Talk:The Dresden Dolls

Palmer's blog

Amanda Palmer's blog and separate stream of consciousness about the band and her experiences suggest to me that a separate entry for a committed archivist is worthwhile. This is not just about being a band member, but about someone producing a separate live commentary in her own right. unsigned comment was added by 84.68.233.45 (talk - contribs) 16:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC).

Great idea - if you can meet the Article policies noted in the talk header at the top of this web page: No original research; Neutral point of view; and Verifiability. Lentower 01:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge

I really don't think these should be merged, Tons of artists have pages separte from their band pages. I don't see why this should be any diffrent. Lyo 21:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Those tons of artists are usually separate for a reason. Usually that reason is they've been involved in more than one notable band. Another reason would be that the artist has done notable things outside of the band. Neither of those reasons apply. The Dresden Dolls are Amanda Palmer and Brian Viglione — Amanda Palmer and Brian Viglione are The Dresden Dolls. There's essentially one noteworthy entity here so it doesn't need to have three articles. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

There's more information that is said about them on the individual pages than in the main article. It's a lot neater if someone can click the link for Amanda to find out more about her than to have to sift through the whole article to find out about her. There is stuff in there that is specific to her so it makes sense for that to be in its own article. Her work as the eight foot bide is well known and separate from her dolls work Lyo 05:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

That's why I'm proposing a merge. Bring the paragraph about them into this article as new sections. Outside pages can link directly to the sections using the # notation, like The Dresden Dolls#Amanda Palmer. From what I can tell, almost every link to her page is in reference to the band anyway so why make people click between the two? It's not like this article is too long to hold the other two. The other two are only a paragraph each and a couple pictures. It just makes sense to me - and it's a common Wikipedia standard - to combine them into one larger nicer comprehensive article instead of leaving two stubby articles out on their own which would both be immediately deleted if it weren't for the band. (BTW, I don't know what eight foot bride is all about but it doesn't sound notable enough to warrant its own article either or else there would be an awful lot of EPCOT performers with their own articles). —Wknight94 (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Nope, there is no reason to merge them. They are 2 seperate people, therefore 2 seperate pages. Articles about people contain a lot of information unrelated to the band, such as date of birth, hometown, husband/wife etc. Craighennessey 18:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

And why can't that go in the band article as well? So you're proposing that every single band be broken out into about six articles - one for the band and one for each of the individual members? What's the point of that? How about their managers too? And their lawyers? And accountants? Like I said, there's only one notable entity here, not three. In this case, it sounds like, if the band didn't exist, the members would be no more notable than street cleaners. Look at Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. They're both more notable than either of the members of this band and yet they rightly get one article combined. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I really don't like the idea of merging the the pages. Since they are both obviously alive then there is all chance that their seperate pages will be expanded with information about themselves and not the band. Tartan 21:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

That can always be done when further info is found. Nothing on Wikipedia is permanent. They could be merged into one in about 5 min. and they could be unmerged just as quickly. Why not do what makes the most sense right now? —Wknight94 (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Plus, there is not "Nothing there except things related to this band" on Brian Viglione's page. I don't see what his date of birth and first band (Green Eggs and Ham) has to do with The Dresden Dolls as a band.Tartan 18:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Bottom line, he is unnotable except as pertains to this band. But I really don't care. Have three incomplete articles that people have to navigate between for no particular reason. And make an article for all of their previous garage bands and all of their friends and their manager and their accountants and their garbageman too. It will be like an Academy Awards acceptance speech. Fascinating. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Good job none of ye work on the Spanish Wikipedia (or maybe ye do?), where they are far stricter on separate artist pages - they are almost always merged on sight! Sigh. - The Great Gavini ^{"I might join your century, but only as a doubtful guest..."} 18:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Probably way too late to weigh in on this one but why weren't they merged? Instead of 1 reasonably comprehensive article there is 1 incomplete article and 2 stubs. Also this page needs to be broken up into more sections with a short intro (the first paragraph is probably sufficient) and the TOC moved up. I would do it now but am going to bed. Zarboki 13:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why such a fuss is made over this. Wikipedia is an internet encyclopedia. It's not like you're going to add another volume by leaving her and Brian's respective pages on. If anything, you should be promoting growth of the articles, rather than try and condense them. - Alexbt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexbt (talk • contribs) 20:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Notable appearances

At what point does the growing list of notable appearances become so long that none of them are really notable any more? They're one of my favorite bands but really, the list of appearances has a growing stink of wankery about it. I've watched several other Wiki pages crumble into irrelevancy as such lists grew and grew and grew. Eg. Lots of bands have played SxSW; do all of them mention that fact on their Wiki pages? Aeonite — Preceding undated comment added 05:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, although I'm not bold enough to rip that section apart. If you're willing, you have my support. jareha ^(comments) 07:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

You have my support too. That section is pretty useless Lyo 11:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed the following from the article (if any of it is notable, feel free to add it back):

The Dresden Dolls gained wider attention after a webcast performance at the 2002 Ig Nobel Prize ceremony in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

In 2004 they appeared on the television talk show "207" Maine's Local NBC Talk Show

In the 2005 WFNX/Boston Phoenix Best Music Poll The Dresden Dolls won Best Local Act and Best Local Album. Amanda Palmer also won Best Female Vocalist.

In March 2006, the Dresden Dolls were a prominent act at the South by Southwest Music Festival in Austin, Texas. They played to a large crowd in the legendary venue, Stubb's BBQ.

In May 2006, the Dresden Dolls played a special live set at the Princes Square Centre in Glasgow, Scotland.

The Dresden Dolls are to appear at the major music festival Bonnaroo, held in Manchester, Tennessee.

jareha ^(comments) 03:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I reinserted briefer versions of the Ig Nobel thing, and drive-by mentions of SXSW and Bonnaroo, which are certainly notable. The other stuff really isn't (local TV?!). --Dhartung | Talk 04:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I added a bit about the Dresden Dolls' appearance on the radio show Open Source. If it were not for the fact that the show is hosted by the subject of a Dresden Dolls song, this interview would probably not be notable enough to merit mentioning.

—Asatruer 05:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

That's cool, I didn't know about that. It's certainly notable for that reason. (The song annoys me, though ...) --Dhartung | Talk 07:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Overwikification

Hi guys -- I had never heard of these guys until I stumbled on their page here in Wikipedia while working on articles that mentioned mime artists. Interesting people, no question about it, and very original! I made very few changes since I don't know them, but I did remove a large number of non-essential wikilinks per the wiki style guide recommendations. Only items whose content would enhance the reader's understanding of the current article should be linked (what the style guide recommendations refers to as "major connections...and...technical terms"), and of those only the first occurrence (or, if the article is REALLY long, maybe the first occurrence in a section) should be linked. (See Wikipedia Manual of style and style guide recommendations.) I think it actually reads better now -- less links means less distractions to the reader :) Bookgrrl 18:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, linking the is overlinking, linking nothing is underlinking, and between, de gustibus non est disputandum. --Dhartung | Talk 07:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

GA Failed

This article failed the GA noms due to lack of references. Tarret 21:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Citation Needed

The link that is the citation needed in the first paragraph is "http://pollstar.com/news/viewhotstar.pl?Artist=DREDOL". I don't know how to insert it properly. Please advise. 24.4.196.194 03:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You may find the information you're looking for here. It seems the convention for this article is embedded HTML links, so that's probably the way to go. Dancter 03:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Backstabber

This one little video is now nearly 40% of the band's history. Somehow I don't think it's that notable, especially if it was knocked off YouTube and only a fraction of the fanbase saw it. --Dhartung | Talk 04:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If Backstabber is released as a single then I suggest that the video information be moved to a serarate page for the single. In reality it isn't the majority of their history, but is just the main even that seems to be happening with them at the moment (and of course it was with another band which seems to have quite a large fanbase). I'm thinking that it might be uploaded to the Dresden Dolls official website pretty soon as the YouTube version of it was advertised by the band in their own newsletter. (Plus, since it was advertised thus then I'm guessing it was quite a large fraction of their fanbase who saw it.) Tartan 13:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

List of Cover Songs

This is ridiculous and should be removed. The Dresden Dolls do at least 1-2 covers at each of their shows and sites like AutomaticJoy make it clear that they've done dozens and dozens and dozens of cover songs. Surely this is not going to turn into a list a mile long? Better to snip it in the bud. --Aeonite 10:47, 14 Nov 2006 (PT)

Agreed, this could grow endlessly and adds little to the article. --Dhartung | Talk 19:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

LGBT Musical Group?

