Talk:Phish

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articlePhish has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 12, 2006Good article nomineeListed
February 4, 2010Good article reassessmentDelisted
August 6, 2020Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article


AfD[edit]

I don't know if there's anyone watching this article, but I wanted to let everyone know that all of the Live Phish Downloads are currently up for deletion here. — MusicMaker5376 19:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The following discussion 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.

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Phish/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles' Project quality task force ("GA Sweeps"), all old good articles are being re-reviewed to ensure that they meet current good article criteria (as detailed at WP:WIAGA.) I have determined that this article needs some work to meet current criteria, outlined below:

  • There are a lot of clearly unsourced statements. A small sample is given below:
    • "...calling them "the most important band of the Nineties."
This is cited lower in the article. — MusicMaker5376 02:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Recently, however, Languedoc has begun crafting guitars on custom order and, on a very limited basis, to the general public through local music shops."
Statement can be removed as the article is on Phish and not Paul Languedoc. — MusicMaker5376 02:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The product of one of these sessions was included in the band's first mass-released recording, a double album called Junta, later that year."
    • "...the audience would react in a certain manner based on a particular musical cue from the band. For instance, if Anastasio "teased" a motif from The Simpsons theme song, the audience would yell, "D'oh!" in imitation of Homer Simpson. (help·info) In 1992, Phish introduced collaboration between audience and band called the "Big Ball Jam" in which each band member would throw a large beach ball into the audience and play a note each time his ball was hit. In so doing, the audience was helping to create an original composition."
    • "Phish, along with Bob Dylan, the Grateful Dead and The Beatles, was one of the first bands to have a Usenet newsgroup, rec.music.phish, which launched in 1991. Aware of the band's growing popularity, Elektra Records signed them that year. The following year A Picture of Nectar was complete: their first major studio release, enjoying far more extensive production than either 1988's Junta or 1990s Lawn Boy. These albums were eventually re-released on Elektra, as well."
    • "The first annual H.O.R.D.E. festival in 1992 provided Phish with their first national tour of major amphitheaters. The lineup, among others, included Phish, Blues Traveler, The Spin Doctors, and Widespread Panic. That summer, the band toured Europe with the Violent Femmes and later toured Europe and the U.S. with Carlos Santana."
    • "On Halloween of that year, the group promised to don a fan-selected "musical costume" by playing an entire album from another band. After an extensive mail-based poll, Phish performed The Beatles' self-titled album — as the second of their three sets at the Glens Falls Civic Center in upstate New York. Following the death of Grateful Dead frontman Jerry Garcia in the summer of 1995 and the appearance of "Down With Disease" on Beavis and Butthead, the band experienced a surge in the growth of their fan base and an increased awareness in popular culture."
    • ...and so on and so forth.
  • Many citations need to be properly and consistently formatted.
  • What makes pwnordie, phish.net, phunky, and brianrobert.com reliable sources?
The question of phish.net was addressed several years ago. While it is, technically, a fansite, it's run by the same people who head the Mockingbird Foundation, a Phish-related charity. I can't speak to the other two, but brianrobert.com is being cited as a reference to its own existence. — MusicMaker5376 02:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's all well and good, but what makes these groups notable enough to be cited? I'm not questioning their existence, but their inclusion (and we need sources for judging that.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am putting the article on hold for one week pending improvements to the above. If you have questions or comments, please write them in this space. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since there has been no progress on the above, I am delisting the article. It may be renominated at WP:GAN at any time, though I encourage improvement. Questions or comments should be directed to my talk page. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:40, 4 February 2010 (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.

Nectar's[edit]

I'm really surprised there is no mention of Nectar's Restaurant anywhere in the article. It is, after all, THE place where the band first expanded their audience outside the college crowd. See Nectar's official site.

The place, and Nectar himself, was the inspiration for the song "A Picture of Nectar" and the reason for naming the LP was actually as a tribute to him and his establishment.

It was, after all, a very important part of the band's history. I would add something about it, but it would be considered "original research." I never saw them play there, but I saw it happen. I could never get in, along with many others who never got in the door!

Haven't taken the time to look for long. For some odd reason this seems to be difficult to find details about on the Web. It was very common knowledge in Burlington during the eighties, and when the LP was released. I'll see if I can dig up some reliable verification. --SentientParadox (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two very short references from their own site: here and and here. The brief mentions on those pages might seem insignificant by themselves, but I really think that when you combine those with the fact that they wrote a song inspired by him and the place, and dedicated the album name to the same, the importance is obvious. As far as I know, they never wrote songs about any other Burlington location they played at. Correct me if I'm wrong about that. I don't pretend to know all their music. --SentientParadox (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
O...
M...
G!
This is embarrassing. I've owned the album A Picture of Nectar for twenty years, and never noticed that Nectar Rorris' face is superimposed in the Orange! Boy do I feel dumb! If THAT doesn't lend credence to some mention of Nectar's as an important chapter in Phish's evolution, then nothing does. I think it should be mentioned. The band itself felt is what that important. The article should say something about it. --SentientParadox (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since it has been well over a year and there have been no objections to adding this info, I've put it in the history section. --SentientParadox (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fan POV[edit]

This article is riddled with fan attitude and needs some serious cleanup. Just a quick example:

"Coventry was an emotional goodbye for Phish and for its audience; an end to Phish's chapter in rock music. With little help from radio, music television channels and album sales, Phish became one of the top ten grossing live acts in North America.[35] As Rolling Stone put it:[36]
“ Given their sense of community, their ambition and their challenging, generous performances, Phish has become the most important band of the Nineties. ”

Even the writer of an authorized biography would cringe writing an puff piece like that. Elsewhere, we can have members work on side projects without "deepening" them, and an announcement of reunion without repeating that it's "long-awaited." Etc. Etc.Msalt (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External Link to Phish.Net[edit]

I propose that the external link to the Phish fansite at phish.net be re-added and allowed to stay'.

This is run by the Mockingbird Foundation - a registered non-profit organization that is highly recognized by the band itself. Mockingbird Foundation at phish.com

Please note that I have no interest in phish.net, I simply think that in this case, the fan site is relevant. WP:EL offers an exceptions fansites which are written by a recognized authority. The requirement states that to count as a recognized authority, they should meet the notability requirement themselves. The foundation has a page at Wikipedia, which implies they are notable - however since that page appears to be poorly sourced, I also took the time to find some additional independent, reliable sources to help establish the reliability of the foundation. here.

-Addionne (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I only glanced at this but it seems fine to me. Assuming it reaches consensus you might want to put some inviso-text near the entry for future editors who might knee-jerk remove it (as I did). SQGibbon (talk) 22:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I vote keep. Argument for Mockingbird Foundation meeting notability and WP:EL looks solid to me. I will add an edit tag to prevent future removals of the link. Dkriegls (talk) 01:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, does it have to be called a "phan-site"? Kinda cheesy. SQGibbon (talk) 01:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cheesy - and probably alienating non-phish fans. Let's keep it simple and call it fan site. -Addionne (talk) 20:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

I cleaned up a lot of the sources. There are two (pwnordie and Fromtheroad.phish.com) which appear to be dead and I can't find them. As for the rest, they're all properly cited now.--Gen. Quon (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why No Radio Play?[edit]

I would like to see an explanation, or at least a link to one, as to why a band can be very popular but receive little radio play. Is this a type of music that nobody wants to hear on the radio? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.136.242 (talk) 15:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know how old this question is, but it's a good one and deserves an answer. I don't have any sources for this other than personal knowledge from growing up in the city they started their career in so what I know, unfortunately can't be added. Here's what I can tell you:
Phish made themselves with live performances, and never pushed to get massive radio play. From the beginning they were not interested in becoming part of the mass marketing techniques used by most popular artists. A large part of why they weren't interested is evident in the way their music is written and performed, not only on their studio recordings, but at live shows as well. Almost ALL of their songs are not formulated with typical verse/chorus/bridge setups as most music that is mass marketed is. I would dare say much of the "non formulated" writing was intentional. Most artists signed to a major label (who would push hard for wide spread radio play)are practically forced to rewrite all of their songs to fit some form of "acceptable" verse-chorus-bridge formulation. If the artist refuses to cooperate, the label simply stops putting effort into promoting them. Phish didn't care anything about "cooperation" with huge corporations. None of them cared anything about compromising what they had written in any way shape or form. As a result, almost everything they wrote didn't fit well with popular genres and was difficult to "fit in" with most radio station's playlists. Phish, instead, focused most of their efforts on building their fan base via live concerts, selling tapes and CD's at the shows, and fans who had attended their shows would seek them out in local stores. It worked. They proved that mass radio play wasn't necessary to achieve success.
Now, all the above is simply "what I know" from experience, which is not an acceptable source for Wikipedia. And, I realize this discussion page isn't the place for discussing the subject, but for discussion of the article itself, so my point is that I think this information is highly relevant to the topic, and should be covered somewhere in the article (with reliable sources, of course, if they can be found). My reasoning that it should be added follows:
Phish is NOT exactly a "household" word. I dare say MOST people who visit this article are already Phish fans, who intentionally searched it out. Many people totally unfamiliar with the band however, who may "stumble" on this page via links while surfing about something else entirely, and most likely wonder to themselves, "Phish? Who the heck is Phish, and why do they deserve an article here?" (which I think is already well covered in the article), but the key question that is likely to come up is, "Why haven't I ever heard any of their music?"
Ergo, I think the question of "Why so little radio play" is a great one and should be covered if anyone can manage to find good sources to cite, such as member interviews. --SentientParadox (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Never" referred to as "Phishheads?!?!" Are you serious???[edit]

Please. You may be trying to invent a new rule for yourselves, but I have heard the appellation "Phishheads" used on innumerable occasions by both fans of Phish as well as fans of the Grateful Dead to refer to fans of Phish. To say that one "never" refers to you as "Phishheads" is just plain WRONG and smacks of wishful (and rather belated) thinking. Please don't wish something for Phish that is plainly NOT TRUE. Thank you.114.148.206.161 (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Camelio[edit]

A number of recent articles by otherwise reliable sources indicate that Brian Camelio has some sort of connection to Phish.

  • Time magazine says Brian Camelio was a "former member of Journey and Phish." [1]
  • paidContent says he "worked with" Journey and Phish [2]
  • NYconvergence says "he used to jam with" Journey and Phish[3]

Can anyone add clarity to this? The editors over at Journey (band) cannot provide any corroboration that Brian Camelio had anything to do with Journey.--Nowa (talk) 13:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try going to Brian Camelio's page? There are two link to phish albums there where he is thanked in the credits. It may have been notable for his article if he had a musical relation with Phish or Journey, but not the other way around. Dkriegls (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No Fishman in the picture???[edit]

How can the band picture only include 75% of the band? Surely someone has an original pic of all 4 of the boys on stage! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.114.186.43 (talk) 20:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but they would have to donate it for public use and upload it to the commons first.24.0.133.234 (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JAM BAND[edit]

I don't like this under the jazz portal first of all, but I made a lengthy edit to the genre of music subsection at the top of the page to stress my point that they are a JAM BAND, please accept it or move on. I would like my edit edited to the point the text of my argument is left out, but I REALLY, mean REALLY wanted to stress that to who ever came across so they to would try to keep the word JAM BAND labeled with this group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.28.92.64 (talk) 06:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Logo Origin/Camp Oswego[edit]

For anyone from central NY, especially Syracuse, where Jon Fishman grew up and went to highschool, it's strongly believed, if not confirmed that the now very famous logo was heavily influenced by a popular local spot in Oswego, NY called Rudy's. Oswego is only about 30 miles from Syracuse, sits on Lake Ontario. Rudy's logo was first in use on their signage in the early 1980's around the time Phish was formed. Rudy's has been an Oswego, NY mainstay. Rudy's own website already proclaims there logo was in use first, without actually naming Phish. Of course remember Phish played Camp Oswego in 1999, on an Airfield in Volney, NY maybe 15 miles from Rudy's. The problem I am am having is find actual confirmation, reference-able other that the Rudy's page the logo's origin and Rudy's influence. Here is the link to Rudy's talking about the logo. http://rudyshot.com/about-rudys/--0pen$0urce (talk) 18:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pull what I can on the band. Okay? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tag - reasons[edit]

  • There is not one mention of drug arrests and criminality around the bands performances.
    • Phish Fans Encounter Crackdown at Garden (228 arrests)[4]
    • DA: Hundreds arrested, 1 death from 3-day Phish show[5]
    • More drug arrests from Phish concert[6]
    • Drug arrests at Phish concerts[7]
    • 42 Arrested, Ecstasy, Shrooms, Hash Brownies Confiscated During Phish Concerts[8]
    • Phish fans continue history of drug arrests[9]
    • Phish concertgoer dies of drug overdose[10]
    • 77 Face Drug, Alcohol Charges At Raleigh Phish Concert[11]
    • Cops: 32 arrests at Jones Beach Phish concerts[12]
    • Phish concert provides a heavy assortment of drugs-Atlantic City police make 64 arrests and seize over $250,000 worth of illegal substances[13]
    • DEBUNKING THE BUNK POLICE: TEST YOUR MOLLY AND OTHER LESSONS IN NARCOTICS KIRAN HERBERT (of Rolling Stone)-

      "THE PARKING LOT after a Phish concert is a notoriously dirty drug scene. ... Now all I see are nitrous-filled balloons that sell for twenty dollars apiece and alcoholics who will grab your ass and may or may not end up passing out in a stranger’s tent. When Phish plays the Gorge in George, Washington, and everyone camps overnight, the lot becomes a virtual no man’s land. The people that you enjoyed the concert with turn into zombies, wobbling around high on cat tranquilizers (Ketamine) or stalking the sunrise on a slow comedown from their long, winding acid trip."

      [14]
    • Three days of Phish, 194 arrests, $1.2M in drugs seized[15]
  • There do exist critics who disparage the band and some that hate it.
    • NO, IT REALLY IS THEM: WHY IT'S OKAY TO HATE PHISH- Esquire[16]
    • PHISH HAS BEEN A BAND FOR THIRTY YEARS NOW AND THEY HAVE SUCKED THE WHOLE TIME - Noisey[17]
    • The Case Against Phish: Why A Once-Great Band Should Have Stayed Dead - Idolator[18]

That's just after 10 minutes of looking. The drug related articles go on and on. 24.241.69.99 (talk) 11:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This issue, and the visible tag on the article, has been outstanding on the article for nearly two years. Template:POV#When to remove says "This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true ... if the discussion has become dormant." There has been no discussion at all, and I can't see anyone addressing the issue in mainspace. So, per the instructions in the template documentation, I am going to remove the tag. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 13:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Want to get this re-listed?[edit]

I'm trying to become a better, more involved editor and have decided to try my hand at working on this article. I'm a big fan of Phish but also a former journalist so think I have a good understanding of how to stay neutral while covering this band.

Before I try and parse the issues that got this de-listed, I'm wondering if there are any other, more experienced editors, who are watching this page that might be willing to help me get this project started. IE: help me figure out what needs to be done, etc. In other words, I want to get this article back up to snuff but am not sure where to start.

Anyone interested, please ping me or hit me up on my Talk page.. Thanks! Axis42 (talk) 02:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Phish. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Phish. 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) 16:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Phish. 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) 23:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Party Time[edit]

Is there some reason Party time isn't mentioned in the discography section? Just because it didn't have a conventional release doesn't mean it's not a major studio album. I'm going to add it and hope I don't start an edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.36.84.82 (talk) 15:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Phish/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: David Fuchs (talk · contribs) 01:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look for comments end of this week. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 01:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, followup to not leave you hanging. I lost the review I had written up, and so am in the process of redoing it. I'm in the middle of drafting an arbitration case at the moment so things are going to be a bit more delayed. Sorry for the wait. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 23:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bearing with me. It occurred to me checking out this article that I'd actually reviewed it for GA Sweeps more than a decade (!) ago. The article has definitely improved since then, but I see some remaining issues before it can reach GA status.

  • General/Organization:
    • The article as it currently stands feels like it doesn't really follow a cohesive summary style. The band's history mostly reads in a repetitious format of "On X date, Y happened", and it seems unclear why the disbandment and hiatus sections give over sections about relatively irrelevant details that don't relate directly to the band. There's a lot of stubby one or two-sentence pseudoparagraphs that suggest either they need fleshing out, the facts need to be collated or reorganized, or cut entirely. Speaking most generally, the article doesn't make a good argument for why individual tours or concerts are notable enough to be mentioned versus in aggregate.
  • Prose:
    • There's places where quotes are unattributed and should be, e.g. "oriented around group improvisation and super-extended grooves"
    • The band has two flavors of Ben & Jerry's ice cream named after them - Phish Food, introduced in 1997, and It's Ice...Cream, a limited-edition flavor named after their song "It's Ice", which was available in 2018 and 2019. Phish's portion of the proceeds from these flavors are donated to the Waterwheel Foundation, the band's non-profit organization that supports causes such as clean water, land conservation, urban gardening, and more.[271]—this is partially repetitious with a previous line.
    • In 2017, Jon Fishman was elected to the board of selectmen in Lincolnville, Maine.—and this is trivia.
    • In terms of being sufficiently broad in coverage, I feel that the article presently doesn't do a good job of actually explaining why the band is important. You have a quote from Rolling Stone about them being one of the most important bands of the 1990s, but that information is not materially expanded on in the article itself (also a violation of WP:LEAD.)
  • References:
    • References need consistent formatting; sometimes there are publishers included, sometimes not, and there are occasionally other missing fields. Sometimes websites are given by url (glide magazine.com) and elsewhere spelled out (Glide Magazine.) There's also an unformatted dead link.
    • There's still a few apparently unreferenced lines throughout the article, e.g. Fishman recorded an album with his blues rock side-project Pork Tornado in 2002., In October 1997, the band released their second live album Slip Stitch and Pass, which featured selections from their March 1997 concert at the Markthalle Hamburg in Hamburg, Germany.
    • What makes Relix Media, Ultimate Classic Rock, Jambase, LFLM, and Phish.net reliable sources?
    • I did a spot-check of sources attributed to refs 6, 8, 11, 21, 40, 54, 88, 113, 159, 183, 204, 256, and 269. I didn't spot issues with close paraphrasing/plagiarism.
      • Ref 113 is dead.
      • Ref 183 doesn't mention the other bands mentioned in the wiki prose.
  • Media:

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Don't have a ton of time today to go over much, but here's my responses for some of this

    • I chopped out the Lincolnville and Ben & Jerry's sections from the video games and other appearances section. Agree with you on both counts
    • I replaced 113 with another reference
    • I replaced 183 with a NY Times ref that refers to those three bands as the main stage headliners
    • The differences in reference formatting is on me probably, I have been using the cite web autofill template and I imagine I wasn't paying too closely to what metadata it was scraping or needed to be fixed
    • Relix has been a major music magazine since 1974, and I don't think it's even been questioned as a reliable source for jam-band type music. There are sources on its page that mention it as notable (although that page isn't in especially great shape). Some of the sources in here from Relix were interviews with the band members conducted by the magazine. I'll have to get back to you on Jambase and L4LM, but I also don't think they've been ruled as unreliable. In general, however, those are the three websites that do a majority of reporting on jam band acts. Phish.net was at one point a quasi-official website. It is referred to in the Puterbaugh book beginning on page 102, and it describes the site's importance in the history of the band. Would it be better to mention the site in prose as opposed to using it as a source?
    • I agree the page currently leans too much on history and not enough on impact. I will look around for some sources to construct that out of. For instance, here's a good reference on the band's impact on live music and festival culture that could be worked into the page, and another on their influence on the foundation of Bonnaroo. I'm sure I can find a few more references like that to create a legacy and impact section.
    • Same thing with the individual tours, particularly the post-2009 ones. Maybe every year's worth of tours need to be mentioned, just the important ones/the ones with references that aren't more than just concert announcements.

I will work to fix some of the issues here within the week. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 21:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More updates on the Phish front:

    • Added citations for Pork Tornado and Slip Stitch and Pass
    • Made some baby-steps on the legacy and influence section. I'll have to dig a little deeper here. Was there anything specific you were looking to be included so I can narrow it down to that?
    • In the next few days, I'll go over the references and the paragraph stuff. I've already cut out the side-project sections from the hiatus and break-up sections, and I'll go through the later history sections to cull out unimportant details about the last 10 or so years that probably don't need to be in the article. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 03:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update - I've just cut some tour announcement and venue listing-type information from the page, cutting down the size of the last three history sections. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 04:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Second update: Sorry about the delay here. Wikipedia has not been on my mind over the last week, but I'll work on some of the suggested changes that I haven't gotten to over this and next week. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 03:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey User:Doc Strange, checking in. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya! Still working on the influences and legacy sections, and I've added a few sources that I had been planning to add. The thing I am focusing on now is your observation that the article didn't do a good job of explaining why Phish is important. Do you think that's improved since? What more would you like to see on that front? Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 15:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll take a look this weekend. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article is looking much better insofar as comprehensiveness for the topic subject. I think you've got enough in there it probably meets the threshold for GA requirements. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, good to hear. Looks like the last thing I need to take care is the reference formatting. I'll work on that, and I'll post here again once that's all sorted. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 04:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey any update? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've done the first 60 references in the article, and a bit more copy-editing, and I'll be doing the rest some-time this week. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 19:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I think I fixed every reference now. Let me know if I've missed any of them. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 02:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll take a look at the article with fresh eyes tomorrow. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phish is not named for Fishman[edit]

Anastasio has said that the band is named after Fishman, who refutes this claim. Fishman said in an interview with Relix: "When it was time to decide a name for the band, I suggested the sound of an airplane taking off - 'phssssh.' But then we thought that we needed a vowel. Imagine people saying, 'We are going to see Phssssh tonight…' We had already designed the logo and the 'I' fit perfectly in the middle. So Phish was not named after me."

Fishman has also stated in radio interviews that he wanted the band to be named for the sound of an airplane taking off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C3:C000:1E30:A95C:531D:AB01:1BE4 (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently features three different origin stories for the name, including Fishman's, all sourced. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 05:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits[edit]

@Doc Strange:: Sorry for doing it unexplained, removing some sections and making doubles of some, but it seemed that much of the sections overlapped and some was bound to be better placed on Phish concert tours and festivals. If you want you can recheck, but it was done no harm intended. It was done all with good intention. Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

jam band[edit]

Jam band is a description, not a genre. Wolf O'Donnel (talk) 18:28, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Photo[edit]

Why on earth would whoever uploaded the main photo use one that doesn't have all members shown? Jaco66 (talk) 23:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed with this edit. If someone has a better photo to use, I'm open to that, but I agree that all four members should be shown. — Mudwater (Talk) 19:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good photo choice Mudwater. I'd prefer a slightly higher quality photo with the band members' faces clearer, but having all four members visible is preferable to that, and this is the best one of those we have. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 21:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Phish&oldid=1209746757"