Jump to content

Talk:Tegan and Sara

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rainspeaker (talk | contribs) at 19:56, 6 December 2021. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Images

Can we update the main image of the article? It seems outdated being from 2008 and all; possibly replace it with the image of them performing at the Polaris Music Prize which is found further down in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.192.153 (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

series/films/DVD's

I really think there should be a section to mention all the videos and homemovies and films they produce themselves. Such as backstage bilingual, trailer talk, the Con DVD, and it's not fun, don't do it. It's a huge part of Tegan and Sara, the fact that they're so open with their fans make so many videos and DVD's (they have another one coming late this year). I'm going to create this section right now, feel free to add or edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.60.74.227 (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article content

I added a blurb about the Tegan and Sara in Doctor Who.. coincidence? -—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kether83 (talk • contribs) 10:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

I have wondered that myself since I first heard of them. AMCKen (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT

Just curious, if they're categorized as LGBT, shouldn't there be a mention in the article about that? -- nae'blis (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what else to say besides "they're lesbian", though. It's not explicitly mentioned in their music, nor are they active with any political groups, afaik. It seems strange to say "Tegan and Sara are both lesbians" and leave it at that when we wouldn't say "Foo is heterosexual" about a heterosexual musician. Maybe by that reasoning, the category shouldn't exist, but as long as it exists, it should be populated. Catamorphism 19:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article says that their sexuality is rarely the subject of their songs, but doesn't actually mention that (if?) they're gay. This is a bit strange and seems like the fact is being deliberately omitted.--89.243.217.247 (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's perfectly relevant to mention that they're lesbian somewhere in the article. There's absolutely no reason to censor it, and the category is helpful. Ambi 05:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They Played a song on VH1, "Speak slow" (which is an obvious lesbian Love song by the lyrics) in which the one sister says to the other "I dedicate it to you."

So My query is not that they're lesbians, but what is the extent of their interpersonal relationship, cause it seems (*How can I write this objectively when I was being kinda grossed out by her comment) I'm sorry to say this that they may have an incestious relationship between the twinsTherubicon (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you taking the piss? they're both gay, but not together. anyone who actually knows anything about the band knows this. get a hobby. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.12.222.122 (talk) 09:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


They're open about their sexuality, so obviously no harm could come of including it in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.189.129.197 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
I think it's better not to mention it, because I've found that if I mention they're lesbian, people tend to focus on that instead of the music. Like have you noticed, when looking at Youtube videos, the huge number of comments asking about their sexuality with no content about the music? And as Catamorphism said, it's not explicitly mentioned in the music anyway - anyone can relate to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.158.203.206 (talk) 04:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first time I heard about this band was on NPR and the guy talking about them, a record reviewer, said part of their act was pretending to be lesibans with each other. Is that true? The Secretary of Funk 10:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is about reporting facts, not choosing which facts to censor based on what the fans want.--89.243.217.247 (talk) 15:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not true. They have debunked this rumor in radio interviews and on live bootlegs of their shows. Trimp 01:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So are they Bisexual or Lesbian or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.156.190 (talk) 03:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think including their orientation is no more detrimental to the appreciation of their music than mentioning they are Canadian, or showing a photo which shows they are obviously female and caucasian. I think the argument that someone's non-heterosexuality should be conveniently omitted is just a fashionable homophobia. It's a leftover of the victorian age, when one "dare not speak its name." Nowadays, this omission is dressed up with the rhetoric of sensibility, i.e., not wanting to be "lurid" or "focusing on the life of the art rather than the artist." But the presumption that homosexuality is lurid or dirty IS homophobic, and one can't focus on the art without knowing something about the artist. Should we omit that Basquiat was Haitian and Puerto Rican? Should we omit that Warhol was part Jewish? How about Jimi Hendrix? There's no need to point out he was left-handed, or took drugs, or was not white. There are people who find all those things to be unrespectable and even vile. They're called bigots. Wiki shouldn't cater to them. There is nothing POV about simply providing people with facts, to make their own decisions as they please.72.78.154.193 (talk) 02:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nicely said.Wikidsoup [talk] 00:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)44[reply]