I see that The Dresden Dolls are categorized as an LGBT musical group, is this just because Amanda is bisexual? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't recall any of their songs addressing LGBT issues. If it's because Amanda is bi, then shouldn't the band Green Day also be listed as an LGBT musical group because their lead singer is also bi? I'm just wondering. 199.126.166.13 01:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's because some of their songs have lyrics that can be interpreted as having some sexuality issues. The song Half Jack is often confused with someone who is transgendered, or dealing with identity issues. I don't know if you've heard of that, but I have quite a bit. They both dress in drag at live shows, and maybe that could have an effect in the LGBT Musical Group category. Oreo 8 March 2007

It was added here by Xoreox (talk · contribs), who is probably the person we should be asking. -- Dhartung | Talk 17:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Er ... I see that's you, with a disguised username. Sorry. I'm not sure that's a strong enough justification for having them in the category. -- Dhartung | Talk 17:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Half jack: it's half biology and half corrective surgery gone wrong/you'll notice something funny if you hang around here for too/long ago in some black hole before they had these pills to take it back/i'm half jill/and half jack[1]

Sex changes: we'll need to chop your clock off (tick tock tick tock tick tock tick tock)/it might not be what you expected/there is no money back once you've been ripped off (pulled from their site, needless to say "clock" is a giggle typo and *not* what is said live).... boys will be boys will be boys will be boys will be boys will be boys will be girls with no warning girls will be girls will be guys will be boys that don't cry over toys that they use to beat girls they despise by the morning they always said that sex would change you...[2]

Here's a ref WP:NOR [3], which states: The songs on the new album — which was co-produced and mixed by Sean Slade and Paul Kolderie — range from the thought-provoking ballad “Sing” to the thrash cabaret of “Modern Moonlight,” and lyricist Palmer tackles everything from relationship manipulation to transgender operations to abortion.

That would at least be a cited "T" in the LGBT spectrum[4](974 Ghits at the DC I used). Ronabop 08:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Re-added the category based on the above. Ronabop 09:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but that's all original research. I meant something that passes WP:ATT such as this interview. Just going by one or two songs, the Kinks could qualify for "Lola" ... --Dhartung | Talk 01:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

We have no idea if some of these "974 Ghits" would meet WP:ATT , until someone goes and looks at them. When looking for secondary sources, I search in Google Scholar first - much higher percentage of secondary sources. Lentower 13:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Google Scholar is one option, Google Books another, and Google News Archive another. Google itself is full of blogs, which the community has deemed generally unacceptable as sources. It can be the only way to find content in student newspapers and webzines, which are more often used as sources for band articles. -- Dhartung | Talk 21:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Like blogs, the community of Wikipedia editors has often found the Google News Archive, which is just an archive of USENET "news" articles, unacceptable as sources. It depends on the USENET group and the sources for the USENET posting. Lentower 13:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This is how the Poynter Institute describes the Google News Archive: Google News has indexed the full text of hundreds of thousands of articles going back 200 years and created a valuable new news archive search.... Using the site, you can search for people, events and issues from publications such as Time, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Guardian and The Washington Post, as well as news article databases such as Factiva, LexisNexis, Thomson Gale and HighBeam Research.[5] Obviously not all of the results from GNAS will be WP:RS. It is, however, most certainly not an archive of USENET. You are thinking of Google Groups.[6] --Dhartung | Talk 18:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That's why I had this link in there: [7], but it's good you found a 247gay article that is pretty hard to discount. :) Ronabop 09:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps one of you could add the citation to the article? Lentower 13:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it matters because the group has a large LGBT fanbase. Moror — Preceding undated comment added 04:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Look, it's really obvious that DD is a LGBT group. Amanda has twice made songs about being trans; Half Jack and Sex Changes. Only someone who is stubborn would continue to remove them from that category. People need to stop removing them from that category. Oreo — Preceding undated comment added 18:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Being stubborn about requiring sources is Wikipedia policy. It is the responsibility of someone adding to an article to properly cite sources. --Dhartung | Talk 19:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

We've cited sources right here, so you are being stubborn. Doesn't matter, delete what you want, I give up, the fact of the matter is is that they are an LGBT group with our without Wiki's approval. Oh, and by the way, none of it was original research. From earlier:

Here's a ref WP:NOR [8], which states: The songs on the new album — which was co-produced and mixed by Sean Slade and Paul Kolderie — range from the thought-provoking ballad “Sing” to the thrash cabaret of “Modern Moonlight,” and lyricist Palmer tackles everything from relationship manipulation to transgender operations to abortion.

If you count that as original research, than EVERYTHING is original research, because you are researching it yourself. So yeah, quit being a stubborn ass. Oreo 14-4-07 — Preceding undated comment added 20:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

So they wrote a song about transgenderism. Does that make The Kinks LGBT, too? If you can reference it in the article, then the category may stay, it is quite simple, and this is not some unique thing having to do with me. --Dhartung | Talk 22:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That category doesn't actually have any clear guidelines at the moment, and the ones that have been suggested have nothing to do with The Dresden Dolls. Neither of the members are LGBT (to my knowledge) and a couple of songs which make reference hardly make a strong case... Tartan 08:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Our article says Palmer is bi. Secretlondon 21:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I've suggested a source, above. The next step should be obvious. --Dhartung | Talk 22:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

They've made a couple songs about transgenderism actually, and they're very big in the LGBT community as supporters, and Amanda being bi herself. Why don't you look it up yourself, because I don't have time to do it right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.3.160 (talk) 20:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

In WP:V it says "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Thanks for your cooperation. --Dhartung | Talk 20:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Beyond the fact that Amanda Palmer has been quoted as saying she is bi (see her Wikipedia article as mentioned above) and the LGBT song lyrics, The Dolls have done several benefits for LGBT groups, including the upcoming True Colors tour in June 2007. It wouldn't take anyone too long to dig the references out. To the best of my knowledge, Brian hasn't said anything in public about his own sexual preferences, though he is obviously supportive of Amanda's choice and the LGBT movement. Be a deep WP editor and do the research. Lentower 01:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC) Just to complete this "summary", it also mentioned above that the duo has dressed in drag. And they have also cross-dressed at many performances - Amanda as a guy - Brian as a gal - Both as guys - Both as gals - From subtle styles to the flamboyant styles of drag queens and lesbian butches - These observations are from my watching a lot of the You Tube videos of them, and are "original research". But a little research should find reviews etc. that note all this. Lentower 05:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone looked at the groups in the LGBT categories, that clearly belong, and what in their articles verify this? Lentower 05:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't take anyone too long to dig the references out. No, it wouldn't. --Dhartung | Talk 05:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

So, Dhartung, why don't you do it? You are the editor unwilling to accept the secondary sources already in WP articles, and "original research" here on the talk page. There are other things I need to devote serious time to in the near future. Lentower 13:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

In WP:V it says "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Thanks for your cooperation. --Dhartung | Talk 20:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I added them back to the category with a reference. Oreo — Preceding undated comment added 23:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

First, that reference does not discuss sexuality, but Zen Buddhism. Second, footnotes like <ref> should be attached to text in the article, not to a category (there is no provision for a category footnote in the MediaWiki software). --Dhartung | Talk 08:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? It does not discuss Zen Buddhism. http://www.gaylinkcontent.com/prdetail.cfm?id=11589 That is the link that I gave for a reference, and I'm not too sure how to attach it to the article, so if someone could help that would be great. But check out that article, and I'm re-adding them YET AGAIN, and then I'll try to do the reference correctly. Oreo — Preceding undated comment added 13:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

So the category in question is "LGBT musical groups". Let's see if this article fits the category:

1. Is the group Lesbian? No, the group is not lesbian.
2. Is the group Gay? No, the group is not gay.
3. Is the group Bisexual? No, one of the members is (and it's on her page), but the group is not bisexual.
4. Is the group Transsexual? No, they may cross-dress on occasion, but the group is not transsexual.

Pretty clearly, the group is not an LGBT musical group. I'm removing the category AGAIN. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

They discuss transgenderism occasionally in their songs, Amanda is bi and that still counts, and they are LGBT friendly, and have a wide LGBT fanbase, so they clearly do fit in the Wiki standars. Quit being a fucking douchebag Wiki nazi asshole, and let them stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xoreox (talk • contribs) 20:29, 2007 June 1 (UTC)

Please observe WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. There are many groups that are LGBT friendly and discuss LGBT issues - I don't think that means they should be put in the category. Amanda is bi - great! Put her in the category. But the group itself isn't an "LGBT musical group". -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

T means many things. Transexual, Transgender, etc. What kind of groups do you think belong in that category, if a constantly pro-bi, pro-cross-gender, publicly cross-dressing, group doesn't? If brian is "only" dressing TG, and amanda is bi *and* dressing TG, that's not enough? Would you reject a G label, because amanda is not Gay, or an L label, because Brian is not a lesbian? The whole thing seems... absurd. Do groups have to have *all* LGBT members to qualify, and how is that even possible? What's the bar here? Ronabop (talk) 09:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Amanda is Bisexual, Brian has said he has been cross dressing since he was a kid, they constantly participate in LGBT themed events, most notably the True Colours tour, and they have a large aknowledged LGBT fanbase, and there are a few LGBT themed songs along with many references to LGBT in other songs. They are an LGBT group. Sknywhtboy88 (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use

