Jump to content

Talk:The Pillows

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 75.73.26.15 (talk) at 16:07, 25 December 2007 (→Genre Cleanse). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Band Members

Suzuki Jun is not a member of the band, he is merely the current bassist. The only "members" are the other three. Suzuki is not considered a member out of respect for the original member. Pirouzu mentions this I'm sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.62.65 (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Year of band formation

It says in the Early Beginnings section that the band was formed in 1989, but then it says "1987-1992" for Kenji Ueda under Members. What's goin' on here? --Spiffyxd 03:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technical Limitations

I was wondering I know that 90's My LIFE and TURN BACK are EP's, but is Pantomime considered one? I have seen a few sites that do not list it as a Album, if this is so and it is a EP do you think it would be a good idea to keep the full Albums and EP's separate as the singles are? --Alus 05:03, July 20 2005

Pantomime really is an EP, for any more doubts about discography, visit the band's official site.

"the pillows" should be all lowercase, shoudn't it? I've yet to see the name with capitals from any official source. --Garrett Albright 10:14, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I believe "the pillows" is supposed to be all lowercase. I'll correct the article. --Brian Kendig 01:53, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
But the title cannot be corrected, unfortunately- jsut the way WikiMedia is. --maru 21:46, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Originally this article was titled "The Pillows" and mostly used that capitalization in the content. Soon after the above comments were posted (nearly a year ago) this was corrected. The wrongtitle tag takes care of the MediaWiki issue... -- uberpenguin 01:14, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

Just a note that this page was briefly protected by accident. The link to "Protect this page" is right above "Discuss this page", and my aim with the mouse was not so good. Tuf-Kat 23:54, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)

The Albums "TURN BACK" and "Synchronized Rockers" show on the discograph but arent present in the history or in the recent events. I'm wondering what exactly these albums are. - Lotyrin - 18 December

"TURN BACK" is an EP of re-recordings of songs from their early days with the pillows' modern lineup and sound. "Synchronized Rockers" is a tribute album of pillows covers recorded by other Japanese artists.

Similar Songs?

Any of you notice that the song "I think I can" sounds like The Pixies' Wave of Mutilation?

Well, I wouldn't be suprised.


Listen to Back seat Dog; specifically the bass line during the chorus. Then listen to "Here comes your man" by the pixies. There are other pixie links at pirouzu; under stuff -> Homages, you might enjoy looking at --69.247.164.232 10:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References aside, "I think I can" sounds absolutely nothing like Wave of Mutilation. Like not even a little bit.

If you listen to Backseat Dog as it fades out, Sawao actually starts singing "Here comes your man" over and over. Just thought I'd throw that out there. (Roninbob 16:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Correct genre?

Would they be condsidered rock or alternative rock? I'd say alternative, but wanted to pose the Q here before changing anything. --Itamae 19:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative rock is a subcategory of rock, so wouldn't they both be correct? --maru (talk) contribs 21:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, but, there's a seperate article for alternative rock and I think it is more accurate as far as their genre goes. --Itamae 01:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
call me stupid, but wouldn't they obviously be considered J-Punk? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Megamungonymph (talk • contribs) 13:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Er... Have you ever heard anything of theirs prior to Mr. Lostman? Genre is always debatable, and it's usually easiest to refer to the band's or record's classification. -- mattb @ 2007-04-11T14:12Z
Or heard anything of theirs at all? Not punk by any sense of the word. Doceirias 17:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor POV edits

Great entry but, man, did the original author like Living Field? One couldn't tell from the article. /snark A few edits to tone down the enthusiasm. I love the pillows just as much as the next dude, but the gushing is out of place for Wikipedia. 163.191.194.235 15:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beck Anime

Should the fact that some of the their music appears in Beck and the fact that they appear in the last episode be noted on the main page? --torpy 12:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

picture?

I think we should go back to the last picture, it's a lot more recent. I'm not going to do it because I don't know if I'm the only one who thinks this... anyone else agree with me? --Itamae 13:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The picture got deleted by wiki. Can somebody find a good one that is allowed?

