Talk:Dalton & Dubarri
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Kent DuBarri[edit]
It seems that Kent Dubarri or someone closely related was a member of a band called Boones Farm Butch Dubarri (aka Kent Sprague) http://badcatrecords.com/BadCat/BOONESfarm.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe-lemoncrusher (talk • contribs) 04:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
October 2022[edit]
Hi Karl Twist, I recently deleted most of the content you added, explaining in my edit summary that it consisted entirely of individual show references, minor accolades, and other trivia. You went ahead and replaced the same content. I insist that the majority of the content you are adding to the article is not encyclopedic and does not improve the page, for the reasons I've outlined. It is not common to mention individual performances by an artist, musicians alongside whom they perform, and casual mentions they may receive in publications, as this is all seen as trivia. I want to work with you on this issue rather than engaging in an edit war, and I hope you feel the same way. For now, I have removed most of the content that I deem inappropriate, but I have left a few references and tables, which are useful. I encourage you to discuss your concerns here, so that we can resolve this amicably and not waste each other's time. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 23:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Revirvlkodlaku, I disagree with how you assessed the situation. Perhaps I got a little carried away with a tiny bit of the added content. Normally a removal of that amount of content should be discussed. What was left was a few lines about the group and it was mixed with unreferenced content. I'm a bit busy now, but will explain my strategy to you another time and we'll see what we can do. Regards Karl Twist (talk) 11:09, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Karl Twist I would say that removal of useful content, based on the type of material that conventionally comprises an article about a musical artist, should be discussed, but the majority of the content you added to this article was not useful. As I mentioned in previous edit summaries, it consisted almost entirely of trivia that, again, isn't conventionally included in this type of article. You don't need to explain your strategy to me if it's going to be an attempt to justify including trivia. I think you did much better in your last edits, and while I've made some modifications, I kept the majority of that content. I believe we can move forward from there. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Revirvlkodlaku, I still disagree with your assessment of what is trivia and what should have been removed. Some has been proven to be useful. But as I said previously I may have gotten a bit carried away with putting all that I did on the table so to speak. Yes, I saw that you removed a fair bit and more than I would. But, it is good that you kept some and I have to admit you did a good job with setting it out and I wasn't disappointed with how it ended up as per Your Revision as of 16:23, 22 October 2022. So it gives a good base to be added to over time and stands as a good and useful article as it is. Karl Twist (talk) 01:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Karl Twist I would say that removal of useful content, based on the type of material that conventionally comprises an article about a musical artist, should be discussed, but the majority of the content you added to this article was not useful. As I mentioned in previous edit summaries, it consisted almost entirely of trivia that, again, isn't conventionally included in this type of article. You don't need to explain your strategy to me if it's going to be an attempt to justify including trivia. I think you did much better in your last edits, and while I've made some modifications, I kept the majority of that content. I believe we can move forward from there. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Karl Twist, thanks for the feedback, and I'm glad we can agree to disagree and continue to collaborate peacefully. I noticed that you've been busy creating new pages to further expand this topic, which is great! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Revirvlkodlaku, thanks. Yes, things have turned out for the better and even though we as you put "can agree to disagree and continue to collaborate peacefully" things often turn out for the better. I appreciate your where you're coming from and respect that. Sometimes with disagreements in the process, the end result is something good that wouldn't occur otherwise. Yes, in expanding I'm enjoying finding out some interesting things about aka Butch DuBarri and Gary Dalton. Cheers Karl Twist (talk) 03:03, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Karl Twist, thanks for the feedback, and I'm glad we can agree to disagree and continue to collaborate peacefully. I noticed that you've been busy creating new pages to further expand this topic, which is great! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)