Talk:Flobots

This article was nominated for deletion on April 9, 2008. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Please wait until the article is rewritten before tagging for editorial issues. We know it's a copy-paste job from their press release; that's why it sounds like an advert, because it IS an advert. That's what the {{copypaste}} tag is for. Once the article has been rewritten and still sounds like an ad, feel free to tag it then. -JeebusSez (talk) 01:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name origin

I think we need references for the fact that Onomatopoeia was created by Flobots. It is really credited by "Jonny 5 + Yak". The only relevance is that Jonny 5 is the main artist behind all the albums, just that he used his own name for the first album. If Onomatopoeia indeed isn't made by Flobots a lot of reediting would be needed. Also there doesn't seem to be any information for this so called "Yak" person. If any info on him is found that would also be greatly appreciated. --Xali (talk) 03:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This is Farhad Ebrahimi a.k.a. Yak/Yahktoe/etc. I'm not sure what additional information you would like on me, but I definitely wanted to clarify that Onomatopoeia was not a proper Flobots album, as it was a side project involving only Jamie and me. I'll go post something similar on the Onomatopoeia page as well.

Apologies in advance for my ignorance of wikipedia posting protocol! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.158.97 (talk) 02:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is Flobot13, Flobots band webmaster. Jonny 5 wanted me to come in and clarify that Onomatopoeia was NOT a "Flobots" album, and to clarify that while he was the founding member of the band, he is not the only "constant member". These edits have all been clarified and I've updated the the Onomatopoeia section ad "Onomatopoeia Clarification" since it is so widely thought this is a Flobots album when it is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flobot 13 (talk • contribs) 11:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you'll need to cite a reliable source to add that material. I've removed/rewritten it entirely until a source can be found. TNXMan 11:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is Farhad again. Thanks for replying, Tnxman307! Given that Onomatopoeia was released nearly a decade ago when Jamie and I were both in college, there wasn't a whole lot of press coverage (if any), and as such it seems unlikely that there will be any reliable sources to support our claim that it wasn't a Flobots album until one of us goes out of our way to say something about it in an interview with a qualified publication (which would be weird, especially for me since I'm not even a current member of the Flobots).

With that in mind, I have two questions: (1) Technically speaking, what is the reliable source that supports the claim that Onomatopoeia *is* a Flobots album? Is it just the presence of the www.flobots.com URL in the album jacket? (2) Would a clarification in the FAQ section of the current version of www.Flobots.com be a suitably reliable source to support our claim that it isn't?

Thanks very much. Again, sorry for my ignorance of wikipedia protocol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.47.12 (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Farhad again. Here's something from one of the Boston Phoenix's blogs in 2005 that lists Onomatopoeia as being a Jonny 5 and Yak album (although it also mentions mp3s being hosted on the Flobots website, so maybe it's no better):

http://thephoenix.com/BLOGS/onthedownload/archive/2005/08/02/Trapped-in-the-office-park.aspx

Thanks.

Notability

Man, people seem a bit quick to delete. Seems a bit contradictory to Wikipedia's philosophy, somehow. One person starts an article and generates interest, then another adds a little, then another corrects it, etc. And also, simply having never heard of somebody doesn't seem like grounds for deletion... There's plenty of people on here I've never heard of. But yes, they are a nationally-known band, and were at the time of writing. Their music was selling heavily on iTunes at the time, which as many of you may know is an internationally-available download service (a network, of sorts). Anwyay, glad this article lived. --Bblakeney —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bblakeney (talk • contribs) 21:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to this whole editing business. I edited Flobots' page to include more information about the band to try and avoid sounding like it was all pulled straight from their website, and I got a message saying that it was flagged for speedy deletion because of a question of the significance of the article in general. How do I avoid this? 140.226.101.24 (talk) 13:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)OzzyRunner -OzzyRunner (talk)[reply]

You need to provide some evidence that the band is actually notable; non-notable bands don't get articles here. The article at present does not provide any evidence of genuine notability. See WP:BAND for what is needed. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flobots are an important enough band to have a page on wikipedia. They're playing sold out shows and getting air time across the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.121.114.47 (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not notability; that's also not documented. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However I will say this, I'm listening to them on itunes radio as we speak. I didn't recognize them, so I looked them up on here. I think that the article should be kept as their popularity seems to be increasing. The radio station was Alt X under the Alternative Genre on 09 April 08 at approximately 12:30 EST.--Anhigdon 16:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Flobots are played in heavy rotation on KROQ, the largest radio station in Los Angeles which seems to meet criteria #11. Sorry, I am not knowledgeable enough on wiki writing to adjust the page to appropriate standards myself.--Chikara8 (talk) 04:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One station in LA does not constitute "nationwide"; there is more to America than Southern California. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow Orange Mike, I'm not sure how stating that they are in heavy rotation on KROQ is socalcentric. I am hurt that you would take such a bitter tone with me, that is just as judgmental as me saying that the only reason you haven't heard of the Flobots because you're from WI. I just came to this page to find out more information about them and was surprised to see a limited article and talk about deletion since they are such huge band right now. It's not even that I feel particularly emotional about the band, but I like to do simple research and correction of grammar to help me learn more about how to edit and help Wikipedia. To me, this includes using my limited Wiki skills to help save legitimate articles from deletion.

