Talk:Van Halen

From Homestar Runner Wiki

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(→Diver Down)
(→Diver Down)
Line 11: Line 11:
::::::(Note: by comply with the license, I mean we would simply need to make a copy of said license available on this site, and stick a notice on the page(s) that use the content... that is '''only if''' the GNU FDL is compatible with the CC license which is used here.... I have ''no idea'' if that is the case). {{User:GreenHelmet/sig}} 20:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::(Note: by comply with the license, I mean we would simply need to make a copy of said license available on this site, and stick a notice on the page(s) that use the content... that is '''only if''' the GNU FDL is compatible with the CC license which is used here.... I have ''no idea'' if that is the case). {{User:GreenHelmet/sig}} 20:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
-
We should get rid of it. {{User:Gavino}} {{User:Gavino/sig}}
+
We should get rid of it. '''Gavino''' {{User:Gavino/sig}}

Revision as of 18:45, 3 August 2008

It has been suggested that the content of the page this talk page accompanies should not be a separate article on the wiki.

  • Please discuss below whether the content of the page should have its own article. Remember to consider ways the content could be brought up to the wiki's standards before making this determination.

If it is decided that the content should not have its own article, then the following additional issues need to be addressed:

  • Whether to merge the content with another page or remove it entirely.
  • Whether to redirect the leftover page or delete it outright.
 

Diver Down

Do we really need a separate page for Van Halen? This is pretty much already covered in Popular Music References. wbwolf (t | ed) 19:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This really shouldn't be a seperate article. Who cares how many times Van Halen Appeares on Homestarrunner.com to have its own page? Personally, I think it should stay in Popular Music References. I also think it should be... A DELEEEETEEED!!! MichaelXX2 19:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Most of these references are fairly minor and a bit sketchy, and the info at the top looks like it was ripped directly from Wikipedia. I agree; just redirect this to Popular Music References. -YKHi. I'm Ayjo! 19:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
a> del monte — I agree with the opinions above.  Green Helmet 16:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Style and uniqueness can be rewritten. The topic here is relevance, and sufficient relevance is extant to merit this article. Keep, but rewrite portions. And remove references from Popular Music References and instead link to here. - Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 19:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm changing my opinion to undecided, based on the way we've handled others; only The Beatles clearly deserves it's own page with a whopping 10 references; but we did give Peter Frampton a page with only 3 references.
Regardless, the intro very badly needs a rewrite. As I mentioned in a somewhat related discussion, I believe that the quantity of content copied verbatim from WP crosses the line of acceptable un-attributed use here. I'm not trying to wiki-lawyer the point, but seriously raise the question of whether, if we keep it, we need to comply with license, which the current usage does not. Better yet, I'd prefer we write our own copy that is appropriate to the scope of H*R, and as needed link to more complete references.  Green Helmet 20:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
(Note: by comply with the license, I mean we would simply need to make a copy of said license available on this site, and stick a notice on the page(s) that use the content... that is only if the GNU FDL is compatible with the CC license which is used here.... I have no idea if that is the case).  Green Helmet 20:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

We should get rid of it. Gavino Raiku

Retrieved from "http://hrwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Van_Halen"
Personal tools