Talk:Rage (TV program)

CD and DVD listings

These aren't really pertinent to the program of which the article is about other than in name, it's more a complimenting release of random compilation material from the record company. I argue that other music programs that have released compilations branded with the program name are not included in their respective articles. i.e. Channel V Australia or Countdown (Australian TV series). Can I vote to at least format it similar to Video Hits (Australian TV series) or delete this out entirely as it is more promotion than pertinence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.163.10 (talk) 09:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think the tracklists are relevant to the rage page, and are certainly not encyclopaedic.Nqr9 (talk) 11:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Theme song

I haven't heard/seen Rage for a while, but isn't the opening slapped-bass line from "Sleepless" by King Crimson? Or is that not used any more? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.255.108.148 (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

Playlists and RageRover

Hi. I added a short section about rage's playlists, and the fact that they appear online each week before the show airs. I also mentioned my RageRover program, which can inform the user when songs/artists on their search list will be aired. But User:Chuq deleted my edits, so I'm here for other opinions.

First, I think the mention of rage's playlists being online is important. Whether it deserves its own section or not I don't know, but it's useful information. There was nothing self-promotional in this but it was also deleted.

Second, the mention of RageRover could hardly be more relevant to an article about rage. I understand that the knee-jerk reaction might be to delete it since it was a link to my own software, but I do not consider myself to be a spammer: my writing was dispassionate and the software is relevant. It is probably the only rage-specific software in existence, and I expect some people visiting wiki's rage page will therefore be interested in it.

The wiki document on WP:Spam discourages self-promotion, but also says If your product is truly relevant to an article, others will agree -- try the talk page. So here I am. What do others think? Thanks, Rob. 14:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I encourage others to post their views here. Personally, the reasons I removed it were:

• It is a link to an editor's own site
• It is a link to a commercial piece of software
• It was the editors only edit at the time

I believe just because rage is extremely notable and relevant to this piece of software, it does not mean the other way around is true. -- Chuq 01:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I've left this a few months and no one else has voiced an opinion. It would be nice to hear from someone. My changes were deleted without discussion, and that's what I find most objectionable. Before writing my RageRover app, this page was one of the places I looked to see if such a thing already existed. It makes finding songs of interest on rage easier, so I figured something that relevant would be listed here, but when I added such a reference it was deleted. Yes, I am probably biased, because I want people to know about and find use for my software, but that doesn't mean my changes were necessarily inappropriate. Others, not just one person, should judge the relevance of RageRover to this article. If it is something that a rage viewer seeking further information is likely to be interested in, then why not mention it? I agree wiki should not become an advertising farm, but it also shouldn't avoid mentioning relevant software for fear of advertising it, at the expense of information. Keep it relevant, that's all, and I think I did.

I think the argument about not being extremely notable and relevant to rage is lacking. The same could be said of this whole article. You can watch and enjoy rage without knowing wiki exists. RobertCWebb 14:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion The piece of software seems useful for watchers of this TV program. However, utility is not what a subject needs to be added to Wikipedia, but notability. The program RageRover fails the google test (under 50 hits when googling "RageRover" actually mean the program) and is not mentioned by any reliable source. So, it shouldn't be included. I appreciate your efforts to communicate on talk pages - your actions should serve as an example to others trying to promote their own product on Wikipedia. Once a reliable source has made mention of your program, try again. That this is your program or that it is a commercial thing has nothing to do with this. --User:Krator (t c) 08:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

List of guest programmers

Does anybody else think that there could be a new link called "List of Rage guest programmers"? - 203.24.110.163 03:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like a good idea, especially since the list already contained in this article is gradually growing - eventually we'll need to impose some sort of limit on it, or break the table into a separate article anyway. Does anybody have any objections?--Phil500 (Talk / Contribs) 07:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I started the suggested page, maybe I didn't wait long enough for anyone to comment? Farsouth 13:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This morning I moved it to List of rage guest programmers because there is no technical restriction on the name. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 18:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Im wondering if there could be a Rage Guest Programmers category? Metao 03:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

There is, and it is up for deletion. The whole genre of "performers categorized by some kind of performance" category has been deemed unneeded. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 10:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Longest Introduction to song

i read in the tv guide that courtney love had set the longest time for introducing a song. it was a song by guns n roses. does anybody know about this and if they do should it be put on rage's article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pastryback76 (talk • contribs) 08:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

Fair use rationale for Image:Rage tv logo.png

Image:Rage tv logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Longest running music show

video hits has recently gone off air, having been replaced by "the hit list" on channel 10. logic would dictate that this is now the longest running music show. however the video hits site is still up and running, and channel 10 has not removed it from it's list of shows, yet it has not placed the hit list on its' list of shows. This could be due to a slow update.

i am unsure of whether to edit this page, as the show may only be temporarily off air, more information is required on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiffymagee (talk • contribs) 10:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Theamed specials on rage

I was going to put on the theamed specials that rage have put on tv by year from 1990 to 2019 on wikapedia Fan of rage (talk) 13:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Outrageous lack of citations

Hi. I've added the "More citations needed" template to this article. This surely can't be considered a B-class article with so many unverified claims? Cheers. --Ghastlyman (talk) 20:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC)