Talk:City and Colour

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on March 7, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the City and Colour article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

[edit] Page rename

How can I change the name of this page to City and Colour? I did try moving the page but it wouldn't allow me to do so. --Seraphim Whipp 02:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blanking and redirecting page

The reason this page was created in the first place, is because it disucsses the band, City and Colour. The Dallas Green page is about Dallas Green, not about his band. Alexisonfire have their own page, I don't see why City and Colour shouldn't. Also I don't think there's any reason to be rude in edit summaries either. --Seraphim Whipp 21:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It is redundant to have the Dallas Green and City and Colour articles separate. City and Colour is Dallas Green, and the Dallas Green page is all about his music. For example, artists like Billy Corgan, or Tom Petty don't have articles solely for their solo projects, again because its redundant. If you are so concerned on having separate pages, than you can take the proper channels of doing so; having a vote on the Dallas Green page as opposed to cowboying up and deciding whatever you want goes.

no disrespect, jerkmonkee 04:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


See Dashboard_Confessional#History:
"What rulebook says it has to be called your name if you're one guy?"- Chris Carrabba
Dallas Green's band may be a one man project but Dallas Green is a person, not a band. City and Colour is a band and not a person.
I made the decision to be bold and create a new page. No one else has objected on this talk page or Talk:Dallas Green (musician) except you. You are the one that has decided that you have an authority, by removing the efforts of 4 editors, completely without discussion beforehand. The City and Colour and Dallas Green pages need to grow in their own right, concerning their separate subjects. I think you should give it some time, for other editors to add to the articles. Wikipedia is not a paper enclypedia, see Wiki is not paper.
Wikipedia is about information, right? It's about working together too, right? So let's make these articles bigger and better together! :-)
--Seraphim Whipp 00:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh god.. that sounds great and everything, like I'm undoing your hard work and I'm mean.. all you did was copy and paste some shit to make the intro, copy and paste a few lines out of the infobox i made, copy and pasted the pretty discography chart i made, and used unproperly sourced images; all within an article with less information about the subject than the original..
So for the last time, see Wikipedia:Requested moves if you want to take the proper means of moving a page, you can't just decide "hey I feel like moving this page today"
with respect,
jerkmonkee 18:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Third opinion. This is in response to a request for a third opinion. Making a new page is not the same thing as moving a page, so WP:RM is irrelevant. Additionally, after freely releasing the infobox and chart under the GFDL, you cannot control if it ends up on another Wikipedia page. This seems like a case of WP:OWNership.
If you want to delete this page and make it into a redirect, you need to go through the articles for deletion process. Just doing it yourself will not be sustained. Grouse 01:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 ?? The point isn't that I care about who puts what I made where.. the point is that its useless to make a separate page with the same recycled info as the original, except with less actual information that the original and with improperly sources images.. jerkmonkee 04:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/i/t/Talk%7ECity_and_Colour_9301.html"