Talk:H. P. Lovecraft II
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
External links modified[edit]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on H. P. Lovecraft II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723115736/http://www.ccmusic.com/item.cfm?itemid=CCM01392 to http://www.ccmusic.com/item.cfm?itemid=CCM01392
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 18 January 2022).
- 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:01, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not free marketing[edit]
I've blanked the entire section about rereleases, as it's written like a marketing sheet, lacking only a "BUY IT NOW!! balloon. Maybe I'll make it objective, some day.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 07:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- I have reverted your edit because a discussion of an album's re-releases, especially when supported by reliable third-party references, as is the case here, is entirely relevant to an album article, as per the guidelines at WP:MOSMUSIC. Far from being some kind of shameless plug for these later editions of the album -- most of which are long out of print anyway -- the final paragraph of the "Background" section is concerned with the continued demand for the album among record collector's, which is entirely relevant to the article. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- I have also edited the re-releases section slightly, to make it more encyclopedic in tone and hopefully address your concern that it was "written like a marketing sheet". --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 09:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)