Busters on the Planet

Is there a reason Busters on the Planet is not mentioned?

the pillows → The Pillows

Sorry guys, but it's policy. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks).
Lowercased trademarks with no internal capitals should always be capitalized--SeizureDog 00:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This policy is intended to prevent incorrect English grammar by beginning sentences with a lower-case letter. Read the last line in the section you cite: But, if possible, rephrase to avoid beginning sentences with such trademarks: No policy I have seen requires us to incorrectly capitalize either the article title or all the instances that don't begin a sentence. -- mattb @ 2007-01-04T14:20Z
You read incorrectly. "Such trademarks" refers to the lowercased trademarks with internal capitals section, not the lowercased trademarks with no internal capitals section. The guidelines say completely lowercase trademarks are to "always" be capitalized. That is why the example includes Thirtysomething, Adidas, and Craigslist, all of which are stylized in lowercase. I should go ahead and revert it all back, but I hope that I can get this settled without a war.--SeizureDog 18:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I did misread. Still, I think this is a dumb style suggestion, and a little digging at its history indicates that it is (still) a rather controversial one. I take issue with your calling a style guideline "policy"; especially one that is the result of a vote won by an unremarkable margin. I'd prefer to get the input of more editors to this article before conceding to changing to the upper-cased version. -- mattb @ 2007-01-08T22:58Z
I'd like more input as well, but it seems as though this is a pretty slow page. 18 days and just you to object.--SeizureDog 11:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I object as well. The pillows is the bands official way of writing the name. I see no reason to change something to an incorrect form. Besides that this is an extremely minor detail and I don't see why you, SeizureDog, are making a big deal out of this.--Mechamaster 3:00, 18 January 2007
Consistancy. Also, "offical" title doesn't seem to matter: Kiss (band) lost out on that one. In any case, they aren't really even consistant themselves. Just looking at their album covers you can see "the pillows", "THE PILLOWS", and "the PILLOWS". --SeizureDog 21:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They nearly always use the all lower-case rendering. Out of twenty or so albums, three or so that I noticed deviate from this. For at least the past ten years they have used the exact same logo/stylization that they currently use. -- mattb @ 2007-01-19T03:28Z
In any case, it doesn't matter. The MOS is quite clear on the issue; how are you argueing that an exception should be made for this case?--SeizureDog 03:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out earlier, the current phrasing is a result of a very weakly won vote. A single vote doesn't determine "policy" by any means, and I contest calling something this obscure "consensus". -- mattb @ 2007-01-19T04:15Z
Where are you getting this "won by one vote"? It was 12 to 3 that lowercased trademarks should always be capitalized, and 2 to 10 for them to never be capitalized. The current phrasing was won by a very large margin. See here.--SeizureDog 07:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to imply that it was won by one vote, but that a single poll apparantly decided this for all articles. -- mattb @ 2007-01-19T17:51Z
This might be a good time to mention WP:IAR...I think most pillows fans would agree that it is officially done in all lower case, so that point doesn't seem to be worth arguing over. the band's "logo" is in all lower case, and they're still using that last I checked. -- febtalk 11:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course it did, how else is a project as big as Wikipedia supposed to even attempt a coherent style? If you disagree, open up another poll on policy/guideline level, state your arguments and then see if it gets through. Until then, please don't interfere with editors who improve articles based on existing policies/guidelines and precedents (such as Kiss (band)). And sorry, but in my book, WP:IAR does not supersede WP:CON (or any of the central policies for that matter), kinda defeats the purpose of productive cooperation. - Cyrus XIII 00:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The day WP:IAR overrules WP:CON in general is the day WP falls to vandals, however IAR is intended to be used to improve wikipedia, and not harm it, which the pillows does, as opposed to The Pillows. Really, i've never cared THAT much about the name. As long as it's refered to in it's proper all lower case in the article, you could name the article ZA PIROUZU for all I care. -- febtalk 07:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(deindent) What would be wrong about "The Pillows (sometimes typeset "the pillows", to fit the official logo) are a..."? It would fix all potential style issues (all-lowercase trademarks, proper nouns, etc...), provides coherency for Wikipedia in general and still makes the reader aware of the stylization right from the get-go. - Cyrus XIII 07:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's not sometimes typeset, it's almost always written that way. See the official myspace, the only capitalization is occasionally 'The', and only at the beginning of a sentence, never by itself. The official name of the band is the pillows, not The Pillows, and the article should reflect that, in the same way that we don't write Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116 as just Albin, even though the second one might be more correct or normal. -- febtalk 07:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Poor kid. Yet we are not talking about spelling here, but typesetting/capitalization. Like SeizureDog pointed out it, the all-lowercase variant has not been used coherently on album covers and even if this was the case (like it was with Kiss), why should there be an exception from WP:MOS-TM, given that the name of every professionally working band also constitutes a brand name or trademark? - Cyrus XIII 11:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point is, the pillows shouldn't be capitalized since again, they HAVE been used very consistantly in pillows work, since they switched to their modern logo. It was "the PILLOWS" in a few early albums, however even since the second album they've done the name in lower case off and on, they switched to their modern logo in 98, which is all lower case, they appear to use lower case on their site. WP:MOS-TM says to capitalize them as you would a proper name- however, the pillows, as a proper name, is still spelled as the pillows, very consistantly since 98, and even off and on before then. And yes, capitalization and spelling can be very closely related -- febtalk 17:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So the articles for Thirtysomething, Adidas and Craigslist have it all wrong then? - Cyrus XIII 18:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a separate note, you can see why at least the first letter should be capitalized just by looking at the title on the talk page (Talk:The pillows) and comparing it to what it says on the article page (the pillows). This is probably one of the reasons WP:MOS says that the first letter should be capitalized. Gdo01 07:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a technical restriction, all Wikipedia articles start with a capital letter, even EBay/eBay. - Cyrus XIII 07:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
for me, those pages show up with a lowercase letter anyway, after they load (they load as EBay, but then it switches to eBay. No idea if it's firefox or what) -- febtalk 07:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's just the lowercase template in the page source. - Cyrus XIII 11:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given aforementioned MoS guideline, the support for the move here and on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (trademarks), along with numerous precedents on other band-related articles, the page has now been moved. Whoever remains dissatisfied with this outcome, should feel free to question the applied guideline on its talk page. In the meantime, I suggest to focus more on the article's content, as it still lacks any source whatsoever to support its content. Several basic formatting rules also need to be applied, such as coherently putting the titles of albums/video releases in italics, individual songs/singles into quotes and using title case capitalization for all titles (as demonstrated on the album discography template). - Cyrus XIII 18:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have only ever seen them referred to as "the pillows", so it should remain like that on here. It's just like matchbox twenty, whose name is officially lowercase. - Beau99|talk 23:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out another article which requires attention. - Cyrus XIII 02:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to consensus having pointed towards capitalization, I'd like to quote WP:NOT:

Wikipedia is not a democracy
Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys may actually impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, if at all, and may not be treated as binding.

As long as we're quoting "policy", I must express that I have more faith in my quoted policy than any style guide. - 58.107.184.115 13:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wow

This article bleeds POV..... I've no idea how to clean it up, but it could certainly use a rewrite. It even blatantly refers to certain tracks as "excellent (yet often overlooked)". It reminds me strongly of a "behind the music" type article. Help?Secunda1 01:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there's a lot of POV in it. I can try fixing it up this weekend, I should have some free time then. -- febtalk 01:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The History section also has major verifiability issues. I've looked around a bit on the web but so far, I can't seem to find any sources that would qualify as reliable. Someone with advanced Japanese skills might be more lucky, but as it stands, I see this article on a fast road towards stubification (or a plethora of [citation needed] tags). - Cyrus XIII 04:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it if you think that you can clean it up... as for the lack of info... you'd think there'd be more english fansites given that they made the FLCL soundtrack. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Secunda1 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Fansites are generally not considered reliable sources. - Cyrus XIII 21:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me, I'm still quite new to Wikipedia. In any case, you'd think the record company might be a reliable source, wouldn't it? Or do they not have an English version of the site?Secunda1 20:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is certainly reliable for neutral stuff like basic biographical data, release dates, announcements and such. If a record company told as though, a certain band was great, inspiring or influential, we should probably dismiss it as an obvious conflict of interest. Sorry for the late reply. - Cyrus XIII 16:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

90s My Life Returns

this isn't in the discography section. should it be under albums (since it is a rerelease of 90s my life) or complilations? - josifer

I see the problem. It's a little all-over the place, in terms of the release type, since it's a re-release of an EP, with additional tracks (= compilation?) which give it album length. I've just filed it under albums for now, without putting too much thought into it. - Cyrus XIII 17:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genre Cleanse

Someone added reggae, which they clearly aren't. They may have been jazz once (haven't heard their old stuff) but they haven't been for fifteen years so there's no reason to have it there, and punk seemed like a stretch too (my understanding is that punk should never have more than three chords, while The Pillows are quite complicated musically.) If you can make a case for putting any of those back, by all means explain; I've never had the musical vocabulary to describe their sound at all. Doceirias 02:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, Reggae is Nine Miles and Heart is there. They definitely had some sort of lounge sound early on, but they're practically a different band now (and with the swapping of members, a case could be made for that). Punk depends on your definition of punk -_ Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 03:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I figured that's why Reggae got on there, but a solo album for one of the band's members doesn't really change the definition of the band itself. Doceirias 03:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neither do I, like I said, the only reggae they've done is Heart is There, a cover of a Nine Miles song. You'd have an easier time classifying them as metal with Advice and Smile -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 03:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genre classification of current pillows : Rock Genre classification of pillows until 1997: light rock / jazz

Recent revert warring

C'mon guys, the article was tagged for its lack of references since January and there is only so much leniency you can expect from editors acting on behalf of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. If you would like to put any of the previously removed content back into the article, follow Wikipedia guidelines and have that content come with reliable sources (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources). - Cyrus XIII 14:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Cyrus here. Sadly, we can't verify a lot of that, so it should be deleted. The best thing we could do is probably ask around pillows fan sites and see if anyone has Japanese magazines (be them about music or about anime- FLCL and that new one SCARECROW is in should have at least some comments on them) and see if anyone would be willing to help us use them as sources. --L-- 14:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But that's an awful lot of information that's been removed guys. How are people (especially new editors) supposed to know what to source when it's no longer there? The removed information is neither harmful nor unbelievable. Policy calls for cleanup and speckling of lots of {{fact}} tags, not outright deletion of the information. Unless you honestly contest that nothing in that previous history section ever happened, it should be returned. Granted, pretty much every mention of what "fans think" should be removed, but the core information should remain.--SeizureDog 17:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EFFORT. And as was said below, we tried that, and nothing happened. If you want to improve what there was, copy that revision to a sandbox in your user space, and work on it there --L-- 20:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I hereby contest all of it. No, seriously, there is a time for tagging uncited stuff, be it on a per-fact or article-wide basis, in order to attract attention to the issue and motivate regular and new editors to do something about it. But over half a year has passed and absolutely no effort was made into that direction.
To quote Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales: "There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." (Wikipedia:Verifiability)
Also, in my own experience, if a subject is notable enough to be covered by Wikipedia at length, sufficient sources are usually out there, just waiting to be found. The recent developments at the Mr. Children article are a good example for that. - Cyrus XIII 17:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out that pretty much any time Jimmy is talking about Wiki articles, he's not really taking pop culture ones into account. His statement you quoted applies perfectly well for science or historical articles, but it's not so much applicable towards a band. --SeizureDog 20:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REF Dealing with citation problems

