Talk:Twenty One Pilots/Archive 1

Archive 1

Nick Thomas and Chris Sailh: Only album they worked on?

"Twenty One Pilots" is the clearest example of production that former members, Nick Thomas and Chris Sailh worked on with Twenty One Pilots.

However, on the band's original Soundcloud page (as they have formed a more current one now, the other is still available for viewing), besides the other two singles (mentioned in the Main Article), there are a few songs, including "Car Radio," that appear on the 2011 Regional at Best. This leads me to believe that the two were still in the band when the second album was created, and left shortly after. The common assumption is that Josh Dun (the new drummer and replacement for Thomas/Sailh in the line-up), was already in the band when the album was being conceived/created. I have a feeling otherwise though.

Old Twenty One Pilots Soundcloud account

RhettGedies (talk) 06:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I see what you are saying here, and yes, maybe the duo were in the band when they (alongside Tyler) were planning to "create" a new album. So, they helped Tyler and then left shortly after. (All here are my superstitions, no reliable sources to prove this). MYS77 ^{talk with me ☺} 06:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I have a feeling they recorded the album with Tyler before they left. If anything, they at least recorded "Car Radio," "Guns for Hands," "Slowtown," and "Trees" (all of which are on Regional at Best). It would be a safe "assumption" in my book. What is currently on the main page (about Josh Dun) is just another assumption as well, with even less material than what has been presented above. What should the course of action be? RhettGedies (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't know what we should input in the page, because there's no reliable sources to prove any of the two assumptions. Let's just leave as it is, and if you find something which we can use as a source, post here and we may add it in the main page. Cheers, MYS77 ^{talk with me ☺} 17:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Subject matter being removed?

In the "History" section, the piece about the two unreleased songs on their SoundCloud account has been removed.

Second, "Goner," a music video for another unreleased song, has been pulled.

Does someone have a good reason for doing this?RhettGedies (talk) 08:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe because the admins considered your content as "promotional". Don't know exactly why, but they used to remove this type of content. MYS77 ^{talk with me ☺} 16:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

"Time to Say Goodbye" was originally recorded and released in 2009. Their original demo CD included "Time to Say Goodbye", "Johnny Boy", "Air Catcher", and "Friend Please". "Jar of Hearts" was released following the premiere of their Newport Music Hall performance of the song (and music video) in 2010. Both songs were available through their Myspace page as well as their SoundCloud account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.107.184.151 (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Videos linked directly

The way that the videos are linked, using an inline external link on the song title, is not correct. It leaves the sections without references though. Could someone please deal with this? Thanks.

Ok Walter, later I'll fix this. Cheers, MYS77 ^{talk with me ☺} 21:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Christians?

I don't know if this can practically be put into the page but, they are believers and most of their music is God-based/themed. Don't get me wrong, that does not mean they are a "Christian Band" by any means.

However, to note the fact that their faith influences much of their music within a small sentence or two would be helpful and factual to the common reader.RhettGedies (talk) 05:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Spot on, they really are Christians and this is clear on Holding on to You and Trees. Should be included on a new section, maybe. MYS77 ^{talk with me ☺} 11:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

However, despite them being Christians, no fonts confirms it. It only says that they are Christian oriented, not truly Christians. MYS77 ^{talk with me ☺} 11:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I may be able to help with that. I must point out that, in the thanks section of the Vessel lyrics booklet that accompanies the album itself, they say, "We would both like to thank God for sending His Son and being a part of this even before we were."

I don't know how much more proof one would need.RhettGedies (talk) 19:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we can work it out on something like this. Take a look at the Creed page, and go to Musical style section. That's what it need to look like in here. Not so many lines, but visually equal. MYS77 ^{talk with me ☺} 01:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

We can also do a little sentence in the opening paragraph like Creed has.

Here is my template for what it could say in that opening paragraph (suggest things obviously):

This is absolutely not substantiated in your citation. The only thing in this citation from the Columbus Dispatch states that one member went to a christian high school. Nothing else. Also, if one has to put his or her own meaning into the interpretation ( god is alluded to, even if implied). That is an opinion, not a fact, and does not belong on a factual encyclopedic reference. Religion need not be referenced here, especially considering they are not classified as a christian band, which you state yourself. After all, what is the motivation for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.240.202 (talk) 02:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

They fall into the category of "Believers who make music" like The Fray, Creed, and Paramore. Those bands have sections that speak of their faith influence, are you stating T|O|P shouldn't? Plus, the lyric booklet backs that they are Christians. Also, listen to the song "Save." He says "Jesus save us." I could also cite a Instagram post where Tyler said "my best friend is The Lord." Tyler has also stated the song "Ruby" was written for a girl from he and Josh's church. There is a decent amount of evidence they are Christians. We aren't even saying their band is "Christian." What is the problem again?RhettGedies (talk) 05:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Are you goiing to go through every wikipedia entry and state each article's relationship with some certain religion? Why do you find it important to add a paragraph about religion? Are you going through Indian bands clarifying whether they are Muslim or Hindu? Every rapper that thanked god at the grammy's but isnt classified as christian? I am implying that this is an encyclopedia, not a place to spread religious affiliations that aren't relevant and you're using it as a platform to spread religion which not all fans agree with. I will most likely send a message to a wikipedia administrator for a ruling on this opinion based, and biased statement.

First of all, don't remove things from a talk page. That's why it exists. Second: you are trying to impose your opinion over every band which holds a religion implied with their members. So, if we agree with you then we should remove from WP all about religion in pages like this, Creed and others. I'll remove to not cause any trouble for me and neither for Rett, and you should try to discuss this on Creed page too, if you think it is so important; and also, search for religion in WP and try to exclude everything "irrelevant". Cheers, MYS77 ^{talk with me ☺} 18:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I did not intentionally remove anything, and I'm certainly becoming extremely annoyed at your persistence in the enterprise of using this site as a platform for presenting religious affiliations as encyclopedic information. You quote this website as proof, and you interpret their songs in a religious way. This is opinion based. Their songs have to do with dealing with the tough issues and struggles of living, and because they don't ever mention god and don't associate themselves as a Christian band, your assumptions are PURELY opinion at best. And using this website JFH as some infallible proof is simply unacceptable. I quote form their website:

• Disclaimer: Not every band listed here or reviewed on Jesusfreakhideout.com consider themselves a "Christian band" or "Christian artist." All of the artists are or have been linked to the Christian industry and Christian market at one time or another. We reserve the right to list or cover such artists that have at one time been linked to the Christian industry but are no longer involved in it merely to be informative to those who are looking for insight into their works' content. We also reserve the right NOT to list any artist we do not support or feel comfortable listing on JFH. And we reserve the right to remove any artist at any time for whatever reason we see fit'.

So even this website is relative, prejudiced, and chooses by opinion who to list.

The 'fact' that you feel 95 percent of their music is addressing god is, again, NOT SCIENTIFIC ENCYCLOPEDIC information. By this logic, Marilyn Manson should have this paragraph on his wiki as well. He was raised by Christian parents and attended Heritage Christian School in Canton, Ohio. So as your citation has not changed, and it merely states that Tyler Joseph attended a Christian high school, it is not satisfactory evidence in the least. Good day sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.240.202 (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, you are arguing with a mass amount of bands/singers out there then. Switchfoot, Creed, Paramore, Owl City, Justin Bieber (if you want to get technical), are just a few of the many famous artists that are "believers making music." All of them have something in their article about their faith, big or small.

And, I'm sorry to say, but literally 95 percent of their songs deal with God, that obviously isn't enough proof since that can only be interpretation. If you are looking for "font," the Vessel lyric booklet is very good. Plus, Jesus Freak Hideout identifies them in their ranks and artist database (only true faith-based artists get that special privilege). As well as the stuff I mentioned above^, you don't have much to stand on. We will happy to comply if you can raise a good amount of evidence. But really, you are arguing with hundreds of other articles too then.RhettGedies (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Spot on Rett, and also they stated they are Christian in some interviews. A Christian band is the one which ONLY talk about religion. They don't do that type of music. So, I think the "opinion" in the secion is needed. Rett, if you find another reference to "fulfill the expectations" of our friend, feel free to add. Cheers, MYS77 ^{talk with me ☺} 15:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Although many of their songs contain allusions to Christian theology and have messages about God, and all members of the band (past and present) are Christians, Twenty One Pilots is by not considered a Christian band.

I've added some info in there, you can improve it. Feel free to help! Thanks, MYS77 ^{talk with me ☺} 01:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Everything seems in order and looks good, shall I post it in the opening paragraph with your final conformation?RhettGedies (talk) 02:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure, go on. Cheers, MYS77 ^{talk with me ☺} 04:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I think we have a little communication error XD. I was thinking that what we wrote would work better in the opening paragraph area. We could do more expansion in the "Musical Influences" section.RhettGedies (talk) 06:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The fact that they're in the Jesus Freak Hideout database is a great start. If we had a reference that clearly supported their faith, that would be even better. It's the difference of inferring from something and reading it as a fact. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Compiled Evidence

Here is an article that states, I quote, "Both are graduates of Christian high schools, but their act isn’t religious." (the whole article here) Our statement backed that. We never claimed they were a Christian band.

And though I can't find more than five different blogs/wordpress blogs, Twenty One Pilots does attend New Albany Church in Ohio. Here, here, and here.

Here is the Victory247.org's "about" page. Tyler Joseph's (lead singer) father, Chris Joseph, is at the top. It boldly states he is a Christian.

The song "Ruby" off Regional at Best was written for a girl from their church as Tyler Joseph states.

They thank God in the Vessel lyric booklet "thanks" section, quote, "We would both like to thank God for sending his Son and being a part of this even before we were."

I found an Instagram post were Joseph commented saying quote, "Yeah my best friend is actually The Lord so yeah." here

Because they haven't ever been super blunt and said they are believers, they are a tad hard to pin down. But, through the above piecemeal, it's pretty plain to see that they are "believers making music."

Anyone else got anything? RhettGedies (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow, what a research! Well, is such a shame that most of this content can't be included in the main page (most of them are some blogs or social media), but it allows us to put the "religious" paragraph back in page. I'll fix the inline links as requested by Walter, and also will reintroduce the paragraph with some of your references, Rhett. Cheers, MYS77 ^{talk with me ☺} 18:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Great work RhettGedies. Let's focus on what can, and should, be used.

Columbus Dispatch can be used to indicate that they have a Christian background (high school) but that they do not perform "religious" music.

The YouTube video is a primary source of the band members self-identifying as church members.

Anything I'm missing? Clearly putting too much weight on the issue with be WP:UNDUE and so these two seem to merit a sentence or two. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know, using a vague newspaper article to merit a religiosity claim on an encyclopedic reference page, especially under a heading that is referenced musical style, in which 'believers making music' is absolutely not an official category of music, based purely in opinion, is a problem. The creator of these two sentences made it up, and it is in no format known to date, a musical category. The fact that this is is unfounded should surely UN-merit the statement. I will be re-visiting all of wikipedia's by-laws and reference criteria with my friend, a licensed Ohio lawyer, and will be disputing the claim, surely solidifying my claim that this is purely opinion and not fact. I am confident that this fact is indisputable, and if there were one reference article stating that the group's lyrics and message is religious, I will stop this endeavor; however, if a band is clearly noted as a non religious act, I find the assumption clearly opinion and in a minimal amount of time will have it removed. I'm sorry you went to a registered Christian mediator for clearance, but that is an explicit conflict of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.240.202 (talk) 06:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Mates, I contacted another admin, and he said that your text (IP user) is just a copy and paste from an Amazon description. Also, all the content of the text are in the main page, but written in a different manner. If you read calmly you'll understand that your Amazon text and ours are almost the same thing. Cheers, MYS77 ^{talk with me ☺} 21:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I have gone through the lyric books, countless youtube videos, seen that their is no genre called 'belivers making music, looked through the official lyrics on their VERY OWN WEBSITE,and have been myself personally to two concerts in the last 8 months of twenty one pilots. They toured with an artist for almost a year who call's religion 'just a game' - Robert Delong (From the album 'Just Movement' - claiming anti religious sentiment,and this band maker no religious tenant in their act. Their musical style is not religious, they DO NO CAPITALIZE any word of You or Him or God or ANYTHING in their official lyrics. Even in the songs you cite as affirmation. Your belief is simply an aside, written with an agenda, clearly identified as a bias In the 5 tenants of the wikipedia code as a promotion of an agenda or idea (Christianity). And as a musical style, this mention is unfounded indeed. Not a musical category. Also, graduating from a christian high school in this area of Ohio (which is all your citation states), and from which I reside, is no reason for these two paragraphs to exist in an encyclopedia. It should not remain on the entry. If you find Christian meaning in the words, then that is your right to believe, but as they do not promote this, not capitalize any font in their lyrics manual, it is irrelevant encyclopedically.

Oh, c'mon, give me a break. Anyone who can read a text/lyric know that SOME (not all) of their songs has religious things implied on it. And the paragraph is just to clear the confusion created around their style, as it don't fit clearly in rock or alternative. Besides, as it was said on the paragraph, the BAND MEMBERS are Christians, NOT THEIR SONGS. BTW, it was approved by one administrator who "is not religious", as you were claiming. Hope that I don't have to discuss here again. Cheers, MYS77 ^{talk with me ☺} 14:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm getting super sick of this. We have pointed out and shown that the band members are Christians. We have pointed out that their project isn't religious but some of their songs are influenced by their faith. THAT'S ALL. That's all we ever wanted to show.

A anonymous user stated above "By this logic, Marilyn Manson should have this paragraph on his wiki as well. He was raised by Christian parents and attended Heritage Christian School in Canton, Ohio." And what I have to say to that is....yes, yes he should. Fact is fact. If there is fact and evidence that he was raised Christian, it should be pointed out. Not because we want to "convert people with religious bias," but because fact is fact and we need to give people as much information as is possible about whatever article it is on here. Katy Perry is another example of this. Of course she should have a section or SOMETHING that points out her Christian upbringing. Simply, because it is true, not because it is what she believe currently or whatever.

To point out someone that T|O|P is touring with and their views on religion, holds no weight. Relient K (a famous Christian band), tours constantly with hardcore secular artists. You don't see their beliefs being questioned because of what OTHER bands believe. XD

Oh, btw, to further counterbalance the point about other secular artists they are affiliating with, I point to Jocef (who was featured on their second release, Regional at Best). Christian rapper by trade, and holds the great honor of (as of my knowledge) being the only artist to date that Tyler Joseph has featured himself on one of their songs. So, an artist's affiliation or proximity to another artist, says nothing in this case. (The song is also pretty explicitly blunt, promotes Christianity, and asks people to seriously consider what they believe)

All this to say, we have the required amount of info according to Wikiguidelines, it has been approved by two admins, and we don't plan to add to it. We are just informing the public of a relevant fact. Done.

RhettGedies (talk) 18:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Formation

Though this doesn't necessarily have to be altered, The band's inception was the idea of Tyler Joseph and Nick Thomas. They then brought on their friend, Chris Salih, for the birth of the band in 2009.

Joseph and Thomas went to Worthington Christian High School together and graduated the same year (2008). Salih did not. Worthington Christian High School 2011 Fall News Letter: see pg. 12 for relevant info

All this to say, The first sentence of the "Formation" section of the article reads: "The band was formed in 2009 in Columbus, Ohio by college friends, Tyler Joseph, Nick Thomas, and Chris Salih."

And though this is technically true, it used to be more specific until it was altered a few months back.

RhettGedies (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, yeah... and no. Salih is officially a former band member, the official website says it and this can't be ignored. And the additional info with Salih should be removed as well, it's the type of thing that you only include in his personal page. MYS77 ^{talk with me ☺} 22:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh no, I'm not saying he isn't official. I'm just saying it wasn't his idea to start the band. It was Tyler and Nick. They then got him on board.

RhettGedies (talk) 06:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Hahaha now I got it. I can see what you were trying to say here. Yes, it was Tyler and Nick's idea to create a band, because they graduated together, and after this they called Salih. Am I right? MYS77 ^{talk with me ☺} 14:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Correct.

I believe at some point in the history of the article it was phrased more to point to that. But it was changed last year at some time.

RhettGedies (talk) 17:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Reverted genre edit.

I added experimental rock as a genre, and took away folktronica. My edit was undone as it was apparently "unsupported". So folktronica was supported? I'm the one who originally added it! I rethought it, and decided experimental rock was more conventional. Can my edit possibly be reinstated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Centennialbrainwaves (talk • contribs) 18:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

How about we remove all genres that don't have a reliable source supporting it? That would leave an empty genre section and a "style" section would be created instead and then the genres added back as sources are provided. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

No Phun Intended - Tyler Joseph's solo project

To the best of our knowledge, and according to long-time fan Jacob Rob Aj (who has been around since the beginning of T|O|P), Tyler Joseph's No Phun Intended was released November 30, 1999, according to their (Twenty One Pilots') website. This info is no longer available, however, it was released in 1999.

Jacob Rob Aj's review of No Phun Intended (watch specifically up to 45 seconds for the 1999 proof in question.)

RhettGedies (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey Rhett, long time huh? Can't watch this right now, but if this video says this, it can be used as a source, I guess. MYS77 ^✉ 19:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

And their site had this info ([...] was released November 30, 1999 [...])? If it has, than we can use the Archive.org wayback machine to get this page and use it as a source. MYS77 ^✉ 19:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so I talked with Mr. Aj. He was actually referring to Tyler Joseph's PureVolume account in his review. He went and took a look and realized that the site has really shriveled up in its options. According to him, the site used to give a bit more info on the release date, etc of No Phun Intended....but has since retracted that. I can totally understand that. Finding Adam Young's 30+ side-projects on PureVolume was a total pain since there is literally no info on the accounts anymore. PureVolume is a music site that is barely hanging on and slowly falling apart.

Soooo.....I used a different source plus his review in the article itself. And I also wrote that the date is "allegedly" Nov. 30, 1999. So I think we are good. I'll try out the Archive.org way sometime soon as well to see if I can get a third source.

RhettGedies (talk) 23:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Great! Thanks, MYS77 ^✉ 17:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Trademark outfits

The band has signature trademark outfits they are known by off and on the stage.

Ski masks are heavily used by the duo in concerts, in their music videos, by their fanbase, and their upcoming 2014 concert is even based heavily around their ski mask icon(s) in merchandise and image.

The band is also obviously know for their skeleton hoodies. They wear them at concerts, in music videos, their fanbase wears them (they even were sold for a time on Fueled by Ramen's official store).

In 2011, before the band became very popular in the mainstream industry, they were known by trademark duel blue and white striped hoodies. This is shown in early photoshoots, a web documentary put out by the band themselves, and a few live show recordings by fans. (They also wore cheap Halloween white masks for a short time before converting to ski masks....but that was so brief I don't think it needs to be mentioned)

I've tried to add these signature items in a small paragraph in their "Musical style and influence" section but it continues to get shot down due to lack of evidence which I showed in the form of official video from the band, live footage from shows, Fueled by Ramen's official store can be cited, etc, etc.

Take a look at Instagram: they constantly post photos of themselves (and fans at times) with the signature ski mask look. They also post pics of their skeleton hoodies.

Why isn't this fact enough for the article?

RhettGedies (talk) 04:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The point is not they aren't significant enough... Social media can't be classified as a reference, we need some articles from webs who properly explain this. Just images aren't a reliable way to prove these things who are, indeed, fact. Can you gather this, mate? Cheers, MYS77 ^✉ 06:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

First "trademark" is a specific term. It means that they have taken out a trademark on their outfits. You're using it in a metaphorical way. The second issue if what MYS77 wrote. If someone else had written about the band's unique, ubiquitous or recognizable attire, you might have something about which to write. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2015

2015 Blurryface and Fall Tour

On March 16, 2015 Twenty One Pilots announced via Facebook that they would release a new album entitled Blurryface on May 19th and a new tour in the fall. 76.122.55.67 (talk) 03:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Already added content to Blurryface. Facebook is not a reliable source. Thanks. MYS77 ^✉ 14:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Done EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 00:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

"Fairly Local" Single addition request on 17 March 2015

add the *leaked* single- "Fairly Local" to the new and upcoming album by twenty one pilots- "Blurry Face" Source: A link to itunes is provided to show validity of the new single placed on the new album. debuted March of 2015 https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/fairly-local-single/id975911491 Iluvdogs134 (talk) 03:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Album is called "Blurryface", not "Blurry Face". Thanks. MYS77 ^✉ 14:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Done EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 00:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2015

On March 17th, 2015, the band released their newest single "Fairly Local" as well as publishing the date of their new album "BlurryFace" which comes out on May 19, 2015.

2602:306:311E:E230:3D9B:AFF0:82E:F865 (talk) 07:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Already added content. Thanks. MYS77 ^✉ 14:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Already done EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 00:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 02 June 2015

The link to Firefly should link instead to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefly_Music_Festival. It links to the insect.

Done Cannolis (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2015

Zayn Malik is in Twenty One Pilots Haydeer1991 (talk) 00:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@Haydeer1991: Please stop vandalizing. Only do requests with proper sources. MYS77 ^✉ 00:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2015

The original section:

Done Stickee (talk) 03:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

2015: Blurryface

On March 16, 2015, the band announced Blurryface is to be released on May 19. They also released the first single, called "Fairly Local". On April 6, 2015, the band released the second single of the album, "Tear in My Heart".

Please change: On April 6, 2015, the band released the second single of the album, "Tear in My Heart".

To: Their second single of the album, "Tear in My Heart", and its music video where released on April 5, 2015.

Why I am requesting the change: It is stated that the song was released on April 6, when a review of its YouTube video proves that it was in fact April 5. The original poster used the YouTube video as its source, which is also what I did since it came straight from the band's record label, making it a verifiable source. However, they did not put the correct date that the video states it was published on. I have also included that the music video was released on the same day, which is not crucial, but it is informative for anyone that wants to know everything about the band.

References

Ams121 (talk) 01:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2015

2015: Blurryface On March 16, 2015, the band announced Blurryface is to be released on May 19.[citation needed] They also released the first single, called "Fairly Local".[34] Their second single of the album, "Tear in My Heart", and its music video where released on April 5, 2015.[35] On April 28, "Stressed Out", the third single from the album, was released[36] along with a music video.[37]

Blurryface was released two days early on May 17, 2015.[38]

At the end please add, "The band began the Blurryface World Tour on May 11th, performing in the United States, Australia, South East Asia, Japan, and Europe." " to the end of the 2015 section to inform about the latest world tour since the Quiet is Violent world tour is mentioned and to relay the increasing world popularity of the band.

References

Stephenjvalley (talk) 13:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• Partly done: I added the information but removed the ref to the band's tumblr page as it had nothing to do with the tour. The other ref from Axs.com is acceptable. --Stabila711 (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2016

~Twenty One Pilots is a mix of different genres. Using: a mix of piano, electronic keyboard, key-tar, synthesizer, drums, vocals and even the occasional ukulele. (Musical Style and Influence) ~ Joseph and Dun held a Twitter voting contest on who was liked more between the two artists. The poll ended exactly at 50/50. (History) ~The band will return to St. Louis for a performance on Tuesday, August 2nd, 2016. [Start a new topic (future) and put this there] Parker Wuthrich (talk) 05:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Thanks for the suggestions, but it's not clear what you want and none of what you wrote is referenced. Both are needed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The original section:

Done Stickee (talk) 03:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

2015: Blurryface

On March 16, 2015, the band announced Blurryface is to be released on May 19. They also released the first single, called "Fairly Local". On April 6, 2015, the band released the second single of the album, "Tear in My Heart".

Please add: On February 13, 2016, "Stressed Out" reached number 3 on the Billboard top 100 "Stressed Out".

Why I am requesting the change: This is the highest place any song by Twenty One Pilots has reached, making it noteworthy.

References

"Stressed Out" is currently #21 in the UK (over here we have a Top 40 rather than 100): [1] - may I update the list? Thanks, --Ches (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Self Titled

Do you guys think TØP's debut should have an article of its own? I started to make one, but thought it'd be best to ask the community. U2fan01 (talk) 02:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Even though the album has charted, I don't think there is enough sources to expand it beyond stating that it is the band's first album, a infobox and track list. I couldn't find any reviews (at least none that were RSs) when I looked a while back. I feel that WP:NALBUMS says it best: "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography." Yeepsi (talk) 03:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

EMØTIØNAL RØADSHØW

Do you guys think an article should be created for TØP's upcoming world tour? I know there isn't enough info out there yet, but I'm sure there will be some more coming in the future. |-/ U2fan01 (talk) 01:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Never mind, found it. U2fan01 (talk) 01:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Heathens

Just to add: Heathens is now up on Spotify with the Suicide Squad soundtrack's artwork. 86.25.135.140 (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Help me to understand why this leaked song is in any way important. At first it was linked to copyright violations (the leaked song itself) now it's just generally linking to a short news story: http://www.altpress.com/news/entry/hear_twenty_one_pilots_new_song_heathens. Is it charting? Is it somehow important? We don't need to publish every detail about the band's activity, not all events they are involved in are notable. See WP:NOTDIARY and WP:EVENT. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Heathen's is an official release from the Suicide Squad Soundtrack, so the song should be worth mentioning, especially when things such as the release of music videos seem to be "important" enough to have a mention. Other artist pages, such as Coldplay and Imagine Dragons, mention these types of releases as well. The song is already on all music streaming services and on iTunes. The leaking was NOT the end of the story. --Archiderp (talk) 06:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

If it's the official release from the soundtrack, it will get more than brief mention from AltPress then. Just because other artists have trivia doesn't mean that this article should. Read WP:OSE. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/rock/7408895/twenty-one-pilots-heathens-suicide-squad-listen-new-song Perhaps this article is more suiting as a source? There are a ton of articles about this new song alone. All you could have asked for was to provide a better source. The song itself has its own wikipedia page started up. If you think that these songs shouldn't be mentioned, then you should debate about this on the other artist pages as well. --Archiderp (talk) 08:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Better, but not by much as it's just a brief mention of the song. Is the song charting? Is the song important to their career? Have lots of places been writing about it or are we simply seeing promotional mentions of it.

