Talk:Relient K

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Relient K article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
To-do list for Relient K: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Copyedit: There are punctuation and spelling errors abound in this article; these should be fixed.
  • Verify: There are many unsourced statements here and on other Relient K-related articles. Find sources for these facts, or remove them altogether if they are false.
  • Cleanup: This article is in very poor condition. Some sections are far too long and cluttered with useless information or otherwise not appropriate on Wikipedia. There are far too many sentences discussing chart positions of singles. The members section could possibly be removed entirely, with just a list of current and former members (reasons for leaving should be included in the "History").
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia There is a request, submitted by Smile Lee, for an audio version of this article to be created.

See WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia for further information.

The rationale behind the request is: "Three critically acclaimed gold albums in a row speaks for itself, and therefore must be spoken".

See also: Category:Spoken Wikipedia requests and Wikipedia:Spoken articles.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1

Contents

[edit] リライアントK

Added redirect for Relient K's name in Japanese. Which is used on the Japanese prints of their albums. Smile Lee 08:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'll be honest here

I used to edit the Relient K article all the time, and it was a lot of fun for me. But it's no longer fun for me. This article has been butchered and altered far too much. We can no longer use promotional pictures of them, while other band pages can use promo shots. We can't list their EPs and Music Videos on a page other than their Discography anymore. Their history has been edited so that all information before 2004 has been removed. Also, half the trivia has been taken away too. I personally think it is horrible what is happening to this page, and it is no where near as informative as it used to be. I just thought I'd say this already, cause it's been bugging me for a while now. I pray that this article can hopefully get back to being the cool band article it was before.RoryS89 22:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)RoryS89

As far as other bands being able to use promo shots, you may want to tag the pictures with {{subst:rfu}} if the bands are still together and making appearances. —ShadowHalo 00:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
This is a problem with many currently popular bands (and older bands too, try dc Talk). I do feel yaur pain; my response has been to try to improve the quality of less popular, but no less relevant articles. Dan, the CowMan 05:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Well the history is still here. The discography page was created in the first place because the discography section was too big. And there's no point having the information in two places because then we'd have to update every change twice. People will go to the discography page if they want more information. As for the trivia section, I think I'm responsible here. Some of the trivia that was related to the albums I just moved to the album pages. But the rest was just too unnotable and fancrufty. - kollision 06:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Theres well over 1000 edits to this page, the first entery being in April 2004. Both RK and Wikipedia have evolved a lot since then. Some day we'll be able to look over the whole history of the band and write an article based on WP's then-current standards, but yesterday there were 17 changes, and 9 today (so far), which creates massive issues for upkeep of the page. Dan, the CowMan 04:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Books

There are currently 3 Relient K books not just 1. The other two are books based on there albms which are called Mmhmm and Two lefts dont make a right but three do. They are avlible off amazone as paperback books and are seperate from the cds.

ummm can you tell me what those books are called?--Gilan42 05:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Those aren't books, they're lyrics, music notes, rifts, and drum timings. Smile Lee 12:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Five Score cover

I've seen two: this one and this one. Which one is it? —Akrabbimtalk 20:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It's been discussed in the article by RoryS89, I'll go ahead and help you out here. The first cover with the leaves is the radio promo cover that was distributed to radio stations, the second one is the actual cover itself. You can check out ANTH NET, Music Christian if you don't believe me. Now some sites will show the cover that is the first one, they just haven't received the new album cover. Hope this helps you out Akrabbim! --DJREJECTED 23:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
It can also be seen on Gotee Records website. [1]. --DJREJECTED 09:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Man, I liked the first one better... —Akrabbimtalk 14:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You should really be talking about this at Talk:Five Score and Seven Years Ago--User:NFAN3|NFAN3 04:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What the points of singles and EPs in the article?

I vote we just leave albums because it makes Relient K discography pointless--User:NFAN3|NFAN3 04:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Leaving just albums is pretty standard for band articles with a separate discography page. And having to update chart information twice is pointless. When the singles and EPs are removed, I think we should change to a Gallery format for the albums, so we get to see the album covers better, while still having all the information (except the status which should be chucked). The discography page should still use the table though. - kollision 04:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I never said get rid of the discography, I just said this article makes it look pointless--User:NFAN3|NFAN3 15:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Singles and EP's should be removed unless moved to a format like in the Five Iron Frenzy article. But we should still remove the singles and maybe keep the EP's up--DJREJECTED 15:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't saying to get rid of the discography either. I was agreeing that singles and EPs should be removed and said the albums should be changed to gallery format, like the Placebo article. - kollision 02:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, if the 3 of us agree, lets do it--User:NFAN3|NFAN3 18:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Much better. Dan, the CowMan 06:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
First of all, learn grammar. It should be "What's the point...," not "what the points..." Second, why are we taking out their singles and EPs? That's ridiculous and illogical. The discography is a record of their CDs; that includes singles, EPs, demos, and albums. They should all be included in the discography. Have you people forgotten that we're an encyclopedia?--WatchHawk 16:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalization of Band Name

To my knowledge, the band's official capitalization has always been 'relient K' with a lowercase 'r', using the album covers from the first few CDs as evidence. Should this be changed in the Wikipedia article? D3PyroGS 16:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

They keep changing —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NFAN3 (talk • contribs) 11:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
No, I think they pretty much keep it all capitalized now.72.187.181.180 21:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)RoryS89

[edit] Discography Section

I think the the old discography section was a mess, and the gallery method, I think, is the better way to go. We still need to work on it though.

I think the main goal for the article is to get it to Featured Article status. If we can achieve that, then that means more exposure for the band, since millions look at the Featured Article everyday, I think we should work toward that. It's already on the right track, it just needs some work, and TLC. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Art10 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

I put it in a better looking way, but someone removed parts of it, so it looked messed up, so I think we need to change it back from the gallery, it looks better the way it was I think. I'll leave it alone so someone has the chance to respond, but I'll just fix it tomorrow. It got messed up as it was because someone took out all the markups that actually put it in a box.RoryS89 21:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)RoryS89
I actually agree with using the table discography instead of the gallery. It took up less space, had less white space, it provided more information, and the information was less cramped and easier to find. - kollision 13:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'll add it back, and see what everyone thinks. Sound good? I'll change it sometime soon here. RoryS89 22:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)RoryS89
While I don't know how much I like the gallery format in general, in this case, the table had too much information, I think. Music videos aren't really relevant here. They can be covered in the main article for each album. And if we're going to make it a table, let's make it a true table and put the repetitive info descriptors ("Released", "Label", etc) in an actual header row. If it's between the original table and the current gallery, I think I prefer the gallery in this case. It's fairly clean and simple. --Fru1tbat 04:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
As a big fan, music videos are very important to me. I think they are awesome to watch, and I love when a band makes a new video for any song of theirs. That's why I don't exactly like the discography as a separate page, because some people won't see that other page now, whether they have access or not. I just think the big think about the table is that it lines them up nicely, they're not just placed one after another like a gallery does. If everyone is okay with that table, I will gladly put it back.RoryS89 20:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)RoryS89
Whether or not there should be a separate discography article is somewhat beside the point, though I don't see how the volume of information in the current separate article could possibly be fit into the main article here. Either way, what makes the music videos worthy of inclusion in the main album table and not, say, the singles? Singles are, in general, far more relevant in the context of an album than music videos are, as their exposure is generally far greater. I understand that you may be particularly interested in music videos, but I think we have to consider the fact that this is a summary table of the band's major releases, and minor information can't be included arbitrarily. See, for example, several proposed discography formats at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Musicians/Article_guidelines. Major items like release year are included in every proposed format. Many include chart positions. The only formats that include more minor fields have been rejected. --Fru1tbat 03:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
It still is a way to give more information, and very simply shows what videos have been made for what albums. And music videos aren't really minor to me at all, though I understand if they are that way to you. But to a band like, Switchfoot, for example, they love making videos. They even made two for their last album that were never even released until their Switchfootage 2 DVD came out. And with Relient K, fans love their videos, and the number of them is growing. They just shot their 7th one last week.RoryS89 20:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)RoryS89
I understand videos may be important to some bands in particular, but what the band likes doesn't drive what's important to the greater music community. A large group of editors has already built a consensus on what should be included and what shouldn't, in an attempt to establish a guideline for a common acceptable style. While there's no official guideline on exactly what the discography should look like, there are several standard formats that are widely used, and none of them place a high importance on including videos in the album discography (which is generally preferred to be more on the un-cluttered side). That's the point of the separate video section of the discography. I don't know how much it's worth continuing to argue about. I just don't like to see custom formats that, when viewed in the context of the rest of Wikipedia, make the article look out-of-place and substandard... --Fru1tbat 22:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

One reason I fight for this is that I don't want to see this page become like the Switchfoot page. The Switchfoot page is so closely guarded, so closely watched, it's no longer fun to edit it. The discography section is so plain, merely listing the album titles and nothing more. I would suggest we change it over there, but I fear no one would have any part of it. The Relient K page still has hope of being a fun and more-informative page, so I don't want us to lose that. People won't mind the inclusion of music videos, and as a matter of fact, a fan reading this would appreciate music videos I think more than the perfect set up. No offense or anything, but I don't see why music videos make it so "substandard", as you say. If you look at the discography we had compared to others, I think it's much better, because it looks better going down in one straight line like that, as opposed to the albums paneled (sp?)across a box. Whatever we decide, let's not compare it to a bunch of other articles, because there are those of us who prefer this article over the others.RoryS89 16:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)RoryS89 16:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)RoryS89

[edit] Citation Needed

Can somebody please either give references for the Citation Needed sections, or delete the info? It's been there for a few months, and somebody needs to fix it up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Art10 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

I think that the Christian band debate section should be deleted as it's purely opinion and Relient K are known for using "God" and Jesus" in the lyrics. For example in "The Moment I Feel Faint" and even in "Charles In Charge"

7thdiversity (talk • contribs) 18:20, 22 May 2007 (GMT).

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Relient logo.png

Image:Relient logo.png 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 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 08:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Music Genre

I've noticed that in the article, Relient k's is constantly being renamed (pop/punk to post-hardcore to pop, etc.). It would probably be a good idea to find a citation and use it.

Jcpizzadude 14:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should we add a to-do list?

Should we add a to-do list to make this article, become a rated "A" article. Other things we could do is add things to make the article better, try and remove those citation needed and things to improve all Relient K articles. More info can be found how to do this by going here WP:TDL. -- GoDawgs 04:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think a to-do list would be of great benefit, assuming it was used appropriately. There have been several times where I've been on Wikipedia, trying to help make the articles better, but I've been unsure as to what actually needed to be done. In instances like this, I've often found myself just checking the references to make sure the information presented was accurate and for spelling/grammar errors. While I know these tasks are needed, it would be nice to be able to focus my efforts a bit more. —Mears man 15:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah the other day I reverted three edits, which in return you reverted more vandalism. It's there's some hidden vandalism that needs to be taken care of. -- GoDawgs 16:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and add a to-do list, those who want to add things to do, feel free. I'm going to see what can be done to this article. -- GoDawgs 22:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Double Take album

I was looking through Ruckus (the college-themed music site) and they have listed a new remastered album called "Double Take." I couldn't find out much about it but I think it should be added to the discography. Here's the track listing:

Release Date: December 26, 2006

1. Chap stick, Chapped Lips and Things Like Chemistry (Gold Edition) (Remastered) (2006 Digital Remaster) 3:10 2. Mood Rings (Gold Edition) (Remastered) (2006 Digital Remaster) 3:18 3. Falling Out (Gold Edition) (Remastered) (2006 Digital Remaster) 3:52 4. Forward Motion (Gold Edition) (Remastered) (2006 Digital Remaster) 3:57 5. In Love With The 80's (Pink Tux To The Prom) (Gold Edition) (Remastered) (2006 Digital Remaster) 3:09 6. College Kids (Gold Edition) (Remastered) (2006 Digital Remaster) 3:27 7. Trademark (Gold Edition) (Remastered) (2006 Digital Remaster) 3:54 8. Hoopes I Did It Again (Gold Edition) (Remastered) (2006 Digital Remaster) 3:12 9. Over Thinking (Gold Edition) (Remastered) (2006 Digital Remaster) 4:08 10. I Am Understood (Gold Edition) (Remastered) (2006 Digital Remaster) 4:23 11. Getting Into You (Gold Edition) (Remastered) (2006 Digital Remaster) 3:24 12. Kids On The Street (Gold Edition) 0:26 13. Gibberish (Gold Edition) (Remastered) (2006 Digital Remaster) 1:45 14. From End To End (Gold Edition) (Remastered) (2006 Digital Remaster) 4:37 15. Jefferson Aero Plane (Gold Edition) (Remastered) (2006 Digital Remaster) 10:20 16. Silly Shoes (Gold Edition) (2006 Digital Remaster) 7:32

