Talk:Main Page

MediaWiki Upgrade
Upgraded to 1.23.15 let me know if there is any trouble. The 1.23.14 upgrade didn't take right so I had to remove, but this one not exhibiting the same behaviors so hopefully we're good. Any issues emailing me (my name at gmail) is best, need to pop in more often. You folks are doing great work! Anyone is free to delete this after 8/29/2016 Gantry (talk) 16:01, 25 August 2016 (CDT)

Bands by Decade Done
OK, I put all bands into a decade - feel free to change any I screwed up, like Soco did for The Cunts. I tend to put bands into the decade they formed, but for any bands that formed very late in the decade and didn't put out a record into the next one, I went up. I defer to you all if you would like to change. Looking for some opinions:


 * 1) I wasn't sure how to handle bands without pages or really not enough info to categorize.  I made a section for bands that need more info or a page, though we can also move empty pages for bands into the decade if we know them.  Some are bands I know and are obvious, some I've never heard of.  Should we keep the extra section or put each empty band page into their corresponding decade?
 * 2) Somehow I didn't notice until I got to the V's that many/most bands don't have a category for the decades they were active.  I have no idea why I didn't do this consistently when I made them, but does anyone see a reason to not give a band a decade category (or categories) for the years they were active?

Gantry (talk) 08:06, 7 August 2016 (CDT)


 * Nice job! It looks great. About the extra section; I personally like it this way. We don't know all the bands and in which decades they were formed anyway. So I think one of our main goals should be to add those articles. And about #2; I'm not sure, to be honest. We do know what categories the bands should be in, now that we already have four sections on the main page. So adding the categories would be easy. I don't see a reason not to give a band a decade category, but I also don't really get the purpose, now that we have those sections on the main page. AnarchistiCookie (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2016 (CDT)


 * OK I moved all the unmade pages to the More Info section, there were a few bands that had virtually no info in their page that I put in the 80s for some reason, so if you see a straggler page with squat info move there. As for #2 - there isn't a grand point.  I will say the 1980s category and the like will encompass not just bands, but venues, records, people etc.  So while not terribly useful, I'll probably add a category for each decade a band was active to their page as I see them.  Had a bunch not already been done, I would have been fine with not having. But since I started I might as well be consistent.  Small issue either way Gantry (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2016 (CDT)

Ono/ONO
Ono and ONO are two different articles about the same band. Which one do we keep and which article is going to be removed? AnarchistiCookie (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2016 (CDT)

Date Cutoff
At this point I'm pretty much open to whatever people want to add to the site. I personally think a respectable chunk of the 70s & 80s stuff has been covered - so adding 90s bands has been a slow and steady process, folks like Soco79 have been a big help in that regard and the site is clearly better for it. My biggest concern early on was people adding their own current band info to spam, but while that happened slightly, it's clear that this isn't going to be a huge concern. People have social media for that now, not worth their time. So please, add any information on Chicago Punk that you see fit, the more the merrier. Gantry (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2016 (CDT)

Older Date Cutoff Discussion
Do you really want to limit it to pre 1990? Lets bump it up to 1997.. like ten years ago? What do you think? Xsxex 11:37, 2 February 2007 (CST)


 * In the About Page I kind of "bumped up" the cutoff date to Naked Raygun's breakup in 1992. Nothing is really formal, but I'd prefer most of the info to deal with bands that got their start in the 80s or early 90s.  I'm not really going to stop anyone from making pages, but for now there's so much to add for the early scene that I'd prefer to keep the scope there.  If things keep taking off the way they have been (thanks Patrick and Bryan K!) then I'll likely expand the scope later on and include more of the 90s scene.  Gantry 12:51, 2 February 2007 (CST)

Just for the record, even though i love old punk, new punk is still touring and artists careers are out there so i would have thought it would be equally important to get new bands names out there. just a thought. Dr tv


 * I love new punk as well, but the current bands have TONS of sites devoted to them. Not to mention that if this site started focusing on newer bands, people would come in simply to promote their own band.  My intention for this site is to get info on bands that have little-to-no presence on the Internet, I don't think people are going to come here to look up new bands since they all have MySpace pages, people actively promoting them online via message boards, music sites and the like.  Gantry 09:43,

31 March 2009 (CST)

Facebook
Woah, looks like its been quite a while since I've last logged in. This website is still a really awesome resource. As I've aged, I think I've matured slightly, and I think I understand where Gantry is coming from, however, I do think that since this site does seem to have become somewhat stagnant in recent years, and does need some updating, maybe it is time to extend the year parameters a bit. Maybe through 1998, wihch is 15 years ago? Or how about 1993, 20 years ago? Also, I think its probably time to make a facebook page for this site, and try to renew interest and get more content. Actually thinking about it more, I think 1993 is a good cut-off year, 20 years being a good amount of time for any phenomenon to become "vintage" enough to be included with the rest of the Chicago Punk Rock history. Thoughts? --Xsxex (talk) 15:40, 4 September 2013 (CDT)
 * Doesn't sound like a bad idea to me tbh (yeah this reply is like 3 years too late. Who cares?). But you'll really need some people to help, since it's something you can't do alone. AnarchistiCookie (talk) 05:04, 7 July 2016 (CDT)
 * While it would likely help and I'm not against the idea per se, I don't personally use Facebook so for me it would be a non-starter. More manpower would definitely be a good thing, though people tend to contribute in spurts. Gantry (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2016 (CDT)
 * I think I'll be around here and edit pages from time to time. If you need help with social media or anything, just say the words. AnarchistiCookie (talk) 05:19, 8 July 2016 (CDT)
 * One thing that would be good is to hunt down the bands that are Facebook currently and get them in the FB category. When I did most of the band pages early on, MySpace was all the rage so most bands have a category for that and not FB.  Would be good to get that up to date.   Gantry (talk) 09:00, 12 July 2016 (CDT)
 * That's not a bad idea, I'll work on that. AnarchistiCookie (talk) 13:08, 14 July 2016 (CDT)

Bands by Decade?
The bands list is getting big, should we maybe separate Bands into 70s Bands, 80s Bands and 90s Bands? For the sake of consistency a band falls into the decade in which they originally formed. Think it would cosmetically looks better and make it easier for first-timers to the site to find bands that correspond to the decade they were most active. Gantry (talk) 09:27, 21 July 2016 (CDT)
 * I like that idea, but what about the decade in which the band was most active? Like, a band that was formed in 1989 but played until 1998 is obviously a 90s band. But the idea itself is good imo. AnarchistiCookie (talk) 12:28, 21 July 2016 (CDT)
 * Makes sense if they are right at the cusp, Lawrence Arms for example that SoCo79 is working on. I'll make them 2000s.  In general though I'll do formation year. Gantry (talk) 14:33, 21 July 2016 (CDT)
 * Just a comment... I was somewhat hesitant to add Lawrence Arms at all since they officially formed in 1999. My decision to do so was because they are a Brendan Kelly band - frontman for Slapstick... Slapstick Family Tree - and because of their endurance and that he and that both bands are so revered by the scene. In general though, my cutoff date probably lies a little earlier than the very edge, but given certain circumstances like those of The Lawrence Arms I felt the need to be flexible. Based on journalistic decade categorization, though, they are indeed a 2000s band like Anarchisti affirmed.
 * For the unofficial record, though, I like the idea regarding the decade categorization of 70s, 80s, and 90s, but, and despite my addition of The Lawrence Arms officially formed in 1999, included with hesitancy but went ahead and did so for the reasons stated, do we want to include a 2000s category?? Now that we are in 2016 and the 90s scene had a lot to offer, I think it's a good idea to officially graduate this Chicago Punk Archive to a 70s - 90s wiki, but I think we should leave out a decade that doesn't have enough journalistic distance to reflect back on - keeping in mind, this is just my 2 cents and that's about all it is worth!, as I am the one who included an entry for The Coughs which doesn't really belong here (a genuine thank you goes out to Anarchisti for the adjustment to that page). Just my current thoughts on the matter.
 * Larry Arms should definitely be added based to on their influence and what spawned from it before. I'm not wholly opposed to 2000s stuff if it has merit, but don't feel a pressing need to add bands that didn't have any ties to what was before it.  So I'm pretty much in the same boat as you.  Gantry (talk) 12:25, 3 August 2016 (CDT)