Talk:Vanilla Sky (band)
| 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. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Start
editHi, Started this page as the Vanilla Sky page had a disambiguation link to the italian page about this group. I have heard a few of their pieces, and personally think they have enough notoriety to warrent a page. I've corrected the disambiguation link on the vanilla sky page so it now points here, as well as gathered some very basic information and entered into one catagory so at least this page is not an orphan. Obviously if people don't agree this group merit an entry, deletion is perfectly reasonable. DomUK (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Sources and rewrite
editCan we get some sources and rewrite this article from a point of view of a non-fan? The Black Ash Lad (talk) 04:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe not particularly non-fan but just neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stela0000 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree they warrent a page. However, the page as is is unacceptable. It reads to me as though it's copy-pasted from their site or some such thing. It is not unsalvageable, but I personally have no inclination to salvage it! :P Any fans of the group that would like this page to stay should better get to it soon. Personally I hate putting up pages for deletion, except when they're blatantly false (eg political propaganda, vanity, hoax). Other people are not as lenient as me though. However, as is, I honestly think the article might be better off as a stub, with almost everything but the first couple of sentences gone. Just my two-cents. Druworos (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I found this article in a god awful state and i've rewritten it now, free of peacock terms and the like. Still has no citations. I'm not doing it because i couldn't care less about the subject matter. Maybe a fan will. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the rewrite, Sillyfolkboy. It's quite a bit better written. Citations would still be reccomended, but in it's current state, I don't think this article necessarily would require a deletion. It just needs a little TLC. --Wes 30 Oct 2008
Big text
References
editReferences all seem absurd to me Kap 7 (talk) 02:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. They even repeat. I'd love to help, but I just don't know how when it comes to References. Exterscope (talk) 13:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Me either but its on my to do list to find someone that can help Kap 7 (talk) 08:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Visualizations
editThis page has a lot of text, so I think it would be nice if someone uploaded a picture of them performing. I would if I could, but I have never seen them live and I own no shots of them. Exterscope (talk) 12:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)