Talk:The Shins

message: surf rock? haha thats funny71.137.242.244 (talk) 15:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genre 

message: In the production section, the following is written "'The Shins’ first album, Chutes Too Narrow, was home recorded and produced. In order to maintain the home-recorded sound that made Chutes Too Narrow so unique, The Shins began their recording of Oh, Inverted World in James Mercer’s basement.". I'm pretty sure their first album is 'Oh, Inverted World' (indeed it is stated just above this in the article). This makes me doubt the accuracy of this section. Darragh (talk) 10:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Making it more readable 

message: 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)
thread_title: Critically acclaimed

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Alright, I'll try and add some content over the next few days --Brendanfox 01:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of band member articles

message: 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)
thread_title: Trivia problems

message: 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)
replies: text: Uploaded. Commons category added to external links. Nothing great, I'm afraid: I was shooting at about 18-20 meters through a crowd to a not terribly well-lit stage. I'll let someone else decide whether any of these are worth using in the article. - Jmabel | Talk 23:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: Why is there nothing about the new member? 64.113.127.159 05:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Member 

message: :Image:Fighting in a Sack.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 07:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Fighting in a Sack.jpg

message: :Image:Know Your Onion.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 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 10:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Know Your Onion.jpg

message: :Image:The-Shins-New-Slang-285279.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 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 06:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:The-Shins-New-Slang-285279.jpg

message: How come the section named "Signed to Sub-Pop" doesn't actually mention the signing?!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.135.40 (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  signed to sub pop 

message: His blog made it sound like he's moved on. Can anyone elaborate or edit the article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.16.34 (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eric Johnson still a member? 

message: why is James Russel Mercer appearance on an episode of Portlandia mentioned in the preface?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barakpick (talk • contribs) 12:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:   Portlandia - preface?  

message: --Dskro (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production / Saturday Night Live 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on The Shins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tntdownunder.com/article/2446199116.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.alibi.com/alibi/2001-06-21/feature_section.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.abqtrib.com/archives/diversions01/062901_diversions_shins.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Regarding Mark, the text claims he began playing for the band in 2014, the diagram suggests it was later. --Ysangkok (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction