Jump to content

Talk:They Might Be Giants/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1


Podcast comment

Apparently they have a new album with songs from their podcasts.

Is They Got Lost actually an album, or is it just a single? -Branddobbe 06:36, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

According to This Might Be a Wiki and this here store, it's an album. -- Djinn112 20:15, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm living in an alternate universe, but what I first knew TMBG from, which isn't even mentioned here, are the songs "Particle Man" and "Istanbul, not Constantinople", both from Flood and famously appearing on the Tiny Toons cartoon show. This is what most people I've talked to know them from as well, and the "famous" stuff in this article I've never even heard of (admittedly, I'm not a die-hard fan)... --Delirium 21:13, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

It seems impossible to say which songs a band is most well known for without some way to measure the statement. Also, why no mention of Dr. Worm being a biographical song about a wikipedia user?--Dr.Worm 20:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I was a little puzzled by the best-known songs thing. If I had to guess at TMBG's best-knowns songs, I don't think "Don't Let's Start" would ever have made my list. "Ana Ng" is one of my favorite songs of theirs, but is it really one of their most famous? "Birdhouse" is the only one I've ever seen on a karaoke menu, for what that's worth. Nareek 22:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Ana Ng has a music video. Don't Let's Start really got them big originally. Not sure if they're the best-known songs nowadays, but they are some of their more notable ones anyhow. Kushboy 03:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


I first came in contact with them when my older brothers friend let him borrow Apollo 18, but I agree most people I talk to know them initially from Tiny Toons. --brkmyr 02:07, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Does anyone know where the TMBG Wiki went? Cigarette 23:25, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The TMBG wiki is still online at http://www.tmbw.net

Shouldn't the TMBG Users Guide be in the compilation section? There's nothing new on that album

The demo.

I might be wrong, but wasn't the People review based on the demo tape and before the album was released by Bar/None? Perhaps the writer intended this, but the wording is ambiguous as to whether it was the tape or the being picked up by B/N that led to the People review. Melvillean 00:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Gigantic talks about how he reviewed just a tape that he found. They certainly didn't talk about like it was referred by a record company. Cookiecaper 00:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
That's what I thought. Shall I make the change? Melvillean 00:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The TMBG Canon?

Not sure why the notion of a canon is being invoked. What makes Long Tall Weekend non-canonical. And why does one children's album (No) get the privilege of being canonized while the other (Here Come the ABCs) doesn't? Melvillean 00:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, although Long Tall Weekend is technically a compilation of outtakes from the Factory Showroom sessions. I was thinking of doing a discography overhaul anyway, so I might do this at some point, unless the person whose idea it was to have the "canonical" section in the first place can convince me to keep it that way. --Nathew 22:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
With regard to Long Tall Weekend: I don't think that the media on which an album is released should determine its canonicity. The earliest albums were originally only on LP and MC. Since John Henry albums have only been on CD, and the most recent have been CD and MP3. That LTW was only officially released on MP3 should not exclude it from a discography. Also the fact that it is a compilation of outtakes does not mean it is not an official release. So the band compiled unreleased material from several recording sessions - I believe Mink Car was similarly created. --Astralbee 10 March 2007

Tiny Toon Adventures?

I'm fairly sure it was the Animaniacs that had Constantinople(Not Istanbul) and Particle Man. Animaniacs aired alongside Tiny Toon Adventures but was a seperate show and was substantially more appealing to the "off-kilter" wit. -- 24.185.218.57

You're mistaken. The TMBG vids aired on Tiny Toons in 1991. Animaniacs didn't debut until the fall of 1993. -- ChrisB 23:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Not to mention that the videos contain characters from Tiny Toons, and not from Animaniacs. --Nathew 22:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Canonical Albums

In a recent email, John Flansburgh repeatedly refers to their upcoming album as their twelfth full length album. This would imply that they have eleven canonical albums (who would better decide whether an album is canonical than the band themselves?). Nine are listed on the Wikipedia page, and ten on the special album navigation stub. This means there is one more album they consider canonical that is not listed, most likely either Long Tall Weekend or Here Come the ABCs. My vote goes to the latter. --BlarJotunn 22:05, 18 November 2005 (PDT)

Concidering that the article for No! claims it to be Their ninth album, I'd also say that the missing album is Here Come the ABCs. (with The Spine tenth, and ABCs eleventh) --bluejuh 23:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Surely the obvious omission from the list is the third album, Don't Lets Start from 1989? --rich_jtg 22:56, 09 December 2005 (UTC)
Their third album was Flood; Don't Let's Start is a track from their first album Wezzo 23:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Don't Let's Start is also a compilation album, which is what rich_jtg must have been referring to. --Nathew 06:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Ah, my mistake; either way, it's non-canon. Wezzo 07:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, DLS was a collection of songs. It surprises me that it's not on either list. It's easy for us UK based fans to get it mixed up with a proper album though - singles were hard to get hold of over here in the late 80s. :) --rich_jtg 11:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Delisted from Wikipedia:Good articles

I removed this from the Wikipedia:Good articles list, as it does not contain references. Extraordinary Machine 23:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

This sounds like good motivation to overhaul the whole biography. Which should happen anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathew (talk • contribs) 23:04, 6 December 2005
Seconded; i'd help give it a good ol' overhaul. -- jeffthejiff (talk) 07:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, this article is also just a POS. Accuracy is my problem with it. I'll work on it in the morning. —User:ACupOfCoffee@ also a TMBW user 09:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I've delisted this from GA nominations due to references. The only references listed come from their website (!) and are not formatted properly. Pagrashtak 23:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Formatting, gotcha! —User:ACupOfCoffee@ 00:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I've done a whole bunch of work on that. Is what I did what you meant? —User:ACupOfCoffee@ 05:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

If nobody objects by ... say ... Thursday, I'll add it back to the self noms page. —User:ACupOfCoffee@ 19:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

You should convert the rest of the references into inline citations like I did for the first reference. I'll assist you if you need help, but I don't know what parts go with what reference. Pagrashtak 01:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Done! —User:ACupOfCoffee@ 00:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
If that's the only objection, I'm going to add it back tomorrow. —User:ACupOfCoffee@ 16:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
GA has changed recently, you should add the article to Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations if you feel it is good. Pagrashtak 17:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
That's exactly the page I meant. —User:ACupOfCoffee@
One of the images has a disputed (by me) copyright claim. So we'll see about me listing it again in 2 weeks. —User:ACupOfCoffee@ 01:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I added it to the nominations page. Should the notice up above be changed, or left as is? —User:ACupOfCoffee@ 23:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Leave it, it will help editors evaluate the current article with regard to its reason for previous GA delisting. Pagrashtak 01:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Trying to decide if this was actually a current nomination. In any case, I like this article, but it needs more references particularly in the Early Years and Elektra sections. savidan(talk) (e@) 04:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Was this article ever put up for nomination? If so, did it pass? It it didn't, why didn't it? SenorAnderson 18:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
It was put up and is still there. —User:ACupOfCoffee@ 21:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
This article is now up to 13 references. —User:ACupOfCoffee@ 16:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Whoops, didn't notice that it was removed on the third. —User:ACupOfCoffee@ 05:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Humor in the article

I know TMBG inspires ironic humor, but Wikipedia articles are definitely not supposed to include clever wordplay and joking section headers. Resist the temptation... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.224.153.104 (talk • contribs)

I don't see how "Kids, Politics, and Spines" would be inappropriate. also, you should probably link to the policy page that says that that stuff's a no-no like all the other wikilitists do, mr. IP address. -Nathew
I feel a humorous and creatively written article can be good if it isn't a hinderance to the readibility and accuracy of the article.--Dr.Worm 20:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

They also created the music for the LAIKA short "Moongirl"

They made all of the music for the short computer animated cartoon "Moongirl" by LAIKA Studios in mid 2005. A clip can be seen and heard at http://www.laika.com/entertainment/

They Might Be They Might Be Giants?

The last edit, which added the Dunkin' Donuts music was not performed by TMBG but "by They Might Be They Might Be Giants" Ive never heard of such allegations. Is there any source for this claim? AnklePants

Nope, its rubbish. TMBW lists them as They Might Be Giants songs. -- jeffthejiff 17:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

inspirations to other bands

Is there a source for the part about "and they've influenced a number of bands and artists, such as Primus, Presidents of the United States of America, and Beck."?--Paraphelion 10:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Triple J Hottest 100

Is it worth linking to Triple_J_Hottest_100,_1998? They came 13th with "Dr Worm", and that was where I first heard of them. They got 52nd with "Man It's So Loud in Here" for Triple_J_Hottest_100,_2001.

Big ugly citation in header

The citation included in the "discography" header looks pretty dumb (especially in the TOC). Does a discography really need a citation? Or, could it be moved somewhere less conspicuous? Just a thought. -albrozdude 01:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one that put it there, and I never liked it either, but I felt it needed one just to say, "This isn't wrong. Here's the proof," because of the talk above about "canonical" albums and whatnot. If you can find a better spot for it, please move it. — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 21:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

On every album page, links to other albums are tiny. Could this be fixed? Thanks. 67.188.172.165 16:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Should Theme Songs Get Their Own Sub-section?

Though metioned in the article (as are the albums were appropriate), I can count at least four TV theme songs written and/or played by TMBG:

  1. The Wrong Coast
  2. Amazing Vacation Homes
  3. Malcolm in the Middle
  4. The Daily Show

and I think there's another one on adult swim I'm missing and too lazy to track down right now.

It is the Oblongs. see http://www.tmbw.net/wiki/index.php/TV_And_Movie_Themes for more. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deathgecko (talk • contribs) 21:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

They might be hill giants?

http://angband.oook.cz/comic/strip.php?view=97 --Slashme 08:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Superfueled Freaksickle

This was never released. Should it really be listed with official albums in a section labeled "other RELEASES"? Amber388 23:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


Spider

Did George Takei say "I promise not to kill you." in spider? Dudtz 9/8/06 8:18 PM EST

Nope. TMBW:Spider — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 01:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

A lot of these need to be un-wikilinked. They just lead to ep's and not an article on the music video per se. b_cubed

Pic Changes

I'm not sure if there's a policy to put current pictures of bands in their articles or not, but, regardless, could somebody fill me in on why the picture in the infobox on this page (as well as in the infoboxes on Linnell's and Flansburg's pages) were replaces with the photos that they were? Not that I'm arguing about it (although I do think that it is more appropriate to include a more formal image), I'm just curious. -AtionSong 01:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Somebody did it awhile back sometime in the beginning of december. I personally liked the older images better as they were more clear. I think his/her rationale was that a picture taken in person of the subject was always to be preferred over a publicity shot (why that is, is beyond me but that's what I seem to remember). If no one objects with a valid point I suggest we switch it back. Or find a better image. b_cubed 01:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, I was the one who changed the picture. As you'll see at WP:FUC, copyrighted images shouldn't be used if there exists a free picture or a free picture could be created. —ShadowHalo 08:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I dislike how the current picture shows Linnell wearing glasses. I know that he does wear glasses, but he typically goes without them while performing- this is an atypical picture.

Good Article Status

Well done. I'm happy with the article progress with the last Good Article nomination and am happy to give this article GA status. -*- u:Chazz/contact/t: 16:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

ummm It's got a citation needed tag, external links in the middle of text, one sentence paragraphs, some references are just external links.... M3tal H3ad 02:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Good to hear that I'm not the only one with doubts. I don't believe this merits GA status. Although almost anyone can theoretically award GA status I feel that Chazz's decision to do was wrong. I feel that we should put it back up for GA review, and ignore this incident. I think we need a stronger critical analysis of this article before we decide that it is officially GA. b_cubed 04:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Articles are constantly evolving and finding cites for present statements is common practice in articles of all qualities, including those that have obtained featured article status. Just because articles contain a "cite needed" tag doesn't make it inferior to an article that doesn't have such tags. A lot of comments are not properly cited in Good Articles, the absence of a cite needed tag, doesn't necessarily make those articles better than this one. Perhaps those actively involved in this article should strive to improve the points listed and maybe request another peer review, since the relevant benchmarks for all Wikipedia articles will inevitably increase. -*- u:Chazz/contact/t: 22:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
This article is being reviewed at Good article review for possible delisting of its Good article status. Teemu08 23:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed

Review the comments leading to this consensus here. Article may be re-submitted in the future once the issues left by reviewers are sorted. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Members

I remember at a concert a few years ago the Johns trying to make it clear to the audience that TMBG were no longer a duo with backup musicians, but a band with other full members (three more, I think, but I'm not entirely sure). Are the other guys no longer with the Johns, or are we just ignoring the idea that the band is more than just the Johns? └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 19:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The promotional photographs that the band released circa 1994 for the release of John Henry depicted the band as a four-piece band. Press releases for that album also stated that TMBG "now tour as a rocking six-piece". Since then, aside from a few photographs taken to promote the big-band shows, all promotional shots show only John and John. The current line up of Dan, Danny and Marty have never been officially photographed. This seems to indicate they are still very much about the core duo.Astralbee 12:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Their official MySpace page lists the band members as:
  • Marty Beller drums
  • John Flansburgh gtr, vox
  • John Linnell keys, vox
  • Dan Miller gtr
  • Danny Weinkauf bass
Updating the article accordingly. We can either infer things from promo photos or we can use the info found on an official TMBG site.
-- BullWikiWinkle 17:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

They now have a trumpet player touring with them full time. Curt Ramm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.159.125 (talk) 06:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Violent, drunken fans?

With their popularlity rising among children, the band announced on their website that anyone under the age of 16 is currently barred from TMBG concerts (except, of course, shows intended for a younger audience). Their stated reasons mention a number of elements uncharacteristic of their typical concerts (such as pot smoking and violent, drunken audience members.)

This paragraph is poorly worded anyway and should probably go without some concrete references. HiDrNick 19:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they've stated on Myspace that they ban 14+ because of pot smoking, broken glass, drunken fans, and stage dives. Of course then they mentioned that they would now have it "reccomended" 14 and older. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.130.78.10 (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The Edge

What's all this about TMBG releasing The Edge on iTunes a couple months before releasing the CD? If anyone knows about this, could you add it to the article (with proper references)? ShadowHalo 08:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are refering to their album The Else. As far as I know it was scheduled to be on iTunes on May 15, then released mid June in stores (or was that July?). b_cubed 16:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of "geek rock"

I've removed the labels of "geek rock" off the page. Before anyone gets all up in arms, the reason that I did it, is because the band's position is that belong to the "alternative" and "college" rock genres (in addition to kids music). In addition, some people question whether geek rock is an official genre, or if it's just a made-up classification (not sure who decides these things). --Duke33 14:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I had an online article that I linked to on the "Geek Rock" page that listed TMBG as Geek Rock, but it went dead. Also, I understand that the band doesn't think that it belongs as a geek rock band, but all their fans do. -AtionSong 21:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
This is true. "Geek Rock" is not defined by the band via their "sound", it is defined by their fans who listen to the music and deem them acceptable for like-minded associates. Now, a band can specifically "target" that audience by several methods including anything from complex wordplay to "retro" references, the inclusion of anything computer or game related to outcast instruments (like the accordion!), but in the end it's the fans who categorize them as "geek rock". So perhaps the mention should be re-worded to state that their geek fans list them as geek rock (rock for geeks) instead of them classifying themselves as such. Oh, wait. This isn't the place to do that. Perhaps you should re-write the Geek rock page to conform to this definition, then people will accept this idea and will no longer hold an inaccurate view of the term. The page is looking lonely as of late and I think you could get away with it if you improved the structure of the article. If they see you are making it better by adding stuff, making things clearer, fixing the layout, etc., they won't think you have any hidden agenda. Cheers! --72.146.113.7 21:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Funny, I've always heard of it refered to as 'nerd rock', but I assume they're the same genre. Unfortunately, such an article does not exist/has been deleted, but I can assure you, it's a very real genre, and is distinct from alt-rock in ways other than just lyrics. It's typically more experimental than alternative rock, but less so than experimental rock, and takes on a wide variety of influences. But I agree, its existance as a genre is controvetial enough that it needs to be well-sourced if it's going to be put back on here. 175.38.203.64 (talk) 02:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Clock Radio

I was surprised to find no reference to the clock radio service offered on the TMBG website. Is there a reason for this or has no one gotten around to writing about it? Another possibility is that I somehow missed it. --Thaddius 19:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Linnell Plays on Weird Al Albums?

My wife has recently told me that she read in an interchat fan room, that John Linnell played the accordion on many of Weird Al's albums, including Dare to be Stupid. Is this true? should we put this in the article?

I was quite certain that Weird Al himself plays accordion so I don't know why Al would bring in Linnell... Something to look into first though. --Thaddius 17:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No, he has never done anything with Weird Al. There was a TMBG style parody, though.

"Everything You Know Is Wrong" is a style parody of TMBG. —taestell 00:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Although an old issue, this is highly unlikely as Al claims (not sure if this is backed by evidence) that his first accordion lesson was the day before he turned seven. I don't see why he would do such a thing when he was once seen on his TV premiere (Tomorrow Show with Tom Snyder), network TV nonetheless, playing 'Another One Rides the Bus'. I forget the year, but it's most likely the early 80's. Socby19 06:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Weird Al's I Remember Larry borrows heavily from TMBG's See the Constellation.

