Jump to content

Talk:L7 (band)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

L7?

[edit]

make mention of what L7 means. Kingturtle 23:00 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

Seven lesbians? Unjudgemental. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:959B:3325:1EF2:CF1B (talk) 12:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
L7 (plural L7s) (slang) A square; a stuffy or uncool person. 201.7.143.73 (talk) 12:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appearance

[edit]

notably being the only people to appear twice where?? -- John Owens 23:02 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

I think the page addresses both of these issues now Jimregan 23:55 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

GTA: San Andreas

[edit]

Someone should make mention of the song featured in GTA: san Andreas. There normally is a reference.

Another meaning of L7?

[edit]

I've heard the idea that L7 comes from the old slang term for square before, but I've also heards another theory which (to me, at least) makes just as much sense. The Chinese pictogram for woman can be seen as a stylised overlaid L and 7 (女). Is there any truth to the idea that this was at least in part the origin of the band's name? Grutness...wha? 04:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The logo (in our western glyphs) is arranged that way... 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:959B:3325:1EF2:CF1B (talk) 12:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can guarantee you it’s ‘50s slang. I remember Suzie when she lived on Kodak maybe mid-‘85 coming over and telling us they’d come up with a name for their new band and using the L7 hand thing (make an L with one hand and a 7 with the other, for “square”). Like in the lyrics of the song Wooly Bully. I guess it was ironic, seemed like a cool name. 109.103.81.6 (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's like what the # 69 means. A sexual reference. The arrangement of human bodies resembles a L adjacent to a 7. Your researching too much.Xanarki 01:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese L7 article

[edit]

I've noticed that the L7 article in the Portuguese language ([1]) appears to have a great deal more information than this one. For example the biography has sections devoted to each album. However as i'm unable to speak Portuguese I can't understand it very well. Perhaps (with the help of someone who can) some of the information could be shared with this English article, and even with L7 in other languages?

[edit]

Hi. I'm wondering where do I find good L7 pictures galleries on the net, live or non-live pictures. Anyone?? thanks!

I don't know right offhand {google images is a good place to start) but in regards to your use of the term "non-live" pictures, I presume you mean pictures of them off-stage, and not dead. Right? Generally speaking, pictures of bands not performing are referred to as "promotional"--promo for short--posed pictures. (On-stage performance shots may also be used as promos.) The other type--impromptu pictures taken by paparazzi, fans or friends are called "candids." The term "non-live" means, to me, you want pictures of them dead!--Subwoofer (talk) 08:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Riot Grrrls?

[edit]

The article states that L7 are incorrectly grouped with the Riot Grrrl movement, but when you follow the link to Riot Grrrl, the first band mentioned as being associated with that movement is... L7! Notb665 (talk) 05:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They also are referenced as "riot grrrls" in the Feminism article. I do not know enough about the subject to know which one to change, but this is something that should be rectified.--Jickyincognito (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Song articles

[edit]

Do you feel "Shove", "Shitlist", and "Andres" could have articles? I think at least Andres deserves one, but I want the opinion of whoever is in charge of L7 articles before I start any of them in fear of their deletion. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 19:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Some of the links here are no longer available and should be put to review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.219.103.7 (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on L7 (band). 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 02:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on L7 (band). 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 15:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on L7 (band). 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 22:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

[edit]

This is a candidate for a B-class article. Geschichte (talk) 10:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Art Punk? Metal?

[edit]

Where do you kids get these crazy ideas? I can’t even guess what would have qualified as art rock in Hollywood in 1984-85. Dirtbag rock would have been more like it. The band kind of grew out of the Disgraceland scene. Raji’s, the Cathay, those places. Definitely not “Metal” clubs either-like what, Gazarri’s? Man it is funny to see how Wikipedia gets things wrong! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.103.81.6 (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Errr...the only time "art punk" is mentioned in the article is at the beginning, before L7 was formed. According to Donita in the book She's a Rebel, herself and Suzi were involved in the "art punk" scene. There's nothing implying that L7 is "art punk". As for the "metal" tag, it's only mentioned in the article because other sources have called them "metal" in the past. Specifically, as one of the heavier more metal-like grunge bands. Gruntruck, early Alice in Chains, and Tad are similar in that respect. It doesn't mean L7 is strictly a metal band. I personally think they're punk and grunge all the way, and I think the article does a good job of conveying that. Xanarki (talk) 02:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought Roy setting fire to the Xmas tree in the lobby was pretty arty. SternoJimbo (talk) 02:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Label info in Discographies

