Talk:Van Halen

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 09:35, 8 January 2009 by Heimstern Läufer (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Current revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

[edit] 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 18:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It's been two weeks, and I'm not certain if a consensus has been reached. Anybody have any further words? wbwolf (t | ed) 19:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I say delete. Can we do it yet? Gavino

Gavino, you haven't provided any arguments for deletion. Please remember that this is a discussion, not a vote. Heimstern Läufer 09:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

There are not enough things about it. It is too minor to be its own page. Raiku

I think to the contrary. There are 5 separate references on the site, and they all refer to different aspects of the band. It's not just the logo, or one song. I say that's enough to keep the page. Elcool (talk)(contribs) 05:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep. It's perfectly legit. StarFox 06:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

We have no consensus to delete here, so I've removed the delete tags. I've also gutted the opening to remove all the Wikipedia content and the band's logo, which is probably not fair use here. My new opening is rather HRW:OA-like, so it could use some improvement. Heimstern Läufer 09:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools