Talk:AC/DC

High Voltage in discography section

I believe that High Voltage (1976 album) should be listed in the discography section, as although it consists of previously released material, it was not issued as a compilation, and all the songs were only previously available in Australia. To the whole of the rest of the world, this was a new release, and I believe it's misleading and confusing to omit this from the discography. Almost all other discographies list this album, including the official website. The Wikipedia guideline states that compilations are to be excluded from this type of discography, but surely the spirit of this guideline is concerning Greatest Hits albums and "Best ofs". This is neither and should be included here. Another editor disagrees with me and insists on removing it, so I would like to achieve a consensus here either way. Please state your opinions so an agreement can be reached. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the Wikiproject discussion of this, I agree with Bretonbanquet. This album was essentially a brand-new release for most of the world, and should be treated as such. It would not have been considered a novelty or frivolity at the time of its release, but as another studio album, and marginalising it as anything else seems to be the wrong way to approach this. GRAPPLE X 22:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

"A studio album is an album made up of tracks recorded in the controlled environment of a recording studio. A studio album contains newly written and recorded or previously unreleased or remixed material, distinguishing itself from a compilation or reissue album of previously recorded material."

This in the no way is a studio album, and you're argument that it was a small national release doesn't change that. If you look at other pages discography sections, like The Clash, you don't see the distinct U.S. and U.K. versions of their first album listed. If you list the second version of high voltage as a studio album, the information on the page will not be true.Hoponpop69 (talk) 02:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Why not just make a note above the listed studio discography that while High Voltage was their debut album, it should not be confused with the same named internationally released compilation of various songs off of their first two albums?Hoponpop69 (talk) 03:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Surely it would make for a better-laid-out article if there was a small note (or footnote) for High Voltage, stating that whilst it is listed as a studio album, the material was released in a limited manner previously? GRAPPLE X 03:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Why even list it as a studio album when it's not?Hoponpop69 (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

It obviously can be considered one, or else several editors would not be agreeing to call it one here. And to much of the world, it would have been release and received as one. GRAPPLE X 15:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Outside Australia, it is a studio album. That is an incontrovertible fact. The first two Australian albums would have been available to a very small number of people outside Australia, and High Voltage '76 was not a compilation to anyone else. Excluding it from this discography is effectively to pretend it doesn't exist, and that everyone had access to the first two albums. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

By simple definition it's not a studio album, no matter where it was released. Stop being foolish with this "incontrovertible fact" nonsense.Hoponpop69 (talk) 05:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's just your opinion, and nobody agrees with you right now. Careful with the "being foolish" stuff too. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that High Voltage '76 should be in the discography. This is how the world got to know them and is their first international release. Omitting it would seem terribly out of place.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not an opinion, it is a fact. By definition it is not a studio album. I'm sorry that you are all too dense to understand such simple things. I mean I really don't want to be rude by I can not fathom the lack of intellect on your parts.Hoponpop69 (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It isn't a fact, it's rubbish. Keep up the personal attacks - you don't want to be rude, but we're dense and suffer from a lack of intellect? As I say, do us all a favour and keep it up. Right now, nobody agrees with you on this, so if there's no further support for your idea, the album goes back in. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll also add that the album has been in the discography section since 29 October 2002 - nearly nine years - and nobody has ever had a problem with it until now. In that time, this article has reached FA status, and none of the reviewers had a problem with it. A very good consensus will be needed for the album to be removed. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I am for inclusion as it was marketed as a new LP released by a new label for international distribution. Moxy (talk) 19:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Peter Buckley (28 October 2003). The rough guide to rock. Rough Guides. p. 10. ISBN 9781843531050.
• Phil Sutcliffe (10 October 2010). AC/DC: High-Voltage Rock 'n' Roll: The Ultimate Illustrated History. Voyageur Press. p. 62. ISBN 9780760338322.

