Talk:Traveling Wilburys

Initial text

Title of this has spelling error: travelling should be traveling. How does one change an entry title? user:JDG

I thought that there was a volume 2, but it was never released because Roy Orbison died, and they decided it should only go out after they all died. Ergo, volume 3. MShonle 02:26, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

George Photo

I don't see what the White Album photo of George Harrison adds to the article; the timeframe is wrong and the famousness of the image in another context distracts. The group photo is better and should be the featured one. I've removed the George photo for now, if others disagree we can discuss here. Jgm 23:49, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The "End of the Line" chord

User:Wahkeenah seems upset to the point of Godwinizing the process about the removal of a bit of trivia. Sorry you took offense to this; even in a "trivia" section a statement about one chord on one song on one Wilburys album seems too trivial. Mentioning it on an article about the particular song, as you've now done, seems much more appropriate. So, good show all around. Jgm 17:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I was irritated at the tone of arrogance taken by whoever deleted it initially without discussion. As long as everyone's happy with the current setup, I'm happy too. :) And don't get carried away with the "Godwin's law" stuff. I'm using "Nazi" in the same way that Jerry Seinfeld called that one guy the "Soup Nazi". Wahkeenah 21:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about the general tone I was using to you before, wikina. I will let the statement stand in the End Of The Line article. Graham/pianoman87 talk 05:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

No worries, mate. :) Wahkeenah 06:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Another few random bits about Tweeter and the Monkey Man

Tweeter and the Monkey Man was covered by a small Canadian band, The Headstones. There's also a rock tribute band of that name, with a website at the title + .com.

Apparently Monkey Man is a known term in the blues world, at least according to this page at bobdylan.com: "In the Travelin' Wilburys' late-80s Dylan song 'Tweeter And the Monkey Man', 'Tweeter' might be new but "the monkey man" is straight from the blues world. One strategy for surviving the semi-itinerant life was for the male blues singer to attach himself to a sexy woman who could also cook and make money; in effect he would then rent her out to a "monkey man" - a dupe who would give her money and gifts in the mistaken belief that he alone was her love-object: money that would end up in the bluesman's pocket." Just thought I'd mention these bits here, in case anyone else ever wants to know. ;-) JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Picture

Isn't that a picture of a pirated compilation? If so it's hardly appropriate. It's also creased. If an album scan is acceptable under Fair Use couldn't someone scan the cover of, say, Volume 1? --kingboyk 22:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that would make a lot of sense. Please, go ahead and do it... JesseW, the juggling janitor 18:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Volume 2

The article states "Volume 3 as a nod of recognition to bootleggers who had issued 'Volume 2' containing early studio mixes/alternate takes" but I've read on several sites that it was because Tom Petty's album, Full Moon Fever was unofficially subtitled volume 2, as George Harrison, Roy Orbison and Jeff Lynne also colaborated together with Petty on that. I've also read, though less frequently, that the skipping of volume 2 was to pay tribute to Roy Orbison's passing. I've searched around and can't find anything definitive to prove or disprove any of the three suggestions. Does anyone have something that authenticates one of the stories? If not, I'd like to add a section that briefly discusses all three possibilities.

Nothing really to add except that I'm sure I remember reading an interview with TP shortly after Orbison's death in which he said something like 'There can't/won't be a Volume 2 without Roy Orbison'

Something definitely needs to be said about this, because it's rather confusing to read the article with text only regarding Vol. 1 & 3. --Belg4mit 21:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I always just assumed it was a joke, nothing deeper in meaning than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.156.213 (talk) 22:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

On Tom Petty's 'Running down a dream' doco, either Tom or Jeff Lynne(I believe it was Jeff) explain this. As someone already commented, there were bootlegs already out called 'Traveling Wilburys: Vol 2", therefore they called the real album volume 3. I can find that part again and quote it exactly if anyone needs it.. The Muss (talk) 13:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

In the booklet for ther Traveling Wilbuyrs Collection it says it was a joke that thought up by George Harrison. The Wilburys did say that "There will not be a Vol. 2 without Roy Orbison." though.--132.3.9.68 (talk) 12:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

United World Chart

I removed the assertion that being number one in this chart was even more important, apart from the incorrect grammar, would it really be any more important than top ten in the billboard chart or #1 in the UK chart. I will bow to a higher authority but i personally dont agree.Eisner 09:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The Misspelling of the Name

Does anyone feel it is worth commenting on how or why the band has misspelled their name? LogicalOctopus (talk)

They haven't. Using a single "l" in the first word is ok in the US although not traditionally in the UK; ending the second word "ys" rather than "ies" is ok on both sides of the pond when the word is a name (eg: if the family name was Petty then you would refer to them as the Pettys, not the Petties). Sitush (talk) 02:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the single l is more common in the U.S. Obviously they had to compromise. 207.210.134.83 (talk) 15:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Videos

Someone (not me) added a link on 17 Jan to the Wilburys videos on Rhino's site, but the link was later removed by MER-C. It seems to me that since the videos were on a legitimate site (not YouTube or a blog), run by the band's current label, that this link was a valid addition. Unless someone knows of a Wikipedia policy against all video links, I think this one should be reinstated. EJSawyer (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

 ---addendum ---

I came upon this article, while watching PBS's documentary on this band. According to Jeff Lynne, he suggested Tom Petty to George, because he was working with him at the time. George, said something like "Of course, Tom, too."

Now, I'm no expert on this topic, but it was Jeff Lynne talking on the video on PBS, so maybe it wasn't George leaving his guitar behind at Tom's house, that brought the thought of Tom being included, too. Up to you, of course. Maybe this video can be found on YouTube or PBS to verify?

Atwhatcost (talk) 04:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

Unlike The Beatles or The Rolling Stones, the Traveling Wilburys did not use the definite article "the" before their name on any of their published works. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name).

It appears this page was initially moved on the basis of the title of the 2007 release The Traveling Wilburys Collection and the incorrect notion that "The Traveling Wilburys" was a possessive pronoun (it would have read The Traveling Wilburys' Collection if that was the case) rather than an adjective. Piriczki (talk) 11:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Your analysis seems to be accurate. The article was recently moved, and the editor didn't discuss it. I support a move back to Traveling Wilburys. -FrankTobia (talk) 03:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, looking at the CD next to me (the 2007 collection fwiw) it's just Travelling Wilburys. Skimming this Talk page also turns up a quote on bobdylan.com which doesn't use The either. The move back seem correct to me. Caomhin (talk) 08:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree, all the other wikipedias call them simply "Traveling Wilburys". ☺ Spiby ☻ 09:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Moved. Seems pretty uncontroversial... Fram (talk) 11:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a small point, but on their official website they are almost exclusively called the Traveling Wilburys, or The Traveling Wilburys, but never just Traveling Wilburys. Whenever "Traveling Wilburys" is used alone it is always used to name a derivative work, albums, photo albums, etc. Also, the Traveling Wilburys' logo does have a fairly obvious "the" in it, which seems a rather large fact to have been overlooked. I, for one, would say, despite the album names, that the logo, complete with the word the, should be enough to send this page back to The Traveling Wilburys.mpbx (talk) 12:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The Traveling Wilburys are Traveling Wilburys who are close friends, They are a group of friends who did not form a band but collaborated on two albums end of story! They made music incredible music for the sake of having fun. They played around with making up names etc. Thats what makes it all great and people need to take it for what it is and not make more that what is it, it's ridiculous to see how many people in this world want to correct the name, how it spelled blah blah blah , GET YOUR OWN LIFE ALREADY and leave the musicians alone as you can see they don't want or need your help to clarify thier own information to make you feel better, they owe YOU NOTHING, the music is REWARD ENOUGH .... like or lump it for crying out Loud! This is the greatest Albums ever produced, that is my strong opinion and this is one you will sing for ages and through generations I am proud to have been able to hear it. Truly a happy accident! Debra Stella Eastie Pride! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.209.213 (talk) 16:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. All the information has to be as correct as possible. We can't just say, "It doesn't matter how to spell their name because they were a great band." McLerristarr (talk) 02:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

In response to Mclay1 What doesn't matter is the corrections every one wants to input, all you have to do is talk to them they will tell you we are / were Traveling Wilburys not The Traveling Wilburys so no it does not matter because The group of friends who made the music itself is not be accounted for it's people's opinions trying to be forced here! So people running this site should get the name correct. Go straight to the top the people who are responsible for the Incredible Music produced. Tom Petty said Jeff came up with we are Traveling Wilburys and furthermore ... The only Links connected to this page should be of the Artist and the Videos of the Artists Albulm(s)/CDS. Debra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.238.208 (talk) 12:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Del Shannon?

