Talk:Pain (U.S. band)

This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page:
• Salvo (band)
Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:
• Talk:Salvo (band)

September 2009

is this a vanity page? i mean, talk about obscure!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.143.222.119 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not really that obscure 206.173.47.4 (talk) 20:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salvo

I think there should be some mention of the band "Salvo", which is publicly declared as the spiritual successor to Pain. Most of the members have reunited to form it, and they are even playing Pain songs. I agree that there isn't enough information to warrant an entire article for the new band, but at least some notation of it at the end of the Biography section seems appropriate. This article implies that the members of the band are completely inactive and that Pain is no longer around in any form. 50.227.102.2 (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold and add that reliable-sourced information! — fourthords | =Λ= | 15:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ill-explained reversion

Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs) removed the redirection of Pain (U.S. band) to Salvo (band) saying, "Content not merged in. Sources lost." This is correct, but sort of misses the point. Firstly, no prose from here merged in because none of it was used; the article at Salvo (band) was written entirely from scratch. As for the three of six sources that weren't used in the new article, I eschewed unreliable sources (the link to YouTube) as well as those with no mention of the band under discussion (links to University of North Carolina at Pembroke, and Samford University). Does anybody else support retaining this page as is? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 21:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No need to ping me as this article is on my watchlist.

The point is that I do not think it is a good idea to lose some of the content from the poorly sourced history section. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I … didn't ping you? Your talk page said to comment here as opposed to there, so I did? As for the history section, nothing there is lost; it's still in the page history. All three reliable sources from this page were harvested and written about at the Salvo article. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. You're right. You used {{user}}, which notified me. My mistake.

While the history of all of the edits is there, the content is not easily accessible to a reader. If you feel the three RSes were covered in the new article, feel free to redirect. I didn't see that was the case. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know {{user}} did that; sorry for the confusion. I processed the sources pretty thoroughly, and it looks like Polyamorph (talk · contribs) already replaced the redirect. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]