Talk:Pet Shop Boys

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pet Shop Boys is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
January 20, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.
LGBT Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
A This article has been rated as A-class on the quality scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pet Shop Boys article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Discussion

I changed "famously homophobic" to "allegedly homophobic", as it's my understanding he denies homophobia and claims his use of the language should be considered the context of the area he grew up. Schrödinger

I'm quite certain that the list now includes every album the PSB have published. There are tons of singles, limited editions, collaborations and other similar stuff available, which might or might not need their own category.

What about Too Many People? Wasn't that a [hit] single? LockeShocke 04:51, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
"Too many people" was an extra track on the "I wouldn't normally do this kind of thing" single release, never a single in its own right. bug boy

There is at least one tour DVD available, Montage. To my knowledge, PSB's not-so-highly-acclaimed film It Couldn't Happen Here is so far only available on VHS. Further information about these would be greatly appreciated. --Card

Were they formed early 80's? "West End Girls" was 85 (which I would count as mid 80s), but had they been kicking around as unknowns for long before they hit fame? quercus robur 00:02 Mar 19, 2003 (UTC)


It depends... West End Girls was released twice. If 85 was the year it was a hit, then they were around before. And I think you missed Very relentless in the album list. -- Tarquin 10:32 Mar 19, 2003 (UTC)

Dec 85 (or maybe first weeks of 86) was when it was a hit, I don't know much about PSB beyond that, I only know that because a girlfriend at the time bought it, and gave me the elbow around the same time! Cheers quercus robur
Very Relentless is a limited edition version of Very (it's a 2-disc set, the first cd being Very) and they were released at the same time, which is why I didn't include it in the main list. According to Literally, Neil and Chris met and started writing songs together in 1981. They first recorded "West End Girls" in 1983. Card 15:02 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC)

Unlike the other limited editions, the second CD Relentless contains all new material, which I think is enough to list Very Relentless separately. IMO, the other limited editions don't need to be listed here; they can be listed on a fan site. CyborgTosser

Some single releases were missing! I've added them and created a table to display the UK and US chart positions simultaneously. I've also created similar tables for the albums and videos. Jonks Sept 7 2005.

[edit] PET SHOP BOYS PICS

Hi all Psb fans.I am Naeem Qasai.I have placed all the PSB pics/.Kindly the wikieditor resize the latest pic of PSB.Keep watching PSb page regularly.They have a new album coming-being produced by Trevor Horn.Back To Mine was released recently but it contained songs by other artists..It was their first double cd since alternative....

[edit] Pet Shop Boys albums

"Please Release Very Introspective Nightlife" is a grammatically correct sentence whose every word is the name of a Pet Shop Boys album. Can any other band do that? — JIP | Talk 16:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

hmmm..... "Like a Prayer Virgin Madonna Music American Life Confessions On a True Blue Dancefloor Bedtime Evita Stories Ray Of Erotica Light Who's That Something To Remember Girl?" There's a nice ring to that, right?-- eo 17:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalization of song titles

In light of the continuous back-and-forth switching between traditional capitalization and sentence-form capitalization for song titles on this page, I think we should set down more solid guidelines for what to do with them, especially since some of PSB's songs are on the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/List of notable songs as being encyclopedic topics without articles thus far.

The problem is: if we institute the sentence-form capitalization everywhere — especially if we create articles for more PSB songs — how do we keep random people from changing them to the traditional capitalization? Some kind of template at the top of every PSB article?

Song titles in this article may not follow standard Wikipedia naming conventions because they are Pet Shop Boys songs; see [[some link to relevant information]].

In fact, there has been a recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#Caps in song titles as to whether to explicitly follow artist capitalization conventions in all cases. Also, consider the fact that even the PSB official website is inconsistent in capitalization of song titles; see the front page compared to the lyrics page. –Unint 23:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be a fruitless idea to attempt to format the song titles via PSB-style in any other WP article but this one. It'll be an endless back-and-forth. Perhaps the point in this article pertaining to how PSB prefer the titles to look can be brought to a more prominent part of the article? And speaking of that bulletpoint, do we even have a source for Tennant's explanation on how the titles should be written? -- eo 19:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
According to 10yearsofbeingboring.com, it's from issue 24 of Literally: [1]
Google didn't turn up any other references, though, so what we have here is a reference to a single webpage which itself refers to an issue of a fanzine, which is unavailable to the general public. Even most fansites don't follow the convention. One might make a case for the album back covers or the lyrics page on the official site, but most people who see those out of context would probably dismiss it as a quirk. (If Neil Tennant cared very much about people following it, I presume he would have put the information somewhere more prominent.)
I personally don't think it would be a great loss if we delete that section and go back to traditional capitalization... but that still wouldn't stop fans from re-discovering the reference and reinstating everything. But, even though either way we might get people reverting the other way, far fewer people are likely to ever know about the existence of the PSB convention, much less edit it into articles. –Unint 20:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, what I have noticed is not so much people going through this article and re-capitalizing everything, but rather newer editors who may add one or two comments to the page and use standard capitalization (not seeing the Tennant comment), which of course then gets corrected to PSB capitalization by an editor more familiar with this article. I don't have a problem with using standard capitalization everywhere but here. I think at this point forcing standard style here or PSB style elsewhere is asking for trouble. -- eo 20:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay. By some fortuituous chance Miracles (song) happens to have completely unambiguous capitalization with all five song titles involved, but I'm done waffling with that. I've written Opportunities (Let's Make Lots of Money) with standarized capitalization, and I see someone else has done Being Boring in the meantime in the same manner. I've put the hatnote I proposed earlier on both pages, directing people here about the capitalization. Just a stopgap measure for now, but let's see if anyone notices... –Unint 16:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

This is the first article I've seen that this has been an issue. On all other PSB-related articles the lower-case standard has worked out fine. Surely we should follow what the artist wants for their titles (you wouldn't change the name of a group or album to fit Wikipedias standards, would you?). It's not just a matter of it being in their Literally magazine - it's in lower case on ALL their albums (except Fundamental for obvious reasons). Davidbod 19:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

By that measure, then, should there not be a wee template at the top of each article related to this topic, to say that in accordance with the artist's wishes, song titles take sentence case and should not be changed. Does that not rather solve the problem? LorD 19.36, 31 January 2007 (GMT)
I have no reason to think that the band are very stringent about it, especially given that it's not even consistent on their official site. –Unint 15:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
They don't have utter control of the content of their website; there is someone doing all the inputting of text for them. It it were Mark Farrow, then I daresay there would be the consistency expected and it would show that their preference is quite clearly sentence case. LorD 10:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Addition of the band from beginning to present

Anyone else think that there could be a brief overview of the band during each era? Like their critical success, personal struggles, change in direction, etc in the Very era, Behaviour era, and so on. As it is, there's only information about them pre-Pet Shop Boys.

I would touch this up, but I'm not that familiar with the band's history, I'm afraid...

I have been meaning to do this, but I never have the time. One section for each "era" judged according to the release of a studio album - Please, Actually, Introspective, Behaviour, Very, Bilingual, Nightlife, Release and Fundamental. In 2001, PSB released special editions of their first 6 albums that kind of started this anyway, so I'd say maybe to follow their dates and then have Nightlife covering 1999-2001 (including Closer to Heaven), then Release being 2002-2005 and finally having Fundamental being the current stuff. Jonks 11:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Defining "eras" by album seems somewhat... arbitrary, to me. (See New Order for one instance where I think it doesn't work.) Some of these "album eras" will likely be imbalanced in terms of content; 2002-2005 or 1995-1997 seem like they're going to be light on material, for example. Also, how do you assign things in between? Is Battleship Potemkin, 2005, Release-era or Fundamental era (it being closer to the latter)?
I would like to advocate dividing things up by the nature of what was happening their career. For instance, Neil is always talking about their "imperial phase" or "imperial period", that 1985-1989 (1990?) period when they put out all their number-one hits, didn't go on tours, etc. That term needs to be elaborated upon here, at the very least — and it serves as a starting point, I guess. –Unint 04:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I do actually agree that that way of dividing it seems overly long, but for now, until some content is added, I think it'll work. I'd also like to say that I really don't like the "Other Ventures" section, but hopefully some of the content can be rearranged into the biography sections. Jonks 15:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
The same is true, I think, for the trivia section. In addition, we need to eliminate the list format — it is, simply put, not prose. –Unint 00:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Alright, looks like you've gone through with that. Great job, too. I've just gone through and reworked some prose, added some links, deleted redundant links, etc. Also, removed some more thematically related material from "Trivia" to form the "Influence" section. (Perhaps the rest could be moved to the discography and individual song pages?) –Unint 22:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, the trivia section is now also gone! I don't know if you think the whole biography titles work. The periods covered are a bit random, but I agreed with your comments about the "era" headings is a bit too long. I've also moved the discography link so that it follows the biography. Jonks 09:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paninaro

Okay, I've been writing about topics that inspired songs ("In the Night" made for some great, statistically improbable wikilinks), and I'm thinking that "Paninaro" will have to be covered soon. However, can anyone find actual, verifiable, non-PSB related information about the actual "Italian youth cult" of the title? This is just one of a few PSB-related topics where both Wikipedia and Google fall down completely... –Unint 19:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, figured it out. Tip for the future: search for "Paninari", the plural. –Unint 21:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sexuality

Checking here for the first time, and reading the sexuality page. I think there should be a mention to "In Denial" since the lyrics is about a depressed gay father who tries to hide it in fear of his daughter. To date, I think it is the most explicity of their lyrics about the subject Samuel Sol 05:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Influence

corrected the grammatical structure of the sentence: "while recording with Madonna, she blurted out..." but if I am not mistaken, this quote needs to be cited. Indranee 02:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Language

The article describes well the lyrics of Pet Shop Boys. But can someone comment on or find a comment on their accent? That is the accent I've picked up when learning English :) -Samulili 21:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

What about their home counties? (Northumberland, Lancashire) –Unint 01:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Neil Tennant is from North Shields, which makes him a Geordie, although his accent is pretty mild.Claret 21:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Geordie applies to North Shields? That's the first much of the entire northeast has heard of it...

[edit] "Mistakenly called The Pet Shop Boys"

It seems clear that the official name is Pet Shop Boys, but it seems a bit strong to say that any use of the definite article is wrong. After all, they released (covered!) a song called "We're the Pet Shop Boys," and when I saw them, Neil said, "I'm Neil Tennant, this is Chris Lowe, and we'll always be the Pet Shop Boys." I'll try a reword; tell me what you think. - Montréalais 05:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Even though this is kinda off topic can someone help the new list of best-selling remix albums worldwide with its structure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelvin Martinez (talk • contribs) 2006-12-01, 08:00:37

I believe (from memory when the duo appeared on Graham Norton's TV show a few years ago) that they no longer object too much to being called "The Pet Shop Boys", even though it was originally just "Pet Shop Boys". I think the article should perhaps say something like "sometimes referred to as The Pet Shop Boys" or "also unofficially called The Pet Shop Boys". Leevclarke 21:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that before all this in 1984 The Hurricanes (Tess) release the B-Side of "One More Chance" on ZYX Records called "Theme From The Pet Shop Boys"... It wasnt actually a Pet Shop Boys release, but rather one by their producer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.161.192 (talk) 05:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FAC (Featured Article)

Would anyone like to put the Pet Shop Boys on the Main Page? To me, the idea doesn't sound so bad... we all know the Pet Shop Boys are great, huh?TheWerewolf 07:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality / Citation of sources

This is a very well written article, but it sometimes reads like a fan's review rather than a neutral encyclopedia entry. For example, in the opening paragraph, the line "Pet Shop Boys has remained successful outside the USA since then, however, because of the quality and imagination of its releases which continue to chart worldwide and to inspire a very active and devoted fan base" appears to be rather biased in that it takes a very positive tone without citing any sources (who says that their releases chart worldwide because of their "quality" and "imagination"?). I find this general tone and the lack of citations somewhat prevalent throughout the article. Does anybody else have any thoughts on this? Spicoli 07:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the original phrase "Pet Shop Boys has remained successful outside the USA since then." would make a more NPOV. I'll revert to this one but if you think there's a better line, just change it. Cristóbal 15:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
That's definitely a huge improvement. Unfortunately, however, the entire article seems to have a positive bias to it, as well as a significant lack of cited sources. I'd take a stab at fixing it myself, but I'm really more of a fan than an expert. Spicoli 09:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Grammy-nominated'

Is the fact that they were once nominated, but didn't win, such an important fact that it deserves to be in the very first sentence? Surely a lot of acts are Grammy nominated? The fact that they're Britain's most successful musical duo ever might be much more important to recount. Davidbod 13:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Meh, I just see it as a descriptor. If you look at a lot of pages for, say, actors, you'll see "So-and-So is an Academy Award-nominated actor..." Personally I don't see any harm in leaving it there. - eo 17:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photo

I'm trying a new thing with the infobox photo. If this doesn't work out I guess we can put the old picture back. –Unint 23:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] new image

to whoever finally replaced that NASTY image which sat on this page for far too long - thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.208.211.48 (talk) 04:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Influenced Guns N' Roses!!???

Hmm, can't see how PSB influenced November Rain, when demos of November Rain exist around the Appetite seesion around '87, 3 years before October Symphony released! Should this silly bit just be removed from the page? Scchipli

[edit] Pet Shop Boys forums

I have tried to add www.petshopboys.proboards61.com to the list of PSB forums but received a message from a bot that the link was not allowed. Does anyone know why? It is certainly more relevant than the 'Fundamental' forum that is listed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BillyBudd07 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC).


I guess thats because it is not an open forum. You have to register to get in. What have they got to hide? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.247.35.17 (talk) 13:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:CYFH.jpg

Image:CYFH.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

I cleaned up the external links section, as per [Policies. I followed other great articles like AC\DC, Madonna, and completely removed the Fan Sites list and other bits.Samuel Sol 10:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I respect your actions, but in my opinion you removed too many links. I reconstructed a few links, because they are essential resources, rather than 'just' fan websites. I find the listing of the Pet Shop Boys newsgroup very dubious. There's hardly any activity, which is why I chose to mention the most active and biggest Pet Shop Boys discussion forum on internet. I think my edit still meets the [Policies, which say: "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia." DVTB 08:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed mate. I may have removed too many links. I will proceed too and remove the usenet link, since it is barely used as you noted. Samuel Sol 10:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference for the reasons why Heart was not submitted to Madonna

The article says they were too shy to submit Heart to Madonna, which may be regarded as another way to state what they actually said in the booklet text to the Discography compilation album, namely, that they "didn't dare risk disappointment." So what remains to be done is to insert the album booklet as a note for reference, and to actually reference it where the claim is stated. (Something I don't know how to do.) --130.83.161.22 10:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I tried to fix this one, but I'm kind of a rookie at this myself. I just deleted the whole sentence and typed the quote directly from the liner notes of the CD, mentioning where I got the quote from (with a wiki-link). But I didn't add a footnote or a reference. I hope this is OK - if not, I hope a more experienced editor will fix it properly. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 06:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Name origin

So does anyone know why they chose this name? From a shop seen on the street? Or someone in their families worked in a pet shop? Or did they?... Or is it just random? There muse be a reason. Klow (talk) 11:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge in the "Biography"

Another article, Pet Shop Boys biography, has been marked with a merge tag for almost a year. The separation of content into these two articles seems non-standard and unhelpful. Every other band article I've seen has the bands history included within it. OK to have a separate article for the discography, but a separate article for the history just seems odd. Any objection to this merge? Hult041956 (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

None from me mate. Go for it. Samuel Sol (talk) 12:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge. I can't see any good reason to have the articles separate. And "Pet Shop Boys biography" appears to be a nonstandard Wikipedia article name. Do it and help clear that merge backlog. Ipoellet (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge - agreed. - eo (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:IanMcKellanvamp.JPG

Image:IanMcKellanvamp.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Sources Cited

I just updated the section on their recent record deal with Parlaphone. Someone who knows better might condense it a bit, but it's properly referenced now. Because the item is in the nature of a press release rather than an interview or article, I felt that reproducing the information constituted fair use, if I am incorrect, I won't be offended by being edited. ;)

Zola (talk) 00:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)