I have a vague memory that when Roy Orbison died, there were plans for Del Shannon to take his place in the band. Does anyone know anything about this, or am I just imagining it? AuntFlo (talk) 08:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested protection

{{editsemiprotected}} This page needs to be semi-protected due to excessive spamming by unregistered users, mainly people adding random celebrities to the line-up. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 12:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Go to WP:RFPP to request page protection, if you feel it is needed. Celestra (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Parody group.

The parody group The Traveling Pillsburys based their name on The Traveling Wilburys. Bizzybody (talk) 05:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's important to the article. McLerristarr / Mclay1 15:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Order of list of band members

I tried to rework the lead-in's list of main Wilburys but the change was immediately undone by another contrib, so I figured I'd best raise the issue here on the talk page (should've probably raised it here to start with, I realise). My thinking was/is that an alphabetical list of participants is not an accurate reflection of the line-up, no more than if Harrison were to be listed first in The Beatles' line-up (Harrison, Lennon, McCartney, Starr). With the WIlburys, Harrison has been acknowledged as the leader by Petty and Lynne – Petty calls him "the ideas man", and both have referred to Harrison being a Wilbury for the rest of his life – and as an act, the Wilburys were automatically signed under Harrison's second Warner Bros. deal. Having Dylan listed first isn't reflective also because he neither took part in any promotion for their two albums, nor played in the rare live performances under the loose "Wilburys" identity (i.e., Petty's set at Concert for George in 2002, and Harrison's posthumous R 'n' R Hall of Fame induction in 2004). I realise that an alpha order that puts Dylan first isn't necessarily stating that Bob was the band's leader, it's just that, as with naming participants for The Concert for Bangladesh in alpha order (ie, Clapton, Dylan, Harrison, etc, as it was and perhaps still is in those album and film credits), it's misleading, and alternatives have been suggested ...

Turning to reliable sources, The New Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll (Fireside/Rolling Stone Press, 1995; ISBN 0-684-81044-1) gives the order as follows: Harrison, Dylan, Lynne, Petty, Orbison. Personally, I think that's still flattering Dylan's role, but the point is that, in an encyclopaedic setting, Harrison is listed first. Allmusic also lists Harrison first (although I'd hesitate before calling Allmusic reliable ...). I notice the article's lead-in currently carries a ref quoting Mo Ostin's liner notes for the 2007 TW Collection; on page 2 of the booklet (reproduced on the official website), Ostin writes: "The five frontmen (Harrison, Lynne, Petty, Dylan, and Orbison) decided not to use their own names." Again, Harrison appears first, and (I'd suggest) a correct second-in-the-list for Jeff Lynne. Because, as discussed in this article, and as Lynne has mentioned in interviews, the concept for the Wilburys was born in the UK in 1987; also, Harrison and Lynne carried out a significant amount of overdubs at Friar Park without the others – those two were the main creators, and as the lead-in states, the Wilburys were an "English–American" band (not "American–English", despite being three-fifths American until Orbison's death). And Simon Leng makes the point that Harrison stepped up even more in terms of producer and leader during the second album. I'd be interested to know what other contribs think, because credit where it's due, this was Harrison's baby, just as the Bangladesh project was his (and Ravi's) creation, and not the work of Clapton, Dylan or whoever else happened to have a surname beginning with a letter closer to the start of the alphabet. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 10:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The whole point of the TW was they were an "accidental" band with no leaders and each member took joy in being part of a band rather than a solo act (other sources may wish to counter that, but is against the facts), your repeated denigration of Dylan's contribution above shows that you are talking "let's big up Harrison here because he was a Beatle and everybody else is inconsequential." Won't wash. Your edit about GH being most important as he was a Beatle gave the game away. If you check the edit history you will note that others have tried to amend the order of the names and have been reverted by other editors. My time this time, let's stick alpahabetical, shall we? There is already community consensus. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Richhoncho, I don't really understand your attitude, but perhaps you've misunderstood what I was trying to say, or I didn't state it clearly enough. Not for a minute was I suggesting that, simply because George Harrison was a Beatle, he was automatically the leader or that Dylan's (or anyone's) contribution was inconsequential. "Gave the game away" – what? Not that it's relevant, but I'm a huge Dylan fan, and would ordinarily place Dylan above Harrison or any Beatle in any list of artists; my point is, in the Wilburys context, Harrison was and is viewed as the leader, if anyone is – that is acknowledged by the sources I mentioned above. And there are precedents for breaking with the alpha-order approach, as mentioned also. So, "[your] time this time"? Well, not necessarily – I'd like to hear what other editors have to say and/or find out about this community consensus you mention. JG66 (talk) 11:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The albums themselves are inconsistent about this; Volume 1 lists Dylan first, while Volume 3 has Harrison first. And neither listing seems to have a rhyme or reason to it. I say we list them in the article as the separate albums do. But as far as the infobox and template go, I think we should probably put George first, since the group originated from his Cloud Nine album. The rest of the members could be listed alphabetically since they all came in to help him originally with "Handle with Care". Other good reasons for putting George first have already been given by JG66. The Wookieepedian (talk) 15:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with JG and Wookieepedian. I have always thought George was the 'leader' of the Wilburys, and Dylan should be closer to end of the names, due to the amount of his contribs to the band an' all. I have the vinyl box set of the 2007 Collection (which might have different booklet content to the 2007 CDs?), that I could check to see what it says, in a day or so. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 17:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, The Wookieepedian and Yeepsi. I've just been looking through sources I have here, and the more I've looked into the issue, the more it seems that only this wikipedia article (in its lead-in and infobox) does not list Harrison first or actually acknowledge that he was the leader. These sources include (I'll skip the ISBNs and pub details): Mo Ostin's liner notes, reproduced in full at that web link above; Harrison biographer Simon Leng's While My Guitar Gently Weeps (mentions include Harrison being "clearly the Wilburys' leader", their "manager", the "power" behind the Wilburys); Tom Petty quoted in The Editors of Rolling Stone's Harrison, saying it was "George's baby"; Petty in Olivia Harrison's Living in the Material World, saying "George's idea was that he would handpick everybody in the band, and it'd be the perfect little band"; Harrison biographer Ian Inglis talks about George's "de facto leadership" of the Wilburys; Madinger & Easter's Eight Arms to Hold You and Keith Badman's The Beatles Diary (the latter quoting the first announcement of the band, from USA Today in August 1988) both list Harrison first also. Alan Clayson, Leng and Madinger & Easter all repeat the story of Harrison and Lynne "persuading" the others to form a band and record an album (straight after Harrison's meeting with Mo Ostin, post-"Handle With Care" recording). Those same sources, as with individual entries in Badman's Diary, also mention how much Harrison led the band outside of the studio, by ringing in friends like Michael Palin and Derek Taylor for the humorous album liner notes and Wilbury back-story; Jim Horn, Ray Cooper and film director David Leland all came to the project via Harrison; a movie was planned, through his HandMade Films company. Also worth pointing out that, not only were the Wilburys' albums effectively treated as Harrison solo releases by Warner's (so ending his commitments to WB, according to Clayson), but unlike Dylan, Petty and Lynne's careers at this point, Harrison's solo career virtually became his activities on the band's behalf in 1988–90 – plenty of promotion, as listed in Badman and described in Clayson, as well as those other activities just mentioned. (Bob was working nonstop, on the various legs of his Never Ending Tour and recording two albums; Petty finished his solo album, toured extensively with The Heartbreakers through to early 1990; Lynne produced, from memory, the Petty album, Del Shannon, Jim Horn, and finished his own solo album; Harrison meanwhile played on one-off sessions for Clapton, Petty, Lynne and others, but took on no production projects, and his only solo output during the Wilbury years was the "Cheer Down" single and two bonus tracks for the Best of Dark Horse comp.) Another thing: in all the sources that go into some detail about the formation of the band – Mo Ostin, Madinger & Easter, Leng and Clayson – Jeff Lynne is seen as the second main protagonist. As I've said, wikipedia seems to be the only place where Dylan appears first in a list of band members, but similarly, judging by those last four sources, a correct, authoritative order would appear to be: Harrison, Lynne, Dylan, Petty, Orbison.

I realise I've only talked about Harrison and Beatles sources. I can recall Lynne stating that Harrison was the group's true leader (it's either on Concert for George disc 2, Scorsese's LITMW, or maybe the Wilburys DVD ...). All I currently have on Dylan is Howard Sounes' Down the Highway, which gives little space to the Wilburys but introduces the period with: "When Bob's career was reaching its nadir he was unexpectedly lifted up with a big success, thanks to his friend George Harrison ..." Anyway, with all this info, I'm hoping other contributors might agree that Harrison being listed first is the correct approach. More than anything, if the Mo Ostin ref is supporting that list of band members in the article's lead-in, then the order definitely needs to changes surely. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

If I was making the rules, I would list them in the order they appear in the photograph from left to right. However, Template:Infobox_musical_artist#past_members suggests that they be "listed in order of joining". GoingBatty (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure a book about GH listing him as the most important member of anything is quite the independent verifiable reference I would rely on. I may also be wrong, but most references suggest that GH wanted to being "part of a band," rather than the "leader of a band." Going Batty's suggestion is much nearer the spirit of TW, except we would argue which photo should be used. I would suggest as a compromise, unless some nice independent references come up, is that the lead para contains the words "in alphabetical order." This gets away from your objections to Dylan looking like the leader, which I do appreciate, ("don't follow leaders, watch the parking meters") and does not negate the contributions of any of the members.

If you asked me to list the members of TW in order, I would say: Harrison, Lynne, Petty, Dylan, Orbison. That is apparently in agreement with Mo Ostin's TW Collection liner notes. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 17:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. - Its my understanding, though I can't think of the exact source off-hand (Wilbury's Collection CD extras?), that what became "the Wilburys" was essentially an attempt to build a band around the sound of Harrison's demo for "Handle me with Care". Unquestionably, Harrison was the leader of this particular super-group if ever they had one, and he is almost certainly the original member. So per GoingBatty's wise deference to Wiki-guidelines, I suggest we start with Harrison and procede from there, determining who joined when wherever possible and using age or alphabet to sort out any uncertainties. I want to say Petty joined last, as I seem to remember him remarking something about "how could he not join", given the bandmates but again, the specific source eludes me right now. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Putting together some guys for a session is not the same as putting a band together. So let's leave the opinions out and stick to referenced facts, shall we? --Richhoncho (talk) 08:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I just think that the concept of the "leader" of any band can be subjective and in a way meaningless. Why does any importance need to be attached to this concept that is so vague? And especially for a band like the Wilburys that was spontaneous, and where everybody was contributing musical ideas and vocals, I really think the idea of leadership has all the less clarity and meaning. In short, I would oppose putting Harrison's name first. I wouldn't be opposed to using the phrase "in alphabetical order" to keep it neutral and not have it look like we're suggesting Dylan is somehow the leader. Moisejp (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Per GoingBatty's above comment, "Template:Infobox_musical_artist#past_members suggests that they be 'listed in order of joining'". So while it is debatable who was the actual "leader", it is well-known that Harrison's compositon "started" the band and that their two hits were penned primarily by Harrison. So whether or not he was the band's "leader", Harrison should be listed first, as the first member of the band. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

GabeMc writes, it is well-known that Harrison's compositon "started" the band... Songs do not start bands and the comment, in article space, fails WP:SYNTH. This discussion is all rather wonderfully pointless. It ignores two other major WP policies, WP:V and WP:NPOV. If it can be independently ascertained that GH actually formed and lead TW, then my argument ceases to exist - I have no alternative but to agree. BUT, at the moment all I am seeing is opinion and WP should NOT written by, for, with or on opinion. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Have to say, I'm a bit confused by some of the positions adopted here. The unsigned user above is waiting for some "nice independent references" while others seem to be looking for any WP guideline they can find to avoid making a change that is supported by both the specialist (Harrison) sources and the independent ones mentioned above. I've taken part in a few WP discussions in the past, and the mantra always seems to be, "What do the reliable sources say?" – but this time around, apparently not, or the reliable sources provided are just being ignored. So okay, the Harrison bios ... There's a logical reason why GH biographers Leng, Clayson and Inglis go into such detail about the WIlburys, and in doing so, claim Harrison's leadership role in the band: he as good as founded the Wilburys; he devoted almost all of his career to it during 1988–90; it was the sort of band set-up he'd craved since the early '70s, and he gave it everything, way outside of the weeks when all the others were involved. (Leng & co. would be pretty lousy biographers if they didn't come up with that conclusion, I suggest.) And we shouldn't forget that, be it Bangladesh, working with Apple and Dark Horse Records acts, his 1974 North American tour with Shankar and Preston, HandMade Films, etc, Harrison's style of leadership was always very understated – he had no problem letting others shine more brightly than him for the greater good. As Dylan states in his book Chronicles, he (Bob) was at an all-time low creatively and confidence-wise in 1987–88; quite the opposite (at that time, at least) for Harrison, who was happy to share the credit in the Wilburys, and hoped more than anything that Bob would find his confidence and start writing again. Dylan biographers, on the other hand, give the two Wilburys albums a cursory mention, because the TWs were a few weeks of fun for Bob, it seems, nothing more. (It's quite revealing surely that the Wilburys don't even rate a mention in the lead-in to wikipedia's Bob Dylan FA, no?) These GH biographers are not trying to elevate Harrison beyond his status – in fact, the likes of Clayson and Beatles authors Madinger & Easter seem to go out of their way to create a negative picture of Harrison's achievements most of the time, while Inglis is utterly un-emotive in his biography, certainly not one prone to falsify a situation. But as I say, I'm confused: I've given examples above of (very) nice independent references – The New Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll; Allmusic; Mo Ostin's liner notes, on the official Traveling Wilburys website, no less. (And Rolling Stone hardly have a reputation for over-stating George Harrison's importance either, it has to be said ...) All of those three independent sources list Harrison first and, in Ostin's case, he clearly states that this project came together through George Harrison. Mo's no journo or critic, by the way; he's an industry man, the much-admired head of Warner's, and he rejected George's original submission of the Somewhere in England album (in case anyone's thinking Ostin ever allowed friendship to pervade his professional judgment). And, to repeat, after checking all those sources mentioned in my messages above, this wikipedia article is the only place that doesn't acknowledge Harrison as first in a list of members and/or as band leader. So I'm not sure where we go from here, because personally, I don't care if George is listed first (and Jeff Lynne second) – because I can live with a wikipedia article being wrong. But I know that the most informed sources, and/or the authors that have done the research, see it that way (Harrison first; Lynne second), and I thought wikipedia was about trying to get things right, not going with preconceived notions. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Very well said JG66. The Rolling Stone encyclopedia (2005, p.1002) lists Harrison, Dylan, Lynne, Petty then Orbison. Ingham lists them in the identicle order.(2009, p.139) Question: If Harrison wasn't the first to join then who was? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Traveling Wilburys. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130729185601/http://www.georgeharrison.com/sites/default/files/Wilburys_Stream.html to http://www.georgeharrison.com/sites/default/files/Wilburys_Stream.html

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Traveling Wilburys. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chartstats.com/artistinfo.php?id=10999
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090430201954/http://www.cria.ca/goldplat.php to http://www.cria.ca/goldplat.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090924000000/http://www.bpi.co.uk/certifiedawards/search.aspx to http://www.bpi.co.uk/certifiedawards/search.aspx

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) 22:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Traveling Wilburys. 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://archive.is/20140401071603/http://esportefino.cartacapital.com.br/ayrton-wilbury-nasceu-do-amor-a-musica-e-a-formula-1 to http://esportefino.cartacapital.com.br/ayrton-wilbury-nasceu-do-amor-a-musica-e-a-formula-1

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) 12:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Associate acts

I've removed The Beatles, Electric Light Orchestra, Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers from the "Associated acts" section in the infobox. Per Template:Infobox musical artist#associated_acts, they do not belong here as only one member from this supergroup was part of each of these bands. That alone does not make them associated. 216.163.247.1 (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree that's probably correct, at least if one takes the three acts at face value. I wonder, though, whether someone added them to Associated acts because Jeff Lynne produced two singles for the "reunited" Beatles in 1994–95, and over 1991–92 he produced and performed on an album (Into the Great Wide Open) by Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers as well as their contribution ("Christmas All Over Again") to Jimmy Iovine's A Very Special Christmas 2. JG66 (talk) 03:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

"The"? Or no " The"?

Either their name begins with The or it doesn't. I'm taking this word away from the beginning of the article because it doesn't belong.

If you believe it does belong, then FIRST get the title of the article changed. Until then, leave it out. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

"Members" infobox

What source is being used to identify people as band members? It's not necessary to use a cite directly in the IB itself, but the list appearing here seems to contradict the body text. For example then whole additional "Sidebury" gag. Then we have non-musician 'Wilbury' aliases mentioned too. My inclination is this should just for clarity list the five 'frontmen', as per the landing page of their own website, and leave the nuances of others for the body. But perhaps there's a clear source otherwise. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 08:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)