# Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music/Archive 1

Archive 1 | Archive 2

Participants, sign your name on the participants section, on the main page (Gin & Milk 16:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC))

You will have to tell us what information about hard rock do you want to have? Bands, or songs... I think that hard rock bands are very popular and you have all the informations about them... --Aeternus 19:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

## Whait a sec

Rush isn't a hard rock band, i'ts a prog rock band. This project is about to help the hard rock bands, is that righ? --Aeternus 15:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a thought... Did permission to land come out before or after the christmas single? I thought it was the other way round...maybe someone's got their sourcing wrong.

Should probably ask that on the Rush talk page. -- Reaper X 17:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

## Lollipop Lust Kill up for deletion

Thought it would be fair to warn this WikiProject that the article for Lollipop Lust Kill is up for deletion as a non-notable band. The nominator and at least one commenting editor haven't heard of the group. I have and voiced my opinion in the AfD, but I couldn't find much online to back up the band's notability. If you think the article should stay, I encourage any LLK / general hard rock fans to voice your opinion in the AfD discussion. Your opinion will be especially noticed if you can provide any verifiable information that the band meets WP:MUSIC notability criteria. -- H·G (words/works) 23:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

## Revamp and Expansion

I'd like to try and make this Wikiproject more efficient. I consider WikiProject Alternative Music very good for a model. For a start, I am adding a talk page header, new userbox and the WikiProject its own category.
I'm sorta concerned about just focusing on hard rock though. I know there will be debates on what bands fall under the scope of hard rock. So why don't we expand this project to rock music in general? I mean, there is no Wikiproject for rock in general, only alternative and metal. It would be massive, but I'm sure we would attract many participants. What do you say?! -- Reaper X 00:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Why exactly are you changing the wiki project can someone please explain it to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metal Maiden (talkcontribs)

So it can cover a broader range of music articles (rock music in general), and bring attention to them and hopefully attract many participants who will dedicate themselves to improving them. -- Reaper X 17:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

## Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now put the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 00:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

## Discography

This may stir up a hornet's nest but is there any way we could create a Standard Discography template that would give people a starting point & impose some consistancy? Megamanic 04:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a general format outlined by the guys in WikiProject MUSTARD for discographies, and they have used the Oasis discography as a model. Anyone making a discography should follow this style. -- Reaper X 22:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that. The Oasis one is a good model - the information needs to be more widely disseminated though - I'm active in the "Rush" Discography page & none of us had a clue there was any particular model to follow Megamanic 01:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

## New York Sound

What exactly is the so called "New York Sound" and why doesn't wiki have anything on it?--Deglr6328 04:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

## Proposed The Rolling Stones project

I've just created a proposed project on The Rolling Stones at User:Robertjohnsonrj/WikiProject The Rolling Stones. Please feel free to add your name to either the project page or to the list of interested wikipedians on the project's section of the Wikipedia:WikiProject/List of proposed projects#The Rolling Stones. Thank you. robertjohnsonrj 22:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

## Distinguishing genres and styles, and ending edit wars

As part of my cusade against the "genre edit wars" that plague many band articles, I have made the following proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians#Genre wars and the distinguishing of genres and styles.
I would appreciate feedback on this proposal. I am going to push hard for this proposal to be put into action, and I appreciate any supporters in helping me do so. Thank you. -- Reaper X 01:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

## Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

## Tenacious D album tracks

A bunch of album tracks from Tenacious D's first album have been nominated for deletion. I am not getting much support for keeping them up. I do think they are notable, and feel the nominator is doing this out of resentment for the D.

These are the tracks:

Tenacious D Fans 12:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

## U2

This is just a suggestion, but I think the Rock Wikiproject should take over the mandate of U2 articles from the Alternative music Wikiproject. We originally brought the group under our scope because A). Some people label them alt-rock on occasion (they're more accurately a post-punk band that became arena stars), but more importantly, B). There was no overall rock Wikiproject at the time and the Alt-rock one was the closest thing, and C). Their importance is on a level releating to rock music as a whole. Many of the articles are pretty far along (two of them are GA and one might become a Featured Article soon) and lots of sources are available on this band. WesleyDodds 08:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

## Good article reviews

I've nominated Van Halen, Black Flag (band) and Queen (band) for delisting of their GA status. Both articles are rife with problems that are listed on the WP:GA/R page. Teemu08 20:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

## Marilyn Manson

Marilyn Manson (band) has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Jeffpw 21:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

## ZZ Top's page has been defiled.

I wanted some information on ZZ Top, but the page just has some random swear words with absolutely no information on the band. 24.93.1.61 16:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Rodger

This was vandalism which has since been corrected. -- Reaper X 05:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

## blink-182 Pop Punk vs Punk Rock vote

I have started a vote on the blink-182 article regarding the long term edit war over the bands genre of Pop Punk or Punk Rock. votes can be cast here. cheers --Dan027 07:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

## Retro Metal

I suppose a lot of members of the project are aware of the recent music news in regards to heavy metal. The recent rise in a new style, trademarked by psychedelic tendencies and a likeness to the doom metal, psych folk and hard rock genres, known as "retro metal", "heritage metal" "retro" or the more recent-to-wikipedia; "hipster metal".

Most of the bands in this new style (such as [[Wolfmother, The Sword, Witchcraft (band), High on Fire, Dungen, Pelican, The Answer, Kemado Records bands, etc.) have seen a significant boom in popularity over the last two years. In general, the retro style has gained more than cult following (which in the past has pacified neo-psych, doom, etc.), but a mainstream following as well. Far different from both dominating forms of rock since the nineties, alternative pop/rock and hardcore/metalcore, retro metal seems to be the rising successor to dominant rock music in the coming decade. To this theory, many notable media outlets in the worldwide music community have been recognizing this as the "2000's Retro Metal movement" (as noted here, for example; [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], etc.).

I have received criticism for exhibiting the reality that retro metal exists, mostly from within the Project Metal community, whom I would expect to be the most supportive in the expansion of such information. In fact, retro is more of a broader movement to begin with, as noted by the All Music Guide and Rolling Stone late last year.

Despite some unhappy Wikipedians unable to accept the fact that retro metal is the real deal, it is in fact a power player in today's modern music. I would like to ask for everybody's thoughts on this, and moreover, I would like to request support in helping resurrect the recognition of retro metal within Wikipedia. Editor19841 (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

## Category attached to userboxes

I created a category that goes along with the userbox for identifying members to collaborate with on articles. I hope this helps in future endeavors. Category:WikiProject Rock music members Darthgriz98 21:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

## genre examples

As a user who has an interest (but very little knowledge or training) in music, I'd like to see more examples that help illustrate the distinctives of various rock genres. A technical description is fine for those that know music, but for those of us that don't, examples are the best way to make it clear. ⇔ ChristTrekker 21:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

## Dream Theater

How is this article considered only "Start" class for the Biography and Rock Music projects? Surely a former Featured Article (with very few changes since its promotion to FA, despite the fact that it was demoted) is good enough for at least B Class? plattopustalk 15:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You bet your ass it's more than a Start. Thanks for bringing it up. -- Reaper X 17:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Oops, don't know why I rated that Start class. Definitely B class. - miketm - 06:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

## A note

Just to let all project members know, if you have any questions, please ask either user Reaper X or myself. Thanks. DavidJJJ 11:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

## List of Japanese rock bands

(moved from main page)

I had proposed this article for deletion because I felt Category:Japanese rock music groups could serve the same function. However I withdrew my proposal because I saw many red links where a new user could be motivated to create an article just by seeing the name. Comments? -- Reaper X 21:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't sure whether to respond here or on that article's talk page, so just move this comment if I'm not meant to post this here. I don't know much about Japanese rock bands, but I think I'd be safe in assuming if any of those red-linked articles were created, they wouldn't stand a chance at an AfD. Plus, if one of those bands is notable enough to have an article created about them, it would be created eventually anyway. Of course I may be wrong about that, but I'm of your initial opinion that Category:Japanese rock music groups would serve the same purpose. ĤĶ51Łalk 22:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

## How do I propose an article's inclusion into the project?

Specifically, Severe Tire Damage (band), which still needs some work. -- ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Lenoxus " * " 18:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no real proposal process. As with Severe Tire Damage (band), they have a strange mix of style from what I saw and heard on their site. I would suggest they be categorized under the Alternative music Wikiproject. I wouldn't know if they fall under their criteria, so I will ask. -- Reaper X 17:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Lenoxus " * " 17:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

## Bob Dylan - Proposal

I have made a proposal on the page Talk:Bob Dylan to remove Bob Dylan from Category:Converts to Christianity. Please go there to discuss. --Metzenberg 20:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

## Unfun Records

This article, Unfun Records, is up for AFD. Do we feel like making it a WP:Rock article as it is a article about A underground Rock label? Or should we view it as non notable?--St.daniel talk 17:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

## Time to replace Infobox Guitarist?

There have been a growing number of Wikipedians questioning the need for a separate infobox for guitarists. The {{Guitarist infobox}} was created by Wikipedia:WikiProject Guitarists, and it easily survived a deletion nomination back in September of last year, but that was before {{Infobox musical artist}} (which is supported by Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians) became a widely accepted standard. Both infoboxes are currently endorsed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, but recent discussions between some members of the Guitarist and Musician Wikiprojects have concluded that it may be time to deprecate the guitarist infobox, and start replacing it. (Unfortunately, this is not a task for bots, and will have to be done manually.)

Before making any final decision on the matter, we would like to get feedback from the broader community, so I am posting this notice to several Wikiprojects which may be affected. Comments should be posted to Template talk:Guitarist infobox. If you have strong feelings about this infobox, one way or the other, please feel free to let us know. Thanks, Xtifr tälk 12:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

## Flogging Molly & Albums

Does anyone object to adding Flogging Molly to our list. Oh yeah and what's our stance on adding albums?--St.daniel Talk 11:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

## Request for a peer review of Tool (band)

Hi folks!

Some weeks ago, Tool (band) quite easily jumped the GA-border, after it was peer reviewed in April and quite a lot of work had been poured into the article. It becomes harder and harder to say what is still needed to do for the editors who have worked a lot on the article. I for one have mostly been working on adding details recently, which is why I'd like to ask for a peer review by editors who are familiar with either Tool/rock music in the 90s/etc... Of course, any comments/criticism on the formal aspects of the article are welcome as well, but criticism regarding prose/content would probable be more helpful at this point. Of course, I'd like to get the article to FA, so don't be shy about using high standards and criticizing wherever it seems appropriate.

If you decide to begin a peer review, please leave your comments on Talk:Tool (band). I'd be gladly returning the favor, if need be.

Best wishes and many thanks. Johnnyw talk 14:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

After seeing a request for peer review for Pearl Jam without any detailed comment for almost a week now, some thoughts came to my mind: that article should be part of this project, right? And if so, we should at least help the fellow editor (as much as time permits, and if it's only a quick glance and a short comment). Instead of finger-pointing, I tried my best to review it. But, when joining this project, I hoped it would give a boost to the articles it's intended to look after, but progress seems kinda slow currently. Isn't anyone working on any band articles right now, that understands that you can only get that far without the help of others? Maybe I am just missing something, forgive me this rant, if I am. If not, I hope some people who read this start to dedicate a couple of minutes every other visit to WP to this project. Rock on, Johnnyw talk 12:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

## Rock and Roll Hall of Fame

Hi, I was wondering if I could get some comments here because one user seems to think that the page should be devoted to listing why certain bands are not inducted. So, he added a section called "Rush Controversy", I removed the section, even though it was sourced, because I feel that the criticism section should be for criticism of the hall in general and not why ____ isn't in yet. If anyone agrees, or feels differently, please feel free to comment on the talk page. -- Scorpion0422 15:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

## How to improve the project

Hi folks, I really appreciate that there is a rock music project, but I think it lacks inertia and some other things, for example, when compared with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative music (WPAm).

• I'd like to rework our project page a bit, after the WPAm design, since it really gives users a good overview, seems better organized and so forth.
• Why not include the "importance" criteria to the WPRock template? Seems useful to have categories to prioritize our efforts, right?
• If we do this, we'd probably be smart to add the parameter before assessing new articles..
• I'd also like to do the following, so that the project can actually start working as a collaborate effort:
• a new member invitation drive
• then, a find and add more articles in scope of the WikiProject drive ;)
• then, an assessment drive
• In order to do this, why not establish a couple of teams, who concentrate on one of these efforts? (expand ProjectPage & ProjectTemplate, new member invitations)

Any other suggestions? Any opinion on this? Hope to hear from you! Johnnyw talk 12:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC) Another suggestion would be to collaborate with other projects (such as Alternative music) on some articles, since there is obviously some common ground. This would probably have to wait until this project is at full speed, though. --Johnnyw talk 13:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

### WPRock template

I took the liberty of adding an "importance" parameter to the template, similar to the ones we see in other project. To assess the articles, we'd probably need a guideline with examples. I'd copied the one from Wikiproject Alternative to the Assessment page. I'll start a discussion below about the examples we use as points of references for other articles. Johnnyw talk 14:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

## Importance scale

Hi folks, assuming that the inclusion of the importance-scale is accepted, I'd like to start a discussion which examples we use as points of reference. The scale values are:
Top, High, Mid, Low Below I'll propose a list (please don't stone me, this is what came to my mind after giving it a minute's though ;) please feel free to edit/comment etc. Greetings! Johnnyw talk 14:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

### Proposal

Top importance

"Key" articles, considered indispensable.
• Highest-level articles strongly related to rock music
• Quasi-legendary rock artists
• Miscellaneous: epochal events

High

High-priority topics and needed subtopics of "key" articles, often with a broad scope; needed to complement any general understanding of the field.
• High level sub-genres
• Rock artists with major impact — on entire rock genres or popular culture in general
• Seminal works of top/high importance artists, with few exceptions
• Miscellaneous, such as

Mid

Mid-priority articles on more specialised (sub-)topics; possibly more detailed coverage of topics summarised in "key" articles, and as such their omission would not significantly impair general understanding.
• Most other major sub-genres
• Major rock artists — tour/festival headliners, several important albums, with impact on newer artists
• Seminal works of mid importance artists
• Miscellaneous, such as the best known festivals, ..

Low

While still notable, these are highly-specialised or even obscure, not essential for understanding the wider picture ("nice to have" articles).
• Niche sub-genres
• Rock artists excluded by the criteria above
• Works of rock artists excluded by the criteria above
• Miscellaneous, such as most festivals, rock music movies

• What to do with music instrument articles? (in scope of the project?)
• Rock music encompasses heavy metal, alternative, etc. for which there already are successful WikiProjects, collaboration would be useful and necessary

## Guns N' Roses importance level

Guns N' Roses currently does not have the level of importance marked. I'm not too sure where it fits on the scale, so some guidance from more experienced users in the area would be much appreciated, and all discussion welcome at Talk:Guns N' Roses. Kind regards, Sebi [talk] 23:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

A warm welcome Sebi! I'd personally set it to mid-importance (although high could be justified as well imho), as you can see in my proposal above. I'd also welcome you warmly to comment on that if you wish, since we need to establish a consensus there... feedback has been a little slow, sadly... Johnnyw talk 23:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

## Tool at FAC

Hi folks.. I will be submitting Tool to FAC tonight or tomorrow. It would be awesome if some of you could help me out getting this article to FA status. Since I will be moving from Barcelona back to Berlin on Wednesday, I will most probably be very grateful for any spare minute you could spend on addressing any of the objections that the article will encounter. Thanks in advance, and best wishes, Johnnyw talk 19:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I nominated the article for Featured Article status. Please feel free to comment/review/or help out at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tool (band) . Johnnyw talk 21:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

## Pearl Jam

FYI, I've submitted Pearl Jam as a FAC. Feel free to comment, support or object. CloudNine 12:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

## Guns N' Roses

The new Guns N' Roses WikiProject is up and running for anyone interested in becoming a participant. The project also uses this project's assessment and importance scales. –sebi 01:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

## Expert review: Jupiter Sunrise

As part of the Notability wikiproject, I am trying to sort out whether Jupiter Sunrise is notable enough for an own article. I would appreciate an expert opinion. For details, see the article's talk page. If you can spare some time, please add your comments there. Thanks! --B. Wolterding 11:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

## Ray Davies

If someone is looking for a project (I'm not right now, or at least not this one) you might take on the Ray Davies article. At the moment, it is a lightweight trivia-filled article on someone who ought to be viewed reasonably seriously as a creative figure. I particularly recommend the Robert Polito paper I added to the article's references; I cited the Polito paper repeatedly in our article on Davies' "unauthorized autobiography" X-Ray; it covers a lot of other ground about Davies as a writer and (to a lesser extent) as a musician. - Jmabel | Talk 06:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

## FAR

AC/DC has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

## Wikiality

Just so we know the importance and impact of what we're doing here, let's do our best to be factual and back up what we type with appropriate citations. Unfortunately, this was not done for the Instrument destruction page, which included the erroneous information that the Yardbirds and Animals were smashing guitars before The Who. Go to the Charles Mingus talk page to see part of where this started. Wikipedia is becoming a source for other publications. The misinformation on Wikipedia's Instrument destruction article resulted in the following caption at Parade.com:

"Pete Townshend of The Who destroyed both guitar and amp during a March 1967 concert in Leicester, England. Although the band was one of the first to make instrument destruction a regular part of their show, they weren’t the first to do it. The Animals and The Yardbirds also smashed guitars at concerts."[10]

The source for that caption is undoubtedly Wikipedia and it's wrong. It's been well-documented in numerous publications that Pete Townshend first smashed a guitar in September of 1964 at the Railway Hotel in Harrow and Wealdstone. It's listed as one of Rolling Stone magazine's "50 Moments that Changed the History of Rock and Roll." Jeff Beck, the only Yardbird to ever smash a guitar, wasn't even a member of the Yardbirds at that time. Indeed, the only reason he smashed a guitar in the first place was for the film Blowup when he was directed to emulate The Who's stage act. The Animals aren't known for guitar smashing at all. A false statement on the Charles Mingus page (subsequently picked up by the UK's timesonline) gravitated to the Instrument destruction page and ended up being parroted in a Parade.com article on guitar smashing. This is what's known as wikiality. Let's do our best to document rock history in these pages. Not change it. Thanks for reading. Clashwho 19:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Bah! Next, I suppose you're going to tell me that the elephant population hasn't tripled in the last six months! :) Seriously, good job in tracking down the facts here, but I suspect you're preaching to the choir. It's the people who haven't gotten far enough into Wikipedia to have found Wikiprojects who really need to be reminded of this, but that, of course, is much harder to do. Still, can't hurt to post here, since you're absolutely correct. And a good reminder for others to keep their eyes open for similar errors. Cheers, Xtifr tälk 01:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Keep fighting the good fight and cheers to you, too! Clashwho 20:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Nice find Clashwho! It really does show the impact Wikipedia has, and the potential power we possess (for good and for bad). It also reminds us of responsibility to always check the facts and back them up. Something it seems Parade also needs to be reminded of. Which I gladly did just that in a nice little letter I wrote them. Most people reading that would have believed it (like a fellow Wikipedian looking for sources to cite). Anyway, I see you joined the new Wikiproject for The Who also. I'm very glad you're part of it. - Rocket000 04:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

## Wikipedia:WikiProject The Who

Hey, I just founded this Wikiproject a few days ago but I have no idea how to recruit for it, do templates, etc. If anyone from this project, which I cited as the parent project, wants to help out we could really use it! -MichiganCharms 02:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

## ==Joining==

Hey, I'm interested in joining this project. Can someone tell me how? Tim Y (talk) 23:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Basically, you just add your name to the members list at the project page, and that's it. Welcome! ;) Then, take a look at the todo-list and choose whatever seems most necessary to you. We haven't founded any working groups yet, so more article-specific tasks could be checking the Featured Article candidacies we have running currently and address the constructive criticism we get there. For example, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/King Crimson there is an open comment.. Johnnyw talk 10:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

## Lightning Bolt discography at FLC

An article under the scope of this project, Lightning Bolt discography, is currently a Featured List candidate. Please take the time to review the article and comment on the article's nom page. Thanks! Drewcifer 06:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

## Winger

I'm unconvinced that most people searching for "Winger" mean the band, and the "what links here" for that page seems to agree with me. The hatnotes are good, but it seems to contravene guideline. Please contribute to the discussion at Talk:Winger. --Dweller 10:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

## Gwen Stefani

I think she should also be covered under the wiki project because:-

• She was the lead singer of No Doubt, which is a part of this wikiproject.

Her article is FA. The rest is on the decision of the active members of the project. Indianescence 11:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I wouldn't categorize her as a rock artist. This would be kind a far stretch imho and watering down this projects' goals. Johnnyw talk 15:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, she was in a rock band but then left the band to pursue her solo career which wasn't rock... unless we can find some reliable source stating that Stefani's style is purely rock, we shouldn't cover her under the scope. If she remained in the band, yeah, I suppose it would be okay. Nevertheless, covering her under the scope for the sake of another FA under the project's belt is inappropriate. Spebi 20:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Hang on, according to the article for "What You Waiting For?", that track is dance-pop, and we shouldn't have that song under this project but yet the article say nothing about the song's genre being rock. Spebi 20:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Let me make this clear, SHE DID'NT LEAVE THE BAND. She is still a part of the band. The band is still there and are wroking on their next album. I can provide many reliable sources for that. Some of them are in the No Doubt article as well. It is true that she went solo for two albums, but she is very much in the band. I hope that makes the matter clear. Indianescence 05:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I thought she just left the band to do her own stuff. I was wrong. If they do release another album and Stefani appears on it then I'm sure she could be covered by the scope of this project, along with the other projects she is currently under (e.g. pop music, etc). Spebi 06:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
So this means all the 5 albums which were relased before by No Doubt WITH Stefani on it were waste? They have no meaning? We have to wait for another album to be released for her inclusion in the wikiproject? This is weird! Indianescence 15:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
And yes, not only Stefani, all the other members of the band are not covered under the project! Indianescence 16:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

## If anyone wants to bump an article up to good article status...

The Ramones article just needs to have it's references properly formatted, and it should pass the GA review.[11]

Hoponpop69 23:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

## Possible Australian rock task force?

There is now a proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Australian rock music for a group to deal specifically with Australian rock music which has gotten five members, which is generally thought enough for a task force. Would this project be willing to take on such a subproject? John Carter (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

## Crush 40 Assessment

Greetings, Crush 40 is now in WikiRock Project's list of rock bands which are in the project. The article is unassessed according to WikiRock, and I would appreciate it's assessment. Thanks, User:Radman622 22:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

## Capitol Offense (band) DYK on the mainpage now; The Whigs has been reworked.

An article I created (still unassessed, BTW) for Capitol Offense (band) is now featured in the DYK on the mainpage. I didn't know where else to let the community know about this. Also, I've been reworking the article on The Whigs, and would like to have some other, fresher eyes on the article, if possible. Regards, -- Bellwether BC 00:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

## References

A general question, triggered by a particular action. An IP, Special:Contributions/82.11.63.20, has added a reference to a 1975 book to some 20 articles in a row, without changing the article otherwise. When looking at these articles, I noticed that at least some of them have reference sections referring to pretty general books (not about the artist or song specifically, but general rock encyclopedias). See e.g. John Cale, which has one book about John Cale, but also one about Van Morrison and now this general rock book. Also Can (band), which has three general books in the references section. What is the standard practice (if any) wrt references (not footnotes, but general references) in rock articles: do you include any which have some info on the artist involved (i.e. a possible list of dozens of books per article), or do you only include references which are directly an at great length about the artist? I didn't want to blindly revert the IP's additions, but they seem to me to be well intended but misguided. Fram (talk) 08:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

## Concert Ten

Hello. A rock music event stub titled Concert Ten needs your assistance. I cannot find any RS for its importance, and was wondering if anyone had any suggestions as to what to do with the article. Thank you. —Viriditas | Talk 04:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concert Ten. Thank you. —Viriditas | Talk 05:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

## Bubbling Under Hot 100 Chart

There seems to be some controversy (at least where I edit) over this chart listing. The Sum 41 discography has listed under the Billboard Hot 100 chart some positions that are above #100; An example would be #117 or something to that effect. Although Bubbling Under Hot 100 does show songs that would be #117 or whatever position on the Hot 100 chart, it is a completely different chart. It shows songs that haven't quite made it onto the Hot 100. User:Icelandic Hurricane has reverted my edit, which was removing these positions from under the Hot 100 chart because they are not on the chart. The only reason given is "omg! it's the equivalent. look at everyone else's discography page" Since these two charts are not the same, it would not make sense to put chart positions of songs on Bubbling Under Hot 100 in the regular Hot 100 spot. It's common sense that there should not be a #117 under a chart that's called "Hot 100. That's my opinion anyway, and another editor agreed with me a while back when some ips were adding these positions. Anyone have any thoughts on this? Timmeh! 23:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

