Talk:Gorillaz/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Clock added on the hell hole

I was going through the Gorillaz site and a clock has been added, which is going down like a timer. I haven't worked out how it's going down yet but the last ones are simply - milliseconds, seconds, minuites, hours - then I get confused. I've got a picture if anyone could add it to the wikipedia article, as I don't exactly understand how too. http://i42.tinypic.com/20tm5af.jpg

Note: Didn't know how to make the image appear on here, so Just put the link.

Gorillaz have a future

I just read an interview with Murdoc and he said Gorillaz will have a future! I have also added it to the article.A7X 900 23:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

i added Brit Pop to the genreBlood8815 04:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

"Stuart Tusspot" is NOT OFFICIAL

2D's real name as "Stuart Tusspot" is NOT OFFICIAL in ANY WAY. You guys seem pretty good about needing sources, but how has this very important error been overlooked? I've removed it from the article for now (yet again) until someone produces an official source for this claim. Which won't happen since it isn't official. -67.8.50.67 04:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ittle probally be in Rise Of The Ogre. ~2-D —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.100.215.45 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC).

And it was! Ittan 05:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, owned. ~2-D

singles

what happened to hte singles section? capi 15:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Somebody had removed it, but it's back in now. --Fritz S. (Talk) 16:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

This page really needs some actualising, doesn't it? It still says Reject False Icons won't be the name of the second LP (the paragraph reads as though Demon Days hasn't been released)...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gnominator (talk • contribs) .

Just fixed that, I also removed the message that RFI was a subliminal message in the live shows... kind of pointless really. Taylor 01:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

"Rock It" is an actual song by the Gorillaz. The link says it is a Chuck Berry album. Could someone please change this? I don't have time to change make this page and I don't have an account here, but I know these things 'cause I am a huge Gorillaz fan. Go to : http://www.gorillaz.com/screen.php?p=1&q=2&id=rockit Thank you...............—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pag--69.234.110.66 03:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)es|unsigned]] comment was added by 70.170.52.12 (talk • contribs) .

Good article nomination

This is article is coming along nicely, but currently it is not ready for good article status. The intro to the fictional history section is not written in an encyclopedic manner, and should not be in bold (if anything italics), but it would be better if it were integrated into the body of the section.

The references section needs to be filled - this article is very light on references (even in-line ones) for it to be a GA. Also, the references that exist need to be unified. There some "link" references, as well as numbered references. Someone should probably convert these to the <ref> way of referencing.--Esprit15d 12:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Origin

Non-UK people have performed in songs for Gorillaz (like Ibrahim Ferrer, for example). Is it really accurate to say that Gorillaz as a whole is from the UK? —Michiel Sikma, 22:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Gorillaz is a British band. Non-British collaborators doesn't make it not British. 67.8.50.67 05:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, otherwise you would have to start changing or removing the nationality of every band which have ever featured foreign guest artists and that would be stupid.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.136.255.121 (talk • contribs) .

Along these same lines, or at least slightly related is this quote from the article: "It has been suggested that the subsequent misspelling of 'gorillas' is a reference to the misspelling of 'monkeys' by 60s US band The Monkees." Shouldn't that read "...misspelling of 'beetles' by 60s UK band The Beatles." I mean if we are "suggesting" we might as well go for the gold. Of course the Monkees have the similarity of being a made up band as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.0.164 (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Birthdays

None of the birthdays listed in this article are official except Murdoc's. I'm removing the other three until someone produces a source for them... which I know won't happen, since there isn't one. 67.8.50.67 05:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio?

