# Talk:The Rolling Stones

A random spot check of articles about albums by the Rolling Stones finds that they all use this structure for the lead sentence — eg, Sticky Fingers is the 9th British and 11th American studio album by the English rock band the Rolling Stones.
It's not at all clear what this means, and makes for a clumsy opening sentence. Whatever it means, if it's genuinely important, we should explain it in a sentence. If it's not important, we should leave it out of the leads for these articles. Popcornfud (talk) 03:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

While what was the first, second or third album might be important, I find it odd to be talking about the 9th (or whatever) album as the first thing we say about an album. For lots of acts, the counting becomes complicated, as with UK and US releases for the Stones, and then we end up with clumsy sentences like this. I'd drop the wording and have the first sentence give the release date, as that's more interesting. Bondegezou (talk) 10:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I was thinking that if we want to drop the numbering entirely, then we could just write something like "[such and such] is a 2023 album by the Rolling Stones."
I'd still like to hear from someone who knows what this opening line is trying to say because I still don't understand it. If it's important, there will be another way to explain it. Popcornfud (talk) 10:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
I think this wording is unnecessary and it is common for me to make an album article and someone else to come along and add in that it's the "Xth album by [artist]" in the lead. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
@Popcornfud: In the 1960s, the Rolling Stones released different albums in the U.S. than they did in the U.K.  These were differently-named albums with different track listings, or sometimes even same-named albums with different track listings.  Sounds weird by today's standards, but the same was true of the Beatles, and other bands as well.  You can see this briefly outlined at The Rolling Stones#Discography, and in more detail at The Rolling Stones discography#Studio albums.  That's the meaning of the "Xth British and Yth American studio album" thing.  With that being said, I too think that it's generally not very helpful to say what number album it is, after the first one or two or three albums by an artist. — Mudwater (Talk) 20:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. Would it be misleading to just include the number without consideration for UK/US release, and just do it in pure chronological terms? ie just reduce each of them to "the 10th album", "11th album", "12th album" etc based only on the order? Popcornfud (talk) 07:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
@Popcornfud: Yes, that would be misleading, or more confusing.  The track listings of the U.K. and U.S. albums overlap a lot, which is why they're generally considered as two different chronologies.  There have been a number of discussions about this, if I recall correctly, and there's a consensus to keep the chronologies separate.  So I think the choice is to maintain the "Xth British and Yth American studio album" wording, or to remove it from most or all of the articles.  Pondering this further, I don't have a very strong opinion either way about that part. — Mudwater (Talk) 10:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. In that case, I think we should go with the following format:
[Album name] is a [year of release] album by the Rolling Stones.
Where appropriate, the lead can then continue with something like "It was the first Rolling Stones album released in the UK and the second in the US", or whatever. From the sounds of it, this would only be useful context with their earlier releases, after which it seems to quickly get into diminishing returns. Popcornfud (talk) 10:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
I've never been a big fan of "[Album name] is a [year] album by [band name]."  I think it's better to say "[Album name] is an album [or a live album] by [band name]." Then the lead paragraph should give additional key information, including the release year, or exact release date if known.  Obviously though not everyone feels this way.  — Mudwater (Talk) 12:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
I know others don't feel this way, but I personally feel the "Xth album by [artist]" lead sentence structure phrasing is helpful as it places the album in context. If we're not going to do that, then I feel the lead sentence at least needs to contain the year of release. I'd be fine with either "a 2023 album by the Rolling Stones" or "an album by the Rolling Stones released in 2023". Popcornfud (talk) 02:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
In pondering this a bit further, maybe we should just leave things the way they are.  It seems that most of the RS album articles say the "Xth British and Yth American studio album" in the lead sentence, and state the release date either in the lead sentence or the lead paragraph.  I think that's fine, overall, though not all the articles need to follow an exact formula. — Mudwater (Talk) 11:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
I gotta say, I think it's 100% not fine. I don't think any uninitiated reader will understand it.
What exactly is a "British album" and what exactly is an "American album"? If an album is both British and American (whatever that means), what does it mean for an album to be, say, a 25th British album but a 27th American album?
Before the intent was explained to me, my best guess would have been that some Rolling Stones' albums were not released in both territories, meaning that an album would have been, say, the 10th released in the UK but only the 8th released in the US. But that guess would have been wrong.
I also can't believe that this complex distinction is really the most important thing to tell readers about the article subject, from the very first sentence of the article. Popcornfud (talk) 11:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Agreed: it's pretty clunky. That said, I think readers will figure out what "British album" means pretty quickly. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Returning to this. I propose we use the following format:
[Album Name] is a studio album by the English rock band the Rolling Stones, released on [date] by [record label].
Then, where it's relevant or interesting or important to explain, the second sentence can say:
It was the [Xth] Rolling Stones album released in the United Kingdom and the [Yth] released in the United States.
Thoughts? Popcornfud (talk) 13:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Thumbs up emoji. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
@Popcornfud: To be clear, are you suggesting that we should avoid saying It was their [Xth] British and [Yth] American studio album, and instead should say It was their [Xth] album released in the U.K. and their [Yth] album released in the U.S.? — Mudwater (Talk) 01:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
That's right. For example, on Hackney Diamonds:
Current: Hackney Diamonds is the 24th British and 26th American studio album by the English rock band the Rolling Stones, released on 20 October 2023 on Polydor.
Proposed rewrite: Hackney Diamonds is an album by the English rock band the Rolling Stones, released on 20 October 2023 by Polydor. It was the 24th Rolling Stones album released in the UK and the 26th released in the USA.
But we should only include that second sentence ("It was the 24th...") if it's actually important, relevant or useful information. That might differ depending on the album. I'll leave it to those with more knowledge of the band to determine that. Popcornfud (talk) 12:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
If there are no further comments I'll go ahead and update all the album pages for this soon. Popcornfud (talk) 12:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
This is now done. Popcornfud (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
i can see you've been trying to make an article that has 2 separate album listings less complicated. while i respect that, it's standard protocol on most wiki's to list which chronological place it has, and this entire conversation seems to have stated that rolling stones articles shouldn't.
i recommend we go with the case of the beatles, where only the british albums are really listed as most american releases are compilations. despite there being less american albums for the rolling stones, it still applies.
i'm going to go ahead and revert popcornfud's edits. if you have any more permanent solutions, let me know - just don't go deleting the chronological placing. Vancouvercalico (talk) 00:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
You've reverted a change across 10 articles that was proposed here almost two months ago and for which a consensus was formed (see above). That's disruptive.
If you have a concrete idea for how to better tackle this problem, you should propose it and get consensus for that before making changes. Popcornfud (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
i admit, it could be pretty disruptive to make a mass consensus change. but when the decision you were reverting took away vital pieces of info, that isn't the greatest either.
a better solution, once again, should be to just state the british placing. i should probably do that - thanks. Vancouvercalico (talk) 01:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't understand why you think it was necessary to revert 10 articles rather than implement whatever idea you're advocating for instead.
Can you write out here exactly how that would look, so everyone knows what you're talking about? I proposed the exact wording we agreed on above before implementing it. Popcornfud (talk) 01:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
"Hackney Diamonds is the 24th studio album by the english rock band the Rolling Stones"
actually, looking back at the article, it's a bit redundant to say "the english rock band the rolling stones", if/when someone edits it we should probably cut "the english rock band"  Vancouvercalico (talk) 01:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm fine with that wording, but another editor opposed it, or something similar, above.
If you insist on going ahead and rejecting the status quo, then I suggest you implement your preferred version across all the articles now. If other editors oppose you, please, just put it back to the prior consensus and then we can all discuss further.
