|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 . If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.|
|WikiProject Biography / Musicians||(Rated Start-class)|
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)
(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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
Ratdog or RatDog?
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 220.127.116.11 (talk) 22:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- 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)