Talk:The Stone Roses

message: Look why are the group still down as current members? They broke up 13 years ago. And why is Ibrahim in the former box, when he took over from Squire who is in the current box?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rorylyng (talk • contribs) 21:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: They should all be in the former members section. Is this another one of those "classic line-up" arguments, I wonder?--Michig (talk) 07:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  members. 

message: Did mani or reni ever get credited on any song except daybreak?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.95.232 (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  songwriting 

message: How many songs did squire sing backing to? was it 3? i think it was just she bangs the drum, tightrope and sally cinnamon, but i would like to be sure!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.200.203 (talk) 16:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Squires backing vocals. 

message: I'm getting sick of former members being removed. They're all sourced, so what's the problem here? If there's a reason for removing them, let us know, otherwise it will be treated as vandalism.--Michig (talk) 21:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Members 

message: I'm very surprised to see lots of edits in the last few days about the reformation, with a few reverts, but with no discussion – hence I've started one here.
I've reverted one edit that changed tenses to say that "The Stone Roses are...".  Until the press conference there is not one reliable source I'm aware of that we can use.  The Sun ran a story stating that one of Ian Brown's mates, Dynamo (no, I've not heard of him either) says the reunion is on.  This isn't good enough; we can (of course) say that Dynamo has said this and that the Sun reported it, but we should not take this as the truth. After all, there's no rush – the press conference is in a few hours and we'll have more info then. matt (talk) 07:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reformation 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:129540904Getty181011.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: An image used in this article, File:Waterfallstoneroses.ogg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 12 June 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Waterfallstoneroses.ogg)
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Waterfallstoneroses.ogg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: Considering the current events concerning photographers contract clauses, is it worth including a summary of the argument within this topic?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.96.83 (talk) 23:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The anon is referring to this:. It's like they're keeping in the media by upsetting people. --Aspro (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

text: This section of the article is terrible. It seems like 90% just an editors weak analysis of there promotional methods and contains almost no sources. I'm going to chop most of it. Ashmoo (talk) 09:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship with the Media 

message: Not simply a rock band. If there's only one listed in the infobox, what's the point of listing it as just a plain rock band? There is no "general" (or "universal", as I see your use of it) descriptor for every group. There's nothing that says everything should be a rock group. If a group falls under a bunch of genres that all closely trace back to alternative rock (which seems the case here), OR have more sources for one genre given than the other (provided they haven't changed to something disparately different and have cut ties with the past style for the long-term), why can't we label Stone Roses alternative rock in the lead? dannymusiceditor  Speak up!  19:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably because alternative rock is a subgenre of rock music and that is what the Stone Roses play. Rock music. Jangle pop is another genre of rock the Stone Roses are associated with. Are they a jangle pop group? You're right that there is no guideline that says a rock band should be described as just a "rock band". The Beatles went through a psychedelic rock phase in their career so should they be identified as a "psychedelic rock" band? Then you will have genre warriors fighting about which genre a rock band should be. It's all subjective, really. "Rock band" is honestly the best descriptor for any bands that play rock music, regardless of its subgenres. TheOnlyOne12 (talk) 19:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Stone Roses are an English ALTERNATIVE rock band" 

message: "Former members" says that Jordan McNee played Bongos in 1989. But the timeline shows 10 years. The data for the timeline: from:19/06/1989 till:19/06/1998 seems suspicious. What's correct? --David Edgar (talk) 12:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jordan McNee 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on The Stone Roses. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100119135511/http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Stone-Roses-Biography/A4905D4EB9840303482569EC002C1C2C to http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Stone-Roses-Biography/A4905D4EB9840303482569EC002C1C2C
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130616035558/http://www.rockcellarmagazine.com/2011/10/14/the-stone-roses-reuniting-rumors-or-reality/ to http://www.rockcellarmagazine.com/2011/10/14/the-stone-roses-reuniting-rumors-or-reality/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Article ignores this phenomenon. Some mention should be made, if not possible explanations. Utter lack of context.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:8280:58F0:3D9A:6240:4CF6:6837 (talk) 11:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Near-Total Lack of U.S. Popularity Compared to Massive UK Popularity 

message: Can someone upload a better picture from the band’s reunion tour?  You can barely see them in the one ghat’s there. Esszet (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better picture 

message: This edit putting a shed-load of vandalism (which anyone who's been following music since the early 80s would spot, but maybe kids won't) wasn't reverted properly, consequently the article has claimed, for about three weeks, that Ian Brown was originally the triangle player. I've rolled back to the version before, which has unfortunately clobbered some good faith improvements as well. If anyone can help tidy this up, that would be great. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 01:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: To prevent this from happening again, wouldn't it be best to set an indefinite pending changes protection? It's quite sad that an article about one of the most influential bands in Britain doesn't have enough watchers to spot the vandalism. enjoyer|talk 14:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorting out last month's vandalism