Did you read the guidelines I linked to above? They'll offer further insight into what should and should not be included in an article and why. I'm afraid that this talk page isn't the appropriate location to convey all of that again, and for purposes of space, probably shouldn't be. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I've decided to wait a bit before coming back to this. This song is charting on iTunes and has been released as an official single from the soundtrack. A music video for the song has just been released as well. --Archiderp (talk) 23:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

And it's already listed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2016

Apparently my sarcasm was mistaken for trolling last time (sorry), so more clearly and more politely:

"However, many fans (and themselves to a degree) have labelled their genre as "Schizophrenic pop" (also known as Schizoid pop), a technically unofficial subgenre of pop" -- this claim is unsourced (Wayback Machine does, to be fair, dig up the old 21 Pilots 'about' page, in which the band refer to themselves as 'schizoid pop' -- no reference to fan adoption or 'Schizophrenic pop'), and the phrase "technically unofficial subgenre" is meaningless. Something along the lines of "the band have described themselves as 'schizo pop'" is probably appropriate with the current citation, and new citations may support "schizophrenic pop". There is no reason to keep "technically unofficial subgenre of pop" unless some misguided journalist actually used the phrase, the idea that there's such a thing as an "official genre" is a bit laughable really (although I guess someone didn't share my sense of humour about that). 122.105.132.85 (talk) 14:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia article on "schizophrenic" or "schizoid" pop. Quite frankly I think the term could be seen as offensive, and besides, this is only a name given to TOP's apparent "genre" by its fans. --PatientZero ^talk 14:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not a "technically unofficial subgenre", its just not a genre. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Concur with Mr Görlitz here. --PatientZero ^talk 16:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

It's been said by the band in an interview of some sorts, but the term was just a way to describe their music overall. NOT an actual genre. --Archiderp (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Self-titled album and Regional at Best

Not exactly sure how to format things when it comes to requesting on the Wikipedia Talk page, but I'd strongly recommend starting new articles on Twenty One Pilot's self-titled album as well as one for Regional at Best. I know there was originally an article for Regional at Best but it was changed to redirect users to the main Twenty One Pilots wikipedia for some reason. There's lots of notable and efficient information regarding these albums that isn't in the main page, nor the discography page, and I think it would be helpful and beneficial to TØP enthusiasts to create articles on the first two unreleased albums. I mean, what's the point of having a Twenty One Pilots discography article if a vast portion of their music isn't even in it? We know all of the songs--it's all there--I just think it's crucial that we make articles explaining their first two albums. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexanderhovanec (talk • contribs) 22:22, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, following up on what I said prior to this, I don't understand why Regional at Best redirects you to the main Twenty One Pilots article. Especially if someone (who trusts wikipedia, because heaven knows why) is looking for the listed tracks in Regional at Best. It used to be accessable until very recently. I think this is inefficient. If Regional at Best IS brought back, then I think on the main TØP page (as well as the disc. page), all mentions of Regional at Best should be linked to its own wikipedia page.

Because the article does not support any notability criteria and so I am using Wiki formatting to force requests to redirect here. I left notability guidelines on your talk page, but I'll do it here as well: WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. If the album meets either criteria, supply the sources that prove it and create the article. Many artists have a large catalogue of recordings that don't meet that criteria and there are no articles for those albums. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough. I DO still believe that there should be further mention of the first two self-released albums, but Wikipedia DOES discourage the creation of articles regarding self-titled albums with little to no reliable source mentions. Maybe it's possible that we can add the track listings of the first two albums to the to the discography page if there's a reliable source with the same intention. Citations included, of course. But I see. I didn't know those guidelines existed.

WEA International

On the Warner Music Group page it states that WEA was renamed Warner Music in 1991. warpozio (talk) 17:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Timeline Question

Should a timeline be added for the band? Coda16 21:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

NO! Why? Four members in the band over its life. Why does this need to be visualized? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2016

In the band members part it says which instruments Josh plays, but the trumpet misses. I will add a link to video proof he also plays the trumpet during shows more specifically during the song, "We Don't Believe What's on TV". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQCgTP4KtoQ

213.93.227.204 (talk) 20:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done Lordtobi (✉) 14:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2016

their biggest fan is cristal 97.80.235.184 (talk) 06:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 07:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC).

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2016

On the morning of December 19, 2016, through the band's Twitter, they announced a collaboration with Mutemath in which they would reinterpret five of their own songs: Heathens, Heavydirtysoul, Ride, Tear In My Heart, and Lane Boy. At 6 p.m. that day, a 25-minute video of this collaboration was released on the Twenty One Pilots YouTube channel, with a link to download the songs for free in the description. 74.105.89.177 (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

It was added, but not with the Twitter source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2016

can we put blurry face back in current band members and hid description as "cares what you think"? Also put the genre as Ukulele rap boy, 2004 emo aesthetic, and piano rap? 71.29.194.140 (talk) 06:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 12:39, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2017

They released a live album called Blurryface Live on November 2016 160.7.23.94 (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2017

98.144.113.7 (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC) joshler is real

 Not done Tyler Joseph is happily married to his wife, and you have not provided any sources other than your fannish wistful thinking to prove otherwise. JackOfPanTrades Card Hunter (Engage in intellectual conversation) 19:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2017

joshler is real. also, please write a section about josh's many hair colors, including yellow because it's lit. also, please include the new music video coming out, it's weird. Its.me.alyyy (talk) 03:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - Mlpearc (open channel) 03:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

It would also be greatly appreciated if you were to suggest constructive edits instead of wistful thinking on your part. JackOfPanTrades|Card Hunter ^{(Converse intellectually)} 13:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2017

Requestings the removal of the labeling of "Schizoid Pop" under musical influences, the band hasnt reffered to themselves as such in 4 years on a deleted about page, and its an ableist term that shouldnt really be used. Source associated with said line is also outdated and leads to an error page. Olympiain (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done The article is not designed to represent the current state of the band's marketing or promotion, but it is designed to give an overview of the subject. It's sourced and should remain in the article, as referenced, in the musical style and influences section. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2017

The page says:

"Twenty One Pilots became only the third musical act to have two singles simultaneously chart in the top five of the Billboard Hot 100, joining The Beatles and Elvis Presley, in addition to becoming the third duo to accomplish this feat, after OutKast in 2003 and Macklemore & Ryan Lewis ten years later."

This isn't what the source says. The source says Twenty One Pilots are the third Rock act to accomplish this feat. Xniinja (talk) 02:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Done I changed "third musical act" to "third rock act". Gulumeemee (talk) 04:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2017

On February 15, 2017, the duo released the first episode to an online video series about the Emotional Roadshow tour. JW Rothaus (talk) 03:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  04:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I would argue that it's not notable unless someone else writes about it. WP:PRIMARY sources are simply promotional in this case. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2017

Twenty one pilots have written Christian songs for Tyler's church 'Five14 Church' These songs include 'Dead Come Alive' and 'Lord of Glory' Ashbolton (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

If someone else has written about it (a WP:SECONDARY source) that would go a long way to proving this is in some way important. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Typo

"otherwise unreleased songs via their email newsletterthe original version" ... eBug (talk) 21:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2017

i would like to edit please! Herobrines23444 (talk) 17:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

This article has been locked because inexperienced editors have made changes to the article that are either not sourced or not remarkable. Learn how to edit on other articles and when you've achieved a certain number of edits you will not longer be considered a new editor, and you'll be able to edit this article without making specific requests. Until then, unless you have a specific change and support it with a reference, your edits will not be applied to the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2017

Change the title of the article ("Twenty One Pilots") to "Twenty Øne Piløts" because that's the more aesthetic version of the name and technically the correct one. Also I'm a lil salt about it but don't let that deter my valid statement UwansumM8 (talk) 01:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done You want a requested move, not an a simple edit request. As there are no reliable sources that use that stylized name

• http://www.billboard.com/artist/430557/twenty-one-pilots/biography
• http://www.allmusic.com/artist/twenty-one-pilots-mn0002398414/biography

and not even stores use the name

• https://www.amazon.com/twenty-one-pilots/e/B0096A6BXA
• https://itunes.apple.com/artist/twenty-one-pilots/id349736311
• https://play.google.com/store/music/album/Twenty_One_Pilots_Stressed_Out?id=B7q7qhrhzutymwmbutiqz6xq6bi

that's not going to happen. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2017 | Assisted by Citation bot

A recent revision by 2017-05-11T12:52:18 was removed for violating WP:V. With just a touch of research, it seems pretty verifiable, even if it hadn't been properly verified at the initial posting.

On March 27, 2017, Twenty One Pilots announced "Tour De Columbus", a five date hometown tour taking place in June 2017. Originally announcing the first three dates, two more dates were added after the original shows sold out within minutes. The duo will be playing the venus they played as a local band including The Basement (June 20), Newport Music Hall (June 21), Express Live! (June 22), Nationwide Arena (June 24), and Value City Arena or "The Schott" (June 25).

Tickets were only available through the “Twenty One Pilots Fan Ticket Opportunity", powered by Ticketmaster Verified Fan to "screw the bots and beat the scalpers"

Of course, after reading the content of both the article and the accompanying paragraph, it would probably do better in the Concert Tours section, but the "screw the bots and beat the scalpers" quote is a cute one. menaechmi (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

References

 Done I corrected spelling and ref placement, but I didn't add the unnecessary part about the ticket selling site as it's not clear if it actually worked, and it's a primary source. I also added it to the normal flow, as it's not a tour. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Twenty One Pilots. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120503164723/http://www.grammy.com/nominees to http://www.grammy.com/nominees
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120503164723/http://www.grammy.com/nominees to http://www.grammy.com/nominees
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141020073108/http://woub.org/2012/03/14/interview-twenty-one-pilots to http://woub.org/2012/03/14/interview-twenty-one-pilots

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 17:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2017

change the genre from Alternative hip hop, electropop, indie pop, pop rock, rap rock to schizophrenic pop since that is what they said their genre was themselves Wildeski000 (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

 Not done The genres are sources in Twenty One Pilots#Musical style and influences. What they call their music is immaterial to what their genre actually is. Recognized experts (read as reliable sources) state what their genre is. If they said that they consider their genre to be opera or death metal, we would be right to ignore that as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, it is not conceptually helpful to the reader anyways, as it's not a real genre. Schizophrenic pop is not a real thing, and is only used to describe the band itself. As such, it doesn't even convey an actual message to most readers. It doesn't mean anything. The same thing happened with The Smashing Pumpkins - where they called their music American gothic (also not a real music genre). It was similarly rejected on Wikipedia, for the reasons Walter and I have explained. Sergecross73 msg me 13:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2017

Panictrayshe (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

 Not done This isn't the place to ask for that. See WP:AFC. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2017

Add Indie rock to genres. 173.90.74.47 (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Already listed as "indie pop" a band can't fall under every genre that exists just simply because that genre exists. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 04:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not done What reliable sources are there to support the claim of that genre? It's not a genre supported on any of the band's albums. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism needs to be corrected ASAP

Someone has vandalized their page and edited it so it says "Trash" when they first appear in the search bar,it's been like this for a while and it's very poor of the editors to not correct it.I HIGHLY reccomend the protection of this page from further vandalism.Also may i mention someone has also vandalized Josh Dun's wiki to say "Trash" as well and his page is protected so it's an official editor doing this. Crybbluvyduby (talk) 08:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done The vandalism was not on this article, which is already semi-protected.but at Wikidata, which is where the mobile version draws its summaries from. I have corrected this in both English and Spanish.
Although you said "I have changed it back" you didn't - you vandalized the page, by removing the Page protection and MDY templates as seen in this diff. I have, therefore, also reinstated these templates. - Arjayay (talk) 08:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I tried to fix it myself but it didn't work so i posted a message here asking for someone else to take care of it. Crybbluvyduby (talk) 03:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Josh is beautiful why would they call him trash? Randycoleman (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Regional at Best

I believe this has been an issue on Wikipedia for awhile, and on various Talk Pages. Still, I have to add on the discussion. Why doesn't Regional at Best its own article? I know the self-titled (first) album possesses its own Wikipedia so why doesn't the second one? The only difference I can think of is the fact that the second album doesn't appear on iTunes due to the label. But the first was independently released and yet has an article, and so do the final two albums. Back in the day, only the final two albums had articles. I remember a short time in which Regional at Best really did possess an article as well. Some people seem to be stubborn, though. Is there a policy preventing its addition? And if so, why does the self-titled album possess an article? Is it really due to the Fueled by Ramen label preventing the second album from appearing on iTunes? -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 05:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Regional at Best

I believe this has been an issue on Wikipedia for awhile, and on various Talk Pages. Still, I have to add on the discussion. Why doesn't Regional at Best its own article? I know the self-titled (first) album possesses its own Wikipedia so why doesn't the second one? The only difference I can think of is the fact that the second album doesn't appear on iTunes due to the label. But the first was independently released and yet has an article, and so do the final two albums. Back in the day, only the final two albums had articles. I remember a short time in which Regional at Best really did possess an article as well. Some people seem to be stubborn, though. Is there a policy preventing its addition? And if so, why does the self-titled album possess an article? Is it really due to the Fueled by Ramen label preventing the second album from appearing on iTunes? -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 05:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

It fails WP:NALBUM (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regional at Best) and that has nothing to do with Fueled by Ramen. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough. However, that still doesn't answer why the self-titled album possesses an article. What does that album have to gain it an article that this one doesn't? I checked the guidelines. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 05:49, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

That (barely) album meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Collaborations

This page is missing a collaborations section, which could expand on some of the bands tours. For example, Twenty One Pilots collaborated on a remix album with Mutemath, the album was released on December 19th 2016. Nineandthreequarters (talk) 18:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Be WP:BOLD and create it. Be sure that it's well referenced and is more than just a list or table of collaborations. It should contain prose about the recordings. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2017

It says that Joshua Dun only plays the drums but he also plays the trumpet 50.5.227.156 (talk) 00:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 00:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Check the link I cited this text with please. It's known that Josh Dun plays the trumpet on a few twenty one pilots songs like "I Don't Believe What's On TV" for example. If this video of him doing so at a concert isn't reliable enough as a source, then I don't know what is. This next sentence is also cited with an even better source with a whole section of text devoted to Josh's talent. So whoever reverted the "trumpet" must be an admin, or something. But if an admin were to agree that my sources are reliable, then go ahead and use them to site the addition. If my sources apparently aren't "reliable", then my bad! 'Just thought I'd chime in. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 04:55, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

The first reference is ambiguous as you need to 1) trust the copyright violator (the performance is copyrighted and we can't use it anyhow) and that the subject playing trumpet is Dun. The second is better, but the sentence "began with, er...the trumpet" doesn't state he still plays (and based on the video, he really shouldn't, "I was never awesome at it though", yep). It'e not his primary instrument. We don't usually list every instrument that a subject plays. We list those for which the subject is known to play. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Well that is some pretty good logic. Understood. I had no idea sources and citations could interfere with copyright, so that's good to know; however, it's clearly Josh Dun. That's like questioning if a recording of Justin Bieber is REALLY a recording of Justin Bieber, or if a picture of John Lennon is REALLY John Lennon -- the only thing interfering being skepticism. I think skepticism is justified for the second article though, as the mention of the trumpet and how good the player is is somewhat "iffy". So yes, perhaps you're right in saying that trumpet should not be listed as a primary instrument. As long as it's listed in the personnel of the album or song's Wikipedia articles, then I suppose it doesn't matter. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 06:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes. WP:COPYLINK talks about linking to copyright violations. Please take my comments on his playing with a grain of salt. I suspect that he's a better trumpet player than I am, and after a typically upbeat song, he was likely a bit out of breath. Walter Görlitz (talk)

Follow up question, what are your thoughts on the discussion at the top of this top page? "Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2016" would be the name of it. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 20:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Occasional playing of an instrument is not notable and is more of a curiosity than an actual "instrument played". In other words, if a performer plays trumpet as an intro to one song, or a glockenspiel or chimes in the bridge of another song does not make the musician a trumpet player, glockenspiel player or chimes player. It makes them a musician. Compare John Coltrane, Cannonball Adderley and Paul Desmond. They actually played multiple (reed) instruments, so you can see how that's addressed through discussion in the article. In short, it never should have been done. It should have been questioned. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I thought. I read the discussion at the top and was thinking that the trumpet shouldn't be added, as you said it wasn't his "primary" instrument. It's only played part-time. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 00:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Logo

There could be added a part of the article about twenty one pilots logo on this page

There would be mentioned their logo stylizations for each era and also logo of the skeleton clique (top fandom).

LIL FEAR (talk) 22:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

"Ø's"

It shouldn't be stated that official twenty one pilots logo is often stylized as "TWENTY ØNE PILØTS", because ø's were only a part of the Blurryface era that has already ended

If you want to write the stylizations of their logo, there should be also TWENTY | ONE | PILOTS from the Regional at best era. LIL FEAR (talk) 12:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. That's a very true statement. Their name typically isn't capitalized except in rare occasions. The second example provided with the "|" 's is also valid. TWENTY | ONE | PILOTS should be included within the articles by the logical of TWENTY ØNE PILØTS' inclusion.

Just recently I made an edit to the page, listing three primary stylizations of the band's logo. Twenty One Pilots, twenty one pilots, and twenty øne piløts being among the three most common appearances. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 03:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Commentaries throughout the article

@AlexanderHovanec: this is not allowed, that's why the talk page exists. If you need to discuss something with somebody, do it here, not adding pointed out comments throughout the article like you did in the past edits. If you don't have sources for their full names, don't add it, as simple as that. MYS77 ^✉ 21:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I was the one who reverted those additions. Comments are OK for some things, but not unsourced "full names". That would be a WP:BLP issue, and possibly a privacy concern as well. Sorry if I didn't explain it well when I reverted Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@MYS77: It's certainly a shame you feel that way... I was not providing commentaries. Commentaries are opinionated and personalized. The reason I added these hidden statements were to reach out to any editors who came across it and possessed a source. I also noticed you said "throughout the article", when they were simply small brackets in two places towards the top and bottom. Last but not least, there's a reason the "< / -- -- >" coding exists. It's not available for no reason. Again, there's a reason the coding exists. Small bits of information that are unsourced but could be beneficial to the article are placed in the coding and surrounded by brackets for this purpose. As an administrator, I wish you could've been aware of all of the points I made just now, and could'e addressed the dilemma differently. If you didn't think the edits were constructive or necessary, that's one thing. But they certainly aren't significant enough to be included in the talk page. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: I don't think privacy is an issue here, as Joseph and Dun's full names are widely known. Salih and Thomas, on the other hand, definitely seem to keep a low-profile now, so you may be correct. And the linked page does say that privacy can be an issue. There's a whole section about it. I don't think there's any sources out there that say the names have intentionally been concealed though. Additionally, it mainly refers to non-notable people, like family members that do not have notable sources. While I can't say there's any notable sources supporting Salih or Thomas's names (yet), I still deny the privacy statement. Last but not least, I argue full names are necessary for all individuals but Wikipedia's criteria begs to differ at times. I suppose by these standards the addition is not necessary and thus can be forgotten about (for now). Regards -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Good thing this is on my watch list because the ping didn't work, likely because you messed that up just like you messed up your logic in stating that because the names of two members are "widely known" (without providing a single reliable source to support it, and previous discussions on that matter have questioned every time that claim has been made, so WP:STICK applies by now) that WP:BLPNAME has been met. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@AlexanderHovanec: Just to clarify: I'm not an admin, and never intended to act like one. I didn't think these commented contents were beneficial and substancial to the article at any point, any normal reader is not seeing this content and some unexperienced editors may be led to think that they could add information without any sources, which would lead to more work in reverting/restoring the article. By adding <!-- NEED SOURCE Nicholas "Nick" Thomas -->, I can see some IP/unexperienced user user removing the brackets and leaving the article as Nicholas "Nick" Thomas without a source. Additionally, I don't see any band/group pages adding the complete names of its past/present artists.

Still, notes like the one that @Walter Görlitz restored are fairly well-placed, because they really inform something that's already referenced in the very same article. MYS77 ^✉ 12:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Timeline

We've had four band members. I don't see a need for a timeline. We also don't have precise dates for when members left or came into the band, only estimates. So the dates are original research. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

"Hiatus"

Many people in the past have attempted to add the fandom-proclaimed "hiatus" to the article. I can agree that it isn't as significant to the article's inclusion as it's made out to be, but nonetheless I think it SHOULD be included. Just a sentence or so. At least mentioning that the band is "in the dark" for awhile until the next album's release. Perhaps someone can delve into the research and find some interviews where Joseph or Dun give input on the break they're taking. I think it's absolutely relevant to the article to at least mention a period of time in which no shows or new material have occurred/been released. It's a notable event that millions upon millions are aware of. So again, there's no need for a long descriptive paragraph about it, nor does the term "hiatus" need to be used as some of the strict administration argues that it's only fandom-proclaimed, but i think the "period" and proclaimed "era change" should at least be mentioned. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 03:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

~ahem~, still think this is a good idea. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 02:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

But what does WP:V think about that? Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

That's a good point. I can see how some would be skeptical to out and say "the band is taking a hiatus". But it really does comply with the guidelines. There's a variety of sources out there in which the band SAYS they're "going in the dark". Not only that, but the general public itself deems this a "hiatus". I bet I could uncover several sources saying something along the lines of "fans are going crazy over what they have deemed a 'hiatus'" from a news source or something. So one could always add to the article something along the lines of "fans of twenty one pilots have noticed a period of silence from ___ to ___". It's tricky to put into words, but at the time, Medieval Europe wasn't known as the "Dark Ages", this is just a name a demographic gave to the era. The same can be applied here, right? -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 03:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

But I understand deeming this period a hiatus (in a scenario where no one else has – a scenario in which they simply hadn't released anything in a few months) is a big no-no for Wikipedia. I only mention this whole "hiatus" thing because many have attempted to add something about it to the article and have failed. I was just hoping no one thought of this concept as "false" or "irrelevant". I'm hoping the whole dilemma is simply just a lack of sourcing. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 03:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Follow-up on Regional at Best

Doesn't anyone think it's possible for RAB to possess an article of its own? Sure it never charted, but isn't it notable enough? Here, click this text and scroll down; I think the article looked beautifully. Sure, it was probably irritating when the guy kept disobeying administrators, but if the article really did gain some notability than I think the already existing text'd go nicely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderHovanec (talk • contribs) 01:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

But moving on from that, I wanna remind everyone that Twenty One Pilots went on tour with a band called "CHAMPIONS!", deeming it the "Regional at Best Tour" -- this wasn't added to the article so I added it down in the Tours section. But since the album has a tour named after it, and a full video-series-documentation about it on YouTube, don't you think it's time to give it an article? Will it ever be ready for one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Görlitz (talk • contribs) 15:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Another thing to note, " apparently Mexican Wikipedians find the article to be notable, and I found a few other foreign-languaged passages about RAB as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Görlitz (talk • contribs) 15:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I want to list an example. There's a band denoted as "Hot Chelle Rae", I'm sure most people are aware of them. They had that hit back in summer 2011. But they have this album from 2009 called Lovesick Electric, and it has even less details on its article than the Regional at Best one would've had -- plus it never even charted. Ever. [Hot Chelle Rae discography It's chart listings can be found here...]; nothing. So what does this article have that Regional at Best doesn't? Like I said, RAB has a whole video series documenting its conceptualization. The only think Twenty One Pilots has that RAB doesn't is a chart listing -- which is why I'm guessing an article exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Görlitz (talk • contribs) 16:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Overall, I think administration should continue. There's a "golden lock" on the article to keep all the RAB requests at bay, and I'm not asking anyone to remove it, but can we at least give RAB an article? I say it's notable, but that's just me. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 23:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

You're forum shopping. You asked this set of questions to me in a different location a few days earlier on Talk:Twenty One Pilots discography. Forking the discussion is problematic. You didn't sign your comments there either. I made the clear comment there:

In short Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regional at Best determined that the subject was not notable (see WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM for what that means) and that it does not merit an article. Because fans were creating and recreating it, the space was locked. What another Wikipedia project does and does not find notable is immaterial to us, just as what we do and don't find notable is immaterial to them. They have two references: one at AllMusic (a user review and so doesn't meet reliable sources) and Reddit (a fan forum does meet reliable sources either). Unless you can find, and stop me if you've read this before,

1. significant coverage
2. in reliable sources
3. that are independent of the subject

the subject doesn't merit an article on the English project. If you can find them, open a discussion on creating the article at talk:Regional at Best (not here). I suspect that an admin would weigh the sources and determine if there's enough present for an article and respond to the request there. Admins generally don't wander around looking at all of the articles that are locked to determine if they need to be unlocked, so someone has to alert them of a change in the facts that caused the earlier decision. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Cancelled Sequel

22 Pilots is an Unreleased Label Rhymesayers Entertainment It's Released in November 20th, 2016 Like Hall Mary Mallon and Blackbear to an Unalbumed Sequel of Twenty One Pilots like Aesop Rock and Russ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6EF1:57D0:CDCA:EE86:9101:549B (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2018

They have put cryptic clues about a possible return in their official webstore during the last months and I would like to add that to the hiatus part. Jbruned (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done First, please supply your request in the form of "Please add..." with a location and a reference. Second, we don't need to put everything they do into the article. When there's something encyclopedic to write about, we should include that. Having "cryptic clues" about something that is "possible" doesn't meet that criteria. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

New Logo

Released today July 9th a new logo was revealed on Twitter as well as on billboards in the US and Europe. It is black and yellow contains two lines on each side of the dash instead of one. Richaus2 (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

It it a new logo or just a logo for the new tour. WP:NOTNEWS, copyright and other issues abound here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

History organization

While I understand that the band broke the certification record for Blurryface in 2018, starting the section on a new album cycle with an accomplishment earned from the previous project seems jarring. Should we simply move the note on the album's record to its own section? Claystripe (talk) 23:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. And we probably shouldn't start a new section until there's enough sourced information to sustain a new section. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2018

put on years active "2009-2017 2018-present" AwesomeJEC (talk) 02:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: It says 2009-present which to me sounds exactly the same, if not better, than 2009-2017 and 2018-present. That technically means they were never inactive. Waddie96 (talk) 07:39, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2018

add this image

File:Trenchlivebrixton.jpg

in the Trench section in the band's history GuilhermeHenkeSaueressig (talk) 04:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

@GuilhermeHenkeSaueressig: I'll add it to the infobox instead of the Trench section. Bowling is life (talk) 05:31, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done  Spintendo  12:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2018

Remove section about basketball scholarship at Otterbein University. The NCAA prohibits sports scholarships for D-III (division 3) schools, therefore, an official sports scholarship could not have been offered. 99.92.62.96 (talk) 04:08, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Given that this unsourced information was added to the article by a user who was repeatedly (now indefinitely) blocked for adding unsourced information to articles, I'm inclined to agree.  Done, removed. Thanks, ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 19:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Five14 Church section

Wonder whether the article needs a section specifically about the connection of its members to a local church. Feel like all of the relevant information in that section could be consolidated into the history and influences sections. Claystripe (talk) 23:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

You hit the nail right on the head. I had all of that information neatly placed throughout the band's history but I think one or two editors disagreed with its addition to the history section. In turn, I created the Five14 Church section and things have flown smoothly since then. Could it potentially be left alone for now? Unless you think it's a problem though... then something can be done. But as I'd said, in the past the section was the conclusion of a minor debate. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 00:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with Five14 Church having its own section. The only problem I have with this article is the paragraphs that have no sources. I would add sources to those but I can't find any to support them. Bowling is life (talk) 01:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree. It reads like publicity for this church. I propose editing the paragraph.Jrwsaranac (talk) 18:16, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Trenchlivebrixton.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit Request 5 October 2019

Since the Bot edit on 25 September 2019, Tyler Joseph's name in the member timeline image appears to be scribbled out. Please revert it back to the original image if possible, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Authorgirl2 (talk • contribs) 07:42, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2019

new album sidelines feb 16 2020 Twentyonepilotsdema (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NiciVampireHeart 19:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)