Talk:Grateful Dead/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3


A consensus has been established that, for several reasons, "rock" is the only genre that should be listed in the infobox. This was determined in the archived discussion section Talk:Grateful Dead/Archive 1#Genre. If you wish to discuss the matter further, please do so here and not on the archived talk page. Mudwater (Talk) 23:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, folks, this has become a moot point, because the "genre" field has been removed from music related infobox templates, including the "Musical artist" and "Album" infoboxes. (You may still see genre displayed for a while, until an article is edited, because that's when the infobox is transcluded, apparently.) See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Time to remove genre section on info box?. Mudwater (Talk) 01:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The genre field has been restored to the infoboxes. Tune in to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music for further developments as they occur. There may also be discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians and Template talk:Infobox Musical artist, but so far the main centralized discussion has been at the WikiProject Music talk page. Mudwater (Talk) 01:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Jerry Garcia's Death

Does anyone else find it at least a little weird that Jerry Garcia's death is almost not mentioned in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Obviously this articles integrity is compromised by having been edited by deadheads that have tried hard to gloss over "uncomfortable" details, like the fact that Jerry Garcia was a heroin addict that died in a rehab center. The general tone of the whole article is very pro-GD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Pro-GD? The mind boggles. Are there people who are "anti"-GD? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It's an article about the Grateful Dead. Regardless of your judgment of them, the personal lives and health of various members of the band shouldn't really be discussed in great detail here, other than where relevant to the history of the band, i.e., the successive deaths of the keyboardists, and Garcia's death, which essentially ended the Grateful Dead's history as the Grateful Dead. The article about Jerry Garcia goes into extensive detail about his health, drug habits, sometimes chaotic personal life, and cause of death. IMO that material is where it belongs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

View from the Vault merge proposal

An editor has created a new article called View from the Vault, and is proposing that four Grateful Dead album articles be merged into this one new article -- View from the Vault, Volume One, View from the Vault, Volume Two, View from the Vault, Volume Three, and View from the Vault, Volume Four. Editors who are interested in articles about Grateful Dead albums are requested to comment on this proposal, at Talk:View from the Vault#Merge with constituent albums. Thanks. Mudwater (Talk) 17:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Reggae influence?

How de we edit the intro graph? Reggae was NOT an early influence of Jerry or the band is pretty much entirely absent from their repertoire. When I access the page, I am not able to edit the very first paragraph. Cedwyn (talk) 17:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

I'd say there was some reggae influence later on, for example, in "Fire on the Mountain". But, to answer your question, there's not a separate "edit" link for the lead section of an article, so to edit the lead section you would click on the "edit this page" tab at the top of the article. Mudwater (Talk) 23:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
maybe i'm just trippin'...hahaha. i see it says "fuses elements of" not sure if that was the original wording or not. they definitely infuse reggae elements; i just don't know about it as an influence, which i take to mean what originally formed a band's sound. on da mountain.
Cedwyn (talk) 06:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

row jimmy has a deep reggae groove. (talk) 10:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


Is there no WP for band tours? If so, this, this, & this could use tagging, for starters. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 02:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Wall Of Sound

There is a separate article about the Wall of Sound (Grateful Dead). Should the wall of sound information in this article be largely folded into this page leaving a brief summary behind? Robert.harker (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The Wall of Sound article holds up well on its own. So, it's better to leave things the way they are, with the brief summary in this article, in my opinion. Mudwater (Talk) 03:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Band lineups

Today an anonymous editor changed the table of Grateful Dead lineups in the Band members section, to include the lineups of The Other Ones and The Dead, and also the Warlocks before Phil Lesh joined the band. I'm going to go ahead and reverse those edits. The Other Ones and The Dead, as much as we may love them, are not the Grateful Dead. Only the Grateful Dead are the Grateful Dead. So, those other lineups should not be included in the table. Of course they're already in the separate articles about The Other Ones and The Dead, and that's appropriate. If anyone else has an opinion on this subject, please post it here. Mudwater (Talk) 23:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, Mudwater, good catch. (talk) 10:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Band members

In the past there were a number of discussions about who should be listed as band members in the infobox, and the consensus was to not include Bruce Hornsby, Robert Hunter, or John Perry Barlow. If anyone wants to reopen the discussion, feel free to do so here, but first please read (without updating) the following archived discussion threads:

Mudwater (Talk) 04:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I tripped over the Bear sentence in the membership section for a couple reasons. First, I don't think soundmen are band members. What's more, there's a whole array of people who played important roles in the Dead's sound, and describing Bear as "the" soundman is misleading. The article gets into this later in the "Wall of Sound" section and Healy, others, get called out -- better to deal with sound in it's own section. (BTW, IMHO the section should be on sound systems broadly, rather than the Wall alone, which was only a part of the long strange trip) Last, why interject Bear's LSD production into the article here, or anywhere? (If anything is said about LSD, it should be the role of LSD in the creative development of the band.) In short, I'd propose striking the Bear sentence from the membership section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cc68 (talkcontribs) 05:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Bear's LSD production is relevant to the history of the band. With that being said, it would probably be good to move any discussion of Bear from the Membership section to a different section. Also, expanding the Wall of Sound discussion to include other sound systems and audio engineers sounds like a good idea. There's already a discussion about moving a lot of the Wall of Sound material to the Wall of Sound (Grateful Dead) article -- see Talk:Wall of Sound (Grateful Dead)#Proposed merge. Mudwater (Talk) 01:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Having recently read Blair Jackson's Grateful Dead Gear, I know there's a lot more to the sound story, but not being a major gear head myself, don't feel I'm the one to add it. I will eventually read the book again with a view to suggesting changes to broaden the section, but hope someone more steeped in the subject beats me to it. On acid, my view is Bear's production is a tangent in the GD article but central to the Bear article, while the bands extensive use of acid and the influence it had on their artistic vision is vital to the GD article, and doesn't get mentioned at all, except for drug arrests. Again, if I can dig up relevant quotes from Garcia, Lesh on the subject, I'll add them, but I defer to heads deeper into psychedelic drugs. --Cc68 (talk) 04:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I would encourage you to go ahead and update the article, to improve its coverage of the band's equipment, sound system, and audio engineers, and about how LSD influenced their artistic and other views. The Jackson book sounds like a good reference for the gear, and quotes from Garcia and Lesh would be good references for the acid influenced philosophy. Editors who are more familiar with sound equipment, or with psychedelics, might also edit the article, but if you wait for that it might never happen, so I'd say just go for it. "P.S." I've gone ahead and moved most of the "Wall of Sound" section to the other article, and renamed the section "Concert sound systems" -- see Talk:Wall of Sound (Grateful Dead)#Proposed merge. Mudwater (Talk) 19:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight given to recent events

Per the comments above about listing members ect., it seems that since this specific band was disbanded back in 1995 or there abouts, there is too much material about current events, the new bands, ect. Couldn't this material be added to the appropriate articles about the current bands and individuals? TIA Tom (talk)

I also retitled that section. Mudwater, can you please help and improve that section. Maybe do a summary with links to the appropriate sub articles, ect. Thanks, --Tom (talk) 05:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I've taken a shot at doing that, with this edit. I've also renamed the section again, although I'd be open to other names. Mudwater (Talk) 02:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Quick glance looks good. I am actually thinking of going to see "the Dead" in worster this weekend. I swore I wouldn't see them as long as Jerry remained dead, but have mellowed since :) Cheers! --Tom (talk) 03:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
With this edit I've removed a recently added paragraph from the "Touring" section of the article. The Dead in 2008 and 2009 is already discussed in the "After the Grateful Dead" section. As you can see from this talk page section, the post-Grateful Dead material was condensed quite a bit in the last month or so, and I think it would be better not to put too much detail back in. Perhaps "After the Grateful Dead" could be expanded a bit, but I think we should try to take it easy. Of course there's also the article about The Dead (band), where more of these details would be appropriate, and some are there already. That's my opinion, and although I've taken the paragraph out, I would still encourage HellinaBucket and Tonywalton to contribute to this article and other GD related articles. Mudwater (Talk) 03:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Besides The Dead (band), other articles related to this topic are The Other Ones, Reunions of the Grateful Dead, and Deadheads for Obama. Mudwater (Talk) 10:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest you go to the website they are advertizing themselves as the dead, not the other ones.HellinaBucket (talk) 13:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Right, they're the Dead now, not the Other Ones. I was just saying that The Other Ones is one of several Wikipedia article about what the former Grateful Dead members have done since 1995. To reiterate, feel free to edit any of those articles, or this one. I just thought that (1) most of that paragraph was already covered in Grateful Dead#After the Grateful Dead, and (2) as discussed in this talk page section, it's better for the Grateful Dead article to only briefly summarize post-1995 events, with a lot more details in those other articles. Mudwater (Talk) 14:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok i get youHellinaBucket (talk) 15:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Lead and end of band

Mudwater, can we craft the lead to mention/address when the band actually ended, ie, Jerry's death or shortly after? TIA --Tom (talk) 12:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Lead section, "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article, and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article." So the question is whether or not the band "retiring" after Jerry's death should be mentioned in a summary or a concise overview. My initial reaction is that I'm not sure. But, there's certainly nothing sacred about the lead section as it currently exists, and in my opinion it could use a rewrite anyway. So, in general I'm open to changing the lead section. Maybe I'll take a shot at it, or you or another editor can try your hand if you feel inspired. I know I haven't given a definitive answer to your specific question, but that's what I think so far. Needless to say, the input of other editors is encouraged. Mudwater (Talk) 13:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable as always :) I would maybe just add the year they retired/disolved/whateveryoucallit as it is in the info box. I might take a stab but not that big a deal, anyways, --Tom (talk) 14:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Further (Weir/Lesh Band)

I need help in adding content to a new band page for Further, it is a new band by Bob Weir and Phil Lesh.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I've renamed the article, to "Furthur (band)". See Talk:Furthur (band)#Article name. Mudwater (Talk) 12:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Isn't there a 1990's band with the name Further allready Thats why I didn't do it this way to begin with, how do we differentiate?Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
The band names, and therefore the article names, are spelled differently -- one is Furthur (band) and the other is Further (band). To help reduce reader confusion I just added hatnotes to both articles. Mudwater (Talk) 14:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good to me!Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Timeline and Hornsby

Maybe this could have been added to the Members section - and I've been away from Wikipedia for a while, so forgive me if there was already discussion on this matter, but since discussion has (repeatedly) decided that Bruce Hornsby was not an official member, should he still be included in the timeline? I think for consistency's sake he should maybe be removed? Addionne (talk) 21:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking that, since Bruce Hornsby is listed in the "Band members" table, it would be more consistent if he was also listed in the Timeline. This is based on the previously established consensus, or compromise if you prefer, of listing him in the table but not in the infobox, on the basis that he was never an official member of the band, but did play in most of their shows for a year and a half. In fact the table used to be called "Lineups" instead of "Band members" and should probably be renamed back to that, or to "Band lineups". To see all the archived discussions about all that, follow the links in the #Band members section above. In summary, I'm somewhat in favor of leaving Hornsby in the timeline because he's in the lineups table, but really it could go either way. Mudwater (Talk) 22:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with both your points. "Lineups" could be better for our uses than "members" because we don't have definitive sources for who the band members considered to be actual members rather than passing collaborators. Members implies some kind of legal relationship in the business entity and decision making process that is clear with the core members but is not so easy to know with the later performers. So, I recommend using the term "lineup".
Regarding Horsnby, if we call it "lineup", I'd recommend including him, he made important contributions when he played with them. If we keep it as "members", then I'm not so sure, I think "membership" requires a source beyond simply observing that players on the stage over a period of time. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
PS. On the other hand, I certainly would consider Robert Hunter a full-on member, since he was an integral part of the Dead from the beginning. I'm pretty sure the band referred to him that way at times - those sources can probably be found. But that's a different discussion...--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
As far as Robert Hunter goes, I think he should be left out of the list of band members, despite some interesting arguments on the other side. Check out the links in the #Band members section above, especially Talk:Grateful Dead/Archive 1#Where are the other band members?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mudwater (talkcontribs) 23:24, 22 November 2009
Thanks for the discussion link, I'll check it out. I didn't mean to divert the Horsnby / Lineup question... --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Atlantic article, "Management Secrets of the Grateful Dead"

I put a link to an article I came across in The Atlantic, which talks about the Dead's legacy. I don't actually know enough about the group to do more than put this in the "External links" - please, someone who does, attend to this. Thanks. — Martha (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. For now I've simply moved the reference from the "External links" section to an inline footnote in the "Donation of archives to UCSC" section, with this edit. But, the article has a lot of good material, about the archive, about the academic study of the Grateful Dead, and about the Dead's business model, which is now seen as both extremely successful and as way ahead of its time. I would encourage other editors to check it out, and possibly use it to expand and improve the text of the article. Mudwater (Talk) 19:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


Am I the only one who is disturbed by the fact that the 25 years of their career after American Beauty is summarized into four paragraphs that don't mention ANYTHING about what happened during those years? Not the SIXTEEN albums that came out? Not the "Wall Of Sound" setup? The founding of their own record label? Not the year long hiatus they went on? The lineup changes? The reemergence to popularity? And to make matters worse, that last paragraph there (Garcia's early life...) is horribly misplaced and borderline unnecessary!

This article, for lack of better words, SUCKS. It really needs to be rewritten. Badly. I'm gonna start work on it in my free time. Only problem is it'll take a while to gather citations. Anyone want to help with this? Deadheadrob (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I think things aren't quite as bad as you're saying. I'm not sure exactly which four paragraphs you're referring to, but the lineup changes are mentioned, however briefly, in the "Membership" section, and the Wall of Sound is mentioned in the "Concert sound systems" sub-section. The Wall of Sound also has its own article, Wall of Sound (Grateful Dead). With that being said, there's certainly plenty of room for improvement in this article. In particular I agree that the coverage of the history of the band, especially after the early '70s, could be much better than it is. I would therefore encourage you to go ahead and work on making the article better. Have at it, and let other editors join in or not as they see fit. Mudwater (Talk) 23:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

External Links

Can an other — neutral — Wikipedia editor decide whether to add the link for it IS a relevant external link, after all. Thanks in advance. UncleJohn1966 (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It is relevant content - however while it allows the user to listen, it doesn't provide any additional information or context about what they are hearing. As such, I would say no, but what does everyone else think? Addionne (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate the response. However, in regards to your reply: Additional information IS given, ie: date and venue. The site also offers a message board for people to interact and discuss the shows UncleJohn1966 (talk) 00:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Per WP:MUSTARD#External links, articles about bands (or individual musicians) should have external links to the band's official web site, and possibly a very limited number of other official pages. does not qualify under this guideline. Another question is whether or not gdradio should be used as a reference in this article or another Grateful Dead related article. In my opinion that would also not be appropriate, because, although it does contain information about individual Grateful Dead concerts, it doesn't really document the specific content of this article or the other articles. With that having been said, I really like gdradio a lot, and definitely recommend the site itself to fans of the Dead's music. Mudwater (Talk) 02:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
HMMPH. Well, thanks for your time. UncleJohn1966 (talk) 02:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Band lineups and timeline

On March 22, the table of band lineups, and the bar chart of the membership timeline, were removed from this article, and moved to the List of Grateful Dead band members article. I'm restoring the lineups and the timeline to this article. I think they're both really valuable as a reference, and belong in this article. As for the separate list of band members, I don't have a strong opinion about it. I'd be okay with either merging it back into this article, or leaving it separate. At any rate I'm not removing the table or graph from the list article at this time, so now they'll be in both places. Mudwater (Talk) 22:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Upon further review, maybe it would be better to take the table and the graph out of the List of Grateful Dead band members article, and just have them here. The other article would still have some value, by presenting band membership information in a different format, and so it could still be left separate. What does everyone else think about all this? Mudwater (Talk) 22:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
That's a good point, I support the proposed change. List articles are generally used to navigate to other articles. The table and timeline provides substantial content that fits better in the main article than the list article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

It's been two weeks and no one has objected to this idea, so I've removed the table and the bar chart from the other article, List of Grateful Dead band members, and left them in this article, Grateful Dead. Mudwater (Talk) 14:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Article photo

I am the contributor of the photo now in this article, and yes it is better than nothing but far from good. Isn't there a fair use logo we can use? I really don't like this photo as the infobox image.

anyone else have any thoughts on this? And Mudwater, I will ask him if I can get something from him that's better for the article.

May I humbly propose either the cover of the first album,GratefulDead1967LP.jpg or the skull and Roses album cover, GDskullandroses.jpg ??? Marcia Wright (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the infobox photo, while nice in its own way, is not that great in the sense that it doesn't show the whole band. But I'm not sure if it would be okay to have a logo instead, which is sort of too bad because the band has several great ones. (I heard a rumor recently that the skull and roses image is their official logo.) Template:Infobox musical artist says that the infobox should have "an image of the act". WP:MUSTARD seems not to address the issue. So I'm not sure what to think. I guess the options are to leave the picture there for now, to take it out and have nothing until a more worthy photo is available, or to put in a logo and see what happens. Mudwater (Talk) 23:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Where's the photo of Jerry Garcia? I mean, come on! ;) --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 14:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Concert Tours Section

Because the Grateful Dead were known for their numerous concerts, a section for those concert tours should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It also states that they played 182 shows on the page. That is just not true the number is far greater than 182. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

nothing about the (rest of) The Dead vs. Mickey Hart/his father

When Hart left under a cloud of bad feeling, it was quite a big deal at the time. It was duly covered in the music mags and, while I am not personally a Dead Head, among those that were at the time, it was very controversial. I think this episode warrants a short paragraph that sticks closely to the facts, and how Hart rejoined later on (his estrangement from his dad.)

On another note, I noticed in the archives some argument about post-American Beauty Grateful Dead. Well, here's the rub - it can't be argued that anything the band did after this album has any level of the impact that this group made from The Grateful Dead thru Live/Dead to American Beauty. This was by any honest examination the core years of the group's fame and influence, and their subsequent career needs to be viewed as a rather slow decline into comfortable music-making with a hardcore audience that kept the flag waving - but after this time, the Counter-Culture was moribund, and the Dead's influence waned greatly. The article always needs to stress this time in the band's career - to do otherwise distorts the history of the group. HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmFans

Dead external links to Allmusic website – January 2011

Since Allmusic have changed the syntax of their URLs, 1 link(s) used in the article do not work anymore and can't be migrated automatically. Please use the search option on to find the new location of the linked Allmusic article(s) and fix the link(s) accordingly, prefereably by using the {{Allmusic}} template. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed. This applies to the following external links:

--CactusBot (talk) 10:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. BNutzer (talk) 13:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Consensus Needed

I've noticed that band pages on wikipedia seem to have their infobox's run under different rules. Some bands once dissolved have their latest lineup mentioned under "current members", some do not. Some band's, such as Lynyrd Skynyrd, have deceased former members listed as deceased, others, such at the Grateful Dead, do not. I added the term "(deceased)" to those members of the Grateful Dead who are no longer alive, and explained that band pages should all follow the same pattern, yet another user reverted my edit without so much as an explanation. A general consensus is needed for how band infobox's should be run and ALL of them must be run the same.Burbridge92 (talk) 22:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You're right, and the good news is, there is already consensus about these two questions. You can see it at Template:Infobox musical artist# past_members, where it says that the past_members field should list "Past members of the group, listed in order of joining with no other notation than names. If a group is inactive, all members should be listed here, and none in the "current_members" field." I would encourage you to update other band infoboxes to follow these agreed upon standards. Mudwater (Talk) 23:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the information Mudwater. I will review the requirements and act accordingly with regards to band pages.Burbridge92 (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. And also, you might get less of an argument when you do the updates if you include a link to the standard in your edit summary.  :) Mudwater (Talk) 23:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Thanks again.Burbridge92 (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


I'd suggest to add the work done by Rick Griffin. I'll do so as soon as I find time to do it. --Olivier Debre (talk) 09:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

member's navboxes

just added these and will be adding them to other GD articles as well. feedback and additions would be appreciated, in particlar I would like to have more in the related articles sections of the solo members. UselessToRemain (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Citations needed?

"There are many contemporary incarnations of the Dead, with the most prominent touring acts being Furthur and Phil Lesh & Friends." My first reaction to this was to say that it omits Ratdog, which it seems to me would be as prominent as Phil & Friends. But the real issue is that it's a subjective statement not backed up by any references. The article is peppered with other statements that, although factual, don't cite sources. Should there be some "citation needed" tags added? Rickmbari (talk) 04:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

In my view, no, "citation needed" tags are not needed. Those are more appropriate for statements that are controversial or dubious, which is not the case here. However I would encourage you to help enhance the article by improving statements such as the one you mentioned. How about something like, "There are several contemporary bands that feature former members of the Grateful Dead, including Furthur, RatDog, Phil Lesh and Friends, 7 Walkers, the Mickey Hart Band, and the Donna Jean Godchaux Band." Or of course you can find and add citations where appropriate. Generally it's best to just go ahead and edit the article and make it better. Thanks. Mudwater (Talk) 11:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Additions to the "book"

I have never added to a Wikipedia book. it seems straightforward to do so. I want to add Sandy Rothman to associated people at the Book:Grateful Dead. any objections? Also, I wonder if Rolling Thunder (person) is too tangential to add. (i was around when Hart and Thunder were hanging out, seemed an important relationship) Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. I just can't decide where the best place to talk about this is, here, or at Book talk:Grateful Dead. Mudwater (Talk) 11:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)