Talk:The Killers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article The Killers has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
May 2, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Musicians (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Alternative music (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to Alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Picture[edit]

In my opinion the picture really does need updating the picture is 3 years old [begining of the Sam's Town era] maybe something from Day and Age would be more suited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.52.140 (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

"Controversy"[edit]

How about we delete the first paragraph (this belongs on Brandon Flowers's page, I think. It's all him.) and change it to "Legal Problems"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Claybugg (talkcontribs) 20:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Edits[edit]

I HAVE A QUESTION...SOMEONE WROTE FLOWERS HAS GONE ON RECORD TO STATE HE DISAGREES WITH GREENDAYS "CALCULATED ANTI AMERICANISM"? Comments/Questions/Opinions?

It's true! It's true! I can't remember exactly which interview, but I think it was Rolling Stone. I'll check to see, if not there, then it must have been another music magazine he made those statements. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 01:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Ray Suen is not a member of the band. He's a member of the crew, and a backing musician. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihavenoname42 (talkcontribs) 00:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ernest Hemingway[edit]

  • The name of the band clearly comes from the hemingway short story. In the story the line "I got soul but I am not a soldier" appears. This is the chorus of one of their songs. I will be editing this soon if someone else doesn't.
  • Shut up fag. They took the name from the New Order video Crystal. You seriously need to get a life. Maybe they read the story after naming the band and took the line.

Second poster, you are right. But there's no need for being rude. But yeah it is from the New Order video, which their "Somebody Told Me" clip is created in a similar fashion to. I suppose either ideas could be true. Peeto87 (talk) 10:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no title yet for the next release.[edit]

The person who posted "Make You Feel Dirty" is incorrect. That is rumor, not fact.

The page has been updated with the title "Sam's Town" for the new album; however, this conflicts with information elsewhere in the article that states the album is still untitled. Either someone needs to add a source (which I'm unable to find) or this needs to be removed... --Slagkick 21:03 11 Jul 2006 (UTC)
Never mind...this site confirms it...[1] --Slagkick

Flowers with bass[edit]

I have included it to say that Brandon flowers also uses the bass guitar. He plays it in their song " For reasons unkown " on their album Sam's Town.

Update on Expelled controversy[edit]

The very source that was cited that says they gave consent also says that they were tricked into the deal and explains is some detail. Someone should write something that gets that point across

GA review[edit]

(Version reviewed)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

{{subst:#if:This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.|


This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.|}}

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    {{subst:#if:Well done.|Well done.|}}
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{1bcom}}}|}}
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{2acom}}}|}}
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    {{subst:#if:* Does Reference 2 cover the first part in the Formation and early success (2001–2003) section? If not, other sources are needed.
  • This ---> "They released their album Hot Fuss on June 7, 2004 in the United Kingdom on London-based indie record label Lizard King Records (now Marrakesh Records), and June 15 in the United States on Island Records", needs a source.
  • Sources are needed for the hits for the Hot Fuzz section.
  • Again, this ---> "The Killers' second album, Sam's Town, was released on October 2, 2006, in the UK, and October 3 in the USA, under Island Universal", needs a source.
  • This ---> "Brandon Flowers said that Sam's Town will be "one of the best albums of the past twenty years," though the album has received a mixed response from critics and fans, it has still remained popular and sold over 8.5 million copies worldwide as of Christmas '07", needs a source.
  • And, the release of the hits, from Sam's Town, need a source.
  • Their appearance on SNL in 2006 needs a source.
  • New section - Sawdust, "The album's first single "Tranquilize", a collaboration with Lou Reed, was released October 12, 2007, in the UK, and on October 22, 2007, in the U.S.", "The band also released their cover of Joy Division's "Shadowplay" on the U.S. iTunes Store on October 9, 2007", and "The album also contains the songs "Ruby, Don't Take Your Love to Town", (a The First Edition cover), "Romeo and Juliet", (a Dire Straits cover), and a new version of "Move Away", (previously available on the Spider-Man 3 soundtrack)", need a source.
  • In the Influence section, "Flowers has also said in interviews that the larger-than-life sound of many of the band's songs is due to the influence of living in Las Vegas, a city where everything is about flash and who can top whom", needs a source.
  • "The Killers recorded a live session at Abbey Road Studios for Live from Abbey Road on November 29, 2006. They performed an almost totally unplugged set which included a rendition of the Dire Straits hit "Romeo and Juliet", needs a source in the Notable appearances section.
  • This, ---> "Additionally, in an article of NME, Flowers claimed Fall Out Boy was hogging the A&R man both bands share, setting off Fall Out Boy's bassist Pete Wentz", really needs a source in the Controversy section.|* Does Reference 2 cover the first part in the Formation and early success (2001–2003) section? If not, other sources are needed.
  • This ---> "They released their album Hot Fuss on June 7, 2004 in the United Kingdom on London-based indie record label Lizard King Records (now Marrakesh Records), and June 15 in the United States on Island Records", needs a source.
  • Sources are needed for the hits for the Hot Fuzz section.
  • Again, this ---> "The Killers' second album, Sam's Town, was released on October 2, 2006, in the UK, and October 3 in the USA, under Island Universal", needs a source.
  • This ---> "Brandon Flowers said that Sam's Town will be "one of the best albums of the past twenty years," though the album has received a mixed response from critics and fans, it has still remained popular and sold over 8.5 million copies worldwide as of Christmas '07", needs a source.
  • And, the release of the hits, from Sam's Town, need a source.
  • Their appearance on SNL in 2006 needs a source.
  • New section - Sawdust, "The album's first single "Tranquilize", a collaboration with Lou Reed, was released October 12, 2007, in the UK, and on October 22, 2007, in the U.S.", "The band also released their cover of Joy Division's "Shadowplay" on the U.S. iTunes Store on October 9, 2007", and "The album also contains the songs "Ruby, Don't Take Your Love to Town", (a The First Edition cover), "Romeo and Juliet", (a Dire Straits cover), and a new version of "Move Away", (previously available on the Spider-Man 3 soundtrack)", need a source.
  • In the Influence section, "Flowers has also said in interviews that the larger-than-life sound of many of the band's songs is due to the influence of living in Las Vegas, a city where everything is about flash and who can top whom", needs a source.
  • "The Killers recorded a live session at Abbey Road Studios for Live from Abbey Road on November 29, 2006. They performed an almost totally unplugged set which included a rendition of the Dire Straits hit "Romeo and Juliet", needs a source in the Notable appearances section.
  • This, ---> "Additionally, in an article of NME, Flowers claimed Fall Out Boy was hogging the A&R man both bands share, setting off Fall Out Boy's bassist Pete Wentz", really needs a source in the Controversy section.|}}
  1. C. No original research:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{2ccom}}}|}}
  2. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{3acom}}}|}}
    B. Focused:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{3bcom}}}|}}
  3. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    {{subst:#if:The second paragraph from the lead seems like POV, and it would be best to re-write it and expand it a little.|The second paragraph from the lead seems like POV, and it would be best to re-write it and expand it a little.|}}
  4. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{5com}}}|}}
  5. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{6acom}}}|}}
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{6bcom}}}|}}
  6. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    {{subst:#if:This article is in need of a lot of sourcing. But, if the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!|This article is in need of a lot of sourcing. But, if the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!|}}

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll work on this. Gary King (talk) 07:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
All done Gary King (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you to Gary for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No reference section?[edit]

I noticed the reference section was deleted by a prior edit and I am not sure if that makes any sense. (Especially considering the residual citation marks throughout the article.) Is there any reason for the removal of the citation? Either the reference section needs to be restored or this article needs to be tagged with the unreferenced template because it cites no sources. I think the best option is to try to restore most of the old reference section. Eternalmonkey (talk) 04:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

External link to The Killers page on last.fm[edit]

Hello,

i would like to suggest an external link to The Killers last.fm page (http://www.last.fm/music/The+Killers). Last.fm is a user generated music platform offering free legal contents such as music and videos. You can find free streams of The Killers albums, videos, stats, updated gigs listings about the band, etc.. As a member of last.fm staff i would like to point your attention to what we believe to be relevant and free contents for those wikipedia users interested in the band.

cheers,

Marco - Last.fm Staff - Mystical-bunny (talk) 11:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

why is there no more "genre" on the right side of the page?[edit]

Why is there no more "genre" on the right side of the page? I mean on right side where is: Origin: Las Vegas, Nevada, United States Years active: 2002–present Label(s) Island Vertigo Lizard King Records Website...... why is ther no genre? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.138.12.144 (talk) 13:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Time to remove genre section on info box? --JD554 (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to Disambiguation page[edit]

Typing in "the killers" on wikipedia goes directly to this page - it shouldn't. There are multiple films, tv series and short stories with the same name. Typing in "the killers" should redirect to a disambiguation page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.107.58 (talk) 02:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I second that, just watched The Killers (1964 film), cant remember a band of that name. Stratoprutser (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Desperately needs to be expanded[edit]

Every band member except Brandon Flowers links here, and yet there is no information on any of them. Not to mention there's nothing about how the band came to be. -MichiganCharms (talk) 06:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, every band member should have his own page. There are plenty of articles/interviews on each of them to get info from. I was looking at French version of The Killers page and each member has a page in French; albeit with little information, but there's a lot more available in English. And the article mentions Brandon responding to Dave's ad in the newspaper, which is really how the band formed. alohaprincess (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Where did Ronnie and Mark coem from? This should be mentioned. WP:Music currently states that individual band members dont get their own pages... though I think it's absurd, people are going to try to enforce it (as though you can enforce a guideline). -MichiganCharms (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
The other three used to have their own pages. I'm not sure who deleted them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.193.211.225 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Day & Age Coming Soon[edit]

Um... someone is going to need to change the paragraph on The Killers new album Day & Age. It debuts November 24 (I am counting down the days) So that needs to get switched soon and add some numbers or some thing like how many albums sold, and stuf like that.

Big Time Killers Fan--Drew2794 (talk) 01:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

New Wave[edit]

Um, I added New Wave as a genre, because not only does Day & Age seem very new-wave right now, but a lot of stuff on Sam's Town has sounded similar to New Wave bands like the cure, and the band has always relied on synthesizers as much as they rely on guitar.

I've removed your addition as it is original research and not verified by reliable sources. --JD554 (talk) 06:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Wave_music#New_Wave_revival How's this?

"All-teen"[edit]

I reverted the addition of "all-teen" to the band description and removed the bit about talking. Feel free to explain and re-edit. Isopropyl (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


EMO??? Is this a EMO band?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.6.108 (talk) 02:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Not emo, not teen. They're grown men writing synth pop rock songs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.191.84.69 (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Former Bassist[edit]

Ironic they used to perform Las Vegas with a woman and a black bassist. More ironic that they suddenly dropped both of these members and picked up two gangly, tall, white males immediately after getting signed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.2.74.161 (talk) 09:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


How can you verify this? You give no information and just say some stupid thing that you seem to think is funny. Peeto87 (talk) 10:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move Parsecboy (talk) 23:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The Killers (band)The Killers — Pageview statistics show that this article is the primary usage for the search term, with 7000-8000 views per day, compared to the next highest on the dab page, Killers (Iron Maiden album) at only 700-800 per day found here. — ƒingersonRoids 01:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support. The band is by far the primary use of "The Killers", based not only on pageviews but also incoming links and a Google search. Station1 (talk) 06:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - per comment below. ENeville (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose The film The Killers is notable. Also, pageviews should be avoided as an argument in any discussion as it has nothing to do with notability and only with popularity. Something could not be popular anymore but is still notable. TJ Spyke 18:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment - Well, the fact that the film "The Killers" is notable shouldn't be the basis of an oppose, because every article on Wikipedia has to be notable for it to deserve inclusion in the project. This move proposal is about whether the band "The Killers" is the primary use of the search term, or not. This is not a discussion about whether the band is the only notable article with the title "The Killers". There would be a hatnote at the top of the article linking to the dab page, to show the other notable articles with similar article names, if someone was looking for the film. ƒingersonRoids 18:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • While The Killers (band) meets one set of markers of a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (page views/G-hits), this likely derives from current popularity rather than encyclopedic primacy. So, oppose per WP:RECENTISM but I am open to convincing with other arguments or evidence. — AjaxSmack 06:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Exactly what sort of evidence are you looking for Ajax? I'm not exactly sure how WP:RECENTISM applies here. I don't see anything in it that has to do with primary use, or even about moving pages in general. Could you elaborate please? ƒingersonRoids 16:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I admit no direct application of the exact words of WP:RECENTISM but merely the spirit of the essay. "Recentism ... may make it more difficult to judge whether notability actually exists. Maturity, judgment and the passage of time are sometimes required to provide proper perspective." A suggestion given is the "ten-year test," or "one simple thought experiment which may be helpful: "In ten years will this addition still appear relevant? If I am devoting more time to it than other topics on the page, will it appear more relevant than what is already here?" These are all issues that can have bearing on whether something is a primary topic or not. They could be applied to the question here by thinking of it in these ways:
  1. Think of any music group or band from the 1940s with three US top 40 songs and 4-5 top selling records. Compare its attention at Wikipedia with the 1946 film The Killers.
  2. Think 50 years into the future. Will readers at that time place significantly more weight on the band than the short story and its derivatives?
Although page views and G-hits are useful, they are only a snapshot of what users of one medium are using at one moment in time. An encyclopedia should have both a broader and a longer-term perspective. — AjaxSmack 16:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
The whole point of determining primary usage is to make what the vast majority of readers are looking for, when they type in a certain search term, the article that comes up, instead of making them look down a dab list. In this point in time, when readers type "The Killers" into the searchbox, the vast majority are looking for the band The Killers. If Wikipedia and the band had been around in the 1940s, then perhaps there would have been no primary usage for the term and the dab page should be the search result. However, this is not in the 1940s, and we need to take into account that for every 700 people looking for the band, there is only 1 looking for the short story, at this point in time. The point of determining primary usage is for ease of finding the article that most people are looking for, right now. While it may be true that in 50 years, the band and the short story will have equal weight, it is not true now. In the future, if it is determined there is no longer enough of a majority of people looking for the band to make it the primary usage, then we can request that the page be moved back to the dab page. But for ease of navigation right now for the vast majority of readers, it should go directly to the band. ƒingersonRoids 18:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Good point. Reminded me of the former wording of WP:DAB#Deciding to disambiguate: "Ask yourself: When a reader enters a word in the Wikipedia search box and clicks 'Go,' which article does he expect to see?" I tend to think of article titles as prescriptive whether that is the intent or not but I will withdraw my objection based on your argument. — AjaxSmack 22:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support obviously. People are wanting to read up on this band, not some film, no matter how "notable" it is it is still by far not the primary topic for this title.  GARDEN  22:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:
  • I was suspicious that this was POV driven, but the page views are indeed an order of magnitude higher for the band, and much more than all other entries collectively. I would add that the actual comparison should be made against not "Killers" and Killers (Iron Maiden album), but "The Killers" and the likes of The Killers (1946 film)[2], where the disparity of interest is even more dramatic. ENeville (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I have to admit that I do like music from The Killers, which is how I even ran across the dab page, but of course I wouldn't have requested the move if it wasn't supported by policy, ;]. I'm actually quite surprised this wasn't proposed sooner. ƒingersonRoids 23:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Down history there have been very many groups of men describable as "the killers". Leave the disambig addendum "(band)" in. The band may be an important meaning now, to some people, but how long does the average popular music band's fame last? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
    • There have also been many groups describable as "The Band". But that's not what primary topic is about. The point is not how many articles can be described by the search term, but what the majority of readers will expect when typing "the killers" in the search box. As discussed above, this is clearly the primary meaning for the term "the killers" (although not for "killers") and should therefore be located at The Killers. "How long does the average popular music band's fame last" is irrelevant. The article can be moved back when the band ceases to be the primary meaning for the term. Jafeluv (talk) 07:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
      • And I don't think one even needs to go so far as to say the band is the primary use of the term "the killers". When Anthony Appleyard quite correctly says above that many groups of men could be described as "the killers" he uses lower case and links only the word "killer". That is how any editor would do it. I don't think anyone is arguing the band is primary use of the word "killer", but when both words are capitalized so that an editor links to the proper noun "The Killers", only 6 articles currently on wikipedia could bear that precise title, and of those 6, this one is clearly the primary use of the capitalized phrase based on all three suggested criteria at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Station1 (talk) 08:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • is clearly the primary use: For now, but so many pop music bands come and go. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't think it's our job to judge what will stay popular and what will "come and go". Jafeluv (talk) 10:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
      • "Come and go"? They've had three studio albums and are probably one of the most popular bands of this decade. I understand they won't ever hope to be The Beatles-popular but they're still quite high on the scale.  GARDEN  22:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
        • (e/c)In addition to that, if later on the band loses popularity, and we decide that it is no longer the primary topic, it's not like we can't move the dab page back. ƒingersonRoids 22:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Right, and I suspect that the band is not that long for this world as fab, less than a decade. I would oppose on the basis of WP:RECENTISM, but am willing to give over for the time being, and simply ask ƒingersonRoids to come back and support the move back in 2019, or sooner. --Bejnar (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hiatus section.[edit]

I removed the section on the hiatus, as it's mostly just quotes from tabloids, had a fansite-ish tone, and didn't really say anything more than what can be covered in one sentence. It wasn't particularly clear on what was happening to begin with, so I'd strike it as a rumor right now. Also, it's insane to have a section on something so trivial take up more space than is given to entire studio albums. See WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE before you revert me again. Zazaban (talk) 04:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Band Member Pages[edit]

Please bring back ALL of the band members' pages. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.129.179.50 (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

"Is" vs. "are"[edit]

The Killers is the name of a band - a singular entity. It is a U.S. band, and, therefore, Wikipedia guidelines dictate the use of U.S. grammar. "The Killers are an indie rock band" treats the band title as a plural, which is frowned upon in U.S. English, but may be acceptable in British English. See article American and British English differences for more information. "In AmE, collective nouns are usually singular in construction..." "The rule of thumb is that a group acting as a unit is considered singular and a group of "individuals acting separately" is considered plural." briantw "One man can make a difference." (talk) 12:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

But note the "usually" and "rule of thumb" hedging in that. Are you really arguing for "The Killers is" in the lead section? Or "rephrase to avoid"? Smartiger (talk) 02:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see collective singular AmericanLeMans (talk) 03:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

reference 26 is a dead link[edit]

subject says it all... not sure what to do about it, being a Wikipedia editing newbie MyDogHasFleas (talk) 05:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The andPOP one? It seems to work fine for me. --JD554 (talk) 09:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

ah my bad I meant 16 not 26 is dead

it appears the correct link is: http://www.thetigernews.com/news.php?aid=4159&sid=4

so, can I just fix it? I don't think I've ever actually edited a Wikipedia page before. (feeling nervous)

MyDogHasFleas (talk) 01:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Former members?[edit]

I ran across this article today, which talks about the fate of 3 former members of The Killers (two of which were among the 4 original members of the band). The article states in the narrative, "But you won't read about them on The Killers' official website or find them listed in a traditional 'former members' section of the band's Wikipedia page." Sure enough, they aren't mentioned on this page at all. Should they be? The article presents pretty compelling evidence that they were once members. -- Atama 23:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It is touched upon in the Wiki page: In The Killers first year two different drummers were fired and their original bassist quit, by late 2002 the current rhythm section of Ronnie Vanucci Jr. on Drums and Mark Stoermer (Bass guitar) had joined the band. Maybe they should be mentioned by name and added as former members. Adam2201 (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, they should definitely refer to this article:

http://www.lasvegasweekly.com/news/2010/apr/15/almost-famous/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.245.99.206 (talk) 00:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

"Be" verb changes[edit]

This band is a single unit. Therefor, I am changing all forms of "be" verbs to reflect their modification of a singular (albeit mass) noun. As this does not conform with current British English standards, this edit was made in an article covering a non-U.K. musical group. Please see here for a full explanation (and to throw in your two cents.) If you have a specific question or objection for me, please put it here. ocrasaroon (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I've already posted this on your talk page and on the WP:WikiProject Rock music page Ocrasaroon, but I thought that I should put it here as well. If you take a look at American_and_British_English_differences#Formal_and_notional_agreement, you'll see that "The Killers are..." is correct, even in American English. If the band's name is a plural proper noun, which "Killers" is, then "are" is correct, even in American English. Therefore, "The Killers are..." should not be changed as far as I can see. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 12:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Post-punk revival?[edit]

Is there a source for this? To me they don't sound like any post-punk bands that I can think of. New Wave maybe, but not post-punk. --Michig (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Past Members[edit]

We seem to have a misunderstanding regarding past band members ;) Ok guys. The Killers, as the general public knows them, are the four current band members. (Flowers, Vannucci, Keuning, Stoermer) They're the only ones who've produced Killers music from 2002 on, and on all The Killers records. However, the band was formed in 2001. So for about a year, there were other people in the band. A few of them even recorded demos with The Killers. They are cited in the article: http://www.lasvegasweekly.com/news/2010/apr/15/almost-famous/ Please do not remove this information. Sure it was in the very early days of the band; but they were part of the band. This is an encyclopedia, you cannot leave relevant information out. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.179.126 (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Abandoned?[edit]

Says Flower's former band abandoned him after *he* refused to move. I know nothing about this, but it sounds backwards. From the brief info provided sounds like Flowers abandoned former band, not vice versa. Personally I'd ditch the emotive word abandoned and make the sentence less dramatic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.137.167 (talk) 06:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Runaways[edit]

Isn't "Runaways" the leftover song intended for "Flamingo" that would be on the new album? I thought Brandon said in an interview (probably with GQ) that "Runaways" was intended from "Flamingo" for the new album. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks. 76.245.99.148 (talk) 03:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)fouRTildes909

Bowie[edit]

Come on, Bowie is not in this band! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.183.53.166 (talk) 01:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, i've recreated the earlier version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.183.53.166 (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Fourth album title[edit]

I've reverted this a few times, so I decided it is about time to discuss it here. The fourth album for The Killers was tentatively titled Battle Born (after the studio which The Killers own). However, that is not the official title, nor has an official release date been announced. Also, as stated in this article from November 2011, Vanucci says, "“There’s no real title, no real plan for anything yet." So I would refrain from retitling the fourth album section or adding the album to the discography until more information is released. Angryapathy (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Battle Born[edit]

Please create an article for "Battle Born", because information for the new album is continuing to be released to the general public. Thank You. Yensiddisney2012 (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Runaways As 1st Single & Separate Battle Born Articles[edit]

Please create articles for "Battle Born" and "Runaways", as "Runaways" will be the debut single from "Battle Born". "Runaways" will be released on July 10, 2012. Here is the source from an actual radio DJ from LA. Thanks. Source: http://twitter.com/darrenrose/status/218120780515516417 Yensiddisney2012 (talk) 20:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Discography section[edit]

I've had this discussion before, but obviously haven't put it where it belongs here on the talk page. As I see it, there is no Wikipedia policy or guideline which states that the discography section of band articles is to only include studio albums. As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Discographies (which is the only guidance I can find on the subject):

  1. Pages on artists, groups or works should have recording and discography sections as appropriate. These should be subdivided into albums and singles, audio and video recordings, or other simple systems as required.
  2. If the discography of an artist, group or work becomes disproportionately large in relation to the rest of the article, it should be split into a subpage list (preferably titled "<Name> discography").
  3. Do not use album, record or DVD covers in discographies, as this is an unnecessary use of images and is not compatible with Wikipedia's fair use policy.

As adding two albums, one live album and one compilation album (and labeling them as such), would not make the discropgraphy section "disproportionately large in relation to the rest of the article," I do not see a problem with adding Sawdust and Live from the Royal Albert Hall to the section. Angryapathy (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Former members[edit]

As the article clearly states, Dell Neal, Matt Norcross, and Brian Havens were all members of The Killers early in the band's history. The page Template:Infobox musical artist sets out the guidelines by which members in the infobox are meant to be listed. I am aware that whenever the former members have been added to the infobox (as per the guidelines) they have been removed. Anyone with an idea of how to solve this problem is welcome to comment on this post. My personal preference for the infobox would be to follow the guidelines and list the members, but failing this my preference would be a link in the former members section of the infobox to another members section lower down the page which provides names and instrumentation with years of service (as is found on many other Wikipedia pages). Kind regards, 81.151.52.230 (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

RfC: What albums should be included in the discography section?[edit]

What albums should be included in the discography section? Angryapathy (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • I've started this RfC to get some outside opinions on this section of the article. I'm not sure if there is an unwritten rule that only studio albums should be included in the discography section of band articles, because the only guidance I can find on the subject is in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Discographies, which states:
  1. Pages on artists, groups or works should have recording and discography sections as appropriate. These should be subdivided into albums and singles, audio and video recordings, or other simple systems as required.
  2. If the discography of an artist, group or work becomes disproportionately large in relation to the rest of the article, it should be split into a subpage list (preferably titled "<Name> discography").
  3. Do not use album, record or DVD covers in discographies, as this is an unnecessary use of images and is not compatible with Wikipedia's fair use policy.
I'd propose adding Sawdust, which is a highly regarded compilation album, and Live from the Royal Albert Hall, which is their only live album. Adding two albums, one live album and one compilation album (and labeling them as such), would not make the discography section "disproportionately large in relation to the rest of the article," I do not see a problem with adding Sawdust and Live from the Royal Albert Hall to the section. However, I can see that various EP's could be added to this section, too. I'd opine that we should have the 4 studio albums, the full-length compilation album, and the live album, and draw the line there for future additions. Angryapathy (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't think those additions are worth the slippery slope. The artist's discography already has its own page (per the cited rules), and the current studio albums+subpage link was the format as accepted in the GA nom. I don't see a reason to deviate from the peer reviewed form unless there is an exceptional argument (since discog layout rules are on a per article basis). I surmise that this was what the reverter meant in his edit summary. czar · · 21:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello - I'm arriving here as an uninvolved editor in response to the RfC. Just so I understand, is it right that there already is a comprehensive discography for The Killers, and the question here is which and how many items from it to carry in the main article too? Alexbrn (talk) 12:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)