Talk:Van Halen/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

User:Chevan

Discussion

Article Length

Any ideas what should be done about the article length? --Chevan 00:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Other

WWW Links

• All Music Guide [1]
• The Official Sammy Hagar Website [2]
• The brown M&Ms clause @ Snopes [3]
• Melodicrock.com interview with Mitch Malloy [4]
• Dennis Loren's Van Halen concert poster [5]
• Pollstar 2004 Concert Tour Data
• CMA Press Release with 2004 top 10 all-genre concert tour data.
• "Gary Cheroning" of the Republican Party
• VH Influence on Floyd Rose bridge development
• VH1 history of Van Halen.

Print Sources

• Strong, Martin C. "The Great Rock Discography 6th Edition" p. 1100 ISBN 1841953121
• Chilvers, C.J. "The Van Halen Encyclopedia 1st Edition" ISBN 0595166695

User:SaltyPig

Discussion

Prep for FAC

i'll go through every section in order, like we discussed. if i don't edit a section, i don't have any suggested changes. SaltyPig 16:23, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

will probably use the inusefor template for sections (or whatever template's more appropriate for sections -- haven't checked) as i go through from now on. starting to get itchy (and rushing) worrying about edit conflicts! gonna take a break until tonight at least, i think. don't hesitate to hack and slash my edits, BTW. think it's shaping up. good work. SaltyPig 17:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

It's nice having someone else to work with. I go in spurts but I think using the inusefor template is a good idea. I'm not going to bother on the talk page though, I hope that's ok. --Chevan 17:53, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

yeah, i can write/edit by myself, but it takes far longer, and doesn't always end up as good. right, the inusefor template is only required for intermingled, tweaky stuff, not comments like this. BTW, do you have a schedule you're aiming for? i don't want to slow you up by dragging my feet on edits. let me know your timeline if there's one. SaltyPig 17:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree with what you were saying on my talk page. I have no deadline... if it takes another few years that's fine with me. This is purely a hobby as far as I'm concerned. I would rather go slower than faster and have a really solid article for FAC rather than rushing just to get an FA. --Chevan 18:35, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

SaltyPig, this just occurred to me.. do you have a timeline you're working on for FAC? --Chevan 18:35, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

i'd like to have done as much as i can contribute (i know next to nothing about post-roth VH) within a week or so. not a rush, but i'd like to crunch it concentrated instead of dragging it out, then i'll keep an eye out for whatever's going on. SaltyPig 18:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

rethinking POV issues

i just read the objections to the previous FAC submission. if reviewers are going to be sticklers for POV, we're going to have to cite more things, even though you've done a helluva job on refs (one of the less glamorous tasks at wikipedia). before you submit for FAC, let's do a major POV check. already, i think there are problems in the opening paragraph that are going to set the POV-snipers to "fire" mode from the outset. apart from that, it seems a lot of the comments before were about the opening paragraph, so let's give that extra scrutiny in addition to sourcing POV. SaltyPig 18:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Just so you know, I am very consciously trying to craft a dramatic story without crossing the line into editorializing. I want the read to be interesting from top to bottom and be more than a recitation of facts. That being said, I am aware that POV will pop up with that kind of strategy. My primary two goals for the article are 1) connect the threads of time together (pre- / during / post-Van Halen) 2) in the influence section talk about what the phrase Van Halen has come to embody in our culture. I hope that it will make the read more than simply an encyclopedia entry and will differentiate this article from other encyclopedia articles (it's tough to do, because we're all using the same info. here). How does that sound? --Chevan 18:44, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

names

i just noticed that the page is switching between first and last names (at least in the section i edited last). i guess the usual deal for wikipedia articles is to use last names almost exclusively, but obviously that presents a problem when discussing brothers (basically this whole article). it's always a hassle anyway for an unfamiliar reader to just get one set of names straight. should we adopt a policy in this article of using only first names after the first appearance and wikification of the full name? or maybe we use first names only for just the band. first names only for just eddie and alex? SaltyPig 21:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I say let's set a policy of using everyone's first names and see how the article feels afterward. I think the name switching you've seen was pretty consciously done in order to preserve the tone of the article (using first names makes it more informal). Let's try first names throughout and see how it works out. --Chevan 00:22, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Article length

i started to get bogged down editing the article. it's good, but... i'm wondering if it should be shortened, like you were talking about. i like a lot of the detail, but by the time i got to the influences section, i was thinking that much of that should be in the articles for each member, with maybe just a summary paragraph pointing people there in a subtle way. kinda disappointed we don't have more comments, because even though i haven't read the article too many times, it's hard to stay objective while editing. re POV, i think there's still plenty we can remove there, although i took a few pieces out this last time through. i find that whenever it starts sounding like a rolling stone article instead of an encyclopedia, i get the heebie jeebies a bit. i'll step away for a while and come back in a day or two. we also might want to consider alternate org strategies (heading sequence, etc.), though my attempts to find a better sequence always come back to what you made -- mainly because of the rotating lead singers. the table of contents seems too convoluted though. maybe something can be done from that angle. SaltyPig 20:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm completely open to anyone's suggestions. In one of the past peer reviews or FAC reviews there was a mention that there wasn't any discussion about the influence of VH and that the article was a mere recitation of facts. I think it's hard to reconcile that request and keep the article non-POV although I have some ideas (which is why I started moving stuff into a separate section). I think I'll be able to write something substantive that discusses their influence and that I'll be able to add references for. Please move as much stuff as you can to the individual pages- they are still pretty weak (the DLR page is coming along) and could use more content.

If you have an idea for a way to shape the organization in a way that is interesting and different go for it. Over time this structure kind of evolved because (as you mentioned) the lead singers keep changing- a change which has had major impacts for the band musically and from a business perspective.... that makes it hard to say "put all the Sammy stuff together" and still tell the story in a way that doesn't cause motion sickness :-). Talk to you in a few days. --Chevan 22:24, September 7, 2005 (UTC)