Talk:Aerosmith

Armed Forces Day
I removed the sentence that said:


 * Aerosmith commenced recording a new album on Armed Forces Day 2006.

While the cited source does indeed say that the band began recording a new album on "Armed Forces Day 1986", that's doubly uninformative. Armed Forces Day is not a major event in the United States, and I suspect that many Americans don't even know what month it falls in. None of the band members appear to have been military veterans, and their closest connection to any armed forces seems to be that their fan base is called the Blue Army. And besides that, it's not even clear what album is being referred to; the next album mentioned that the band released was a compilation album consisting mostly of previously released material (Devil's Got a New Disguise: The Very Best of Aerosmith). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:16, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Lead - Dream On
The new Rolling Stone list of the 500 greatest songs clearly states Dream On was the band's "breakthrough hit" (https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-lists/best-songs-of-all-time-1224767/david-bowie-changes-2-1225138/). Why does this article's lead not convey that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RationalAnalysis (talk • contribs) 22:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The lead section summarizes the information found in the body of the article. See MOS:LEAD. If there's a failure to convey information, it seems like it's in the body. Larry Hockett (Talk) 22:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

"Aerosmith/ZZ Top Tour" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aerosmith/ZZ_Top_Tour&redirect=no Aerosmith/ZZ Top Tour] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at until a consensus is reached. 2600:1700:9BF3:220:34F4:792E:B1E7:2AB0 (talk) 06:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

touring members section incomplete
It looks like someone started with the template for articles for bands, and instead of deleting the touring members subsection they added a couple of examples to maintain the template's format. It makes sense they probably just got the subsection started, and reasonably expected other editors would come along and continue fleshing the subsection out from there?

I'm really glad they did that because it resolved the talk question that led me here (a talk question on an unrelated band's article asking why touring members are frequently being added and deleted...the template format's parenthetical "dates active" used here clears up that question and demonstrates that except where information is just factually incorrect, deletions are inappropriate)

Considering Aerosmith's been touring for dang near a century I thought the Aerosmith article's touring members section would be a good one for comparison - I wasn't expecting it to be so incomplete. I traded the problem that led me here - for its solution and a new, unrelated "problem" ...and so it goes wandering down rabbit holes right back into the Wikipedean labyrinth of Oz.

So. I'm adding Russ Irwin, who toured with Aerosmith for 17 years. I'm sure there must be countless others? Hopefully a more ambitious editor will come along whose more interested in fleshing the subsection in this article out further.

Pimprncess (talk) 18:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I believe the intent of that section was "current touring members." Creating a section of all musicians that performed with Aerosmith throughout their history seems challenging, would be hard to find reliable sources, and probably doesn't add much value to the article. Davidwbaker (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I see that now - the two listed in the main article's parenthetical are both (start year - present). I also noticed after you replied - there's a whole separate linked article to "members of Aerosmith" with an impressive table listing touring members over the years. So I found what I was looking for, when I looked in the right place for it
 * Thank you so much for your reply. This article's recognition as a top-rated "good music article example" is well-deserved! Pimprncess (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your reply. This article's recognition as a top-rated "good music article example" is well-deserved! Pimprncess (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Years active?
If the bands calling it a day next year, should it be 1970-2024? 146.199.187.32 (talk) 01:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)


 * No, because they haven't been active in 2024 yet. That field describes the current state, not what we believe will happen going forward, if that makes sense. Larry Hockett (Talk) 02:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Genres
When this article went through GA review, I believe these were the musical genres that were settled upon in the infobox: hard rock, blues rock, heavy metal. These are all sourced within the article.

Over the past four months, there's been a lot of good-faith editing, deletion, and restoring of additional musical genres, including genres as diverse as alternative rock to rhythm and blues, with dubious sourcing. There are currently nine genres in the list.

Infobox guidelines recommends two to four in the list.

I propose reverting back to the three genres. Let's stick to what is sourced and the band is primarily known for. Let's not using the genre list to exhaustively describe all of the genres of music that some of their songs may have aligned with.

Also, per MOS:MUSICCAPS, the vast majority of genres are not proper nouns. The genres in the list should be lowercase, except that the first word in the list should be capitalized. Davidwbaker (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)