Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:You know, of course, that ] with a 'z' when the rest of the UK spells with an 's' in words such as ''specialise''/''specialize''. And you realize, of course, that if n=1 then it does not really counterbalance the case of n = many thousands. ] (]) 16:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
:You know, of course, that ] with a 'z' when the rest of the UK spells with an 's' in words such as ''specialise''/''specialize''. And you realize, of course, that if n=1 then it does not really counterbalance the case of n = many thousands. ] (]) 16:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
::Yes, the "z' spelling is a feature of the Oxford spelling, but that doesn't address the present issue which is the past-tense spelling of "lead". The settings of oxforddictionaries.com are for UK English, not Oxford spelling. In any case I'm not sure what you indicate by n=1 and n=many thousands. If you are trying to invoke the induction method, I can't see for what reason. ] <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 16:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Rolling Stones article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
The Rolling Stones is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Rolling Stones article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject The Rolling Stones, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Rolling Stones on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.The Rolling StonesWikipedia:WikiProject The Rolling StonesTemplate:WikiProject The Rolling StonesThe Rolling Stones
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware
the entire article needs to be sectionalized (try more headings and subheadings); it doesn't look or read like a summary.
all images need sources and fair use rationales.
The section titles are not written with an encyclopedic tone
the sections themselves are extremely long. It seems like they could be reorganized so that instead of a chronology of the band, each section focused on one element of the band and how it changed throught the band's history.
Lead should be a summary of the articles content, and is rather brief considering the length of the article and the 50+ years the band have existed
Fannish tone.
After cleanup, improve to good article status.
unlike many articles for major musical artists, this page has no section about legacy or influence.
Priority 1 (top)
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Section titles
I see someone has changed the title that included "Decline" to something softer. Actually I came here to say that I feel the divisions are a bit arbitrary. I personally would have Altamont as "the end of an era" at the end of one of the sections. At the moment it is in the section titled "The Golden Age". A quick read of the events there will give anyone an idea of why this IMO doesn't seem quite right. Britmax (talk) 08:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Rock, pop
Like with the Beatles' Wiki infobox, The Rolling Stones' infobox should just list "Rock, pop", since
these are general terms which cover all the sub-genres that the band played, instead of cluttering it up by having loads of different genres. As this is the current consensus on the Beatles' page, it should also be one on here.You'reNotMyBrain (talk) 19:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Flagging fortunes false narrative
Goats Head Soup went triple platinum.
Is this commercial disasters. Just the facts, Maam
1972 Exile On Main Street 3,000,000 3P
1972 More Hot Rocks (big hits and fazed cookies) 500,000 G
1973 Goat's Head Soup 3,000,000 3P
1974 It's Only Rock and Roll 1,000,000 P
1975 Made In The Shade 1,000,000 P
1976 Black and Blue 1,000,000 P
1977 Love You Live 500,000 G
1978 Some Girls 6,000,000 6P
1980 Emotional Rescue 2,000,000 2P
1981 Sucking In the Seventies 500,000 G
1981 Tattoo You 4,000,000 4P
Anglo/American commonality of "the band is" proven
I hope I need not point out the Opportunities for Commonality where they exist our out preference, and in spite of repeated explanations that both "the sand are" and "the band is" is common and proper in England. Despite apparent prejudice that would have the Queens being quaint and archaically bound, the Time UK, per a search of it's site, has used the phrase "the band is" 327 times. Since context does matter, here is one example "Non-followers of McFly may be surprised to learn that the band is still in business, never mind successful enough to sell out four consecutive nights at the Albert Hall. " The phase "the band are" occurs 464 times. Let's call the ratio 3/4 and proof of commonality. I eagerly await word from anyone who can say commonality is not a policy in effect in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.44.136 (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
You have read poorly, Commonality is about "usage", and "the Band is" is accepted as proper by the Times. What better authority exists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.44.136 (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
POV if you are considering the Times the only source that matters. Two things from the Times, one they use both, and two that is totaally dependent on the author of the piece.
And collective nouns in BE can be threated either way, but in general common usage, are is most common, now if you want to split hairs- changing one term on one article is trying to prove a point is not the way things are done on here. If you dont agree with something discuss at the relevant guideline talkpage, try discuss instaed of edit warring. But on this one, I cant see going through.
And do everyone a favour, stop using Anglo/American. Like whats that meant to mean? American English? Or an English-American? That phrase really shows a lack of understanding of British English matters. Murry1975 (talk) 22:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
So I stop reverting and go to the talk page and what do I get? Bitched out. Personal piece of advice, don't go into management. It won't suit you.
Should "Early members" section be added? Should Darryl Jones be added to "Members" list?
Bill Wyman and Charlie Watts were in the first settled, permanent, official line-up. Dick Taylor, Mick Avory, Carlo Little, Tony Chapman, Ricky Fenson and Colin Golding were all early members of the band that played on some gigs in 1962 and 1963 that weren't part of an official tour and they haven't recorded anything with the band. So I thought about adding an "Early members" section just like Queen page has and listing all of them there. Either that or removing them completely but I don't get it why only Tony Chapman and Dick Taylor are listed as former official members now.
Darryl Jones isn't an official member but rather a contributor. Still, he isn't just a touring member like Chuck Leavell, Lisa Fischer etc., but also plays bass guitar on most of their recorded songs 1994-2012. So I thought about adding his name but in small format to the "Members" list and also his name to "Current members" list in the "Members" section and his name to the coloured graph just like Bon Jovi page has for Hugh McDonald. What do you think about it?
I was reverted byan editor because allegedly "was lead" is British English. Yet from oxforddictionaries.com, set in UK English, we get this example: 3. Be in charge or command of: a military delegation was led by the Chief of Staff. Therefore I can't see how the form "was lead" can be supported as correct UK English usage. Δρ.Κ.13:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
You know, of course, that Oxford spells with a 'z' when the rest of the UK spells with an 's' in words such as specialise/specialize. And you realize, of course, that if n=1 then it does not really counterbalance the case of n = many thousands. Binksternet (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the "z' spelling is a feature of the Oxford spelling, but that doesn't address the present issue which is the past-tense spelling of "lead". The settings of oxforddictionaries.com are for UK English, not Oxford spelling. In any case I'm not sure what you indicate by n=1 and n=many thousands. If you are trying to invoke the induction method, I can't see for what reason. Δρ.Κ.16:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
