Talk:The Aquabats/Archive 3

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

Sorta Annual Summits?

I'm guessing it said "sorta annual" because that is how the Aquabats described it... they would say Sorta, not semi. If someone could find an official release saying they are "sorta annual" it could prevent an edit war... the fact that it said "sorta annual" in quotes probably meant that it was a quotation... but I'm extrapolating a little. A source would be excellent. --Darkage7 (talk) 10:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

On the T-shirt from the last summit, it says something like... "The 5th Sorta-Annual". --RdCrestdBreegull (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes the t-shirt says "sorta-annual," but it's a tongue-in-cheek way of saying they used to be annual, but aren't really anymore. I changed it to "cadets summits are held every few years" because that sounds a lot more professional. I mean, how are you going to provide a source for "sorta annual"? You can't cite a t-shirt. "Every few years" is probably the best way to summarize this statement, because that's literally how often the summits occur. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll agree with the current way it's stated. But, for the record, I find it quite humorous that you wish an article about 'The Aquabats!' to be (shudder) professional. Haha. Yes, it is an encyclopedia, but why exactly can't you cite a t-shirt? If it is officially produced by the Aquabats! then it seems to be a valid source. --Darkage7 (talk) 08:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Theoretically I guess you might be able to, but how? LOL --IllaZilla (talk) 09:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know, I've never really tried it. Perhaps add a link to a picture of the t-shirt? I personally don't have any such shirt, so I'll leave it to a more t-shirtified wikipedian. --Darkage7 (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll see if I can't find a picture of it. --Gh5046 (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Just remember that we can't use a picture off their website, as it's copyrighted. --Malinaccier Public (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

An Aquacadet took this picture and uploaded it, per this discussion. I'm not sure how to work it into the article, yet. --Gh5046 (talk) 05:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly guys, I don't think it's worth it. It's just a little tongue-in-cheek joke on a shirt. It won't add anything constructive to the article. Believe me, I've worked with images on Wikipedia a lot and I doubt you'll be able to make a case for including it, especially if its only purpose is to prove a point about 2 silly words. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Why are you fighting it so hard then? Just looking at this talk, it seems that 4 people want it to say "sorta annual" and only you are for "every few years." Every few years seems to imply once every 2-3 years, but often they are year to year. Semi annual would be correct, but clearly we have a source that states they are "sorta annual." --Darkage7 (talk) 06:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
If it's going to be a consensus issue count me with IllaZilla. I'm tempted to nominate the whole thing to lamest edit wars, though. --Zytsef (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not really a "lame edit war", seeing as how it's not an edit war. We're discussing it on the talk page like good wikipedians. I just think that if the Aquabats say it's "sorta annual" the page should too, plain and simple. --Darkage7 (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
After viewing and laughing at lamest edit wars, even tho I don't think this would technically qualify, I figure it's not worth it. For the record, I wish it said "sorta annual", but as it currently stands is fine. I consider the issue closed. --Darkage7 (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I looked at that page too. I find it interesting that such a highly subjective article exists outside of userpsace.
Given that the most recent summit was titled in such a way it does bear mentioning. It gives extra insight into The Aquabats. It may not be a defining moment in history, but it can add to the overall quality (as in content, not "professionalism") of the article. If it can be worked in, let it be. --Gh5046 (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

A question of punctuation

Is is "the Aquabats!" or "the Aquabats"? --DaRkAgE7 (talk) 00:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

See the section "Exclamation mark in name" in the archive. It's really a matter of preference, though technically they've used the exclamation point more often than not. But for simplicity's sake, and since the band has been a bit inconsistent over the years about whether or not they punctuate the name, we decided to leave the article title as "The Aquabats" and explain the "!" in the first sentence of the article. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, didn't see that. Thanks. --DaRkAgE7 (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

TV show, old pilot

Is the Supershow the first show that the Aquabats have made? in the media section of their site are two clips called 'Last week' and 'next week'. I can't tell if they were just ads, a joke they made, or chunks of an old pilot. For one thing, Scott Schultz is in the credits, and he's the one who helped with Yo Gabba Gabba and the supershow. I hardly expect someone from the bad to tell me, so I'll ask here. Kniobo (talk) 01:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, to my recollection the Supershow isn't the first time the Aquabats have tried to make a TV show based on themselves. I believe there was footage shot for potential pilots in the past, but the Supershow is the first one to actually get off the ground. There was definitely footage shot for the Floating Eye album that was used in ads & digital presskits for it; I believe all that footage was originally meant to be used in a pilot for a TV show that never materialized. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Travis Barker?

Can somebody add Travis Barker to the past members. He was "The Baron Von Tito" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.31.223.187 (talk) 22:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It's already there. Try reading it a little...better. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't there before, try not failing so hard... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.19.153 (talk) 05:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Except it was. It's been there for...let's see...yep, over a year and a half. Try hovering your cursor over the name "The Baron Von Tito" in the infobox, or *gasp* clicking on it. Or you might try reading the Past members section of the article. So yeah, you could read it more closely. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

New Album

Their myspace talks about a new album before the holidays. Someone should add that if they can find details. 160.94.228.175 (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I checked it out. All it says is that they're trying to finish the new album before their holiday tour. That means it's not even finished, so there's no details on when it might be released or anything, so there's not much to go on for now. Let's just wait until they give some details like a title or release date. I'm sure when they do that it'll be on their official website and also in third-party sources like punknews.org, both of which are much better sources than myspace (since we're not allowed to cite myspace blogs). --IllaZilla (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Navbox

I noticed that artists such as Reel Big Fish, the Mighty Mighty Bosstones, and the Mad Caddies all had fancy navboxes, but The Aquabats did not, so I created an Aquabats navbox (Template:The Aquabats) and added it to most of the relevant articles. Please take a look at it and fix any dumb mistakes I may've made or make improvements:

—SuperRad! ☎ 06:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Not really ska

