Talk:AC/DC/Archive 2

message: *NCC17 18:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: All those wanting NCC17 and Cirreus's layout vote here

message: *No-Bullet 00:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: All those wanting the other layout vote here

message: For the record, Circeus suggested the above compromise in regards to Fair Deal's previous complaint over the links. If you call in an administrator to settle things as Fair Deal did, you ought to abide by their decision.NCC17 18:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: For the record

message: Could an editor or user with better knowledge than me look into having outside parties look at this article? I admit that I'm not a Wiki-Lawyer, but it is my understanding that there is a process to take these disputes to a higher level and involve outside, uninterested parties. I think one of the issues that we need to look at is what the definition of a current member is and is not when it comes to bands. I would also like to have outside people looking at the article to address the concerns of the user named Bark. Thank you. 67.224.16.233 (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would probably be best to let the RfC play out. It's only been a few days. I know I don't check Wikipedia on a daily basis, and waiting for more opinions is only beneficial to the discussion at large. I have faith that all concerns will be addressed and play out. One thing that I think we should all be able to agree: This is ALL Phil Rudd's fault. --Bark (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no. The problem on this page isn't his fault. Other editors on this page, please feel free to contribute any evidence that you may have to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MrBark. There has been far too much socking here. — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I can tell you that I'm not Mr. Bark. I looked where you show similar interests between us. I do find that interesting, but I guess in a world of 1.2 Billion English speakers, it's entirely possible that there are two separate people here with similar tastes and views. You are correct that I have signed as Jack Sprat, as I did for many years, but I changed to Jack B. Nimble on an AC/DC fan site and started using that here as well. It makes it easier for me to use the same name across the board, especially since this is an AC/DC matter. You seem to be quite good at knowing which channels to go for help. Maybe you could ask for uninterested parties to come in here and settle this "drummer" dispute as well? 67.224.16.233 (talk) 21:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, the investigation came up that we are UNRELATED. I am not a sock puppet, for the record. Peace and love, but I have too much to do. I've been posting here for about a decade. Now with the ad hominem attack out of the way, can we get back to discussing the issue at hand? --Bark (talk) 12:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute resolution 

message: I'm sorry to make another section, but everything up above is very muddy and hard to follow along with. I have read the body of the article and while I don't really have a problem with how the article is worded (it doesn't seem very up to date though - no mention of Coachella, brief mention of the Grammys, etc.), I still have an issue with the sidebar and listing Chris as only a live member. I looked up the definition of member in the Cambridge dictionary and it says: (noun) a person or thing that is part of a group. Would Chris not be part of the group, even if temporary? On the sidebar, you have two choices, Member and Past Members. Doesn't it seem wrong to list him as a past member when he's currently a part of the group? Is there an issue with having both Chris and Phil listed as members together since there hasn't been any resolution on Phil yet? Could we not move Chris back to past members should Phil return?
The second issue I have is listing Chris as a current live member. Again, he is doing more than just live work. He is also doing publicity photos and has done the music video, "Rock the Blues Away." I can see the reason for not wanting to remove Rudd from the list of current members without anything concrete from the band. The band doesn't give concrete answers very often. When Rudd was fired in 1983, it was a tiny blurb in a magazine article. I'm not even saying that he's fired or that Chris is permanent at this point. Nobody knows. I am not opposed to keeping Rudd as a current member. I wonder if there's a way to have both Chris and Rudd listed as current members that we can all agree on? Chris is, without a doubt, doing all the duties that Phil would be doing if he weren't absent. I'm not looking for an either/or here, but a compromise where we can reflect actual circumstances in absence of any real information from the band. I want it to be factual for younger people and casual observers who may be exposed to the band for the first time, coming here to this site, to understand what they are seeing in the band. They may ask, why is Phil Rudd listed in the album, but this bald headed guy is playing drums? Does this article explain that? Yes, very vaguely in the narrative, but it doesn't very well in the quick look areas like the sidebar and down in the members section. 
I don't want an edit war. I am not able to edit this semi-protected page or else I'd take a stab at it. Should a new section be added to the article to explain what is going on with the drummers the best we can without concrete information? It is a controversy, but one hard to find reliable sources because some news stories list Slade as the new drummer, others say he's filling in for Phil, etc. etc. The article writers don't even know how to word it. Nobody really knows. We could find reliable sources going either way. In conclusion, the reality is that Chris, at the very least, is filling in for Phil in Phil's absence. That doesn't mean that Phil is out. It doesn't mean Chris is permanent. But in reality, Chris has done all the duties that Phil would, not just live work. While the official statement mentions the tour, he has done more than just tour. As far as a future album, that we don't and cannot know. I'm not even sure if the band knows or cares at this point. They seem to be focused on their current tour. Furthermore, I don't think that question needs to be answered at this point for this article. Can we come to a compromise? 67.224.16.233 (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm OK with listing both in the sidebar, maybe with an explanatory footnote. For sure, listing Slade as past member when he is currently touring with the band looks weird.--Gorpik (talk) 13:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attempt at resolution 

message: Since I am still a "new" editor, I am unable to edit this semi-protected article. Could someone take a look at the section, "Rock or Bust, Rock or Bust World Tour, departure of Malcolm Young and Phil Rudd (2011–present)" and consider breaking it into smaller sections, and rewriting it in a manner that doesn't look like a bunch of snippets strung together? I would suggest a section covering the time between the end of the Black Ice World Tour and the recording of Rock or Bust 2011-2014, where they released Live at River Plate. It doesn't have to be a very long section, but then add a new section for Rock or Bust to present (2014 to present). The article also doesn't mention much about the tour, including the two shows at Coachella before heading to Europe. It could also be mentioned that the shows are all stadium shows with fireworks. 
A link could be added to direct to the album:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_or_Bust
A link could be added to direct to the tour: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_or_Bust_World_Tour
I am a new editor, and I suppose I could go through the motions of a formal edit request, but last time I did that, my sources got all mangled up on this talk page and it would be better to have a more experienced editor tackle this until such time as I gain the privilege to edit semi-protected articles. Thank you. Jack Bee Nimble (talk) 06:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating the Article 

message: add Heavy Metal to the genre  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuhrman457 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2015 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on AC/DC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081121044926/http://www.sirius.com/acdcradio to http://www.sirius.com/acdcradio
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110225003421/http://sev.prnewswire.com/music/20090929/NY8281729092009-1.html to http://sev.prnewswire.com/music/20090929/NY8281729092009-1.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070704170535/http://music.yahoo.com:80/read/news/12027761 to http://music.yahoo.com/read/news/12027761
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I am a massive fan of AC/DC but I would think the page would be more appealing if there was a more recent image placed at the top of the article, maybe something that shows Stevie Young and Chris Slade?
86.158.76.109 (talk) 21:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: Vague requests to add, update, modify, or improve an image are generally not honored unless you can point to a specific image already uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons that you would like included on this article. Please note that any image used on any Wikipedia article must comply with the Wikipedia image use policy, particularly where copyright is concerned. Thanks, ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 21:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2015 

message: Colin Burgess is mentioned in the text but isn't on the timeline diagram. It looks odd to have a rock band wityh no drumm,er for their first year... can he be added? Stub Mandrel (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The timeline in this article is abbreviated for space/notability issues. If you look at the full timeline on List of AC/DC band members, you can see that he's there. Personally, I'm in favor of the status quo.--Bark (talk) 14:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Original Drummer missing from timeline

message: Please change Ac/Dc's genres to blues rock, Classic Rock. They're not really Hard Rock.
75.90.79.117 (talk) 02:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 20:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

text: There is no such genre as "classic rock," and they most certainly are NOT a blues-rock band such as Ten Years After. 98.67.176.26 (talk) 13:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2015 

message: This part in the article says this era is the current one. With Brian out of the band this is no longer true. Please update the page to saying: Brian Johnson Era (1980 to 2016)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.247.53.226 (talk) 04:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I edited the eras. There is now a "Brian Johnson Era (1980-2016)" overlapping with a "Multiple lineup changes (2011-present)" era. I wasn't sure how to properly present them, but the band HAS been in constant flux for the last five years: since 2011, 60% of the group has changed (only Angus Young and Cliff Williams remain of the five members who played on "Black Ice" and its subsequent tours). Raider Duck (talk) 05:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brian Johnson era 

message: A user is repeatedly inserting the following passage: "During the Rock or Bust World Tour tour, some AC/DC fans and medias funnily (and appropriately) renamed the band "AXL/DC"." Aside from being badly written, I believe this is trivia and not worth including in a Featured article. This user's normal operating procedure is to ignore WP:BRD and edit war whenever they are challenged, so I'd like to build consensus here one way or another. --Laser brain (talk) 19:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Unencyclopedic. Nuke on sight. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

text: Amusing...but no, not here.--Bark (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

text: Amusing, encyclopedic and anyway... worth mentioning! Definitely here... HurluGumene (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Not worthy of being included in this article. It is only a piece of trivia not relevant to anything important. Jack Bee Nimble (talk)Jack Bee Nimble  —Preceding undated comment added 21:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "AXL/DC" 

message: How is it that with all the hits this page gets, nobody has mentioned that the AC/DC album "WHO MADE WHO" (1986) is NOT listed in the DISCOGRAPHY section?  The album sold over 5 million copies (5x Platinum) so how was it skipped?  Are there any OTHER AC/DC albums that are also missing from this article?  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Made_Who  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.129.26.145 (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This section only includes studio albums of original material. Who Made Who was a soundtrack album made up mainly of songs taken from previous albums, with only two originals. There is an additional article with the full official discography of the band, linked in the Discography section of this article. Who Made Who is listed there.--Gorpik (talk) 14:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: At one point in time, I started compiling everything released for the timeline until I realized the fact above for myself. It saved time, effort, and avoided clutter when I did.--Bark (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Albums? 

message: AC/DC's current official band page (official source) lists Brian Johnson as a CURRENT member of AC/DC, however, the Wikipedia article concerning AC/DC lists Brian Johnson as a PAST member (with no valid source reference(s)s provided). Nowhere in the band's official press releases or statements does it specifically state Brian Johnson is no longer part of the band. Hearsay from friends of Brian Johnson is not considered an official source. Please provide an official source for the recent update of the page or correct the entry.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.141.174 (talk) 12:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see all the discussion at Talk:AC/DC/Archive 2. This is well-covered territory. Their web site still lists people as members who are dead, so that's not really the definitive guide, and just because some PR person somewhere forgot to update their Facebook "About" page doesn't make that an authoritative source. Secondary sources about the band have said that Johnson is no longer a functional member of the band, however uncertain his future might be. --Laser brain (talk) 13:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

text: Talk:AC/DC/Archive 2]]does not provide any direct source from the band that Johnson is no longer in the band. In fact, all current indications point to him still being a member of AC/DC. Third-party hearsay is not a credible source. Just because a member is not functional at present in a band in no way directly translates to that member no longer being part of the band. Please correct the unsupported and unfactual edit!! 99.230.141.174 (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current AC/DC band members 

message: It is very common to add a 'stylised as' note (stylised as AC⚡️DC) to names with unusual spelling. See for instance WALL-E and Spinal Tap. It was removed twice with the reason it was discussed in the past. The "discussion" entailed three lines of talk in 2012. That hardly counts as consensus, so I will reinstate it until there is a real argument here to not include it. Note that "may not show" was a thing of the past (notably WinXP/IE6 related) and unicode support is mature now. The actual sign is , which is pretty standard since Unicode 1.0. I'll note that the cited discussion used a different sign; , and wrongly asumed that would display as a square. Being a standard greek letter, that would not happen (but it is not the proper glyph). -- User:Edokter  08:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edit summary while reverting a second editor (me) on this was inaccurate at best. I quite clearly did not cite any five year old discussion in my edit summary (so you flat out lied in your edit summary), but gave you what I consider to be three real arguments. Per WP:BRD, you should have left it out while you discussed it here. That aside, I think the argument that the flash does not show for everyone is perfectly relevant – it doesn't show for me, for a start. Not everyone has the technology you seem to think they should have. Also, I don't consider it relevant to the very first sentence; it is not stylised as such everywhere as it is plainly not an unusual spelling but a specific character related to the band's official logo. In general text everywhere, and in fact in every instance outside the band's official logo, the flash is replaced by a plain slash. There is a section related to the logo in the article, along with an image of the logo itself, and that should be sufficient. I also disagree to describing the flash as a "high voltage sign" – I have never seen it described as such, and it is almost always referred to as a flash or a lightning flash. Note that I am discussing that here rather than edit warring over it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That is how the symbol is called. Considering the source of the symbol, and the origin of the logo, it couldn't be anything else. (Note how the first album that used it is called High Voltage.) It's not a 'flash' or 'lightning bolt' (which are unsourced). The lead is ment to summarize the article as a whole, so mentioning the stylized logo is appropriate. As for systems; the only system I know that may fail is Windows XP with old fonts that have not been updated. Windows XP is 15 years old and no longer supported. So I'd like to know what system you are using? Some characters not showing is not a reason not to use them, as long as it does not mean the article becomes unreadable, and that is not the case. -- User:Edokter  12:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: According to you. It can't be anything else? That's your rationale? The name of the album it was first used on can hardly be described as a "source", and in interviews the band members have always referred to it as a flash or a lightning bolt. You seem to think that the stylisation of the logo is so important that it should be in the lead of an article about a band; well, you'll do what you want so there's no sense in arguing. How dare anyone use an operating system that's 15 years old? Hell, what kind of stone age must people be living in? Screw those people, right? How incredibly snobbish. To me, it looks rather fanboy-esque to have that "stylised as" piece there, but it fits in well with the other terrible fan-mag AC/DC articles on Wikipedia. I note you never apologised for lying in your edit summary, what poor form. But not surprising. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're going to throw a tantrum, I see no point in continuing this discussion with you. I'm following the MOS, perioid. And nowhere in the listed sources does it say "lightning bolt", period. Prove me wrong, but leave the personal attacks at home; you just lost any credibility. -- User:Edokter  18:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you should have started by being a little more accommodating, as would befit an admin (!). There was never any point in having a discussion with you, as you leave disingenuous edit summaries which you, tellingly, again refuse to acknowledge, edit war and make your own rules up as you go along. You had no credibility right from the off, and it was patently obvious you would never accept any argument you didn't like. You prove it every time you post. You must know very little about the band if you have no knowledge of the interview in which Bon Scott referred to it as a lightning bolt, and no, I'm not going to waste my time finding it for you. If you want to actually help, try dealing with the awful state of the content of AC/DC articles instead of strong-arming your way into adding cruft. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It actually is your job to find sources if you want to refer it as a lightning bolt. As it is now, it is unsourced. And I'm not going to discuss anything else; discuss the content, or stay out. -- User:Edokter  11:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Waste of time on both counts. I have tried discussing the content and you are only interested either in your own ideas or misrepresenting mine and pretending you haven't, backed up with a little threat this time. I look forward to you addressing the content of this and other AC/DC articles with your expansive knowledge. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  stylised as AC⚡️DC 

message: I have been adding the category Pioneers of music genres more than one time, but Laser brain repeatedly reverted my changes, even when I was explaining why AC/DC are considered pioneers of at least one musical genre. Portal:AC/DC claims they're pioneers of hard rock and heavy metal, while several sources call them pioneers of hard rock:    . 2602:306:BDA9:8610:49CD:7AC5:67D5:A1BF (talk) 00:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: None of those are reliable sources, except maybe Blabbermouth but it's an article about beer, not a serious piece of music journalism. This is a Featured article, and we need a high-quality source describing them as pioneers of any genre. It also needs to be written about in the article. We do not place articles in categories to suit personal opinions. --Laser brain (talk) 00:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just because a band is considered "influential" doesn't mean they're "pioneers". "Influential" and "pioneers" are not the same thing. As stated in the aforementioned category, "pioneers" are those who developed a specific genre, and hard rock was already developed by bands like Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple, before AC/DC even existed. Like Laser Brain said, not only are those sources unreliable, but they don't explain how AC/DC pioneered or developed a genre. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 00:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Pioneers of music genres]]