Talk:Red Hot Chili Peppers/Archive 6

message: Was "Love Rollercoaster" recorded with Dave Navarro?  75pickup 01:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Love Rollercoaster 

message: We ought to change the web references to the cite web format. They currently seem to be in quite a mess at the moment. CloudNine 09:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Half of the references are derived from Kiedis' Scar Tissue, where a citeweb format can not be used. However, for the references which actually cite websites, it is appropriate. I'll begin working on that shortly. NSR77 (Talk|Contribs) 14:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the Kiedis references could be fixed, too. All that's really needed is the author's last name and page numbers. See Pixies, The Smashing Pumpkins, and The Cure for examples.  WesleyDodds 02:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixing refs 

message: Can someone please protect this article, a user is trolling and reverting every change that is made. I am tired of having my edits deleted. It would save a lot of time and stress just to protect the article. 
Giggles Talk 19:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've mentioned in the edit history, the reason I keep removing the logo is that it is used merely as decoration, which is hard to justify under fair use, and because it's so large it distorts the infobox.  WesleyDodds 21:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: No. They are a violation of fair use as such logos are rarely criticised in the article. Please read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. CloudNine 21:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr.Gigglestein, please try to remain civil in these matters. It is apparent that there is a conflict here, and it would be more easily resolved if one were not to use phrases like that in an insulting manner. Regards, ColbeagleTheEagle 15:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PROTECTION 

message: that the Chili Peppers basic genre is funk-rock and use that in the infobox. Anytime they were influnced by anything else should be mentioned in the body of the article. St. Jimmy 21:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we just agree 

message: Should the death of sanji-lee be put in here somewere? He died while lining up for red hot chili pepper tickets in Whangarei, New Zealand by a hit and run driver. Shiny Red Ball 10:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there's a source, I might see it in a Trivia section, but those things can get tricky. In my opinion, this was just a freak accident that could've happened at any show, and it doesn't hold much encyclopedic value. It was a tragedy, to be sure, but I don't know if it has a place in Wikipedia. ColbeagleTheEagle 15:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it's tragic, but it has no real value in this article. St. Jimmy 20:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death of a fan 

message: Would it be reasonable to include a Halloween article in the main current secton for the band? As an attende I would say it was historical and every band member dressed up. Including many a fan. Also Flea played bass while swinging from the ceiling. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carrotcrow13 (talk • contribs) 10:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Halloween Cleveland 2006 

message: I just read the article, and I noticed a lot of sections are pretty immature. Particularly the technique section, to be specific, I'm talking about the Chad Smith section. I don't think it is necessary to say that he CAN play 'flashy' fills. Everyone in the band seems to be practicing a minimalist style as of late (save John, at present). The maturity level of the article should be raised, as a favor to the fans who aren't fan-boys concerned about what some musically impaired kids think about Chad Smith's playing. Another thing, it's not like Flea has developed the ability to play chords recently, that's just where he is musically at the moment. I really wish Flea would do some sessions with jazz musicians... -Brookman
Hi. I just create an account to say that I was reading the article and discovered what it says about Flea playing chords, and the info is correct but not quite. It is true that Flea has progressed in technique and now plays chords, but not on any of the songs that are mentioned. What he plays in those songs are harmonic intervals and not chords; actual chords require three different notes. What he does are called double stops. So is not the most important thing but I just tought you shoould know. Thank you.
Richirare 19:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right here. I know that two-note combinations are double-stops on a guitar (I play a bit myself) but I don't know about it being the same for a bass. I mean, there are only 4 strings on a (standard) bass. You got your E-A-D-G combination, which I am pretty sure he plays on. I think Frusciante, too, uses standard tuning on almost all of his songs. But back on the topic, I think that the classification of what a "chord" is for a bass might be different than for a guitar, but I don't know for sure. My idea is this: if there are 4 strings, there aren't that many opportunities to play three of them simultaneously without producing muck. Of course, if you play bass, my opinion on this would defer to you, since you're more experienced with the instrument itself.
Also, I just got the live DVD a few days ago, and I'm pretty sure he plays chords in "Don't Forget Me".. He barres a string and forms a shape with two more, which seems to me like a chord. I don't know about the other songs, but I can testify for the one. ColbeagleTheEagle 22:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, then. It would make sense that he's muting strings, since the riff has a chunky feel to it. I'm willing to edit the article, but what do I change it to? I think I'll just say he's been using double-stops instead of chords.. that good? Oh, and for the future, you don't need to type your name again after you but the 4 ~'s. ColbeagleTheEagle 14:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Musical Issue With Techniques 

message: Everybody should see this video to get a final response from Flea himself
http://bassplayer.tv/index.html?req=1&station=flea&video=bassplayer/flea/flea8
I don't agree with the answer, but he knows what genre his band is doing nowdays
I would say that the Chili Peppers have progressed in time from genre to genre, keeping the Funk-Rock as basis and leaning over a third  genre that changes through time with more or less enphasis on this last one. I would say it like this:
'85 to '91: Funk-Punk-Rock
'91 to '94: Funk-Rock-Alternative
'94 to '99: Alternative-Rock-Funk
'99 to '02: Rock-Funk-Alternative
'02 to '06: Pop-Funk-Rock
Nowdays: Pop-Funk-Rock
I don't know if anyone would agree with me but that's my opinion asnyways. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richirare (talk • contribs) 20:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No more argument please 

message: Can someone cite when he played for them? I have NEVER heard of him playing for the Chili's. If he actually did, then its cool. Cdylan13 15:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chuck Biscuits?? 

message: I am adding back the picture I added before.  It's a good picture, better than the one now.  The one now is dark, and you can't really see John's or Anthony's faces.  It's a bad picture, but my picture has better lighting, and you can clearly see all their faces.  Why would you revert it back to that old ugly thing?  Xihix 16:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: Firstly, it's far too long. Secondly, it contains info that needn't be in the intro. St. Jimmy 20:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If anything we need to take out the details about Blood Sugar Sex Magik-Stadium Arcadium and the stuff about John. These should be later in the article and if not they could be worked into their respective sections. Cdylan13 16:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I did this before and it was reverted. St. Jimmy 20:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  It's been fine for a long time.  Stop changing shit when it doesn't need to be changed, especially when it's been fine for such a long time and nothing is wrong with it.  God, people like this on Wikipedia really piss me off.  Xihix 21:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the talk page right? So stop critizing about something we are simply trying to improve please. Cdylan13 12:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that it does need to be shortened. Some of the stuff in the intro is completely rehashed in later sections. Mpete510 15:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point of a lead is to summarise the article. Although I do agree the lead is a little on the long size; perhaps some copyediting will help. CloudNine 15:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All that really needs to happen is just like the thing with trivia sections. We need that info, but we need to put it in the main part of the article and not the beginning of it. Cdylan13 16:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Hey, calm down. If you can't handle that users wants to change the article, you shouldn't edit here. I think the lead is ok at the moment, there is maybe a sentence or two that we could remove/rewrite, and as CloudNine said, some copyediting might do the trick. Tooga - BØRK! 22:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think the intro needs to be rewritten 

message: The song Rivers Of Avalon from Funky Monks has the same melody as This is the Place from By The Way. Could we put this on this wiki??
:"Rivers of Avalon" is from the Zephyr Song single #2. It is a B-side. Although it sounds similar to "This Is the Place", it is not encyclopedic and does not hold any relevance to the article. NSR77 (Talk|Contribs) 19:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. and Funky Monks was about 1992... and Rivers of Avalon about a decade after it. Contamination 07:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is the Palace - Rivers Of Avalon 

message: The improvisation section is fairly wrong. RHCP do not improvise, their 'extended jams' and extensions to songs may seem improvised, but are all basically made once and repeated throughout the rest of their touring careers. In their Stadium Arcadium tour, I heard 'improvised' jams they had done in previous tours AND their 2 live DVDs. Should we take away this section?
:No. During the same tour, the improvisations are similar, but not the same. When comparing the solos of "Can't Stop" from Slane Castle to Hyde Park, they are similar but indeed different. And the extended jams before "Californication" are, again, similar, but very different. The section should stand. NSR77 (Talk|Contribs) 20:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of 'Improvisation' section 

message: i was wondering if anyone knew where the asterisk logo came from? i've looked around for ages and never found any satisfactory explanation... anyone able to help?
The band's then manager, Lindy, came to Anthony one day and said that he needed a shirt design quick, and Anthony drew it up for him.  There's a meaning behind it, the usual cliche stuff.  Xihix 22:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo 

message: "regarding the wild, fanatical, and fervent scene that was L.A." Is this POV on Wikipedia's part, or from VH1's Behind the Music? It's not clear, and should be noted. CloudNine 17:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early years 

message: Could someone go through and clean up the references?  They're a mess right now.  36 and 37 are the same thing.  So are 53 and 54.  And probably others.  There are also no retrieval dates for any of the links.  ShadowHalo 17:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll go through them. I've put in a request at WP:RFP for semi-protection for a week or two. (now protected until 19 June) CloudNine 18:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another concern of mine is the article leans too heavily on one source. Scar Tissue is reliable, but it is an autobiography and we could use some third party reference works. CloudNine 19:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We could use Flea's comments from the booklets that comes with the 2003 remastering of the 80's records to back up some claims. But I don't know how to cite them.  Tooga - BØRK! 20:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style. CloudNine 13:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'll check it out. Tooga - BØRK! 13:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Music Style section is mostly uncited. Good work on the history though, and speaking of history you may have to fix the History tool at the top as I'm unfamiliar with it. Alientraveller 18:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed GA 

message: :(Copied from User talk:CloudNine and User talk:Xihix)
How can I criticize the logo in the article? I know how it was made, why, etc... But, where would I? I also have a source. Xihix 17:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should the article include a criticism of the logo? If we're planning to take the article to featured status, it may be seen as a little trivial to have a separate section on the logo. CloudNine 17:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know what you mean, but the logo is largely recognized as the Red Hot Chili Peppers logo. Even without the wording, many people recognize the red or black asterisk as the band. It's on the drum bass of the band. It's on the official t shirts. I don't think it should have a separate section for it, but it should be mentioned somewhere in the article. Xihix 17:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point. I'd integrate it into the Early years section (assuming that's when they created it) and include a thumbnail of the image. At any rate, I wouldn't include it in the infobox. CloudNine 18:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, many bands have their logo in their info box. Audioslave, Coldplay, Temple of the Dog, The Mars Volta, and many other bands. So, why not Red Hot Chili Peppers? Xihix 18:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately quite a few band articles include a logo; it doesn't mean it's kosher with regards to fair use. Note that none of the band articles you mentioned have reached GA or FA status; look through WP:FA and WP:GA, and I believe you won't find any in the infobox. (Also, it's hard to read for some logos). CloudNine 18:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I didn't mention them, but AC/DC, The Sex Pistols, and Slayer, all FEATURED ARTICLES, have their band logo in the userbox. Now, good articles that have their logo: Artic Monkeys, Butthole Surfers, Evanescence, Kiss, Nine Inch Nails, Switchfoot, and Tenacious D. So... All these are godlike articles, Wikipedia-wise, and they all have their logos. So... Why not Red Hot Chili Peppers? Xihix 18:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting! Go for it then. You are using it under fair use, so you should change the image license. CloudNine 18:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: In the case of Nine Inch Nails, the logo is actually discussed in the prose. Not too sure about the other ones. I know the editors working on Radiohead removed the band's bear lgoo because they couldn't find a way to discuss it in the article. Aside from fair use issues, the Chili Peppers logo is, due to its shape, too unwieldly for the infobox. Just type out the name. WesleyDodds 21:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's fine.  Don't take it out.  If you do, I'm simply adding it back in.  Xihix 21:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, that's not the appropriate thing to say. Under fair use guidelines if the image isn't being utilized properly, anyone can take it out. Saying "If you do, I'm simply adding it back in" isn't the sensible solution to the issue. WesleyDodds 22:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition, many other bands' logos don't stretch the page as much as the Chili Peppers'. Their's is an asterisk (circular), however many other band's insignia is a variation of their name, which reads horizontal. The current logo stretches the page, and anything smaller will be insufficient. I believe it should be removed. NSR77 (Talk|Contribs) 22:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not making the page look bad, it's completely fine.  It should and will stay.  Xihix 23:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether the image stays or not will be based on fair use guidelines and consensus of the editors. Simply adding it back if someone removes it is not an appropriate course of action. If you want to use the logo in the article, find a way to discuss it in the context of the prose with citations. However, it is not appropriate for use in the namespace of the infobox because it it doesn't adhere to fair use, it distorts the infobox, and the band's name circles the design, making it hard to read in the space that is ostensibly supposed to clearly indicate the band's name. WesleyDodds 23:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: (dedenting)) If it's clearly against consensus, don't try to keep adding the logo. That's not how Wikipedia works. CloudNine 06:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo 

message: Hey guys.  I have been looking around, and I've seen a few different sources on the album sales.  For example, the RIAA (the official dudes who actually keep record of the sales) say that BSSM has seven platinum, recorded at 04/02/01, which was a while ago.  Plus, the link doesn't change, so it would be hard to source it.  But, there are other sources that say the album has twelve platinum, which is here at Wikipedia.  What should we do?  Many places I search on Google also say seven million.  Should we change these, or do you guys have a more reliable source than the RIAA?  Then again, the number is from about six years ago so sales could have gone up more since, but I really doubt it could sell five million more copies since then.  Xihix 00:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Album Sales 

message: I don't really think it needs to be revamped... Well, if it does, how so?  It currently looks pretty nice.  Xihix 03:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stadium Arcadium revamp 

message: I've counted eight fair use images in this article, which is a little much under fair use; some of the images aren't criticised (such as the Simpsons capture). Do you think we should use a little less? CloudNine 14:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Simpsons image seems a little suspect anyway. A promotional? It looks more like a screen capture. Kamryn Matika 15:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I do think we should probably remove or replace a fair bit of the fair use. The vast amount of images is making the article look very cluttered anyway. It needs some merciless trimming of irrelevant info. Kamryn Matika 15:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed three fair use images that weren't really criticised in the article. (also, the concert DVD capture was a large image) CloudNine 15:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a promo for Jesus's sake.  If you looked at the image, you would have seen Matt Groaning at the bottom, which means it's not a screenie.  I added the source too, so I want to add it back.  CloudNine here keeps wanting to ruin the article though, so I guess not?  The Slane pic and Grammy pic should be there for sure, too.  The Slane pic was from a live DVD, it's important enough to be there.  Grammys too, since it's the biggest music award you can win, and they won a few there, and playing Snow was enough to be in there.  I added the source for the Simpsons pic too, so I think it should be there too.  Xihix 18:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Simpsons picture is irrelevant. It isn't even mentioned in the article and isn't significant in proportion to the band's history. Some pictures could, as well, be removed. I'm leaning towards the Grammy one, as it's somewhat suspicious. NSR77 (Talk|Contribs) 22:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Please, please tell me why.  Are they not critisised enough?  No, the By The Way one is, well, from the By The Way era.  The Grammy one?  There's a whole damn paragraph on it.  The sources and stuff?  It's all there.  Stop trying to ruin the article.  Xihix 04:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that they're replaceable fair use, meaning that you could get a free or licensed photo that represents the same thing. Furthermore, the BTY pic is just unnecessary (we really don't need to know what the band looked like during this era; there's already a pic showing the new line-up from Californication onwards), as is the Grammy pic. If either of them were free I'd have no problem, but they aren't. WesleyDodds 05:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed several images (the Simpsons appearance, concert capture, Grammy and 'By the Way'-era photo) per this discussion. That brings the number of fair use images down to four; a more acceptable number. CloudNine 11:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: You guys should actually find free pics before removing them... Stop being so full of yourselves, how the hell do you know there are free pics that could be used?  Oh wait, you don't.  Good job ruining the article guys, great job.  Xihix 14:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:CIVIL. Nobody is going to listen to you if you persistently attack them. It appears you still haven't read WP:FAIRUSE. I would explain it but I already tried and I'm not going to repeat myself. Read it and understand it and then you can start making claims about fair use. Kamryn Matika 14:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know civil and free use, but I'm just saying, you guys are really trying to make the article worse instead of better.  Xihix 15:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't keep non-free material just because we like it. (see: WP:ILIKEIT) Wikipedia is about having free, reusable content for everybody. Keeping nonfree material that doesn't particularly improve the encyclopedia in any way (those images weren't really relevant and made the article cluttered, anyway) goes against our basic principle. Kamryn Matika 16:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The pictures greatly helped the article.  I myself am greatly confused without them currently.  I feel like causing physical harm to myself because I'm so confused without the pictures... And, in my final note, I'll blame you three.  Have fun.  Xihix 16:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Well that was pointless, Xihix made a perfectly good point the article is pretty rubish without all the pictures, even though this was along time ago now. Im going to add a logo in because i can and the article would look better with one.(LemonLemonLemons 14:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of fair use images 

message: I've uploaded the logo of RHCP and put it on the article, now somebody removed it. So should we use the logo or just use the text? I'd prefer the logo, but I just needa resize it.Pro Game Master87 07:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the Logo section above. Text should be used, as the logo is not criticised in the article. CloudNine 07:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo or text? 

message: The usage of “the” before the title in the introductory text in the article is needed. “The” is a descriptive word and should be used to describe the name of the name of the band. See Eagles and Pixies for similar usage. (SUDUSER)85 06:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it used to be there, but it was decided that it should be taken out.  Xihix 17:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just a given to assume "The" should be in place, but in reality it is not correct. The Smashing Pumpkins are actually titled "THE Smashing Pumpkins". RHCP are titled Red Hot Chili Peppers. NSR77 TC 22:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the band's name is "Red Hot Chilli Peppers", but why can't the opening sentence say "The Red Hot Chilli Peppers are an American rock band [...]", instead of just Red Hot Chilli Peppers? Sebi [talk] 07:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Red Hot Chili Peppers 

message: i am the founder of the u2 wikiproject. i am only new to this so im not that good. i have used the template of your project homepage to get me started. i hope this is ok. you can view what i have done by goin to mu project honepage. if the person/s who made this template are not happy with me using it please tell me and i will change it, dont just delete everything! if it is ok for me 2 use, tell me at my talk page. thank you.
smithcool 20:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  template 

message: the peppers also played in the 1986 movie tough guys.
the club where they play in  in the movie is the jigsaw
They also had a cameo in the movie Thrashin' (1986)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.54.155.11 (talk) 07:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  movie 

message: Can someone order the former members in the amount of time they were in the band?  And like, once it gets to less than a year, in order of who was there earliest?  Xihix 01:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of former members 

message: Can I add Pop rock to the RHCP, I mean they're leaning towards Pop Rock in their newest material (Californication - present).
Please check the Archive for the debate over this topic. We discussed this as an editing populace, and decided against the inclusion of "Pop Rock". Sources explicitly labeling them as a "pop rock" band are not very easy to come by, and most claims (including your own) of them as pop are based on Original Research. Additionally, please sign your posts in the future by adding four ~'s after your post. Regards, ColbeagleTheEagle 15:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pop rock 

message: The musical style is full of POV statements. Also some of the descriptions are very esoteric, such as the description of Chad Smith's drumming style as "in-the-pocket". What does that mean? And Chad Smith is the only drummer who's style is described. There should be at least a sentence each for Jack Irons and Cliff Martinez.  75pickup 03:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I noticed this while doing a copyedit. Everything here needs to be verifiable or there is no place for it. --John 18:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Musical style" section 

message: Why there isn't rapcore?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.221.55.3 (talk) 17:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genre 

message: Should Black Eyed Peas really be there?85.225.15.85 16:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. Removing. Tooga - BØRK! 16:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No 64.56.90.137 15:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Associated acts 

message: I moved funk metal and funk rock to the top, respectively. Anyway, funk metal is the only genre that is sourced, so it should be at the top. Do I have consensus? Prepare to be Mezmerized! :D 03:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Funk metal is the only genre that needs a source. They are obviously alternative rock and funk rock. It's fine the way it is. Grim 17:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genre move 

message: Can someone with access plaese change the first line from "The RHCP is..." to "The RHCP are...". Its more grammatically correct. To have the first line of an encyclopedia article have such a basic grammatical error is ridiculousParradudes (talk) 02:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although "are" may sound grammatically correct, the Chili Peppers are one collective entity. One "item", if you will. They are not referred to individually. Therefore "Red Hot Chili Peppers is.." would be the correct way to write it. NSR77 TC 00:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're wrong NSR. A band is a group of people, and therefore "are" is correct to describe them. Even though they are one collective entity—like the teamsters or the freemasons—they are still a group (i.e. "the freemasons are..."). I believe that saying "my family are kind to me", is correct too, even though saying that is a bit obtuse. Grim (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you would say my family is kind to me. Darky65 (talk) 11:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Please read the "Stop the pointless edit war" thread further down on this page. We've resolved this issue there. Grim (talk) 04:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change of first line 

message: Does anyone object to these genres being added? I Am The Master Of All Thunder (talk) 11:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. They are not those genres. Grim (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They have used rapcore quite a bit actually. But mabye they aren't alt. metal. I Am The Master Of All Thunder (talk) 08:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They aren't rapcore. They might've influenced some bands of the genre, but they themselves aren't. Grim 18:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Their earlier stuff is. ThundermasterThundermaster's Talk 08:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Got any solid references? Grim 00:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Er... No. However, read rap rock. Do you think that it fits their earlier work. ThundermasterTRUC 15:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No reliable references, at all? Then no inclusion in the article. We aren't publishers of your thoughts of the genre of the band, if you are wanting to write your opinion on the band somewhere, write a review on a website somewhere. Spebi 09:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But you can't write a review and then cite it here. If you find a reliable source, then we'll put it up there. Sound good? Grim (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Restarting indent – but then again, WP:SPS, a section of Verifiability says that "self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources". I'm not here to dispute that, though. If you think a band is a certain genre, go out and find reliable sources to cite those claims, and then introduce the genre into the article. Spebi 04:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: A reputable website that describes them as being rapcore will do. Grim (talk) 19:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we had a larger discussion about their genres earlier this year, and ruled that Rapcore would not be included into the article regardless. What the article currently lists is sufficient. NSR77 TC 21:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  if we want to say all, we have the source about rapcore : Allmusic http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:7730 but i think that three genres are already enough..but imho have no sense put funk rock AND funk metal..i think is better write only "funk rock" and then in article write that they was one of the biggest band of the late '80 "Funk Metal" scene. And i think we should re-add "rap" in the article where's write "with various elements of funk, punk rock, and psychedelic rock." Zagozagozago (talk) 15:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right. "Funk metal" is a little redundant and they don't even really fit the genre that well. The source provided is a bit on the weak side as well. Is anyone opposed to having this removed? Grim (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: sorry,but who cares if you hate it...they were labbelled as "funk metal" in late '80 also if they haven't nothing of "metal"..look at grunge, a lot of band sounds really different..also Funk metal was more a "music scene" than a pure "music genre" Zagozagozago (talk) 09:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: imho they HAVEN'T elemets of metal (maybe apart something in OHM), but we can't do nothing."Funk Metal" is a term created 20 years ago, is a "term", don't means that a funk metal band have metal elements (but in generale mix funk with hard rock)..just look at Fishbone, also Fishbone haven't elements of metal but with RHCP and FNM was the first "funk metal" band.look at Klaxons..labelled "New Rave", are they really "ravers"? no way, are only dance-punk with  "sirens" sometimes like in rave songs.you have to think at "funk metal" as a "term" like "grunge"..in grunge there was a lot of bands with different sound, just think at Pearl Jam and Nirvana, they have nothing in common!Zagozagozago (talk) 09:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative metal and Rapcore 

message: Both "Red Hot Chili Peppers is" AND "Red Hot Chili Peppers are" are equally correct.  Different style guides handle it differently, and it comes down largely to minute difference between British and American usage.  The use of "is" or "are" to describe a group are both equally acceptable usages, so please stop fighting over 2-3 letters in the lead, as the difference is moot.  Try to find somewhere else in the article that needs fixing.  --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, in American and British English, if a proper noun is plural in form, then it takes a plural verb (i.e. "are" rather than "is". See the American versus British English article. CloudNine (talk) 21:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please take some time to consider other proper uses. If you were a member of the band, would you say "we is the Red Hot Chili Peppers" or "we are the Red Hot Chili Peppers"? Would you say "the Red Hot Chili Peppers is going to play a show tonight", or "the Red Hot Chili Peppers is going to play a show tonight"? As I mentioned above, a band is a group of people. Groups of people are referred to with "are". Now consider my last sentence; should I have said "groups of people is..."? I'm going to revert the change one last time so that the people making the changes are aware of this debate. Grim (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, the subject in your first two statements is, "We," as opposed to the first line of the article, which is, "Red Hot Chili Peppers." "We," of course, is a plural pronoun, so "are" is the correct verb. Your comparison has no relevance to the statement in dispute. "Red Hot Chili Peppers" is a collective noun (and a proper one, at that), and in American English, if you are talking about a collective noun and you are taking them as one group (i.e., one band), then you should consider it as a singular subject, and it should take a singular verb. Again, your comparison of "groups of people" to the band is irrelevant. When you say, "groups of people," the subject there is, "groups," so, naturally it should take a plural verb. But when you say, "group of people," the subject there is singular, so it should take a singular verb. Merienda (talk) 07:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually not so much.  See this link, already postes below: .  If the proper noun is a plural word, the verb takes the case of the word, in both American and British English.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 07:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I tend to agree with Grim generally. "Is" sounds awkward most of the time. However, it's irrelevant here. "are" is the only correct usage, as it is a plural proper noun. CloudNine (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Grim, though I should point out that the argument "Does 'We is' or 'We are' sound better?" is not important here as this is a matter of subject-verb agreement and has nothing to do with the direct object of the sentence. For instance, you can easily say "Trent Reznor is/constitutes Nine Inch Nails," where the verb agrees with the subject and has nothing to do with "Nine Inch Nails." If there is a difference between BE and AE on this issue, we should stick to AE across the entire article since this is an article about an American band. For the record, I am an American and "The Red Hot Chili Peppers is a band" sounds absurd to me. Throughout my entire childhood watching MTV, I distinctly remember people phrasing it like this: "The Red Hot Chili Peppers are in studio today/on tour right now." JHMM13(Disc) 23:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In "The Red Hot Chili Peppers is a band", "band" is not a direct object. It renames the noun. "The Red Hot Chili Peppers are in studio today/on tour right now." - That sentence is correct because the noun is not being renamed by a singular predicate noun as is true in "The Red Hot Chili Peppers is a band." The noun and whatever renames the noun must agree in number. Obviously, both "RHCP" and "band" cannot be plural as it would look like this, "The Red Hot Chili Peppers are bands." Therefore, both must be singular, which would make the use of "is" grammatically correct, at least in American English. And this is an American band, so American English must be used. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ(talk/contribs) 23:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, actually now that I think about it, I agree with Jayron32. Both would be correct as you could refer to the RHCP as more than one person like saying they ARE a band as in they make it up or are what the band is. You could also interpret "Red Hot Chili Peppers" as a name referring to the band, not the members, and therefore it would be singular as it referring to the band as a whole. So I think this edit war is pointless and it should be left at whatever it was before this all started. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ(talk/contribs) 00:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok that settles it. If a band name is presented plurally (ends in an "s") then it's "are", and if it's presented singularly, then it's "is". Grim (talk) 00:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No it doesn't settle it. You misinterpreted my reply. I said both would be correct. If it ends in an "s", it could be considered either singular OR plural. Just leave it the way it was before all this started. And I have no idea what it said before the edit war started so don't think I'm saying that just because I want it a certain way. I don't really care, so just revert it back to before it kept getting changed. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ(talk/contribs) 00:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've been monitoring this page for quite a while now, and this issue comes up from time to time. It would be better if we resolved it—which I think we have. For the record, the page said "are" before this particular war started. Grim (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I saw that it said "are". Also I just found this - "Proper nouns that are plural in form take a plural verb in both AmE and BrE; for example, The Beatles are a well-known band" on American and British English differences#Formal and notional agreement. So "are" would be correct for any band with a plural name. "Is" would be correct for any American band with a singular name, and "are" would be correct for any British band with a singular name - just to preclude any later disputes that may be risen on this subject. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ(talk/contribs) 01:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So in short, this article should say "The Red Hot Chili Peppers are . . ." and use the plural throughout the article. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You would use the plural in referring to the members of the band, but if the word "the" is not in front of the band name, it would be referring to the band as a whole and therefore be singular. I doubt I'm making much sense, but that's what I believe is the correct way to do it. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ(talk/contribs) 21:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I would say it's "Are" but only because the noun in the band's name (Peppers) is in the plural. Stifle (talk) 10:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Oh, and congratulations, you've got a WP:LAME listing. Stifle (talk) 10:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I know this is kinda late, but why not "The Red Hot...are"? Petero9 (talk) 05:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop the pointless edit war