I believe on their Myspace it says that in the beginning they played ska to "to poke fun at the burgeoning ska scene" and that they "they never set out to be a ‘ska' band." The article currently makes it sound like they played ska because they were fans of the style and then expanded into other styles they enjoyed as the years went on. I'm a fan of both ska and the Aquabats, so it would be nice if they played ska because they liked it. But that doesn't seem to be the case. I think the article should be edited to reflect how they just lampooned ska in their early days and since the scene has died down they've begun playing the kinds of music that they like instead. Ash Loomis (talk) 05:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to sound harsh, but it doesn't really matter what the band says in this situation. Whether they were being serious or just "poking fun" (hmmm...it's the Aquabats; I wonder which it could be?) they still wrote & played ska songs. If necessary I could come up with plenty of third-party sources that would classify their early work as '90s ska Allmusic, punknews, MTV, etc. In retrospect, sure, they may say they were poking fun at the ska scene, but if I write a ska song making fun of ska, it's still a ska song. It's completely accurate to state that their early work was "rooted in the third wave of ska music", then to go explaining how their current sound blends a variety of elements such as punk, new wave, ska, and synthpop. If they didn't like ska, they could have played in a different style...but they didn't. Their evolution to their current sound isn't strictly due to "the scene dieing down"...it also has a lot to do with old members leaving, new ones coming in, and the band deciding to experiment with different styles. For example, they no longer have a horn section because most of the horn players left the band. The addition of Jimmy the Robot contributed to their moving towards using more synthesizers and keyboards, as he's primarily a keyboardist. But he still plays sax when they play some of the old ska-ish songs live. The Aquabats are notorious for re-writing their own history and making fun of themselves, so while we should take their explanations into account it's much more important, from an encyclopedia standpoint, to describe their music the way the third-party sources do...and those sources almost universally describe their early stuff as "ska" in one form or another. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I can't deny your sources, but shouldn't we at least remove the statment that ska is one of the genres they currently take elements from? Aside from Waterslides, none of the songs on Charge have any ska characteristics whatsoever. I don't think one ska song means that ska is still a genre that influences them, especially since there isn't the most remote ska presence in any of their other new material.--Ash Loomis (talk) 03:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think so. Just because their most recent album doesn't have ska on it doesn't mean they don't ever play ska anymore or don't take any influence from it at all. They certainly still play some of the '90s ska songs live, and Adam even switches to sax. Their "current sound" doesn't just mean what's on the albums, it also applies to what they're playing live, what you're going to hear when you see them perform. It's "what do they play?", not "what does their latest album sound like?" --IllaZilla (talk) 03:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I guess we'll leave it as it is then. --Ash Loomis (talk) 18:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Umm.. Waterslides is not the only ska influenced song on Charge!! Mechanical Ape and Demolition Rickshaw definitely have the influences on it. While even their earlier stuff wasn't completely ska, it was highly influenced by it, as is their later stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.254.182 (talk) 03:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, using 'Waterslides' is a poor representation of your justification, as this particular song exemplifies many reggae elements which are in turn vital parts of what defines ska as a style of music. The Aquabats are first and foremost a ska band, regardless of what the band says. --PinkTentacle (talk) 03:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't say "first and foremost", as they've moved further & further from ska over the years to the point where their most recent material bears almost no resemblance to it, but that in no way means that ska is not part of their regular repertoire. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Their earlier stuff was heavily influenced by ska and their later stuff isn't as much. They've always had sort of a new wave feel to them but they experimented with several different genres (ska, punk, synthpop...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.252.190 (talk) 07:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Waterslides is a ska song, I never denied this. However, just because the Aquabats play a couple of ska songs doesn't mean they're a ska band. The Police, The Clash, XTC and all kinds of other bands also have a handfull of ska songs but we don't jump the gun and assume that makes them a ska band. But there are sources that Wikipedia considers reliable which promote this bit of misinformation, so I can't do anything about it. Ash Loomis (talk) 03:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Look, this isn't that difficult. Their first couple of albums are clearly rooted in third-wave ska. Numerous sources support this. It doesn't really matter if they were just "poking fun" at ska or not, if they were they were doing it by playing ska. It's like how they made fun of metal by writing "Why Rock?". They poked fun at metal by writing a funny metal song. If I play country music purely to parody country, I'm still playing country music. As time has gone by, they've moved further and further from ska in favor of styles like synthpop, replacing their horns with synths, etc. One is hard-pressed to find much ska in most of their releases since about '99. Again, sources support this. But they haven't abandoned it completely because they still perform the old ska stuff, and they still pull out the horns etc. when they do it. You can't just purge mention ska from their genres, because it's still part of their repertoire even if it's not what they're writing anymore, and it's part of their history. It's not merely that they "play a couple of ska songs"...they have 2 full albums that are completely third wave ska (3 if you think Floating Eye is ska, which I don't but quite a few reviewers do). That's half (or ¾) of their studio albums. Putting ska as one of their genres is not "misinformation" in any way, shape, or form. Finally, IMO "Waterslides" is not a ska song, apart from the ska-ish guitar rhythm. There is very little ska to be found anywhere on Charge!!, though there are still trace elements of it. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

←Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it ska's guitar rhythm that defines it as a genre? Ash Loomis (talk) 03:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

According to the ska article it's "characterized by a walking bass line accented with rhythms on the offbeat." --IllaZilla (talk) 03:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think most of the Aquabats early "ska" material really contained many walking bass lines either. In fact, very few third wave or even second wave ska bands did. That was mainly just a characterisitic of 1960s ska. Unless I'm mistaken, or the ska article is flawed, that will disquality the Aquabats and a good chunk of the second and third-wave bands from being considered ska. I think this means we should strike ska from the genres, and possibly replace it with ska punk. Ska punk's a fusion genre and doesn't have to obey all the rules of traditional ska. Ash Loomis (talk) 18:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
There is very little in modern music that follows any "rules" of traditional genres. None of this changes the fact that there are numerous sources reliable sources classifying most of the Aquabats' material as ska. Granted, this article is desperately in need of sourcing, but removing ska from the genres would be wholly inappropriate. Simply using ska as the parent genre (for all derivatives of ska) works. Feel free to do the research & sourcing, and to adjust the genres accordingly. I think we should focus on developing a "style" section in the article which discusses (with sources of course) the band's musical evolution. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Genre discrepancies

