Talk:AC/DC

Current AC/DC band members

AC/DC's current official band page (official source)[1] lists Brian Johnson as a CURRENT member of AC/DC, however, the Wikipedia article concerning AC/DC lists Brian Johnson as a PAST member (with no valid source reference(s)s provided). Nowhere in the band's official press releases or statements does it specifically state Brian Johnson is no longer part of the band. Hearsay from friends of Brian Johnson is not considered an official source. Please provide an official source for the recent update of the page or correct the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.141.174 (talk) 12:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Please see all the discussion at Talk:AC/DC/Archive 2. This is well-covered territory. Their web site still lists people as members who are dead, so that's not really the definitive guide, and just because some PR person somewhere forgot to update their Facebook "About" page doesn't make that an authoritative source. Secondary sources about the band have said that Johnson is no longer a functional member of the band, however uncertain his future might be. --Laser brain (talk) 13:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:AC/DC/Archive 2]]does not provide any direct source from the band that Johnson is no longer in the band. In fact, all current indications point to him still being a member of AC/DC. Third-party hearsay is not a credible source. Just because a member is not functional at present in a band in no way directly translates to that member no longer being part of the band. Please correct the unsupported and unfactual edit!! 99.230.141.174 (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

99.230.141.174 (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

stylised as AC⚡️DC

It is very common to add a 'stylised as' note (stylised as AC⚡️DC) to names with unusual spelling. See for instance WALL-E and Spinal Tap. It was removed twice with the reason it was discussed in the past. The "discussion" entailed three lines of talk in 2012. That hardly counts as consensus, so I will reinstate it until there is a real argument here to not include it. Note that "may not show" was a thing of the past (notably WinXP/IE6 related) and unicode support is mature now. The actual sign is U+26A1 ⚡ HIGH VOLTAGE SIGN, which is pretty standard since Unicode 1.0. I'll note that the cited discussion used a different sign; U+03DF ϟ GREEK SMALL LETTER KOPPA, and wrongly asumed that would display as a square. Being a standard greek letter, that would not happen (but it is not the proper glyph). -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 08:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Your edit summary while reverting a second editor (me) on this was inaccurate at best. I quite clearly did not cite any five year old discussion in my edit summary (so you flat out lied in your edit summary), but gave you what I consider to be three real arguments. Per WP:BRD, you should have left it out while you discussed it here. That aside, I think the argument that the flash does not show for everyone is perfectly relevant – it doesn't show for me, for a start. Not everyone has the technology you seem to think they should have. Also, I don't consider it relevant to the very first sentence; it is not stylised as such everywhere as it is plainly not an unusual spelling but a specific character related to the band's official logo. In general text everywhere, and in fact in every instance outside the band's official logo, the flash is replaced by a plain slash. There is a section related to the logo in the article, along with an image of the logo itself, and that should be sufficient. I also disagree to describing the flash as a "high voltage sign" – I have never seen it described as such, and it is almost always referred to as a flash or a lightning flash. Note that I am discussing that here rather than edit warring over it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

That is how the symbol is called. Considering the source of the symbol, and the origin of the logo, it couldn't be anything else. (Note how the first album that used it is called High Voltage.) It's not a 'flash' or 'lightning bolt' (which are unsourced). The lead is ment to summarize the article as a whole, so mentioning the stylized logo is appropriate. As for systems; the only system I know that may fail is Windows XP with old fonts that have not been updated. Windows XP is 15 years old and no longer supported. So I'd like to know what system you are using? Some characters not showing is not a reason not to use them, as long as it does not mean the article becomes unreadable, and that is not the case. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 12:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

According to you. It can't be anything else? That's your rationale? The name of the album it was first used on can hardly be described as a "source", and in interviews the band members have always referred to it as a flash or a lightning bolt. You seem to think that the stylisation of the logo is so important that it should be in the lead of an article about a band; well, you'll do what you want so there's no sense in arguing. How dare anyone use an operating system that's 15 years old? Hell, what kind of stone age must people be living in? Screw those people, right? How incredibly snobbish. To me, it looks rather fanboy-esque to have that "stylised as" piece there, but it fits in well with the other terrible fan-mag AC/DC articles on Wikipedia. I note you never apologised for lying in your edit summary, what poor form. But not surprising. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

If you're going to throw a tantrum, I see no point in continuing this discussion with you. I'm following the MOS, perioid. And nowhere in the listed sources does it say "lightning bolt", period. Prove me wrong, but leave the personal attacks at home; you just lost any credibility. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 18:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you should have started by being a little more accommodating, as would befit an admin (!). There was never any point in having a discussion with you, as you leave disingenuous edit summaries which you, tellingly, again refuse to acknowledge, edit war and make your own rules up as you go along. You had no credibility right from the off, and it was patently obvious you would never accept any argument you didn't like. You prove it every time you post. You must know very little about the band if you have no knowledge of the interview in which Bon Scott referred to it as a lightning bolt, and no, I'm not going to waste my time finding it for you. If you want to actually help, try dealing with the awful state of the content of AC/DC articles instead of strong-arming your way into adding cruft. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

It actually is your job to find sources if you want to refer it as a lightning bolt. As it is now, it is unsourced. And I'm not going to discuss anything else; discuss the content, or stay out. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 11:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Waste of time on both counts. I have tried discussing the content and you are only interested either in your own ideas or misrepresenting mine and pretending you haven't, backed up with a little threat this time. I look forward to you addressing the content of this and other AC/DC articles with your expansive knowledge. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Cliff Williams

