Talk:A II Z

This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-09-27. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Untitled

I see that someone has proposed this article for deletion. This clearly has been done by someone not familiar with the genre of NWOBHM.

The article certainly needs improvement and expansion, but as a significant inspirational force and at the forefront of the movement at its beginnings, it would be a denial of knowledge not to acknowledge this band. The article needs improvement, not deletion. I would appeal to fans and rock journalists au fait with the NWOBHM to augment and strengthen the case for this article. Headshaker 16:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crap

The band was crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.136.243 (talk) 10:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was vs Were

convention in BrE is to treat bands as a collective plural noun. See feature articles like the Beatles the Kinks for a well established precedent.Bryce Carmony (talk) 01:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The actual guidance is at Comparison of American and British English#Formal and notional agreement.
UK bands like Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin etc. all use the plural were. As A II Z came from Manchester, were is correct.
I understand that Bryce Carmony has been edit-warring about this, which is a separate problem. It does not mean other editors should deliberately insert errors, when he is using the correct terminology. - Arjayay (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not edit warring I'm just editing Wikipedia, I've changed a few American bands from Are to Is. I've changed a few UK bands from is to are. it's not a war, it's just a minor change to make the articles follow the convention we're using more consistently. Not a war at all. Bryce Carmony (talk) 17:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]