[edit]

I just undid somebodies' revert - label names were added to the album info in the Discography (before there was only the album name and the date). The reverter says this isn't done for larger acts (we're talking about bands that also have an expanded discography). Not so, just look at the Replacements, Soul Asylum, Husker Du, and Babes in Toyland for example (I have to admit, they were done by me also). I didn't open these additions up for discussion before doing theme because it seems like a no brainer - simple, helpful information. In a recent informal poll I took, 100% of the respondents said they use band articles in Wikipedia for their disographies mainly. Why not put a very key piece of information in the article people will go to first when seeking discography information, thereby saving them the trouble of having to go to the second article? I contend that listing the label in the discography is very important information that is useful to a lot of people. Knowing when a band switched from indie to major is very significant, for example, and could just be the information people are looking for. The label an album is on is intrinsic to it, and might be used for different reasons also. I reverted back. If people want to discuss this fine, but deleting correct, vital, and helpful information for no other reason than it wasn't done before is counter to the mission of Wikipedia. We're here to add to human knowledge, not restrict it. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) Pete Best Beatles (talk) 08:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The informal survey mentioned above was conducted on me and my brother alone, but I extrapolate(!).

I agree it could be important but the History section kinda shows when the band switched labels, just by the section titles alone. If you truly believe in this, then you gotta take it to one of those WikiProject talk pages (Music or Discographies or something). Because that is where general conscious is decided...not thru trial-and-error on a band's page. I'm not gonna revert it again for now, but I can assure you, unless minds are changed at one of the WikiProject pages, then all of your edita on those pages will be reverted sooner or later. Fyi, I am taking the EP tag off though. Within six months of its release, it became a full-length, and thus they view that version as the official one Judging by your username, you should know this situation already (Magical Mystery Tour?). Xanarki (talk) 14:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've always removed label names from discographies, unless they are included in a proper table with a separate column. I find them distracting and of low relevance. Why would the label be so important to readers? This isn't clear to me.
Also, Pete Best Beatles, I find it borderline disingenuous that you would present supporting examples that are actually manufactured by you, such as discographies you yourself have added labels to, and this so-called informal poll that you conducted. I'm not sure if this is an attempt to be funny, but it reduces your credibility and the validity of your arguments. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:23, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I was totally trying to be light-hearted, sort of self-deprecating. How could a poll of just me and my brother be serious? And if I was trying to put one over on people, I wouldn't have copped to it, that would have been really counterproductive. Maybe my humor is too dry, or maybe there should be no playfulness or levity in Wikipedia.
As a life-long fan of indie music, and a former label-owner myself, I find label information of vital importance. Indie labels like SST, Homestead, Caroline, Rough Trade, etc., not to mention key smaller labels in each city, were vital to the music and each has its own style. What label a band is on is both interesting and important, and relevant when I use a discography. I often scan discographies when I'm deciding what to listen to or what to buy, and the break where a band jumps from indie to major can have profound implications, for example. Plus, I think those sections just look anemic without that information. The upshot is I feel strongly that that the information is relevant; I thought we were here to expand knowledge, not limit it. I'm going to pursue it, as the editor suggested. Do you think I should bring it up to WikiProject Music, WikiProject Discographies, or somewhere else?
-- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 16:00, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Kind of relevant to something else we were working on, I just noticed that the Discography in the Skip Spence article had compilation listings for his time in Jefferson Airplane and Moby Grape, but nothing about any of his solo work appearing on v/a compilations: found 15 legitimate entries immediately! Good fun. Pete Best Beatles (talk) 16:00, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you can take it to Music, since that kinda broadly covers the music articles (WP:Discographies is for the literal Discography pages and not an artist's main page). But I still think it's a pretty bad idea. Think of all the albums that were released on different labels simultaneously. Would you add them all in parenthesis? Looking at what you did now, each line has two sets of parenthesis, (label) (year). That doesn't look structured at all, it looks messy. Sometimes anemic is good. If someone was extremely interested in the labels, they can just scroll up a little bit, and see the Table of Contents. In L7's case, it already says Time with Sub Pop (1989—1991) and Major label releases with Slash (1991—1997). Or they can click the L7 Discography link, which, that's the main purpose of a separate page.
FYI yes, for that guy's page, his solo songs on compilations should be included. Soundtracks, cover comps, commercial albums, etc. are fine but personally, I would omit the sampler/promo compilations. Those "Sony Records 1975 Summer Sampler" and "Epic Records' Upcoming Southern Artists #26" compilations aren't necessary. Xanarki (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pete Best Beatles, I don't think your humour is too dry or not appropriate for Wikipedia. I think it simply works against you, if you are trying to make a point, to use spurious examples. It's even worse to do that, then claim you were just joking and blame others for "not getting it". My point is that there's a time and a place for humour. Also, it's a cheap trick to say things like "I thought we were here to expand knowledge, not limit it". At face value, it dismisses or ignores complexity and the fact that not all content is relevant or contextually appropriate. Upon deeper analysis, it feels like you're pursuing your own agenda and when pressed about it, disingenuously proclaiming your benevolence and persecution at the hands of curmudgeonly editors. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No personal agenda, just giving an example of how an actual person uses Wikipedia, showing empathy with our audience. Giving you some of that context of which you speak. Some users will click directlyon Discography, then won't scroll up to the article. I suppose even people with short attention spans will click on the separate page...I was thinking that saving a click would be a more elegant solution. As for multiple releases at the same time, I didn't know that's a big thing. I've only been working with indie and punk bands (well, Peter Buck too), and I think I've only run into multiple releases once or twice, that was just two labels at a time, and I delt with it. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 22:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding. I just finished the list at Skip Spence, take a look if you will. I didn't think of soundtracks, where would I find info. about them? If "cover comps" are what I think they are, Skip has one (More Oar), and it already has its own section. No samplers on my list! -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 22:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks mostly fine, but make sure you double-check your formatting. For example, you got "Sony Music Media|Sony" on one entry and "End of the Road Records|End of the Road" on another entry. I assume you meant to link those two. Also, make sure it's consistent. The entries you did not enter has Album Title (Label, Year) while your entries are Album Title (Label) (Year). And that guy's article is perfectly fine for putting labels on, since he doesn't have a Discography page. It makes perfect sense for the scenario you described. But as for L7, or pretty much any other major band with separate pages, it doesn't make too much sense. Go ahead and look at Metallica or Nine Inch Nails or The Offspring or even The Beatles, no one has the labels in their Discography list. FYI, Discogs.com is a good place for research, but you can't use that as a reference since Discogs is user-created...unless you were linking directly to images which shows liner notes, which in that case, {{cite av media}} would be used. Xanarki (talk) 23:42, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Riot Grrrl

[edit]

L7 are separate from the Riot Grrrl scene. They were definitely one of the main influences for such bands but the RG was its own separate thing that came after L7 had already been formed for 5 years. I love Riot Grrrl but it’s simply inaccurate to say they were an active member they have even stated this themselves Smellz98 (talk) 21:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article doesn't state that at all...it already clearly clarifies L7's stance with RG in the lede section. Xanarki (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I noticed just before your edit, that an IP user tried to add it in. But yeah, general agreement is that they should not be labeled as such, been that way for years. Xanarki (talk) 05:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey no worries I should have included that I amended it :) absolutely no hate to Riot Grrrl absolutely love it but wanted to amend for younger audiences who wanna get to know their music Smellz98 (talk) 18:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:L7_(band)&oldid=1264036274"