Talk:AC/DC/Archive 3

message: I've closed the poll on the external links. The result was: use the other set of links. So that's exactly what I do. Any attempt to change back to the set of links which didn't make will be considered vandalism and be removed immediately. Oh, and maybe needless to say...but I lifted the protection as well ;). Happy editing, my fellow wikipedians. Those about to rock, we salute you.—?? S??THING(?) 08:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll closed

message: Last night, Helltopay27 added Classic metal to the genre listing. Now, this morning, an unregistered user removed it and I was just about to remove it myself when it was initally added last night, but when I read the classic metal article, it read:
"Classic metal bands are typically characterized by thumping fast basslines, not so fast heavy, but "clean", riffs, extended lead guitar solos, high pitched vocals and anthemic choruses."
Now, in my opinion, this sounds a lot like a typical AC/DC song. However, I'm not an expert in music, so, I would like everyone's opinions on whether you consider AC/DC a classic metal band or not and whether we should include this in the article before I add it back in or not. HK51 08:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Genres

message: I've reincluded the quotes from the Rock N Roll Hall of Fame induction, under that section in the article.I don't see any reason for them to have been removed in the first place.
The Archer 14:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it, and explained why in the edit summary (ahem!); pleasantries, especially drunken ones, uttered at an awards show don't usually add anything of importance to an article, and thus slow it down. Steven Tyler's not very clever comments take up a lot of room and don't say anything of note about AC/DC ("make soup out of your girlfriend's panties," indeed). I removed Brian Johnson's more germane comment because it consisted largely of a long quotation from song lyrics.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 21:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Better. I had no objection to the sense of Johnson's comments, though they are hard to edit down. One positive phrase from Tyler, as you have here, gets the point across without slowing things down and making him look foolish.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 22:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe. But things like Tyler's comments, which probably were a lot of fun to hear (and in that context probably did get the point across about what AC/DC stands for) look pretty daft in print, unfortunately, and I'd be for selective quotation to tidy them up.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 21:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction

message: "Some think it was murder, and that Bon Scott was killed by the exhaust from the Rolls Royce being redistributed in to the car, and some think Kinnear didn't even exist."
What Rolls Royce?  Are we talking about Kinnear's car, the one that Bon died in?  If so, it was a Renault 5 - where did Rolls Royce come from?  That's funny, but very wrong. Bretonbanquet 17:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rolls Royce??

message: Is it necesary to have names like Paul Matters or Russel Coleman in the infobox? They aren't named anywhere else on the article nor the minor members article.
I think it will be better to have them listed in the minor members article and remove them from the infobox. No-Bullet 17:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Current members. There's already a very detailed chart of line-ups through the years. BabuBhatt 22:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Past members in the infobox

message: I found several images on Dave Evans's official website of several of the minor members of AC/DC (see the 'Photos' section) which I think would be great to include their articles (as pictures of these guys are quite hard to find!). Trouble is I've never uploaded an image before (that I didn't create myself) and was wondering what has to be done to insure I'm not infringing copyright etc. by uploading them. I think it might be better for someone with the know-how to upload and display them! HK51 17:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some really good photos I've found

message: I've decided to pass this nomination and make the page a good article.  Here are a few suggestions toward featured status:
*Weasel words, particularly in the later sections, are a problem.  "It has been said that..." etc. won't fly at the next level.  This problem even made me pause and wonder about making this a GA, but I think the article succeeds in enough other ways.
*Citations - current referencing is spotty.  An FA on this topic would probably have twice as many footnotes as the current version.
*Lists - FAC reviewers don't like lists within articles.  I don't particularly mind them myself, but I'd suggest branching off the list material into a subordinate page.  With enough verification the list page might even become a featured list (see Joan of Arc and Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc for an example).
On the bright side, praise goes to the editors here for thorough and balanced coverage.  It doesn't read like fancruft or an industry puff piece.  The tone and scope are handled admirably.  Congratulations, and keep improving. Durova 14:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool :) Alright, I've taken the 'Tributes' section out of the article and created the article List of tributes to AC/DC in popular culture. I've literally just copied and pasted everything over, so the article could really do with some work (it really needs a better opening paragraph too!). There's a lot of great editors working on the various AC/DC-related articles so I don't even think I need to ask for it to be improved! I'll go through the main AC/DC article and try and improve the weasel words then. HK51 16:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking about splitting the "Band Members" section into a new page, the article will be shorter and we'll removing a list. What do you think? No-Bullet 01:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, I'm not so sure, there really isn't enough information there. You'd really just be creating an article made-up of what, essentially, is just a table. Has a similar thing been done with any other articles? It might give us a few ideas of what else to include. HK51 17:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've saw it in Iron Maiden band members. We'll have to get rid of that list eventually :(. No-Bullet 20:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The way they've done it in the Iron Maiden article is pretty good actually. I'd be in agreement if we done a similar thing to what they've done; still including a 'Band members' section, but only showing the current and original line-ups, then having a seperate 'Band members' article which would obviously be linked to in that section. I'm still not sure about having an article that's really just a table though, but if it works on another article, it'd be ok I guess. Any other thoughts on this? HK51 21:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Great idea :) I'd be in favour of doing that. HK51 22:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Past members of AC/DC. I just copied and pasted everything, so feel free to add or remove anything. No-Bullet 22:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great work No-Bullet :) HK51 23:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA

message: Why is this article in the bollywood Walk of Fame category? None AC/DC's members appear to be on the list of stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. HK51 00:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hollywood Walk of Fame

message: There is a promo video of Dave Evans singing for AC/DC here, perhaps this should be incorporated into the article some way? - Deathrocker 22:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if Youtube material can be added to wikipedia. Anyway, I'd add the link in the Dave Evans article. No-Bullet 01:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dave Evans

message: is anyone sure that ac/dc's new album will be called "Strap It On"? if so, please respond. --Ac-dcfreak785 13:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strap it on was just a rumour. I think the album won't have that name. The release date is  also uknown. No-Bullet 18:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No-one knows what the album title will be. But 'Strap it On' is just a rumor. I don't really think it's notable enough to stay within the article, especially as it's failed to be cited. HK51 19:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  new album name 

message: I am referring this dispute to WP:RfC for input please leave the article in its current state. Gnangarra 11:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only saw this after I reverted. Feel free to change it back until this has been sorted out. Suicidal Lemming 11:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have done, be aware the we have now both revrted twice in the last hour and that any further reverts of this information will be against WP:3RR. If you see any vandalism you'll need to ask an other editor to revert. Gnangarra 11:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation 

message: As the editor who promoted this to GA status just a few weeks ago, I find it distressing to see this article on RfC.  As a neutral party, I'll summarize what I see in this dispute:
#The band formed in Australia.  Their first releases were in Australia only.
#Some of the band members were British.  Of these, some of them emigrated to Australia at a very young age.  Two non-original members have never been Australian citizens.  (I hope I've gotten this part right).
#Their influences were mainly British.  Or their influences were mainly Australian.  I'm not sure because both sides have been argued (without references provided on the talk page).
#Most verifiable sources identify them as Australian.
Since the version of the article I approved for GA listed the band as Australian, let's take that as baseline (fair or not).  The claim that some editors seem to be making is that - in some way - they're better described as a hyphenated Australian-British band.  Per WP:V, burden of proof lies with the people who want to redefine this as a hyphenated band.
Fair disclosure: I'm not a rock historian and most of the editors here know AC/DC better than I do.  I'm also neutral in the sense of having no national pride at stake (I'm a Yank).  So how would these solutions strike the editors here:
#Pro-hyphen editors provide evidence for certain members' British origins and identities: include a subheading (probably a fair way down in the article) that details the British origins of certain band members.
#Pro-hyphen editors provide verifiable evidence of hyphenated band identity such as a Rolling Stone or other notable industry publication article that identifies the band as Australian-British: larger subheading about British origins and identities.
#Pro-hyphen ediors provide strong evidence for a hyphenated identity: this is a little hard to quantify, but it might include a founding (and creatively influential) member stating, "I think of us as both Australian and British" in an interview or detailing a list of specifically British bands as creative influences.  In this case, introduce the group as both Australian and British in the opening paragraph and put the article under both categories.
Does this look fair to everyone? Durova 04:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Part one in your solution isnt needed as this isnt disputed, that current and past members of the band are/were british citizens. The other parts are fine thats all I've asked is that those wishing to change provide proof that the band (not the individual members) originated somewhere other than Australia. Gnangarra 14:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, this is fair, at least for me. No-Bullet 21:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been almost a week and nobody posted a source. I'll delete the last paragraph in the lead section. No-Bullet 21:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: An anon editor has added a trivia section which seems to have been sourced from http://www.angelfire.com/al/ACDCpage/FAQ.html.  Some of these (eg. "Dracula Rocks" don't appear to be verifiable - no such movie I can find) which gives me doubts about all of them.  Can any trivia experts comment?  I personally hate trivia sections and wouldn't be opposed to it being removed. -- I@n 15:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a trivia expert and I also hate trivia sections. I think some of the information there is false and unverifiable, so I'll try to find a reliable source. No-Bullet 16:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I didn't find anything, I'll wait a day or two and if nothing happens I'll remove the section. No-Bullet 23:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good plan. Thanks. -- I@n 02:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people still have to learn that just because it's printed it doesn't make it reliable! Candy 06:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia

message: "Although the group is generally considered to be a pioneer of hard rock and Heavy metal music, along with Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath,[4] the members have always referred to their music as "rock 'n' roll"" 
I think Deep Purple should be added to the list as they are one of the major influence to the development of both hard rock and heavy metal, not as popular as sabath and zep but still very influential. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.111.8.97 (talk) 15:12, 10 October, 2006.
:I only added those names because that what's the source says, however, I think it should be right to add Deep Purple because that is what it says in the Hard rock article: "The two genres have some crossover for example; the pioneers of heavy metal, such as Black Sabbath, Deep Purple and Led Zeppelin are often considered both "Heavy Metal" and "Hard Rock"." No-Bullet 23:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pioneers of Heavy metal

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on AC/DC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mcb.wa.gov.au/MCBNews/mediaRel.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110116040122/http://www.guitarworld.com:80/article/acdc_the_big_chill?page=0%2C1 to http://www.guitarworld.com/article/acdc_the_big_chill?page=0%2C1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080812064828/http://www.acdc.com/news/news.php?uid=18 to http://www.acdc.com/news/news.php?uid=18
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I think we should add heavy metal. I think the only reason why people don't consider AC/DC metal is because they don't down-tune their guitars and have blast beats and stuff like that. But songs such as "Hell's Bells", "Let There Be Rock", "For Those About to Rock (We Salute You)" and "Whole Lotta Rosie" ARE metal songs. They are way heavier and louder than Led Zeppelin. The heavy riffs, strong vocals, etc. make AC/DC a metal band. Not all AC/DC songs are metal. But some AC/DC songs are metal. Also, heavy metal has citations. Statik N (talk) 02:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: What sources do you have to support the inclusion ? I wouldn't oppose adding it if there are sources.   - Mlpearc (open channel) 02:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There are 4 sources for heavy metal in the lead of the article. Statik N (talk) 02:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  :P, I assumed this was a new addition. I can only access the first reference and with just one reporter on one weekend, I'd have to oppose.  - Mlpearc (open channel) 02:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I also oppose. Sources can be found for a large number of genres and sub-genres, of which HM is one. It's about the majority of reliable sources, not just a couple that someone has found. Many people consider AC/DC to absolutely not be heavy metal, so adding this sub-genre has always been controversial. Being heavier than Led Zeppelin is hardly a rationale for considering a band to be HM. AC/DC are not even close to the style or heaviness of widely accepted metal bands of the same era, such as Iron Maiden, Judas Priest or Budgie. Genres should only be added or removed if there is a clear consensus to do so. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: With the really strong vocals, the loud electric guitars and heavy riffs, I think AC/DC are definitely kind of metal. I'm going to add more sources for metal. Also, both hard rock and blues rock only have one source while heavy metal has four sources (and I'm adding more sources for metal). Statik N (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Many people probably don't consider Aerosmith, Led Zeppelin or Kiss heavy metal bands either. However, all those bands have heavy metal on their genre fields. Statik N (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Aerosmith, Led Zeppelin or Kiss genre's have nothing to do with other bands, it is highly conceivable that a Techno-Punk band can have Heavy-Metal songs or albums.  - Mlpearc (open channel) 19:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: What I'm saying is if bands such as Aerosmith and Led Zeppelin can get called metal then why can't AC/DC get called metal? If people consider Aerosmith and Led Zeppelin metal then why don't they consider AC/DC metal? Statik N (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

text: (e/c) It really doesn't matter what happens on other articles because each article is dealt with separately. Personally I think the idea that LZ can be called heavy metal is ludicrous, but I don't edit that article. Maybe there's a consensus there, I don't know. But there needs to be one here if another genre is to be added. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

text: Also, we don't need large numbers of references for the same fact in the text. One or two will suffice. For the infobox, a consensus is required. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Before the New Wave of British Heavy Metal, about the only band that really embraced the term "Heavy Metal" was Judas Priest. Even Motörhead, silly umlaut and gothic lettering and all, rejected the term "heavy metal", preferring "hard rock" or "rock n roll". Several members of AC/DC are on record expressing similar sentiments. They're Beatles and Rolling Stones fans, they just play louder. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heavy metal 

message: IMO, I think the article needs to be consistent. The current situation seems to be one reporter (José Norberto Flesch) reporting that Axl has joined the band. The other "journalists" seem to be running with it. Does this constitute a reliable source or not? If so, we should list Axl as a current member. If not, we should not list him as a current member. My personal opinion is that this single source is not reliable, but we should word the article just like the band would, ambiguously. --Bark (talk) 19:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: However, Axl Rose somehow ostnovnoy added to the group. Is there any serious argument about this?--Jimi Henderson (talk) 12:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's always argument about stuff like this, for any band that has "core members" and then some musicians who rotate over time. What's the definition of a full member versus a "touring member", "touring musician", "guest musician", etc? These things have never really been defined so they get argued about across many articles. An example I always cite is Toto. They have a core of guys who formed the band, basically Steve Lukather, David Paich, and various Porcaro brothers. Every time they make an album or tour they have different drummers, bassists, sometimes keyboarists, on an on. Who's a member? --Laser brain (talk) 13:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seems to be reliable at this point, if a better source says its wrong, we can change it, what a concept</sarcasm> :P   Mlpearc (open channel) 13:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No need for sarcasm. The very nature of reliability is that more than one source makes a report. Unfortunately, this band rarely makes official statements. Consequently, there's always a lot of rumors with them. (See the story about the cover band singer joining the band before Axl committed?) It also seem that reporters these days just like to propagate the initial rumor instead of hitting the street to investigate for themselves. In any event, I just wanted to endorse some consistency within the articles, one way or the other. --Bark (talk) 14:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree </sarcasm> on the other hand, , this band has never been in this situation before either.  Mlpearc (open channel) 14:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: How this constitutes Rose becoming an official member of the band is a mystery to me. They're not currently touring with him, nor recording with him, nor have they announced that he's officially joined the band. He was hired to finish the tour. It's finished. An absence of further official statements doesn't mean we have to go with some no-mark reporter who has no connection with the band whatsoever, as far as I can see. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

text: I agree there has been no official word that axl is in the band permanently. The sources cited are from a internet forum. No official news sites list axl as the official lead vocalist. Angus hasn't even commented if the band will continue. Until we hear it from the horses mouth I say we drop axl as a permanent member and make him a former touring member. Not even AC/DCs website lists Axl as a official member. The sources cited are invalid and are just spewing rumors. That's all it is is rumors. No official word has been given that Axl is a full time member of AC/DC.F4280 (talk) 08:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  José Norberto Flesch on Axl Rose Joining