The Fictional history section reads like a probable copyvio to me, but I'm unable to confirm (or refute) this suspicion. Unfortunately, given how much Wikipedia itself is copied, it's very hard to track down prior online sources after nine months, especially as archive.org seems to be having problems at the moment. The section, as originally written, does cite several offline sources such as promo booklets. I'd be glad if anyone with access to the cited sources could compare them to (the original version of) the section and see whether or not the content has been copied verbatim. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Scans of both promo booklets can be found here and here. --Fritz S. (Talk) 08:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The section does look very copied, and it's not written in an encyclopedic manner. I couldn't find the section verbatim in the promo booklets, but it is found by itself on [link to copyvio website removed], this, and other sites. In this and other pages, the only section used as an article is the section that reads like probable plagiarism. Also, the section itself says that the information is "as established by Albarn and Hewlett." Would this information be enough to show that it's copied?--Grant M 05:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact that other sites have the same text could also mean they copied it from Wikipedia. The first link you gave for example has a date attached to the article and that's half a year after the text was added to Wiki. Another fact that indicates that the texts were copied from Wikipedia and not the other way around is that they are not the original version of the text added to Wiki in August 2005, but a later version to which some changes had been made over time. --Fritz S. (Talk) 08:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification; I hadn't looked at the very first version of the text.--Grant M 07:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

the music

I think this article should talk more about what the characters do to contribute to the music, like who sings what and things like that. That's the stuff I would like to know.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.26.248.42 (talk • contribs) .

Genre?

Can anyone label then better? You know, instead of just 'rock' or 'hip-hop'...?--69.234.110.66 03:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• I think it's best to stick with it as Rock, Pop and Hip Hop as it is. :) If we listed every single genre the Gorillaz have recorded, we would need a new article called "List of Genres Gorillaz Have Recorded" (ha ha.) - James 01:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

They haven't played THAT many genres. They are just (just?) alternative rock, alternative hip hop, trip hop, electronica, britpop. That isn't a lot. --↑ɻ⅞θʉɭђɥл₮₴Ṝ 14:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• I call them a "melting pot" :) Fledge 04:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• I added the genre Brit Pop Blood8815 01:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Collaborative? Progressive Rock/Rap? Ittan 05:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• The Gorillaz are acutally an Alternative band, FYI. (I didn't sign in, but I'm ??lostiNconfusIoN??) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.245.72 (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• They describe theyself "Zombie Rock"... O_o —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luketz (talk • contribs) 02:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• "Transgenre Pop" i say —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.181.234 (talk) 01:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I would think Alternative Rock or Britpop, but that's just my idea. :P PlatypiPwn (talk) 23:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC) PlatypiPwn

Ender's Shadow reference?

This is actually more pertaining to Noodle, but I figured I'd repost it here since this is a much more active discussion than the Noodle page.

I was just reading about how Noodle was a secret Japanese government experiment and was the sole survivor of the 23 super soldiers created, the rest of whom were destroyed as a coverup of the experiments. Lately, I've been reading some books from the Ender's Game series (namely the Shadow series,) and I couldn't help but notice the connection. The character of Bean was the result of some illegal genetic experiments and one of 23 infants created in the lab and also the sole survivor. Coincidence?--Foot Dragoon 07:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

- I think you're looking for something that isn't there. The reference wouldn't make sense in context with the rest of the gorillaz mythology. Fledge 04:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, in the book, they devote an entire chapter to the number 23 and why it appears so often in the events surrounding the gorillaz. The reference may be there, since the Gorillaz are a highly collaborative group, but it shouldn't be placed in the article without any official statements from a representitive of the group. And I disagree with fledgling zombie, because the reference would make sence because the Gorillaz reference whatever the heck they feel like, and the Enders series is pretty cool. ^_^ Ittan 05:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No opinions allowed

"Unlike other fictional bands whose music has had real-life success, they are neither a parody of a particular genre (Spinal Tap, A Mighty Wind) nor marketed to young children (The Archies), and their actual musical output is far more of an attraction to most of their fans than the novelty of their supposed existence as cartoon characters."

I'm taking this out. It's irrelevant to the article, itself, and based on the opinion of it's author. Human historian 20:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Fictional band history: Russel Hobbs

"...African-American expatriate Russel Hobbs. Russel was a middle-class New York native..." This wording seems erroneous..."expatriate" suggests he was once the citizen of some other country (apparently the ethnicity "African-American" seems to suffice for the time being in place of a country), but he's simultaneously a New York native. Somebody who knows more about this character's origin, please update this clearly and accurately? Ø 18:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we need a trivia section. It seems to have no real useful information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.180.130.224 (talk • contribs) 3:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

... Which is why it's called "trivia." Albino Bebop 03:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Casse Brown

I think we should have an article for Casse Brown, the official script writer for Gorillaz. 69.180.130.224 02:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It's Cass Browne IIRC just for accuracy. -PROPHET

Kong Studios

Should there be an article for Kong studios? Many important things happen there and it is importaant to the fictional history. Especially now with the destruction of the place and the events in the hellhole. I think it would be a good idea. Please respond. BioYu-Gi! 1/25/07 4:17 p.m.

I think that this is an excellent idea. I for one am not an expert on the subject of kong studios (stupid dial-up internet), but I do agree that it is a very important subject in the world that is Gorillaz. Ittan 05:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I definitely think Kong should have its own article. The only problem is its going to be hard to provide a history for the studios, for so much has happened, its going to be hard to get all the info on what has gone on in Kong throughout the years and there is so much to talk about. It would make a good article though.--Jarvisganon 04:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree too :) QuasarFR 23:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well...we could use Rise of the Ogre as the main source. That, along with the forums on their website. If you just look way back you get the gist of what happened. But a lot of "Kong Happenings" are in Rise of the Ogre.Ittan 01:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

iPod promotion?

It surprises me that currently there's no mention of the huge promotion Gorillaz received from iPod, specially for their song Feel Good Inc., remember it featured in their comercials and the boxes of the Gen4 iPods had the same song with the image from the cover of the LP.

Vicco Lizcano 23:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC) ^{(Tell me where I'm wrong)}

Nigo?

Does anyone know if the artist Nigo of A Bathing Ape has anything to do with Gorillaz? I have a book that claims he is the artist behind them, but I can't find anything to back this up. There are a few other discrepancies in the book so it's quite possible that this information is inaccurate, but i just want to know for sure. davekeeling 21:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

(This question was asked and answered on the A Bathing Ape talk page. The answer was No.) - kollision 02:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

New album

Should we add the new album "Rise of the Ogre"?--989 RVD 20:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh. I just found out it's an autobiography. Never mind.--989 RVD 20:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

myspace link?

I noticed that the Gorillaz myspace link was deleted and never put back up. Why is that? Will someone delete it is I put it up again? LoganTheGeshrat 04:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Typically, myspace is not a valid source for reference. I assume that is why it was removed, and will be again if you put it back up. 204.115.253.51 20:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Intro and History not consistant

The intro says that the band was formed in 1998 whilst under the history section it says that the band was formed in 1999. --58.162.52.9 04:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

-Fixed. The Swagga 01:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

allmusic bio

Why so little to absolutely no mention of the REAL people behind the band?!

As it would appear somebody deleted it all. It's been put back. Zazaban 22:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

69.123.7.233

He's been vandalising the article, and I can't revert any more of his edits without breaking the 3RR. Zazaban 01:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's just horrible (the vandilizing). What did he put on there?? PlatypiPwn (talk) 23:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC) PlatypiPwn

Rapcore

I am going to to add Rapcore as a genre to the genresection as I think the style of rapcore matches the Gorillaz' work. Please tell me if you feel that it would not a suitable genre. Thundermaster367 13:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed Rapcore because they really aren't Rapcore at all. Alternative rock and alternative hip hop describe their style better. - kollision 02:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Reject False Icons.

The RFI website is gone, dig?

So i don't know whats up there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.133.197 (talk) 10:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Can someone explain this?

Quote from the article "Similarly, there is both a drummer and percussionist on the tour, both at a drum kit, so these people are essentially both Russel."

If they're both behind drum kits shouldn't they both be referred to as drummers? 64.247.95.71 (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Do we even know what they stand for?!?! NO!!! Than why listen to them?? Because they are awesome singers!!! Thats why. Even thouough their songs are kinda wiered still. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sexxi mama (talk • contribs) 00:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Whiffy Smiffy

"In the later part of 1998, the Gorillaz played their first show at the Camden Brownhouse. Although it ended prematurely due to a riot during the song "Punk", EMI A&R man Whiffy Smiffy, discharging several fish from his shotgun to disperse the crowd, was able to make his way to the stage and quickly sign them to the label. Ten months later the Gorillaz had recorded their self-titled debut LP."