The Flobots are from Denver, so it is not as if they are popular in LA because they are local. A quick Google search shows that many internet, satellite, and local radio stations are playing them across the country, but since rule #11 for notability is "has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network," I thought I would point out the major radio network that I am aware of that is playing this band. At least that, in combination with JeebusSez's information about the charts should mean the article shouldn't be deleted.--Chikara8 (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KROQ is a local station; it is not a major radio network (networks by definition are not local). That's all I was trying to point out; no bitterness was involved. JebusSez has done a marvelous job of assembling better evidence of notability, and I expect that the nomination will be closed soon as a "keep." I have no particular problem with this; as Jebus sez further down the page, the band has in fact become more notable even as we've been having this discussion (unlike most of the "up and coming" garage-bands-with-MyPages that get deleted on a daily basis). --Orange Mike | Talk 19:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned on the deletion nomination page, they debuted at 27 on the Billboard Modern Rock charts for this week. This satisfies notability criteria for bands. --JeebusSez (talk) 11:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to point out that since you don't think they are nation wide, the are getting heavy air time on 101.7 KZQ over here in SC, so that says to me they are getting air time across the country. 70.63.244.252 (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same here in Seattle, just heard it on KNDD today and came on here to learn more about the band. Just to point out, KNDD is an Entercom-owned radio station, which means this song is playing on all their rock stations in 23 US markets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Synapse528 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They get masses of airtime here in Denver. It's rare for me to make it to work without hearing them on at least one station 65.175.1.93 (talk) 05:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Denver doesn't count! That's their hometown. That's like saying No Doubt is popular in Anaheim. --JeebusSez (talk) 16:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up this article up on Wikipedia because I heard them on the radio in (Philadelphia, 104.5) and I was wondering about them, so it be nice is there was something here. Garick (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused why this page is being deleted. I'm in Arizona and these guys come up on mainstream radio stations quite frequently. I've looked up plenty of other bands on here and never seen an issue with deletion. The article seems to have actual references. None of the information provided is under copyright. So only popular bands make it on wikipedia? These guys aren't some random garage band... These guys are popular enough that this article will be re-built if deleted, don't waste your time and ours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.209.219 (talk) 09:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid personal attacks. OrangeMike is just doing what any good editor would do, as there is a general guideline for what is allowed on Wikipedia and what isn't. This article just happened to pop up at the very threshold of their creation, and they were in a gray area for some people. The references have only recently made it on there, and originally someone just copy-pasted their press release. --JeebusSez (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Handlebars" is getting play on satellite radio (sirius), which is nationwide. This satisfies criteria 11 on WP:BAND. Also, the single handlebars, as has been mentioned, has debuted at #27 on a major music chart, so they've satisfied 2 requirements. --Pennstatephil (talk) 16:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to include this on the articles for deletion page. The 'keep' sentiment seems strong, but it doesn't hurt. --JeebusSez (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already brought it up. To tell you the truth, despite the fact I listen to a large modern rock formatted radio station, i've never heard the song, but Billboard doesn't lie. And neither to the results I get from Mediabase's airplay (which also says BRU is indeed spinning the song. Must be when i'm asleep.). But that's no matter, the article was snowball kept. I do appreciate Orange Mike's opinion, as several keep votes on the AfD fell into the "I Like them" pile, which always hurts an article's chances, but my research did help it in the consideration for being kept Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 13:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript. It actually took a while, but I finally got around to hearing "Handlebars" on the station I listen to. However now that I have, it seems they're playing almost every hour. Also Billboard.com lists the fact that the song "Handlebars" has cracked the Billboard Hot 100 (the big chart for the US) at #100. But it's not like I need to prove further notability for the band because the appearance on the Modern Rock Tracks chart was enough to meet WP:MUSIC Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 17:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to mention that "Handlebars" is getting airtime on Danish national radio. And it's currently #14 on the The Official UK Singles Chart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluewest8 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

Please, when citing, review the the Verifiability Policy and the Wikipedia Style Guide to Citing Sources for a guideline to choosing acceptable sources as well as how to create proper citations. Additionally, be specific about your sources. Don't just link to a website, link to specific pages and articles. Additionally, the Flobots' news page and press releases are self-published sources and thus certain editorial points are unacceptable under WP policy. --JeebusSez (talk) 06:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marathon

On 28 April 2008, WPBZ ran a marathon of "Handlebars" replaying the single over 15 times in a row. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

we will need a source for that. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Work with Peacejam?

Flobots contributed several free concerts to the PeaceJam organization and really boosted their popularity early on. Is this something that needs to be added? If so, what do I need to do to add that info (I am new at editing, thanks). Damnedcracken (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LEAD SINGER

Is Johnny 5 the one who sings most of the lyrics to Handlebars? If so is he the lead singer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.196.134.34 (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He is the white guy who does most of the rapping/singing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.95.61.208 (talk) 02:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Short Circuit's Johnny Five? Not to be confused with? What are the odds that the two will be confused?

I propose that this be removed from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.151.237.51 (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The odds are pretty high, seeing as they are all 'Johnny' and then the number five, in different written forms. I'd easily get mixed up between 'Johnny 5' and Johnny Five'. -FatAdZ (talk) 11:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually Jonny 5, not Johnny 5. So there's an example there!--152.26.6.195 (talk) 14:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anybody with enough mental faculties to read this page would consider for even a moment that a fictional robot from a 1986 comedy film became a real person named James Laurie and started a band in 2000. It should be removed on the grounds that it's just silly. 71.168.118.177 (talk) 01:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm

Someone seems to have added the words "I can ride my bike with no handlebars" to the end of the first paragraph?

Is this intentional or a pointless edit? --GeneralShroom (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, at the bottom of the Wikipedia page it says "Mackenzie Roberts" on their website it says "Mackenzie Gault" (also earlier in the wikipedia article). So, which is it? Gault? Roberts? Both? Is she married? Using a stage name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.254.174 (talk) 04:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Guerrero

Why do people keep saying that he left the band? I have yet to find any information that suggests this and he's still listed as a member of the band on their website, Facebook page and Myspace page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.24.180.103 (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rap cock

They are rap rock too — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.23.80 (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{POV}} and {{Advert}} Tags