## Wikiality

We have a huge problem. The problem is this worldwide sales disease infecting the articles of rock artists. Even sources that meet WP:RS criteria are dated AFTER they were first posted on Wikipedia. Led Zeppelin and AC/DC are just two examples. Those bands' respective Wiki articles claimed 300 million and 150 million albums sold long before more "reputable" sources published those figures as "fact". Now those "reputable sources" are used as citations on Wikipedia to back up figures that were started on Wikipedia in the first place. It's disgusting. Lazy journalists have been using Wikipedia as a source and now we have to swallow these figures because they're subsequently published in "reputable" sources? This is wikiality and it makes me sick. Please see the Talk Pages of Led Zeppelin and AC/DC to see what I'm dealing with. And it's far from just them. This disease has infected the articles for Pink Floyd, The Who, Deep Purple, Black Sabbath, Queen, and on and on. Please help me combat it. There is no organization that tracks worldwide sales. All these figures are pure bunk. They do not belong in an encyclopedia. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 04:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

## Request: King Harvest

hi -just found the King Harvest entry, and the article's a real mess. unfortunately, i don't have the background to improve it. (were they formed in Paris or NYC for example?) so, just wanted to bring it to the attention of your group. maybe you'll see fit to tag it and include it in your project. thanks. and thanks for everything you all do here. J. Van Meter (talk) 14:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm currently workin' on an article about a pretty popular Canadaian rock band called Soul Bomb. I need your help go to my sandbox and please take a look and leave comments on my talk page or make CONSTRUCTIVE edits only. I'd really like to get this done but I need all ya'lls help. Thanks, --Crash Underride 06:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

## How to join?

How do I join WikiProject Rock Music? Sphefx (talk) 04:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Just add your name to the list. Zazaban (talk) 04:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

## Tenacious D

The Tenacious D article is currently undergoing a peer review. I need some outside help, as I am the only one editing this at the moment. I think the article can make FA class. Please help by adding to the suggestions on this here. Thanks. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

## Deletion discussion

Hey, this Wikiproject needs your help to few users. Founder was Suduser85. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 12:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

## Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

## Yo what up? I need a hand.

I'm a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Metal, and I have been workin' on an article for a band that I like that is starting to recieve more airplay (or so I hear) in their home country of Canada. I was wondering if anyone would mind helpin' me expand it and so that I could actually create the article. As of right now, the article is in my sandbox. I'd really appreciate any help I could get from you guys, seein' as no one in the metal project as been of any help. Oh, by the way, the bands name is Soul Bomb, and their from Gatineau-Ottawa, Canada. Thanks, Crash Underride 16:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

## A little more help.

I created an article for World War III (WWIII) singer Mandy Lion and I would love to get some help to make it better, that is if anyone here knows anything about him that is not already in the article. I hope you can help with this. Thanks, Crash Underride 17:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

## See Collaboration of the Week!

We have our own Collaboration of the Week! her on wiki rock music. So if you want help nominate the article you think needs attention. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to nominate Soul Bomb, even though I'm not a memeber of this project. Just a reminder to anyone who edits it. It is at MY sandbox right now. I have place a notifier that tells you what line to edit below only. Thanks, Crash Underride 19:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

## See Collaboration of the Week!.

See Collaboration of the Week!. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

## Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 639 articles are assigned to this project, of which 281, or 44.0%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page.

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

## Ramones and other bands

Hi Rock people;
An IP made several changes in all related Ramones articles (also some Judas Priest', as i could see) and i'm not sure if those edits are OK. Can anybody take a look and if it's acting in bad faith, please severe warn it. Thanks, Caiaffa (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

## Major Overhaul

Though it seems this great idea has been forgotten about, I've tried my best to change it for the better. Given it a proper banner and am in the process of doing a category thing. Red157(talkcontribs) 23:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

## Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

## Articles required

I noticed Salt the Wound doesn't have an article when they achieved mainstream sucess espicially this year and Prototype doesn't have one article for any of their albums. I'd take care of this myself, but it's gonna be a pain since my sandbox is already in use of a diferent project, that I'm trying to squeeze time into while at the same time edit articles and do other stuff. YBK

You can have more the one sandbox just call Username/Sandbox/2. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 10:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

## Is a group name singular or plural?

Is there an accepted convention on this? Do we say The Beatles is a four-piece band or The Beatles are a four-piece band? Is it affected by whether the group name itself is a plural? Do we say The Beatles are but The Who is?

Reason I'm asking is that someone just changed all the is to are on Meshuggah (yes, I know, it's not in the Rock genre, but I figured I might find calmer minds here) and I wondered whether it should be changed back. I looked in WP:MOS but it's enormous and I couldn't quickly find anything definitive. A brief survey showed most group articles seem to use plurals but not all. --Rpresser 20:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

If the group is american, it is 'is', if it is british, it is 'are'. Zazaban (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
One, that seems relatively fatuous; two, these guys are Swedish, not British OR American. 20:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I suppose if they're swedish, 'it' would be the correct term. Zazaban (talk) 02:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
• A group (in this case) is singular. So the correct form of the verb in all cases is 'is'. Setwisohi (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

So what's the final word on this? British usage treats all band names, and even "band" and "group" as plurals (check BBC for rock band articles; for example, google BBC The Who). American usage, however, is clearly different. What, then, is the feeling about the following?

• The names of UK bands are always treated as plurals, even if the names are singular, as with The Who and Pink Floyd. The same applies to collective nouns such as "band" and "group," at least in a music context.
• The names of US bands are always treated as singulars, whether the names are singular (The Band and Little Feat) or plural (Eagles and The Dead Milkmen). Collective nouns such as "band" and "group" are always treated as singular.
• The style for bands from other countries depends on how verb agreement is handled in those countries, and if that cannot be determined, then a consensus of editors should prevail.

By the way, wiki articles on the bands I used as examples, pretty much adhere to these conventions. That can't be said for many others, for example, Yes and The Byrds, both of which mix it up a bit, while the Grateful Dead adheres to the "British" convention. As for bands from other countries, I only checked two articles: Sigur Rós (a singular name) is treated as a singular and The Sugarcubes as a plural. Allreet (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I cannot see any other way of doing this but the one suggested. It does mean that articles like rock music that have US and UK bands will have both uses, whereas in those articles US spelling and other conventions are generally used, but that is probably inescapable.--SabreBD (talk) 19:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
please see American and British English differences#Formal and notional agreement, which clarifies that:
• proper nouns that are plural in form are normally treated as plural in both varieties of English. so articles where plural group names are followed by singular verbs are either exceptions or simply confused; in most cases plural band names should be treated as plural.
• it's not accurate to say "British usage treats all band names, and even 'band' and 'group' as plurals"; in UK English, with singular band names and collective nouns, it depends on what's meant: if the thought expressed is about a group as a unit, it takes a singular verb; if it's about a number of individuals, it takes a plural verb. so the band has five members and the band have declined to comment are both correct UK English, even in the same article.
meanwhile, my understanding of the MoS is that articles that discuss bands from various nations should choose one variety of English and stick with it throughout (except of course in direct quotes). (and The Grateful Dead taking a plural verb isn't "the 'British' convention" - it's quite normal in both varieties of English for the + adjective constructions to be plural: the poor outnumber the rich, and the Grateful Dead were a San Francisco-based band.) Sssoul (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, Eagles can't be a singular in U.S. grammar, it is the same as Drive-By Truckers, a plural noun. Saying The names of US bands are always treated as singulars would be wrong. Also, apropos of nothing, Elvis was asked about what music he liked during the interview part of the '68 Comeback Special and mentioned he liked some of the new music, specifically mentioning The Byrds but pronouncing it "The Beards", possibly riffing on the Beatles recently grown facial hair? Just an interesting factoid to pass the time. Sswonk (talk) 22:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
For the most part, I don't care either way. But I do care about consistency and the need for standards to ensure it. So the Yes article starts off with "Yes are" then through most of the rest of the article, it's Yes "is" or "was". At some point, a sharp editor is going to go in and change that one way or the other, then a few hundred wasted words are going to bounce back and forth between 10 other editors over what's correct. Similarly, I used "British convention" as shorthand, instead of saying "According to BBC's Styleguide" or Fowler's or OED, and now that's a focus of conversation. Sigh. What BBC's guide does have to say on the subject is only partially helpful: "It is the policy of BBC Radio News that collective nouns should be plural, as in The Government have decided. Other departments, such as BBC Online, have resolved that collective nouns should always be singular, as in The Government has decided. BBC Television News has no policy and uses whichever sounds best in context." So there we has it. Anything go. Allreet (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
again: in UK English it is correct, acceptable, consistent, etc to use both Yes is and Yes are, because sometimes the writer is thinking of a singular unit and sometimes of a number of individuals. if the issue is causing disruption on a page about a particular UK band it's often possible to find "workarounds" (eg the band members have declined to comment" instead of the band have ...) but it's still true that using both Yes are and Yes is in the same article is standard, correct, consistent UK English.
meanwhile, thanks for the summary of the BBC's approaches, but you've missed the point about the + adjective. i understood your "shorthand" phrase fine; the point is that the + adjective is commonly plural in both varieties of English: The Grateful Dead were a SF-based band. Sssoul (talk) 06:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Based on the input from ssSoul, clearly my original suggestions should be set aside and something different considered. If I might suggest as a starting point:

• Band names can be treated as either singular or plural, depending on context. For example, "The Grateful Dead are..." and "The Grateful Dead were..." are both acceptable, but changing verb agreement from one sentence to the next would not be.
• Collective nouns such as "band" and "group" should be treated as singular.
• Editors should respect earlier decisions regarding these conventions for certain articles, as long as a particular style has been applied consistently.

These might need modification, so if anyone wants to help by editing, replacing, amending or suggesting, by all means. To re-state, the reason I believe clearer guidelines are needed is to ensure consistency and avert editing battles that sometimes make even the simplest changes an ordeal. I've also included the idea of respecting earlier decisions to accommodate articles (The Beatles, e.g.) where considerable work and decision-making have already been invested. None of this is intended to resolve any particular cases or overturn past decisions. The aims are general: to improve content for readers and make life easier for editors. Allreet (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

sorry Allreet - i just now saw this reply. the WP:MOS and WP:ENGVAR already cover these matters, and i don't think it's a good idea to try revamping them for this project. for example: suggesting that collective nouns must always be treated as singular would contradict standard UK usage (again, see American and British English differences#Formal and notional agreement), which would be contrary to WP:ENGVAR. it can be tricky for speakers of other varieties of English to get the hang of the standard UK formal-vs-notional-agreement approach, but that doesn't mean we can create guidelines that would impose US usage on UK-orientated articles. Sssoul (talk) 09:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

## beards or Byrds?

Nothing to do with the discussion per se but just referring to Sswonk's statement about Elvis Presley's mis-pronunciation of Byrds as "Beards". I too used to think that this was the case but nowadays I'm not so sure. I think Elvis may've been referring to the fashion trend amongst young, male hippies of growing facial hair. Remember, by 1968, The Byrds weren't really a very high profile group anymore, which makes it pretty strange that he would mention them. Facial hair, on the other hand, was very much in vogue amongst the burgeoning counter-culture.
I'm paraphrasing here, but doesn't Elvis say something like "I like the beards...and The Beatles and the other groups", obviously trying desperately to make himself seem hip and relevant to "the kids" watching the show. Yeah, nice try Elvis! :D I don't know whether it has ever been conclusively proven that Elvis really did mean to say Byrds but mis-pronounced it, but my current theory is that he was actually referring to the fashion of growing facial hair. Which is certainly less amusing than The King accidently betraying how out of touch he was but is probably more likely. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 00:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Here's that segment of the show:[12]. The topic starts just after 7:20, Elvis says "I like a lot of the new groups, you know, The Beatles and The [Beards] and the, —whoever. But I really like a lot of the new music." To me it sounds like it did the first time I saw the show, he means The Byrds but says The Beards. He is talking about groups, not fashion, and wants to mention someone else but decides not to and says "whoever". So it probably is actually an accidental mispronunciation. Still, he seems very sincere and a little humble about what he is saying. I don't know if it means he was out of touch, I really am not sure. Sswonk (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, after reviewing the footage again, I think that you’re right, Elvis does mean The Byrds. Actually, this is what I had always assumed since I first watched the '68 Comback Special years agao but recently, without re-watching the show, I had come to think that perhaps Elvis was referring to the fashion for facial hair amongst the hippies. I do think he was pretty out of touch by that point though. I mean, the whole point of the Comeback Special was to reinvigorate his ailing career, as its title suggests.
I'm no Elvis expert but based on what The Beatles have said about their meetings with him in 1965, Elvis was surrounded by "yes men" and fairly isolated from the popular music scene of the day. I really do think that he'd taken his eye off of the ball as far as the popular music scene was concerned. Just look at that clip for example; he mis-pronounces one band's name (proving that he was pretty unfamiliar with an act that had been the biggest homegrown band in the U.S. just 3 years earlier), he mentions The Beatles (because he knew them personally...although as history has revealed, he felt extremely threatened by them) and I take his "whoever" comment to illustrate that he couldn't actually name any other contemporary bands.
Now, don't get me wrong, Elvis was obviously still a huge star and sold a lot of records but in 1968 he wasn't considered hip anymore. In addition, although he looks pretty cool and iconic in that black leather get up from a 2000's stand point, it was a hopelessly dated look by late-60's standards. He looks like a refugee from The Wild One, which is great but not likely to endear him to a hip, late sixties youth audience. Even many of his contemporaries like The Everly Brothers had moved with the times and were dressing themselves in suitably mod gear by 1968. Again, I think that the fact that Elvis was dressed like he was betrays a basic lack of knowledge regarding trends in popular music. This is kinda born out by the fact that although the '68 Comeback Special did invigorate his career to an extent, within three years he was playing the supper and wine venues of Las Vegas. Playing to huge audiences, sure, but not huge audiences of hip rock fans. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 20:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Rock and roll strikes again: right after I read your "refugee from The Wild One" observation, I jumped in the car to go pick up a pizza and what is on the radio? "I'm feelin' tragic like I'm Marlon Brando/When I look at my China Girl". Brought a smile. Well, I agree that he was in opposition to most of the rest of rock culture in his style tastes. Now that you wrote that, I am less likely to think he was about to add "The Who" instead of "whoever". It might also be argued that with the leather he was cutting an image, kind of like Frank Sinatra with the casual suit, tie and fedora. Trying to figure out what he meant and said, though, isn't that the way religions get at odds and so on? I am pretty confident, however, that he really did like The Byrds. The question remains, what did he think of James Brown? Sswonk (talk) 23:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Ha, yeah...that is pretty strange about The Wild One and you hearing the Bowie song afterwards. Yeah, I agree that Elvis was specifically going for an iconic look with the black leather and he certainly achieved that. I mean, did Elvis ever look cooler than he did in the '68 Comeback Special? Not as far as I'm concerned. You're right, of course, that we'll never know for sure what Elvis really meant but I don't think he could've been that big a fan of The Byrds, otherwise he would got their name right. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 11:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)