User:Jb-adder/Virtual band cleanup

This subpage has been created to discuss better organising of the Virtual band article. If this page does not belong here, message me and explain why before attempting any moves.

The situation at hand

By Johannsenn Adder, 15:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I started the article in 2005 to expose the term 'virtual band' and the phenomenon thereof, and ended up taking it on as my pet project in Wikipedia, hoping to make it a featured article one day. However, as a result of three Peer reviews, and one failed FAC, as well as recent editing, some 'problems' have arisen in the article (I say this the way I do because some of these things may not be problems in other people's eyes). I am not trying to take command of the article; as I said before, I took it on as my pet project, and I would like to see it come to fruition.

The problems which have been discerned from the article

Feel free to add to this list; make sure you append (added by ~~~~) beside it.

1. The 'animated' qualifier needs to be defined in clearer detail, ie does it include puppetry?
2. The various bands included in the article:
   • Some of these bands are fictitious, and have not (as far as I know) released an album. Should they be included?
   • A small inclusion in the History part underneath their respective section might be needed.
3. The source for the Archies song Sugar, Sugar needs to found; see Talk:Virtual band#The archies = the monkees?
4. Net-based virtual bands: should this be in a separate article?

• As I've mentioned on the entry's discussion page, the terms used in this article (e.g. Cartoon Band vs. Virtual Band) are not clear and may cause confusion to the readers. Also, the bands which were used as examples for this article need to be re-evaluated for notability and significance. The article needs to be cleaned up for it to be useful and informative.

#* Some of these bands are fictitious, and have not (as far as I know) released an album. Should they be included?

• Doesn't the term "fictitious" apply to all virtual bands? I think the more accurate term is "notability". I believe bands which were created in 2006 or have only released a single song (e.g. The Bipolar Bears and Greasy Moose) should not be included in this article.
  • My apologies, allow me to rephrase. Some bands (e.g. Billy and the Boingers, Jem and the Polaroids) exist purely on a literary/media plane, i.e. they have not released anything outside of what has been 'released' in their universe. Gorrilaz, Prozzak, Bipolar Bears etc, have. I apologise if I have confused you. --JB Adder | Talk 09:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Point taken, thank you. I think you should include bands whose releases are of note or significance. Most virtual bands nowadays do not release full-length albums and prefer to release mp3 singles. While some bands have not released work outside of their universe, if they have made a creative leap or pioneered a genre, they are worth being part of this article.--Webmessiah 10:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Webmessiah

# Net-based virtual bands: should this be in a separate article?

• Most virtual bands are based on the Internet. "Net-based virtual bands" should be part of this article.
  • That was not what I was saying. The section actually talks about bands (real or animated) that are formed over the net, an 'internet band', if you wish. --JB Adder | Talk 09:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Internet bands made up of real musicians cannot be termed as virtual bands and therefore need not be part of this article. It would be wise to focus on bands made up of virtual characters. There are bands, however, that have fictitious human members such as Poor Richards. They are also considered a virtual band. Your thoughts? --Webmessiah 10:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Webmessiah 04:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Webmessiah

Solutions to these problems

This section is for definite solutions; proposals can be made on the talk page.