Disc 2 Artist Recommend Download 1. Kick-Off (Gold Edition) (Remastered) (2006 Digital Remaster) 0:38 2. Pressing On (Gold Edition) (Remastered) (2006 Digital Remaster) 3:29 3. Sadie Hawkins Dance (Gold Edition) (Remastered) (2006 Digital Remaster) 2:57 4. Down In Flames (Gold Edition) (Remastered) (2006 Digital Remaster) 4:08 5. Maybe It's Maybeline (Gold Edition) (Remastered) (2006 Digital Remaster) 3:13 6. Breakdown (Gold Edition) (Remastered) (2006 Digital Remaster) 3:45 7. Those Words Are Not Enough (Gold Edition) (Remastered) (2006 Digital Remaster) 4:39 8. For The Moments I Feel Faint (Gold Edition) (Remastered) (2006 Digital Remaster) 3:47 9. Lion Wilson (Gold Edition) (Remastered) (2006 Digital Remaster) 0:35 10. I'm Lion-O (Gold Edition) (Remastered) (2006 Digital Remaster) 2:55 11. What Have You Been Doing Lately? (Gold Edition) (Remastered) (2006 Digital Remaster) 3:23 12. May The Horse Be With You (Gold Edition) (Remastered) (2006 Digital Remaster) 2:17 13. My Way Or The Highway (Gold Edition) (Remastered) (2006 Digital Remaster) 3:47 14. Breakfast At Timpani's (Gold Edition) (2006 Digital Remaster) 0:22 15. The Rest Is Up To You (Gold Edition) (Remastered) (2006 Digital Remaster) 4:04 16. Failure To Excommunicate (Gold Edition) (Remastered) (2006 Digital Remaster) 3:36 17. Less Is More (Gold Edition - Digital) (2006 Digital Remaster) 4:22 18. The Ballad of Tim Eddings (2006 Digital Remaster) 7:32

more info: http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/relientk/albums/album/12814862/double_take__relient_k

it looks like it's online-download only. Pat Nosker 19:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Aren't the Double-Take albums an iTunes project? I've seen a bunch of them in the iTunes store. Jcpizzadude 15:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I've noticed that too, that first set of songs is just "Two lefts" remastered or something. The second is "Anatomy of tongue in cheek" I believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IronCrow (talk • contribs) 04:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The "remastered" part probably refers to the fact that it is the digital copy of the Two Lefts "gold" remastery from back in 2006. There was very little press about it, since it essentially sounded just like the original, but was in fact remastered by the same person who mastered mmhmm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josejuan05 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Dude, that's just the two gold albums except on the two lefts bla bla bla one the 16th track was hidden, and you have to FF like 2 minutes of silence to get there.

[edit] Plagarism?

I don't want to put a tag on the page, but is the quotation from Jesus Freak Hideout or whatever plagarism? It's a very long, direct quote. Any input? 67.102.184.26 18:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that, at the very least, the quote was unnecessary, so I went ahead an removed it. If someone wants to paraphrase what was said and add that information to the article that would be fine, but there was no need for such a long quote, especially one so full of peacock terms and POV. —Mears man 18:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christian band

The section on "Relient K as a Christian band" seems far too long for me. The POV of this section seems to be of defense of Relient K as a Christian band, when I don't think there is significant need for this defense.

--Churchymcgee 08:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

"Fixed." —ScouterSig 18:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't think the controversy around them being a Christian band it is needed. I don't know a single person who believes Relient K is not a Christian band, and it has not been a significant topic with what comes with the band. The sentence "The band's songs are not all about God, but the majority of them say "You" in reference to God, or talk about subjects such as becoming a better person," seems to imply that Christian bands do only "Jesus songs." That's definitly not the case, most, if not the majority of Christian bands do not do songs that are all about Jesus. Drugs, sex, violence, emotion, love, hope, distress, all are topics used. There really is no controversy around it that is notable enough. Anyways, I edited the line to say "Like other Christian rock bands, the band's songs are not all about God, but the majority of them say "You" in reference to God, or talk about subjects such as becoming a better person." Feel free to improve it. IronCrow 04:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

In the song Devistation and Reform they say "Thank you god". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.70.65 (talk) 15:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't say much, However, they ahve been known as/have said theya re a Christian band before. I guess with popularity, one doubts. IronCrow (talk) 04:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Serious Cleanup Needed

Anyone who has seen the page knows it needs cleanup. Someone came in and changed the first part completely. I'll do the best I can, but I need help Fbifriday 21:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced statements

I went ahead and removed some statements that have been tagged as needing a citation since February 2007. Personally, I know that some of this info is accurate, but that doesn't count as a source, so I removed it all for the sake of consistency. Anyway, the removed statements are listed below as they appeared in the article (note that I only removed the info inside the parentheses on the last one). Please re-add them to the article once you find an appropriate source for them.

