

Untitled

Hiho, hopefully the previous authors are happy with the additions. Dpilat

Some of it would qualify as personal opinion, which falls under WP:NPOV. I would also suggest you include some sources, such as music mag interviews, record sleeves etc. JFW | T@lk 16:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Where's the bit about them being called a "bunch of wankers" on Saturday Superstore? David | Talk 16:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Pop Group? I'd rather put something like pop/jazz/funk inside, as "pop" would be a bit too offensive for the group ;) They could -- and can -- do more than that....-andy 80.129.85.62 12:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Relevance?

12:58, 21 August 2007 212.22.3.8 (Talk) (6,764 bytes) (Undid revision 152567300 by Pdfpdf (talk) sorry but it is - maybe take to discussion?)

sorry but it is - How is it relevant? And what is it relevant to? If you feel it is relevant, you need to explain how/why - either as part of the text, or as a footnote/reference.
maybe take to discussion? - As I said, see User talk:Pukkabosh. Clearly you didn't look, so the following is copied from there to here. Pdfpdf 13:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

-- Matt Bianco --

(Undid revision 150965732 by Jfdwolff (talk) relevant as its current)
Yes, it's current, but currency is not a justification for relevance. What relevance does this fact have? Who is Lee Dennison and why/how is Lee Dennison notable? Pdfpdf 14:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for saying its current. If other pages can have people are currently dating so and so then this is relevant. Lee Dennison is an international casting director, has his own website, is notable and therefore is relevant. Thanks.

<deleted>

Jfdwolff has been unusually detailed in his explanation: personal life of individual members is arguably not relevant unless it directly pertains to the band's future (e.g. new partner stops band member touring) - I see no evidence for that here. I'm afraid I have to agree with him.

As I implied before, relevance is the important criteria - not currency. (And by itself, not notability either).
I have to ask you again: What is the relevance of your addition?
(Also, when there is a relevance that is not self-evident, you also need to supply comment/footnote/reference of the supporting evidence.)

You've made the comment: if a partner is not valid then majority of all entries are invlaid on this site. I think you've missed the point; mention of a partner may be valid, if it is relevant. Can you point me to an example of a mention of a partner please? If so, I'll see if I can explain to you why it is relevant.

I hope you find this useful. Feel free to ask questions if it isn't clear. Best wishes, Pdfpdf 14:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Please sign your posts with four tildes - it tells when you made the post.

--More on Matt Bianco--

At the suggestion of Pdfpdf (above), I am just dropping a message to explain why I keep on removing your addition from Matt Bianco. The article is clearly about the band and its music, as one would expect in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias will generally not deviate into the private lives of band members in such articles unless this is immediately relevant to the article; for instance, the The Beatles article definitely needs to mention Yoko Ono, because her appearance in John Lennon's life radically changed the history of The Beatles. You have not indicated why Lee Dennison would shape the history of Matt Bianco. Furthermore, Wikipedia aims to trace every bit of content to reliable sources; do you think you could provide a reliable source for the Reilly-Dennison link?

The solution for all this would be to write an article about Mark Reilly; that article, being about his person, would definitely merit mention of his most current relationship (provided WP:RS and our biography guidelines are adhered to).

I hope this explains matters. Please note that none of this is personal, and that I'm very happy to help out or provide further explanations if you want. Cheers. JFW | T@lk 22:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Bunch of... (Saturday Superstore)

Yes, where is the "bunch of wankers" quote? It's surely more notable now than anything this band ever did musically, even if it went largely unnoticed at the time. 217.155.20.163 (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to add this incident to the article a number of times and have even included BBC references to it but it keeps getting deleted. The incident is referenced in the Saturday Superstore Wikipedia article as a famous (ne. Infamous) moment so why not here! As already stated, it is an extremely relevant and well-referenced and well-remembered part of their history and should be included. I can only assume that the people who object to its inclusion are Matt Bianco fans and simply dont like it and so are choosing to ignore it! Shame really as this kind of behaviour only holds back the credibility the Encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.130.20.125 (talk) 14:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I have again removed the fragment "and for their appearance on the live BBC children's phone-in show Saturday Superstore, on which a caller described them as a "bunch of fucking wankers"."

This incident may be relevant in the "Saturday Superstore" article (because it revealed the danger of unmoderated phone-ins), but in this article should only be mentioned with a strong source that confirms that the incident has had a lasting impact on the band's image (arguably not) and probably not in the lead section.

Without such a source, this addition will continue to be removed. JFW | T@lk 10:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It sounds notable to me. I’d include it here, but not in the lead section. TrottieTrue (talk) 12:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Biannual Saturday Superstore Query

The single most memorable and notable thing about this band was their appearance on Saturday Superstore, a live broadcast childrens' show with a phone in element which allowed them to be called, in front of millions of children, a bunch of f**king wankers. Why is this incident not in the article? It's in the article on Saturday Superstore, so it's clearly worthy of mention.

Apparently not. Attempted to add mention of this incident, and it was reverted. For anyone not personally related to the band, this is the one and only thing they're remembered for. It's baffling why an "encyclopedia" that is so very sniffy about "notability" seems to have a policy here of refusing to note what is arguably the only notable thing about this band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.18.3 (talk) 22:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, seems I've run into this inexplicable fact removal too. Would the people who are so intent on removing it please explain their reasons before making yet another unilateral reversion? I guess it could go to arbitration if necessary, though that seems a bit excessive. —Christine (blather • contribs) 15:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it needs adding back. I barely know anything about the band and it would add a bit of colour to the article. TrottieTrue (talk) 12:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Matt Bianco. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.virginmedia.com/music/browse/matt-bianco
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040622092713/http://www.chartstats.com/ to http://www.chartstats.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)