Unsourced material If an article has no references, and you are unable to find them yourself, you can tag the article with the template {{Unreferenced}}, so long as the article is not nonsensical or a BLP, in which case request admin assistance. If a particular claim in an article lacks citation and is doubtful, consider placing {{fact}} after the sentence or removing it. Consider the following in deciding which action to take: 1. If it is doubtful but not harmful to the whole article or to Wikipedia, use the {{fact}} tag, but remember to go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time. 2. If it is doubtful and harmful, you should remove it from the article; you may want to move it to the talk page and ask for a source, unless you regard it as very harmful or absurd, in which case it should not be posted to a talk page either. Use your common sense. All unsourced and poorly sourced contentious material about living persons should be removed from articles and talk pages immediately. It should not be tagged. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Libel. <-- Basically, remove it if it is "harmful" "doubtful" "absurd", etc and use common sense. Denaar 22:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what would you do if I added "The Pillows were famous for providing the soundtracks to over a dozen anime, including FLCL, <list random anime here, including a few red links to just to make sure it's impossible to prove through wiki alone>"? Or I said "In 1995, the pillows went on a trip around India" - it's not DOUBTFUL, it's just UNSOURCED. As it is, there was nothing in that article that was any more meaningful than drawing "the pillows" from column A and "did this" from column B- and nothing more provable --L-- 23:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It took all of 10 mins to find sources for this article - it's clear from when I started sourcing it that people HAD sources for everything - they just weren't listing them. It's unfortunate, but the rest of the article can be added back just by referencing [1]. It is easier to add references than write a whole article from scratch. Denaar 00:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How can a copy of an old revision of this very article be a source for itself? - Cyrus XIII 01:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t respond here because you cleaned up the article, and I had no protests against it – the flow of the article was improved. I approached the Pillows article in this manner: First I located sources that appear reliable, with a list of the most reliable ones at the top, ones that seem dubious or need research at the bottom. Anime News Network seems the most reliable - therefore I started there. That was hard to use as a reference because everything was broken up into little bits and 2-second news flashes. Then I went with other sources I deemed "secondary reliability" to flesh it out. I used the "bad source" only once at the end of my editing (not noticing the wiki tag at the bottom, it must be a really old edit because none of the language was the same as the current article, I did check that). You can see from my partial edit that I reverted that this was the way I approached it. You kept all the information I added, do you really disagree that the article is not better now than before I touched it? I think a slightly badly written - but well researched article - is more valuable to wikipedia because then someone without any knowledge of the subject can copy edit it. Frankly, I didn't have time to make it pretty and this article is updated so often that I knew the average fans would clean it up (I certainly didn't expect you to). I am currently adding references to articles (Frankly, most magazine interviews are 95% not relevant to an encyclopedic article, so you can only take a fact here or a fact there. At least those facts help establish the notability of the artist in question). I also am being careful with what I find. If the magazine says it is an accomplishment, I might include it. But if a musician says they did the accomplishment, I won't include it (there may be other comments they make that are appropriate, but I won’t use self-referred things for “accomplishments that denote their notability”). My purpose is to prevent subjects from being deleted before they can be edited to perfection. Part of the beauty of Wiki is that is a process, not an outcome. As you can see on the Visual kei article, I am trying to negotiate with you, or find a common ground, while you only stick to one stance (with no references) and keep repeating it. Denaar 18:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LITTLE BUSTERS hidden track...?

I just recieved my imported copy of LITTLE BUSTERS and it has what seems to be a secret track; LITTLE BUSTERS transitions into this mellow, atmospheric a capella version of itself. I am positive they are seperate tracks, it is called "LITTLE BUSTERS (Reply)", but it is not listed on Wikipedia, the pillows website, the Japanese Wikipedia, the album itself, or any other web sites with the pillows discography for that matter. So, should this track be included on the track listing, or does anyone else have something to say about the track? By the way, when you put in the CD their name comes up as "the pillows" not "The Pillows". I'm tired of the capatalization thing, their name is the pillows. Wonderwallmusic 00:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's "the pillows" in Japanese, and "The Pillows" in English. Japanese are allowed to be funky with capitalization (and lack thereof) of English words in their language because it flows completely differently along kanji and kana. I don't get why this is so hard for people to understand.--SeizureDog 05:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you're right, but they are a Japanese band, so shouldn't their name be in it's original format? But who cares, that's just a rhetoric question. My real topic was the hidden track. Wonderwallmusic 00:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, even if they were an American group, we would not emulate the lowercase capitalization (beside mentioning it), see WP:MOS-TM and WP:MUSTARD. - Cyrus XIII 02:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And "the pillows" probably is not trademarked, right? I mean they are just a band. Anyway, I am sorry if I came across mad or frustrated with the "I'm tired of the..." line, I do not really care if the name cannot just be simply changed, so keep it whatever way is correct I guess. I do not mind. Wonderwallmusic 00:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WHY A NEW ARTICLE?

I really liked the old article, what happened? it had a lot more information... for example the history of the band, the explanation of the band name... i don't really like the new article, please improve it... i don¡t want to sound so rude but i don't understand the change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.231.160.62 (talk) 10:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The old article contained no sources, and nobody ever found any sources for it. It also contained a great deal of opinion on the part of whoever wrote it. It became obvious after a while that it was never going to be trimmed down to something acceptable, so it was decided that it would be much easier to cut it down to the sourced statements and build up from there. If you have sources for any of that information, feel free to add it back in. Doceirias 20:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Pillows&oldid=180115575"