Talk:Reunions of the Grateful Dead

Material from the Grateful Dead article
If you look at this edit, you will see a number of paragraphs that were removed from the Grateful Dead article. It was thought that the GD article had too much detailed elaboration about the various reunions of the Grateful Dead. Although there's a lot of overlap, perhaps some of that material could be added to this article, if anyone cares to do it. — Mudwater (Talk) 02:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Title of article
Can this be reworked since there actually has never been a Grateful Dead reunion and probably won't be one as long as Jerry remians deceased. Thakn you. --70.188.128.226 (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that technically there can't be any reunions of the Grateful Dead. On the other hand, I think that the average reader is likely to understand that the article is about different combinations of the former members performing together.  But, I'm open to suggestions.  Can anyone think of a better title for the article, preferably one that's not very long?  I'll ponder this myself too.  — Mudwater (Talk) 18:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * How about "Reunions by living former members of the GD"? Might not meet your one that's not very long criteria but more accurate. Just a thought and not really that bid a deal. Thank you, --70.188.128.226 (talk) 12:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Or "Reunions of former members of the Grateful Dead", perhaps? Presumably they'd have to be living, and "of" is probably better than "by".  — Mudwater (Talk) 12:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that a title change is really necessary. Yes the "Grateful Dead" have never and never will be able to reunite because of Jerry's deaths but if Bob, Phil, Bill and Mickey really wanted to they would be able to call themselves the Grateful Dead but they just choose not to out of respect. Everyone knows and understands this and The Other Ones and The Dead will always be seen as a Grateful Dead reunion so I think that changing the title of the article is just unnecessary and you guys may be over thinking it a little bit. I just don't think that "Reunions by living former members of the GD" or anything like that is a good title for an articleSk8punk3d288 (talk) 03:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

"Partial" vs. "full" reunions
I propose merging the sections "Partial reunions" and "full reunions". The chronology of the reunions would then be much better organized and easier for our readers to follow. For example, the first major reunions were the Other Ones tours in 1998, 2000, and 2002. That's a pretty continuous chronology and would be better if presented as such, but right now the article has 1998 and 2000 in the "partial" section (because Kreutzmann was not in the band in 1998 and Lesh was not in the band in 2000) and 2002 in the "full" section. It would be best to still have a section for "Tours" and a section for "Single shows" -- combining the two current pairs of subsections. Anyway, the "full" vs. "partial" distinction seems somewhat artificial to me, as shown by the Other Ones example. So I would go even further and include Further in the "Tours" section. I'm not sure why it's currently in "Other collaborations" instead of "Partial reunions" now anyway. (Pinging some editors who have worked on this article ) — Mudwater (Talk) 12:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I second that emotion. Sure, one full Tours section and one full Single shows section would provide full, unbroken chronological timelines that are easier to read and follow. North America1000 18:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, hooray for chronology. Rothorpe (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ With this edit I've gone ahead and combined the "partial" and "full" material. Yeah, that's much better.  Adding subsection headers to the Tours section helps too.  — Mudwater (Talk) 11:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

"Single shows" vs. "other collaborations"
^^^ That went very well, I think. Now here's the next question -- the "Single shows" and "Other collaborations" sections. If you look through what are currently listed in those sections, it's not clear why some entries are listed in a particular section. So I think we have a choice: either sort them by some meaningful criterion -- I suppose a single show would be where two or more former members played together in a complete concert of some kind -- or combine the two sections. Initially I was thinking that the first would be preferable. For example, this is definitely a "single show": On February 4, 2008, Weir, Lesh and Hart performed a concert called Deadheads for Obama to raise support for presidential candidate Barack Obama. Supporting musicians were John Molo, keyboardist Steve Molitz and guitarists Mark Karan, Barry Sless and Jackie Greene. And this is definitely an "other collaboration": On March 6, 1997, Bob Weir and Phil Lesh joined the David Murray Octet for several songs at The Fillmore in San Francisco. But the more I look at it, the more I think there might be some "gray area" entries, and it might be better just to combine the sections. At the moment I could see doing it either way. Thoughts? (Pinging the same editors as last time: ) — Mudwater (Talk) 14:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thinking about this further, I'm inclined to combine the two sections, and will probably do so soon unless other editors think it would be better to keep them separate. — Mudwater (Talk) 16:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, it seems an unnecessary distinction. Chronology is more interesting, I'd say. Rothorpe (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * ✅, here. Thanks, y'all! — Mudwater (Talk) 21:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)