This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dr.K. (talk | contribs) at 16:49, 13 March 2014 (→"was led" versus "was lead": reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 16:49, 13 March 2014 by Dr.K. (talk | contribs) (→"was led" versus "was lead": reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Skip to table of contents |
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. |
|
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. | ||||||||||
|
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. |
|
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 |
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 sourced must 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.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
To-do list for The Rolling Stones: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2013-04-26
|
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)
- I am and it does. Murry1975 (talk) 15:27, 23 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.
- 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)
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)
- 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