Talk:A Wilhelm Scream

Untitled
Just FYI, but I saw these dudes last night and Trevor was using a Mesa/Boogie Roadster (some new variant on the Dual Rectifier) and a Mesa cabinet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.225.113 (talk) 05:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

This article needs to be updated a bit. HAS a spot on Warped 2005? That's almost a year out of date.

Hardcore? What? --Switch 11:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Image use
The image of the band is, in my opinion, reasonable fair use. While it is possible in a theoretical sense that someone might come up with a freely licensed image of the band, we don't have one yet, and until we do the promotional image adds distinctive value to the encyclopedia. The fair use criteria does not say that nonfree images can never be used when there is even a remote possibility of obtaining a free image; they say that we should prefer free images when we have a choice.

In any case, this is a stupid edit war, and all of you involved in it should know better. Anyone else who reverts on this article with respect to this image will be blocked, by me, until and unless a discussion has been held on this issue. If, after discussion, there is clear consensus that the image cannot be used, then and only then can it be removed. Until then, leave it there; that's what current policy and practice allows. Changing policy through this sort of guerilla tactics is not acceptable. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You said: "The fair use criteria does not say that nonfree images can never be used when there is even a remote possibility of obtaining a free image; they say that we should prefer free images when we have a choice.". It's wrong. The very first item of Wikipedias's Fair use criteria (a policy) says cleary "No free equivalent is available or could be created...". --Abu Badali 18:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The written text of the policy is not entirely accurate, then. I'm quite certain that there is not consensus that we should be removing existing images where no free alternative CURRENTLY exists when there is encyclopedic value to the image and the image illustrates the subject of the article.  This appears to me to be an attempt to alter policy by force.  In any case, edit warring is bad.  Stop it.  If you want to change consensus on this, do it appropriately. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * How's attempting "to alter policy by force"? Which alteration has being done? The policy is the same one that have been wrongly interpreted from long ago, but since September 9, it has been clarified. If you disagree with the policy, you should "do it appropriately", and discuss in the policy talk page, instead of willinfully disregarding it, and menacing those who want to enforce it. --Abu Badali 19:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with the policy from September 9. What I have a problem with is people using it as an excuse to cause disruption.  This is not grounds to edit war.  Work out a solution that doesn't involve edit warring. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Edit wars are generally a waste of energy. My suspicion is that the band would be happy to provide a free image if asked. Asking them would be a better use of energy than a revert war. Stephen B Streater 21:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that more discussion about this would be good but saying "further edit warring over the image on A Wilhelm Scream will result in blocks" and then going right ahead with a revert of your own "reinsert image as fair use permitted under current policy" wasn't the right thing to do. Haukur 22:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Status quo ante. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is a mess
I've cleaned up the discography somewhat, though the column sizes like to mess with my head on the widescreen monitor I'm using, so feel free to finetune it if it looks wrong for you. Other than that, I feel there should be a proper history section instead of the snippets that are in the intro right now. Unfortunately, all the sources I can find for the band's history are rather messy, including their official website. Does anyone have anything good we can use? --ThunderPX (talk) 10:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)