Talk:The Rolling Stones/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Discography section

Shouldn't the Discography section only list the UK studio albums? Drive-by editors keep adding US releases. The Stones are a UK band, and this section is a summary of their major releases. The Beatles#Discography section only lists their UK releases. —Bruce1ee^talk 13:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

No comments so far. I'm going to update the discography section to show only the UK studio albums, as done in the Beatles article. —Bruce1ee^talk 14:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

No, please don't. The Beatles is done that way because of the "official canon" released by Apple Records when the CD reissue of the entire series of albums was done a few decades back. Apple went through and harmonized all of the versions together, mostly using the British versions, but in at least one case, the US version was used instead, being Magical Mystery Tour. Together with the Red/Blue Greatest Hits collections and the Black/White Past Masters collections, this set of albums from Apple included the complete total of all Beatles songs released in both the U.S. and U.K. during their careers. A similar attempt at harmonizing has never been done for the Rolling Stones, indeed some albums, like Out of Our Heads have been reissued in both forms at the same time. That is, when the CD re-issues were done, they actually issued both again and both are available and in print. This is not at all like what happened with the Beatles, where the American versions became out-of-print and essentially obscure footnotes except for collectors. Please do not assume that what works in one article works in all articles. There are clear reasons why they might be different. --Jayron 32 19:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:The Rolling Stones for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:The Rolling Stones is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at this MfD discussion page until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Notice of an RfC about including the word "The" in song/album article titles

Hello there! I started a discussion on the page Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music on 7 July, and it hasn't received any responses. This RfC concerns the use of the word "The" in band names in parentheses in the titles of articles about songs and albums. Further elaboration can be found on that discussion page. I would appreciate thoughts from anyone who may be interested in the discussion. Thank you. –Matthew - (talk) 20:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

TIME: Stones have done over 2,000 shows

Might be a bit too "trivia", but thought it worth noting here (for the moment at least), that TIME has reported that the Stones have done over 2,000 shows. This number isn't surprising, but the first time in recent memory that I have seen it written in RS. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey TheSandDoctor, good idea. Done: [1]. SilkTork (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, SilkTork! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Jagger–Richards? (not Jagger/Richards)

Can't find anything on this in the talk page archive here, nor at Jagger/Richards, but surely the songwriting partnership should be Jagger–Richards, with an en. The solidus that we currently use implies "either/or", when in fact it's first and foremost a partnership (even if in reality several songs are written by only one of the two). Not only that, but using a solidus also suggests that the names Jagger and Richards are interchangeable – that they could be one and the same person. An en would be consistent with Lennon–McCartney, but seeing as the solidus option carries through to potentially hundreds of song articles and to the category, I thought it best to raise here first before moving the Jagger/Richards page to Jagger–Richards. In case I'm missing something ...? JG66 (talk) 08:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi JG66. I've looked into this and it seems that the presentation of their songwriting credits appears as "Jagger, Richards", "Jagger-Richards", "M.Jagger-K.Richards", "Jagger / Richards" and "Mick Jagger and Keith Richards". There are possibly other variations. The most common early use is Jagger, Richards. The most common later use appears to be Mick Jagger and Keith Richards. The usage of Jagger / Richards appears to be the least common. While I agree that as Jagger/Richards is not the best name given it is not common usage, and your explanation of its inappropriateness seems a fine argument, I'm less certain on Jagger–Richards being the replacement name, especially as most songwriting partnerships are presented as Foo and Foo or Foo & Foo: Category:Songwriting duos. The best way to sort this out is to set up a move (rename) request on Talk:Jagger/Richards. SilkTork (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, SilkTork. I would have thought it's more an MOS-related issue, rather than following the punctuation found online or even in album/song credits. I mean, one does talk/read about a Jagger–Richards song, just as one does a Lennon–McCartney song or a Holland–Dozier–Holland song. I guess my point is that while common usage suggests that the two surnames can be separated by either the word "and" or some form of punctuation (a comma, a solidus or an en), we appear to have settled on a punctuational separator, so wouldn't MOS dictate that an en in the correct choice? My use of the word "separator" is probably misleading in this context; what we're talking about is the way we're joining the surnames, linking them together, in the partnership. JG66 (talk) 04:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the MOS, we have (under MOS:ENBETWEEN): Use an en dash for the names of two or more entities in an attributive compound." Examples include the Alpher–Bethe–Gamow theory and Comet Hale–Bopp.

