Talk:Sonicflood

This page is incredibly biased and sites no information whatsoever.
I'm sure you magic people know how to deal with this.--99.140.58.148 (talk) 07:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This reads like it was copied directly from a record labels marketing press release.--Davim00 (talk) 18:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move
The page exists in both places. SONICFLOOd appears to be the correct way to write it, but this page has more work done on it. A move has been requested. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 04:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This a s merge, that everybody who is interested can do. After merging, just make it a redirect. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * A merge seems really sensible &mdash; after all, they're both talking about the same group, so we can't have both co-existing, and they both have good material in them. Any volunteers? talkGiler S 11:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * To clarify, we're merging Sonicflood into SONICFLOOd (leaving Sonicflood as a redirect), correct?--Ktdreyer 17:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Er, sorry for the confusion :) It seems like everything's done, so I'll add the redirect to SONICFLOOd.--Ktdreyer 17:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Restoring history section
It seems the entire "History" section of this article was completely replaced at some point within the past year. Another website has appeared to have directly pulled the text from the previous Wikipedia entry in 2008. I am proposing this text be restored, along with the links intact. The reason for this request is the text that was replaced uses better language and is written in a way that adheres more properly to Wikipedia's guidelines. The current text, as has been pointed out, does not cite references and is completely biased, almost reading like a press release from a record label. Please verify the restoration of the old text to make this article adhere to Wikipedia's standards.--Davim00 (talk) 22:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, so there's more to this than I thought. I came through the project a few days ago and blew away several blatant (c) violations, including this one. I just moved it back to my last revision, since I knew that it at least didn't have issues as large... but if there's a more optimal history available, go ahead and restore it. I'm standing by with 3-4 sources already for proper expansion. Just lemme know. Dan, the CowMan (talk) 08:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

After the mountain of recent expansion, feedback would be appreciated at this point. Dan, the CowMan (talk) 01:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

new albums
we need articles for the two new albums i have cover art so.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glman99 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)