Talk:Phish festivals

Merging of Phish festival articles

These articles are stubby and full of fancruft and uncited information. I think it would be better to include all the information into one article, rather than 7. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This will eliminate another "bar" of unnecessary links from the Phish template, and we will no longer need to separate the information into subtemplates (it's already redundant as it is). Xnux the Echidna 02:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is fluff. This sentence is indicative of this article's fluffy quality: "including a huge quantity of bright orange glow sticks that had a remarkable intensity and one phan was at first convinced this was the venue catching on fire rather than glow sticks adding to an already over the top energy from the mudsoaked crowd."

Also, a bunch of people in an area does not make up a city. I'd scrap this whole thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.35.33 (talk) 07:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eight Festivals?

It says there are eight festivals in the majority of the articles, though I only see evidence of 7 on this page. Also, it says that there is one after Coventry, the notorious last concert by Phish. This makes no sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.201.146.236 (talk) 20:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Phish festivals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050430045613/http://www.godstreetwine.com:80/mailinglist/finewine/archive/finewine/finewine.log9809a.txt to http://www.godstreetwine.com/mailinglist/finewine/archive/finewine/finewine.log9809a.txt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Discussion.

I recently undid the delete and redirect that took place last year. The editor appears to have unilaterally deleted the page, as I see no discussion of the recent deletion on either this talk page or the article it was redirected too. I'll note that there is a deletion discussion above with 2 editors and an anonymous comment, but that was from 2008, 6 years ago and no action taken.

Additionally there was no attempt to "merge" the articles. Only a deletion of content. Something that I feel definingly should warrant a discussion.

I for one support a stand alone article for Phish's festivals as they have generated their own distinct coverage in reliable sources. See the NYT's coverage here. I could be convinced of a delete and merge effort, but that was not what happened here. Hence my reversal. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 20:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]