The song "when you were mine" from "songs for christoff" is about a finished lesbian relationship though. ("when you were mine I let you wear my dresses" etc) so it's not true they don't mention it, it's just no big deal. besides the LGBT-community loves them, so they should be in the category. --85.179.90.226 (talk) 18:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

No it's not.  "When You Were Mine" is a Prince song that they covered.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.89.122.61 (talk) 22:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Films, TV, and books

Sara wrote a foreward to the book Vegan Cupcakes Take Over the World and I feel like it would be nice to mention but I'm not sure where it fits, especially since it's only about Sara (she doesn't have her own page.) See http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1569242739/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-7309068-6407050#reader-link to verify. 67.168.191.3 04:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sara also wrote the foreward to the book "Hello, Cruel World" by Kate Bornstein.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.198.141.113 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Songs For Christoff

Can see absolutely no evidence anywhere that this is anything other than a bootleg. Certainly not an official T&S release or promotional release anywhere in the world, including Canada or Japan!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.179.115.21 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It's not an official T&S release, so has no place within their discography. If you extended this kind of logic, to, say Pink Floyd, their discography would be in the thousands of records. It also doesn't deserve it's own Wikipedia page any more than any other bootleg.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.195.244 (talk • contribs)
Agreed. By that logic anyone can throw together some live MP3s into a torrent with some fake cover art, and be deserving of an article. Hotdoglives 20:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated that article for deletion and fixed the chronology. If it keeps getting reinstated that would almost amount to vandalism, surely? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.109.231.226 (talk • contribs)
Things don't necessarily "deserve" Wikipedia pages on their own merits, rather on whether people are likely to want to know more about them, and I argue that people are likely to want to know something about this one because it's mentioned in so many places and its widely available. Rehjanis (talk) 11:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a promo release for Japan and Canada released in 2006 by Universal Records. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.226.142.248 (talk) 04:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proof? Hotdoglives 00:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I argue that it should be mentioned, though, because I know that I heard about it in several places that made it sound like an official release of some sort, so I wanted to know more about it, and wikipedia's the go-to place for things people want to know about. Then when I learned it was a fan-made compilation, I wanted to know whether I could purchase the songs on it, and it was very difficult to find out what some of them were called and to confirm that some of them were not on any official releases. I think it was be reasonable to mention it, confirm that it isn't an official release, and provide info about what the songs are and what albums (if any) they are from. Rehjanis (talk) 11:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Rentals

I question the correctness of the phrasing "Matt Sharp and Maya Rudolph of The Rentals." Maya has only performed some backup work on a few tracks of their 2nd album, and apparently some accompanying touring, I'm not sure that constitutes being in the band; although the band entry page does list her, and for such an intermittent group things are admittedly less cut and dry. Indeed, the only consistent members to date have been Matt Sharp himself and Petra Haden. Maya's own page seems to give a more reasonable description of her affiliation. --Belg4mit 15:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Maya Rudolph was officially a Rentals member. She is in the video for "waiting" as well as being mentioned as a previous member on The Rentals official website. And since "Waiting" is from the first album you are completely wrong for saying she only did back-ups on their second album. Do your research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.192.7 (talk) 13:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Removed vandalism from accomplishments, DVDs, band members (spurious keytar player), trivia.

Pronounciation

Is it "Teegan" or "Taygan" (like Megan/Meghan)? Should this be noted in the article? 71.234.105.190 03:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's pronounced "Teegan". Could probably be noted in the article, although I'm not sure of the correct way to add info on pronunciations. Hotdoglives 05:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also could be noted that Sara is pronounced "Sare-ah" as oposed to "Sar-a", as Sara would be pronounced (incorrectly) as the latter in many european countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.192.153 (talk) 18:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Duo"

I have reservations about Tegan and Sara being called a "Duo". They have said themselves that they hate the label "duo" - seeing as they have always played with a 5 piece band etc. "Tegan and Sara" is the name of their band - as obvious as this is, some people seem to forget this fact.

