Talk:Silverchair

Name

They did not get their name from a nirvana song. They made this up, as clearly stated in this interview [1]. They actually got it from the CS Lewis novel. I tried to put this into the article, referencing the interview, with clear proof, yet it still got deleted. Nomae (talk) 09:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

YouTube is not considered a reliable source. Does this interview appear anywhere else—is it verifiable in any other reliable sources? Giggy (talk) 10:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Just watched the interview, looked through some sources, and the stuff Chris says in it is indeed backed up. Edited as such. If we can find something definitive either way that'd be good. (Do you know the source, or anything like that, of the interview on youtube?) Giggy (talk) 10:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

And yet I clearly remember Daniel Johns stating in an early Triple J interview that this was NOT the case. He claimed that the name was thought up when they wrote down two songs to request on Triple J's Super Request show - Nirvana's `Sliver' and You Am I's `Berlin Chair', and the two words sounded good together.

The current format, simply listing the different theories that have been expounded over the years (including by band members) is OK, but it would be better with sources. 220.233.12.16 (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

There was a sentence insisting that the band name be spelled with a lowercase s, but the only source was a personal page hosted on tripod. Whether the statement is factual or not, caution should be taken with self-published sources, so I changed the sentence unless a more reliable source can be found. Lusanaherandraton (talk) 06:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you add punk song 2 by silverchair JIBBZSHUGZ (talk) 02:01, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Grunge in the lede

What is the reason for removing the link to grunge from the first sentence? It is essential. Dartslilly (talk) 09:02, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this here. 3 reasons: 1 - there is a policy specifically related to this (but I'll be damned if I can find it now, been searching for ages. If another editor doesn't come along soon to remind me and you insist, I will find it!) that states we should keep the opening line as simple as possible and use a generalized description of the genre's. Given that rock is all encompassing of the 3 genre's, it gives that general description. 2 - Grunge is sourced lower down in the musical style section and specifically states they incorporated in their earlier work, hence the "early" text in the infobox next to the genre. 3 - Grunge is possibly not even the most prolific genre they are known for. One could just as well open the article with "Silverchair were an Australian Alternative rock band"... What about "Silverchair were an Australian Alternative Art rock Grunge band"... I'm sure you get my point. I realize you want to link a featured article to the opening sentence but that, in my opinion then corrodes at the quality of this featured article. Robvanvee 12:20, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@Robvanvee: You make some good points, I agree that Silverchair could fit within multiple genres including alternative. Perhaps improving the rock music article would be a better approach to improving the quality of those articles that are linked prominently. Dartslilly (talk) 12:41, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for being so understanding Dartslilly. Yes I guess that would make more sense. Once I find that link for the policy I mentioned I'll share it to your talk page. Happy editing! Robvanvee 12:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Post-grunge and baroque pop

At the request of @SpaceHelmetX1, I'm discussing why post-grunge shouldn't be in the infobox.

1. It's redundant. I know some bands, like Bush, have grunge and post-grunge in the infobox, but Silverchair has been described as more genres, so it seems a waste.

2. Only one of their albums, Freakshow, and one of their songs, Tommorow, are called post-grunge on Wikipedia. Two of their albums, Diorama and Young Modern, are labeled as baroque pop, and the song Straight Lines.

3. I'd say alt-rock is the only genre you can describe all of Silverchair's albums as, but also having grunge, art rock and baroque pop gives a good idea of how their sound evolved. What does post-grunge do?

4. Baroque pop has two sources and post-grunge has one. All these sources seem reliable from what I've seen on the Reliable Source Noticeboard CleoCat16 (talk) 00:02, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

If your requirement is regarding the number of refs, I'll solve it in a minute, since I've already found another one for the post-grunge label.

The body of the article states that the band started as grunge and post-grunge. Their early albums are described as grunge, post-grunge, and alt-metal (in the case of their debut). There's a recommendation that band article infoboxes have a max. of four genres. Knowing this, I think the right thing to do here is to keep the same four that were already in the infobox, adding the tag "early" for grunge and post-grunge. So, the order must be: alt-rock, art rock, grunge (early), and post-grunge (early). SpaceHelmetX1 (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

My question is, what does post-grunge say that grunge does not? Why do you need two early genres, when three are sourced in the body for the band's later work? Alt-rock can be applied to all of the band's albums (it's not on Frogstomp or Freakshow's article but I've seen sources for it), art rock can be applied to Neon Ballroom onwards, baroque pop can be applied to Diorama onwards, and grunge and post-grunge can be applied to the first two, maybe three, albums.

