Talk:Van Halen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Van Halen was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Archive
Archives
  1. December 2002 – August 2005
  2. August 2005 – September 2005
  3. September 2005 – March 2006
  4. March 2006 – May 2007
  5. July 2007 – August 2007

Contents

[edit] Mitch Malloy

There has been no independent confirmation that he was ever in the band other than what he himself has said in some interview. I think he needs to be removed as an official member until there is another independent source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.167.113.17 (talk) 07:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not been denied by the band, and it's mentioned in official books. I'm sure someone can find one (The Elfoid (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)0

There are no "official" books regarding Van Halen. The only source is what that guy said in an internet interview. My dog could claim that Van Halen approached him to be the lead singer and just because the band fails to respond doesn't mean that it is notable. There is no independent source for the information posted and needs to be removed, period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.167.113.17 (talk) 00:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have it, but I've read interviews with Anthony where he mentioned him. (82.69.60.98 (talk) 23:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC))

I've proposed that the Mitch Malloy article for deletion. It is poorly sourced and he himself is not a notable musical figure according to Wikipedia guidelines. I encourage you to join the discussion on the Mitch Malloy page. Eatabullet (talk) 17:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Planet Us

Can someone provide a link for further reference?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_Us

[edit] Photos

Should photo captions indicate the individuals? For Panama, add: "(L to R): Alex, Roth, Eddie, Anthony," for Love Walks In add: "(L to R): Eddie, Hagar, Alex, Anthony," etc.

Shouldn't there be a photo of the Cherone lineup?

Yes to both (The Elfoid 10:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Van Wetzel?

Did I miss something? Some parts of the article refer to the band as Van Wetzel, others refer to them as Van Halen. Was this a vandal or did I miss something about the band that the rest of the world doesn't seem to know about? --70.104.148.187 04:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


Edit from original Author: It seems someone fixed the article, nevermind!

[edit] Genesis?

Is there a decent citation for the band wanting to call themselves Genesis? I've never heard of this and I find it unusual that they wouldn't have known of the pre-existing band Genesis since that band had already been around for about seven years in 1974. I read previously (in an old Hit Parader) that they considered calling themselves Rat Salad, after the Black Sabbath song. --Bentonia School 02:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I heard about the Rat Salad comment too. To be honest, I don't think it's important. I'll delete it, un-necessary clutter on a 60kb page. (The Elfoid 16:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Article Unbalanced

It seems that there should be a lot more content regarding Van Halen's most active years (1978-1996) than their currently is. For example, the albums OU812 and Balance are nowhere to be found, yet there are paragraphs upon paragraphs of Van Halen's inactivity in the 2000s aside from two tours. I recently joined the Van Halen WikiProject, so I'll try to remedy this when I get some time, but I'm probably going to need some help.

The bottom line: The periods from 1978-1996 need to be expanded and the period from 2000-present needs to be shrinked/condensed. --Abog 21:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Other Half

Someone make a page for them. I have no information on it and know it deserves more information online. (The Elfoid 20:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC))

I've actually started using this source to help me write a research paper on them. -Razorflame 21:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable passage

This passage bothers me especially since the source seems pretty weak as far as being reliable:

"Though the press reaction to the reunion was largely warm, the newly re-designed website sparked controversy when Michael Anthony was removed from the album artwork on the Van Halen album (replaced by an image of Wolfgang), and the group photo from the Women and Children First album was taken off entirely. The following day, the album covers were reverted to their original state without a word. The tour was originally 25 dates, but sell-outs and popularity has raised it to more than 40, extending into 2008."

It is sourced to this site which features a small image that may or may not have come from van-halen.com. It is impossible to verify now. The site is a blog which are not usually considered reliable sources. I think we should remove this passage. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 15:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I can find you sources like Rolling Stone, and other reliable ones. I think the only use of that one was it had the image - most mention it without showing a visual representation of the change. Just search the Rolling Stone site and you should find it in seconds. Don't worry. (The Elfoid (talk) 16:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Overdue subsection cleanup and other issues

I restructured the sections (an overdue repair) as the previous format left a TOC that was WAY too long. The subsections simply were required and made the article look more like a grade 8 book report than an encyclopedia article. There are currently 7 sub-sections under History. this should be trimmed down even further to about 5 simply for neatness and clarity. The influence section is tagged because it is nothing more than a trivia section. These types of sections appear too frquently in Wiki music articles and are just a place to cruft and fluff and add nothing as far as genuine quality. I re-titled the side projects section but, like the influence section, this one would be better off just being deleted all together. Detailed information about individual members and their side-projects should go in the articles about the band members themselves and have no real place here. "Detail overkill" across multiple pages which are are related to the same subject is not a good. The Eddie Van Halen pages talks about his extra-curricular work... so it doesn't need to be here too. I will remove this section later once I double check that it doesn't contain something thats been missed on the other band member pages. The writing style for this page needs lots of work. The very first paragraph of the history section starts out with 3 short choppy sentences that could be combined into 1 short and concise sentence that conveys all the information. this type of writing is prevalent throughout the entire article. It just needs a good overall cleanup... one paragraph at a time. With that said... in some cases not just sentences can be combined and shortened... 1-2 or 3 paragraphs can be given the same cleanup treatment. At almost 60K the article text should be trimmed down a bit. For the amount of text thats there... and the amount that could easily be deleted as useless... it shouldn't be too hard to get it down somewhere between 40-50K. Deleting the Side projects section and a massive cleaning of the crufty influence section should help. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 15:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a shame, I had it at 39 at one point. But the reunion sparked a lot of activity, and it seemed to expand at an uncontrollable rate. I do think the side projects section, though perhaps alterable, is worth retaining in some form or another. I'll attack influence later tonight, one thing at a time I think. If anyone reading this focusses on that, then we move on together...it'll be simpler. (The Elfoid (talk) 16:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC))

Made a start, got it to 53. I dumped some trivia on Eddie's technique in the Eddie Van Halen article, since I felt it shouldn't be deleted. It needs integrating into that article properly though, now.(The Elfoid 14:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC))

[edit] March 11, 2008 addition without citation

Paragraph added without citation or sources. Any resistance to deletion? Wingnutrules (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Logo

A logo on a t-shirt compared to the official logo used on the website since 2006? Why did anyone change it? That logo even has "2007" on it, it's a tour logo if it's anything at all. The official Van Halen logo's the one used from 1978-1985, that they brought back for 2006. (The Elfoid (talk) 16:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Number 1 hits

"and have had the most number one hits on the Billboard Mainstream Rock chart."

Than what/who? It doesn't say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.100.37 (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Glam Metal????

Could it be??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.97.214.241 (talk) 14:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC) no —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.8.93 (talk) 14:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)