"Boss Of Me"

In the discography, 'Boss Of Me' is listed as "theme music from Malcolm In The Middle". The song 'Boss Of Me' appears on the album 'Flood', and as far as I'm aware it wasn't created especially for Malcolm In The Middle, but was just used for the show's theme music.

If it appears on the album Flood, then I had better find a new copy of the album, because mine doesn't have that song. Kurrurrin 12:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so time for a little less sarcasm and a little more in the way of facts. The song 'Boss of Me' is, in fact, not on Flood. Here's the amazon listing for the album, which includes a track listing. You'll see that 'Boss of Me' is not on there. The song 'Boss of Me', was, in fact created as the theme music for Malcolm in the Middle. Here's another amazon.com page with the track listing for Dial-a-Song and in parantheses following the song title it lists it as the theme. I'm using Amazon as a reference as it is a commercial entity who pretty much has to get the product listings right. I hope this clarifies it for you. Kurrurrin 17:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, that was me before. It's on 'Mink Car', not 'Flood'. My mistake. Catalina 123 (talk) 18:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I might be mistaken about it originally coming from that album though. The track listing is different for US and UK, and although it appears on the UK version it's listed as a 'bonus track' for the US version. I'm from the UK, by the way. Catalina 123 (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
The song was written to be the TV show theme, and first appeared on Music from Malcolm in the Middle released November 2000. Mink Car was not released until November 2001. -- Foetusized (talk) 19:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I infact have 2 copies of the album "Flood" one of which contains the song "boss of me"(track 6) and onne that does not contain the song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.73.37.197 (talk) 03:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The Statue Got Me High -- UK Charts

I have scoured several sources, including polyhex.com and others, and I can't find anything to support that "The Statue Got Me High" reached #92 on the UK Singles Charts. Now, i know that the UK Singles Chart data is a bit sketchy, so I'm wondering if anyone has proof to substantiate this claim? Thanks --Duke33 (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Breakdown

Ah, like any good Wikipedia page, this article completely breaks down when the History section reaches the time frame the article became popular. With this many one-line, trivial paragraphs it is a model for other pages. It is easy to replicate this style of construction; you must only remember to add a new line for each event as it occurs with no regard to continuity or prose. They had a show today (as they often do), perhaps I shall add that to the page tomorrow. Cheers! --68.210.32.139 (talk) 03:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Music Videos

If this article doesn't refer to any previous music videos done with Disney off of Here Come the ABCs or 123s should it be listing "Davey Crockett in Outer Space" as an official music video of Theirs? Also the link to it is broken. --MaddiyK (talk) 13:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Where is the band section

i needed to look up their backup band, and i couldnt find anything. What happened to the band section??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritzbitz00 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Australian Charts

I can't find anything to backup the claim that "Man, It's So Loud In Here" charted at #48 on the Australian Aria charts. australian-charts.com only shows "Boss of Me". Can someone else provide some proof? --Duke33 (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

That was me, and the info came from my memory, so although I'm SURE it's correct, you're right to remove it. However, I would like your opinion on whether we should change the album for "Boss of Me" to "Mink Car" (in the charting singles section only). Boss of Me was a single only in the UK and Australia, and it was to promote the album "Mink Car" (the song appears on the UK and Australian versions of the album). 80.4.202.8 (talk) 00:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
That EP was actually more of a Malcolm in the Middle single than a Mink Car single, so i think it's ok to leave it as-is. Here's some more info: tmbw.net --Duke33 (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

homestarrunner.com

how come this page dosent mention homestarrunner.com, even though they made several songs with them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.165.97 (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Look at the second paragraph of the "Recent Activity" section -- Foetusized (talk) 03:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.

Ralph Carney

Can anyone confirm that Ralph Carney is a member, or is temporarily a member, of the touring band? DFS (talk) 08:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

He toured with the Giants in the fall of 2009. He is not an official permanent member of the band, touring or otherwise. --DidgeGuy (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Lyrics from "Yeh Yeh"

Some lyrics from the song "Yeh Yeh" were spoken by Hugh Jackman in the movie "Deception". Wackaloon (talk) 09:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

"Name" section: stealth Trivia

Hey. That "Name" section is really a Trivia section in a bad toupee, isn't it. Isn't it? Very sneaky, you. SteubenGlass (talk) 20:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Dial A Song

I just want to clarify here why those two new incarnations must not be listed here. This is the wikipage about They Might Be Giants. Those other two versions of the Dial-a-Song phone line have no connection to TMBG, are not endorsed by them, etc. Thus, that information does not belong on this page. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I just tried the dial-a-song number 718-387-6962 today April 20, 2011, and I got some kind of answering machine but just beeps. No song. It's quite possible that this number is no longer in use for dial-a-song delivery. Please verify and revise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.1.155.3 (talk) 18:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I rephrased the final sentence of that section. It is accurate that it once was reconnected, but I'll take your word it is no longer. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Don't have time to look it up right now, so I'll put it out there for someone to track down: The radio program "This American Life" did a whole segment about TMBG's Dial-A-Song on an episode that aired sometime around the turn of the millenium. I know that's vague, but just doing a search on TAL and TMBG together should turn up something within the first few hits. (Exclude the hit that will mention "Boss of Me" playing on an episode about the 2000 U.S. presidential election -- that's not the one.) Lawikitejana (talk) 20:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:They Might Be Giants/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Astrocog (talk · contribs) 17:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article in the next few days. Please be patient. AstroCog (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    The writing doesn't suffer from grammar and spelling mistakes, but the layout and presentation of the article is not up to GA status. The article reads more like a trivia, presented in a proseline format. To be a good article, it should look less like a list and more like a coherent narrative. Near the end, there's a mix between lists and tables that is visually unattractive. The individual subsections are a mess. The "Podcasting,..." section could be rewritten into a few more separate sections.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    This is where the article suffers most. Throughout the article, large chunks of information are unreferenced, and possible original research. Some of the information comes from dubious sources, such as BBS postings. There's a lot of other references that are just news articles supporting various trivia. There was an entire documentary film about TMBG that is not used as a reference here, which to me is telling.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Not much focus here. Like I said, the article suffers from overuse of trivia. TMBG's 2nd career as writer's of children's and educational music is relegated to a messy section near the end. Their music videos, especially from their early years, are deserving of a separate section, not just a list.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Seems pretty neutral, though I don't see much in the way of negative criticism here.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Stable.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    There are images here, albeit poor quality ones. I'm surprised at the poor quality, actually.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    This article is not even close to GA status, and I think the editors and main contributers should buckle down and spend a fair amount of time reworking this, and then renominate in the future. I think the amount of improvements necessary to get this up to GA status are more than can be addressed in 7 days, so I'm going to fail this now. I note that the GA nominator is not a major contributer and this may have been a "drive-by" nomination.



Can someone please turn the "Dan Miller" link back to blue by starting an acceptable article on him? 76.116.98.116 (talk) 09:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

New Picture

Though I forgot to log in before I did it, I put the new picture of the band back. They have indicated on Twitter that the photographer released it under a Creative Commons license, but I'm having trouble digging it up at the moment. — ACupOfCoffee@ 19:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Idlewild?

The article has a few references to Idlewild Recordings or Idlewild Records with links to the article about the record label. Those links redirect back to this article which has no information about the label. Either the links should be removed since they link right back to this article, or there should be some information about the record label itself somewhere in the article. I'd vote for the latter since it is a part of the band's history. --NoodleGuy1 (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

i'm guessing the initial intention was that at some point there would be an article for Idlewild, rather than redirecting here, so the links were included so that they would already be present when the article was created. however, i don't think there is substantial third party coverage of the Idlewild label, and it might not be ready for an article at any point in the foreseeable future. we can incorporate some info into the article, instead. in the meantime, the links can probably be removed. ~ Boomur [☎] 12:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Infobox Photo

Does anyone think it would be better to have an image of the whole band, rather than just John and John in the infobox? I'm aware that they are the frontmen of TMBG, but in an article addressing the whole band, is it not appropriate that they are all pictured? Perhaps one of them playing live or at an event, rather than a publicity photo like the one before the current one. Heater123 (talk) 08:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

i think the current image is fine. for one thing it's a professionally done shot (although i would not object to some reversal of the heavy color editing). either way, it's not uncommon to show just the frontman of a band in an infobox and i think john and john are more than just the "frontmen" of tmbg. i think a professional set of headshots is preferable to an amateur image where the backing band is present but their faces are indiscernible. the current photo is a good depiction of tmbg as a band, i think, and to see the rest of the band one can visit their individual articles. Boomur [☎] 00:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on They Might Be Giants. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 19:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:They_Might_Be_Giants/Archive_1&oldid=1048343389"