Jump to content

Talk:t.A.T.u.

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

Russian pronunciation

[edit]

Who the hell had written this?.. o_O 

Та́ту​ (help·info) Russian pronunciation: [ˈtatu]

It's always Тату́ ([ta'tu]), like a tattoo. A native russian 11:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.212.146.10 (talk)

Can Somebody Please...

[edit]

Fix this article? It's fillied with [citation needed] and it's been like this for a while! I don't know how to do it myself but the article looks messy. Many thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.152.86.61 (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody...

[edit]

Somebody edited the article. They made it say "The group consults of hottie Lena Katina and even more hotter Yulia Volkova. If you find it, erase it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfaatnu (talk • contribs) 23:49, January 14, 2008

Never mind. I erased it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfaatnu (talk • contribs) 23:50, January 14, 2008

WP:BLP, POV, OR and fancruft

[edit]

I have removed a lot of info here. "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space." per WP:BLP

I also yanked a fair amount of unsourced POV and/or OR.

If you aren't sure why a particular piece was removed, you need a source for it in either case.

The article is still loaded up with a whole lot of fancruft. Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap, what a mess. And I mean your edits too, Mds. I count 90 tags added with these edits. Jesus H. Christ, haven't you ever heard of the {{unreferenced}} or {{refimprove}} templates? You've rendered the article almost unreadable to me, which strikes me as having two bad effects: (i) it deters other editors like myself from attempting a cleanup, partly because instead of having five or six big chunks to repair I have dozens and dozens of little tiny ones, and (ii) it looks like a WP:POINT violation; deliberately peppering these tags everywhere, instead of being a dispassionate copyeditor. God almighty, it really is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. If this is the kind of work the cleanup brigade are doing, I think my creation of a username was an act of unmerited optimism. 00DL's (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, not a WP:POINT situation. I was not "trying to disrupt wikipedia to make a point", I was tagging problems. I gave them time to improve, now I'm going to clean house.
This article has attracted very little of substance, and plenty of fancruft. Take a quick look at the edits since I added those tags. Roughly 75 edits. Here's what changed: Added one cite, added a little more uncited fancruft, repeated addition and deletion of copyrighted images in a non-fair-use context, repeated addition and deletion of slobbering fanboy stuff.
I could have just yanked it all as uncited, but I gave it a chance. Oh well.
Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody...

[edit]

Somebody edited the article. They made it say "The group consults of hottie Lena Katina and even more hotter Yulia Volkova. If you find it, erase it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfaatnu (talk • contribs) 23:49, January 14, 2008

Never mind. I erased it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfaatnu (talk • contribs) 23:50, January 14, 2008
The text in question was:
added by Tfaatnu 23:20, January 14, 2008
edited by Tfaatnu 23:20, January 14, 2008
deleted by Tfaatnu 23:49, January 14, 2008.
Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image deletions

[edit]

Regarding all of the discussion about images in the article here, here, here, here and here. If you are unsure if an image is copyrighted, it probably is. Copyrighted images can be used in articles in very limited circumstances, discussed at Wikipedia:FAIR#Images. Other uses must be removed, and frequently are. For legal reasons, leaving them up is not an option, no matter how upset you get about it. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question

[edit]

Maybe you guys discussed it or something but why did someone delete the Waste Managment article same for the Upravleniye Otbrosami they are current cds with singles already on air with images and everything. Just wondering... Alixb (talk) 22:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Full discussions can be found at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Waste_Management_(album) and [[1]]. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blog comments/joke album name/etc.

[edit]

Minor events in the life of the band, such as commentary on their blog and jokes they make about a "forthcoming album" (that's been delayed repeatedly), are not notable events. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A comment added along with the text this last time read: "!!!!STOP DELETING THIS; IT'S TRUE, IT'S NEWS AND IT'S ABOUT THE NEW ALBUM!!!!"
First, please do not add comments to the text of the article, use the talk page.
To the meat of the issue. This is not about whether or not it is "true", it is not a significant event in the history of the band. Yes, you are certainly correct that it is "news" (though minor news). In fact, that is the point. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and, as such, we attempt to avoid skewing articles toward coverage of current events. Ask yourself this: will the information you are adding be meaningful five years from now? In this case, it clearly would not, as it is a passing comment in the band's blog. Nothing more. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about...

[edit]

...listing public appearences and the like? And TV appearences such as MADTV and Jimmy Kimmel Live —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.216.45.236 (talk) 04:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One-time appearances, talk shows and the like are trivial unless there is something about the individual appearance that generates significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. An example of this would be the Sinead O'Conner appearance on Saturday Night Live, The Beatles on Ed Sullivan, etc. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

T.A.T.u and Rammstein

[edit]

Can someone please write something about T.A.T.u recording the song Moskau with Rammstein? I would do it but I don't have a clue how. It seems quite important as Rammstein are pretty popular and I'm surprised it isn't included yet. Thanks Sira Kasteya (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not anyone from t.A.T.u. on the vocals for Moskau. That was back in 2004; if it were a fact, it would have long been up here. AndarielHalo (talk) 04:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not t.A.T.u it is Viktoria Fersh a guest vocalist only to Moskau on the Reise Reise CD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.149.109.214 (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What A DIRECTOR

[edit]

the director has made the girls act lezbiens how weird but apart from that there a great band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.76.168.216 (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, they're not lesbians? Could've fooled me. Coffee5binky (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's strange that it's not more about the lesbian behaviour of the band in the article. Has it caused any controversy in russia? If so, it would be notable. If not, it would be even more notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.89.8.48 (talk) 03:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linkage question

[edit]

In the section where the article references the first recordings, the title of the first song recorded was given ("Yugoslavia"), but, despite the fact that the word Yugoslavia was clearly the Title of the song, the link created from the word went to the country's page, not a page for the song itself - even though the song title listed next to it in the same paragraph goes to the song's page. This seems to be a deceptive linkage and I would recommend either removing the link completely, linking to a page on the song or finding some way to make clear in advance that the link will go to the country's page, not to eh song link as expected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackfyr (talk • contribs) 02:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I've removed the link; if anyone wants to find out about the country, they can do so from the immediately following link about the subject of the song. Incidentally, I think you could have been bold in this instance and made this change yourself.VoluntarySlave (talk) 03:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lesbian aspect

[edit]

Should (or at least, could) be a larger part of the article. Whether the PR guy that seems to write this page would like it or not, it's what made this group distinct because of the way that they were (relentlessly) marketed in their performances and music videos, at least in the beginning of their careers. If it were true, than great, but if it was fabricated, it has pretty serious implications and ramifications about the band, and how the band was assembled. I KNOW there has been criticism written about this, too. Yet, when I read this article, there were only one or two vague references about it. Also, the structure of this article is strange, and contains a lot of boring information. Maybe it's the PR guy or some zealous fan, but shouldn't this page be written with some sort of United States point of view? This group has fallen off the map in the US, and it was years ago at that! There's no mention of criticism, there's no mention of album sales (and declining sales/popularity), there's just an overabundance of general facts which fails to speak to the distinct notoriety that this group enjoyed when they first came out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.8.197 (talk) 08:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(hate to break it to you but this is the WORLD WIDE web. someone not from america)
Agree with the IP editor - and shamelessly relocated their comment. You seem to be confused over what an encyclopaedia actually is: It is a collection of facts - some of which might be boring to you, but not to others. If you want to add sourced comments about their lesbian marketing, go ahead, but please don't give me an excuse to slap a {{globalize/USA}} template on this otherwise fine article... a_man_alone (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right - a U.S. "point of view" is a poor choice of words. Perhaps a mention of their brief period of infamy in the United States? After all, they tried to make it in the U.S., and then it seemed like nothing worked out. Again, it seemed as if there was a backlash here in the U.S.

But why not look at the entirety of my comment, instead of the one sentence which would be easiest to argue with, and ultimately dismiss. It seems like mentions of their US failures are omitted because a mention of that blunder would lead to a mentioning of the backlash.

You see, condescending guy, I do understand what an encyclopedia is. I think if all of you 'men alone' out there want to talk about your favorite band, it needs to contain pertinent information. This band tried really hard to make it on MTV and failed big-time. That failure came from the considerable amount of criticism about the faux-lesbian style that defines this band, that's haphazardly mentioned once or twice briefly in this article. In fact, in the one sentence buried in this article, one of the performers complains about it (the fake-lesbian stuff) as well.

An encyclopedia contains PERTINENT information. Some really interesting information lacking from this article, information which would shed light on why the band left the United States, and would elucidate on the band's dissatisfaction with management in the present. All this article has is a collection of banal facts, providing extensive detail on monotonous activities which are NOT suitable for an encyclopedic article, but an autobiographical novel. Should I write a 20 paragraph article about a neighbor's garage band, or a make-believe band? No, because they wouldn't be relevant. The details here are superflous because this band is no longer relevant, and was only relevant for a brief period of time, because of facts and dynamics strangely omitted from this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.8.197 (talk) 06:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be confused over what an encyclopaedia actually is: It is a collection of facts - some of which might be boring to you, but not to others. If you want to add sourced comments about their lesbian marketing, go ahead, but please don't give me an excuse to slap a {{globalize/USA}} template on this otherwise fine article. a_man_alone (talk) 07:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It’s a bit weird (flow and logic wise) to read a while paragraph about “controversy” yet not mention what the actual controversy is.


I personally have only heard of tatu for the first time this week, and watched only one 5min complication live video- and it’s obvious to me there was an lesbian element. Cilstr (talk) 00:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image and controversy

[edit]

I am amazed that the article seems to totally avoid the early career and success of the band being largely due to their lesbian schoolgirl image. That Ya Soshla Suma/ All The Things She Said and the accompanying video caused ructions across Europe and was banned from pre-watershed viewing in UK, that Eurovision asked them not to do anything outrageous or that Richard Madley threatened to sue the manager for suggesting he (Madley) was a paedophile would perhaps be worthy of attention. (79.190.69.142 (talk) 21:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Agreed, this article seems to gloss over that fact. --46.9.136.74 (talk) 01:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With valid sources and citations to prove this information, it could be added to the article. Even if we think it's true that t.A.T.u.'s early success came from the lesbian image, the article needs sources to back it up for this to be included. This would apply to the other points made also. But I might as well point out that the music video was shown regularly on music channels during the day in the UK (pre-watershed) and was only "banned" on one BBC music show called Top of the Pops (with the BBC themselves denying they had banned the video and had shown exclusive performance footage instead - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/2723941.stm). Omfgski (talk) 14:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

footnote 71 is dead link. This one works: http://blender500.blogspot.co.at/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.191.144.71 (talk) 22:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


‘But! I want to say that I’m not against gays, I just want my son to be a real man, not a fag. This links to THE Norwegian magazine for and about LBGT persons/culture. Scroll down for pictures relevant to this. These statements coming from a a former lesbian icon I find Volkova Julia Olegovna statements (man has no right to be a fag) relevant and insulting. the rest of the article confirms a lot of the controversy, but in Norwegian. I can translate but WITP Edit: here is the same information from Huffington Post. I leave the blikk ref, as i find the translated images have impact. 

  Here is the source of the Blikk and huffington articles. above. Storloff (talk) 05:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Cultural Significance

[edit]

Whatever proclivities they may have instilled elsewhere, in the US they hold great esteem as pop-culture icons and should be entitled to some recognition as free-speech advocates. They are important models for young people, and even though they are not gay, they're message is important and as worthy as much as anyone else's in humanity. What I'm saying is, they should be credited as a contributing substantially toward human rights in the new century in this article.Dirt290 (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Records sold? Article has contradictory numbers

[edit]

In the introduction it says "As of 2012, t.A.T.u. have sold over 25 million records". However under legacy we learn that "To date, the group have sold over 13 million records worldwide." Technically, this isn't wrong, 25 million IS "over 13 million", but you get my point. 77.11.92.119 (talk) 13:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on T.A.T.u.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on T.A.T.u.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on T.A.T.u.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 22:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 00:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on T.A.T.u.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 18:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 22:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Years active

[edit]

Since they were doing commercials and small shows throughout 2012-2014 after splitting up and then reunited briefly in 2016 shouldn't the active years be 1999-2011, 2012-2014, 2016, 2022 or simply 1999-2014, 2016, 2022 instead of 1999-2011, 2022? 2603:7080:C02:1100:893F:BAE7:E789:96A7 (talk) 14:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"1999-2011; occasional reunions" might be better, because this could go on for a while and become quite messy.Tuzapicabit (talk) 18:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:T.A.T.u.&oldid=1252177928"