There seems to be some slight arguments over the contents of the "genre" classifications in the infobox. While the page as a whole seems to be a mess, I'm anal enough to focus on that one specific aspect and complain about it (I'll admit, I'm obsessive over precise categorization). However, upon closer inspection, I'm suspicious over the choices that some editors are so adamant about maintaining:

  • "Pop punk" is listed first in the infobox as if it describes their predominant sound, though I haven't found any sources that list them as being such...aside from Wikipedia. Considering the article opens with "The Aquabats are an American rock band", it seems only fitting to change "pop punk" to "rock", unless one was to switch the header to "The Aquabats are an American pop punk band" with legitimate citations.
  • "New Wave" is fine (if that's what the Epoxies are categorized under, then so shall The Aquabats be), but "synthpop" is questionable. Aside from a possibly passable mention on Sputnikmusic (1), the ONLY place "synthpop" seems attributed to is Wikipedia. I think "synthpunk" is a more fitting descriptor (having read both entries on "-pop" and "-punk"), but I can't find a strong reference for that one, either.
  • "Surf rock": there are a number of credible sources that list them as such, almost always in the context of "they play a mix of pop, ska, surf rock, new wave, etc.". I don't really consider surf a major element of their sound (especially not nowadays), so whether or not it should be added is up to the editors.
  • "Ska" should be altered to "third wave ska" for the purpose of clarity, and also because the band is listed under the Wiki category of "Third-wave ska groups" and there are many a credible source that can back up the "third wave" label (AllMusic, for one). "Third wave" does redirect to the "ska" entry, but it's clearly defined as a developed sub-genre; many other ska-related pages, List of ska musicians, for one, see fit to distinguish between terms. However, many of the same sources can be used to classify the band as "ska punk", which does have its own article. Admittedly, I'm the sort of person who differentiates between "third wave" and "ska punk" (albeit in a way not recognized by Wikipedia); while I'd say The 'Bats don't quite fit the fast, distortion-addled pop-punk of bands like Reel Big Fish or Less Than Jake, it's up to the editors to determine if it's a better match.

If I had to throw in my own suggestion, it'd probably be along the lines of "Rock, new wave, third wave ska, ________", with any of the following: "pop punk", "surf rock", "punk rock", etc. Hopefully an agreement can be reached. Skibz777 (talk) 23:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC) (Cadet #120350)

If you're going to fixate on anything, I don't recommend making infobox genres that thing. No area of music articles is more contentious, and the source of more edit wars and blocks, than that stupid "genre" field in the infobox. We even tried removing it entirely from the template itself once, and boy did that ever cause a shitstorm. In my experience there's nothing that anons, trolls, single-purpose accounts, and newbies enjoy more than warring over that stupid field. Focusing on it is only going to give you a headache, in the long run.
Anyway, now that I've got my pessimism out of the way... In my experience the best way to go about ensuring an accurate infobox is to start a "Style" section in the article. In that section, draw from references that describe the artist's genres, styles, and musical evolution. Cite your sources there. Once you've got the section fleshed-out (and it doesn't need to be complex, just a paragraph or so will do, as long as it's well-sourced), then turn your attention to the infobox. Make sure that the infobox reflects the contents of the Style section, and that there isn't anything in there that isn't referenced somewhere in the article body.
As far as the Aquabats go, they've crossed a number of genres/styles over the course of their career. Their early stuff (Return, most of Fury) is pretty clearly ska or ska-influenced (call it third wave or ska-punk; most sources that I've read don't make much of a distinction between the two). With Floating Eye they started going in a different direction, losing a lot of the horns and upstrokes and replacing them with keyboards and synths, and moving in a direction that I would consider synthpop (this mostly being a consequence of horn players quitting and Jimmy the Robot's keyboard experience being brought to the forefront). I think that (and the clear Devo influence) is where the "new wave" tag starts to come in. By Charge! there was (if I recall correctly) nary a horn to be found, and the synths were right up front (the very first sound you hear on the album is a digital laser effect, and then it goes right into the synth-led "Fashion Zombies"). One thing to remember is that it's not just what the band is playing nowadays; we have to encapsulate their entire career in just a few genre terms. That's why the article opens with "rock"...because they've covered so many subgenres/styles that it just makes more sense to generalize. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC) (cadet #5566)


Yeah....I've always been a stickler for genre categorization and definition. Maybe I was dropped on my head or something. It doesn't help that the vast majority of my favorite bands (and ones I extensively edit on Wikipedia) are also multi-genre and completely unclassifiable. :(

I'm already in the process of restructuring several other articles...the thought of reworking the Aquabats' page didn't occur to me at the time, otherwise I wouldn't have said anything. I was just bored and itching to do something nerdy. I do know that there's plenty of Aquacadets who actively edit both Wikipedia and the Bats' Wikia, so hopefully someone will come across this and take matters into their own hands.

However, I honestly don't think The Aquabats are that musically complex to warrant a "style" section. Their first two albums are pretty much cut-n-paste third wave ska (maybe a sporadic surf lick here and there, which would make The Aquabats as much a "surf band" as Reel Big Fish was a metal band), and the experimental middle albums need no more than a descriptive sentence or two in the main biography as none of it is really indicative of their core sound or style (no singles, no music videos, most songs are never played live, etc.). As with "surf", just because they do a jokey country-western song doesn't mean it has to be included in a discussion on their genre. It's all down to what one categorizes Charge!! as: new wave, (synth)rock, (synth)punk, synthpop..."New Wave" works with me, though the album clearly leans towards punk and classic rock influences, which is why I strongly believe synthpunk, especially after reading its article and noting that both their inspirations DEVO and contemporaries/tourmates the Epoxies are classified as such, both along with "new wave". The core of the Aquabats music, past and present, is a small handful of recognizable genres (rock, ska ____, new wave, synth____), which is why the infobox is pretty much all that is needed for the subject outside of an obligatory descriptive paragraph in the header...it's just a matter of wording.

Then again, all of that could change by the time they release their next album, so it's pretty much a moot point.Skibz777 (talk) 04:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Broken link

I just want to point out that the link to the Aquabats website appears to be a broken link, I know the link used to be correct, but appears to be broken. (It's been broken since yesterday) I would give it a couple days then think about changing the link to somewhere else. Ajgajg1134 20:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajgajg1134 (talk • contribs)

It is the same link that has been there for a long time, it is apparently the Aquabats site that is broken, not the link. Active Banana ( bananaphone 21:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Attempting to access said website gives a 403 forbidden error. As such, and after a suitable wait period, it may be prudent to simply remove the link altogether, as it does little good if no one can access it. Katerenka [talk] 23:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
The website's back up. --Blaze98 (talk) 04:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Separate discography? + member line-ups?

Should we split the discography into a separate article? Cut down on the length of the main page? And how crucial is the "member line-ups by album" chart? Is that something that can be easily replaced by a simple "former members" list? Skibz777 (talk) 04:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that (A) this article is large enough to require cutting down its length (it's only 32K, see WP:SS for recommendations on content forking), or that (B) The Aqubats' discography is large or complex enough to warrant a stand-alone article (it's only 5 studio albums & a handful of other releases). As for the members table, I'm for keeping it as it displays info that the simple "former members" list doesn't, namely what the lineups were for specific date ranges and which lineups played on which releases. There's some precedent for this in articles about bands with complex lineup histories (see for example List of Misfits band members, Government Issue, Descendents, & The Vandals). I'm biased, though, since I created both of these sections & their respective tables ;-) --IllaZilla (talk) 05:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Enhancing the article: what needs to be done?

With the upcoming television show and everything, this page will undoubtedly have a lot of traffic, and, as it stands, it's kind of cluttered and incomplete. Outside of adding additional references and expanding the biography - which myself and a few other Cadets with a lot of spare time on their hands will try to work on - what else needs to be done or what sections can be added or elaborated on to make this page as good as possible?

With permission, the first things I'd like to do are:

  1. Rearrange the intro into the format common on most Good or Featured band articles for easier reading. Three smaller paragraphs: intro + members, description of musical style + mythology, career overview + most recent activity. There doesn't seem to be a need to change much - if any - existing text.
  2. Add more information on Hi-Five Soup! and Super Show!, of course. I may have to rearrange or create new sub-headings: "2000-2004: Uncertainty (or whatever title)", "2005-2010: Rejuvenation", "2011-present: Super Show! and the future", etc.
  3. Re-write the mythology section. The current section focuses a lot on the Aquabania angle, which the band no longer regards as part of their backstory, according to their website and Super Show! pilot. Using citations from third-party resources and the band's own archived websites and liner notes, I'd like to write a more complete and current overview of the mythology.
  4. Simple re-arranging in the "Aquacadets" section. Perhaps the first paragraph should be an overview of the Cadets including all the information in the second paragraph, and the information on the Summits should be it's own paragraph. I think the Saint's Row reference is unnecessary and should be deleted.
  5. I don't understand why "Music in Television" is buried all the way at the bottom. Most of the information can be integrated into the main biography, but if it's needed as its own section, I could create an "In popular culture" section which covers the band's contributions to TV, movies and video games.
  6. Add the extra categories: American punk rock groups, American pop punk musical groups, Musical quintets...whatever appropriate.
  7. Also, for whomever watches the infobox genres, I should ask "pop punk" or "punk rock"? I think I can find more references that fit the latter, but I can side with either (or both). If I had my choice, I'd have put it "Rock, pop punk, New Wave, ska, synthpop".

Skibz777 (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with most of this, obviously the most important thing is gathering and citing reliable sources. As for the specifics:
  1. I agree that there isn't much need to change much of the existing text, but if that's the case then why break it into smaller paragraphs? The paragraphs as is are pretty short. I think adding a brief synopsis of their history to the lead would be good, for example mentioning how many albums they've released and probably a mention of what was the peak of their commercial success (Fury, based on chart history). If the lead is expanded a bit, then it might be worth breaking off a 3rd paragraph.
  2. Agree with adding more info, but be careful with the headings. "Uncertainty", "Rejuvenation", and "The future" sound more like comic book chapters than encyclopedia headers. I'd just stick to the date ranges with the titles of any releases (ie. "2000–2006: Serious Awesomeness! and Charge!!" and "2007–present: Hi-Five Soup! and The Aquabats Super Show!").
  3. Be careful with retconning with regard to the mythology. Using the sources, explain how the mythology has evolved over the years. It's a bit like Devo and their "devolution" angle in this regard. On the early albums, the mythology was quite detailed with regard to the Aquabania and Professor stuff, whereas on later albums those haven't been mentioned as much because they've focused on more recent developments. Not sure about the Super Show pilot: If it's what I saw them show at Comic-Con then it didn't really say much with regard to the mythology.
  4. The Cadet business should definitely be pared down to what we can source, ideally to secondary sources. This may mean removing the Saints Row reference altogether.
  5. The "Music in television" bit is at the bottom because it was formerly basically a trivia section. I rewrote it to at least be prose instead of bullet points, but I agree with incorporating the most relevant (and sourceable) bits into the history.
  6. Be careful with genre categories and infobox genres. These should always reflect the sourced content of the article. An important step in developing this article towards GA would be writing a "Style" section with a sourced explanation of their musical styles and development over the years. The infobox and categories should then reflect this sourced prose.
  7. See above. The sourced prose needs to be in place first before anyone goes fiddling with the infobox or categories. Otherwise it's basically POV, and opens the door to genre warriors.
--IllaZilla (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
1. Maybe it's just me, but those big blocks of text just seem awkward. I've grown accustomed to how I normally see GA/FA band articles structured: succinctly stating the subject ("The Aquabats are a band formed in blah by blah"), space, who they are ("Their music is considered blah, and their stage shows blah"), space, and what they've done ("They first had success in blah. Their most recent album is blah"). That seems to be the order of the most pertinent information. I don't know if there are actual guidelines to writing a band article, I'm just going by what I've seen on other pages.
2. I would prefer headings with album titles, but I was just going off what's already on the article. I'm kind of uncertain what to put for their career lull from 2000-2004, but I guess Serious Awesomeness! could work (even though, ironically, that's not how the band would've described that period).
3. According to their current website bio and the vague set-up for the pilot, the band is now just a group of roaming superheroes on a quest against general evil. Aquabania seems to be no more (on the member bios, Ricky comes from LA, Crash from Scotland, etc.). At one point in the mid-2000s, I swear there was a concert intro video which said they were from another planet. However, since Super Show! will possibly be introducing a whole new backstory, it's going to change. Still, the section can be redone to reflect everything up to this point.
6 & 7. It greatly amuses me that there's actually a page for "Genre Warriors". I'm not looking to violently argue the genre, but instead of a whole 'style' section (which I assume would be relatively short), couldn't the whole thing just be condensed into the intro, where their music is described? If I could cite one or more highly reputable sources (allmusic, Rolling Stone, etc.) in a sentence or two worth of "The Aquabats' early music used to be ____ [1], but since ____, their current music is a mix of _____, _____ and ____ [2][3]", wouldn't that be enough? That's really all there is that needs to be said, in my own honest opinion.
Skibz777 (talk) 00:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I really dislike short paragraphs. As someone who's written a lot of research papers (graduate-level education in History), I was always taught that if you can't make a paragraph at least 3 sentences long, then (A) you're not saying enough, or (B) the idea you're trying to express isn't substantial enough to warrant a separate paragraph. That said, I can see the case for some 2-sentencers in the lead if they express really salient information in a succinct way. I'd like to re-title the section headers. I really don't like the heading "Rejuvenation", to me it reads like a puff title. I mean, let's be realistic, yeah it was a return to activity after a period of uncertainty, but it's not like they had huge success because of it (Charge!! didn't do as well, commercially speaking, as Fury), and there was more uncertainty after as there was a 6-year gap before the next album (just as much as there was between Floating Eye and Charge!!), during which they were pretty much in label limbo again. Anyway, I'd just like to see the titles be more neutral and fact-based, simply stating what they did during those years. As for the mythology, yeah my thought is not so much presenting the mythology itself (since it's changed over the years depending on the band's whims), but rather to discuss how they've presented their own mythology over the years.
A style section is really the way to go when discussing a band's musical sound. If you look at some FAs, I think you'll generally find them (ie. Nirvana (band)#Musical style, Slayer#Writing and style, Metallica#Style and lyrical themes), especially for acts who've had long careers in which their sound has changed & evolved. Certainly there's more than a few sentences' worth to say about the evolution of the Aquabats' sound: They started off rooted in third-wave ska, but as time went on and members came & went they shifted to more of a synthpop/new wave style (keyboards taking the place of horns over the course of several years: you can really hear the shifting styles when comparing Fury to Floating Eye to Charge!!), and I've read reviews of Hi-Five Soup that describe the influence of the young-child-oriented Yo Gabba Gabba (I mean, "Big Friends Forever"? Clearly their kids show experience bleeding over into the 'bats). A section on their musical & lyrical style could go handily as a sub-section within a larger discussion of their mythology and stage show, as these are all elements of how the band presents themselves and their music. Obviously this is where sources are key, and I could see a paragraph of at least 4 or 5 sentences developing (and that's not even touching on their lyrical content).
I'm hesitant to get too into detail about the Super Show or base our writing on what might or might not happen because of it. (A) This is like the 3rd or 4th time they've tried to get an Aquabats show going, and they haven't even started filming yet (I was at their Comic-Con panel & they said they start shooting in 4 weeks or so). (B) The footage they showed was just a teaser, it really didn't give much of an idea what the show'll be like (they said it'd be a mix of live action, animation, & music). (C) The show is slated to be on The Hub, which is a pay cable channel with a target audience ages 6–12, so there's no guarantee that it's going to be widely seen or that people are going to start furiously editing the Wikipedia article on the band as a result of it airing (in fact I'd be surprised if we saw more than a minor spike in editing traffic). (D) There's really know way for us to know what the show will say or not say about the mythology until it airs. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


On second thought, the intro can work with the format it currently is, but I'm still at odds about the arrangement. I question whether the band is "best known" for their theatrics and if the mythology warrants a description even before what the band actually sounds like. I don't know...like I said, I'm just basing my opinion off of what I typically see on GA/FA band pages. To create a rough draft of what I originally envisioned...

The Aquabats (often stylized as The Aquabats!) are an American rock band formed in Orange County, California in 1994. While the group's line-up has fluctuated significantly throughout their career, founding members The MC Bat Commander (vocals) and Crash McLarson (bass) have remained as regular fixtures. The band's current touring line-up includes keyboardist Jimmy the Robot, drummer Ricky Fitness and guitarist Eagle "Bones" Falconhawk.
The Aquabats are well-known for their mythology, in which they claim to be superheroes on a quest to save the world from evil through music. As a part of this mythology, the band members have adopted superhero pseudonyms and dress in matching costumes. Their eclectic live shows often include scripted onstage "battles" with costumed foes, and the band has built up an elaborate and ever-changing backstory of their origins and adventures, along with a roster of allies and enemies. Musically, The Aquabats' early work was heavily rooted in the third wave of ska music, with touches of surf and punk rock. Over several years and numerous member changes which included the dissolution of their horn section, the band's sound gradually shifted towards more synthesizer-based rock with New Wave influences. Their current style blends elements of rock, ska, pop punk and synthpop.
The band has released five full-length studio albums, with their second album, The Fury of The Aquabats! (1997) being their most commercially successful to date, peaking at 172 on the Billboard 200 during the height of the mid-1990s ska revival. Their most recent album, Hi-Five Soup!, was released in January 2011, and a television series starring the band, The Aquabats Super Show!, is slated to air on cable channel The Hub in late 2011.

...that's how I personally see a decent Wiki band intro: an introduction of the core facts (rock, Orange County, 1994), paragraph explaining who and what the band is (mythology and music description should be next to each other, IMO), and then a basic career overview. Like I said, that's just my opinion...I don't think there's a right or wrong answer as to how an intro should be arranged, but for someone coming here to learn about the band, the above seems like an easier read.

I can retitle the section headers. I know a bit about the band's history, so if I (or someone else) can find the right sources, I may make a separate "Formation" section prior to "1994-1996: Early years and The Return of The Aquabats". I also agree on the mythology...after all, I wasn't going to try to present the backstory as factual. ;)

I guess a 'style' section could be made, but my only concern is that there's really not enough coverage of The Aquabats' music to flesh it out like you describe. With bands like Slayer and Metallica, there are a lot of sources which understandably analyze their music from a technical standpoint, but that's not the case with The Aquabats. I can find dozens of sources which will blatantly state what genre they are or used to be, but I'd be hard-pressed to find a reputable source which goes in-depth into their musical evolution (most major publications still refer to them as a ska band, after all). I might have to leave this task to someone else.

I think Super Show! has actually already started filming...the teaser said four days, implying July 26. Regardless, I don't expect there to be a huge spike of editing, either, but I've wanted to improve this page for a long time and figure now is as good a time as any since there's at least something new to add to the article.

Great, so apart from the intro, which either will or will not be changed, I can start working on those parts of the article soon. I'll also see if I can enlist help from some fellow Aquacadets who can help expand the biography or contribute some freely usable photos.Skibz777 (talk) 05:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing the mythology

After tinkering away at the Super Show! page, I'm planning to start improving sections of the main Aquabats article like I've previously discussed, but I have a quick question. I'm going to start working on the (seriously outdated) "Mythology" section and I'm curious how I'd be allowed to source it: obviously the most detailed accounts of the mythology come from the band's liner notes, website, interviews, song lyrics, etc., but are those suitable references? Can I directly cite the band or do I need the word of third-party publications? The latter isn't always reliable, because a lot of news pieces I've seen covering the band lately seem to be taking their "facts" directly from the Wiki page. Skibz777 (talk) 23:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The mythology has been constantly changed over the course of the band's career. I haven't been watching the Super Show, but I'd be surprised if even the most basic elements (Aquabania, Space Monster M, the Professor) have survived in whatever the present superhero story is. I think it'd be fine to cite the liner notes from the early albums to establish the most basic elements, but it's important not to get too bogged down in details when it's constantly retconned. I think we should pare down what we have into the most basic skeleton, only touching on what's important to get the general idea across to a reader: That they present themselves as superheroes out to save the world through music. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
The Mythology section as it is right now seems pretty awash in details, and primarily details derived from 'The Fury...' liner notes and lyrics. I just think it needs to be slightly rewritten in a more objective tone rather than get too much into in-universe details about Aquabania (which, according to what I could find on the Wayback Machine, hasn't even been mentioned on The Aquabats' website since 2000). The 1990s was the only time they ever maintained a semi-canonical backstory, since then it's just been an extremely loose "rock superheroes fighting random bad guys" schtick, which is what Super Show! seems to be following. I just plan on retooling a few sentences, you know, chip away at the block before helping expand/improve the article as a whole (bio, new Musical Style section, etc.).Skibz777 (talk) 07:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Also, the Former Members list: is that exclusively for musicians who appeared on studio recordings? It seems like that's what the timeline graph is for...the regular list could probably include documented/official non-recorded members, as well (there's only six to be listed).Skibz777 (talk) 07:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
That's what I meant by "paring down" the section. If I recall correctly, I wrote the section back in my early Wikipedia days, before I'd quite grasped the concepts of sourcing and relevance ;). It could definitely be rewritten and chipped down. As for the members, it's restricted to those on studio recordings mainly because that's what one could easily source. Most of the non-recorded members aren't well-documented, especially the ones from the early days when the band had 9 or more members in it at any given time. Whatever you can reliably source is fine by me. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, finally got around to tinkering with the prose. It was so nicely written that I felt bad breaking it up, but the idea is simply to objectively update it. There's only minor changes I can make to the first and last paragraphs, so here's the meat of what I wanted to change and what I can source. If there aren't any objections, then I guess I can settle for this, although it makes the section much longer...if there's anything I can trim, that'd be optimal.

The most consistently canonical elements of the The Aquabats' mythology were established over their first two albums, which alleged the band members were actually humanoid bat creatures who once lived on a distant island known as "Aquabania". According to legend, Aquabania was invaded by the villain Space Monster "M", forcing several of its inhabitants to flee to the ocean. Eventually washing ashore in California, they were taken in by Professor Monty Corndog, a mad scientist who used chemicals to give them superpowers. They donned costumes including "radioactive rash guards", "power belts", and "anti-negativity helmets" (many of which are sold as part of the band's merchandise catalogue) and decided to channel their powers through music in order to "take over the world" by attracting legions of fans, allowing them to combat Space Monster "M" and reclaim their homeland, fighting the numerous villains and monsters who'd attempt to thwart their musical quest along the way.
With the heavy lineup changes in the early-to-mid 2000s that left only two of the original members remaining, the band eventually phased the Aquabania elements out of their backstory, reestablishing The Aquabats as a group of freelance superheroes of indeterminate origin who travel the countryside, fighting evil and "destroying boredom". This loose framework would also serve as the basis for the band's television series, The Aquabats! Super Show!, where each member's character was further developed to showcase their own individual powers and personalities, transitioning the Aquabats' mythology from a story arc to a character ensemble.

Feel free to fix whatever. As far as the older members go, there are a few that I feel warrant inclusion. For example, Matt von Gundy (Gumby), the original guitarist ('94-'95) who co-wrote most of Return [1], Michael Vogelsang (Popeye), who only did one tour but appeared in the "Fashion Zombies!" video, Scott Moran of Suburban Rhythm, who was briefly an official member (mentioned in the SR article) when Chainsaw left in 2000[2] and the band had an infamous guitarist audition[3], etc.. I'm not sure about sourcing, though, because all of members/dates info comes from The Aquabats Wikia, but it's all provided by Tyler "Pigbat" Jacobs. An official/reliable source from an unreliable website; that's a gray area for me. Skibz777 (talk) 11:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Musical style + "Pop punk"? + sound samples

I banged out a "Musical style" section and included it in the article. I tried to go by what I could find that was sourced, but it was complicated finding a definitive charted evolution of the band's sound without having to rely on, like, album reviews or something. Any fellow editors are welcome to improve it to the best of their abilities, or offer feedback.

One thing I'm curious about is how the current "Musical style" section will affect the genre description in the infobox and introductory paragraph. Specifically, I notice that "pop punk" is quite prominently listed on this page, and yet I couldn't find any definitive source claiming The Aquabats belonged to said genre. All mentions link directly to the Wikipedia page. I can source "rock", "alternative rock" and "punk rock", but not "pop punk". I think that's reason enough to omit the label from the article in place of one of the aforementioned three (mainly "rock"). Speaking on my own opinions, I don't really see The Aquabats as pop punk, at least not in the sense of Screeching Weasel or even Blink 182. I believe that was purely the opinion of the person who wrote the bulk of the entry.

Also, I'm thinking about attaching sound samples to the "Musical style" section, complying with Wikipedia's guidelines, of course. I'm thinking samples of an early ska tune and "Fashion Zombies!", thus illustrating an adequate representation and contrast of both eras of The Aquabats' music, ska and punk. I know this page used to have samples that've since been deleted...I'm not sure if I'd be unknowingly violating something by uploading them again?Skibz777 (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

On first impression, it looks pretty good. Good job. I'm working on other projects at the moment as well as very busy in real life, but I may go through it at a later date and see if I can contribute to it. I think 2 brief sound samples would be OK. As for the "pop punk" thing, I can see eliminating it from the infobox and going for something more generic like "rock". Personally, I balk at the suggestion of The Aquabats being a "punk" band in any way/shape/form. Their music is waaaay closer to pop than any kind of punk rock. I've never heard them claim to be a punk band or closely associated with that genre (though I could be wrong).
BTW, are you Skibz777 from punknews.org? I'm IllaZilla over there too. Alex 101 (talk · contribs) is around here too, though not much lately. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
The Aquabats refer to themselves as a "rock band", but the punk influence/elements are pretty obvious: there's plenty of loud guitars and numerous songs which count as punk, but the rhythms are generally more varied than the typical Ramones-y "buzzsaw", which is what I also equate with pop punk. They're kind of like the Nickelodeon version of punk rock. However, the band are pretty eclectic, so "rock" manages to encompass enough without being too specific. So maybe "Rock, New Wave, ska, synthpop". I can source "synthpop", but I think it could/should be replaced with "synthpunk", "synthrock" or maybe even "punk rock", since "synthpop" is applicable more of bands like the Pet Shop Boys; the 'Bats use synths but their sound is always rooted in guitar rock, they never go completely Depeche Mode electronic.
I'd also have to re-write the few sentences in the introductory paragraph that address the band's genre, reflecting what's written in the Musical Style section. However, I'm still of the opinion of that the whole intro should be re-arranged/re-written (as mentioned above) to match the format I see on featured articles (e.g. Slayer, Nirvana, etc.). I just think it's kind of clunky as it is now.Skibz777 (talk) 14:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Line-up chart, pop rock + the "!"

With the several touch-ups I made to the list of former members, there are now a number of discrepancies between said list and the chronological chart of line-ups. For example, original member Gumby isn't on the chart, Ultra Kyu is in the "1998-2002" line-up despite leaving in 2000, Prince Adam is in the "2003-2005" line-up despite leaving in 2004, etc.. I feel it should either be removed entirely or be replaced with a timeline chart. Opinions?

Would The Aquabats qualify to be categorized as "pop rock", or would that have to be sourced? I believe when previous editors had relied on the label of "pop punk", pop rock is what they may have been thinking of: whereas pop punk is a definable style, pop rock is a broader term describing an aesthetic that seems to match The Aquabats' recent output, as well as the majority of music on their TV series. I'd be for it, but I don't know if having both "rock" and "pop rock" would be redundant, even though I consider both to be present in their music (e.g. Charge!! is a rock album, Soup! a pop rock album, but not really vice-versa).

Finally, how should one address the "!" (as in "The Aquabats!") in the article if it's not a proper stylization? It's not part of their legal name (all copyrights belong to "The Aquabats"), but seeing as it's used in literally all of their marketing (merchandise, album artwork/liner notes, etc.) and the official title of their TV series is The Aquabats! Super Show!, it likely warrants some mention. Perhaps "(often written as The Aquabats!)"? Skibz777 (talk) 18:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

We've discussed the "!" in the past; check the archives. We don't need an "often written as..."; the only thing to explain is the presence of an exclamation point, which is self-explanatory. Nobody's going to look at an album cover or title card that says "The Aquabats!" and think "is that a different band than "The Aquabats"? In other words, it doesn't need to be addressed. I believe we've discussed genres before, too: whatever's explained & sourced in the "Musical style" section should be reflected in the infobox & categories. As for the lineups table, whatever's sourced in the band history & personnel section should be reflected in that table. Feel free to change it so it jibes with the article text. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Past Members edit war

There seems to be some recent edit wars over the member list, so I thought I'd chime in with my two cents. The information on the members being added (Patbat, Cpt. Croxall, Creedle and Moose Nuckle) originate from the Aquabats Wikia. While Wikia itself is not a credible source, these names were directly provided by Tyler Jacobs, The Aquabats' longtime webmaster/artist/etc. I have no doubt that the information is correct, but A) there's no reliable sources confirming their membership (I've checked), which is mostly because B) they were all temporary touring members, and those shouldn't be added to the list, plain and simple.

