Talk:RatDog

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

External Links

I removed the link for gdradio.net since it was submitted by (presumably) the site's owner and guidelines regarding external links that should be avoided state

A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link.

So, I'm proposing it here for discussion. If there are no objections within a reasonable amount of time, I will edit it back in. Seelie 20:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(reasonable amount of time: passed) So - Can an other — neutral — Wikipedia editor decide whether to add the link for gdradio.net? it IS a relevant external link, after all. Thanks in advance. UncleJohn1966 (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will say the same here as other articles - while the content is relevant, it doesn't provide RatDog on-demand, nor does it provide any additional information or context. I think it should be left out. Addionne (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the response. However, in regards to your reply: Streaming the music the way I deliver it ON DEMAND is not permitted by the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. 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) 00:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although the first post about this topic was made, several years ago, in this talk page section, the same discussion is now taking place on multiple article talk pages. Per WP:MULTI, it's better to have a consolidated discussion on one talk page. So, I would request that editors post their comments at the consolidated discussion at Talk:Grateful Dead#External Links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mudwater (talk • contribs) 02:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ratdoglive.net is a site for steroid alternatives. I don't think it's the right link at all. 205.172.134.227 (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed — Mudwater^(Talk) 23:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of former members

I thought that box was a little large for the page so I edited out. It's good info and should probably be on there, but I think there's a more concise way to write it. Seelie 11:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The table of band members was pretty long, all right, but I think it should be part of the article and I'd vote for putting it back in. The best place would be after the Discography and before the Notes and References, i.e. at the end of the article. — Mudwater 12:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the lineups table back into the article. I moved it to the end of the article, right before the "Notes and references section". I also added the instruments that each member played, de-linked the names, and changed them to regular font instead of bold. Some other articles follow this format -- see for example The Rolling Stones. Like I said before, the table is kinda long, but I think it's really appropriate to have it as part of the article. Putting it at the end it makes it easier to read the rest of the article though. — Mudwater 02:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ratdog or RatDog?

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Moved to RatDog--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 11:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor recently tried (with partial success) to change the title of this article from Ratdog to RatDog, by manually editing Ratdog from an article to a redirect and editing RatDog from a redirect to an article. A simple move would not have worked in this case because there has already been some editing of the RatDog redirect. I've changed things back for now. The right way to rename the article would be to follow the procedures at Wikipedia:Requested moves. But, we need to talk about it here first. Let's give editors a while to state an opinion, and see if we can establish a consensus. The name of the article should be the same as the name of the band. So, what's the name of the band -- Ratdog, or RatDog? — Mudwater^(Talk) 00:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's RatDog. Casually, both are used interchangeably, but (nearly) all official band statements use camel case now. Seelie (talk) 11:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, RatDog. I was unaware of the technical reasons and still don't understand them, but if the move is what is best that's fine. I was just trying to get the page with the correct name. -- Chupon (talk) 14:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been more than two weeks and no one has disagreed, so I've requested that the article be renamed. If anyone else has an opinion about this, now is the time to speak up, by posting your comments here. — Mudwater^(Talk) 02:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Protected page concerns...

I do believe since now Ratdog's wiki page is protected and unable to be edited, that there is a lack of free speach available for ratdog's fans to voice and update their information and concerns on this website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.153.152 (talk) 22:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article was semi-protected a few times lately, because an anonymous editor (or more than one anonymous editor) keeps re-adding a commentary to the ratdog.org entry in the "External links" section. See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RatDog&diff=310643613&oldid=310640295. While the opinions expressed in the commentary might have some value, they don't belong in the RatDog article. This is because of several important Wikipedia guidelines, one of which is that articles should have a neutral point of view. But, even if the commentary about ratdog.org did have a neutral point of view, it would be out of place in this article, which is about RatDog, the band, and not about ratdog.org, the fan site. In fact, Wikipedia is not a forum of free speech. It's an online encyclopedia, with some pretty clearly defined guiding principles. Feel free to reply, and I would also encourage other editors to give their opinions here. — Mudwater^(Talk) 02:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

why is this page locked?

to get more attention for an already underground band? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.18.122 (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]