Talk:Led Zeppelin

"varied" vs. "manifold"

"...even though the band's individualistic style drew from varied sources and transcends any single music genre." I suggest changing "varied" to "manifold", as it much better describes the situation. (Definition of "manifold": manifold (adj.) many and various (Oxford American Dictionary)) 50.17.150.105 (talk) 23:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Varied is fine, and exactly conveys the intended meaning. Manifold is over complex and is just a synonym for many, which would just return the problem. On a wider note, the attempts to introduce more complex, often poorly understood and sometimes archaic language into the article are not enhancing it. It is just the sort of language likely to be objected to at a FA review.--SabreBD (talk) 07:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

FA

Who thinks that this article is ready fo FAC? 80.241.244.230 (talk) 07:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Been nominated. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 10:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Jason Bonham as a member of Led Zeppelin

Having played a show with Led Zeppelin late 2007 in which the band even preformed songs live that were never played live before, namely the song from Presence For Your Life I think it would be most appropriate to include Jason Bonham in the info box as a member of the band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.172.66 (talk) 07:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a long-standing consensus that Jason's filling in in his fathers drum stool did not make him a member of the band. Had the three surviving members and Jason reformed the band in 2007 that might have been different, but they didn't. On the grounds of playing with the band Phil Collins would also be a member of the band.--SabreBD (talk) 08:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I still disagree. I would say the primary difference in this case is that the band played songs that were never preformed live before. If what you're saying is accurate and that there is a "long standing-consensus" that Jason Bonham is not a member of the band, then "Led Zeppelin" never played a show again after their last with John Bonham. Then, any show after that should not be called a Led Zeppelin reunion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.172.66 (talk) 12:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Pretty obviously an individual can perform with a band without becoming a member and I don't see how performing songs not previously performed live makes the slightest difference. However, consensus can change, if you want to make the change than you need to pursue editors here of your case. Until that is done the this aspect of the article should remain as it is.--SabreBD (talk) 13:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

"Sales Figures"

I have spoken with numerous chart analysts who all conclude that figures of 300,000,000+ albums is highly inflated. Data available does not support this figure being a realistic possibility. Due to their is no World album sales source that can be referenaced for the era when Zeppelin, the best source for information is reliant on chart analyses experts to break down the data and find realisitic figures. All whom I have spoken with do not believe that the 300,000,000 figure is in the realm of realistic, and to the best of anyone's knowledge who is accepted as an Expert in the community is this a realistic figure.

Since there are No single governing agency on this, I have emailed sources for verification and none know what that number is based on as well as how it was comprised. To my knowledge there is no source that has numbers that support 300,000,000 which are accepted as correct and credible. Documented numbers that put estimates Led Zeppelin in the range of 150,000,000 to 160,000,000 which are supported by chart analysts who are respected in the community. Since sales figures from this era are not universally documented. To the best of my knowledge the most credible source of Chart analyses is ukmix.com . The experts in this forum are to the best of my knowledge the most accurate source for information relating to sales figures from the Era when there was not proper documentation. The 300,000,000+ albums is not supported by any figures, so I believe the main WIKI page should address that unless there is evidence that states otherwise (By evidence I mean someone who understands charts and information and deems the numbers can support that figure). Stating Led Zeppelin sold 300,000,000+ albums to the best of expert opinion is not credible or supported with any information I have seen that was comprised from factual data.--User:Vinnie881 (talk)

I cant say I am really keen on seeing this one revived again, but that's how it goes. Here are the two previous debates here and here. Please bear in mind that this article is currently under FA review, so any additions and changes that arise as a result of this should meet those standards and formats please.SabreBD (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Let us also be careful regarding original research. Even if God came down and told us that Led Zep only sold 150 million, it wouldn't matter until it got published in a reliable source.LedRush (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I personally as a reader of wikipedia would like to see the moderators of a page strive for it be factual, which I believe is everyone's goal. Due to there is NO data that supports figures in the realm of 300,000,000 anywhere known to industry experts, it really should be identified as just being a claim since many people often accept wikipedia as a credible source, and will accept that figure and use it just by reading it here. Objective Zeppelin enthusiasts conclude the 300,000,000 figure can not be accurate based on available data once all known data is presented along with all chart experts. Due to the lack of a governing agency, the expert community is the most reliable source to fact check sales of this Era. All facts are always disclosed to seperate opinion,Accepted Answer,Educated Estimates, and unable to be determined. All known data has been evaluated and 300,000,000 when properly analysed it is a near impossibility based on all known documented records (not claims). If there is an Expert with proper information that believes that figure of 300,000,000 is accurate and can site sources (not repeat someone else's claim), then I agree it should be posted, but there are no credited sources that put figures close to that. All Industry sources to obtain sales records to the best of anyones knowledge have been identified, data extracted, and fact checked against all that is known, so someone claiming 300,000,000 would need to have access to hidden records and data that industry specialists and experts are unaware of. Due to this lack of evidence I feel that figure of 300+ should be omitted or at least text added to inform people of this. Leaving it up as-is is misleading and not the export consensus. I however did not know there were prior discussions on this topic, so I agree it does not need to be opened again, but if Original Research is not accepted, then don't use it, use the documented publication records that are sited and identified by chart anlysys (I can provide you this information if you would like from accepted publications that you can confirm so you do not need to take opinion, you just need to take the time to look at all the information available), which all conclude that the figure is much lower (People who accept a 300+ figure would have needed to have access to figures that analysts in the industry have never seen). In my opinion, the term Original research is misleading, all research is original research at some point, in this scenario the original research references and compiles all known data that is documented by chart records from Industry accepted sources as being accurate, which makes it documented research. Knowing the factual evidence and margin of error, 300+ million doesn't work even when stretching figures. There is no way to definitively know how many records Led Zeppelin sold, and opinions by analysts who study charts feel 200,000,000 is on the higher side of the spectrum, but at least that number is within a margin of error. I am not on the pursuit of being correct, I am on the pursuit of knowledge, so if there is ANY evidence with numbers that invalidate anything I stated, I would very much like to learn. However, the sources sited for the 300+ number on this Wikipedia page are sources that did not do the research, but rather accepted it as true and repeated (I.e. the Wikipedia for best selling artists of all time). I think Zeppelin is one of the greatest bands ever, like I am sure the enthusiasts here do that take the time to create and update the page, but I come here to learn about them, keeping that claim of 300+ is not fair to the reader and it is inaccurate, which in my opinion should at the very least be presented in a way that communicates the issues with it, so people who want to use that figure can determine if they want to accept it knowing to-date no data has supported those figures. Thanks for taking the time to read.

User:Vinnie881 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC).