Talk:The Shins
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia. | ||
Does anyone have any idea how old these people are?
Contents |
[edit] English?
Is the singer English or does he fake an English accent?
[edit] Whoa, Trish!
Is this an actual songs has anyone heard of it?? if so where can it be heard????
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Moo Cow 10 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Making it more readable
I am un-wikifying some of the introduction text... Too much blue!
Why does it say "(which isnt as good as people say it is)" after Garden State? is that the persons opinion or is that a line from the movie? Brianchi 01:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
That's an opinion. Dieter Weber 07:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Critically acclaimed
I think we need to sprinkle some more "critically acclaimed"s in there. Definitely not enough of those. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.216.203.71 (talk • contribs).
Yeah, um... I think I am going to hack away at this. says critically acclaimed at least three times in about 100 words.206.21.74.84 03:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Removal of band member articles
Recently the individual articles of The Shins band members were redirrected to this page, it has simply been decided that because the stubs aren't currently useful, they should be removed. Wikipedia etiquette would have that some discussion takes place, before a number of articles are effectively removed. Why hasn't this happened? And in regards to the articles actually being redirected, it seems the point of a stub has been missed, they are not held as being complete or even entirely useful, but the idea is that with appropriate contributions they grow over time into informative articles. By redirecting, you prevent this process from occuring. The articles should at least be left alone until there is consensus that they are not useful now, and never will be. The discussion should take place here or on the respective discussion page, but not in the edit summaries!--Brendanfox 06:08, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
- Right: since the stubs exist, the links should remain, and unless the stub topics are abandoned as too unimportant and deleted, then it makes sense to link to them. —Tarnas 18:32, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry I didn't notice this discussion. The articles as they stand are useless to readers, and it is standard procedure to redirect such stubs to the main article. Any experienced editor who comes across one of these pages while browsing random pages or Special:Shortpages will almost automatically redirect them. Unless these pages are expanded they should be turned back to redirects. - SimonP 02:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- Whilst I agree that it is tidier to have these sort of rough edges removed from Wikipedia, the problem I have is that when pages are redirected, and then their links removed from the article, they are no longer seen and are hence less likely to be expanded and improved upon in the future. I beleive stubs offer encouragement for editors to jump in and contribute something, however small that contribution is. However, if the article is not seen, and not linked to from anywhere, some will believe the topic is not worthy enough to create the article themself, some will feel less comfortable creating a whole new article (although hopefully they then discover the already existent article with redirrect, and add to that), and others will not even consider the possibility. The point I'm making is that whilst wikipedia looks nicer without links to underdeveloped stubs, the cost is that these articles are less likely to be worked on and developed over time. --Brendanfox 12:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- It's always a balance between the needs of readers and the needs of editors. Stubs are generally accepted, but with ones such as the Shins' band members there is so little information that they are likely to annoy any readers that come across them. The best solution would be to add a couple sentences to each of the articles, so that they are no longer so short. - SimonP 13:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- Whilst I agree that it is tidier to have these sort of rough edges removed from Wikipedia, the problem I have is that when pages are redirected, and then their links removed from the article, they are no longer seen and are hence less likely to be expanded and improved upon in the future. I beleive stubs offer encouragement for editors to jump in and contribute something, however small that contribution is. However, if the article is not seen, and not linked to from anywhere, some will believe the topic is not worthy enough to create the article themself, some will feel less comfortable creating a whole new article (although hopefully they then discover the already existent article with redirrect, and add to that), and others will not even consider the possibility. The point I'm making is that whilst wikipedia looks nicer without links to underdeveloped stubs, the cost is that these articles are less likely to be worked on and developed over time. --Brendanfox 12:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Alright, I'll try and add some content over the next few days --Brendanfox 01:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] Trivia problems
The trivia tidbit on "We Will Become Silhouettes" makes no sense. Why is the "cover version" on the Postal Service's record?Tryptofeng 15:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
It just is... we don't know why, I guess they just liked it enough to want it on the record. There are many other covers on that album from different bands of Postal Service songs. --84.70.175.215 19:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
A lot of bands do that. They like the song, they put it on their album to make the other band more popular, too. Dieter Weber 07:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Is it Flakemusic or Flake Music? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.136.35.157 (talk • contribs).
[edit] Image
The fair use justification for the picture of the band currently used here seems pretty dubious to me. It's apparently a still from a video. It ought to be possible to take a free-use picture of them. I saw them do an in-store the other day, but couldn't get close enough to get a proper band picture; I did get some half-decent pics of James Russell Mercer, which I will upload some time in the next few weeks. But surely someone can get close enough to them to get a proper photo. - Jmabel | Talk 08:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
