User talk:Megamanic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Megamanic, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Karmafist 04:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Re:Hemispheres

Many of the Rush album articles are teeming with original research. The subject has been discussed on the Rush talk page and a few of the regular Rush editors have done some clean up. More is definitely needed. The Powerwindows website is a well of trivia tidbits and odd stories that can be used as citation...but who has the time? . Take care! Anger22 10:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject AFL Hi mate, if you're a fan of Aussie rules, I suggest you take a look at WikiProject AFL (join by adding your name to the list of participants) and the Australian rules football portal. Also take a look at Category:VFL/AFL players and feel free to drop me a line with any questions, or on the WP:AFL discussion page. Cheers!

Rogerthat Talk 09:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rush, and a thing or two

Actually the trivia first - I'm just wondering (knowing full well it's a long shot) if you're the same Mike who was a friend and colleague of Simon Williams, and emigrated to Oz about 15 years ago?

On Rush, in most discography listings it would appear under its own sub-heading of EPs, as would the singles. My own take is that whilst it's pretty, the table for the albums is actually less useful than the simple lists that follow it. The lists as they appear below can scanned downward. The table demands that the user spend time reading across, because of the spacing, and can't be speed read. Cain Mosni 11:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

(Firstly - let's continue the conversation here. So much easier than bouncing back and forth.)
I'm not altogether convinced that the disography needs expanding. If anything, I'd say it needs simplifying. The table is uneccessary, and precludes easy reading. But adressing the EP question, there's no harm in having a single EP sub-section with just the one title under it. If there are singles missing from the discography they must certainly do need adding, along with catalogue numbers, labels and release dates. Your idea for a separate page for chart placings is an interesting thoguht, but I can see it being objected to as unnecessary cruft, and you might have difficulty in sourcing verifiable data. Certainly, I don't think the chart position data belongs in what should be a pure discography listing in the article itself. Cain Mosni 14:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe the compromise that'll work is to have all of the core albums (New Material, Live & Compilations) in the Rush article and a link to a Rush discography page that has all of the releases in key territories (US, UK, Japan, Canada) Interesting variations from other countries guest appearences etc. In the main article the format I like most of all is the "gallery of sleeves" approach like Aerosmith which is a casual discography for non-fans. If you click on the "Rush Discography" page you're entering obsessive land where all stats can and will be collected :) I've certainly got a lot more singles than the ones listed there, Spirit Of Radio, Vital Signs, Subdivisions, Countdown, Big Money, Time Stand Still etc. I'm sure there's a dicography out there on the web that can be plundered and as the information is a matter of record (if you'll pardon the pun) it's not copyrightable Megamanic 01:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interested in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject American football?

I noticed that you're comments on the Formation (American football) page. Thanks! I tried resizing the images. Tell me what you think. Also, since you seem interested in the article, you might also be interested in a new project I recently started at: Wikipedia:WikiProject American football to help clean up the non-NFL football articles (mostly football strategy type articles). Please consider joining this project and helping out where possible. --Jayron32 03:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why does Linda Thompson need immediate attention?

Hi, I was browsing Biographical articles marked as needing attention, and I saw that you'd marked Linda Thompson (singer) as needing immediate attention, but I didn't see any indication of why. Can you explain further? --Xtifr tälk 13:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Same question for Sandy Denny. Xtifr tälk 13:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Cockup :) Basically I thought both bios were in need of attention but I didn't think it would set a red light flashing in Wikipedia central. I was adding a musicians template & figured they were both a bit thin & needed more work so I added the needs attention flag. Reset the flag if you wish. Sorry Megamanic 02:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I actually gave Linda Thompson a little attention (though it's still a long way from featured article quality), and I'll look at Sandy Denny a little closer too, but in general, "needs improvement" is not the same as "needs attention". (The vast majority of the articles on Wkipedia need improvement.) Cheers, Xtifr tälk 01:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] greatest band....

well if its something recognizable or a nickname (like Michael Jaackson being the prince of pop) then its ok. but if its "america's greatest rock n roll band" then lose it. unless its something important like a big televised countdown of greatest bands or something. not just some random review of them. but if its a nickname, state its a nickname, and if the greatest whatsit reference is somehting important, don't put it in the opening paragraph. ...Patrick (talk, contributions) 07:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

i hardly feel that america's greatest rock n roll band is a nickname. calling new york the big apple is nickname, america's greatest rock n roll band is more of an opiniated rank. the statement itself states that the band is better than all other american bands. whether that statement is correct or not is based soley on personal opinion. as for saying "many regard them as..." while that may denounce the statement of bias (especially with 2 references.) it also denounces it of any importantce. it doesn't need to be said. its like saying many people think this band is good. you can look at record sales and figure it out for yourself. ...Patrick (talk, contributions) 09:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/e/g/User_talk%7EMegamanic_1711.html"