Talk:The Motels

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

Links[edit]

I linked Martha Davis and Warfield Foxes to The Motels page

And NONE of the links work Trentc (talk) 02:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this line was added back in March 2007 so it's tough to figure exactly the individual line it was referring to. Most links work but The Motels main website may have had a meltdown in the last few days. I'm sure it will be back up soon. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

I've started to add in the sources but it's gonna take awhile to hunt down all the articles. I'll try to add a few more each day or two.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.87.69 (talk • contribs)

Excellent. Try to remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). I'll check out what you add and try to give you some formatting tips that will make this article likely to be considered for Good Article status and maybe one day Featured Article. IvoShandor 09:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I often forget that tilda signing until "after" I click save, darn it. And I haven't forgotten your suggestions on other info to include but I want to get this tedious business of sourcing out of the way first. Somehow I can't see this article ever being important enough in the scheme of an encyclopedia to merit Featured status, but if it could just reach the noble position of "Good" I'll know that whoever clicks on it will be receiving truthful, well-rounded and relevent information on The Motels. Fyunck(click) 09:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eh there are plenty of FAs on obscure topics. GA won't be a problem with a little work. IvoShandor 09:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(CR).I think I've hit all the sources you had concerns with... now that my eyes are strained to the point of blurryness :-). I hope it doesn't make the article look too unwieldy with all those footnotes. Some sentence structure still needs tightening and your 5 listings on expansion are a future project but at least the tedious stuff is out of the way. Fyunck(click) 08:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Additions Without Sources[edit]

I worked really hard to source everything...weeks and weeks. What 75.51.191.113 added was fine except we don't know where it came from. If you are a former band member let me know so I can source it properly, otherwise we need something in print that we can use to verify. We want to stay off Wikis unsourced article listings. Thanks. Fyunck(click) 06:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Solo[edit]

I changed "So the Story Goes" from Motels listing to her solo, it was released as Martha Davis album according to Amazon.com and other then in it's "Special Thanks To" section it dosen't even mention the Motels as a band. (Floppydog66 19:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hmmm... unfortunately it is very difficult to classify her albums these days. There is no difference between "Standing Room Only", "Clean Modern and Reasonable" and "So The Story Goes" as far as it's her and the new Motels band members. Sure the new album says Motels (a moniker that she alone owns since she traded it for a microphone) but that is just marketing sense Down Under. They are all Motels albums. How is it best to do this? Maybe we should just tile the section Albums - under Martha Davis or The Motels ? Fyunck(click) 21:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Published Articles[edit]

Let's try to keep the sources within the wiki protocol... no personal research. Most personal interviews are not allowed. I have tons of info I could put on this page from personal conversations, memories and keepsakes... but it isn't allowed unless the band members themselves put it up on a website. Internet interviews are shakey and one should always look for another source if possible, however sometimes it's all we have. Fyunck(click) 23:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images That Can Be Used[edit]

We were told by wikipedia early on in the development of this page that images of albums were not allowed, even small ones, without the record company's permission. Has the record company relinquished their rights for this image of All Four One, or has wiki changed its tune on allowing them? We can't use photos of band members without expressed permission from the photographer so it seems very shaky to use album cover art also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fyunck(click) (talk • contribs) 18:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Fair_use#Images. — Wackymacs (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it's very tricky. Wiki tells us it is illegal to use album cover art as part of the discography in an article, but it is fair use to use Cover art for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item. I don't recall the original objection to the art but it looks fine to me where it is. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown Drummer[edit]

There is a big problem with adding D. Secord as an original drummer. The line reads that there were extensive auditions i.e. they may have played a gig or two. Heck there was Fretts Ferrari on guitar once also. I know plenty of things I could add but they have no sources and wikipedia requires sources. Word of mouth is unacceptable. You linked Secord to an article that I own and he is not mentioned in it. You also simply erased another reference instead of supplying a good reference. Please find the source and constructively add a sentence about it instead of replacing members of the band. Finally your link to a trust fund is a private website with no info at all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:All Four One.jpg[edit]

The image File:All Four One.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mission of Mercy Timeframe[edit]

Before I edit the section again I want to check out some facts, unless you have them at your fingertips? The conflict is timing. Did Only the Lonely reach #9 before Mission of Mercy reached #23? I can see that OL was released as a single before MM album cut reached #23 on the album cuts chart. Did OL reach #9 in one month? Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was with the opening sentence of the paragraph—"Before any singles were released from All Four One, the song 'Mission of Mercy' had enough airplay to reach #23 on the Billboard Rock Album Cuts chart." That statement is inaccurate, the single "Only the Lonely" was released well before "Mission of Mercy" even entered the chart. I don't know the dates when the various peak chart positions occurred, but here is the basic chart information relevant to this section of the article: the single "Only the Lonely" entered the Billboard Hot 100 the week ending April 24, 1982, it remained on the chart for 23 weeks and peaked at #9. "Only the Lonely" entered Billboard's Top Tracks chart the week ending May 1, 1982 and remained on the chart for 22 weeks, peaking at #6. The song "Mission of Mercy" entered the Top Tracks chart the week ending May 29, 1982. It remained on the chart for 15 weeks and peaked at #23. Piriczki (talk) 00:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that there was an error, which was obvious after you edited the article. But the timeline you then supplied would still be in error wouldn't it? I would think "Mission of Mercy" info should be before "Take the L" and "Forever Mine." Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks perfect now. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So the Story Goes cd sold out?[edit]

I've removed "All cd copies sold out.[1]" [2] per WP:V, after tagging the previous reference as failing verification. It was replaced with a new reference that also fails verification and is promotional. If an independent, reliable source is not available to verify the information, then I think the information just comes across as a promotion. --Ronz (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Amazon. "[1]"
Hmmm... There are hundreds of sources but they are the stores that would sell it that no longer have it. I know personally it sold out but obviously I can't use my personal knowledge as a source. So it seems the next thing would be the fact that no one (no stores) have any copies left. It sells for 100+ dollars used and is now only available as an mp3 download. The fact that no stores you can find online or otherwise should be proof it sold out but we can't show dozens of links here on wiki for one sentence. I simply linked the biggest, Amazon, to show they have no more copies either. Cdbaby used to show "sold out" but now with the advent of mp3s they removed it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it worthy to note in an encyclopedia article? Without independent, reliable sources, it seems to be a claim that's borderline WP:SYN and WP:PROMOTION, while likely WP:UNDUE.
Could it be that it is sold out simply because of a decision to sell it in downloadable formats? --Ronz (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Noteworthy I can't answer. It seemed so to me but others may disagree. It sold out because the number printed up was sold out. If you want a hard copy you are out of luck. I guess they could have released a new batch but with mp3s now dominating the market the Motels feel it makes more economic sense to not print up a 2nd release. The problem with sourcing this stuff is a lot of info has been on the Motels official pages. But one month it's there and sourced and the next month they change the page or let it go into under construction and the link is no good. I try to maintain all the info myself too but it's not easy. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I share your frustration trying to find references to verify material.
I'm not sure what step to take next. Suggestions? --Ronz (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If a website says it's sold out and you link to it and that website then disappears MUST the wikipedia sentence using that link as a source be removed? CdBaby and Amazon both at one time said the disk was sold out.
Added after the fact... I found the sold out notice on internet archives. When I looked earlier it wasn't working for cdbaby but this time it did. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. My concern is whether or not it's worth noting in the article. Given the general quality of the article, I'm not going to dispute it further at this time. --Ronz (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some confusion with this article[edit]

I've just had a go at cleaning up this article - mostly fixing formatting problems, copy editing for syntax and remedying overlinking problems. However, two things that really jump out at me (as a reader who's not overly familiar with the band) are both concerned with the "Third incarnation: The Motels featuring Martha Davis" section. Firstly, it states in the article lead that "Martha Davis, the lead singer, reformed a version of the band called The Motels featuring Martha Davis in 1989." However, the relevant section seems confusing to me - it refers to the band variously as "Martha Davis and The Motels", "The Motels", "the new Motels", and the aforementioned "The Motels featuring Martha Davis". This section needs an expert on the band to clarify exactly what the band were called from 1998 onwards and also include the correct info in the article lead, which should, after all, be a summary of the entire article as per WP:LEAD.

The second problem with the "Third incarnation: The Motels featuring Martha Davis" section is that a lot of it seems like blatant fancruft to me and not really relevant to an overall understanding of the subject for the casual reader. I've tried to trim some fancruft but not being an expert on the band, it's difficult to know what should be discarded and what should be kept. Again, an expert needs to go through this section ruthlessly and trim out any non-essential info and I would even suggest condensing the "Martha Davis solo" section into this section as well. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am a relative expert on the band though I was not the original editor who broke this down into 1,2 and 3 incarnations. I went with the flow while editing but it is a difficult band to write about because of all the changes throughout it's history. Most people will remember the second section though even that had many member changes. Martha Davis has the rights to the name Motels so where she went the name followed. I keep going back and forth on whether to simply have a separate Martha Davis page that has all the solo stuff detailed but she releases solo stuff while still releasing Motels stuff... sometimes on the same day. There is certainly less fancruft here than say the ABBA page and while I know a lot of interesting things about this band most of it is not in print anywhere so I leave it out as per wiki policy. If you could provide me with details of any sentences I can change I'll do my best to elaborate on them. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think that by and large the article is very good. I just felt that some of the "Third incarnation" section was a bit waffley and could be condensed a bit more - probably with the Martha Davis Solo section being merged into the "Third incarnation" section too (although that’s entirely up to you). I may be wrong but I get the impression from the prose style that multiple editors have added dribs and drabs of information to this section over time, as new events unfold - a sentence here when a new album comes out, another sentence six months later when a download is made available etc, etc. So what you end up with is a rather bitty, meandering prose style. The rest of the article is pretty well written and very clear for a non-expert to understand but section three isn't IMO. Do you understand what I'm trying to say?
The other thing I think needs addressing is the confusion over what exactly the band were called during this later period. For instance, if they weren't always known as "The Motels featuring Martha Davis" then the section header itself is misleading and would be better titled "Third incarnation and Marth Davis' solo career" or something along those lines. As a relative neophyte to this band, I just found it quite hard to discern exactly what the band were calling themselves from 1998 onwards. Again, I think this a symptom of the sporadic way in which this section has been updated over the years. I'm not criticizing the whole article at all, but I do think that the third section could be more concise and less confusing. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand what you are trying to say. When people put in new information that is essentially correct I have tried not to alter it. I don't what the "I own this article" stigma because I rewrite what everyone else puts in. I originally didn't have so many inner links but several major wiki editors braketed dates and places and I wasn't going to argue with my wiki betters. As far as the name it has been a bit variable. In 97/98 Martha billed herself performing as "Martha Davis Jr" to distance from the old days. This lasted only a year or so. Then the marquees changed to either "Martha Davis" or "Martha Davis and the Motels" for another year or two. Since then, probably because of better marketing, it has been locked into The Motels Featuring Martha Davis." In the past 8 months Martha's new manager has been fiddling with making it Martha Davis with The Motels... trying to put the emphasis simply on Martha Davis as this same manager does with Terri Nunn of Berlin. I'm not sure how that will work out. The non-compilation album releases have been just as convoluted with, in order from 1998, releases under the names - Martha Davis and the Motels, Martha Davis, The Motels, The Motels, Martha Davis, The Motels, Martha Davis. This doesn't mean that Martha went off with different musicians to do the Martha Davis releases... they were the same guys. She simply chooses to release under different monikers. That is one of the reason I haven't made a separate Martha Davis article, because the two names "Martha Davis" and "The Motels" are so intertwined. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I do understand your concern about the "I own this article stigma" but then again, I'm of the opinion that any good article needs one editor or a core group of editors to look after it and make sure that only relevant, well written and factually accurate info gets incorporated into it. After all, when an article gets pushed up to Good Article or Featured Article status it's essentially because an editor has decided to take charge of it, expand it and generally improve it. Yes, the article isn't yours (or anyone else’s, for that matter) but sometimes an article needs a knowledgeable and neutral "shepherd" to push it to greatness and keep it from being diluted by inappropriate edits. It's a fine line but it’s certainly possible as long as you assume good faith, follow the Manual of Style for music articles, and maintain your neutral POV. So don't be afraid to edit or even remove other editor's info if it improves the article - especially to remedy common mistakes like overlinking of dates or places (see WP:OVERLINK or MOS:UNLINKDATES). Of course, you want to avoid edit warring with other editors but that's what the article talk page is for...to reach consensus between editors. Remember, Wikipedia's moto is BE BOLD! :-)
As for the band's many names...I definitely feel that "The Motels featuring Martha Davis" should be removed from the "Third incarnation" section heading because it's just misleading. Likewise, the article lead should probably say something like - "Martha Davis, the lead singer, reformed a version of the band in 1998 that has continued to release albums up to the present day under a variety of names, including The Motels featuring Martha Davis, Martha Davis and the Motels, and The Motels." That's only a suggestion of course - word it however you like - but you can hopefully get the gist of what I’m saying. For what it's worth, I agree with you that Martha Davis probably doesn't require a separate article, since her solo career can easily be encompassed within this article, but then again, she probably does meet notability criteria for her own article...so, it's the sort of thing that only an expert of her career can decide really. Anyway, good luck with editing the article. If you have any other questions or just want to get an outside opinion on something, feel free to drop me a line at my talk page. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 01:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all your input and advice. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Gigs / Name[edit]

The 2013 gigs that I have seen so far are back under the name Martha Davis & the Motels. I don't want to louse up the article by making a trivial change, but the new date (2013) should probably be mentioned -- not sure about the name. AtomicNewWave (talk) 00:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep... I see you are correct. All the listings are at Martha Davis and the Motels, such as at the M15 gig. New manager must have wanted a bit of a change. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Motels. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 04:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Motels&oldid=1209203789"