Talk:The Rolling Stones

to the the or not the the, when is the question - let's not re-argue the wheel

Consensus established last yearTheArtistAKA 02:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, "the Rolling Stones" makes sense if it's referring collectively to the members of the group, but "The Rolling Stones" makes much more sense when referring to the group as an object. Lachlanusername (talk) 03:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Even though that is a well-thought out and well-explained view, consensus is established. TheArtistAKA 03:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

That appears to be a "consensus" of 2 editors, and it is not very solid when the MOS page used as its basis currently has as an example: "In mid-1962 The Rolling Stones started as one of a number of groups..." The "well-thought out and well-explained view" should prevail, no? Gimmetoo (talk) 03:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

There's been been a botched reading or a misrepresentation. No, there is not only one view of merit - one which, and this already stated point has been somehow missed, both the Chicago Manuel of Style of the New York Times differ with. So much for MOS being the sole "basis". (These tiresome counting errors oblige you to repeat points made over a year ago.) The editors should also reread the MOS; nothing is mandated regarding the issue at hand. To be helpful to those who missed was clearly in plain site, MOS actually says "Capitalized 'The'may be preferred when listing bands" (emphasis added). Two hardly involved, and hardly up to speed, editors should serve as a basis for overturning a long held consensus. Moreover, the corrections have been half-assed leaving both forms in the article. Very messy. TheArtistAKA 05:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't make sense of your reply. Are you claiming that differing external style guides was a "basis" for choosing one of them? As you say, the MOS page permits capitalising "The". It also gives an example which uses the subject of this article. That seems like an argument for capitalising "The", no? Gimmetoo (talk) 12:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Speculation from a dubious source

Please check sources, and their reliability, before jumping to conclusions (POV) and passing on speculation of non events, i.e. ones that may or may not happen. Such as, Contactmusic thinks there may be no Stones tour cuz Mick's feelings are hurt. Mick has not said anything of the sort - just a "maybe" statement, so where that comes from is anybody's guess. There are great fan boards for this stuff. If you checked the actual report,[1] which is has no author attribution - nothing is established about the doubtful future a Stones tour, whether they will tour or not. The report is only about a Marquee reunion gig, and for some reason, though declared obvious, Keith can't go to it. The report thinks Keith's autobiography ruined any chance of a anniversary tour, without substantiation. Furthermore, contactmusic.com - the actual source - is of dubious merit. Who are they? Who is the publisher, the editor, the owner? As best as can be deduce, it is a crowd sorucing site which Anyone can write for it in exchange for possible free tickets and other schwag. TheArtistAKA 18:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Update - it gets worse: The source according to NME is Live magazine, a quarterly written by those aged 12-24. Nice exploitative biz model. BTW, I can't find what Live had to report on their site. TheArtistAKA 18:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

re Update: to show how cheesey Live magazine (beta) is - as it home page declares itself - here is how they describe themselves on Facebook "Live Magazine: a youth-created magazine and digital platform that gives young people a voice and a place to learn media and design skills." Very much below reliable source standards.[2]

This is your presumption that it's garbage, you're ridiculously over protective of the article purely because you like the band and don't want to accept there's even the possibility of them breaking up. You've actually substantiated the original NME source (which is a respected music magazine in the UK and has been for several decades) by finding a link on a second source, we need a 3rd party here, but until that it has been proved by two separate sources and should stay, your opinion of the separate sources is irrelevant 93.97.150.79 (talk) 19:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a gross misunderstanding, NME is not the "original source" in any way. NME fingered Live magazine (a crowd sourcing site - now in "beta", and in its print form it says it is "Live Magazine is a free, quarterly magazine that is created by young people, and distributed around London."). We can't use such tyke generated sources in this context. Our standards are higher than such junk.TheArtistAKA 22:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Lede changes

Here's the text removed by two editor's and explanations as to why it is in many cases an inferior repetition of points already made in the lede, as well as often reliant on dubious sources:

With a successful career spanning five decades, the Rolling Stones have been considered as one of the most prolific, enduring, controversal, influential and one of the most best rock bands in history.

Let's break it down.

With a successful career spanning five decades, the Rolling Stones have been considered as one of the most prolific,

The lede already tells us the length of the Stones career, their many successes and their productivity,

and enduring,

This comes from a selp help book, The Power of Focus, (ugh), but the much more estimable Robert Palmer has already established in the lede much better their endurance, along with why they have endured .

"controversal" [sic]

The source for this is Presbyterian survey, Volume 69, p. iv. Presbyterian Church in the U.S., 1979. Enough said.

"influential"

This is from a guitar teacher whose grasp of Rolling Stones history is shaky: He claims "Honky Tonk Women" was first released on a greatest hits compilation. Again, enough said.

one of the most best rock bands in history.

The editor sure writes real good here. The source, BTW, does not engage in such hyperbole.

TheArtistAKA 00:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Request

Please flesh out the Discography section. since i am new to this article i wanted to request it first here. Maybe just grab some text from the daughter artcle. Include a quote from early on, say from a critic about a span of albums instead of singling any one out. Just my 2c. -A98 98.92.189.110 (talk) 06:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

"US"

I see "US" used throughout this article, rather than "U.S.", to which I am accustomed. I was about to begin changing it, but figured I'd better check here first. I'm fairly well-versed in British Engilsh, but not so much so with punctuation. Is it that "US" is generally written without the full stops in British media? Joefromrandb (talk) 14:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

In the UK, "US" is far more common (in fact, I don't think I've ever seen the slightly fussy and antiquated "U.S." in a British newspaper). I've never understood why most Americans insist on writing "U.S." but not "C.D.", "L.P.", D.J.", "U.F.O.", etc. (or, for a timely one, "S.O.P.A."). JonC^Talk 09:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't USA look better?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Either/or. Although then technically we'd have to change UK to UKGBNI :) JonC^Talk 10:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, in that case let's stick with US. I must say, being American, that I have never used nor seen US written as U.S.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the Chicago manual of style recently deprecated the 'U.S.' spelling, but people have been following Wikipedia's manual of style for years by not presenting it in that way in articles about UK topics.

BTW, the MoS also advises not to use 'USA' except when it's part of a name, e. g., 'Team USA'. Radiopathy •talk• 22:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Genres

I would like to propose the addition of hard rock to the list of genres. AmericanLeMans (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is opposed to the ideaThe Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 06:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: All the "concensus" against it in any of those discussions comes from "Mr Anonymous" himself. That being said... I don't think it's worth putting in the box. Many of their albums would be more than warranted having hard rock added to the album infobox and feel free to add hard rock in of of the Stones album article where it applies. Just make sure there is a reference to it somewhere in the body of the album article itself. That way the editors who think they own those articles can't remove it. Hard rock doesn't need to be listed here in this article unless a valid 'new' consensus for it stems from this thread. 142.166.163.242 (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)