Talk:History of Rush
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Generally a thorough recap of their career but I'm not sure I'd agree that "The Body Electric" was ever a staple of any radio station or format. I was a huge fan in the '80s and I can't remember the song played more than once or twice--and I certainly haven't heard it ever played in the last 18 years.
Contents |
[edit] why is this not merged?
confusing and awkward to have the hisory of the band at another page. Joeyramoney 17:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- When the Rush article went through its FA process the history section was split because the main article was too big. In order to maintain FA status the main article has to be kept trimmed down and any suprefluous detail goes in this article. Wisdom89, KaptKos, admin Spangineer or admin BorgHunter can elaborate more on the FA procedure for the main article. Hope that helps. Anger22 17:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- IMHO the main article is better in its layout than other FAed band articles such as Pink Floyd, which is a great article and deserves to be FA, don't get me wrong, but it is basically the history of pink floyd with a few other bits added on, whereas Rush is a band article containing pretty much everything a band article should have(IMO), nicely sectionialised including but not overwhelmingly the band history, probably the only thing missing is a section on their visual style(hmm). Detail which would make the main article flabby can comfortably be added here. So I suppose its a matter of preference, I prefer the main article as it is with a nice concise history, maybe a bit more concise wouldn't hurt, and a sperarate verbose history of Rush along with other good supporting articles, having the complete history in the main article wouldn't break any rules but I wouldn't support it. --KaptKos 11:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- In my opinion the main page is too large and needs to be slimed down (Metnever)
-
-
-
-
- I wholeheartedly disagree - if anything, the main article is lacking in content that details other aspects of the band. Wisdom89 20:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Geddy
I seem to remember it was Geddy's Yiddish Grandmother, not his mother, who pronounced "Gary" that way. Can anyone confirm? —Wrathchild (talk) 13:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- A quick search: Granmother: [1] Mother: [2] (since this is a transcript from an interview, I guess it wins)
[edit] contradiction
The lead paragraph indicates that Geddy Lee was part of the original line-up. However, the original line-up offered in the opening section does not include him. :) I'm a drive-by, not a Rush follower, and unsure how this should best be resolved. --Moonriddengirl 15:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is that 'original' is used in two different senses. In the intro, it refers to the line-up of the first release, and in the body, to the first line-up ever. This should be clarified. ThuranX 03:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Members table deleted with Rush band members article
The following table was deleted from a redundant article. I'm also a drive-by, and don't know if Rush editors would agree this merits inclusion in History of Rush, but I thought it might be good to merge in.
- concise version
This seems like a nice fit. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rush_%28band%29&diff=156189552&oldid=156189389#Band_members
- including Hadrian and sundry
This one is controversial, see above. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rush_%28band%29&diff=prev&oldid=156176390#Band_members
/ edg ☺ ★ 16:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think we need it. the tables are clumsy and large, and unnneeded in the branch article of a FA. The text version contextualizes the history better, and isn't an eyesore. There's simply no need for it, and this has been gone over before. ThuranX 16:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Thanks for asking. discussions help build consensus. ThuranX 20:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
-