And MOS:/ advises: Generally, avoid joining two words with a slash, also called a forward slash, stroke or solidus ( / ), because it suggests that the words are related without specifying how. JG66 (talk) 05:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I completely understand your argument, and am somewhat persuaded by it; however, on looking into this I noted that current usage in sources appears to be for "and" rather than an en, that "The band's primary songwriters, Jagger and Richards, assumed leadership..." is used in The Rolling Stones, and "and" or "&" is the most common method of joining the individuals in a songwriting partnership on Wikipedia. If it were not for those facts, I would have made the move yesterday to Jagger–Richards, and if it were not for your plausible argument I would have moved it to Jagger and Richards. Because I see a degree of uncertainty over which approach to take, I feel a discussion is the best option. SilkTork (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

JG66, I have set up a requested move discussion: Talk:Jagger/Richards. SilkTork (talk) 17:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks ST, that's very good of you. Will weigh in there soon. JG66 (talk) 03:37, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Creation of "The Rolling Stones songs" template

Can there be a template created to contain every Rolling Stones song that has a Wikipedia article? X-ma998 (talk) 13:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@X-ma998: See {{The Rolling Stones singles}} - FlightTime (open channel) 14:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I know that, but this is a proposed creation of a template that contains all of the songs by the Rolling Stones that have an article on Wikipedia, which includes singles and non-singles. X-ma998 (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@X-ma998: you seem to have forgotten my advice at Talk:Pink Floyd#RfC on proposed creation of "Pink Floyd songs" navbox. The talk page of one specific article is not the place to discuss general matters that could potentially affect many articles. You would be far better off making your suggestion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Rolling Stones. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Discography

The "Discography" section should not have "Studio albums" under it. Everyone knows that they are studio albums and other high quality music-related articles don't have it, so neither should the Rolling Stones. 24.127.236.115 (talk) 10:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

If the Studio albums information were removed it would give the misleading impression that these were the only albums released by the band. However, they also released live albums and compilation albums. SilkTork (talk) 15:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with 24.127. Get rid of the studio album heading. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 07:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Colin Golding

This link say Colin Golding (early member) died in 1980. Can't find any mention of this elsewhere though. Is it reliable/should we add it to the members section? Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

"Low profile"?

I think we can do better than the following sentences in the lead:

"The band released successful albums until the early 1980s, including their two largest sellers: Some Girls (1978), featuring "Miss You"; and Tattoo You (1981), featuring "Start Me Up". They then kept a low profile until 1989 when they released Steel Wheels, featuring "Mixed Emotions", which was followed by Voodoo Lounge (1994), a worldwide number one album that yielded the popular "Love Is Strong".

The band didn't exactly keep a low profile between 81 and 89 - they released two studio albums Undercover (UK #3, US #4) and Dirty Work (UK #4, US #4) that yielded major hit singles in "Undercover of the Night" (UK #11, US #9) and "Harlem Shuffle" (UK #13, US #5) respectively. I know Steel Wheels was considered a comeback album, but it doesn't make sense to spotlit it and Voodoo Lounge (and their lead singles) when these 80s releases had similar chart success. Humbledaisy (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Broken timeline

As of now (2020-08-28 12:30Z), the "timeline" is broken. The black and grey lines indicating recordings are all screwed up. I have no idea how to fix it. Maybe someone else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.196.202.26 (talk) 12:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

12 x 5

This statement, "Their second LP, 12 X 5, which was only available in the US, was released during the tour", I don't believe is correct. I understand the album was released in Australasia as well. Unfortunately the ref is no longer functional. Neils51 (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Mick Jagger up for FAC

Mick Jagger is now up for FAC. All input welcome. If you wish to participate, the discussion can be found here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mick Jagger/archive1. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Record sales

Record Sales seems a bit off, intro text says 200 million. Altough news sources in the last couple of years is at 240. Seems to be wrong on the "List of best selling artists" as well.

See sources: https://virginradio.co.uk/entertainment/43941/royal-mail-marks-the-rolling-stones-60th-anniversary-with-a-new-set-of-stamps

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jesselawrence/2014/12/30/with-touring-still-a-focal-point-the-rolling-stones-acdc-and-u2-fight-for-top-honors-in-rock-and-roll-history/

https://www.therichest.com/rich-powerful/rolling-stones-billion-dollar-band/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.111.106.161 (talk) 12:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of faith in the reliability of The Richest and the Forbes article linked falls under WP:FORBESCON. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

timeisonourside

Hello @Aaw1989:, timeisonourside is not considered a reliable source as it is a fan site and is not permitted on articles (at least ones up for FAC like this one will be soon). Please revert those changes if you cannot find it in reliable sources. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:19, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello TheSandDoctor, I have removed that source and replaced them with sources deemed more to wiki standards. Aaw1989 (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

More Discussion On Their Legacy

It might be useful to incorporate this article as a reference to their musical legacy. https://www.rockandbluesmuse.com/2022/06/16/celebrating-the-rolling-stones-top-10-albums/ 2604:76C0:DEAC:1730:BC09:B893:AA71:E6EA (talk) 23:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

US vs U.S.

Hi @Keystone18:! Per MOS:US, both "US" and "U.S." are correct, provided that we keep internal consistency in a given article. Given that there are only 3 instances of "U.S." (all of which you created) and at least 64 of "US" it makes sense that we stick with "US" here, as has been long established. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

1st paragraph

The first paragraph, besides having no refs, reads like a fan page lacking npov, e.g. “enduring”, “driving”, “gritty”. Much room for improvement. 5ive9teen (talk) 18:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Recent edits done to address these issues 5ive9teen (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Lede

After addressing issues with the old 1st graph, propose to continue addressing the lead in regards to musical evolution, as well as the bands positive and negative public perceptions. 5ive9teen (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Recent unsourced edits and violations of NPOV

An editor has restored what seems to be previously and completely unsourced and fannish copy with instances of NPOV violations as follows:

one of the most popular and enduring bands of the rock era (unsourced)

the Rolling Stones pioneered the gritty, rhythmically driven sound that came to define hard rock (unsourced)

Jones…drove their sound and image (unsourced)

5ive9teen (talk) 23:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@5ive9teen: I am looking into this. I've discovered that the second point was previously sourced but for some reason lost that along the way; that has been addressed. For the third point re Jones, are you only objecting to the specific part you highlighted? (Assuming as such) Reading further down in the article there is definitely an argument to be made that it is partially covered -- it credits Richards and Jones with developing their guitar interplay -- but image I don't have anything for at the moment. I'll continue looking at these. Not sure when they were added but I stopped (for now) looking in July 2021. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Restructured it to better address point #3 and added more to the body with additional sources. I think point 1 does summarize the legacy section for the most part? TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

English grammar

"The Rolling Stones are an English rock band ... The band has won three Grammy Awards" Come on please, you know the rules, for English subjects this should be "The band have won three Grammy Awards". There's four "band has" in this article. 165.120.255.28 (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Wrong information on page that shows pictures of the band memebers.

Keith Richards is NOT the lead singer and Ronnie Wood is NOT the drummer. Keith is usually lead guitar, and "sometimes" Ronnie is. Anyway, they're both known as guitarists. Jaydub57 (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC)