Talk:Zoviet France

Untitled

Anyone know what Ben Ponton's been up to? Lil'dummy 01:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"ambient industrial": citation needed

The description given in the article that this links to (ambient industrial) is quite specific and itself not well sourced. I think this needs a third party reference to support this categorisation. Alchemagenta 13:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the "ambient industrial" reference as no citation has been given since I first made the point. Alchemagenta (talk) 10:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It seemed funny at the time

In Zoviet*France, music listens to you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.105.133.184 (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Reformed Faction

"(at some times in the past referred to as Reformed Faction of Zoviet France)" veers towards weasel words - when in the past? In any case, how relevant is this to an article about Zoviet France when there is an article about Reformed Faction which details the history of that name, and which is linked to in the Zoviet France article? Alchemagenta (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Singular plural

I've reverted a grammatical edit which changed ":zoviet*france: is..." to ":zoviet*france: are...". Zoviet France is a singular entity, a group, so, to my mind, should take the singular of verbs - "is" rather than "are". Similar examples would be "Scotland is a nation" rather than "Scotland are a nation" and "Newcastle United is a football team" rather than "Newcastle United are a football team". Alchemagenta (talk) 15:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted to 'are'. This is a regional difference between British and American English; British usage is "are" and American usage is "is". ZF are a British group and Wikipedia guidance is that, where such differences exist, the style of the relevant nationality should take precedence. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 17:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree - I'm British - and I think the BBC, that bastion of British English usage, supports my point: see http://www.bbc.co.uk/skillswise/words/grammar/sentencebasics/verbsubjectagreement/factsheet3.shtml Alchemagenta (talk) 10:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

See American and British English differences#Formal and notional agreement. That article says that either "is" or "are" can be used in British English, depending on whether you're talking about the group as an entity or the members. By that reasoning, "is" would be fine. However, there are numerous examples of "are" being used in articles on British groups with similar (abstract noun) names, e.g. Oasis (band), Coldplay, Tindersticks, Yes (band), Pink Floyd, Genesis (band), Whitehouse (band), Stereolab, AMM (group). I won't revert again, but you are definitely in the minority here. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 12:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It is one of those frustrating anomalies in English Grammar. Thanks for pointing me to American and British English differences#Formal and notional agreement which, I feel, supports my view:
"In BrE, collective nouns can take either singular (formal agreement) or plural (notional agreement) verb forms, according to whether the emphasis is, respectively, on the body as a whole or on the individual members; compare a committee was appointed... with the committee were unable to agree..."
In the sentence in question here, the emphasis is very much on the body as a whole, whereas the following sentence, "...their music also falls into the ambient music category." has, arguably, more emphasis on the group as a body made up of individuals and so takes the plural. Perhaps the natural and instinctive choice in which verb form to take is influenced by the name itself: Oasis is... and Genesis is... sound a little clumsy and Tindersticks, as a plural, implies notional agreement. Similarly, "France" implies formal agreement. Alchemagenta (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Format

The list for the discography and everything looks horrible, but I don't know enough about Wikipedia to even know where to begin. 70.48.251.239 (talk) 06:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Zoviet France. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070730035825/http://www.pooky.u-net.com/Jim/zoviet/ to http://www.pooky.u-net.com/Jim/zoviet/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 18:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)