Talk:Big Four

Other meanings

The big four also refers to the "allied" powers of the First World War: Great Britain, France, China and the US, and, curiously, is the name of a fiddle tune from the Stripling Bros. of Alabama.

Tony Mates, Seattle Washington

Umm... I think you meant Great Britain, France, Italy, and the US. The only time China would be any influence (still not a big four) was in the Second World War.DarkGhost89 07:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big Four from Seattle (music)

Took out Smashing Pumpkins, they were not from Seattle and were not grunge.

Big Four unions

Also the Big Four unions in the UK; Amicus, GMB, TGWU and Unison - Jason237 13:40, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Removed Benet Academy entry

Removed "The four dictators at a lunch table at Benet Academy consisting of the four best looking people in the school." under "Other" as Benet Academy is a real institution, and a teenage clique is not encyclopedic. --ghansel

IRC Networks

The source for the Big Four IRC networks ([1]) doesn't mention Freenode, but Wikipedia's article on freenode says "freenode reports nearly 30,000 simultaneous connections at weekly peak." Is irc.netsplit.de missing some important IRC networks like Freenode? -Barry- 09:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

according to http://irc.netsplit.de/networks/details.php?net=freenode&point=days

formerly known as OpenProjectsNet; moved to group mavericks in March 2004 by request of its staff; IRC services available without any problems

i'd guess they were getting two many offtopic users from thier position in the charts and so asked to be moved off them

i checked the other mavericks and all the ones that netsplits bot was actually managing to connect to were well below 10K users.

I visited three of the top four (I couldn't connect to one) and they consist mainly of channels with just one occupant. Freenode is by far the best and busiest in my opinion, at least for computer related chat. Maybe I'll do my own study and not count single-occupant channels. Even better would be for channels with no discussion for over a certain amount of time to not have its occupants counted. I know about the no original research rule, but I have a section of my website that deals with discussion venues like IRC and I'll post the results there and cite that if I create an additional top four list. Don't tell anyone. -Barry- 00:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metallica?

There's something about the first 4 Metallica albums being called "the big four" by some, but I've never heard of anything like that. Adamravenscroft 21:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be confusing the so-called "big four of thrash", which would be Metallica, Megadeth, Anthrax, and Slayer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.73.199.69 (talk) 19:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Music

The whole section about Big Four in music is just stupid. I have heard of big four of thrash metal, and perhaps there is known consept about "big four of british invasion". But besides that, mostly it looks like eople just made up new big fours just to add there favourite artist in to samo big four list. It actually seems that "Big Four" is a consept that sould have an article telling about it, as it seems to be somehow so great thing to have big four. Why is there "The Big Four alternative metal bands of the early '90s" but no "Big Four of popular music" (Elvis, Beatles, Sinatra ad Crosby). At least the music section of this article need some serious work done (mostly deleting). Who cares about "Big four of Liechtensteinian satan worship techo DJ:s in november of 2004" or such things like that. Big Four of Thrash belongs there, Big Four of British invasion, maybe, but I don't see any reason to keep the rest that is there.

fool, it was much better as it was, you ruined it now; it looks boring now and less imformative, at least the grunge rock was right, fool!

Wikipedia even says who the big four of grunge are on each of their pages. Anyone can tell who the big four of seventies hard rock were because they WERE the biggest four names in hard rock in the seventies. And the British Invasion is a fact that everyone knows that doesn't need another website to tell us. You can't keep the ones you like and delete the others. I delted the thrash metal ones because the just as unrefernced or "opinionated" as the others. If it comes back, so should grunge, punk, hard rock, and british invasion.

Agreed. The entire section is unreferenced and obvious original research/opinion/pov whatever you want to call it, and so does not belong. Nouse4aname 12:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bulk of the POV media section was recently turfed(which req'd some due diligence to keep it that way) A "big four of music" article was actually created at some point but was justifiably AfD'd for, as described earlier, being OR/POV/cruft. Big four of thrash is a common reference although I am not 100% sure of its origin. I have been told it was a term coined by Lonn Friend in RIP Magazine. But I do not have verifiable cites for that. Anyone else know if it's a valid term? 156.34.215.109 01:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why, but when I first viewed the page the list was there, i wrote on the discussion page, then back to the article and it was gone! Must have gone to the page via a link to a previous edit or something. Anyway, the term is referenced on the Slayer article to http://www.eraseronline.com/styledisplay.php?Style=93, but not sure how reliable this is. I also find quite a few of the other "Big Fours" questionable...but there we go! Nouse4aname 08:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between the big four of thrash and other big fours is that the big fours of thrash are recognised, consistent, citable, and known outside the thrash fanbase. Very few other 'big fours' will be consistent across multiple sources or well-documented. Speaking of which, there's probably grounds for the big four of thrash to have their own article now, what with the speculation about them playing Soundwave. 143.92.1.33 (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2 missing meanings

Big 4 = four big banks in Australia

IMPORTANT, BIG 4 = jiang quing & other leaders in post-mao china, look it up

Doobfixer 12:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup 2007

I reduced this page down to a list of items thare are genuine "disambiguation" topics. I recommend that nothing further be added unless it's something that's really called "Big Four", and we have a specific page to link it to. --El on ka 04:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well done for being bold. Looks so much better now. Should have done this myself ages ago, but wasn't bold enough! Nouse4aname 15:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) I help out every so often with Category:Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup, and the "numeric" ones are definitely magnets for all kinds of dust bunnies. They just need vacuuming every so often to keep them tidy. ;) --El on ka 15:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-up 2009

I've done some clean-up on here, but I think it may need more. I've added a link to Wiktionary, but it doesn't yet have an entry for 'Big four'. I'm also unsure on whether the entries where there isn't an article on the big four - just four blue links to separate articles - are valid. Anyone clearer on this? Boleyn3 (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the WP article does not specifically state that the person, thing, place, or concept is actually called Big Four, then the internal link should be excised. Agree? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the whole point of a disambiguation page is to clear up potential confusion between topics which have the same name, not to assemble a list of topics which could conceivably be denoted by the same name, but are not. bd2412 T 23:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I started the cleanup, but stopped at the Formula One item; the main article lists none of those racers but instead lists the companies that sponsor the racers. Can't take the time to fix it now. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"PLEASE DO NOT WIKILINK THE NAMES OF THE BANDS"

lol, I was just about to do that. May I ask why not? 109.186.10.81 (talk) 18:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because the point of the disambiguation page is to send you to the article that you're looking for, not to list groups of bands. The user is presumably looking for information on the grouping called the "Big Four"; if the user wanted to read about one of the bands in the "Big Four," such as Anthrax, he would presumably search for Anthrax and not Big Four. It's part of the Manual of Style for disambiguation pages that each entry on a disambiguation page should only have one blue link. Extra linking doesn't serve much purpose, and it makes the page harder to scan through to find the entry you're looking for.

(These same reasons apply to every item listed on the disambiguation page; the note is just in there for the thrash metal bands because that's by far the one entry that people have been most likely to add the extra links to. I think I just got tired of undoing the same edit over and over again so I put in the note.) Propaniac (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup 2011

I've taken an axe to this page, by:
.a) removing all the entries that don't link to a "Big Four" page of some kind (I've made some re-directs to article sections, where the use of the term is referenced)
.b) deleting the names of the four's where they were listed; I think they made it look like a list page, and would encourage passers-by to add any old four they knew of
.c) added a "see also" section to the other "Big n" pages, as they are more like dab pages; it might set an example
I trust this is OK with everyone here. Moonraker12 (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]