The fair use image in the infobox should NOT have been used, because there are free images of them available on Wikipedia Commons, including another which shows both of the members. A free image should always be used over a fair use one, and I am now going to replace it. J Milburn 18:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

FTBR

Shouldn't this article somehow mention the Fuck the Back Row events that Amanda organised? Unetta 17:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Great idea - if you can meet the Article policies noted in the talk header at the top of this web page: No original research; Neutral point of view; and Verifiability. Lentower 01:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Music Videos need to be added to Discography

A sub-section on their Music Videos need to be added to Discography, along with citations to reviews, and YouTube (and vimeo?). Some of this can be gotten from the articles on the relevant singles. Lentower 14:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

I'm moving the trivia section to the talk page, since the information is not easily incorporated into the article. Yavoh 05:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

---

• In July 2005, the Internet Sketch Comedy Show Moron Life released their parody of "Coin Operated Boy" entitled "Beer Activated Girl" to the delight of both Amanda Palmer and Brian Viglione.
• Throughout some of 2003, the band experimented with two other members, a guitarist and a bassist.
• Their current "merch-girl", Laura, is the sister of ex-Rasputina cellist Zoë Keating.
• The band often use burlesque performers in their shows.
• They are considered by some to be an LGBT musical group.
• The song "Girl Anachronism" from the Dolls' self-titled debut album was used at the end of the 5th episode of the third season of the Showtime original series Weeds.

---

References

ref in a section heading?

I found nothing in the Wikipedia guidelines that prohibit <ref>s in section headers. If you know of such a prohibition. please provide the Wikilink. Otherwise, this is a case where it's the best thing to do. Lentower (talk) 03:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Ukulele with Dolls??

Has Amanda played the ukulele at a Dolls gig? If not, I think it should be removed. Unetta (talk) 14:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Amanda played ukulele in June 2007 while The Dresden Dolls were part of the True Colors Tour. Lentower (talk) 12:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No Virginia

No Virginia is lised as both a studio album and a compilation. One of them clearly needs to be deleted. It is more a compilation than a real studio album isnt it? It's basically half outtakes from the Yes Virginia sessions and half filler recordings of some older songs to round out the Album and maybe just to finally record them. But I think it should be up for discussion. Sknywhtboy88 talk) 20:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to leave it as a compilation, because there are studio outtakes, demos, and a couple of songs previously released on other albums, and only five songs recorded specifically for the album.Sknywhtboy88 (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just removed it from the Studio Album list, both the Studio Album and Compilation lists had a note next to the title saying not to move it to the other section, which is a bit silly. Clearly it is not an entirely new album, but, as mentioned above, a collection of unreleased tracks from the previous album's session with a few new ones thrown in to round it off.80.7.59.211 (talk) 08:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is correct. On several occasions, on her message board, Amanda Palmer has referred to "the third album," which she claims is tentatively set to be released around 2010. NV is merely a LP-length compilation of various songs, not a cohesive LP. As such, it should not be considered a "studio album," even though several songs were newly recorded for the record as a "clearing the deck" sort of action. Zoo Evolve (talk) 23:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

They are officially broken up?

I think that the article is putting it a bit lightly to say they are on "hiatus" Brian posted the following on a YouTube video (yes, it's really his comment, he also has posted on The Dresden Dolls forum, The Shadowbox confirming that these are indeed his words). This sounds like "band over" but maybe a reunion for a couple of dates in the distant future - that sounds pretty "over" to me.

"Hi, it's Viggie here. I'd like to clear this up once and for all, if I may. This video is not old. It was taken at our last show at the Lowlands Festival in Holland on August 18th.

"And yes, the band is done. Over. Kaput. As I said in the video, we may very well play some shows together someday, but we are not forging ahead with the Dolls anymore. We are both on good terms, the video just shows our two views points and I liked the :"editing, actually. They portrayed it very honestly.

