This talk page is for discussion of the U2 article only. For discussion of articles related to U2 in general, please post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U2.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject U2, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.U2Wikipedia:WikiProject U2Template:WikiProject U2U2
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music
This 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Irish music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Irish music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Irish musicWikipedia:WikiProject Irish musicTemplate:WikiProject Irish musicIrish music
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Mac, iOS and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Apple Inc.Wikipedia:WikiProject Apple Inc.Template:WikiProject Apple Inc.Apple Inc.
This article was copy edited by Galena11, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 7 September 2007.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors
Before starting a new discussion regarding the usage of "are" vs "is", please read this archive of past discussions. For a list of commonly used sources you can use for U2 articles, see Talk:U2/References.
something I've been wondering recently is whether or not Irish use British English and would thereby treat bands as collective nouns, considering that their country—contrary to popular belief—is not part of UK like Northern Ireland (think of Snow Patrol). that said, are bands like U2, Interference, and Stockton's Wing (the latter two articles of which I recently fixed) supposed to use British English, thereby treating bands and groups as collective nouns? Geoyui (talk) 05:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I think the article Timeline of U2 should be merged into here, the other article is clunky, and could easily be converted into prose, making the other article redundant, and therefore making the U2 wikipedia articles easier to navigate. Geardona (talk) 02:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If anything, the U2 article (230k length) history section should be split off and added to the timeline article. This article is beyond splitting size. Merging would create an humongous 350k article. I don't see merging as a viable option here. GenQuest"scribble"08:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok, just to make sure i understand, you are saying the reverse of the merge I suggested? If so would you support that?
I don't see the need to make any structural changes to either article, other than to do copyediting of the timeline article and improve references. The main U2 article has a separate paragraph for each 1-3 year period in the band's 47-year history, which seems more than appropriate. The details given there are generally not specific to individual dates, but the timeline article does cover specific dates, as well as other info that a summary from the main band article would skim over. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 21:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Agree with @GenQuest. It would make more sense to have the timeline article become a "History of U2" article using the contents of the history section in the main article, in order to lighten the main article itself. Choucas Bleu (T·C) 15:13, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The new collection, sort-of album, tied to a primary album, is out and beginning to garner mentions[1] and reviews. It has been taken back off the album list, but the article must reflect it in some way, so any proposals as to how best to do that?
SeoR (talk) 01:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why the main band article needs to reflect it. It's not all that significant in the grand scheme of the band's 48 yr history. It's only available packaged with the 20th anniversary release of How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb or in a limited pressing for Record Store Day. It's not as widely available as the band's other releases and it has only received a couple of reviews. The best place for the info on the Re-assemble collection is in the Dismantle article, where the info has been added already. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 01:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to respectfully disagree there. It's good it's added to Dismantle, but it's a whole separate publication, wide apart in time, and the band considered it significant enough to release. To be frank, any release by a world top 10 band, single, EP, collection, etc., should have some mention in their article - it's not as if they've released dozens of albums, or put something out every year, so that it would be lost in the detail. But let's have some other editors' opinions... SeoR (talk) 10:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And for now, a reference which confirms all original content, to add to consideration - [2]
I've had a look at bringing it closer to a decent standard. I'm glad to see that only one two of my edits were reverted. The article is still way too long, particularly the lead. Not everything needs to be mentioned in the article, which is why we have summary style. Not every album needs to be mentioned in the lead. Phrases like "new musical direction" have a comic effect which takes away from the article's encyclopedic tone and should be kept out. John (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