Genres in the infobox are supposed to be general, and alt-rock, grunge, art rock and baroque pop do that. Having grunge and post-grunge puts too much emphasis on their early work.

Also, I can always find more sources for baroque pop, as you can with post-grunge, so I don't think that's a good way to settle this. Grunge also shouldn't be put as early since songs from the first two albums were regulars in the band's setlist until the day they broke up. CleoCat16 (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't like the last argument (the band's setlists...). Sounds kinda nonsense. There's no policy or guideline that says to not include two early genres in a band's infobox. In fact, there are more articles with two early genres in the infobox. There's nothing wrong with that. If the IP (you've cited) had added post-grunge without providing any ref, I would be the first editor to revert them, but that label is supported by the article. Not to mention that in two years, nobody has been bothered by the IP's addition, you were the first user to express discomfort with it. SpaceHelmetX1 (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

You still haven't answered why you think two early genres are necessary. I never said you can't have two, (I know Sugar Ray does, but I'm fine with that as they've not spanned as many genres as Silverchair) but you're putting too much emphasis on the band's early work.

You've not given a reason why you're against baroque pop either. Also, age is not a determining factor of an edit's quality. You know how many stubs and articles with little to no sources have existed for years? CleoCat16 (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Other editors didn't care about the IP's addition. Sugar Ray's article is a good example. No, IMO baroque pop shouldn't be in the infobox. Regarding the quality/time of that edit... I don't think the IP was wrong, and I also think I was clear by saying that I would be the first editor to revert them if they had added an unsourced content. SpaceHelmetX1 (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Do you want to simply delete post-grunge from the infobox? Or remove it and add a new genre in its place? SpaceHelmetX1 (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah. Technically we can have five genres, with post-grunge and baroque pop, but I don't think that's necessary as, again, we already have grunge. CleoCat16 (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

There's a recommendation to keep a max. of four genres in an artist infobox. If baroque pop can be added, why can't prog-rock be added too? You haven't yet answered whether your goal is simply delete post-grunge from the infobox or add a new genre in its place. If the latter is correct, you'll need to start a new discussion explaining why, in your opinion, baroque pop or any other genre should be added to the infobox. But please, never switch the genres before starting a discussion on the article's talk page. SpaceHelmetX1 (talk) 18:42, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I've already said, my intention is to replace post-grunge with baroque pop. Also, the four genres is only a recommendation, not a rule, but it's probably best to follow it here CleoCat16 (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

That recommendation applies to all the articles about bands/artists. The name of the topic is "post-grunge," and the discussion on it is whether or not such genre should be in the infobox. To add any other genres, you'll need add a new topic explaining why you think they should be included in the infobox. You could create a new topic with the name "baroque pop," as you did with post-grunge. SpaceHelmetX1 (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Request for comment

What genre, post-grunge or baroque pop, is more appropriate in the band's infobox, as discussed in Talk:Silverchair#Post-grunge and baroque pop and the recent edits? Both genres have the same amount of sources, but the former is more associated with the band's early work, while the latter is more associated with the band's later work. CleoCat16 (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

• I didn't decline to participate. I've responded to everything you've pointed out. Again, the discussion is about whether to remove post-grunge or not. If you want to add another genre, you should create a new topic here on the talk page, explaining why you think that new genre should be included. That's how things work here. SpaceHelmetX1 (talk) 01:44, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
• Based on the number of citations for each genre, I'd go with Alternative rock, grunge, post-grunge, baroque pop. It's admittedly a very superficial analysis. If we're going with something else, I'd love to know why. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:57, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

The problem is anyone can add sources to sway the genres in their favor. I think generality is a better principle to go off. I'll likely replace my duscussion with one that makes more clear, as my first comment was misunderstood. CleoCat16 (talk) 21:57, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

If there are more reliable sources that mention a genre, we should absolutely encourage people to bring them up. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:01, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

• CleoCat16 please reword the RFC to ask a neutral brief question per WP:RFCBEFORE. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Done CleoCat16 (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

• I'm in Australia and was going through high school when they started playing. Most sources I've seen refer to them as alternative rock. I'd suggest to keep it simple and use that description. TarnishedPath^talk 22:45, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not opposed to that. The Smashing Pumpkins and Placebo do the same on their articles, as while spanning many genres, that's the only one that can be applied to all of their releases. The same is true for Silverchair. They've been desribed as grunge, post-grunge and art rock, but only on specific albums. CleoCat16 (talk) 22:53, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  That can be gone into in more detail in the body of the article if need be. Infoboxes aren't meant for jamming in every last bit of information. TarnishedPath^talk 23:05, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, I agree. The body already says "Silverchair is primary an alternative rock band" before going into detail about their more specific genres. CleoCat16 (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

  Since the body of the article emphasizes that they are primarily an alternative rock band, I get why it should be the primary genre in the infobox. The problem is: if we have more than one genre in the infobox, the genre in the lead should summarize rather than specify. What I mean by that in practice: if the genres there are alt-rock, art rock, grunge, and post-grunge, then the genre in the lead should be broad. All of these labels are genres/subgenres of rock music, so the genre in the lead and in the short description should be it. After the sentence "primarily described as an alternative rock band," we can read: "who started out as a grunge and post-grunge band." In other words, the body of the article states that they started as grunge and post-grunge, so those are their early genres. So, given my experience, I believe we should include the tag "early" for both in the infobox. To remove "art-rock" from there, a new discussion would need to be started, since it has been there for a long time. SpaceHelmetX1 (talk) 03:35, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

  I would suggest only having the one genre in the infobox and I'd suggest that be the broadest one which is ascribed by the most sources. TarnishedPath^talk 07:24, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

  But why shouldn't the art-rock label be there? To be clear, I have nothing for or against that label, but it has been there in the infobox for many years. As I stated before, to remove it, we need to add a new topic discussing its removal (this also applies to those that can be added to infobox). Again, the text states that the band started out as a grunge and post-grunge band, therefore I believe we should add the tag "early" for both, so the infobox would stay like this: alt-rock (described as the primary genre in the text, so it should be the first one), art rock, grunge (early), and post-grunge (early). Anyway, we need to wait for other editors' comments. SpaceHelmetX1 (talk) 07:43, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

  But why shouldn't the art-rock label be there?

  Because if we jammed everything from the article into infobox it would be unwieldy.

  Per MOS:INFOBOX, the infobox is for summarising key facts from the article. What those key facts are is up for debate. I however tend to think less than more. There's plenty of space in the article to go into nuances. TarnishedPath^talk 10:57, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

  Therefore the right thing to do here is create a new thread to discuss the removal of art-rock (and this applies to any other genre, whether for remove or add it). The fact that such label has been there for many years means we should discuss its removal more deeply. What I'm proposing here is to add the tag "early" to both grunge and post-grunge cause the text clearly states that the band started out as grunge and post-grunge. Not to mention that we don't need to reduce them to one monolithic label. SpaceHelmetX1 (talk) 18:44, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

  No new thread is needed. If consensus were to form in this discussion for the removal of anything but 'alternative rock', any competent closer would state that in the close. The consensus formed in an RFC is not determined by the question asked. Let's see where the discussion goes. TarnishedPath^talk 00:08, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

  I believe that to discuss the removal of any genre that has been there in the infobox for many years, the discussion needs to be more in-depth and not simply "I don't like it, so remove it", which means it requires a new thread. Let's wait for a consensus to form, cause our opinions here in this discussion are deeply divergent. I stand by my statement that the tag "early" should be added to both grunge and post-grunge, as the text clearly specifies that the band started out as grunge and post-grunge. One more thing: if art rock shouldn't be there, logically, progressive rock, baroque pop, hardcore punk... shouldn't either. SpaceHelmetX1 (talk) 01:40, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

• Regarding the original question of post-grunge vs. baroque pop in the infobox, I believe post-grunge is more appropriate. While both genres are relevant to specific periods of Silverchair's career, post-grunge has had a more foundational and enduring influence on their music. Post-grunge elements can be traced throughout their discography, even in their later work. The baroque pop style was progressively layered onto their existing sound rather than replacing it entirely (at least when viewed at the album level, if not the song/single level). Without their post-grunge origins, it's unlikely that Silverchair's later baroque pop era would have existed or sounded the same. Post-grunge is more representative of their overall musical identity and evolution. However, I agree with previous comments suggesting that "alternative rock" is the most inclusive primary genre label for the infobox, with the article body detailing their stylistic changes over time, including both post-grunge and baroque pop. Uncountableinfinity (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

  One detail that I confess wasn't clear to me when reading your comment: do you think that alt-rock should be the ONLY genre in the infobox? Please clarify this. There's a recommendation that articles about bands/artists have a max. of four genres in their infoboxes. While that four-genre template isn't respected by all articles here on Wikipedia, see articles like Michael Jackson's, which has nine genres in its infobox (something that, IMO, is kinda an overkill, since three or four genres is enough to define an artist's work anyway). Having said that, this article may have five, six, seven, ten... genres in its infobox, but on the other hand, I also think that we shouldn't include every possible genre in the infobox. Logically, for the same reason I think art rock may be removed from the infobox, I also think that the tags for hardcore punk, baroque pop, and any other genre... shouldn't be there as well. What the text states is that the band is primarily alt-rock, so it should stay as the primary genre in the infobox, but after that sentence, the text states that they started out as a grunge and post-grunge band, for that reason my suggestion is to include the tag "early" for both and to remove art rock from there (since other editors didn't show any discomfort about its removal). So, IMO, the ideal format for the infobox is: alternative rock, grunge (early), and post-grunge (early), with "rock" being the genre in the lead and in the short description, since the genre in the lead should be broad. SpaceHelmetX1 (talk) 01:37, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  Honestly, I could see three approaches that would achieve the goals the infobox sets out to achieve. Here they are in my order of preference (Note: this is a preference, I think all three have merit):

  1) Alternative rock only - It's simple, it's not misleading by omission, and it has precedent in similar articles like Placebo (band) and The Smashing Pumpkins. This approach acknowledges that Silverchair's various stylistic phases all fall under the broader alternative rock umbrella.

  2) Alternative rock, grunge, post-grunge - This captures their foundational sound while maintaining the alternative rock classification that encompasses their entire career evolution.

  3) Alternative rock, grunge, art rock, post-grunge - This focuses on their most defining and enduring sounds while sticking to the well-established four-genre presentation.

  In all three cases, I don't think the "(early)" tag is necessary. I understand your reasoning for it, and some readers may appreciate the chronological clarification, but I think it's trying to squeeze more facts from the article into the infobox than the space warrants. The infobox should contain the minimum information possible while still achieving its goal of quick identification. I think it accomplishes that without the "(early)" addition, and readers seeking detailed information about their stylistic evolution can find that in the article body where it can be properly contextualised.

  Per WP:OVERCAT, we should avoid over-categorisation in infoboxes when the broader genre term adequately represents the subject. Uncountableinfinity (talk) 11:58, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  First of all, I've noticed that your account was created 9 days ago, on 8 August. You know that there are policies/guidelines here that prohibit users from creating new accounts, after announcing the retirement of an account, to continue editing as a sock on articles that the old account used to edit and that got involved in a content dispute there, right? Regarding your comment, WP:OVERCAT doesn't talk about that. In fact, it talks about the excessive addition of categories to an article. It states that we don't need to add CATEGORIES to every fact in an article. I would classify this as a misinterpretation of a guideline. Having questioned this, I stand by my suggestion of adding the tag "early" to both grunge and post-grunge genres in the infobox, as the text states that they started out as a grunge and post-grunge band, keeping alt-rock as the primary one, and simply "rock" as the genre in the lead, since it should be broad. Initially, I thought we should discuss the removal/addition of any genre, but other editors have questioned my POV regarding this by stating that this is an RFC, therefore we can ask for removal of any genre. For the same reason I think that genres such as progressive rock, hardcore punk, baroque pop... shouldn't be in the infobox, per logic, I also think that art rock shouldn't be. We don't need to add every possible genre to an artist infobox. On the other hand, both grunge and post-grunge are classified as their early genres by the text, and that's a notable info, therefore it should not be simply ignored. I don't agree with the idea of their genres being reduced to a monolithic label. WP:GWARRIOR points out that genre warriors often like to reduce the genres of an artist to a monolithic label, and that they may also insist on applying every genre they can think of to an infobox. That's not the ideal behavior since we're trying to be unbiased. SpaceHelmetX1 (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  @SpaceHelmetX1 Not that I owe anyone an explanation, but this is not a sock. I've never edited on the same pages (of which there were two) that my old account had, and admins are aware of the reason for the change. I opted for a new account over a rename as my old account, while being old, had not made sufficient edits to warrant a rename. I resent the implication to be honest. You asked my opinion and I gave it, you can disagree with it. I appreciate that this community can be civil in disagreements, it is the foundation of several of the processes here, it's how opinions get changed, it's how people learn. I'll not engage with you again, as you've proven your desire to be right is greater than your desire to be civil, and I want no part of it. Uncountableinfinity (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  My bad, I didn't accuse you of anything either, I didn't make any claims. What happened was that an editor (@CleoCat16) announced their retirement a few days ago. They got involved in a content dispute here in this article. I noticed that you've created your account a few days ago too. I just found the whole situation too odd, but I didn't accuse you of anything. Apparently, there was just a misunderstanding. Anyway, if I just wanted to be right, I would have already edited the article to my preferred version. The fact that I'm here arguing means I want to find a consensus, but I also see that opinions here are very broad. Again, don't be angry with me. Apparently, there was a serious misunderstanding. I'm sorry. SpaceHelmetX1 (talk) 21:53, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

• I think Alternative rock is the best option because it serves as an umbrella term for all of the previously defined genres. the article elaborates in the body where needed, and sticking a footnote in the infobox should suffice. Waning Star (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

  Once again, a new account, red-tagged, created 9 days ago, appears here with a opinion similar to those from @CleoCat16. We're seeing a pattern repeating itself here. As I stated before, there are policies/guidelines here that prohibit users from announcing their retirement and then returning with a new account, i.e., as a sock, to edit articles where they've previously been involved in trouble. They've already been warned about that. Another clue, the user has already stated on their talk page that they're not new here. If this pattern continues to repeat itself here and in other articles, even with them creating more accounts, I'll leave a warning on their talk page(s) and move the issue to the appropriate place. Regarding the comment itself, I've already stated that we don't need to reduce a band's genres to a lone monolithic label. Articles such as the Nirvana's one has both grunge and alternative rock in its infobox. Bush's article has post-grunge, grunge, and alternative rock in its infobox. Temple of the Dog's main article has both grunge and alt-rock in its infobox. Pearl Jam's one has both alt-rock and grunge in its infobox... and I could cite several other articles as an example to show that such a suggestion is quite nonsense. With that in mind, I keep my suggestion to leave alt-rock, grunge, and post-grunge in the infobox, adding the tag "early" to both grunge and post-grunge 'cause the text states that Silverchair has started out as a grunge and post-grunge band. SpaceHelmetX1 (talk) 05:01, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

  Note: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CleoCat16. South of the Tongass (talk) 00:35, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

FA issues

• I found multiple incomplete references, such as footnote 5, that do not fully indicate authorship, publication/access date, or
• Reference 7 (Chairpage News Archive) is broken and incomplete.
• Formation blends into first album. Most band articles have the foundation/pre-fame, then a dedicated section on the first album. I also feel this part is very oddly written, with lots of one- and two-sentence paragraphs. There's also almost no info on the making of, nor how it was received outside a perfunctory Allmusic review.
• "Et al" in footnotes. Is this acceptable?

Honestly my biggest issue so far is it needs a major copy edit. Everything's just presented in random chunks and the text flows very poorly. There's a lot of "in this year, this thing happened. In that year, that thing happened."

Pinging @Electricmaster:, the most prominent editor of this page who isn't retired. Also pinging @Bowling is life:. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:24, 19 August 2025 (UTC)