In the CBC Radio 3 Podcast # 109 "Twin Power Summer" released on 22/6/2007, Tegan herself said: "...We're not a duo. Yes, there's two of us...but we're a band, we play with a five piece band."

So, in light of this, I think the article should stick to calling them a band or singer-songwriters. Emerald.Atoms (talk) 06:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. The "band members" section of this page lists 3 other musicians besides Tegan and Sara. I don't know too many 5-member duos. They might be the only permanent members, but if they always (or at least usually) tour with a full backing band, then they're a full band.

Personal Life

Hello! I just went in and cleaned up the section about Sara's relationship with Emy (it ended?! I'm so sad!) so that there's actual citation for the claims listed. I hope it turned out well :)

Here's the original text:

"Sara was in a long relationship with Emy Storey, who sold their merch at shows and did many of the designes. She is a Graphic Designer and has her own site. Their relationship became legal in 2007. Sara's song "I Was Married" referred to the common law marriage to Storey.

They have now since broken up."JamisonK (talk) 03:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Kiersten"

74.195.204.223 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been changing the spelling of "Kiersten" to "Keirsten" for the past few days. Cursory Google searching reveals no hits for "Sarah Keirsten Quin" and many for "Sarah Kiersten Quin". I even sourced the spelling of her name, only to be reverted. Just letting everyone know so I don't get tagged for WP:3RR, though I'll be bowing out soon if this continues. -FrankTobia (talk) 06:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - please see [1] for proof of spellingSuperclose Music (talk) 22:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [1]

Kaki King, and "Keirsten"

Hi Kimpurrs.
Do you have any source for her middle name being Keirsten instead of Kiersten? I haven't found a reliable source for either spelling, so I'm of a mind to remove it completely for now.
Concerning Kaki King, as far as I can tell there are two sources confirming the relationship. On what grounds do you say that it isn't true?
Cheers, AmaltheaTalk 21:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found one. Please don't change it back without a good reason. --AmaltheaTalk 14:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vinyl

This is more of a question. I see that all their vinyl albums are not available other than The Con. Is it that they never produced their other albums in vinyl or that they have been discontinued? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.84.239 (talk) 01:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---they have other albums on vinyl but are out of stock at the moment —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.229.180 (talk) 09:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone, please edit the "bullet points"

There is little to no flow in this article as it is almost wholly a collection of bullet points masquerading as a series of sentences within topics. There are many, many other awful Wikipedia articles just like this but I just don't have time to rewrite any. This is my first comment ever so maybe this proves to be my toe-dipping moment and the water won't turn out to be so cold. But, my, this article is marygawdandjoseph awful. I would hope T&S' fans would want better, no? TeenageCynic (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section on "personal lives" and page protection

Use this section to discuss the recent additions/deletions of biographical accounts of current personal relationships. See WP:BLP for the relevant policies, specifically WP:BLP#Privacy of personal information. Attn: IPs & anonymous users, please register for an account and contribute to the formation of a consensus. Thank you ˉˉanetode╦╩ 16:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sara and Emy's breakup: I've seen plenty of reliable sources about this, so I argue for its inclusion; They were married and divorced so this should be matter of public record. However, I argue against inclusion of the fact that she's single, because she probably won't announce when that changes, and thus it is too volatile to be trusted.
Re: Tegan's relationship: I have yet to see a reliable source about Tegan's relationship with Lindsay Byrnes. She seems not to be talking it publicly, so I argue again the inclusion of that material. Rehjanis (talk) 18:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, thanks for your input. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems no one else is going to weigh in, but the edit war is continuing, so I have added a sentence that adds Emy's verifiable legal former relationship, but does not add any speculative information about Tegan's (presumably non-legal relationship with someone who is not notable enough for a wikipedia article, and thus need not be mentioned according to WP:BLP#Privacy of personal information. I hope this satisfies the inclusionists and the exclusionists alike. Rehjanis (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back in your head

this is NOT a cover from HeyHiHello. if it is can anyone provide proof? 96.51.17.141 (talk) 04:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that Heyhihello covered it, not that it's originally a Heyhihello song. The song can be found on their MySpace page. However, it probably shouldn't be on the list if the band isn't notable enough to have a wiki article (I don't know if it is or not). Klubbit (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Covers and such

The section "Cover songs, songs about, and collaborations" is a bit excessive. I haven't seen anything similar on any other band pages (though a few have separate articles of covers). Could we perhaps create a new article "Songs related to Tegan and Sara"? I don't know what the best way to preserve this information is (if it all needs to be preserved), but I don't think it should be in this article in its entirety.

Second, could we only include artists who have Wikipedia articles? While I think the Heyhihello song might be appropriate, the Uranus Beats song definitely isn't and seems to be more promotion than anything. As far as I can tell, they have a following of 11 people on YouTube, but I can't find anything else. I'm going to remove it again, but if it gets re-added I don't want to start an edit war. Klubbit (talk) 04:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what you've said, and I agree that if a musician isn't notable, their covers shouldn't be listed, but actually I don't think that information needs to be preserved.
I think the collaborations and possibly covers could all moved under either "Discography" or "Other work"; covers maybe the same; covers of their songs I don't think should be listed; if the musicians are notable enough, than that information can be listed under their own "Discography". "Songs about" could maybe turn into a brief sentence under their bio, if it needs to be there at all. BearMachine (talk) 12:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the collaborations to a table under Other Work. I plan to move the songs Tegan and Sara covered to their discography page and remove the Tegan and Sara songs covered by others (with the White Stripes still mentioned in the article). I'll also remove the NOFX songs, as I don't know that they're important to the article and there's not really a good place to mention them. If there are any objections, let me know. Klubbit (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collaborations

This is my first ever post and Im not sure on the rules and stuff but one of you guys could add this in somewhere.

Tegan did a song with punk rock band 'Against Me' didn't see it listed anywhere. Its called 'Bourne on the Fm radio waves' Or something of the sort.

Thanks

Mark —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.103.171.30 (talk) 09:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the table at the end of the collaborations section (hidden by default because it's rather large). There are too many collaborations to mention them all in the paragraphs. Klubbit (talk) 17:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Today's changes

I feel that many of the revisions made today to the touring and collaborations sections should be reverted (before, after, and diff). For example:

  • There is no need to list tour dates (plus city, venue, and day of the week) in an encyclopedia. If anything, we could add an external link and/or reference related to the tours.
  • It doesn't seem to me that the collaborations (now "individual projects") need to be split up into subsections: producing, Tegan Quin, Sara Quin, and combined collaborations (which isn't currently a section, but would need to be). It's debateable that the Alligator remix album is an "individual project" of Sara, even if she did write the song. The collaborations table will also need to be split into three tables for the different sections.
  • There's now a DJ Tiesto section in the Tegan and Sara article...
  • There are now several ref errors as well, but I suppose that's an independent issue.

There is simply too much going on here, too many sections, and it makes the article less useful. I realize this represents a lot of work by 64.183.188.29 so I wanted to discuss it here before reverting. Some of the additions can be incorporated into the article, but I think that the organization at least should be returned to how it was. --Klubbit (talk) 03:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and incorporated what I thought was appropriate into the previous organization. I also nominated Tegan and Sara Tours for deletion, if you want to participate in that discussion. --Klubbit (talk) 04:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Including tour dates is flagrant advertising, there is no question in my mind. If this sort of contribution is to be allowed, there would be no reason to deny inclusion of *any* upcoming media event. Any project in planning. Any hypothetical project. Wikipedia articles on pop stars would become mini-fan sites.
However, this change is already in progress. Editors are not only adding considerable material in articles about past and future tour dates, but creating entire articles about them. (Do an advanced search on "tour dates".)
The problem is not particularly complex, but it is seductive to otherwise well-intentioned Wiki editors who see importance in performances of artists whom they respect.
There are, however, two critical flaws in their position. The most important, I feel, is that these concerts are cookie-cutter duplications. They are programmed events -- one much like another. It is no more important to mention in an encyclopedia the dates of every rerun of a TV episode.
The other problem is that Wiki editors' enthusiasm is being confounded with the completely different -- coordinated -- commercial goals to get public "mind share". It's not just that marketing managers would love to control Wikipedia utterly. It's that marketing managers have so influenced popular culture that some Wiki editors believe that there is historical importance to whatever a marketing manger chooses to publish. Piano non troppo (talk) 05:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you could nominate them for deletion, and be sure to vote here :) --Klubbit (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Genres

>Tegan and Sara are a Canadian indie band >implying indie is a genre

Should be indie pop, summerfags

I changed it. Please avoid name-calling. --Klubbit (talk) 18:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious what people think about the "New Wave" genre being applied to Tegan and Sara. I can't say that I've ever seen this anywhere else, and while I don't mind it being in the infobox, I think it's excessive to have 3 genres listed in the opening sentence. For what it's worth, the labels Tegan and Sara apply on their MySpace are Indie / Pop / Alternative (of which indie pop and indie rock are subgenres). New Wave seems a bit overly specific, or something... Klubbit (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the New wave music should be removed. I've removed the other citations from the infobox: that one's gotta go too. In fact, I don't like it when there are too many genres in the boxes.
While I'm here, the WP:LEAD should be corrected to a C class article standard. I've removed many of the person categories as they're a band. Argolin (talk) 07:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Singular band, or plural people?

"Tegan and Sara is", or "Tegan and Sara are"? I realize that AmE generally prefers the former, and BrE the latter, but I'm not quite sure which is the more usual in Canadian usage. Where the "name of the band" just happens to be a two-part list of the first names of the two permanent members, I have to say that to me, "is" seems extremely jarring. Smartiger (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to changing it if that's proper grammar. "Are" sounds fine to me, but maybe technically wrong since that's the verb for a plural subject, and we're saying Tegan and Sara is a singular thing (a band). If you were to flip it, you wouldn't say "This band are Tegan and Sara." As discussed here, they consider Tegan and Sara to be a band, not a duo, and I verified the quote from the interview @ 16:40. Klubbit (talk) 19:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I might, actually, but that might be a function of my side of the Atlantic. In general, though, the grammatical rule is to have the verb agree with the subject, and not with the object (if those differ), so "T&S are a band" and "the band is T&S" are both defensible, if one considers the one to be plural, and the other singular. I'll defer to majority Canucker opinion on this, however. I did notice the "duo" section, and I'm not proposing to re-open that can of worms. (Though TBH, it does sound as if they're being more arch than informative, and one could argue that third-party sources are to be preferred to the subjects' own preferences (at least if one had such).) Smartiger (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I'm sure there are decent sources that say both. At any rate, you may be right about the grammar stuff, but I think whether they're a duo or band does matter. Saying Tegan Quin and Sara Quin are a band suggests that they alone make up the band, which is inaccurate. Saying Tegan Quin and Sara Quin are a duo, on the other hand, would be accurate, if they are indeed a duo. So if we're going to stick with calling them a band, I think that the first three words of the article should refer to the name of the band rather than two individual people, and it's not clear that that's the case with "are". e.g., One might interpret it as being equivalent to "Tegan Quin and Sara Quin are a band led by Tegan Quin and Sara Quin." :P Klubbit (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No fair making me uncan those worms! OK, if the other three are actually "members of Tegan and Sara" (as it were), as opposed to "people they tour with", it does argue in favour of their "band" interpretation, so (probably) fair enough. But under either interpretation, they sound pretty plural to me. (But equally, so does "The Killers is", to my ear...) Smartiger (talk) 02:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think "The Beatles are", say, is fine, because each member of the band is a Beatle (presumably the same thing applies to The Killers, not sure). Each member in this band isn't a Tegan and Sara though. Anyway, I don't think there's a clear answer, but if you do change it to "are" I think the sentence and possibly various parts of the article should be changed for clarity and consistency. FYI, their press kit biography says "Tegan and Sara are a highly motivated musical group..." Klubbit (talk) 03:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A large percentage of them are a Sara or a Tegan, though! I guess you're right, band names of the form "The Xs" do at least lend themselves to the interpretation or conceit that each is "an X", so those are the ones that seem oddest to treat as a singular collective. (Insofar as they don't all sound odd, to my ears!) I'd be inclined to follow the press kit, then, unless someone finds countervailing usage. I don't see any other usages in the article that would need to be changed -- everything else is either using it to denote the two principals as individual people, or is in the past tense, making the distinction inflectionally moot. I'm open to suggestions as to how to rework the opening sentence, certainly. Smartiger (talk) 06:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In as much as a band (or a sports team) is a singular entity, when it is named in the plural, it is standard in North American English to use the plural form. The Rolling Stones are..., while R.E.M. is...; The Calgary Flames are... vs. D.C. United is..., etc. Since "Tegan and Sara" is in the plural, it should be "Tegan and Sara are...". Using the singular "is" in this case is just awkward. Resolute 22:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remember back in the 1980s when the trademark name "Sony Walkman" would be pluralized as "Sony Walkmans"? This might be a relevant argument for keeping "Tegan and Sara is". 99.231.241.146 (talk) 19:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personal lives

Eightminuteepic removed sourced information about the women's respective relationships, and then I reinstated it. Eightminuteepic then removed it again by stating that this was confirmed in a podcast...without actually linking to said podcast. I then reinstated the information again, but then EME removed it a third time. Aside from him/her violating WP:3RR (and I didn't reinstate the info because I don't want to violate 3RR myself), I wonder if EME doesn't quite understand what a source is. Simply saying something happened without backing it up doesn't really prove anything. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feminists??

Any reliable source for them being in the Feminist musicians category? 158.222.167.170 (talk) 04:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tegan and Sara. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Live link to the article seems to be revived, set deadurl to no --TheFrog001 (talk) 12:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tegan and Sara. 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tegan and Sara. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:06, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who Companions

Were they named after two of them? :) Tegan Jovanka, Sarah Jane Smith 2001:56A:F03F:5200:D584:A02A:6743:60C1 (talk) 06:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Tegan Jovanka was introduced a year after the twins were born (and named), I'd say no. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Personal lives" section name

It's kind of interesting that the "personal lives" section hardly talks about their personal lives at all and focuses instead almost entirely on their mostly public gay rights activism and prominent involvement in the LGBT community. Certainly not arguing that any of the information in that section should be removed, but I think it's kind of weird how "Personal lives" is being used de facto as a euphemism for "Activism and Involvement in the LGBT Community"... I think it's odd that a group so prominently and widely associated with LGBT people and anglophone lesbians in particular is being written about as though their homosexuality were something ancillary and private, requiring euphemistic discretion.

I'm not logged in because on my phone but my wiki username is rainspeaker I'm p sure.

2600:1000:B023:606B:E182:E25A:F133:7B86 (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting both to confirm that the above comment is by me and also to note that on a reread the "Personal lives" section contains quite a few pieces of information about their career (e.g. their memoir) that just shouldn't be in that section. I'm going to be bold and see if I can make some changes to deal with both of these issues. I'll make them in two passes so ppl can revert the possibly contentious change to the article organization w/o referring the obviously necessary imo move of the career information into history.

Rainspeaker (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the changes. I'll add that in addition to being a clearer and more logical section organization, the new "Activism and involvement" section gives readers completely unfamiliar with the band a hint at a glance that this is a group with a widely acknowledged and well-known significance in LGBT culture -- without editorializing, OR, or treating the frontwomen's sexualities as though they in themselves were a subject of encyclopedic importance. Rainspeaker (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tegan_and_Sara&oldid=1058990465"