Talk:Puddle of Mudd

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of the Rock music WikiProject, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to rock music, and who are involved in developing and proposing standards for their content, presentation and other aspects. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.

	It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
	The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Most musicians/bands in the wikipedia don't have their discographies in a table format- for the sake of consistency wouldn't the discography be better laid out as a list as in the case of most other bands? Not that i'm going to war over it :-) quercus robur 23:45 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)

I agree with you - if nothing else, putting things in tables makes them harder to edit (at least for thickos like me who don't understand the table syntax). I'll change it over to a list. I think plain bullet-pointed lists look nicer anyway. --Camembert

Can someone have a look at the changes I've made? Makes more sense to me than the prior revision, but though I know there's that whole passing a tape to Fred Durst story, I'm not a fan and don't really know it fully. Jimregan 04:55 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

I think this might need a bit of NPOV'ing.

[edit] Copyright!

I deleted a large section of text because it was directly copied from [1]

Why is that an issue? As long as the information is factual, and referenced, why can't it be copied? We aren't writing a term paper here, the goal of Wikipedia is to spread factual information, not to write "original" articles... Supaikku 23:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name of band

Is it true that the group added another 'D' to their name in case a real 'puddle of mud' sued them for copyright ?!!

I have heard rumors that this is true, but rumors are rumors. Besides, I don't really care about copyright(unless I'm writing something myself) stuff. Prepsear (talk) 15:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Derek R Bullamore 21:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wow, non-neutral POV.

So I just deleted a section that accused them of being "talentless". Way to keep NPOV, folks.

Yeah, but the rest of the article is non-neuteal anyway, so to be fair you'd kind of have to delete the entire thing. 68.192.53.216 09:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say a band as terrible as Puddle of Mudd should really be excused from the NPOV rule, but yeah, you're right: this article isn't NPOV anyway; it has a bias towards the band. --HisSpaceResearch 14:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

There should at least be a "criticism" or "critical reception" section, because this band gets A LOT of criticism (almost as much as Nickelback). This article basically just gives a history of the band, with no information about how they sound. Deepfryer99 18:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

The history section is a complete mess. It needs to be written in chronological order. I will be making some major changes soon. Such a major band deserves more than this rabble of a page. Jason f90 12:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: the mainstream success portion of History contains the statement "Copies of their album were selling like hot cakes nation and worldwide." I feel this sentence should be removed as it is needless fluff. Comments? --Kfanciulli 05:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major Changes

I've tidied up the whole article and insert MUCH more info. Also, previous band members,demos,etc. Check it out. Jason f90 15:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Puddle logo.png

Image:Puddle logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New single

I don't think "We Don't Have to Look Back Now" is confirmed as a single yet. If you want to prove it is confirmed, then make a ref. to it. Although I think this song is in the running for 3rd single, along with "Radiate" and "I'm So Sure"... --Crocodileman (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)