Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rua (talk | contribs) at 01:22, 1 April 2014 (→Merge with The Beatles: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 3 months

	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.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 11, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Template:Vital article

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. The Rolling Stones Top‑importance 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Musicians 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 supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Rock music Top‑importance 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. London High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Software: Computing 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

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)

MOS:COMMONALITY is not a policy (its is guideline) and it does not apply in this case, because it is clearly about spelling. What does apply as a guideline is MOS:PLURALS and WP:ARTCON on consistency in this article.--SabreBD (talk) 00:10, 12 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.

I am and it does. Murry1975 (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

sure — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.134.28 (talk) 23:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

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?

You can see these changes: here. 93.139.6.205 (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

"was led" versus "was lead"

I was reverted by an 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)

The Cambridge Dictionaries online concurs. Radiopathy •talk• 00:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Cambridge is another top-notch reference for UK English. Thank you Radiopathy. Δρ.Κ.  00:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• Disclaimer: I’m Canadian (but I’ve read plenty of BrE.) If I’ve ever even seen “was lead” it’s been so rarely that it was dismissed as an error and forgotten. But personal experience is neither here nor there … Collins also concurs with the above. Furthermore, the old dead-trees OED indicates that the spelling of the past participle as “lead(e)” appears only in the XVII c., while “led” has been in use since the XIV.—Odysseus1479 07:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• I agree fully. I also think your reply is as definitive as it gets in settling this question. Any more detail than that and we would have to write a master's thesis on the topic. Since I think we have consensus, I will wait for a day and then revert back to the original form "led". Δρ.Κ.  16:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Merge with The Beatles

Relevant discussion at

→ Talk:The Beatles#Merge with The Rolling Stones

CodeCat (talk) 01:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class The Rolling Stones articles
• Top-importance The Rolling Stones articles
• WikiProject The Rolling Stones articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (musicians) articles
• Top-importance biography (musicians) articles
• Musicians work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Rock music articles
• Top-importance Rock music articles
• WikiProject Rock music articles
• B-Class London-related articles
• High-importance London-related articles
• Unassessed software articles
• Unknown-importance software articles
• Unassessed software articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed Computing articles
• Unknown-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• All Software articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• Misplaced Pages articles that use British English