Talk:Foster the People

Disagreement on genres.
I would say they are alternative and indie rock/pop, but also electronica. But if we were to describe the band overall I would say alternative rock/ indie pop because those are there 2 main sounds. I think saying "Rock" is too broad. But they do have an Indie Pop element in their music. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.97.183 (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Can they be considered indie if their albums being released by Columbia Records? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Indie pop is a genre of music and is not related to how one's music is published. AntiCommons (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagree with the genre of indie pop not having to do with distribution MichaelStover (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * i think indie rock and alternative rock are fine their seems to be an over cluster of genres.Feedmyeyes (talk) 03:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Foster The People play all sorts of different genres of music, to classify the band as a whole is impossible, the genre should be 'foster pop' (Jononie (talk) 14:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC))
 * Foster pop... so, you just wanna make up genres? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 16:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * How do you suppose genres were once "made up" so long ago? or for that matter, continue to be created today? New sounds mean new genres that arise and to give foster the people their own genre name wouldn't be farfetched, especially considering they can't be properly labelled by anyone, and, there is a talk subtopic committed to solving the issue. I wouldn't be surprised that in five years 'foster pop' or something alike existed.(Jononie (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC))
 * I'm not sure if you're serious or just trolling, but most sources call them "indie pop". We can only list what other reliable sources report. Concocting genres out of thin air is original research. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 21:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you missed the whole point of my statement, names for genres of music weren't selected by mythical beings, they were selected by people as music changed and developed. Since FTP's music cannot be labeled, it should be given it's own genre. Otherwise call it what you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jononie (talk • contribs) 07:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I definitely did not miss your point. Who says FTP's music can't be labeled? Plenty of music critics have labeled their music, pretty consistently I might add. I don't see anything unique about it that would justify someone creating a new genre just for one group. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 18:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What defines a music critic? I listen to music, i judge music, that means i'm a music critic right? Well then as a music critic I decide that Foster the People should have their own genre. (Jononie (talk) 05:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC))
 * The genre of Foster The People is widely reported as the subset of alternative rock known as indie pop. No need for anyone to make up any new genres here. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Pumped Up Kicks
2x Platinum in the AUS http://www.ariacharts.com.au/pages/charts_display.asp?chart=1U50 --93.229.109.24 (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅  NYSM talk page  01:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Torches
Gold in the AUS http://www.aria.com.au/pages/httpwww.aria.com.aupageshttpwww.aria.com.aupageshttpwww.aria.com.auALBUMaccreds2011.htm --79.199.28.241 (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Is on http://www.ariacharts.com.au/pages/charts_display_album.asp?chart=1G50 not page listed. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Who cares about aptitude tests?
At the start of the Background and formation section there's a bit about a vocational aptitude test. I'm not from America but these things sound like a load of crap and not something life changing that needs to be in an encyclopaedia article about his band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grantwalls (talk • contribs) 07:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Mini-Bios
How successful does someone have to be to get an individual article? I think there should be at least some mini-biographies of the three bandmembers that includes basic information, such as when they were born, for starters. Ryoung 122 03:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * All individual band member pages are redirected to the foster the people band page as there is insufficient evidence on their background/early life/rise to individual prominence. (Jononie (talk) 17:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC))

If you wanna make them separate articles, why not right? I know I'd rather write articles for songs than people personally though. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 06:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Verification of past touring members (Haley Dekle and Arlene Deradoorian)
All of these are from 2014.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73qEJ3iRLRs (Live du Grand Journal)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOTQfDhL7DQ (London Live Special)

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/pictures/foster-the-peoples-sxsw-photo-diary-20140318/0882230 (Rolling Stone's SXSW coverage)

They were also present for the Spotify Sessions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:642:C104:9290:65E6:7E75:B3EC:6253 (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Foster the People. 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/20111010015839/http://www.fosterthepeople.com/us/news/saturday-night-live to http://www.fosterthepeople.com/us/news/saturday-night-live

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

promo content needs reduction
I'm seeing some typical fanboy errors here. For starters, there are entirely too many quotations. Most of those merely "color" something that's just been stated in plain language, and are (for purposes of an encyclopedia article) therefore redundant and likely to be removed.

Attention should be paid to really basic narrative. For instance, Foster "moved in with his uncle" but since no data is provided (the uncle's name, maybe? maternal, paternal, or was he an "uncle"?) the reader is left knowing only that this happened when Foster was somewhere between age 5 and 18.

Superlatives are another fancruft flag. Like referring to "Sit Next To Me" as a resounding success and a slow-burning success without even one citation to back that it was A SUCCESS at all. (Naturally, this is followed by yet another colorful quotation.)

So, much could go away. Weeb Dingle (talk) 14:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Feel free to make these changes yourself! -- Scjessey (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The still seems to have a fair bit of this, to be honest. Although it isn't too egrarious, it can still be improved. The article contains a lot of text that uses PR terms that have no clear meaning such as "viral", "buzz", etc. Ashmoo (talk) 10:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Is this article about the band or Mark Foster?
This article seems confused as to whether it is about the band or Mark Foster himself. Of course, he is the impetus for the band, but he has his own WP article, so purely biographical info that doesn't really affect the band itself (ie his pre-band drug addiction) should be in the article Mark Foster, not this one. Ashmoo (talk) 10:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)