Talk:Pixies (band)/Archive 1

Pixies Reunion Sell-Outs

I have some reports of these tour stops selling out in under 5 minutes. Can anyone confirm?

I hear that they actaully have the world record now for fastest selling gigs -- referring to the recent London Brixton Academy ones. It's supposed to be something like 30seconds, or 1 minute 30 seconds. Could just be urban legend though.

It's total BS, the last shows in NY in December were sold out but you could get tickets for free just for showing up.

Kim/Kelley

The section "After the breakup" infers that Kim Deal struggled with heroin addiction. It was actually her twin sister, Kelley, who was ultimately arrested and sent to court-ordered rehab after signing for a package of heroin from U.P.S. in a sting operation. Kelley ultimately recovered, and is also in the Breeders.

take a stab at making the edit yourself :) join the fun. Kingturtle 12:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New studio album?

What's with the blurb at the bottom regarding not recording a new studio album? I haven't heard anything about it, and it seems tacked on, considering that the writing style differs greatly from the body of the article. Is it true, and if so should I, or someone else remove the Pixies from the upcoming 2004 albums list?

Yeah thats a new one on me. It doesnt say it on Pixiesmusic.com, which I find to be the most reliable source around on them. Robinoke 16:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, well, I chopped it off the end.

Missing "The"

I'm being pedantic here, but shouldn't Pixies redirect to The Pixies instead of v/v? I'm too lazy to look for a Wp standard, but Beatles and Kinks seem to be set up that way. PhilipR 13:12, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unlike The Kinks and The Beatles, it appears (the) Pixies never used the definite article with their name. There is the case of "Death to the Pixies", but you can perhaps read that as a plea not to call them "The Pixies" :) --Ryano 16:12, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oops, I stand corrected. Thanks. PhilipR 16:23, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What about Death to the Pixies? MacRusgail 17:11, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Um, see above. --Ryano 23:28, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There does need to be some reference to this in the article, however. The first line starts with "Pixies are...", but the balance of the article tends to prefer "the Pixies." It should be made clear in the article that the band prefer(red) not to use "the," but that the article uses it for clarity (or whatever). Exploding Boy 16:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In common usage, "the Pixies" is much more frequently used, as far as I can see. This article overwhelmingly uses "the Pixies", and, in my opinion, not using the definite article hampers readability: "Pixies went on tour/Pixies appeared at festival X/Pixies broke up" is just kind of silly and awkward-sounding, to me. I've changed the heading from "Pixies (not The Pixies)" to "Pixies (frequently referred to as The Pixies), which makes it clear that the official name has no definite article, while allowing for the common usage throughout the article. Anazgnos 00:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between The Pixies and the Pixies... Pixies is the name of the band, and the article title should reflect that; Pixies (band) or similar would be preferable to an incorrect name. -- Xinit 23:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who changed the article name? Pixies was fine, and the band *never* refer to themselves as The Pixies. Also, people searching for 'Pixies' are no doubt looking for the band - why redirect to a disambig page? Why was no consensus reached, and the article just moved? I'll putting in a request for move to the old page. CloudNine 09:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lovering

Lovering kind of gets a raw deal in the post Pixies section. "Low" was a pretty solid alternative hit in America. Cracker had a decent first album. I mean, I liked it when I was 15. Perhaps it's no longer, or never was, hip. But that's irrelevant. Someone should add Cracker to that other magician stuff.

Are you sure you're not thinking of David Lowery (frontman of Cracker and Camper Van Beethoven)? Hoof Hearted 15:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tense

I find the tense changes in this paragraph jarring:

Francis was the group's primary songwriter and singer. He has a distinctly desperate, yowling delivery, and typically writes cryptic songs about offbeat subjects, such as unidentified flying objects and surrealism. Violent Biblical imagery and references to mental instability and incest also feature highly in much of his work. Deal contributed songs as well, and her often feathery voice acted as an oddly effective counterbalance to Francis (Incidentally, the then-married Deal was credited as "Mrs. John Murphy" on the first few Pixies records).

Would all-past or all-present (not sure about the band's post-reunion plans) be more appropriate? - PhilipR 18:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How's this:

Francis was the group's primary songwriter and singer; with a distinctly desperate, yowling delivery, he typically wrote cryptic songs about offbeat subjects, such as unidentified flying objects and surrealism.

piper108 22:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, guess I never replied. Sorry about that. I like your version, so I'll see if it got included in the present revision. - PhilipR 05:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahead of their time?

Musically, it has been argued that the Pixies were just slightly ahead of their time.

Yes, I've heard this said too, but it would be good to have references to people who've said it. --Daf 20:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

except for the fact that the pixies sound was already established by the jesus and mary chain. Kingturtle 12:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And their sound was already established by the Velvet Underground and Phil Spector. Anazgnos 17:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these statements seem to suggest that being influenced by a band is the same as stealing their sound. Even a cursory listen of all three bands will be plenty of evidence to the contrary. You may as well be saying Pixies stole their sound from VU. This probably wasn't your intention, but the wording seems a bit off to me. Any band having that big an impact on a band like Nirvana isn't easy to label as overly derivative. MycroftHolmes 15:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs. John Murphy

I think previous versions of this article have cited Kim's nom de plume to the proper extent (last line in third paragraph). She was only credited at Mrs. John Murphy on the first two Pixies albums, and is far better known as Kim Deal. Would anyone object to removing the pseudonym from other locations in the article, particularly the band infobox? Hoof Hearted 21:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was bold and enacted this. I think it looks better now. Guinnog 19:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate link

Just a minor thing, and I guess I could have corrected it myself, but I'm not quite sure of Wikipedia policy on naming external links. Anyways, here goes. The links at the end named "Pixies Music - The Online Fan Community" and "Just Another Pixies site" refer to the same website.

The policy is to edit stuff like that yourself :) Well spotted, I've removed the duplicate. --Ryano 23:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

loudQUIETloud

I think it will be suited that someone will add the good new about the Pixies documentary, loudQUIETloud. It has already an official site and it also appears in the IMDb

Agreed. If someone could create a loudQUIETloud page, that would be the cat's pajamas (I haven't seen the documentary yet, so I'm hesitant to do it myself). Mmmtravis 10:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted material

Pixies fans: I've noticed that someone added copyrighted material to Frank Black and Kim Deal. Rather than delete it, we'd like to replace it with non-copyrighted work; the work's already begun, [1] but please help create a decent article rather than just another stub! (And make sure you don't overwrite what User:Greg Godwin has already done!) -- Sam

The Breeders

I'm concerned that The Breeders reads like a press release, could be copyright, but its not from All Music Guide like the others, so It could be a well written original. Greg Godwin

"Earthy sex appeal"

This is terrible: "and her earthy sex appeal attracted more than a few male fans"

HAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAH!!!!!

Featured Music Project evaluation

Pixies has been evaluated according to the Featured Music Project criteria, most recently affirmed as of this revision. The article's most important issues are listed below. Since this evaluation, the article may have been improved.

The following areas need work to meet the criteria: Comprehensiveness - References - Format/Style

The space below is for limited discussion on this article's prospects as a featured article candidate. Please take conversations to the article talk page.

Comprehensiveness: Outside of the lead, there's little on style, influences or legacy
References: Allmusic alone is not sufficient, needs inline citations and print/scholarly works
Format/Style: Remove trivia, general copyedit, trim external links and see alsos
Pics are good, more would be nice, consider switching the free and fair pic, or removing the fair one altogether (since part of the justification for the fair use pic is that there is no free alternative, which, in this case, there is).
Samples are okay, but more may be necessary and they should be worked into the article

Pruned the "reunion" section. Apart from questionable info in leading statements, there seemed to be a tendency to list every single festival date and television appearance in exhaustive detail. Condensed into a brief, broader overview. Also updated new album news. Anazgnos 22:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA nomination

I saw that the original GA tag was placed in Dec 2005. However, after reviewing history logs on this page and over at WP:GAC, I can not find any sufficient proof that the article was actually reviewed for GA criteria. I have submitted it for review. Agne 18:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Passing

Yeah that was deservedly a Good Article, maybe you could condese th Pop Culture section, I don't know why there was no evidence of it being passed in the first place though

(The Bread 11:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

DVD's

The Pixies have released four DVD's since they reformed but they dont appear to be in the article. There is the best of DVD, and three tour DVDs which I noticed in a record store yesterday. Is there a reason why these are not mentioned? Robinoke 11:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate 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 debate was Move. Yeah, I know it should have been "no consensus" but I'm going to appeal to WP:IAR here if Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary topic doesn't cover my ass well enough. The current situation with Pixies redirecting here is unacceptable: a glance through "what links here" doesn't show any gremlins intended. Writing a bot to fix what ain't broken would be a waste of time. Duja 11:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~The Pixies~~ Pixies (band) → Pixies – The band always refers to themselves as Pixies rather than The Pixies, and people typing in Pixies (which is the band's official name) are now lead to a disambig page (which discuss *singular* versions of the word). All links from other articles will now be at that disambig page, and no consensus was reached beforehand - while in the middle of the article being a FAC! CloudNine 09:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the move request. There is no reason for the (band) modifier, and all or most of the links to Pixies refer to the band. ~ trialsanderrors 18:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Support, no other articles named "Pixies" Teemu08 19:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as stated above in section introduction. CloudNine 15:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Obvious. ~ trialsanderrors 18:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object Pixies should go to Pixie or Pixie (disambiguation). -- Beardo 19:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You goin' to fix all of these? ~ trialsanderrors 20:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Beardo. I'm sure a bot could take care of the redirects. TJ Spyke 05:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - agree with that... Pixies should redirect elsewhere. Bssc81 04:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - nothing else shares this name, so it's the obvious title of the article. --Yath 07:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

nobody calls them "pixies". someone wouldn't say "right now my favorite band is pixies", that just doesn't make sense. a "the" is without a doubt implied before their name. 67.172.61.222 04:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, the band do. What's on the front of every album? Pixies, not The Pixies. However, I'm happy with (for the moment), Pixies (band), but there really was no reason to move Pixies in the first place. CloudNine 08:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Used in Fight Club?

Wasn't Where is my Mind the last song in Fight Club? I can't remember, but if it was, it seems like it would be one of the most important movies to go under "in popular culture."

haha i just read the section on fight club, sorry about that

Definite article

The fuss over the definite article is silly. No, it's not part of the name, just as "the" isn't part of "the United States" or "the White House" or "the ACLU" or "the University of Arizona", or "the Moon", but it is still used as per standard English (i.e. "the" or "The" depending on context, etc.).

To settle it, look at any quote from Frank Black:

"I'd love to see someone do their doctorate on The Pixies. Then we might discover something."

"I can listen to a Pixies record and say, 'Oh yeah, there is some Iggy Pop impersonating right there.'"

Bands incorporating "The" into their name (the way books and films traditionally do) are a modern-day quirk. The Pixies (that is to say, the Pixies) don't do anything out of the norm.

Just putting that silly issue to bed. ☮ —tilde 01:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles at The Beatles, The Kinks, The Jimi Hendrix Experience, The Cure, The Smashing Pumpkins, The Black Eyed Peas, and countless others. Don't forget The Band, either. We still say "a Beatles record," but everyone knows the group is The Beatles. This is not as clear-cut as you imply. Dekimasu 09:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems clear-cut enough since there's never a definite article on the band's album covers. There are also statements in Fool the World explicitly saying that there was never a definite article, which is why the author never uses it in its 200+ pages. Not a huge deal, and even the members themselves use "the" *at times*, but it seems more accurate that an encyclopedia article would use what is clearly the official name. MycroftHolmes 15:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"the" is not part of the name, but rather the preceding article. 67.172.61.222 03:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brodie Foster Hubbard fact

I don't think that:

Brodie Foster Hubbard, who has been compared vocally to Frank Black, is often seen wearing a Pixies t-shirt in concert, and has covered "Wave of Mutilation" in performance, as well as songs from Black's solo efforts such as "Billy Radcliffe."

has a place in the article. There are tons of artists who are fans of the Pixies and incorporate lyrics and songs of theirs into their concerts (for example, Dave Grohl, Eddie Vedder [2]). The best place for this is in the Brodie Foster Hubbard article - as personally, I don't want the legacy/popular culture section turning into a bulletpoint list again like it used to be. CloudNine 10:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are other artists mentioned in this section, I am just adding one more. Whatever your personal prejudice, you should not favor one artist (Weezer) over another (Hubbard). PT ^(s-s-s-s) 20:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but there's no quote or evidence of direct influence from Brodie Hubband. You haven't even given a reference! CloudNine 07:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - So you're saying as long as there is a verifiable source, you are fine with the passage? PT ^(s-s-s-s) 18:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nope, it's spam, leave it out. We don't need to mention every artist who has ever claimed to be influenced by the Pixies. We'll use chart success and album sales as a barometer. The artists mentioned, David Bowie, Radiohead, U2, Nirvana, Weezer, and Blur, have all sold a lot of records. Anazgnos 20:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - This was already worked out between CloudNine and I, this in no way is "spam," chart success is not the only barometer out there (read WP:MUSIC, and WP:OSTRICH why you're at it). PT ^(s-s-s-s) 23:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh my gosh, I'm so sorry...I didn't realise this was a private, closed issue and that outside contributions weren't welcome. The issue is not that I'm unaware of BFH apparently immense talents or don't care to investigate them. The "Legacy" section as it stands demonstrates the high regard in which the Pixies are held by their peers and in some cases their forebearers, as a means of illustrating the Pixies' long lasting influence in the general musical community. Thus, it is jarring to find a plug for an unrelated artist attempting to flog an alleged "similarity" to Pixies fans, which does not illustrate anything about the Pixies, but does illustrate something about the artist being plugged. BFH's usage of Pixies material and imagery does not really constitute an endorsement from a peer, and I can only assume the reason the former 'list of artists influenced by the Pixies' was deleted was because it too quickly became a place for overeager fans of unrelated bands to attempt to hitch their wagons to the instant-cred machine that is the Pixies. I agree with CloudNine that the quote in question would be far more appropriate in the BFH article than the Pixies. Otherwise, can you demonstrate that BFH is regarded, by credible sources, as a peer of the Pixies/Frank Black? Anazgnos 19:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Please do not be so saracstic in your comments to editors. The paragraph is written so that it may be expanded upon, with other artists being added to the text. A "legacy" would imply a predecessors's effect on those they have influenced, hence my addition to the section. I do not appreciate the consensus and compromise CloudNine and I came to being bulldozed over, and that is why I referenced that exchange. Thank you. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 18:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        No text in the article is set in stone. I do think that the BFH fact should be mentioned in his article foremost - we don't have the space to mention every artist influenced by the Pixies ;) CloudNine 18:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        True, not every artist, but since this one has received comparisons, I am hoping for it to stay. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 18:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I for one do not want to see the article turned into a forum where every two-bit artist who has ever been compared to the Pixies warrants a mention. So far we've got 1 strong 'against', 1 weak 'against', and 1 strong 'for'. There's no strong consensus for including this information yet. There's a couple more "againsts" in the discussion on the topic on CloudNine's talk page, such as:

"Is this Brodie guy notable to anyone outside of Phoenix? I have seen local performers who sound a bit like David Byrne, but I'm not about to add them to the David Byrne article... -- Xinit 01:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

"The article is about the Pixies, not the person you mention. Some people are trying to make this a Featured Article, which do not contain trivia about things distantly connected to the article subject. –Outriggr § 05:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

And with that, it appears PT has quite literally picked up his ball and gone home. Anazgnos 23:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Band Infobox

Would anyone mind if I edited the band's infobox to separate the Studio albums from the live albums from the best-ofs? For clarity's sake. (The singles need no change, I don't think.) -EmperorNortonX 8 October 2006 (I don't know how to convert to UTC time...)

No, go right ahead! I've been meaning to get around to doing that :) CloudNine 14:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, enjoy. -EmperorNortonX 10 October 2006 (again, with the UTC)

Adding a link

Hi, I tried a couple of times to add a link to Frank Black's new blog at http://mog.com/frank_black, but it fell off. What can I do to get that link on this page? Anything? Just trying to get the word out, thanks -jess (newbie, obviously) 14 October 2006

I removed it because I felt it was more on-topic in the Frank Black article. By the way, use ~~~~ to add your name at the end of a comment. CloudNine 19:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instrumentation

Thank you so much to whoever added the Pixies instrumentation info. I always wanted to know what equipment they used to help them achieve their special sound, and I wish more band articles would take the time to include similar little details that music geeks like me can't get enough of.

Samples need to comply to guidelines

Hi there, nice to see this article up to featured, but looking at the nom page, only objections were addressed... and I fear I have another to raise :/

To quote Wikipedia:Music samples:

It's better to insert the samples next to paragraph mentioning them to justify their fair use, instead of grouping them in the end of the article.
There's no limit of how many samples you could use in one article, but you have to put in mind that music samples serve as tools for a better understanding of the article, so insert only relevant samples.

(see Elliott Smith for an example of this)

This should probably be addressed in the article as all the samples are grouped at the end of the article and some are redundant there because there are in-line samples of the songs in the article (eg. "Bam Thwok"). I recommend re-formatting the inclusion of the samples in the article to follow these guidelines. Don't have time to do it myself, but I'll help when I can. - Phorque 13:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I wanted to include in-line samples and samples at the end of the article because I didn't want the reader to search through the whole text just to listen to a sample of their music. The redundancy is intended ;) I think all the samples are included are relevant, as it shows a development in their music by album (mentioned in detail earlier in the article). CloudNine 13:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final To-Do item: Condensing Reunion

I've taken a crack at this. Removed a lot of the probably-unnecessary specific recounting of dates and left (hopefully) the main notable stuff. A starting point, at least. I invite anyone else to go over it too; I didn't want to presume to cross that item off the list myself... Anazgnos 04:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Debaser

While the song Debaser does indeed reference Salvador Dali's film, Un Chien Andalou, a seminal surrealist film (especially the scene of an eyeball being sliced), the songs point of reference is completely different. It actually is talking about a Professor of Film at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, Professor Don Levine.

http://www.umass.edu/film/

Levine shows Un Chien Andalou as part of his avante-garde film class almost every semester. Apparently him and Black had a verbal debate on the film when Black was at UMASS. The song DEBASER refers to how Levine debased Black's opinion publicly during the class. Many actually consider Levine to be an asshole. Levine commonly refers to this episode during his classes, noting the song was written about him.

-a UMASS grad. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iagoodman (talk • contribs) 21:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

That's word of mouth though. Where the reference in a third-party reviewed publication? CloudNine 21:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1989 Photo

I added a rather choice photo from a 1989 Greece concert. Zoom way in, and you can kinda see the smoke rising from the cigarette tucked into Joey's headstock! Hope this satisfies the need for a photo. Oystermind 19:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! Just made a few alterations to do with the image's position etc. I'll supply a fair use rationale. CloudNine 19:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. CloudNine 20:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no "The"

Whatever POS keeps changing it back to "The Pixies" should be banned from this site!!

It's "Pixies" only. You don't refer to U2 as "The U2", so you don't refer to Pixies as "The Pixies".

Simple as that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheSpearMan (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I agree. You'd say a "Pixies" song. However, you've got to use the definite article; it just isn't in the band's name. There's a section about it on this very talk page. Just because the band's name has no definite article (unlike The Beatles), it doesn't mean we should ignore it altogether. For example, the title of the book about the band, "Fool the World: the Oral History of the Pixies" is a good example. What's the name of the page currently? Pixies. By the way, please try to be civil on the talk page, we're all working towards the common goal of writing the best article possible. CloudNine 16:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at any album by the band. It is always "Pixies" and never "The Pixies". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.220.195.77 (talk • contribs).

Yes! Look at Talk:Pixies#Requested move. Look who wrote the introduction! Me! I used your reasoning exactly. However, the definite article is still needed. It's just not part of the name - I totally agree. Because it's The Pixies at the top is merely because the first letter of a sentence is capitalized ;) It's 'The Pixies' rather than 'The Pixies'. I don't know why we're having a dispute :) CloudNine 17:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you're right. I'm sorry :(

Again, not to start a world war, but I should point out that the title of Fool the World does *NOT* include the definite article, and as I've said before, the (authorized) author never uses it, save in some quotes, thus proving my point that you don't *have* to say it to be speaking proper English. I use the definite article at times, and for it to be used here is fine, but it's not a rule of English. 70.111.205.64 20:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, there's no problem with Sparks, Darts, Steps, Talking Heads, Eurythmics, even Wings, so there should be no problem with calling Pixies by their name. Either that or delete this article altogether because if you insist on calling them The Pixies, it's just not going to be encyclopedic. (Indeed, suggesting that the individuals named on the page are members of a group called The Pixies when they're not could even be libellous.) -Multivitamin 07:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No-one has called them The Pixies. The reason they're referred to as 'The Pixies' is because you capitalize the first letter of a sentence. I would never call them The Pixies. Surely reading the above discussions should inform you of my viewpoint? CloudNine 19:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about the first letter being capitalized or not. It's about whether the word should be there at all. It shouldn't. - Multivitamin 09:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're not called 'The Pixies' anywhere in the page, just 'Pixies'. The definite article is also used in quite a few written sources, including Ben Sisario's Doolittle 33 1/3. Here's a quote: "the Pixies entered Downtown Recorders in Boston". I personally don't see any problems with current usage, and the Pixies is used on alternative rock etc. CloudNine 09:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The definite article is completely redundant and therefore bad grammar. Since there's no The in the group's name, its use signifies nothing at all, beyond wrongly implying it belongs to the name. You might as well insist on referring to the Thomas Hardy's the Tess of the D'Urbervilles - same usage, and equally wrong. --Multivitamin 07:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not bad grammar. The definite article makes the sentence flow better, as well as being used by multiple printed sources. For example "Pixies' history began" sounds awkward, whereas 'The Pixies' history began'. Or, "While Pixies' album Doolittle ... ", and "While the Pixies' album Doolittle ...". The definite article is not completely redundant - see Red Hot Chili Peppers. CloudNine 09:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seriously think that "The Pixies' history began" is less awkward than simply "Pixies' history began"? Strewth. --Multivitamin 14:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

. . . yes? WesleyDodds 12:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

loudQUIETloud, the official Pixies documentary, is titled: "loudQUIETloud, a film about the Pixies." Usage varies; and once we've got a style, it's worth sticking to. Let's not try to get into WP:LAME. CloudNine 12:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And it's not just what's grammatically correct; the use of "the" before "Pixies" is stylistically consistent in virtually every source I've read or seen. Yes, the proper name is "Pixies", but the article "the" is necessary when using it in a sentence. I mean, I'm pretty sure all the band members would say "I'm a member of the Pixies". WesleyDodds 12:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And watching loudQUIETloud, even the band themselves refer to them as the Pixies! Talk about a color of the bikeshed debate; "People stay quiet on technical issues, but when an issue like indentation formatting or naming conventions arises, everyone has an opinion." CloudNine 14:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pop culture reference

For some reason the first thing that popped into my head when I woke up today was "Hey, the Pixies were mentioned in the end credits of Empire Records!" Two characters are talking about what makes a great band, and one insists it's having great basslines and cites the Pixies as an example. I really haven't seen the movie all the way through, so someone who's more familiar with the film might want to clarify what it actually said in the film. WesleyDodds 22:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Just found that in Fool the World, so I might add that reference soon. I'm currently reverting IP vandalism and unsourced edits from a user called Charlesmkthompson. CloudNine 08:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorporated. Apparently two TV series talk about the band as well. CloudNine 14:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reunion

In 2005, the band made appearances at festivals including Lollapalooza,[77] "T on the Fringe",[78] and the Newport Folk Festival.[79] They continued to make appearances through 2006 and 2007,[80][81] culminating in their first-ever appearances in Australia.[82] Since 2005, Francis has at various times stated that the Pixies recording a new studio album was either a possibility,[83][84][85] or an unlikelihood,[86][87] the main obstacle being Deal's reluctance to do so.[88][89]

The portion of the sentence "culminating in their first-ever appearances in Australia." seems a bit off topic. Yes they traveled their, but it pales in significance to the rest of the sentence and serves no real purpose. 06:45, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Lazzaro798 (talk)

Requested move 12 May 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: There is rough consensus that as the plural of pixie it is most appropriate to redirect there; many editors referred to WP:RPURPOSE. Those opposing mainly did so based on their personal preference, without giving any evidence of a primary topic — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pixies → Pixies (band) – WP:ASTONISH DAB from Pixie, Pixies (Artemis Fowl), Pixies (EP), Pixies (film), Pixies (The Fairly OddParents) and Pixies (Winx Club). Even though readers are used to seeing things at the plural and the band does get more views [[3]] there are a number of other articles. The creature is probably primary by PT#2 and per WP:NOPRIMARY a DAB page makes sense. The band is named after the creature though it appears the name was selected somewhat randomly but the creatures do frequently come in the plural. I suggest that for the same reason as at Talk:Hearts that we have a separate "Pixies" DAB page since only the creature would be searched/referred to interchangeably as "Pixie"/"Pixies" however like at Talk:Spades (card game)#Requested move 28 April 2019 it might still be preferred to have a single DAB, thus "Pixies" redirecting to Pixie (disambiguation). There was an old RM at Talk:Pixies/Archive 1#Requested move so The Pixies is another option. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom - no clear primary topic. Paintspot Infez (talk) 18:59, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would also note that the category is at Category:Pixies (band) as a result of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 22#Category:Pixies. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support move per WP:ASTONISH. Redirect to pixie per WP:RPURPOSE (simple plural of a common word), and oppose creation of another DAB page when so few relevant entries per WP:DABCOMBINE. -- Netoholic @ 19:37, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- lol. you may have been right in the first place, they could put Tinker Bell into a sideshow and make a mint. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Support Redirect to pixie per WP:RPURPOSE In ictu oculi (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would note that the plural "Pixies" appears 58 times in the article Pixie. However I don't think we should make the creature primary per User:Andrewa/Incoming links and PT#1. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, is this Friends again? Exactly where the confusion between the band and the creatures arises? Do you have evidence people arriving at the band are looking the creatures, not only to move the band, but to redirect 2,000 daily people there? By the way, there are not "many" articles, solely there are the band, a film and an album by the band, the other are merely topics. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 20:09, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As noted I don't think we should redirect "Pixies" to Pixie but rather have no PT. There is confusion because the creature commonly comes in the plural. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:11, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"There is confusion because the creature commonly comes in the plural". According to what? Opinions and Wikipedia are not reliable sources. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 20:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well its just you're opinion that the band is primary (you haven't cited any evidence to suggest it is and 2 editors above think that the creature is primary) and classes of things are frequently referred to in the plural its just WP convention that we use plurals (WP:PLURAL), per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT a different title may be a competitor (or even be primary!) for a term such as Bones, Cars and Cats. In this case I'm asking far less than what has been done at Bones, that is, that there is no primary topic, isn't that a reasonable compromise? Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to move the band, I'm opposed to the BS nominations you keep doing over plurals without citing anything other than "on Commons" or "per X". We are not a dictionary. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 20:42, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Redirect to pixie. The band has that name not because they coined a new word to show their originality, but because they chose a word referring to a longstanding historical topic, so that they could instantly evoke that topic. Wikipedia's business, however, is being an encyclopedia, not promoting bands and films and sports teams that choose common nouns as their names. bd2412 T 20:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since "Rebel Heart" is not the name of any specific longstanding historical topic, this comment is of no value to the discussion. bd2412 T 17:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should travel to Ireland before asserting it is not a "longstanding historical" term. By the Way, are Ice Cubes relevant enough for you? Because there are hundreds of similar examples. We are an encyclopedia not a dictionary. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 23:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By the Way is in no way comparable since we don't (and it doesn't look like we could) have an article on the general meaning of that word, secondly per WP:DIFFCAPS (like Iron maiden/Iron Maiden) if we did that would be located at By the way (lower case "w"). Similarly while the rapper is at Ice Cube (upper case "C") the frozen water is at Ice cube (lower case "c"). However in this case even if you type "pixies" (lower case "p") as opposed to "Pixies" (upper case "P") you still end up on the band article, same goes with "Friends" v "friends". If it was possible to title the 1st letter differently then I would be happy with having "Pixies" about the band and "pixies" redirect to the article on the creature (with appropriate hatnotes on both articles, such as "for the creature, see pixies, for other uses see Pixies (disambiguation)"). The same goes with Friends. However since both "friends" and "pixies" have encyclopedia articles and DIFFCAPS doesn't work, disambiguation is needed for both. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose I think "Pixies" is the primary topic (for the band), but do understand that it could be confusing. As this is a Featured Article, I'm surprised this hasn't come up before, and I would be happy to leave it were it is, and retain the hatnote. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would note that there was another CFD at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 23#Pixies (band) where there was consensus against renaming the category to just Category:Pixies (although ambiguity and plural PTs are far more of an issue in category namespace than article namespace). I also disambiguated the Commons category. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is the primary topic, like Friends. Calidum 14:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this more comparable to Parachutes and Bookends? Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And Adulterers. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:09, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "Pixie" describes the things, Pixies the [beloved] band. See also the hatnote for the confused. Ceoil (talk) 10:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't the band usually described as "The" Pixies? If you were going to see them in concert, would you say, "I'm going to see Pixies", or "I'm going to see The Pixies"? No matter the title, The Pixies will redirect to the article on the band. bd2412 T 04:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes indeed some of the titles of pages on their website to indeed use "The Pixies" while I don't think The Pixies is preferred per WP:THE, it could be used as natural disambiguation. And yes while our NC can be taken into account when determining primary topic, they aren't conclusive (since its clear that this band fails PT#2). Again I'd point to Bones/Bones (TV series), Cats/Cats (musical), Cars/Cars (film), Bookends/Bookends (album), Blossoms/Blossoms (band) and Parachutes/Parachutes (album) where even though the "thing" is described at the singular, the plural form redirects there. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:17, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Please note the redirect may not be retargeted until all of the incoming links are sorted out. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are still 806 mainspace links that need fixing, normally I'd do it myself but that's too many to do manually, is it worth posing a request at WP:AWB/TA what do you think @BD2412:? as you know more about this and have AWB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @BD2412: all completed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:31, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfM: Requested redirect

Pixies → Pixies (band)

The above RM was moved after a very poor discussion. It is fairly obvious from pageviews since the move that "Pixies" is the main article for the subject. Since the move, the band itself has gained many thousands of new views, due to a new album and tour. Here are the pageviews for the main page (and "Pixie", which has far less views), and here are the pageviews for the redirect "Pixies" - the similarity is clear. It is obvious that the vast majority of editors who are typing in "Pixies" are looking for the band. Therefore, the redirect Pixies should point to Pixies (band). Anything else is ludicrous. Black Kite (talk) 02:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I support redirecting "Pixies" to Pixie (disambiguation) as a compromise but oppose making the band primary per my last comments. It also shouldn't be a redirect from the base name to the band per WP:PRECISE in any case. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, that's even more pointless. The usage stats clearly show that people typing in "Pixies" are looking for the band, not the fictional creature, so doing that still makes them click twice. Redirects should assist the user, not work against them. If any user looking for the creature does type in the plural, the hatnote will get them back to where they should be. If this was a low-traffic page it wouldn't be an issue, but the band gets around 700,000 views a year (as compared to around 190,000 for the fictional creature). Black Kite (talk) 12:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help with cleaning up

Hi Keith D, Koavf, Robvanvee, Indopug, Ceoil, Popcornfud, SchroCat, Brandt Luke Zorn, anyone else...

I was wondering whether anybody would be interested in helping clean up the Pixies page with me. I’d be interested in helping too but I unfortunately wouldn’t have enough time to do it by myself. Issues include broken links (including some of the old NME ones) and unreliable sources such as the fansite Slicingupeyeballs.com. Just now I noticed this mistaken edit by an anonymous user that went unnoticed for seven years: [[4]] It could be useful to fact-check some of the other info, to be sure of the integrity of all information and be sure we’re keeping the article at FA level.

I worked on helping fix it up for the FAR in 2011 but have been woefully bad at maintaining it since.

It would also be nice to look at coherency from a 2020 standpoint. For example, the article says “On June 14, 2013, the Pixies announced that Deal had left the band. Deal has since released new solo music and the remaining Pixies have invited her to come back as her schedule with Breeders allows.” One wonders how relevant/valid this invitation of seven years ago is still now, especially since Lenchantin seems to be quite integrated in the band now. (Or maybe there have been more recent invitations? If so, it would be great to find and add them.) This is just an example, there may be other old statements worth re-examining.

Anyone wanna help out? ☺ Moisejp (talk) 02:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moisejp. Much though I would like to help out, I’m short of time at the moment, and woefully short of any decent sources too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moisejp, I'll give the article a once-over at some point soon. If I don't, it just means I've forgotten because I am crap, so feel free to ping me again if you want. Popcornfud (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will help if I can. BTW, slicingupeyeballs, despite it's name that may make it appear to be a Pixies fansite, appears to have expanded to be a pretty reliable source these days. Black Kite (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]