Talk:Relient K/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Discography pages

Why are their two Discography pages? Here's the links. Category:Relient K albums and here's the other Relient K discography

That would be because one is a category, and the other is an article. -- PEPSI2786talk 21:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Expanding discography section

I noticed that the discography section of this article simply links to the Relient K discography article, and doesn't list any of their discography. I thought it would be better to minorly expand it, in case someone wants a basic summary of their albums without having to go to another article for the full details. If you look at a FA like U2, there's a small discography section summarizing their main albums ("studio albums" and "compilation and live albums") with a link to the main U2 discography article, of course. I didn't like the way the discography section with this article was so lacking, so I went ahead and followed that similar type of basic formatting that's used in the U2 article. I've now expanded it to simply include Relient K's main studio releases under a new subheader, "Studio albums". I can always transfer the info into a wikitable or minorly rearrange the formatting from the way it is now, if that would be better. Let me know on my talk page if there's any opposition towards this any way, or if you have any ideas how to improve that section. Thanks, --JamieS93 02:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind at all. It improves the article and doesn't harm anything. I'd do it myself, but I have alot on my to-do list. IronCrow (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I've already expanded the section, and I like the way it is now. Thanks for the second opinion. :) --JamieS93 19:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Myspace

They havent updated their myspace for over a year, its still themed with five score, no comments have been approved since august 16th, are the band jus too busy as my mum suggests or have they got a new myspace or dont they want it anymore? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thrice34 (talk • contribs) 11:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I would think it is because they are too busy. You can tell when bands operate their own myspace when that happens. ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 04:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

New Albums

I was looking back at some of the past edits and I saw that there was one that added the Birds and the Bee-sides and the Nashville Tennis EP, and then there was one that deleted it. I figured that this was because they have not been released yet, but because they have already been confirmed by the band I figured they should be in the list anyways. I readded those albums, but labeled them not yet released in addition to the 2008 release date that was already listed next to it. Was this the right thing to do? Ndstar13 (talk) 22:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The thing is the list on this article is for studio albums only. If you look at Relient K discography, the Bee-sides album and Tennis EP are listed in their appropriate sections. kollision (talk) 02:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clarifying. I understand now. Ndstar13 (talk) 13:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Sloppy article

I'm sorry, but this article is very weak. It seriously needs a MAJOR editing, if not a complete rewrite. The copyediting is very poor, and many statments are unsourced. There may be some verification done, according to the to-do list, but it's got a long way to go before it can be considered for GA status. Anyone else agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liscobeck (talk • contribs) 04:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I say do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.70.65 (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm not a great writer, but I see a few things that should be cleaned up, preferredly by someone familiar with the sources and material. Feel free to disagree, but it seems as if much of the article could be removed and better placed in a more structured discography section or in tables. TV appearances, especially, receive quite a bit of mention that could better be placed lower, in a table. Radio play statistics could better be placed in a Discography section. Awards can also be placed in a table. More generically, it seems to me as if too many details are written in that may not be appropriate for a Wikipedia article. For example, there is a huge paragraph about the Relient K/Switchfoot/Ruth tour (which, incidentally, is out of date) that could probably be edited down to two sentences. Wikipedia is meant to read like an encyclopedia, not a journal.Josejuan05 (talk) 08:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This article needs serious work...

I have been busy editing this page, removing; POV, useless information and bad citations. This article is written in bits and pieces, often times using news articles and piecing it together in the history section.

I love Relient K's music, but it's going to take alot of work to get all the rK articles up to par. But, I know with good collaboration we can get this article to be encyclopedic, informative, and much more like the quality we see on Wikipedia featured articles.Smile Lee (talk) 06:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

where is the bird and the bee sides?

where is it? It's not here... D: Kookylad (talk) 16:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Right here. It's not an album, it's a double EP. Check the article for information. Smile Lee (talk) 18:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Moved from article

The following need to be turned into references:

kiac (talk) 03:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

excuse me

While i think genres should be arranged from most to least used, someone says alphabetic for this one, can i ask.. should that be the way for all bands/artists genres to be listed? or just relient k? and what about for singles and albums

get back to me soon

loveyourfaithLoveyourfaith (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no "standard" that states alphabetical is preferred to priority. Relient K is a Christian band, and I believe it should be the first on their priority list. But, the only reason that the alphabetical warning is present is to stop all of the edits that go on in that section.Smile Lee (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no actual "Christian Pop Punk" scene. The only scene it's tied to would be Christian Punk. Relient K is one of the only Christian pop punk bands. So therefore they are included in the Christian Punk scene, as the redirect shows.Smile Lee (talk) 15:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

New Genre (Piano rock)

Piano rock, Relient K is one of the only few pop punk bands that always has a piano on stage them lol.

Plus the piano almost gives them a unique twist in the pop punk genre.
It makes them sound more intelligent, especially with their quick witty lyrics.
Also, the Japanese Wikipedia has Piano rock listed as a genre in the Relient K genre list.
Smile Lee (talk) 13:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Citing ourselves

Are we allowed to cite ourselves? I see that a citation is needed for that they played the Adams Family Theme Song. I was at their concert last night, and they definitely covered it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowslayer978 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately no. References have to be "reliable, third-party published sources." (WP:V/WP:RS) – Skyezxmessage 18:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The best idea would be to use actual video footage from an example concert. It wouldn't be a completely reliable source, but I'm sure it would suffice in citing live covers, or concert events. Smile Lee (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Genre Change

Relient K is not a christian band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.132.201 (talk) 04:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

"The group is associated with the Contemporary Christian Music culture, most notably the Christian rock and Christian punk scene. Despite being a Christian band the group has performed alongside secular artists, and has had critical success with mainstream pop punk and alternative rock. The band's sound incorporates piano rock and acoustic elements; and the lyrical content often refers to God, Jesus, and the terms "You" and "Him" are used in reference to The Divine. Since its formation, Relient K has released five studio albums, seven EPs, two Christmas albums, and one collection of rarities. The band has received numerous awards including a Grammy Award nomination in 2003 for Best Rock Gospel Album and two Dove Awards." - Smile Lee (talk) 10:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Recording for new album and new website and new label

Hey I don't feel like editing this page to put in the info, but someone who is wikipedia savvy might wanna check this link out: http://ethanluck.com/ Ethan posted some very interesting information on his blog with that website today...71.60.143.36 (talk) 06:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's wait until something concrete comes out, otherwise we'll be borderlining WP:CRYSTAL. Shouldn't be too long until a reliable site picks it up. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 10:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

What the heck? You mean one of the band member's blogs isn't a "reliable site?" How could anything be MORE reliable? 64.179.37.3 (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Lol. You think no one has ever impersonated a mmeber of a band? The only way you can prove it's official, in Wikipedia terms, is if one of those sites i mentioned has used it as a source, which of course, they wouldn't. It's a Self-Published source, read more here. Just chill, I will add it as soon as a I see something, it won't be long. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 05:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that if someone was impersonating Ethan Luck so visably like that, he would sue them. 71.60.143.36 (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's Ethan's official blog, it's linked form their temp official site. Smile Lee (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

K/182 similarity

Does anyone think that Relient K and Blink-182 sound alike? I was introduced to 182 first, then time passed after not listening to anything, then I was introduced to Relient K. I thought that they sounded like someone (I had forgotten about 182), but I couldn't figure out who.

The funny part of this story: Just last January, when Rod Blagojevich was arrested, the newspaper said "Arrested? Say it ain't so, Blago". That's when I got All the Small Things stuck in my head. Later on, I heard a clip of First Date. Eventually, I re-found out (I don't know how to spell "re-found") that both songs are Blink 182. --WeezleBeezle (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

"Relient K as a Christian band" section

I do not believe that this section is needed. Almost every Chrsitian band has a controversy with someone saying "they aren't a Chrsitian band." It's silly to add it into this article when every band of the same genre has had that controversy. I will remove it, but if anyone sees some reason (a good one) for it to remain, please discuss it first so we can get this cleared up. Thanks in advance. IronCrow (talk) 04:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. If the section has not yet been deleted, I will delete it now. Jcpizzadude (talk) 20:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I removed it, but I am still unsure as to how that was added to the article. I'm guessing popularity of a band always makes one doubt what it it is. I suggest keeping a look our for anyone who wishes to start an edit war over this, however, it's highly unlikely... then again... it was added there in the first place. IronCrow (talk) 05:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

What the heck did you just do that's a very important piece of information, Wikipedia is about getting information and looking something up and learning about it basicly and some people want proof not just say so, so someone better put that back its really important! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.155.141 (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there's something called "useless information." Every band that is a Christian band, and I mean every Christian band, has that argument, some have the argument stretched to an even greater degree. It is even touched a bit on in the Christian rock and Christian metal pages. This argument that they are/are not a Christian band is not any more notable than say... Inhale Exhale or The Devil Wears Prada. Do you propose we insert that into every article of a Christian band? It is redundant and doesn't improve the article. IronCrow (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

But it helps the viewers of Wikipedia find what they want to know that's what wikipedia is about why else would this site exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.72.147 (talk) 20:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about adding every bit of information that can be put into an article, and not about trivia. Like I said, EVERY band has had the question asked: "Are you a Christian band" and jsut about everyone of them have had a similiar reply, "yes" or "You can call us that." It is redundant and irrelevant to add that to every one of these band pages. IronCrow (talk) 02:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it matters if "every band" has that controversy. The issue is, and if any of you go to the Relient K boards you know about this, people want to know if their favorite band is Christian. And Wikipedia, which formerly gave the answer in Matt Thiessen's words, no longer will tell them what they want to know. It doesn't matter if every band has that issue, we should give an answer to Relient K's Christianity because it is very important and some people become very concerned on whether or not they are Christian. I say we put it back because people want to know and it is important to them. At the very least, reinsert the quote at the beginning of the article. Thanks for reading even if you don't go along with it.RoryS89 (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)RoryS89

Well said and its two against one so majority wins change it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.72.147 (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Well come on change it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.78.70 (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It's consensus, not "majority rules." A consensus is a consensual agreement or collaborative resolution. Also, there was someone who agreed with me so it would be 2 and 2. Please read Wikipedia guidelines before acting as such. And like I said, Rory, every Christian band has the issue, and not only that, but this band's issue is not notable enough. Regardless of what a forum thinks and asks, that doesn't make the question notable enough. So what if "everyone wants to know if their favorite band is Christian" or "some people want to know." There's already an answer in the question everywhere on the page where it discusses genre. Wikipedia's notability does not go by "what people want to know," it goes by what is notable and what is not, there is no need to explain it if it is already implied within the article. IronCrow (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


Well...this band is actually christian, it's true, this can't be ignored...it's almos ridiculous to delete or to hide it from people. Anyway is's obvious if you really listen to them, i mean the lyrics. 9 September 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul 4God (talk • contribs) 21:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC) --Paul 4God (talk) 21:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Birds and the Beesides

Will somebody please put in Relient K's newest album into the discography? Thanks. AKAKJ52 (talk) 03:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

This page should only contain STUDIO albums. Birds and the Bee Sides is a COMPILATION album, thus it should not be listed here. If you click the link to the Relient K discography page, it will give you a list of all their official releases. Simple stuff. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 15:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The Bird and the Bess Sides is a combination of raritires, b-sides and new tracks. In fact, all of the Nashville Tennis EP is new studio material. I don't know how you would classify it. Wikiisawesome (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Um where is their self-titled album

I don't see any info on their self titled album and it's not like it's not important —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.237.76.115 (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

sorry i saw the link for it now —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.237.76.115 (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a link for it at the bottom of the page, but why isn't it in the history section? 207.119.55.125 (talk) 08:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge Matthew Thiessen and the Earthquakes into Matt Thiessen

I'm going to start merging these articles. See the discussion here. —Akrabbimtalk 16:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Citation about Schneck

This quotation, from the Mmhmm section, "Also in 2005, Jon Schneck joined as a third guitarist, as well as a banjo and bell player, to create a fuller, more distinctive sound. This was also because the band planned to add more piano, and having another guitarist gave Matt Thiessen the freedom to do that." is followed by this citation which includes none of the information in this statement. Does anyone know where it came from? I am adding a [citation needed] to it in the mean time. —Akrabbimtalk 19:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Band Name

The name for this band should be Relient k not Relient K. They even list the name on their webstie that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Conqueror Worm (talk • contribs) 05:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not the case. It is occasionally stylized as Relient k, but the title on the front page is <title>Relient K</title>. References to the band on the page, other than the graphic and social media account names, are all Relient K. Sorry. Also, the band's label lists it as Relient K. It will stay as Relient K until you can show some definitive proof to the contrary. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess you're right. I didn't investigate the website thoroughly enough, 'cause they do refer to themselves as Relient K. My bad. The Conqueror Worm (talk) 16:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Owl City

I believe there is a strong association between Owl City and Relient K. They toured together, a member of Relient K appeared on several songs of the Ocean Eyes album, and Adam Young, the main member of Owl City, produced a track on the Forget and Not Slow Down album of Relient K. If that's not an associated act, I don't know what is. --Fbifriday (talk) 02:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see the {{Infobox musical artist}} page, where it explains the |Associated_acts field. None of those relationships are notable enough to put in the infobox, which is intended to be a brief and succinct overview. It is not for cramming in every little detail about the band in box format. None of those things you mentioned qualify Owl City for inclusion in the infobox. They are notable for inclusion on the Matt Thiessen infobox (which it is), but not on the RK article. Since only Thiessen worked with Owl City on Ocean Eyes, it is not related to RK as a band, which is what this article is about. And one-time production isn't notable enough for the infobox either. All it really deserves is inclusion on the Forget and Not Slow Down article. —Akrabbimtalk 02:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Natural High 4

Not sure how [1] can be considered a spam link. First, it's a .org and as such does not have the mandate to make money. Second, there is a small store section, but the primary purpose of the site is informational including stating that the "DVDs are sent to over 90,000 schools, free of charge"--they're not trying to sell the primary product discussed on the site. If the link fails, another ref has to be provided to meet WP:V. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Albums listed on main page

I suggest Let it Snow Baby be taken of the main page album list because Christmas albums do not count as official albums, and only official albums should be listed there. That's what the discography page is for.JesusFreak89 (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Why are Christmas albums not "counted" as official albums? If it's not an official album, why are charting numbers kept for it? I suggest it stays since it's a studio album that gets regular rotation every Christmas. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
If you ask any of the band members or anyone in the music industry how many albums Relient K has, they would say six. If Let it Snow counts among those six, why doesn't anyone say seven? It's because when it comes to straight up "full length albums," demo albums, live albums, b-sides albums, and Christmas albums don't count among those. The six main albums are all that really should be on the main page. The discography is for everything else.JesusFreak89 (talk) 21:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Anyone? That's a wide-open comment. You didn't answer my question: why is it charted if it doesn't count. But I asked someone and they said the Christmas album does count. In fact it counts so much that they play music from it when on the Winter Slam tour. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
No I know it charts and they play music from it. But both apply to Bird and the Bee Sides as well. Yet it doesn't count. I would love if some other users on here would comment on this, nothing will be solved between us two. And just to clarify, I don't want it to seem like I am fighting with you or getting mad at you, cause I'm not, that would be senseless for me to do over a wikipedia article. But as for the albums on the main page, we kept it this way for a long time, it's the very reason there is a discography section. Note that Deck the Halls, Bruise Your Hand doesn't count either, and it's a Christmas album. And it's length doesn't matter, because Audio Adrenaline once had a full length album about 34 minutes in length. It is simply the nature of the album. But besides that, Let it Snow charts, yes. They play music from it, yes. But do you see what I mean when I say main album? A full length record that is not designated as an EP, Christmas album, demo, b-sides, live, anything else.JesusFreak89 (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I know what you mean, but this is a charting album whereas the others were not, and except for the voice-over in Auld Lang Syne all of the tracks in Deck the Halls, Bruise Your Hand are on Let it Snow.... It's also one of their top-selling albums, at least according to the local Christian music store. Seems that there is some sort of artificial barrier between "seasonal" and non-seasonal releases. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
If anything has to describe the album, such as "Christmas" or "b-sides" or "live" or "demo", that sets it apart from "album". So it is set apart, and therefore should stay apart from the albums. Why else on the discography page do we have it separated from the main six? And TBATBS did chart, we have that here on wikipedia.JesusFreak89 (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Do you have something to back that claim? The adjective for the albums are usually studio and live. EP is separate from a full-length release, but todays EPs are often longer than full-length albums in the 1960s and 1970s, which often clocked-in at around thirty to forty minutes. Granted, songs today are often longer today than in the 1970s too. I would argue that all of these categories are artificial classifications. My arguments carry as much weight as yours above.
So here's some conclusive proof, a precedent as it were. Trans-Siberian Orchestra has officially released five studio albums. Four of which are Christmas albums. Does it mean they have only released one album? All of their Christmas releases are listed in the Albums section of their discography.
So to address your point as to the classification of the albums here and on the band's discography section: it would be easy enough for me to go in and "fix" the classifications to match that of Trans-Siberian Orchestra. So instead of arguing about things like this, why not just add information to the articles instead? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The official Discography list template only recognizes the following categories:

  • studio
  • demo
  • ep
  • live
  • greatest
  • remix
  • box
  • compilation
  • cover
  • tribute
  • soundtrack
  • television
  • film
  • video
  • (unknown or typo)

Christmas/Holiday is not included. I have updated the band's discography to use the correct template and have removed the artificial distinctions. Still have to add the videos and merge in the singles. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Whoa hold up, you can't tell me I am not allowed to change something and then go and change something yourself without getting a concensus from the others users, that's not how we've done this for a long time. I say it stays the way it is until more people comment on this subject. Oh, and I think there is a difference with an orchestra band that specializes in Christmas music and a regular everyday rock band. And also, there is an "other" category on wikipedia. I think that easily signifies holiday. [2] JesusFreak89 (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll agree that TSO does mostly Christmas music but how do you explain that there's no category for Christmas/Holiday in the agreed-upon template for classifying albums? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Again, there is an "other" category. I believe the Karaoke could fall under that too. And again, you ignored my question of why you can edit the pages as you want to but tell me that I can't. And the new discography look can confuse people. If I came on here purely to find out what Relient K has released, I'd find it simple and easy to follow with everything separated, not all together with different color codes.JesusFreak89 (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
There is no "other" category. You only need to look above to see the categories. I'll assume you mean something other than the discography template. If you mean "unknown", that is synonymous with a typo.
With that said, if the discography template format confuses you, please suggest ways to make it less confusing, on its talk page. And it's not new, it's been around for more than three years. It's just gaining wider acceptance. The fact that the colour codes exist and classification by album type don't is precisely because it's not important. An opus is an opus and it doesn't matter to most people to assign artificial divisions between them. The thing that most listeners want to know is if it's good. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
There is an other category, see the link I gave you. And again, I am not trying to fight you just so you know, I am trying to see if people can work together on this rather than one person deciding every look of these pagesJesusFreak89 (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

matt vegetarian

is Matt a vegetarian? i have read he's loving of all animals.. but isn't listed under christian vegetarians so should he be —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.175.245 (talk) 11:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


No, Matt isn't vegetarian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.96.196 (talk) 07:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The Complex Infrastructure of The Female Mind

There is an interview or something where they say something along the lines of that the book didn't use most of the stuff they wrote or anything and the people basically just put Relient K on it to sell copies, does anyone know where that is? Glacialfox (talk) 17:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

New EP title

iTunes and Amazon believe it's called Is For Karaoke EP. From the album art, I would argue it's called Relient K is For Karaoke EP and one tweet, http://twitter.com/#!/relientK/status/85538493215936513, and a few others support that. In either case, is there any support for the title to remain K is For Karaoke EP? I will be making the change later today if no one objects. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is (here), but since you made me notice that iTunes and Amazon say otherwise, I'd go with Is for Karaoke. --Adamanttt (talk) 19:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Wow. More proof that JFH is not a reliable source? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Its one of the better sources left --Guerillero | My Talk 02:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
AP uses "K is For Karaoke EP." Since that is a RS (unlike Itunes) we should follow its lead --Guerillero | My Talk 02:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
But Amazon, iTunes, and the band don't call it that. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Can you find a review or news story from a major news source that supports your position?--Guerillero | My Talk 13:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
No. I can't find one to support any title. I suppose we could wait to see what Billboard calls it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
It appears that an anonymous editor is making the change to I for Karaoke. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Recent updates on their Facebook page that mention it call it "Is For Karaoke". When they call it an EP they call it "Is For Karaoke" EP, which means the EP is not part of the title.Glacialfox (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC).
As expected. Do you have a direct link to one of these? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
http://www.facebook.com/relientk/posts/10150342330059805 does this count? Glacialfox (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely! However, it's only one reference and not particularly binding, but good to see the band using the correct name for their album. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Band history corrections

Relient K (/rɨˈlaɪ.ɨnt ˈkeɪ/) is an American rock band formed in 1998 in Canton, Ohio, by Matt Thiessen, Brian Pittman, and Matt Hoopes[1] during the band's junior year in high school and their time at Malone University.

Correction: None of the original members of Relient K attended Malone or any other college. Hoopes & Pittman were still in high school when the band got signed to Gotee. They graduated early so the band could start touring. Hoopes' father worked for Malone and they lived down the road from the school, but Matthew never went to college. Dave Douglas, Relient K's third official drummer, was attending Malone when he was approached about joining the band.

The band is named after guitarist Hoopes' automobile, a Plymouth Reliant K car, with the spelling intentionally altered to avoid trademark infringement over the Reliant name.[2]

Correction: Both Hoopes and Thiessen had the same Plymouth Reliant K car - same year, same model and same color. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.219.135.247 (talk) 23:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

References would be helpful to support your statements. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Confusing wording

My edit was reverted, but the sentence as it currently reads implies the band only has two albums. --X883 (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes it was reverted because your phrase, "for the band's two studio albums which peaked in the top 15 of the U.S." was confusing as they had three albums that peaked in the top 15: Mmhmm, Five Score and Seven Years Ago and Forget and Not Slow Down while Collapsible Lung peaked at No. 16. When really they're probably best known for Two Lefts Don't Make a Right...but Three Do and the next two albums. You may be right that "for the two of the band's studio albums" makes it seem as though the band only had two albums. Perhaps better wording? "for their fourth and fifth album that peaked ..." or "for the albums released early in their career"? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
It would seem a more comprehensive rewrite of that paragraph or at least the surrounding sentences are in order, because the current wording strongly implies that no more than 2 of their albums reached this status. --X883 (talk) 19:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Relient_K/Archive_3&oldid=1144317158"