Perhaps it's best to change the "former members" list to include only musicians who recorded on official material, even if they were actual official members. This would ultimately exclude the currently-listed Macaroni, who was Chainsaw's short-lived replacement, and Popeye, who appeared in the "Fashion Zombies!" video. However, I still don't know the official original line-up or who played on the '94 demos, since I believe those should count (and would also include Gumby). Until I find that out, there aren't any other members who can be added at this point without a reliable source. Skibz777 (talk) 05:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Last Mythos touch-up

I've been "bold" in doing a second run-through of the article in terms of beefing up prose, but while I was taking a second crack at the Mythology section I realized I was restructuring quite a bit, enough so that I feel I needed to announce my planned updates beforehand.

The original section was written almost like it was stuck in 1998, so I think a whole restructuring is the best course in updating it. It's best to keep as general and informative an overview as possible without leaning too heavily towards a specific time period or containing any fancruft or needless trivia (honestly, The Aquabats' "allies" were mainly just website links to other bands). What's needed is a basic overview of the mythology, how it's presented within the band, and a brief rundown of their fictional origin story.

This is what I was going with. I'm tired and going to bed, so I'm just going to post it here and if anyone objects, speak out, otherwise I'll put it up in the next few days (w/ refs). Skibz777 (talk) 12:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

One of the most defining characteristics of The Aquabats is the band's theatrical mythology in which they claim to be crime-fighting superheroes on a quest to save the world, a theme which has been reflected in the band's music, costumes, stage shows, and promotional material for the entirety of their professional career.

Detailed in their lyrics, liner notes, comprehensive website and now television series, The Aquabats have developed a small but elaborate universe surrounding this mythology, describing the band's fictional adventures as well as conceiving an extensive roster of enemies and allies, many of whom are the subjects of specific songs and have appeared as part of the band's stage shows in mock fight scenes or comedic skits. Over the years, this mythology, and in particular the fictional backstory regarding their origins, has continually changed, evolved and occasionally been retconned to explain changes in the band's line-up.

The Aquabats' origin story can be separated into two distinct eras. For the first half of their career, the band maintained a canonical backstory established over the course of their first two albums, alleging the band members were actually humanoid bat creatures hailing from a distant island called "Aquabania". According to legend, Aquabania had been invaded by the villainous Space Monster "M", forcing its inhabitants to flee to the ocean. Eventually washing ashore in California, they were taken in by Professor Monty Corndog, a mad scientist who used "chemicals" to give them superpowers. Donning costumes including "radioactive rashguards", "power belts", and "anti-negativity helmets", The Aquabats decided to channel their powers through music in order to "take over the world" by attracting legions of fans to aide them in combating Space Monster "M" and reclaiming their homeland, fighting the numerous villains and monsters who'd attempt to thwart their musical quest along the way.

With the heavy line-up changes in the early-to-mid 2000s which left only two of the original members remaining, The Aquabats eventually phased the Aquabania elements out of their backstory, reestablishing themselves as a group of freelance superheroes of indeterminate origin who travel the countryside, fighting evil and "destroying boredom". This loose framework would later serve as the basis for the band's television series, The Aquabats! Super Show!, where each member's character was further developed to showcase their own individual powers and personalities, transitioning the Aquabats' mythology from a story arc to a character ensemble. Though the series has since featured several characters from The Aquabats' history, most notably Space Monster "M", they've been introduced in a context unique to the show rather than a continuation of the band's original mythology.

Band members - original line-up

I'm fine with keeping a vertical line-up chart, though I don't know why all of my previous edits regarding the original members were also deleted. I guess I need to validate my claims or something.

Founding guitarist Matt van Gundy got in touch with The Aquabats' message board to answer some questions about the original lineup, plus a forum member bought a copy of 'Revenge of the Midget Punchers' on eBay and posted the contents of the liner notes on Discogs (with scans to follow). The member list on 'Midget Punchers' is written exactly as such:
Christian Richard [sic] Jacobs - vocals
Chad Larson - bass
Ben Bergeson - guitar
Rod Arellano - drums
Matt Vangumby - guitar
Nacho - keys
Jeffery McFerson - trombone
Adam Divert - trumpet
Boyd "Cat Boy" Terry - trumpet
...van Gundy also mentioned that though the earliest incarnation of the band featured Larson on trombone and Terry's brother on bass, the original "serious" line-up was the above, with the exception of Deibert (Divert) and Bergeson, who joined several months after to record 'Midget Punchers'.

As such, I feel that's enough to warrant changes to "1994 (original line-up)" and "1994-1995 (Revenge of the Midget Punchers)" with stage names (and lack thereof) changed accordingly, and the rest of the list from "1995-1997 (Bat Boy, The Fury of The Aquabats)" left untouched. Objections? Skibz777 (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry Skibz, I thought I was just reverting back to the vertical layout. I didn't realize there were additional changes that would be lost in the revert. Go ahead and add the other lineups, but I say leave out the "original lineup" note; it's unnecessary. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on The Aquabats. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Skeleton Inside!

Should Skeleton Inside! have it's own page since it's a single or is it such a small release that it isn't needed? St. Jimmy (talk) 13:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Singles get their own article if they have significant enough coverage to warrant it. Speaking as the person who created the pages for each of The Aquabats' singles, there's not enough press/coverage nor information to fill out a whole new article. At least, not yet; once the album gets closer, if there's, like, a music video, any kind of chart success, prominent press, enough major reviews talking about the song, etc., then I or you or anyone can start working on a standalone article. Skibz777 (talk) 01:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Aquabats/Archive_3&oldid=1089168651"