Talk:Wolfmother

message: The photo of the band seems a bit out of date.  If you can't pick Andrew Stockdale's afro at an instant glance, something's wrong.  He probably hasn't had a haircut since that photo was taken.    Daniel Kiley 09:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone object to putting a colour photo of the band up? --Rachel Cakes 07:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo out of date?

message: In my opinion, this is a very good song by wolfmother. Does anyone know where this song came from? im going to add some information about it in the article, unless there are any objections--Bagel7 06:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joker and the Thief? 

message: Two articles from The Guardian, one an interview and the other a review. Have fun. 
*Interview with Andrew Stockdale
*Review of Dimension 
Telsa (talk) 07:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: Was that Wolfmother in the new ipod commercial I just seen?
:Yes --Mdhowe 08:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: iPod Commercial?

message: maybe someone could try and find specific references as to what instruments they use. both the gibson SG and the rickenbacker 4000 are pretty iconinc in the rock world but i havnt been able to find any specific specs on which models are you used.
:I think the bassist plays a Hammond organ, but I'm not sure. They also make frequent use of the Big Muff Pi pedal.24.159.205.132 22:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Instruments 

message: I'm not sure that Love Train was ever actually released as a single in the United States.  How could it have hit #5 on the Billboard Modern Rock charts?
:You're right, it was just someone vandalising / being dumb. I've removed the Love Train line altogether as it was never released as a single anywhere. Mdhowe 04:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Love Train 

message: Is the line, "Woman/You know that you're a woman..." or is it "Woman/You're not a woman..."? In the lyric booklet and television captions for the video, it's the former. But I've also seen it as the latter, so which is it? There are other minor mistakes in the lyric booklet that I know are wrong because when Andrew sings a certain word, it's clearly different. One example in Tales, the end line reads "Light the candle to see what may unfold" but it's pretty clear that when sung, it is "Light the candle to see what you may be." So due to these minor mistakes throughout, I thought maybe the Woman line was misprinted also (maybe because Andrew decided to change it while singing, as is a common practice and creates typical discrepancies for the printed version). Also, it doesn't really seem like someone could fit all those words from the former within that time constraint of the beat, and it also seems like it makes more sense to say, "You're not a woman/You've got to be a woman" cause you're not yet or something, but that's my interpretation. -Wilhelm Screamer 19:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Woman, you... 

message: Anybody here who listens to Wolfmother can add the userbox I just created:  or  to thier user page(s). Enjoy. Editor19841 (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Wikipedians who listen to Wolfmother]] 

message: With regards to the spam, some of it may be remotely useful in the miscellaneous, as it does state that the band's music is used in so-and-so, or was played in someplace. So, should the spam be scrounged through for useful information or not?
Page-protection may also be needed for this wiki, as it has been subject to several broadsides on the part of a couple of vandals. Qwerty 15:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miscellaneous 

message: i reverted the image page back to the public domain picture. can someone tell a admin that it's ok now? 'cause that deletion warning still seems to be there. dposse 16:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: heh, i didn't know how ugly that first picture was. someone needs to do something about this!! dposse 16:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The new picture seems a little odd... Editor19841 (talk) 21:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  fair use picture 

message: I noticed that a lot of sites have been linking to articles, interviews etc.  I think removal of these is fair enough, but a link to the only dedicated fan site and forum is surely okay (wolfmother.net)?  I just added it back - please advise whether you think it should stay. Chimaeric 13:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam link cleanup 

message: Can somebody link to the iPod commercial either within the text or in the external links section? Thanks The freddinator 13:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  iPod commercial 

message: Just a heads up guys.
I have created , a band template. I have also created :Category:Wolfmother.Any pages relating to Wolfmother should have the band template and Category placed at the bottom of the page. -- Reaper  X 20:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Template and Category

message: I just heard about some plans for the band to tour with The Who/Pete Townshend. . We should probably get an associated acts section in the infobox up and start listing some of the acts they've been touring with/performing with in addition to the upcoming set with The Who (Dead Meadow, Wolf People, Pearl Jam). Also; some info was included in the noted link of possible future collaboration between P Diddy and Stockdale. Editor19841 (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Touring with The Who/other acts

message: Don't these guys sound so much like The White Stripes it's hard to not classify them as an influence? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.96.118.131 (talk) 00:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influences 

message: The article lists the name of the next album as 'Wolfmother II' but i can't find a source for that name, even in the link which it says that information is from. Can someone verify the name of the next album if it's indeed titled yet? And if not could someone please change the information. Thanks.Donnelly Rules 22:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I surfed a bit when I stumbled upon the article, and all I could find was a blog posting that claimed there was a quote that Rolling Stone said something about it. Is there any subscribers in the house? -- Reaper  X 17:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Album? 

message: Hey guys how about linking to Wolfmother's A.D.D. bio on MTV.com? Its exclusive content and Its a pretty cool piece on the band. Check it out and see if you want to add it to the external link page. The URL is http://www.mtv.com/overdrive/?id=1537670&vid=99706--Chasingemy 20:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that Chasingemy is an MTV employee. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: The article says: "On June 28, 2007, they headlined at Summerfest, "The World's Largest Music Festival", in Milwaukee, WI. This is the first time the band performed the song "Pleased to Meet You" live, according to Stockdale during the show."
I know this statement to be false, because they played it at a concert April 28th, 2007, so either Stockdale lied or someone is making things up.
Kilamanjaroface 23:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well regardless, this paragraph has a  template, and cannot be verified. In fact the whole article has quite a few uncited claims similar to this. If you can find a source that can confirm or correct that line or any other uncited material, be bold and add it. It makes the article credible and look a hell of a lot better. Cheers. -- Reaper  X 23:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please to Meet You first performance date 

message: This is too negative, and comparisons to other bands are blown out of proportion and too biased. They're more psychadelic rock like Pink Floyd, than Black Sabbath and other hard rock, they're own style is being neglected. These articles are B.S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chunto (talk • contribs) 00:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality of Article Disputed 

message: Adding the paragraph on Mike Patton is clearly not acceptable for Wikipedia.  It reports a POV of one person, whose POV is of no great significance, and reports it in the form of a personal attack on that person ('Jealous Prick').  This is a violation of Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view twice over.  Criticism is only notable if it has a point (not just "I don't like them"), or is made by particularly relevant people.  Otherwise would it be acceptable to add a note to every band that Mike Patton doesn't like?  Just so we know?  --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not nessecarily a violation of NPOV since it's a straight quote from Patton and wasn't written to support or detract from what he said. The 'Jealous Prick' thing is the title of the reference, that being a YouTube video, and it's referring to Patton, not Wolfmother.  Regardless, I see your point, and I usually might agree that it's of no significance, however, Patton holds a pretty high esteem in the rock world and his comments about Wolfmother were a pretty big deal when it happened.  I think it warrants a mention on this article.  The user that added it exaggerated it to be pretty biased and "fannish" on Patton's part, but I've edited it down to how it is now.  Thanks.  The KZA 22:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: In my book it's the most amusing thing that's ever happened in relation to Wolfmother, but Wikipedia isn't my book, so I shall leave it alone. --Bobyllib 00:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think criticism constitutes a feud. Patton clearly doesn't like Wolfmother, according to the youtube video. From the Wolfmother interview it looks like Myles Heskett is a fan of Patton. He cites Faith No More as an influence, and calls Patton a cool guy. Saying ATFV is "too irritating and painful to endure" isn't criticism, it's supposed to be irritating.Pwrong (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mike Patton 

message: This, surely, should come under "Critical Response".
Also, a band member saying the band have jam sessions is not evidence for the band stealing music.
I agree, it's redundant and adresses the same issues the critical response section does.--68.50.46.113 14:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Critisism" 

message: The band's myspace at myspace.com/wolfmother lists theirs sources as The Beatles, Pink Floyd, The White Stripes, etc, could someone PLEASE add these to the article? i don't know how to refernce sources, every time i try it doesn't work or someone deletes it. -- boogerman111 3.35, 22 November 2007.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boogerman111 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actual Influences and Similar Artists 

message: 'Wolfmother have enjoyed considerable success in reaction to the mid-2000s Retro Metal movement, at which they are often considered the chief pioneer.'
This sentence is trying to mean at least two opposed things at the same time - that Wolfmother have succeeded in being 'in reaction to' a movement 'at which they are often considered the chief pioneer'.  And that should probably be 'of', not 'at', me bucko.  I know nothing about any 'mid-2000s Retro Metal movement', but assuming that one exists, I would have thought that Wolfmother are hardly 'in reaction to' it.  They're as retro metal as they come.  I like them, mind you.  But would the person who wrote this sentence mind telling us what s/he was trying to say?  Otherwise it should be 'Wolfmother have enjoyed considerable success as part of the mid-200s Retro Metal movement, of which they are often considered the chief pioneer.'  Even then it would need citations to back up the 'often considered' bit - who has often considered them that, exactly?  The whole article needs a general stylistic cleanup, mind.  Lexo (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style, grammar, meaning and lack of same 

message: Is it really worth mentioning?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.236.106.194 (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  I don't think it counts as a "beef" since only one or two words were said, and only by happenstance.  Sheeeeeeep (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict With Mike Patton? 

message: Can anyone explain why the mentioning of the new album was taken down. There are some sources (eg: interviews with Andrew and the band that state that the new album will be out soon.) They also say the name of a new song. so why is it so bad to mention that on this page  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.235.246.98 (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Happened To Mammoth? 

message: I don't see why the genres were changed. I believe that neo-psychedelia and stoner rock/metal were up there before, but now they aren't. Why was this changed? Was it vandalism or intentional? Whiffle Ball Tony (talk) 02:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genres Changed 

message: Domdrysdale (talk) 04:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  cover of perfect day 

message: someone keeps changing the date band has dissolved when in fact it has been stated numerous times that Stockdale continues on. No permanent dissolution is yet announced
DrScummm (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. People also keep changing "Wolfmother is" to "Wolfmother was" in the intro. I've changed it back (again) and added a note. As long as Stockdale is looking to continue, the band still exists. Keep your fork, there's pie (talk) 19:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And someone on the talk page keeps using the word "dissolved" as if Wolfmother were a financial trading company or a house of parliament. JayKeaton (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Or any other organised group of people. Oh, wait... Keep your fork, there's pie (talk) 01:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  not yet dissolved 

message: I believe the article should have the band as on hiatus from August 2008 to February 2009, or even later. As the band have been inactive since August (until February), it should be considered a hiatus while Stockdale looked for new members. As they have now played their first gig with new members (Feb. 6), the band should be considered active again. Alternatively, they could be considered active again when an official statement is made revealing new members. So, options:
*Wolfmother are active from 2000–present;
*Wolfmother are active from 2000–2008 (Aug.), (Feb.) 2009–present; or
*Wolfmother are active from 2000–2008 (Aug.), (Mar./later) 2009–present.
Thoughts? Andre666 (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hiatus, White Feather, new members 

message: does someone wanna add that they were good friends with the cast from Jackass.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ICheets (talk • contribs) 06:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty unnecessary info. The Jackass Crew's involvement in the "Joker & the Thief" music video may have been mentioned in that article. Andre666 (talk) 10:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: your right, that would be  a better palce to put it, thanks. --iCheets  (talk) 22:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: I propose removing the color bar chart/timeline from the Band members section of the article, as being too obvious, and it also throws off the formatting of the rest of that section. The history of the band's membership just isn't complex enough to justify taking up the space with a chart. (For an example of a band that really does need a colored membership timeline, see this: [].) But on the other hand, maybe it isn't really hurting anything either. Comments? Doomsdayer520 (talk) 12:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I implemented it so I'll go ahead and remove it. Andre666 (talk) 11:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Band members section 

message: allmusic lists them as alternative metal and alternative rock so those genres should be added  — Preceding unsigned comment added by I call the big one bitey (talk • contribs) 00:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. Their sound is inherently and thoroughly mainstream, and they show very few signs of alternative rock/metal, other than the occasional drop D song. Andre666 (talk) 00:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative rock and metal 

message: Okay, so Stockdale announced that Wolfmother, at least the name, is no more. But I'm not sure whether this is just a change of name (like with Vista Chino/Kyuss Lives) or that Wolfmother is completely over and that both acts are separate. So are we going to change the band name on the article, like  what we did with Vista Chino/Kyuss Lives!, or is this going to have its separate article?--TheBronzeMex (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The band is over. Andrew is now a solo artist, and I have created a template and stuff for this accordingly. Andre666 (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Andrew Stockdale solo and Wolfmother hiatus/split 

message: By the use of "were" I assumed the band had finally collapsed, but the article makes it clear their third lineup is releasing an album very soon (if they haven't already). So which is it?
I've changed the article back to the proper tense, if anyone has any objections, feel free to talk about it here. Insidious611 (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Check sources, the band has ended and Andrew will continue as a solo musician. Feel free to edit the bits which say a third album is being released. Andre666 (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing use of tense? 

message: Recent edits have tried to change the history of the band, according to interviews with Andrew , he first got together with Chris and Myles in 2000 but their first public performances weren't until 2004. Dan arndt (talk) 01:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, that still does not constitute the formation of the band. They jammed together, but did not have a band name or do anything public until 2004 (the band name was chosen right before their first show apparently). Also, in that source on the page, he makes it VERY clear to the interviewer that they formed in 2004. Just because they met and started playing music together years earlier, that doesn't mean "Wolfmother" was formed then. Do you get what I'm saying? I think it's fair to say 2004 is when "Wolfmother" officially came into existence. Andre666 (talk) 09:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Formation

message: Led Zeppelin is NOT a heavy metal band. They did some heavy metal songs, but they are few in between albums. Officially they were a rock and roll band, although they didn't have a specific genre.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.210.32.71 (talk) 13:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical Response 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Wolfmother. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140509043652/http://www.billboard.com:80/charts/2006-05-20/billboard-200 to http://www.billboard.com/charts/2006-05-20/billboard-200
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100603030417/http://www.downloadfestival.co.uk:80/news/article.aspx?aid=daefbe87-e16a-404a-bb3d-880f742fd51d to http://downloadfestival.co.uk/news/article.aspx?aid=daefbe87-e16a-404a-bb3d-880f742fd51d
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Wolfmother. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090227073309/http://www.soundrelief.com.au/melb/index.php to http://www.soundrelief.com.au/melb/index.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080815234144/http://www.rhino.com:80/rzine/storykeeper.lasso?StoryID=806 to http://www.rhino.com/rzine/storykeeper.lasso?StoryID=806
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080419060307/http://www.abc.net.au:80/myfavouritealbum/top100.htm to http://www.abc.net.au/myfavouritealbum/top100.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Look, we need to settle this and stop edit-warring. The band were formed in 2004, not in 2000. Andrew, Chris and Myles, as individual musicians, jammed together a few times between 2000 and 2004. That does not mean that they are Wolfmother. This is probably way overstated and I bet if you asked them, they would say that the band formed in 2004. After jamming for that time, the 3 then went "Okay, let's form Wolfmother", and began booking shows. Just because they jammed for a few years or whatever beforehand, that does not mean that is when the band formed. All that needs to happen to cover this period is for it to be mentioned in the first paragraph of the history, which I did just fine in my recent overhaul. Making the lead confusing for people does not help either; this is supposed to be a succinct, simple section covering basic facts. Please can you understand this and cease editing this particular element of the page? Happy to discuss further of course. Thanks for your time. Andre666 (talk) 12:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That maybe your point of view however from what I have read of published sources and interviews the band spent four years practising and honing their sound before they felt that they were ready to perform as a band. The reason that started jamming together was solely to perform professionally. So I would have to disagree with your interpretation that they formed in 2004. As a compromise I have included the comment that they started practising in 200 and made their first public performance in 2004. That way it avoids the contention of when the band 'formed' and sticks to the facts not an individual's interpretation of those facts. Dan arndt (talk) 12:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: So... your "interpretation of the facts" are THE FACTS, but my "interpretation of the facts" are just... wrong? I bet you're a super nice guy to hang out with. I'll change it 2000, fuck it. Andre666 (talk) 12:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formation: 2000 or 2004 

message: Substituted at 10:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Wolfmother. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121110023111/http://vimeo.com/24816624 to http://www.vimeo.com/24816624
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified