Talk:Pet Shop Boys

message: An article on homosexual lives around the world used section headers that were Pet Shop Boys song titles.
http://www.economist.com/news/letters/21629213-letters-editor
Might be useful to demonstrate their influence.
Mdnahas (talk) 15:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Economist references Pet Shop Boys 

message: If they weren't gay, and their lyrics were gender neutral, why not display 'New York City Boy' in their discography?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.140.111.29 (talk) 05:06, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not gay? 

message: The link to the Guinness book of records reference (reference 9) actually takes you to the Wikipedia page about the Guinness book of records, which (obv) contains no mention of the Pet Shop Boys. 
In-line references, which link to other Wikipedia pages, should be made using two square brackets at the start and end of the term; ie name of referenced page. If that page exists, that link will turn blue. If not, it will turn red, like the example above. 
The existence of a wiki page about a general topic (in this case, about the Guinness book of records) does not count as proof of any specific references or quotes derived from inside the GBOR. It's impossible to check whether the info given is actually correct without a proper reference or link. 
In any case, the point the reference is supposed to prove (about the success of the Pet Shop Boys) was apparently derived from the 1999 edition of the GBOR (ie 20 years ago). 
Any world records from that time will almost certainly have been broken or superseded since then, and if not, the particular world record\s they hold should be specified. 
The GBOR does not usually make generalised comments or personal judgments like those quoted on this page, ie that the Pet Shop Boys are "..one of the best duos worldwide ever" or even "one of the bestselling duos". They're either the bestsellers in the world (so hold the record) or they're not (and don't). 
Im prepared to be proven wrong there, should appropriate refs can be provided. 
If not, those sections should (and will!) be removed. Thanks
Codeye (talk) 04:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  missing references, old ref's, 'best duo's ever '? 

message: Why is it not The Pet Shop Boys? Wolf O'Donnel (talk) 18:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd have to ask them. They don't use "The" on their records. -- Beardo (talk) 13:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  No use of article? 

message: Plenty of sources point to new wave. Listed below. Binksternet (talk) 02:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes new wave

message: :Hi Binksternet, New Wave is obv the American term for what is now described in the UK as post-punk. I'm not convinced by those links; maybe part of the new wave of "electro pop"...as their roots are very different to say Talking Heads, and more to do with Kraftwerk presentaion/melodies and Giorgio Moroder basslines. Re your links, Joy Division and early New Order were post-punk, mid period new order were electro; since 1994 they are just light weight indie (imo). Ceoil (talk) 12:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'm not convinced either. New Wave is a notoriously misused term, especially among Americans. The Pet Shop Boys' AllMusic biography describes them as synth-pop, dance-pop, disco, and house but makes no mention of New Wave. AllMusic biographies are considered authoritative and are one of the most common references used for sourcing music genres, so I'll change the Wikipedia page to match. Let's hope it stays. Msftwin95 (talk) 17:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

text: New Wave implies lineage from Ramones/talking heads etc; PTB come from Disco, Hi-NRG and early 70s electro. Ceoil (talk) 01:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: No, no-wave

message: I'm not an editor, and don't know where to fix this, but if you Google "Pet Shop Boys", the Wikipedia result's preview text mentions the band "sticks hamsters up their arse". There is no authorized source I could find that confirms the band members share just one ass, so I believe this could be erroneous. 99.89.47.148 (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Disregard it. Someone probably vandalized the page, and then a web browser happened to cache it while the vandalism was displayed. Wikipedia will display the live version of its articles. If you need to review a previous edit, see the View history tab at the top. Thank you for your concerns. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 17:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page blurb/preview pranked 

message: Other articles don’t begin ‘The Duran Duran’ or ‘The U2’ so why does this begin ‘The Pet Shop Boys’? It should just be ‘Pet Shop Boys are………’ 2A00:23C6:D000:1C01:19DE:5008:627B:8A0B (talk) 23:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just how English works. DuncanHill (talk) 23:27, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why ‘The’ Pet Shop Boys