"Much love, B"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMsBQWXQQ90 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.65.194.223 (talk) 02:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Amanda has said, and Brian has revised that they are positive that they will play together again, but the band is simply not doing anything togetehr for the forseeable future. That sounds like an indefinate hiatus to me. (65.175.185.55 (talk) 20:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC))

Johnny Cash Tribute

In the miscallanious section of the discography, it should be noted that they recorded the song "Ballad of a Teenage Queen" with Franz Nicolay for the album All Aboard: A Tribute to Johnny Cash. I would add it myself but the article is protected. (65.175.185.55 (talk) 20:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC))

Individual careers

Shouldn't the Dresden Dolls career section focus on the Dresden Dolls? I think the mention of Brian producing that BTfaBG album should go to his Wikipedia page and not on the Dolls'. Plus, it reads like an ad. Melinoe (talk) 08:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Move it, and make it read Wikipedian. Lentower (talk) 23:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed it but got reversed a couple of times (which is why I brought it up here). So I just tidied up the wording a bit. I guess it could still be removed? Melinoe (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

yes Lentower (talk) 02:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Fix Redirects

I fixed a few of these. Someone else could fix the rest of these redirects:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Dresden_Dolls
Lentower (talk) 02:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I fix all the ones in teh main encyclopedia.
It doesn't hurt to check for redirects on any article every few months! Lentower (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

LGBT Musical Group again

I see the category is back, though there is absolutely nothing in the article (referenced or not) that states anything about sexuality, sexual orientation, or gender identity. If someone wants to put in some referenced information about *why* they should be considered as "LGBT musical group", perhaps the category would be justified. If not, it's sorta extraneous. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

See Also

I'm not one to edit Wikipedia too often, which is why I haven't done anything about this even though it has been like this for a long time, but there are links in the see also section that seem irrelevant, namely The Tiger Lillies, Klaus Nomi, Salon Betty, Gavin Friday and Nina Hagen because they are completely unrelated and only arguably similar. And even Black Tape for a Blue Girl seeing as Brian isn't a official member, and Vermilion Lies because they are only associate's of Amanda an only occasional collaborators, especially considering they don't have their own Wikipedia article. If nobody argues, I'll take it down.65.175.156.122 (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Punk Cabaret Redirect

"Punk Cabaret" redirects to Dark cabaret, but should it redirect to the Dolls instead? As far as I can determine, no-one else is ever identified as Punk Cabaret apart from ex-Doll Amanda Palmer's solo projects and World Inferno Friendship Society (sometimes as Cabaret Punk) which features the other ex-doll, Brian Viglione. Paul S (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

My comment is @ Talk:Dark_cabaret#Punk_cabaret_redirect Lentower (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Linkrot template

To Lentower: As I said in my edit description, can you please be more specific about what is wrong with the references in the article? I have read what you asked me to read and I still can't find anything wrong with it in its current form. Also, the template should be placed at the top of the article where people can see it clearly. Lachlanusername (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I always seen it added where the {{Reflist}} is. I'm not aware of a guideline or a consensus on where to place this template. Link to one? Ideally, there would be an inline template like {{cn}} with parameter='s indicating what's needed, that could be added at each weak citation.

Not all the citations have the minimum of URL (or equivalent for off-web sources), title, date, access date. There may be some that need to be converted over to one of the {{cite templates. For each citation, as many of the parmeters should be filled in as possible. From the link-rot prevention POV: publisher= (which is not a web site URL) and some set of the author= parameters are important.

Few of the citations are archived, or if they are, they aren't noted with the use the archiveurl= and archivedate= parameters WP:Link_rot#Web_archive_services

Few of the citations use the quote= parameter WP:Link_rot#Alternate_methods

Be wise to run Checklinks

Etc.

And though beyond this template's intent, too many of the sources are primary e.g. Amanda Palmer's blog or theshadowbox.net. Even worse in Amanda Palmer.

Etc.

Lentower (talk) 00:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Re placement of template: Personally, I think it's more appropriate at the top of the article because that's where all cleanup templates relevant to the whole article go, but if there's no consensus then you don't have to move it; it would just make more sense. Lachlanusername (talk) 08:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

One editor's sense is another editor's nonsense.  ; - } Tastes vary. (Consensus can also have this problem, particularly with small numbers of participants.) I prefer this template lower, because it also warns the reader that there are problems with the citations, when he clicks down to check a citation. Lentower (talk) 16:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll go through the references and look out for those issues. Also, there are specific tags for those other problems you mentioned: {{Unreliable sources}}, {{One source}}, {{Primary sources}}, etc. Lachlanusername (talk) 08:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Only one of those have an inline variant. Inline variants would help more than an article or section box. When I add a cite, I add all the parameters I can. The poor and imcomplete nature of existing citations is an issue WP is just beginning to address, including with template creation and usage. Best Lentower (talk) 16:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I've updated it as much as I can. It can be removed now? Lachlanusername (talk) 20:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Dresden Dolls. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060106083341/http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org:80/cgi/content/full/2002/1004/3 to http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2002/1004/3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)