Talk:The Sweet/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Sweet, or The Sweet

If the band shortened its name to just "Sweet", does the article make it clear when that happened? And why was this name retroactively applied to the earlier period? That's just confusing.
Varlaam (talk) 01:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Very strange idea to rename the band, please revert to The Sweet (E-Kartoffel (talk) 13:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC))

Revert what?? It's not as if the name change was clear cut from one day to the other, it seems to have happened progressively over 1974–76. While on their two 1974 albums, Sweet Fanny Adams and Desolation Boulevard—and all other subsequent albums—they already called themselves Sweet, you can find single covers from 1975 and even 1976 where in certain countries they are still called The Sweet. Recent compilations and books sometimes call them Sweet, other times The Sweet. However, the intention of the band was simply to be called Sweet so for me this is the best choice as the article name. Furthermore, The Sweet redirects here, so readers looking for that name will get here. – IbLeo^(talk) 21:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Varlaam has a good point. The band refers to itself, and always has, as "The Sweet" though they more than often simply use "Sweet" on their covers and even on their web site. Their domain, however, IS "thesweet.com" and right on the biography page they themselves still refer to themselves as "The Sweet." Link to The Sweet biography page

You'll have to click some links on that page to see any text. The plus sign at the bottom right corner opens an overview. In virtually every instance of the texts there, they refer to themselves as THE Sweet.

Just because the page "The Sweet" redirects here doesn't make it right, but there information found on the U.S. copyright website reveals their songs registered as written by "Sweet," not "The Sweet." If you search "The Sweet" on the sight, nothing of theirs comes up at all.

Given that I think the page should go by how they are legally recognized. The only problem is this is only a U.S. record, but until someone can come up with something more solid for "The Sweet" it should stay as is. --SentientParadox (talk) 04:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Big downunder!

Saw this and thought of our charts guru Leo. Thought it might be worthwhile adding this fact to the charts- not often you're the biggest seller so far away from home! Cheers HKM. http://www.australianmusichistory.com/australian-singles-chart-for-1975/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.182.11 (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks HKM. Indeed an interesting fact. I added it to the Sweet article rather than the discography, with the source. Feel free to improve the language. By the way, I'm currently reading your book. So much great material for articles in there, I wish I had more time on my hand for writing. Cheers. – IbLeo^(talk) 20:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Cheers on both counts Leo! Hope you enjoy the book. HKM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.182.11 (talk) 01:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Recent lawsuit

Information should be added about Andy Scott's defeat in a recent lawsuit over a fan's right to sell an Austrian compilation CD of The Sweet's album The Legend Lives On. [1] [2] --Auric (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Duplicated Information

The written material and lineup tables for "Andy Scott's Sweet" and "Steve Priest's Sweet" were initially found only on those respective pages. They have since been moved to this page as it is where they belong, but still appear on Andy Scott's and Steve Priest's respective pages. There's no need for duplication across the three pages, and I advocate the presence of all Sweet-related project information to be shown on this page only. My argument for this is that both currently active versions of the band are still "Sweet" even if they feature only one classic member of the band, and also that the issue of two incarnations of a band existing has already been successfully dealt with on other band pages, such as Barclay James Harvest and L.A. Guns (in the case of the second the issue recently came to an end with the dissolution of one of the bands, but it did exist for a number of years).

Proper attribution to the authors of the information can be found on the original page of production, and where to find this information is now presented in footnotes on the main page.

This discussion will be replicated on the other important pages as this issue is relevent to all three.

Kind regards, Burbridge92 (talk) 13:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that there is still a need for Template:Copied to be added to the relevant talk pages for each of the edits which copied information onto this page. So I have reverted the removal of template:CWW-multi from the main page — Peter Loader (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, sounds like a good idea. I'll have a look into it at some point and see if I can comprehend how to apply it. Burbridge92 (talk) 11:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I've done that, there's two of those templates ech for the pages of Connolly, Priest, and Scott based on the edits that were done to those pages and this one. They're also listed below this in the topic "Copied Information". Personally I'm still of the opinion that all of the information on the different versions of Sweet should be on this page only, because they're all still a form of "Sweet", but as long as they can legitimately remain here I'm kosher. Kind regards, Burbridge92 (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I have removed the template:CWW-multi from the main page again. However other articles put the Copied templates at the top of the talk pages, instead of in a section, so that their warnings can be found easily and will not get archived. See Talk:2009–2010 Iranian election protests for an example. Would it be possible to do the same here? Peter Loader (talk) 18:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Copied Information

From Brian Connolly

From Steve Priest

From Andy Scott