Talk:Parliament-Funkadelic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia. | ||
I removed the inappropriate content tag because the article does not have inapproproate content in it. Having dry formalised encyclopaedic language would be inappropriate for a discussion of P Funk. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mofoerectus (talk • contribs) 06:50, 17 July 2006.
- Inappropriate? Not in an encyclopedia, which this is! It does not have to be "dry" (in fact, I think it would be better if it's not), but it certainly has to be factual, well-referenced and cited, and, generally, encyclopedic. If you want a "discussion of P-Funk", you are in the wrong place, and would be better served by finding one of the many fan sites that host such discussions. If you want to contribute to an encylopedia article about P-Funk, however, this is the place. :) Xtifr tälk 06:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Don't think it should have been moved from "P-Funk", the genre is surely classed as seprate different from its key proponents? I have therefore created a new "P Funk" article which needs adding to, in the context of a musical movement, with details to come of the artists it has inspired, and of its goofy metaphysics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mofoerectus (talk • contribs) 07:22, 17 July 2006.
Following the convention of http://www.britannica.com/psychedelic/textonly/pfunk.html, the article has been moved from the more colloquial P-Funk.
While the section headings aren't standard, I believe they are entirely appropriate for this particular topic. That's the only cleanup issue I see without a very close reading, and I don't think they warrant the cleanup tag (in this instance). --Erielhonan 18:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
The link to Ride On points to an Irish folk singer's album by Christy Moore. Probably not what was meant. I removed the link. I also changed a bunch of links from Parliament to Parliament (band). There's probably other cleanup needed, I didn't check each link. --68.195.209.181 04:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Come on, people. The Prime Minister of New Zealand was never a member of a 1950s doowop group.
Did Eddie Hazel really join Parliament when he was 6 years old?
"Mutiny" doesn't point to the right place. --71.251.5.21 21:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
needs a discography --Andreascary 01:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merge
Seems like it's overly confusing to have separate articles for Parliament, Funkadelic and Parliament-Funkadelic. We have people here looking for discographies that are hosted in the separate articles, and probably (though I haven't looked closely) a fair amount of duplicated information and work. I added a link at the top of this article so that people will be more aware of the other articles (which already linked here), but I still think that a merge would make more sense. Xtifr tälk 06:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- Not to mention, distinct articles devoted to both "P-Funk" and "P-Funk mythology". Geez. Sylvain1972 13:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I am in favor of merging these three, the usage is almost universal. In fact I came here checking a link I had written in the form "Parliament/Funkadelic" and it's just what the doctor ordered (I didn't have to redirect! Awesome!).--24.183.100.99 20:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