Why is it redundant to say the Rolling Stones are an English rock band? Popcornfud (talk) 01:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
"If you insist on going ahead and rejecting the status quo" aaaaaaand this is the point where i tap out.
feel free to edit the articles as you see fit - i think i've lost this one. i made a promise when i joined to take a wikibreak as soon as i ended up in an edit war, and today is that day. Vancouvercalico (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
When the chronology of an album is somewhat more complicated as it is with the Rolling Stones, then we should address it gracefully. Making every single album article have the same "Xth British and Yth American" format is clunky—everything but graceful. The suggestion by Popcornfud was much better: It was the [Xth] Rolling Stones album released in the United Kingdom and the [Yth] released in the United States. Otherwise, we could list the British chronology in the first sentence, and address the American chronology somewhere else further down. I definitely don't agree with Vancouvercalico going around and re-inserting the clunky wording, along with capitalised "The" despite our guideline MOS:THEMUSIC which says to write a lower-case "the" in running prose. Binksternet (talk) 02:54, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I know one of the original band members of the real Rolling Stones band who toured the south of the UK between 1957 and 1962. Did you know that Mick Jaggers band stole  the name from another band in 1962 ?? 103.80.120.50 (talk) 14:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Your word is not reliable. dannymusiceditor  oops  14:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Please can I ask why are we using a sales figure on this page of 250 million and providing a link to this article when the linked article clearly states that the Rolling Stones have sold 200 million records and are in the "200 million to 249 million" bracket. This makes a nonsense of Wikipedia's reliability. Rodericksilly (talk) 19:50, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

What that list says at the moment is beyond irrelevant. (Something another editor pointed out to you on your talk page almost a year ago, which you removed, along with my comments asking you to stop removing reliable sources.) The correct thing for you to do would have been to update the list article instead of being disruptive on several other pages.★Trekker (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
@Rodericksilly: I would really appreciate if you could explain why you believe it's better to remove sources and information than simply updating another page? The way you are editing right now does not seem to make sense to me. So far I have tried to get you to reply on your talk page and here, but you have instead just gone on to keep editing, this time removing the link to the list at all.★Trekker (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
"I would really appreciate if you could explain" A pleasure. A search of the history of the best-selling music artists page shows that when the page was updated with the higher figure, it was subsequently removed with this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_best-selling_music_artists&diff=prev&oldid=1277487259 and this explanation: "The Rolling Stones was randomly moved up last year without any talk. They only have 101 million certified units how can they sold 250 million?" Rodericksilly (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
I don't see how that editor's take overrides the reliable sources we have. Is the editor an expert in the area?★Trekker (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
To be honest with you I don't care that much whether the figure is 200 million or 250 million. They've clearly sold a shitload of records either way. What I DO care about is the consistency between articles on Wikipedia, because I think that matters to Wikipedia's credibility as a reliable encyclopedia. Rodericksilly (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
Well the site doesn't become more reliable just because two places agree with each other, it's possible that the thing they "agree" on is incorrect. To me it seems very dubious to replace newer sources with older ones based on the judgement of one Wikipedia editor on a list. Wikipedia is itself after all not an accepted source on Wikipedia.★Trekker (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
Admittedly I have been away from this article for too long, apparently. And some bizarre changes have occurred. I do not understand what was meant by this edit's summary stating "that link goes straight to a Youtube channel that does not mention the Rolling Stones' sales figures". That is empirically incorrect, Rodericksilly. The link removed quite obviously/literally goes to a news story on the Nine News website. Nine News is a national news service in Australia. Using the Nine News source removal in the subsequent edit to then argue that the figure is unsourced/unsupported is a misrepresentation of what StarTrekker said and also not a good look more broadly. Even the Associated Press has said that they've sold more than 250 million and are among the best selling artists of all time.
As was pointed out by StarTrekker, it is extremely dubious to replace a newer source from RS to default on an older one based on one editor's opinion just so that pages "agree". By that logic, we should still say that Pope Francis or Charlie Watts are alive because sources exist saying so that are older than the ones reporting of their deaths. Wikipedia is indeed not an acceptable source on Wikipedia and the editor on the other page was mistaken in their edit, which does happen to us all from time to time. Pages don't have to be internally "consistent" and WP:OTHERCONTENT applies in a sense. If one page is outdated and reliable sourcing is available to update it, we should focus on updating the outdated page, not reverting the more updated page to be less updated so it's internally consistent with older information. TheSandDoctor Talk 12:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)