Did that "discharging several rounds from his shotgun to disperse the crowd" really happened? Also, the name Whiffy Smiffy sounds just a little strange to me. -- Onikas (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This all really happened in the fictional Gorillaz history. So it happen in the fictional Gorillaz backstory but never actually happened in real life. - kollision (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Gorillaz appearance in power puff girls movie?

Why isn't this in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.184.29 (talk) 03:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I have confirmed that a reference to Gorillaz in made in the Powerpuff Girls movie. They are featured on the back page of a newspaper in the film. It shows a picture of the band, with the Gorillaz logo and the word "Live" underneath. Under that is the headline "The Gorillaz Set to Headline Townsville Music Fest" (Townsville being the city the movie is set in) and a few paragraphs of indistinguishable text. It's cool but I don't think this belong in the article as it is too trivial and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. - kollision (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Band members PAGE BLANKING WITHOUT AFD

Gorillaz itself is of course notable, but do we really need detailed articles about the fictional individual members? JIP | Talk 19:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is there such little mention of Dan the Automator?!?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.210.185.214 (talk) 20:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with JIP above, so I am proposing an merge of 2D (Gorillaz), Murdoc Niccals, Russel Hobbs and Noodle (Gorillaz) to this article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm one of the main contributers to this article. The articles for the band members have been a problem for a long time. They are all entirely unreferenced, contain large amounts of original research and are almost entirely written in a in-universe style. The articles contain so much in-universe material and so little real world material that to clean up the article would really mean to delete all but a few sentences of text. As such, I would not oppose turning them into redirects to this article. I'll help add any notable material to this article if you do. - kollision (talk) 10:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks like User:Indopug turned the above pages into redirects. It may be correct that those articles have problems, but it is not proper practice to effectively delete articles without resorting to the proper process. Therefore I am undoing those edits. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Three more notes. page blanking into redirects is a circumvention of the normal process. If you want to merge articles, that is fine, but you have to go through the normal deletion process. Second, deleting or blanking is not merging. Merging implies the integration of material from the articles, and besides there is a process for proposing merges as well, which includes tagging the articles with for the proposed merge. Third, a few comments in an obscure section in the middle of a talk page is no substitute for actual merge/deletion discussions or consensus. There is a reason articles get tagged before this stuff happens, so people can discuss the proposed actions. This was not done. It's clumsy but I have added something about page blanking to the title of this section. That's not the right way to go about this, either, but it's not me that decided this section was enough for a discussion of the merges. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You do bold edits first, then start discussion. You also don't need an AfD to ask for a merge. Also, merging assumes there is salvageable content to transfer. Bold redirects are perfectly justifable. Discussion doesn't need to preceed them; they are only necessary afterwards if someone objects to the edit. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Where would we be without red tape, eh? Anyway, I've gone ahead and nominated the articles for deletion here.—indopug (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't source fansites

There's too many references attributed to fansites. Unless you're citing an interview exclusive to the site, replace the citations with those from reputable news sites. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Website

Shouldn't we make a section for the official website? They use it alot to promote the band. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 22:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Genre

Please do not change the genre. I hate people who don't know gorillaz and have only heard feel good and think gorillaz is hip hop. They are alternative rock. Listen to their music before thinking you know what they are thx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.2.153.90 (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I have listend to all their songs.Many of their songs are Hip Hop (or simply Rap) .Although their main genre is Dub and Trip hop.While many other songs are Electronica or Progressive. I admit choosing a genre for them is hard but they have a larg number of songs in all the genres I mentioned and there are sources for all that.Solino the Wolf (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

They're pretty much multi-genre - might as well have hip hop in there as well, since it's as least as descriptive of their work as trip hop, which in my mind indicates more of a downbeat, Portisheady kind of thing. Artw (talk) 00:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

ok I sourced all the genres in the infobox.But I think as Gorillaz's sound is far from traditional alternative rock sound and because Britpop is an Alternative rock genre maybe alternative rock could be removed and Britpop would be enough.Solino_{the Wolf} 19:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Per guidelines, subgenres should not be listed. (Sugar Bear (talk) 02:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

Right.Although in many cases it's not right because all the genres(alt rock,hard rock,indie rock and etc.) would go under the term rock.But in this case you're right.But I think as britpop is more sourced and describes their style better(as it's Damon Albarn band),if we are to just write one,it should be britpop.Solino_{the Wolf} 10:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Guitar Hero 5

A Gorillaz song has been confirmed to be included in Guitar Hero 5. http://gh5.guitarhero.com/about.php

Band members changed?

Is it right to change the Gorillaz new fictional members? You know, Russell, althought has a "ident video", is missing from the album's music and new video, and Noodle is missing altogether. So, would do any good change the new "members" to just 2-D, Murdoc and, probably, Cyborg Noodle? Or do we wait for more Gorillaz story to unfold? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xwexarexbulletsx (talk • contribs) 04:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

71.229.47.192 (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say, no, Russel is going to be in newer videos once they are released probally. And I suggest waiting to see, as a noodle ident video has been seen for about two seconds on a new Plastic Beach TV ad on Comedy Central and other channels, however you may add Cyborg Noodle as she is now an official band member it seems but lets just wait it out to see what happens with Russel and Noodle before jumping to edit that they are no longer in the band, hm? Dobat 1:08 EST March 16 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.144.155.185 (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Noodle and Russel both reternd at the same time. i saw album art of Noodle riding on A giant Russels head —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.162.42.43 (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Gorillaz Sound System

Well, i found a couple of images from the Gorillaz Sound System. This ones were from Bloomsbury Ballroom.

Logo: http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/6062/newlogoz.jpg Image 1: http://www.gorillazsoundsystem.com/swf/images/GSS1.jpg Image 2: http://www.gorillazsoundsystem.com/swf/images/GSS2.jpg Image 3: http://www.gorillazsoundsystem.com/swf/images/GSS3.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laundromatlock (talk • contribs) 15:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

What in the hell...?

Whatever happened in here? Gorillaz now features Damon and Jamie as members, and no picture? Just who did this? If at least, put the fictional members back, along Damon and Jamie, and a picture, for God's sakes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.198.37.231 (talk) 06:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be to treat Gorillaz as an Albarn and Hewlett project, with only minimal acknowledgment of the virtual band. I disagree myself, but the whole article has been recently rebuilt to reflect this take. Zazaban (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The picture was removed from Commons as a copyright violation. TNXMan 19:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the band members. The band members may be fictional, but they are the members. A fictional band has fictional members. Zazaban (talk) 19:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I would list both considering that Gorillaz IS by Jamie and Damon but the fictional members are the main part, seeing the fact that the actual members ALWAYS change except for Damon it makes sense to use the fictional members as the face of the band itself. The bands different from other bands you cant list the members because in technicality there is only one member and thats Damon in reality. But I do indeed endorse that the fictional members be used, Jamie just does the artwork. (Dobat The Hobbat.) 14:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dobat (talk • contribs)

• A good Fair Use case. No free image is possible for the copyrighted characters, therefore, Fair Use is justifyed.Garret Beaumain (talk) 05:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Emphasis on the virtual band / real musicians etc - this article has taken a serious wrong direction I feel

The whole point of Gorillaz has always been that to all intents and purposes it IS an animated, virtual band. The current album had far more special guests than previous albums which is why these are being emphasized at the moment, but the allusions to the cartoon characters I feel are FAR too weak in the current version of the article. Reading the opening paragraph it actually reads as if the characters are just a side show created for "merchandising" purposes, when in fact they are the main focus of the band itself and always have been. I don't know who decided this should be changed but it's my opinion as a long time Gorillaz fan that the current description of how the virtual band concept works is utterly incorrect. Even "they are considered a virtual band by the media" - where the hell did this come from, it was Damon and Jamie themselves who have ALWAYS said that Gorillaz IS a virtual band... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hatrickpatrick (talk • contribs) 21:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely. The point is that it's a band made up of cartoon characters. There seems to be a campaign in this article to understate the role of the virtual characters as much as possible and portray them as little more than a minor gimmick. The way the article is set up right now gives the the reader an impression that is, essentially, wrong. Zazaban (talk) 21:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). We must stress on real-world information as much as possible. Thus, although in the Gorillaz fictional universe, the band consists of those four characters, in reality Gorillaz is Damon Albarn and Jamie Hewlett. And they created those characters as a way of presenting the music; this is what the lead tries to convey.—indopug (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree as much as possible with you Hatrick as I am an avid Gorillaz fan but aside from the characters Wikipedia pages (Since the only way you can write about them is through the Gorillaz universe in fact since they arent actually real.) the actual Gorillaz page itself must have information only of the actual people. Even though Gorillaz is meant to be how you said, it conflicts with Wikipedias policy and theres no special treatment went writing about the band as much as I hate to say it. So we have to emphasise the reality side of it. Although I dont agree that they play it out as a merchandising bonus because they are an animated band and it almost sounds POV on it but I feel the article is perfectly fine for now. (Dobat The Hobbat.) 13:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It's too much though in my opinion, the article is far too unbalanced towards discrediting the fact that the characters are in fact the heart and soul of the band. In particular this line: "In the mainstream and commercial outlets it is known as a "virtual band" because for their image and promotion" - this really does understate their importance far too much. "mainstream and commercial outlets"? It's Damon and Jamie themselves who state that Gorillaz is a virtual band, not mere media speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hatrickpatrick (talk • contribs) 19:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

That is actually a very good point. I've been trying to make it alot more neutral but its fairly difficult to do. Dobat 02:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dobat (talk • contribs)

The sentence "In the mainstream and commercial outlets it is known as a "virtual band" because for their image and promotion, instead of displaying the musicians of the band, it has used a group of comic book characters." isn't particularly good anyway. What if the lead paragraph were to begin:

Gorillaz is a musical project created in 1998 by Damon Albarn of Britpop band Blur and British cartoonist Jamie Hewlett, co-creator of the comic book Tank Girl. This project consists of the Gorillaz music itself and an extensive fictional universe depicting a "virtual band" of comic book characters. This band is composed of four animated members: 2D (lead vocalist, keyboard), Murdoc Niccals (bass guitar), Noodle (guitar and occasional vocals) and Russel Hobbs (drums and percussion). Their fictional universe is explored through the band's website and music videos, as well as a number of other media. The music is a collaboration between various musicians, Albarn being the only permanent musical contributor. Their style is a composition of multiple musical genres, with a large number of influences including: dub, hip hop, alternative rock, electronic and pop music.

Thoughts? 132.162.164.169 (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Seeing no objections or comments, I will make the change. 132.162.164.169 (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Gorillaz images

I think some images of the Gorillaz virtual member should be put, because that's how they represent themselves. When I usually ask some people if they like Gorillaz, the ones that doesn't know them very much they just say "oh, they're the cartoons of that graveyard video, and the jeep video right?". The Damon picture it's alright, 'cause he's the "leader", but I believe some Phase 1-3 pictures, depicting the evolution, the art and the members of the virtual members should be better than just depicting Damon in all the page. And of course, some Jamie Hewlett pictures would be great. If not, well, we should call this page "Damon Albarn's Gorillaz". Any thoughts on that? --Xwexarexbulletsx (talk) 23:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• Dont't talk, just upload a Fair Use image and tag it properly, add a FU rationale and be happy. Garret Beaumain (talk) 13:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Ongoing Genre War

So far for the past few weeks a multitude of people have been editing, reverting, and stating their own opinions on the genre of Gorillaz, obviously they have ALOT of different songs that they play in and have played in and varied greatly and I'm hoping we could just settle on one single genre in the discussion page instead of heaving an edit war. Dobat 16:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dobat (talk • contribs)

Arix Moore?

Someone called GorillazWiki continues to vandalize adding a member (Who appears to actually be a Facebook user who is a fan of Gorillaz, says Google) who has never been by any means apart of Gorillaz, Logan has been removing this person but GorillazWiki continues to add them saying that 'they are the proof', by that I guess that means they are saying that THEY'RE the Gorillaz, highly doubtful. Could we discuss it here instead of flooding peoples watch lists with edits? Dobat the Hobbat 12:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dobat (talk • contribs)

Since the user has made no attempt to communicate aside from "we are the proof," I would say continue to revert their edits and give them warnings on their user talk page. If they persist, they will be blocked. -- Fyrefly (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I never have the ability to remove their edits but it's obviously incorrect, perhaps they have good will intentions but I agree if they continue to give them a warning on their talk page. User:Dobat Dobat the Hobbat 15:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright, let's talk former/current members.

Note: If you don't feel like reading this large paragraph, just read the last sentence. It gets the point across.

So, as you reading this may know, there is currently an edit war going on on this page. The topic: Whether or not Noodle (the real one) and Russel still count as members of the fictional Gorillaz band or not. From what I can see, there are only two actual, named Wikipedians participating in this war: Myself and Dobat. I stand with the position that Noodle and Russel should not be counted as current members of the fictional band, even though they have not officially left, and no matter what very recent accompanying video at live shows may say. Dobat, who I'd like to state I feel no personal animosity against (if you ask me there is too much fighting on Wikipedia, some members like to think they're high and mighty and can act like jerks because of it), seems to think (judging from the edits they've made) that Noodle and Russel should, despite the fact that, in the fictional story of Gorillaz, did not work whatsoever on the Plastic Beach album and have been shown (in the 02 commercial especially) not to be in the live touring band of the fictional Gorillaz, should still considered current members of the band (however, it might be worth it to note that it seems like Dobat thinks of their status more as "out of action" judging by the way their time in the band still ends at 2006).

So, (and I hope I haven't scared you away with that wall of text), what I want to know is, whether you're Dobat or fruit bat or Jasper Batt Jr., what do you think the page should say? Are Russel and Noodle still in the current fictional Gorillaz band, or should they be counted as former members, even though they still have a place in the story of Plastic Beach? --LoganTheGeshrat (talk) 02:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

First note:I have read your entire paragraph and I enjoyed reading it as well.

Second note:I have to say I laughed in a friendly way at it, it was pretty funny! (Glad you're taking it light-heartedly.), I've actually been at war with some IP's who continue to say they are active members and I accidentally did not realize that it was you who had edited it last and furiously re-edited it believing it was the same IP's who had been for the past weeks or so.

I agree that they have not done any recording on the album and basically have been essentially not real 'members' this last phase. But I can't see them as 'former' members either. I suppose they could be considered 'missing in action', not former members, but perhaps a new section that shows that, although they have done no recording they haven't literally 'quit'? Perhaps?

User:Dobat Dobat the Hobbat 12:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, that's definitely possible. After all, as far as the editing of this page goes, we members are pretty much the highest up. We could put something in the page and no one except an admin (and they don't seem to visit the page much) would be able to contest it. Rather than creating a whole new section, we should probably just note before Noodle and Russel's entries that they are not musically involved in the current phase. So, should their time in the band still end at 2006, or should it go up until the present?

Thanks for your understanding on all this. Who says edit wars can't be civilized? --LoganTheGeshrat (talk) 02:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree noting that they are not 'musically' invovled but are still invovled in the band. I suggest keeping them as 'current' would work seeing as we noted they are not musically involved and people should understand that they are current members only because they are still technically members. (I remember seeing somewhere that at a live show Noodle apparently played the Melodica on a screen, not sure though. P: )

I always try to keep things civilized. :D User:Dobat Dobat the Hobbat 02:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the melodica video is what I meant by "recent accompanying video at live shows". I don't quite think that indicates that they're in the band. I believe it was just what it was....An accompanying video.--LoganTheGeshrat (talk) 06:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Alrighty then, as long as we're on the same page at least, I understand what you mean about the accompanying video.. User:Dobat Dobat the Hobbat 12:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've finally gone ahead and made a change....However, it's a bit different than what was proposed, in light of Murdoc's explanation of "Doncamatic" where he mentions who seems to be the REAL Noodle as co-writer on the song. So, the change has undergone a change, with Noodle now being considered an active member of the band. And rather than noting before Russel's entry that he's not active, I merely changed his timeline to show the years he WAS active. Pretty good, no?

If you (or anyone else, I suppose) has any objections to this, go ahead and tell me, but whatever we decide on, I will defend to the death. I will tattoo "UN" on one of my fists and "DO" on the other, because I'm going to be doing a lot of those. As far as I'm concerned, whatever we come up with here is law for this page. Let's end this war! --LoganTheGeshrat (talk) 00:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Well alright then I'll help keep the members page nice and monitored for now on, glad we got to a conclusion! User:Dobat Dobat the Hobbat 11:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)