Someone please explain how it fits the definition of a studio album.Hoponpop69 (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

We have tried to. GRAPPLE X 16:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

It still does not fit the definition of a studio album.Hoponpop69 (talk) 19:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Shaidar cuebiyar, 30 June 2011

Hard rock, heavy metal, blues rock, rock and roll

| years_active = 1973 (1973)–present | label = Albert, EMI, Columbia, Epic, Atlantic, Atco, Elektra, East West | associated_acts = The Easybeats, The Valentines, Fraternity, Rhino Bucket | website = www.acdc.com | current_members = Angus Young
Malcolm Young
Phil Rudd
Cliff Williams
Brian Johnson | past_members = Dave Evans
Bon Scott
Mark Evans
Simon Wright
Chris Slade
(full list) }} --->

1. Update infobox template see Template:Infobox musical artist.
2. Added State to origin location. (This is the only new content added)
3. Chronologically ordered associated_acts
4. Adjust website to updated form.
5. Chronologically ordered current_members
6. Chronologically ordered past_members

shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Iron Man 2

This is really getting out of hand! Who ever keeps removing this album from AC/DC's discography needs to stop NOW! It is a soundtrack album just like Who Made Who. If you don't want to incude it because of it's similarities to combination albums than you must remove Who Made Who and the international version of High Voltage because both fit the same issue. Otherwise leave it be! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Westvoja (talk • contribs) 17:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

ACDC is a Kiwi/British/Australian Band

Phil Rudd has lived in New Zealand for couple of decades and based upon wiki editors inconsistent logic about the country of origin for many iconic bands - that makes them a Kiwi/British/Australian band. The Scottish also claim ACDC as their own - and quite correctly, see my previous talk where I cited ample evidence, subsequently removed by wiki editors. Phil is the only Aussie born ACDC band member and a naturalised New Zealander. I have advised wiki readers/editors previously on this matter and inserted publicly available information that clearly states ACDC is not an Australian band - but you guys removed it. Just to be clear about your inconsistent nationality statements - do check out the Bee Gee's site which quite correctly does not claim that the Bee Gee's are an Australian band. The Bee Gee's circumstances are similar to that of the core ACDC members - the Gibb's just like the Youngs and the Scott's are British born and their families relocated to Australia. The Bee Gee's also recorded in Australia and before band members moved back to Britain - just as ACDC did. So how is it that wiki editors state that ACDC are Australian but not the Bee Gee's. Power of the pen I guess. I'll relocate the verifiable information I sourced ealrier this year which the wiki editors removed and I'll attempt to repost it later in the week. Everyones a winner when you get the nationalities correct. (kiwiscottishbob) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwiscottishbob (talk • contribs) 02:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

All that you have said above may be true, however it is what we call original research. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia (or any encyclopedia) is verifiability, not truth —whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether people may think it is true. So basically based on reliable, published sources (as seen below) state they are a Australian rock band.Moxy (talk) 02:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• Phil Sutcliffe (10 October 2010). AC/DC: High-Voltage Rock 'n' Roll: The Ultimate Illustrated History. Voyageur Press. pp. 58–. ISBN 978-0-7603-3832-2.
• Joe Bonomo (May 2010). AC/DC's Highway to hell. Continuum International Publishing Group. pp. 2–. ISBN 978-1-4411-9028-4.
• Daniel Bukszpan; Ronnie James Dio (1 October 2003). The Encyclopedia of Heavy Metal. Barnes & Noble Publishing. pp. 7–. ISBN 978-0-7607-4218-1.
• William Van Caenegem (15 July 2010). Intellectual Property Law in Australia. Kluwer Law International. pp. 15–. ISBN 978-90-411-3300-7.

Exactly, plus it has a lot less to do with where the individual members were born, raised or live now, and a lot more to do with where the band formed and the country they are associated with. I imagine this is why the sources all state Australia. Anyway, if we simply go on band members' birthplaces and where they are currently citizens of, we'd be looking at a Scottish/English/British/Australian/New Zealand/American band and thus being ridiculous at the same time. The point about the Bee Gees article doesn't really figure. Articles are not required to be consistent across the board, and I'd be willing to bet that none of the editors who work on the Bee Gees article work on this one. Your answer might lie in that, rather than any kind of conspiracy. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

How can it be in anyway Kiwi band because one member, an Australian citizen, happens to have moved there after the band formed? Truly bizarre.

The band started in Australia. The main members of the band are the Young brothers. They, as well as Rudd, are Australian.

Angus Young says they are an Australian band. He and Malcolm still have houses in Sydney.