Talk:Butthole Surfers

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleButthole Surfers was one of the Music good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 20, 2007WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
March 29, 2007Good article nomineeListed
April 21, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 8, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
February 25, 2024Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Revision project[edit]

Posted the completely revamped intro tonight. That said, it needs 5 facts (in some cases, major facts) sourced. I know this information is out there somewhere, so I'll be looking for it tomorrow. In the meantime, if anyone else working on this project can find references for the unsourced items, feel free to add them in.

Alternately, if anyone feels it's too early to post this in light of the missing references, feel free to revert; I have the whole thing stored in a Word doc, and can add it back in once I've found the sources.

Will be revamping the rest of it over the next week or so. All info removed from the original intro (especially Gibby & Paul's meeting in college) will get added back in when I redo the "History" section.Thehaikumaster 04:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those facts are all sourced, as are all the others that have been added so far.Thehaikumaster 04:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Main history section now complete & sourced, barring light additional editing. Thehaikumaster 00:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page needs updating big time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.109.0.62 (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review[edit]

FYI to anyone still tinkering with this article -- it has received an initial "B" rating, and has been officially submitted for Peer Review. If you add anything at this point, please be sure to provide a source. Similarly, if you modify any sourced info, or delete it, please provide another source that proves the first source is wrong. Thehaikumaster 19:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New album[edit]

Before History section got complete revamp, it had a mention about Gibby Haynes confirming a new album back in August. I couldn't find anything online to support it, so if anyone does have a source, please include if you re-add. Thehaikumaster 02:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gibby mentioned it when he DJ'ed on Sirius Satellite Radio back on (I think) August 18, 2006. There are MP3s of the broadcast floating around. Gruntmaster flush 20:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bass players[edit]

Re: earlier edit note about bass players, I don't plan on providing a complete accounting of them. If anyone else wants to fill in those gaps, feel free! Thehaikumaster 01:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surfers, not Surface[edit]

219.88.3.77 had replaced many occurances of "Surfers" with "Surface". Not sure why. It's fixed now.--64.122.49.30 02:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

if you replace the "surfers" in "butthole surfers" with "surface" it becomes "butthole surface", which is pretty funny and that's why they did it, i'm guessing

Deleat, Deleat, Deleat![edit]

What a horrible album so rude I haven't herd of this band has anyone else? bah, the rubbish people put on! Czesc26

What is even the point of a Talk post like this? First, learn how to spell. Second, learn how to differentiate between an album and a band. Third, to each their own. Incidentally, rest assured the Butthole Surfers haven't heard of you, either. Thehaikumaster 00:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
look at his user page that's got to be a bot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why delete? The band had a #1 hit on a Notable single chart, resulting in its parent album going gold. That's sufficient enough. Just because you don't like a band doesn't mean they don't deserve a page Doc Strange (talk) 10:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of the name "butthole surfers" was to make people laugh, feel disgusted, and think. it was their type of humor! 27th infantry

Reverts on major 2/21 revision[edit]

As the primary author of this page, I reverted the majority of changes made by Chris77xyz. First, this article is currently undergoing Peer Review, and two experienced users have been over it and didn't suggest any of the changes made in this revision. Specifics include:

  • Reverted most of intro, as additions were unsourced & removal of sourced material was unexplained;
  • Reverted a number of other changes that don't mesh with the cited references;
  • Reinserted section intros, as sections are supposed to start with an overview of the topic discussed (also, in the current Peer Review, no indication has been given that section intros should be removed or shortened, and they have suggested shortening/removing other areas);
  • Completely reverted "Live Performance" section, as there was no reason to remove the sourced info, and again, a suggestion to remove or shorten it has not come up in the peer review (Update: did modify it and the sentence or 2 in main history body to make them less similar);
  • Thayil is sourced to the Azerrad book, just like the rest of the paragraph;
  • Reinserted Surfers/Rusk opposing viewpoints on T&G lawsuit, as part of Wiki's purpose is to provide opposing viewpoints in such cases;
  • Original rotating use of "release" and "publish" was intentional, so as to avoid using the exact same words over and over again (or different iterations of same word in one sentence);
  • Reinserted "ridiculous internal links," as they all have active pages on Wikipedia and no Peer Review suggestions have been made to remove them (though they did suggest removing most red-linked names, which was done). And why make it difficult for readers to learn more about a subject if they want to?;
  • Re-broke up some combined paragraphs so as to keep similar topics in separate paragraphs, and to not lump a variety of topics into one paragraph;
  • Re-alphabetized genres;
  • Other minor reverts due to changes to improper use of capitalization;
  • Did keep some changes, but only those that didn't go against proper writing or existing references, and that didn't remove cited information. Thehaikumaster 00:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work[edit]

Nice work on this page! 71.34.38.19071.34.38.190

Thanks; couldn't have written it without the help of a lot of other people. Thehaikumaster 01:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA comment[edit]

With just a quick glance over the article, I saw that some of the images need fair use rationales. I'd recommend adding them, or someone may quick-fail the article. --Nehrams2020 01:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zoiks, thanks! Have removed all but the top image. Wish it had more pictures, but it's real hard to find fair-use Butthole Surfers articles, much less free ones. Thehaikumaster 01:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewed this article, and I think it meets the good article criteria. It is very well written and referenced. With regard to the one image at the top, based on the editors' arguments ('Image:Butthole Surfers modern.jpg'), I believe it falls under the fair use clause as a promotional photo, so I have added the appropriate copyright tag to that image. I do agree with the previous call to remove other images from the article, and I agree that one photo at the top is needed for the page, but also that the well-written content of the article stands on its own as a GA. Good work! Dr. Cash 00:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dashes are wrong throughout[edit]

  • Hyphen - used on hyphenated words
  • ndash – used to separate ranges of dates and numbers (see the section headings, for example,which incorrectly use a hyphen instead)
  • mdash; — used to punctuate sentences, this article incorrectly uses ndash or hyphens instead.

Pls read WP:DASH and correct throughout. En and Em dashes are available below the edit screen when in edit mode. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; will clean that up this weekend. The Haiku Master 15:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have question in regards to this article. Why are the butthole sufers listed among alternative metal arists? And if they are why isn't the genre listed on the main article. I'm adding it.

Words[edit]

God seems so removed when love is torn from the truth

WHAT? Roman Dog Bird 03:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Album covers[edit]

I removed these fair use images from the article as they are only considered to be good fair use in the articles on the individual albums. Being used in the main article is not only a breach of our mission to provide a free encyclopedia, but may discourage editors from finding or producing free content to illustrate the subject of the article. See here for a recent discussion of the same issue. --John 16:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your link to that discussion. What I see there is a significant number of people disagreeing with your interpretation of fair-use policy specifically and the priorities of Wikipedia in general. I also disagree with your interpretations. Let's see how other editors interested in this article respond. While, all other things being equal, free imagery is preferable to nonfree imagery, Wikipedia's primary mision is to provide a freely accessible quality encyclopedia. Your sweeping elimination of properly used fair-use images detracts from that mission in the case of this article. I have restored the images.—DCGeist 18:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis? What is the purpose of using the images in this article? It would have to be pretty compelling to outweigh the Foundation's guidance on the minimal use of non-free images. I have given you my reasons for removing the images; what (in terms of policy) are your reasons for replacing them? --John 20:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why we shouldn't use the non-free images in this article[edit]

In the absence of any clear consensus emerging here to keep them, I have removed them for a second time. Here is a brief summary of my reasons:

  1. Our policy on non-free content currently states: "Minimal number of uses. As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary." and "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." (from here)
  2. While the article needs images, these album covers are rather a lazy way of illustrating it. Wouldn't it be better, and far truer to the spirit of the project, if someone could create free images of the band? "A further goal of minimizing licensed and fair-use material is to encourage creation of original new content, rather than relying on borrowed content that comes with restrictions" (from here)
  3. I would argue that the album covers are perfectly fine and indeed greatly aid the understanding of the articles on the individual albums. Here in this article, their use does not in my opinion 'significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic', and nor would 'its omission ... be detrimental to that understanding'. This is why this is not a valid or encyclopedic fair use of these images. --John 17:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The images add significantly to readers' understanding of the article subject by illustrating the unique and bizarre image the band created for itself and how that image varied and evolved over the course of the band's existence. Overall, the use of five fair-use images for an article of this size and detail is quite modest and responsible. I would be happy to see the album covers supplemented by comparably informative historical free images; however, I am not aware of any available ones.—DCGeist 17:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it verifiable that the band had a hand in creating the images? If so, that would be a useful addition to the article and would strengthen your argument slightly. As it is they are simply being used for decoration, a clear breach of our rules. --John 17:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please state your argument a little more carefully. They are not "simply being used for decoration." They are being used for the significant purpose I just described. You have asked that the band's involvement with the design of their album covers be sourced--a fair request. I believe it can be satisfied and I'll see to that.—DCGeist 18:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sentence noting that band designed its own album covers added and cited.—DCGeist 19:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Do you really think "The band designed the striking, bizarre album cover, as it would the cover illustrations for its succeeding work.[1]" justifies the inclusion of all of these images? Is it your judgement or that of the source that the album cover was "striking, [and] bizarre"? --John 20:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should be clear to you that I thought the inclusion of the five images in question was already justified by their manifest content. The cited addition to the text provides further justification for their inclusion. I have edited the sentence and expanded the cite so the characterization of the imagery unquestionably reflects the judgment of the source.—DCGeist 20:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Is the word 'bizarre' present in the source? As to the images issue I can see we are not going to be able to compromise so I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content to see if we can attract wider comment. --John 20:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Azerrad uses the word repeatedly in his discussion.—DCGeist 21:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Azerrad, Our Band, p. 275.

Where are the 90's???[edit]

I cannot understand how this article can get any kind of Good music label with a huge gap in the period of their greatest success and influence, relative mainstream acceptance, contravercy(sp?) over major label signing...in fact what should be the meat of the article as far as i can tell...even a 90's section of poor quality would be better than this glaring omission... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.67.204.241 (talk) 21:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not like an encyclopedia at all 'their overall strangeness' 'the legend grows' this seems like a fanzine not an encyclopedia Notkool35 (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Lynch (performer)[edit]

User Lightsunfold (talk · contribs) claims to be Kathleen Lynch, the "naked dancer" of the band. Yesterday, she attempted to remove content out of her article, stating among others that she never appeared in the Bar-B-Que Movie.[1][2] She also stated that she want the article to be removed.[3] I have left a message on her talk page about it. Can someone with some more knowledge about the band please help? Cheers, theFace 14:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Butthole Surfers/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria[edit]

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):
    • It is most well written but this Haynes and Leary played their debut show at a far planet that had cold craters of glass and pulp derived from Uranus in 1981; at that time they had not yet settled on the title "Butthole Surfers".; There is a fair bit of repetition in the History and Live Performance sections. I recommend a thorough copy-edit. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Much improved. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    • All Ok
    c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its scope.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
    • As mentioned in prose some duplication here and there. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Green tickY[reply]
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    • There seems to be some doubt about the copyright status of the image in the infobox [4]. This needs to be addressed. As mentioned in the talk page there are a number of non free images which may not satisfy the critical commentary part of the criteria. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC). I have asked about this image here. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC) The image has now been deleted - see discussion here. I have removed the deadlink in the article and the caption, so this is no longer an issue for this reassessment. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    • OK, on hold for these concerns to be addressed. I am notifying the major contributors and projects. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Green tickY[reply]
    I am happy to confirm the status as GA. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Cobain, etc.[edit]

Is it really necessary to add that Kurt Cobain liked the Butthole Surfers? I'm sure one could find a dozen other musicians that liked the Butthole Surfers and list them on the page. But for some reason Kurt Cobain's blessing on the Butthole Surfers and Scratch Acid pages somehow makes these bands more legitimate. No?

As I am new to this board and am only responding to this particular editing page, I am not going to try to delete this. But I am beginning to notice that various great postpunk/80s alternative/pigfuck/whathaveyou are plagued by these lame Kurt notes. Is there some unspoken rule that just because this guy liked them that they are somehow more important? Everyone knows Nirvana contributed nothing musically but just brought weird hybrid punk-metal/grunge/whatever into the mainstream. So the Cobain recommendation seems superfluous.

Any real lovers of the Butthole Surfers will understand what I am saying!

Any thoughts, can this ever be removed?

Just a thought...

It is significant to music history in that Kurt met Love at a BHS/L7 show.Electrorocket (talk)-- —Preceding undated comment added 15:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Ministry[edit]

Hello. I added Ministry to the Associated Acts in the infobox. This seemed relevant considering the major airtime "Jesus Built My Hotrod" saw on MTV upon release (with Gibby Haynes on vocals), and also considering the track's listing on "Psalm 69: The Way to Succeed and the Way to Suck Eggs," now considered Ministry's breakthrough album. Haynes' work with the Revolting Cocks is also notable as another Ministry/Al Jourgensen connection, but given Ministry's wider popularity, that connection would seem to be sufficiently documented with this Ministry mention. Hopefully this is an improvement to the article, however small. I welcome any thoughts or discussion on the subject. Thanks. Rsws (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note about opening for STP[edit]

There's a mention about opening for STP in 2010 under the name section where I don't believe it's relevant. I don't really have time to evaluate where it should go or add citations to prove it, but maybe someone could. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.184.177 (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The Something Something Surfers"[edit]

Rush Limbaugh once on his TV show (circa 1992 or 1993) referred to The Butthole Surfers as "The Something Something Surfers". (This was in follow-up to a pre-show incident involving Gibby Haynes, or an individual impersonating Gibby Haynes, attempting to gain access to the studio as an audience member while intoxicated.)

Perhaps an editor with knowledge of The Butthole Surfers and/or Limbaugh (and maybe even an old video of the show) could add an appropriate passage.

72.82.171.185 (talk) 10:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unsupported Statements[edit]

The following sentences are not supported by the article cited: "Rusk provided the band with indecipherable accounting statements. Rusk continued to insist his actions were honest even though the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found otherwise."  Mr JM  17:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1981-2011?[edit]

They haven't played live in 4 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:199:4100:692C:69B7:91D3:5654:F78E (talk) 15:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Butthole Surfers. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 03:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Butthole Surfers. 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) 05:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Butthole Surfers. 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) 01:20, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Butthole Surfers. 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) 07:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Album[edit]

I'm basically to lazy to do this myself, but they've had a new album that's been known to have been announced for awhile now, and they've also begun utilizing their social media more (ie Facebook), such as with their release of the 10" EP version of Locust Abortion Technician. If anyone wants to take the time to add this info to their bio that would fit with the page.Jpmcruiser (talk) 05:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, if that's the kind of enthusiasm they generate... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:44B8:3102:BB00:F808:1905:E956:A32 (talk) 23:34, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Stipe[edit]

According to a band member, they lied about the Stipe incident:

https://www.kerrang.com/features/conversation-with-the-biggest-weirdos-in-rock/

92.28.132.13 (talk) 08:34, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Instruments[edit]

I'm not sure how to do this, but I think that the band members section needs to be revised. My understanding, from forums and from video, is that Paul Leary and Gibby Haynes would, in the early days, trade instruments throughout the show, with one or the other playing bass or guitar. Furthermore, there's Haynes's use of alto sax and Trevor Malcolm's use of sousaphone, and so on. I'm sure there's additional issues, perhaps drum machines or synths, keyboards and so on for various albums (for instance the drum machines and steel guitar for Electriclarryland, etc.) Or maybe I'm crazy. It seems like documenting all these studio activities might be beyond the scope of the article and overkill. Still...2604:2000:A84B:5B00:4C8B:A814:E684:E0DA (talk) 23:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend Grows[edit]

The title of this section is inappropriate hype. There isn't any "legend", they're just a band from 30 years ago. An old band isn't a "legend". I propose to retitle this section to something more NPOV, for example the name of an album, or a date-range (like the following sections).

MrDemeanour (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

Butthole Surfers[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007 Good Article has many unsourced statements and uses IMDB (a self-published source). Additionally, the band's post-2010 activities are given less weight than the earlier years. Spinixster (chat!) 03:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Butthole_Surfers&oldid=1210293567"