I'm not to sure we want to write that Cliff Williams "announced his retirement from the band". Literally all of the Williams news dials back to an interview he gave with Gulfshore Life in which he said "after this tour I’m backing off of touring and recording". The publication decided to report that as his "retirement" and various other music news outlets picked up on that. However, check Rolling Stone's article here. They correctly report that he "hinted at retirement" and that's a much more accurate description of what actually happened. I don't think we should be in the business of trying to interpret primary source material, but we should be realistic about what's really happening here. --Laser brain (talk) 12:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

It's pathetic and NOTNEWS. MaxBrowne (talk · contribs) saw fit that this unreferenced bit of crap be included on this FA article.[2] I took serious issue with the completely OR statement "putting the future of the band in doubt" bit; and I was banished from his talk page subsequently. Just garbage. Doc talk 12:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

MaxBrowne's been scrambling to justify at least some of the previously unreferenced attempt at content inclusion. I will scrutinize it carefully. Doc talk 12:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Are we done now? Several media outlets (e.g. SMH, Guardian) *did* report that the future of the band was in doubt, both after Brian Johnson's departure/sacking and after Cliff Williams' intended retirement. I am a competent editor and I don't like being disrespected. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

If several media outlets reported that the future of the band was in doubt... why didn't you use them as references?! I don't think you understand the difference between adding referenced content and adding your own OR. In fact, it's quite easily proven that you don't. Content with no references, as well as content that is unsupported by references provided, cannot remain. It's so simple. Doc talk 09:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

My preference is always to go back to the original source, in this case Gulfshore Life and Rolling Stone, but like most I read about it from from other sources originally. Media outlets do "OR" all the time. All you really needed to do was snip the "putting the future of the band in doubt" part. Instead you went into full-on revert bully mode, which is always going to get people's backs up. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The WP:BURDEN is on you when you include something here. You don't add it first, then look around for references. You don't add it expecting others to reference it for you. Do not add unreferenced material! Media outlets certainly do OR all the time. However, it's against policy here. Doc talk 10:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the lesson, now go back to trolling ANI. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey, guess what? No one is going to disagree with me on this one. Get it? You lose. Doc talk

So it's about WP:WINNING now? Stay away from me, you are everything that's wrong with wikipedia. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Facepalm. Do not edit mainspace articles if you want me to "stay away from you". You add unreferenced, OR garbage. I am not only perfectly within my rights to remove it: I am duty-bound as an editor. Removing it protects our readers from seeing unencyclopedic garbage passed off as fact. Thanks fer stoppin' by. Doc talk 11:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I am a content creator, mainspace is what I do. Your editing stats indicate that you are more interested in drama, especially trolling at ANI. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

You cannot declare this edit to be legitimate "content creation".[3] You simply cannot. There's no fucking reference!!! You seriously do not know what the hell you're talking about. Doc talk 11:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Hope its okay to jump in here, after further research I can find no reference to support your edit MaxBrowne. The thing about Wikipedia is that we can't speculate things that we have no clear reference for. Also, just because you are "content creator" does not mean you can not be fact checked by your peers, that is the basis of Wikipedia. RexPatricius (talk) 11:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Your analysis is correct. I'm disappointed that MaxBrowne is being so unreasonable about this. There's simply no justification for his edit under policy. He basically made it up out of thin air. Content creators should know that referencing their content is sort of important. Perhaps there are other examples of OR? I would say the odds are good after this debacle. Doc talk 11:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Nothing was made up out of thin air, similar statements were made in several media outlets. Your abrasive approach has caused way more drama than needed to happen, all you needed to do was remove "putting the future of the band in doubt with "not supported by source" and we'd be done. Instead you went into wholesale revert bully mode. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

It is not my, nor anyone else's, responsibility to clean up your edits. The burden is solely on you. I also don't have to hold your hand and gently delete your unreferenced content with a smile and a song. I could care less that you think I'm a "bully". Follow policy. Doc talk 13:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Good idea, start with the one on civility. It's not just about being nice, it's about improving the encyclopedia. Getting people's backs up doesn't do that. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Now the Daily Mail source is back again, which is incorrectly reporting what Williams said to Gulfshore Life. I don't think this is the way to do this. @Mlpearc: I would appreciate your joining the discussion here instead of just reverting the recent changes. --Laser brain (talk) 13:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I tried "indicated", which is somewhere in between "hinted at" and "announced" because it didn't sound too ambiguous to me. Can play around with the wording if you like but should probably leave the actual quote intact. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• Ahem, back to the matter at hand. I don't think it's supportable to say anything more than that Williams talking about scaling back his activity with the band. And I agree with Doc9871 that this amounts to NOTNEWS and isn't worth mentioning. Just because something can be sourced doesn't mean we have to include it in the article. Anyone who's been around the music business knows that musicians talk about stopping/starting/doing something else all the time, and trigger-happy journalists love to pick up on such statements and write articles about the doom of the band. I say we use common sense and leave this material out until there's an official announcement that Williams has left the band. --Laser brain (talk) 11:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I have been adding the category Pioneers of music genres more than one time, but Laser brain repeatedly reverted my changes, even when I was explaining why AC/DC are considered pioneers of at least one musical genre. Portal:AC/DC claims they're pioneers of hard rock and heavy metal, while several sources call them pioneers of hard rock: [4] [5] [6] [7]. 2602:306:BDA9:8610:49CD:7AC5:67D5:A1BF (talk) 00:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)