Talk:Dog Eat Dog (band)

Untitled

This is my first article ever, please help me improve it...

Its very good, I was waiting for a Dog Eat Dog article for a long time. Just remember to sign your comments by typing four tildes in a row. Quase 08:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's bad. Armando.O^{talk · Ev · 3K} 02:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Truly, this article needs some major improvements. --Freikorp (talk) 14:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I rather enjoy this article. I interpret it as the story of hard working musicians making their type of music and paying their bills without the "blessings" of rich an famous producers and "American Idol" type promotion. Just hard work and sticking to what they love is what Dog Eat Dog is all about. I like it: they are NOT sellouts Lighten up Francis! 20:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Lineup

The Lineup section need an update. When was who leaving and since when is the current Lineup? for example

Dave Neabore (1990 - ) Mark Marr (1991 - 2000)

or something. I was interested about this Lineup but there is no short information. See article from the band "status quo" and the section " Band members" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.242.76 (talk) 00:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Delted content

Epeefleche has deleted a very large amount of material from the article on "d uncited per wp:v and tag" grounds (though none of it was actually tagged). [1] A quick search leads me to suspect that most, if not all of the deleted content was factually correct. However, is a pretty obscure subject, so I'll leave the actual finding of refs to those who know the subject and leave this note as a prompt. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Uncited material

This article has been tagged for requiring citations for well over three years. The citations were not added. An editor has twice now violated wp:burden by restoring material deleted in accordance with the tag. I would caution editors not to do that again. --Epeefleche (talk) 04:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

What makes any of what you keep deleting any less verifiable from what you haven't? It's all EASILY verifiable, mostly from the same approved source the majority of the article has used and not at all contentious in any way. A more constructive way to approach would be to individually tag items seen as truly contentious and request a source as opposed to blindly wiping out entire sections. For example, wiping out a section about the band winning an MTV award. This is something that is questionable? Also, don't be so quick to revert back yourself. The material was being added back WITH the sources when you decided to revert it back tonight. Now the work needs to be done again because the corrections I made did not go through and were lost. NJZombie (talk) 04:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

All the uncited material is subject to deletion. And all of it can be deleted immediately -- there was not requirement to tag it first, and wait. Wait three years, in this instance. If an editor chooses to do that, to encourage others to supply the RS refs, that is fine as an alternative. It is not required, however. There is no requirement that, in addition to the article tag that applies to all uncited text, in addition individual sentence tags be added. It is not required as well. The same with deleting as a first measure some but not all of the uncited material. All of the uncited material here -- and all of that that not cited to an RS -- is subject to deletion. The burden is on the person who would like to restore it, to supply (after it has been deleted) inline RS citations. See wp:burden. Epeefleche (talk) 05:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Mucky Pup, etc.

Mucky Pup (for starters) does not appear to be a reliable source. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The same with The Giant. That is a wiki, and therefore not an RS. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

As you look for sources, so that you don't become frustrated by adding sources that are not reliable sources -- and which will therefore be deleted -- please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, which you may find useful. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dog Eat Dog (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150728040254/http://www.muckypup.com/content/discography/ to http://muckypup.com/content/discography/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)