When they later found out that the trademark wouldn't be an issue, they kept the name, as they found the misspelling funny.
The same year, Relient K made a special appearance at the final Five Iron Frenzy concert at the Fillmore Auditorium in Denver, Colorado where they performed, for the very last time, "Five Iron Frenzy is Either Dead or Dying."
In early June 2005, the band was featured on MTV's 10 Spot Drop, which gave the band a boost in its popularity, as did their Spring 2005 tour opening for Simple Plan and Good Charlotte and having the main stage slot on the 2005 Van's Warped Tour.
The band qualifies for these awards because Matt Thiessen was born in St. Catharines, Ontario in Canada.
Recording for the new album, Five Score and Seven Years Ago, started (according to Thiessen at the Ichthus Music Festival 2006) on June 18, 2006 and continued for parts of July and August.

Thanks! —Mears man 16:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dave

Until 12/29/2007, Dave Douglas is still a member of the band. I changed it back as someone had already put him in "past members." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.82.115 (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relient K Images

I found quite a few good images that are under the Creative Commons Thing. here on flickr. I've uploaded a couple and added them to the article. -Brian Alexander (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Drumer

I was reading about the members and I noticed that there is no drumer who does the drums?

At the present, no one, and I think they are still looking for another drummer. They must not be touring, because they definitely need one. Liscobeck (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

well they must be getting a new guy pretty soon or at least hoping so, because on their myspace it says they have a concert on march 14th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.65.47 (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Im pretty sure they could get a temporary drummer for a concert or two —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iandrummer204 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a new drummer who joined yesterday, he is called Ethan luck, hopefully ethan will have a lot of luck (no pun intended) as the new drummer for the band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thrice34 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discography

Why is the discography listed in this artical when their is a seperate artical for it already? I think someone should get rid of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.70.65 (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sloppy article

I'm sorry, but this article is very weak. It seriously needs a MAJOR editing, if not a complete rewrite. The copyediting is very poor, and many statments are unsourced. There may be some verification done, according to the to-do list, but it's got a long way to go before it can be considered for GA status. Anyone else agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liscobeck (talk • contribs) 04:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I say do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.70.65 (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm not a great writer, but I see a few things that should be cleaned up, preferredly by someone familiar with the sources and material. Feel free to disagree, but it seems as if much of the article could be removed and better placed in a more structured discography section or in tables. TV appearances, especially, receive quite a bit of mention that could better be placed lower, in a table. Radio play statistics could better be placed in a Discography section. Awards can also be placed in a table. More generically, it seems to me as if too many details are written in that may not be appropriate for a Wikipedia article. For example, there is a huge paragraph about the Relient K/Switchfoot/Ruth tour (which, incidentally, is out of date) that could probably be edited down to two sentences. Wikipedia is meant to read like an encyclopedia, not a journal.Josejuan05 (talk) 08:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Relient K as a Christian band" section

I do not believe that this section is needed. Almost every Chrsitian band has a controversy with someone saying "they aren't a Chrsitian band." It's silly to add it into this article when every band of the same genre has had that controversy. I will remove it, but if anyone sees some reason (a good one) for it to remain, please discuss it first so we can get this cleared up. Thanks in advance. IronCrow (talk) 04:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. If the section has not yet been deleted, I will delete it now. Jcpizzadude (talk) 20:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I removed it, but I am still unsure as to how that was added to the article. I'm guessing popularity of a band always makes one doubt what it it is. I suggest keeping a look our for anyone who wishes to start an edit war over this, however, it's highly unlikely... then again... it was added there in the first place. IronCrow (talk) 05:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

What the heck did you just do that's a very important piece of information, Wikipedia is about getting information and looking something up and learning about it basicly and some people want proof not just say so, so someone better put that back its really important! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.155.141 (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there's something called "useless information." Every band that is a Christian band, and I mean every Christian band, has that argument, some have the argument stretched to an even greater degree. It is even touched a bit on in the Christian rock and Christian metal pages. This argument that they are/are not a Christian band is not any more notable than say... Inhale Exhale or The Devil Wears Prada. Do you propose we insert that into every article of a Christian band? It is redundant and doesn't improve the article. IronCrow (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

But it helps the viewers of Wikipedia find what they want to know that's what wikipedia is about why else would this site exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.72.147 (talk) 20:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about adding every bit of information that can be put into an article, and not about trivia. Like I said, EVERY band has had the question asked: "Are you a Christian band" and jsut about everyone of them have had a similiar reply, "yes" or "You can call us that." It is redundant and irrelevant to add that to every one of these band pages. IronCrow (talk) 02:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it matters if "every band" has that controversy. The issue is, and if any of you go to the Relient K boards you know about this, people want to know if their favorite band is Christian. And Wikipedia, which formerly gave the answer in Matt Thiessen's words, no longer will tell them what they want to know. It doesn't matter if every band has that issue, we should give an answer to Relient K's Christianity because it is very important and some people become very concerned on whether or not they are Christian. I say we put it back because people want to know and it is important to them. At the very least, reinsert the quote at the beginning of the article. Thanks for reading even if you don't go along with it.RoryS89 (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)RoryS89

Well said and its two against one so majority wins change it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.72.147 (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Well come on change it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.78.70 (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It's consensus, not "majority rules." A consensus is a consensual agreement or collaborative resolution. Also, there was someone who agreed with me so it would be 2 and 2. Please read Wikipedia guidelines before acting as such. And like I said, Rory, every Christian band has the issue, and not only that, but this band's issue is not notable enough. Regardless of what a forum thinks and asks, that doesn't make the question notable enough. So what if "everyone wants to know if their favorite band is Christian" or "some people want to know." There's already an answer in the question everywhere on the page where it discusses genre. Wikipedia's notability does not go by "what people want to know," it goes by what is notable and what is not, there is no need to explain it if it is already implied within the article. IronCrow (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discography pages

Why are their two Discography pages? Here's the links. Category:Relient K albums and here's the other Relient K discography

That would be because one is a category, and the other is an article. -- PEPSI2786talk 21:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Expanding discography section

I noticed that the discography section of this article simply links to the Relient K discography article, and doesn't list any of their discography. I thought it would be better to minorly expand it, in case someone wants a basic summary of their albums without having to go to another article for the full details. If you look at a FA like U2, there's a small discography section summarizing their main albums ("studio albums" and "compilation and live albums") with a link to the main U2 discography article, of course. I didn't like the way the discography section with this article was so lacking, so I went ahead and followed that similar type of basic formatting that's used in the U2 article. I've now expanded it to simply include Relient K's main studio releases under a new subheader, "Studio albums". I can always transfer the info into a wikitable or minorly rearrange the formatting from the way it is now, if that would be better. Let me know on my talk page if there's any opposition towards this any way, or if you have any ideas how to improve that section. Thanks, --JamieS93 02:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind at all. It improves the article and doesn't harm anything. I'd do it myself, but I have alot on my to-do list. IronCrow (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I've already expanded the section, and I like the way it is now. Thanks for the second opinion. :) --JamieS93 19:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Myspace

They havent updated their myspace for over a year, its still themed with five score, no comments have been approved since august 16th, are the band jus too busy as my mum suggests or have they got a new myspace or dont they want it anymore? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thrice34 (talk • contribs) 11:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I would think it is because they are too busy. You can tell when bands operate their own myspace when that happens. ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 04:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Albums

I was looking back at some of the past edits and I saw that there was one that added the Birds and the Bee-sides and the Nashville Tennis EP, and then there was one that deleted it. I figured that this was because they have not been released yet, but because they have already been confirmed by the band I figured they should be in the list anyways. I readded those albums, but labeled them not yet released in addition to the 2008 release date that was already listed next to it. Was this the right thing to do? Ndstar13 (talk) 22:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The thing is the list on this article is for studio albums only. If you look at Relient K discography, the Bee-sides album and Tennis EP are listed in their appropriate sections. kollision (talk) 02:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clarifying. I understand now. Ndstar13 (talk) 13:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)