Talk:Led Zeppelin/Archive 8

Page move
Please see this discussion. Thanks.  Lugnuts  (talk) 11:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Houses of the Holy Cover
I was a teen in Spain in the 70's and I could buy Houses of the Holy with the original cover. It is worrying that someone says something in some web page and because it can be quoted it becomes truth (ref 56). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aun no (talk • contribs) 09:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if that source is reliable, I will check into it when I go through the sources.-- SabreBD  (talk)  08:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry it has taken so long to find a solution to this, but then working through the references is a pretty big job. I think the webcite used to support this is not a reliable source. I tried to find other sources and I think I see where this "fact" came from. Storm Thorgerson's book on Hipgnosis Walk away René: an ABC of the work of Hipgnosis (1978) says that "Flash Knickers was banned in Franco's Spain and allegedly Houses of the Holy, was thought immoral and depraved in Kansas", but the 2010 book For the love of vinyl: the album art of Hipgnosi credited to Aubrey Powell and Storm Thorgerson, says "apparently this cover was banned in Spain and Middle America". It looks to me as if the story has grown over the years. Interestingly Wall says nothing about bans (and you kind of think he would), but does mention the controversy. In short, I suggest this is unsafe and we should avoid repeating a likely myth. Accordingly I will change this to a short mention of the controversy, citing Wall in the next batch of reference cleanups, unless there are reasoned objections here.-- SabreBD  (talk)  08:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * One of the references is a dead link and the other was a blog which doesn't meet WP:RS. Even if it did, the statement is too vague to be useful as a source. Banned by who? Exactly what constitutes the bible belt? The sentence should be removed unless a reliable source with sufficient detail can be found. In the U.S. the LP was packaged with a horizontal sash across the jacket. Piriczki (talk) 14:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you have hit the nail squarely on the head Piriczki and I removed this as unsafe in the last big edit. As a sidenote the term "ban" is much used in reference to the US, often when "objected to" would be more accurate, but it is very, very hard to ban anything because of the First amendment. On the sash I have sources on this (some say bag), but they seem to suggest this was a concession to Atlantic because of the lack of writing on the sleeve (again), so not a form of censorship as far as I can tell. Do we think it is worth mentioning?-- SabreBD  (talk)  08:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Something missing
One of the things that seems oddly missing from the narrative of the band are references to their hits in the US. We all know that they were not a singles band, but some singles were released in the US, particularly "Whole Lotta Love" (1969), which helped break the band stateside and was something of a signature song for early LZ. If no one objects I would like to put in a sentence at least about WLL. We might think about "Communication Breakdown" as well. Views welcome.-- SabreBD  (talk)  08:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

No one objected so I put this in my last edit. I will probably look back over the article when this process is nearly done to check coverage of other points.-- SabreBD  (talk)  10:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Pictures
I finally found a pic of JPJ while the band was together (just) and have created a montage like that used in articles for other major bands like The Beatles and Rolling Stones and hopefully it is welcome. It would be useful to find some pics for the "Formation" and "1990s" sections. Sticking to free media and the principle of keeping pictures in chronological order where they are relevant to the text, the formation section is probably the biggest problem. The ideal would be a late Yardbirds or early LZ pic, but I cannot find any copyright free images from this era. This article used to employ the picture of the Hindenburg used on Led Zeppelin I and subsequent merchandise, which is out of copyright. I would be interested to hear what editors think about putting that back with appropriate text. It is of course not strictly a LZ image, although it does make a point. The only other suggestion I can come up here with is the Led Zeppelin logo (you can see a similar use on the Beatles article). Perhaps others have better ideas. For the 1990s section, a free image doesn't seem to be available from the Unleaded period. It might be a place to put an image of Jason Bonham; there are some good ones, although they tend to be from the 2000s. Any comments and thoughts welcome.-- SabreBD  (talk)  18:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

State of play - copyediting
Just to let editors know that I feel I have pretty much done all I can see that needs to be done on the article and I am just waiting for a copy edit from the guild before nominating this for GA status. However, if anyone can see any obvious problems that I have missed, now would be a good time to mention them and if they cannot, I will do my best to put them right.-- SabreBD  (talk)  08:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Marvelous work, Sabre. I will surely have a look and point out if anything needs to be changed. Scieberking (talk) 09:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Much appreciated.-- SabreBD  (talk)  19:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I will read through it late tonight as, unfortunately, I am busy with RL stuff for the rest of today. Chaosdruid (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Re-reading the article I found that recent attempts to copyedit (not by Chaosdruid) had created as many problems as they have solved: including overlinking, changing of material that reflects the sources and even some grammatical errors. Since we are waiting for a member of the Guild of Copyeditors to look at this article I have reverted them and will attempt to redo the clear improvements.-- SabreBD  (talk)  09:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You're right. Agree on that. Scieberking (talk) 09:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I have redone the clear improvements.-- SabreBD  (talk)  09:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

How about Mlpearc? He is a member of the Guild and also an active contributor here. He can do a much better job. Scieberking (talk) 09:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Lets wait for Chaosdruid. He just happens to be a bit ill at the moment.-- SabreBD  (talk)  21:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright. Get well soon, Chaosdruid :) Scieberking (talk) 10:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Chaosdruid has given it the once over, so I have taken the article to GA review. There is no reason that we cannot keep on improving, it may take a while.-- SabreBD  (talk)  19:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Great. But I've just noticed that the backlog is large. Gonna take at least a week I imagine. Scieberking (talk) 11:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably longer, but we may get lucky - someone may be interested enough to take it on.-- SabreBD  (talk)  00:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Voila! Almost prophetic! :-D Scieberking (talk) 13:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Point me in a direction, I'd be glad to help ! Mlpearc  powwow  19:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Working towards FA status
I thought I would get things rolling towards this by stating the issues from improvement that came out of the GA review. If editors think of anything else perhaps they could add it to this list:-- SabreBD  (talk)  17:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Trimming the "post break-up" section.
 * Checking the copyright status of pictures

I will get on with taking a look at the post break-up section and see if there if we can make it a bit more concise.-- SabreBD  (talk)  17:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Great, and I will check on file statuses. Mlpearc  powwow  17:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks.-- SabreBD  (talk)  18:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem. Progress can be viewed here.   Mlpearc   powwow  20:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * How are we doing? I see we have made some progress, is there any action we need to take so far?-- SabreBD  (talk)  18:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I have made some edits to the Post-1980s section to make it more concise. Most of these were around the post 02 reunion rumours, which, with hindsight I think needs a lot less blow by blow detail. I can always edit more out of here, but I think we will start losing significant details if it goes much further. Editors can let me know if they think this is enough.-- SabreBD  (talk)  08:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Again great work Sabrebd! I think the section is concise, balanced and sufficiently detailed at the same time. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Very nice. The remaining pictures are all correctly formated, etc. How about FAC? ♫GoP♫ T C N  20:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * On a second look, I think "Awards and accolades" should be merged to "Legacy" section; the smiling Page, too. What do you think?-- ♫GoP♫ T C N 20:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think two of the most popular featured music biographies, namely The Beatles and David Bowie, have separate "Legacy" and "Awards" sections just like we have in this article. Michael Jackson is one more important example. Just my two cents. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * But our awards section is much smaller, and legacy much bigger; so it does not look good anymore. I would suggest we add more content; eg how many certifications they have been awarded, like in The Beatles and David Bowie.-- ♫GoP♫ T C N 20:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Alright, sure. That's a good idea. Scieberking (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I would rather keep the two sections separate, but I think the idea of adding more to the award section a good one. I have often thought it is a bit understrength. I would also suggest that the OBE and CBE should go in here, they are personal, but clearly Page and Plant received them for the Led Zep work primarily. I will do this is no-one else wants to, but I am happy if someone takes a lead.-- SabreBD  (talk)  09:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Cool. I will present a rough draft here soon. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 10:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Discography table
Do we want the new table discography or to go back to the old simple list? On the one hand it provides some useful additional information. On the other it seems oddly formatted, places what might be seen as undue weight on sales in the US alone and if readers want this information they can turn link to the Featured list at Led Zeppelin discography.-- SabreBD  (talk)  02:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I made the table, and the format has been recycled from various other Wikipedia articles which display the discography in the same way (notably Aerosmith). The reason the table is helpful is that it shows a good amount of information for each album in an organized and easy to understand display. Compared to the entire discography page, it shows only the essential details that are highlighted in the main article. That's just my opinion though, and sometimes it serves the articles well like it does with AC/DC and Pink Floyd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.213.7 (talk) 05:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the old simple list (similar to this) should be used. Let's see what GreatOrangePumpkin has to say about this... Scieberking (talk) 10:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * old, simple list
 * That was me above, I forgot to sign. There is one footnote which doesn't point to any reference, 135. If you install this script you will see such errors. Only one thing: Why is John Fahey not mentioned anywhere? I think I heard something that he was influenced by him (his guitar playing is very similar to Page); or looking at this, is this correct? Of course we can't put any influence for Led Zeppelin, but I think he was quite influential for Page and maybe even for the band. Regards. ♫GoP♫ T C N  11:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi GoP. I think Sabre will fix the reference issue. Regarding Fahey, Page had jammed with him in London. That was around August-September of 1969 I guess. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 02:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks GoP. It looks we are going back to the old table. If other editors disagree we can always repost it - but for me I would be reluctant with just US figures. I will go and fix the errant footnote. On Fahey, I will look into it and see if it looks like something notable enough for the article.-- SabreBD  (talk)  07:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Post-breakup
Who else thinks that the "Post-breakup" section needs to be completely rewritten prior to FAC? 107.21.144.115 (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason being? Scieberking (talk) 08:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That section doesn't seem to be comprehensive. 50.17.150.105 (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you think you can do a better job, then why don't you write a draft and post it here. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 12:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to say, given that we spent some effort making this section more concise as a result of the GA process, I have no desire to expand it again. It is not meant to be comprehensive, no Wikipedia really can be because they have to include only notable information.-- SabreBD  (talk)  18:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

FA
Who thinks that this article is ready fo FAC? 80.241.244.230 (talk) 07:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Been nominated. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 10:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

"Sales Figures"
I have spoken with numerous chart analysts who all conclude that figures of 300,000,000+ albums is highly inflated. Data available does not support this figure being a realistic possibility. Due to their is no World album sales source that can be referenaced for the era when Zeppelin, the best source for information is reliant on chart analyses experts to break down the data and find realisitic figures. All whom I have spoken with do not believe that the 300,000,000 figure is in the realm of realistic, and to the best of anyone's knowledge who is accepted as an Expert in the community is this a realistic figure.

Since there are No single governing agency on this, I have emailed sources for verification and none know what that number is based on as well as how it was comprised. To my knowledge there is no source that has numbers that support 300,000,000 which are accepted as correct and credible. Documented numbers that put estimates Led Zeppelin in the range of 150,000,000 to 160,000,000 which are supported by chart analysts who are respected in the community. Since sales figures from this era are not universally documented. To the best of my knowledge the most credible source of Chart analyses is ukmix.com. The experts in this forum are to the best of my knowledge the most accurate source for information relating to sales figures from the Era when there was not proper documentation. The 300,000,000+ albums is not supported by any figures, so I believe the main WIKI page should address that unless there is evidence that states otherwise (By evidence I mean someone who understands charts and information and deems the numbers can support that figure). Stating Led Zeppelin sold 300,000,000+ albums to the best of expert opinion is not credible or supported with any information I have seen that was comprised from factual data.--User:Vinnie881 (talk )


 * I cant say I am really keen on seeing this one revived again, but that's how it goes. Here are the two previous debates here and here. Please bear in mind that this article is currently under FA review, so any additions and changes that arise as a result of this should meet those standards and formats please. SabreBD  (talk)  18:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Let us also be careful regarding original research. Even if God came down and told us that Led Zep only sold 150 million, it wouldn't matter until it got published in a reliable source.LedRush (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I personally as a reader of wikipedia would like to see the moderators of a page strive for it be factual, which I believe is everyone's goal. Due to there is NO data that supports figures in the realm of 300,000,000 anywhere known to industry experts, it really should be identified as just being a claim since many people often accept wikipedia as a credible source, and will accept that figure and use it just by reading it here.  Objective Zeppelin enthusiasts conclude the 300,000,000 figure can not be accurate based on available data once all known data is presented along with all chart experts.  Due to the lack of a governing agency, the expert community is the most reliable source to fact check sales of this Era. All facts are always disclosed to seperate opinion,Accepted Answer,Educated Estimates, and unable to be determined. All known data has been evaluated and 300,000,000 when properly analysed it is a near impossibility based on all known documented records (not claims).  If there is an Expert with proper information that believes that figure of 300,000,000 is accurate and can site sources (not repeat someone else's claim), then I agree it should be posted, but there are no credited sources that put figures close to that. All Industry sources to obtain sales records to the best of anyones knowledge have been identified, data extracted, and fact checked against all that is known, so someone claiming 300,000,000 would need to have access to hidden records and data that industry specialists and experts are unaware of.  Due to this lack of evidence I feel that figure of 300+ should be omitted or at least text added to inform people of this. Leaving it up as-is is misleading and not the export consensus.  I however did not know there were prior discussions on this topic, so I agree it does not need to be opened again, but if Original Research is not accepted, then don't use it, use the documented publication records that are sited and identified by chart anlysys (I can provide you this information if you would like from accepted publications that you can confirm so you do not need to take opinion, you just need to take the time to look at all the information available), which all conclude that the figure is much lower (People who accept a 300+ figure would have needed to have access to figures that analysts in the industry have never seen).  In my opinion, the term Original research is misleading, all research is original research at some point, in this scenario the original research references and compiles all known data that is documented by chart records from Industry accepted sources as being accurate, which makes it documented research.  Knowing the factual evidence and margin of error, 300+ million doesn't work even when stretching figures.  There is no way to definitively know how many records Led Zeppelin sold, and opinions by analysts who study charts feel 200,000,000 is on the higher side of the spectrum, but at least that number is within a margin of error. I am not on the pursuit of being correct, I am on the pursuit of knowledge, so if there is ANY evidence with numbers that invalidate anything I stated, I would very much like to learn.  However, the sources sited for the 300+ number on this Wikipedia page are sources that did not do the research, but rather accepted it as true and repeated (I.e. the Wikipedia for best selling artists of all time).  I think Zeppelin is one of the greatest bands ever, like I am sure the enthusiasts here do that take the time to create and update the page, but I come here to learn about them, keeping that claim of 300+ is not fair to the reader and it is inaccurate, which in my opinion should at the very least be presented in a way that communicates the issues with it, so people who want to use that figure can determine if they want to accept it knowing to-date no data has supported those figures.  Thanks for taking the time to read.

User:Vinnie881 (talk ) —Preceding undated comment added 02:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC).


 * This is a very long argument and, to be honest, hard work to read, so it might help to keep thing a bit more concise in future. To summarise the current situation: there are two references in the article to numbers, one from CNN says more than 300M and the other, from The Guardian, says more than 200M. At the moment the article makes it clear that these differ, offers links to both, but rightly offers no solution. These are both generally considered reliable sources and I know of no reason to favour one of these above the other.


 * I may have missed something but the only source offered so far is, which seems to be a forum and so not a reliable source (I also cannot find anything on Led Zep here - so I may be missing something). In short I do not understand what you are asking us to base a change on. If there are reliable sources we can access, then please give us links please so that we can evaluate them. If there are no reliable sources, this should stay as it is.-- SabreBD  (talk)  11:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion
This isn't a concern over this page in particular, but rather a concern over several Zeppelin-related pages. Would it be a wise idea to have a separate article for Led Zeppelin covers? I have noticed many of the song articles have really long and unwieldy lists of covers, sometimes by notable groups (like the covers done by Great White), and sometimes by bands who lack a Wikipedia entry and are presumably non-notable. In any case though, it seems that those lists really drag the song articles down, so would maybe pooling all the covers things into a single article or list be a wise move?--L1A1 FAL (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, since there's no comment one way or the other, I'm just going to do it.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 21:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

"were" vs. "was"
Shouldn't the lead section read "Led Zeppelin WAS a band" as opposed to "Led Zeppelin were a band"? Att159 (talk) 00:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In British English bands are always treated as plural, see WP:ENGVAR and American and British English differences.-- SabreBD  (talk)  07:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Stairway
There is no need to include the song "Stairway to Heaven" in the lead section. Led Zeppelin, as a band, can be considered an international instituition, similar to the likes of The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, and The Who. The inclusion of one popular song in the lead section only marginalizes this highly diverse musical ensamble's large collection of music. If other popular songs from the band were included in the lead section I could see the need to mention "Stairway to Heaven." I will be removing this song from the lead section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.107.42.216 (talk) 11:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I won't revert you. I rather congratulate you on being bold. Just so you know, though: it's one of the all-time greatest songs. Ever. It's just my opinion, of course. The Stones and The Who probably don't have one song that is as notable and iconic for their respective bands as this song is for Zeppelin. Doc   talk  12:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with the ip.-- GoP  TC`N 12:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I reverted this before I noticed this thread, but it would probably be something to bring here first anyway. I disagree, the other acts mentioned have not produced what is probably the pre-eminent rock song. I do not feel that it in anyway marginalised the bands other achievements, but is something high notably that is worth highlighting - bearing in mind that a lead should indicate things that demonstrate the importance of the subject.-- SabreBD  (talk)  13:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Best. Song. Ever! Doc   talk  13:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with unsigned bold person. Led Zep were in some ways an anti-band; no singles, publicity by word of mouth and so on. This meant that they were at one and the same time massively successful and strangely obscure. Stairway provided a way for them to be pigeonholed in popular culture, redigested and pigeonholed. Irrespective of what you think of the song itself, I think the article should avoid that trope.86.165.98.71 (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This isn't a big point, in my opinion, but I would lean towards leaving in mention of the song. It is not only their signature song, it catapulted them into a new level of popularity and defines the band for much of the population.  It is routinely name-checked as the best song of all time or the most requested song of all time.LedRush (talk) 20:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

More associated acts.
I would like to add Them Crooked Vultures, The Firm, and Band Of Joy to the associated acts, as various members of the band have been involved in each of these. Does anyone object to this? Akdrummer75 (talk) 02:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The guidelines at Template:Infobox musical artist give the following reasons for including other acts:


 * Other acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album, or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together
 * Groups which have spun off from this group
 * A group from which this group has spun off


 * I do not think any of the acts suggested fit into those categories, so they probably belong in the infoboxes of the individual members who joined them.--  SabreBD  (talk) 08:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed.LedRush (talk) 14:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. Akdrummer75 (talk) 23:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I know that this is a dead issue, but a case for Band of Joy could be made. It had two of the four members, just like other projects already mentioned.LedRush (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * True, but I think they have to release an album, single, etc. to count. Bonzo left before they released anything. He just played live shows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akdrummer75 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Band of Joy songs have been released (at least two that I know of). I don't see a significant difference in that and the 5 songs released by the Honeydrippers.  Also, the spin-off criteria seems like an ok justification.LedRush (talk) 02:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're right, the spin-off rule. I'm all for it then. Akdrummer75 (talk) 05:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I can live with this under a claim of spin off.--  SabreBD  (talk) 06:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright then, I'll add it in there. Akdrummer75 (talk) 08:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Ramble On - Led Zeppelin II
I am new to this and so please forgive me if I am repeating anything that may have been said before. Also I don't mean to cast doubts on the originality of the song as performed by Zeppelin. Many of their works were based on old blues songs and I have always believed this to have been one of their "adaptations" or at least inspired by an old song.

Many years ago I was looking through a sheet music book of American Folk and Spiritual songs and came across a song that bore more than a passing reference to the lyrics, particularly the reference to falling leaves, or so I believe (and I don't believe I was stoned at the time). Unfortunately the song book is long gone but the memory of it has stuck in my mind these many years. I have it in my head that the song was called "Rambling Man" but I have researched that as far as I'm able to no avail.

I'm afraid I have no further information than that, it's just one of those memories that even I am beginning to doubt.

Anyway, I wonder if anyone has any thoughts on this and at the very least put me out of my misery.

regards

Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmchrishall (talk • contribs) 16:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it's very possible. There were many instances in Led Zeppelin's career of them taking parts of songs and not giving credit to the original artists. However, in Wikipedia, you need sources for information that's not well-known. So, unfortunately, unless you or someone else can find a quality source for this, it can't be added. I've personally never heard about this. Akdrummer75 (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Polar Music Prize
hello,

indopug removed the navbox, but I suggest to put it back. Led Zeppelin were the first band to receive this award. The navbox is there to link to the artists, so there is no reason for the removal. Also feel free to create other navboxes, but your suggestion that if they have received many awards and that one award navbox is not enough is implausible. Regards.-- GoP T C N 14:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Elvis and Zeppelin
http://www.elvis.com.au/presley/music/led_zeppelin_meet_elvis.html I think this should make a worthy addition to their mid 70 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.228.179.68 (talk) 05:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure an Elvis fan-site would be considered a reliable source.  Mlpearc  ( powwow ) 06:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Then clearly you failed to read the article. It has a very well known audio clip of Robert Plant talking about his meeting with Elvis. You can also find the interview all over Youtube, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0e2NWzyjFQ There's photos everywhere to compensate this as well.http://www.examiner .com/article/led-zeppelin-and-elvis-presley-collide-on-the-late-show-with-david-letterman there's plenty of sources, but an audio clip of Plant, regardless of who's hosting it, should suffice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOxUXpx90I4 Hell, there's video footage of Plant talking about it. I hate discrimination against fan sites when their sources are in line, in which it's hypocritcal because Wikipedia falls from the same error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.228.179.68 (talk) 07:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What exactly are you suggesting should be included? To be honest it seems WP:Undue in the context of an article about the band.--  SabreBD  (talk) 07:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The band, well 3/4 of the band met their idol, a small tidbit or sentence I believe should be incited due to how Plant and Page revere the experience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.228.179.68 (talk) 07:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds more like something for the Elvis article. In the context of this article it doesn't really seem to add anything significant.--  SabreBD  (talk) 07:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Elvis didn't idolize Zeppelin and choose to meet them based on his desire, it was the complete opposite (unlike Elvis inviting Sylvester Stallone to Graceland). It's significant enough to Plant and Page, which should be more than enough of an inclination to be here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.228.179.68 (talk) 08:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That is not evidence of its significance to the development of the band and so I remain unconvinced. Also, the reason why finding something in a YouTube video is not considered the same as a WP:RS reliable secondary source is that to infer significance of an event is likely to be original research. If something is significant major secondary sources are likely to mention it and explain its significance. That is quite apart from the sourcing issues. Incidentally, I could not find a reference to Elvis in the YouTube linked (it may be helpful to give a time reference) and the other link went to a 404. In short, I remain unconvinced and think that if we did include this we would need better sourcing. Of course other editors may differ and wish to express a contrary opinion.--  SabreBD  (talk) 08:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I seem to recall that the meeting is described in Hammer of the Gods, and also that it's completely devoid of particular significance. Mezigue (talk) 08:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It would be significant if Elvis called Led Zeppelin one of the greatest bands he'd ever heard, or gave them some high praise, or something. But if it's just Jimmy and Robert meeting an idol of there's, it's not significant, really. I mean, they became one of the biggest bands of all-time, I'm sure all of them got to meet plenty of idols. Akdrummer75 (talk) 01:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Genres
I am going to add psychedelic rock to their genre list. Songs like Whole Lotta Love are clearly psychedelic rock. Even Kashmir has some psychedelic elements. AmericanLeMans (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read the extensive entries on this in the archives of this talkpage. You really need to get consensus first.--  SabreBD  (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You think that's phsycedelic? YOU. ARE. CRAZY. 72.93.0.134 (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree with SabreBD, You're going to need a Very reliable source and community consensus before that type of change will be allowed to stay. I am not trying to say it can not be done just helping you to realize what it's going to involve.  Mlpearc  ( powwow ) 18:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

What about stuff like:
 * No Quarter
 * Carouselambra
 * All My Love
 * The Song Remains The Same

That's absolute progressive rock. Also, songs like:
 * You Shook Me
 * Dazed And Confused
 * I Can't Quit You Baby

are psychedelic. Add both please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.73.133 (talk) 02:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Reference for heavy metal please? 98.191.90.162 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Try doing a word search in the article.--  SabreBD  (talk) 07:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I still don't understand why "Progressive Rock" hasn't been added to the list of genres. As someone already pointed out, "No Quarter" is an excellent example. Also what about that psychedelic passage with all the ambient sounds and noises in "Whole Lotta Love"? Applemeister (talk) 13:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Applemeister


 * Did you read what Mlpearc said above? That has not yet been achieved.--  SabreBD  (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Celebration Day & Jason Bonham
With the release of the movie and coming home media releases of "Celebration Day" of the 2007 reunion concert I would like to re introduce the idea that Jason Bonham is a member of Led Zeppelin just like his father. Robert Plant in the movie clearly states that "with the inclusion of Jason Bonham" in the film, they preform an amazing whole live set with new songs never preformed live by the band, some songs even with Jason Bonham as backing vocals. Jason Bonahm is now a Led Zeppelin band member. The original four, and Jason Bonham (and not to mention Sandy Denny, but that's a whole another story). Celebration Day is not only a live release with its own title, its a movie. Something to consider, as after watching the movie or when the reader here watches it, its clear: Jason Bonham is not just filling in for his father on drums, he IS drumming and SINGING and INCLUDED. He is also what Led Zeppelin is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.169.38 (talk) 15:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree with this idea. Jason Bonham should not be regards as a backup,but band member. Even he did not appear in celebration day press conferrence, but in detail he is include on band members list. This idea should be in consideration. Original four and Jason Bonham. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.127.255.246 (talk) 05:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Since there is no Led Zeppelin, I fail to see how Jason could be a member of it.--  SabreBD  (talk) 09:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree and would love to put into consideration that there is an active band of Led Zeppelin which still currently releases material with their drummer being Jason Bonham. Led Zeppelin just today released Celebration Day of their concert from 2007 (before being in theatres). If you look at the linear notes of the release, you see Jason Bonham mentioned, it says: "Led Zeppelin* Celebration Day John Paul Jones * Jimmy Page / Robert Plant AND Jason Bonham / Recorded Live December 10th, 2007 / O2 Arena, London and underneath that all four symbols." If you watch the movie, you also hear Robert Plant discuss about Jason being "included" and on the audio only version you hear him give Jason Bonham credit for drumming after The Song Remains The Same. Also, if you watch The Song Remains The Same film, you see Jason Bonham drumming as a child with John Bonham. Also, I do recall Jason Bonham being in one press conference with Robert, John & Jimmy about the release (confirmed by watching the press conference that took place on 10/09/12). Also, the deluxe versions include the rehearsals with Jason Bonham drumming. Even if Led Zeppelin was a fresh music creating entity on those two days only, December 6th & 10th 2007, and on October 17 through November 19th (today) 2012, Jason Bonham was/is (since today is the release day of Celebration Day) a member of the band Led Zeppelin at that time, even if brief. T — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.169.38 (talk) 10:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm wondering, in general, what constitutes a reformation of a band. If former members reunite for one or two shows under the original band name and then go their seperate ways afterwards, does that in and of itself mean the band has reformed, even if for that short time they rehearsed and performed together? I dont think the release of media documenting the performance has any bearing on it because archival recordings could be released at any time, even after the members are desceased. For example Led Zeppelin didn't reform in '03 just because Page put out Led Zeppelin DVD. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  20:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The Led Zeppelin DVD has the original four members. This differs with "Celebration Day" because it is a completely new concert preformed in 2007 with Jason Bonham on drums. In 2003, there would be no reason to 'reform' the band. Now there is. In 1988, 1995 & this release of the reunion in 2007, Jason Bonham drums. In the future, if they were to get together in a reunion or together again, he would be their drummer. At the very least, he was Led Zeppelin's drummer in the release of Celebration Day. "Celebration Day" is a Led Zeppelin release, and yes Jason Bonham, John Bonham's son, is the drummer of Led Zeppelin in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.169.38 (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your statement: "In 2003, there would be no reason to 'reform' the band. Now there is." There's no need for a "reason", they are either a band know as "Led Zeppelin" or they are not. Have the members released a statement that says they are all now part of a band known as Led Zeppelin? If not, then what constitutes a "band". Does a live show here and there every five or ten years establish that, or are those just isolated reunion events? I don't know I'm just asking, but as pointed out above Bonham can't be a member of something that doesn't exist. The question is simple and has nothing to do with the lineup: Is there an active band known as Led Zeppelin now or has there ever been since they officially disolved in 1980? -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  19:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify when I said the release of media documenting the event has no bearing. The question of if they are now Led Zeppelin would have been better asked back in 2007, when they actually performed together. This release is five years after the event. If Celebration Day were to be released 10 years later..or 50 years later, would we still have this discussion? They possibly could have been considered as reformed as "Led Zeppelin" for a short time in '07, but the fact someone filmed it and released a movie later doesn't change anything. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  05:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Is "Celebration Day" Led Zeppelin or not? Some fans apparently think not. Also, "Celebration Day" is hardly a 'isolated reunion event.' However, I'll concede my view on this talk page and for this article that Jason Bonham is a member of Led Zeppelin. The last thing I want is to cause disconcert, and have a band whose music is about making people happy and take away from that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.169.38 (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Well yeah they're calling themselves Led Zeppelin at least on the cover of Celebration Day. Like I said, I don't know, I'm just asking if Led Zeppelin is considered an active group now. Other than the points you have made, I have nothing to support the assertion that they currently exist. Also no, you are certainly not causing disconcert. I see this as simply a productive discussion between editors who care about the quality of an article about a great band. -- Racer X11  Talk to me Stalk me  04:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Citations He's a member just like the rest of them on Celebration Day. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A member of what? Again the question is: "Does Led Zeppelin currently exist?" Is it obvious to you they do? Please explain. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  01:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I mean, I will gladly eat my words and give high-fives all around if they come on Letterman tonight and announce a tour, a new album and they're back together with Jason on drums. That would be awesome! But when recently asked about it: ""It's disappointing for people when the answer is no," Page reportedly said. "But that's what it is now." -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  02:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Lead
The lead needs to be completely rewritten. It does not summarize the article, omitting the history section completely (how the band was formed). Plant&#39;s Strider (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin is not Heavy Metal
Face it. Led Zeppelin isn't a heavy metal band, they're hard rock, and that's a very different thing. Saying that Led Zeppelin is heavy metal is like saying The Who is metal beacause of the song "Won't Get Fooled Again". Zep were pioneers of the genre but not on the same level as Black Sabbath, who is the first heavy metal band (you can compare both and see the difference). I didn't find a source who says that Led Zeppelin is a heavy metal band. 83.165.179.164 (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Plant&#39;s Strider (talk) 14:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

"Orientated"
should be "oriented".

Sparkssc (talk) 11:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Why? Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 11:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin were an English rock band formed in London in 1968.
"Band" is singluar, thus "Led Zeppelin was an English rock band formed in London in 1968." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.128.48.50 (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * British English is less strict about "band" being singular when the implied meaning is "members of the band", but I agree that there is no clear case to be made for that interpretation here, so I'll change that sentence to strict subject−verb agreement. There is one other place where I've also made an adjustment to avoid a similar problem, but in most of the article the plural is used in the standard British English way.    D b f i r s   22:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * In fact there is a clear case in British English for this use - you may find American and British English differences useful (I also reverted the insertion of quotes on light and shade - I will check whether this is a direct quote.)--  SabreBD  (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is a difference in usage between British and American English as I explained above, and the whole article uses the British convention, as is correct in an article on a British group. The two instances that I changed might possibly be objected to, even by British grammarians, but I'm happy to leave the colloquial-sounding sentence structure if that's what you prefer, and the singular band with plural verb is used in all the other similar articles that I found. ( I remember the original Yardbirds when they first started. )    D b f i r s   12:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It is a bit like the -ise/-ize issue, even through these are not just British and US usages, so many people assume they are that we are kind of stuck with them, or endless arguments and reverts.--  SabreBD  (talk) 17:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Award images
As much as I love the image of Obama and the three surviving members, in its current location it does rather screw up the careful alternation of the pics and I do not think I can solve that by swapping pics around. It is also not really relevant to the section it is and it creates sandwiching of text (although that is probably only on wider displays). We could leave this as it is and live with these issues, or swap it for the pic of Page getting his award in the award section. Any views are welcome.--  SabreBD  (talk) 22:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Hard rock
"Due to these elements they are often cited as one of the progenitors of hard rock..."

This statement is not true, as there were many band that were playing hard rock before Led Zeppelin. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 19:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Icarus or Apollo?
Isn't the character in the Swan Song logo Icarus, not Apollo? It was Icarus who flew too close to the sun, was burned and fell to earth, which is what the picture appears to show.Blake&#39;sMistress (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This site says that the logo is likely based on a painting of Apollo by William Rimmer. At a guess, that's probably with reference to this work, which matches the Swan Song logo almost exactly. Given the similarity between the logo and the painging, and the Williamson source currently cited in this article, I'd say it's almost certainly meant to be Apollo, though I agree the pose looks more apropos of Icarus. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 02:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It is Apollo.--  SabreBD  (talk) 07:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a reasonable question, though. The figure is in a "falling" position, which doesn't really match with any of the myths surrounding Apollo. It also has wings, which I don't think Apollo was ever depicted as having, but which were pretty much Icarus' entire schtick. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 07:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Allmusic: italicized or not
During almost every music FAC I've participated in someone said: "Allmusic should not be italicized", but I see that at this article there seems to be a desire to do so by more than one editor. The source is non-print, so why would we italicize it? Any thoughts? GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  21:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * MOS:ITALIC says the following:"Website titles may or may not be italicized depending on the type of site and what kind of content it features. Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized (Salon.com or The Huffington Post). Online encyclopedias and dictionaries should also be italicized (Scholarpedia or Merriam-Webster Online). Other types of websites should be decided on a case-by-case basis."As far as I can tell, Allmusic probably falls closer to that second category, even though it isn't an encyclopedia in the traditional sense. I remember being told the same thing (that it shouldn't be italicised) in the past, but just looking at the MoS, I don't really see any justification for that. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 21:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Does this mean that some articles might italicize "Allmusic" while others do not? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It is possible for that to happen, since internal consistency is more important. It looks to me that it should be italicised since it is most like an encyclopedia.--  SabreBD  (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it should mean that articles would use different styles, but it might. Ideally, this whole encyclopedia would follow a single style, but that's a little hard to implement in practice. It's up to the editors at individual articles (and at FACs, GANs, etc.) to decide, I suppose, but it does look to me as if italicising it is the logical choice. I guess there's also the issue of what field to use in the Cite web template. The "work" field is automatically italicised, while "publisher" is not. In any case, Allmusic is definitely a work and definitely not a publisher. If it is determined that Allmusic shouldn't be italicised, globally or locally, we should probably enclose it within Template:Noitalic in the "work" field, rather than placing it in the "publisher" field. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 22:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that may well be. I also noticed that many cites to BBC are italicized while many others are not. Is there a rhyme and a reason to this also? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Off the top of my head, I could see BBC Online being considered a work, while the British Broadcasting Corporation itself would be a publisher. Not sure if others may have thought the same thing. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 22:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, but I don't see any in the article that are not online, so I'm not sure why there is such variation. According to the CMOS (16th edition, pp.752–753 14.244–5): "Titles of websites are generally set in Roman without quotation marks and capitalized headline-style ... Specific titles of blogs—which are analogous to periodicals—should be set in italics". Headline-style would not be italicized. Any thoughts? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Allmusic is the work of a company that publishes the site - that company being Rovi Corporation. Following the default formatting of the cite web template when you place those data elements in their respective fields, I don't see what the issue is. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 03:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, in my own writing I would follow Chicago and not italicise it, but I guess our own MoS takes precedence here. My personal preference would be to simply put BBC in the publisher field, since that can keep things as consistent as possible. If we end up citing a radio program at some point, for example, we can leave "BBC" in the publisher field and not have to give "BBC Radio 4" (or whatever) in the work field. Same goes for news reports at their website, TV programs, etc. I can go through later tonight and implement that, if there are no objections. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 04:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a fine solution to me Evan. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * This reversion appears to be related to this italicization discussion. I don't have any strong opinion on italics, but I can say the reversion was clearly semantically wrong. Allmusic cannot be a publisher: it's a website, not an entity that publishes things. Rovi Corporation, on the other hand, quite clearly is a publisher, holding the copyrights to the Allmusic site and related works such as allmovie, allgame, divx, celebified, and sidereel.&mdash;Kww(talk) 04:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Kww, I don't think there is any dispute regarding whether or not Allmusic is a publisher or a work. The question here is should "Allmusic" be italicized as a non-print source. The CMOS says no and our MOS says its situational, not that Allmusic must be italicized. On the other hand, USA Today is usually cited as a publisher, but like most print sources they are owned by a parent corporation, in this case the Gannett Company. Is USA Today then a work, while the Gannett Company is the publisher? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * USA Today is a work, and Gannett is a publisher. Italicization is a question of the typographer's union.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Consider Billboard Books, which is an imprint of the Crown Publishing Group, a division of Random House. Should Billboard Books be in the work field and Random House in the publisher field? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Who holds the copyright? If you had a individual book published by Billboard Books, that book would be a work. I'd select one of "Billboard Books", "Crown Publishing Group", and "Random House" as the publisher, and I would normally choose the legal entity that held the copyright.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The copyright to the book in question, The Billboard Book of Top 40 Hits, is credited to Joel Whitburn, but the chart data in the book is copyrighted to Billboard Productions, Inc. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * An odd case. I'd probably go with "Billboard Books" as the publisher, but it doesn't fit into the usual pattern.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, the identity of the copyright holder is completely irrelevant to the publisher field. At least in western countries, the copyright holder and the publisher are very rarely the same person (or organisation). Typically, the copyright holder (the author) will be listed in the "last" and "first" fields, so the publisher issue is still up for discussion. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 19:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Per MOS:ITALIC, Evan might be most correct to state: "Online encyclopedias and dictionaries should also be italicized". The CMOS seems to agree: "Online versions of encyclopedias should be cited like their printed corollaries" (16th ed., 14.248, p.755), though its interesting that the Wikipedia community seems to have rejected the italicization of "Wikipedia". So I'm not sure why we would italicize "Allmusic" because its an online encyclopedia while not italicizing "Wikipedia". Any thoughts? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. That discussion looks to be specific to the word "Wikipedia," and while I would prefer we apply the same stylistic principle across the board, people like to find reasons to disagree with the simple solution. It seems to me the easiest way to resolve this is to just apply the template parameters in a straightforward way &mdash; i.e., "Allmusic" as the work, and/or Rovi as the publisher. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 19:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This is also an issue that might need to be raised at Help talk:Citation Style 1. If there are scenarios where a website name should not be italicised &mdash; and even our MoS seems to take such situations as a given &mdash; it may be that the template shouldn't automatically italicise whatever is in the work field, but leave it up to editors to italicise or not based on the MoS and local editorial judgement. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 19:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds quite sensible to me. What about in-line text, such as: "Allmusic's John Smith writes: blah, blah, blah"? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * My personal preference is to italicise it in line as well, and I think that makes the most sense, taking the MoS section I quoted in my first post into account. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 02:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I've just now noticed that Template:Allmusic does not automatically italicise the name of the site. Technically the article isn't doing anything wrong, but there seems to be an odd sort of contradiction here between the most straightforward way of applying the MoS and what our templates are actually implementing. We'll see if it becomes an issue at FAC. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 23:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't worry about it Evan: I think this is a matter of editorial discretion that does not cross over into an actionable objection. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

300 million sold records
So where does this ridiculous claim come from? Randomuser112 (talk) 04:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, Zep have sold at least 111 million in the US alone. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  04:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So you're telling me they've sold 190 million outside of the US? Randomuser112 (talk) 04:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope. I havn't counted, have you? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  04:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Try Google sometime, you might be surprised what 5 minutes worth of research can produce. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  04:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. I just didn't think they were this popular. Cheers. Randomuser112 (talk) 04:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This subject was previously discussed here. Piriczki (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * After taking a look at the thread Piriczki has linked to above I tend to agree with him. 200 million would seem to be the more verifiable number. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Piriczki. You are only trying to mislead other editors by linking to a very old discussion. It was decided after endless discussions to use a range; 200 to 300 million. And that was a fair consensus:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Led_Zeppelin/Archive_7#Album_Sales


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Led_Zeppelin/Archive_7#300_million


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Led_Zeppelin/Archive_7#Atlantic_Records

198.178.126.232 (talk) 02:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Information mismatch
There is mismatch, between this article in diffrent version/language of wikpedia. There is also mismatch between thish article, and the officia site.

E.g. the groups first tour which in some source are stated as early as september 1968.

85.83.42.75 (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

About "The Biggest Band in the World"
I am a fan of Led Zeppelin. I ask this question to learn; not to commence a new debate about "The Biggest Band in the World" title which was already finished in 'Archive 5' (in 2008). Strangely, in 'Archive 5', while discussions continued, any user did not mention why the title was being used on wiki page. Then I thought, maybe they knew something that I did not discover yet about the band ;-)

I checked the sources about this particular definition about the band but I couldn't find on main wiki page.

Why is there "The Biggest Band in the World" title for their 1971-75 period? Who said this? (Again, my question is not about a debate.)

Regards, --Toksoz (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * That is correct, quotes must be attributed to someone and verified by a reliable source. As I recall this was a self-described assertion. Piriczki (talk) 12:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Toksoz, as a Zeppelin fan you should know about the band's history and legacy but here's some stuff you should read:

BOOK REFERENCES


 * Get the Led Out: How Led Zeppelin Became the Biggest Band in the World by Denny Somach
 * Led Zeppelin: The Oral History of the World's Greatest Rock Band by Barney Hoskyns
 * Whole Lotta Led Zeppelin: The Illustrated History of the Heaviest Band of by Jon Bream
 * Led Zeppelin: Legendary Rock Band by Michael A. Schuman
 * Popular Musicians: The Doobie Brothers-Paul McCartney by Steve Hochman
 * The Complete Book of the Guitar: The Definitive Guide to the World's Most Popular Instrument by Terry Burrows

MAGAZINE REFERENCES


 * Mojo, Issues 158-161 (EMAP Performance Limited)

NEWSPAPERS REFERENCES


 * Stairway to heaven and hell: the rise and fall of Led Zeppelin - The Guardian, Thursday 6 September 2012
 * Led Zeppelin: The first, the biggest, and still the best... - The Independent, Friday 07 December 2007

And Piriczki, Wikipedia doesn't work according to your "recollections". The "self-described assertion" was supported by countless publications, music critics and historians.

--110.159.151.117 (talk) 05:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "Led Zeppelin were among the first of the heavy metal bands and though they had most of their success during the period from 1972 to 1977—when they dubbed themselves 'the biggest band in the world,'" (Miles, Barry. The British Invasion (2009): 269)


 * "By the early 1970s, Led Zeppelin was billing itself as 'the biggest band in the world.'" (Beech, Mark. "Led Zeppelin Reunion Wows London, Keeps World Guessing on Tour" Bloomberg.com December 10, 2007) Piriczki (talk) 13:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Links to The Who
I linked to The Who in the sentence "A review in Rolling Stone magazine referred to Physical Graffiti as Led Zeppelin's "bid for artistic respectability", adding that the only bands Led Zeppelin had to compete with for the title "The World's Best Rock Band" were the Rolling Stones and the Who." which kept being reverted, citing Overlink. My response is "As per Wikipedia:Overlink: Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead. (Emphasis mine). The Who has been linked to once in the article, in the very beginning, and this second linkage I added occurs much later. It is in no any way overlinking. It seemed ridiculous to link to the Rolling Stones but NOT to The Who, which occurred a word later in the same sentence." I was pointed to bring this discussion to the talk page so that others could give their input. Icemuon (talk) 15:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing this here. WP:OVERLINK is pretty clear:
 * The Who have already been linked in the text, this is not in an infobox, table, image caption, footnote or the first occurrence after the lead. There is no need to link them again. This is not really about this one instance, but if we don't follow the guidelines we have no really defense against repeated links to every instance.
 * I believe that Stockholm and Copenhagen are not linked because they are national capitals, which is pretty much a definition of a major geographic location. Frankly I don't care if Nuremberg is linked, but it is only the second biggest city in Bavaria, so they is a clear difference in familiarity, so there is a case for linking it, but we can live without it.--  SabreBD  (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, I guess I don't understand what "first occurrence after the lead" means -- I thought it meant that the "the lead" refers to, say, the introductory paragraph. Is that not so?
 * True that if we don't follow guidelines then we have no defence against repeated links in every instance, but I think people generally link using common sense rather than by the guidelines. This is a pretty long article and I was reading it over a matter of several days (purely out of interest) and had wanted to click on The Who when reading that sentence.  It didn't occur to me to search elsewhere in the text, not even remembering after several days of casual reading that the link had appeared in the introduction.  I just think it would be helpful to readers to link to it in this case.
 * Stockholm and Copenhagen: again, this seems to me a matter of common sense. Why would only one out of three cities mentioned in close proximity be linked?  It seemed very counter-intuitive to me.
 * In reverting, you put back the country name "Sweden", yet there is no country name after Copenhagen. Is there a reason why you reverted it, rather than removing Sweden or adding Denmark? Icemuon (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What the bit about the lead means is that links are usually put in the first occurrence in the lead, what we call in British English the introduction, then the first instance in the text. After that it is common practice and in keeping with the guidelines not to link afterwards. Even if you link this and I don't revert it, at some point an experienced editor will come along and remove the second link, especially if the article goes back to an FA review. I have already made my point about the three cities. There is a difference in prominence here, but it is a matter of opinion as to what makes a city prominent. On the last matter I would have through it was unnecessary to say where these capitals are, but in American writing it is common to do this sort of thing, mainly so that it is clear it is not the Copenhagen in Ohio. It is probably more important to be consistent here.--  SabreBD  (talk) 07:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 October 2013
Just like on the Jethro Tull page, where a GIF image of Ian Anderson's silhouette is used in the title of the infobox, the GIF image of Led Zeppelin logotype (since 1973) could be used in the title of the infobox on Led Zeppelin's Wikipedia-page.

I think this would make the page look a lot more interesting and professional and it would be great to see this on the page!

WackoPsyco69orsomething (talk) 21:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Images should not replace text. See also Manual of Style/Accessibility. The situation with the Jethro Tull (band) page is different because the silhouette image is not replacing the text. Zzyzx11 (talk) 22:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Does this count as more than the minimum use that lets us use a logo?--  SabreBD  (talk) 22:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Led Zeppelin logo.svg is currently tagged as a public domain image, so it is exempt with the "minimum use" rules of Non-free content criteria. But it should still comply with all the other image rules, including Manual of Style/Accessibility that I mentioned. Zzyzx11 (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In addition, the infobox is equipped with the hCard microformat feature, which makes the data parsable by computers. They cannot read the header text efficiently if it is all just an image. Zzyzx11 (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, is it perhaps possible to add the "four-symbol-logo" (Zoso) to the title alongside the text title? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WackoPsyco69orsomething (talk • contribs) 08:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The symbols are not the name of the band of course, so I think I would be against adding those. To be honest I am not sure if I have yet understood all of WP:LOGO, but if there is no objection on grounds of ownership or use (or the MOS), I am in favour as it looks quite good. And if there is an problem later we can just switch it back.--  SabreBD  (talk) 13:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If I understand SabreBD  comment above (not too clear which they "favour") but if in favor of using File:Led_Zeppelin_logo.svg I agree it looks good and could live with it but, I fear it would be against uniformity.   Mlpearc  ( powwow ) 18:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin as the 4th Best Selling band in the US
I would like to discuss whether Led Zeppelin is the 2nd or 4th best selling band in the US. I recently updated the article to say 4th based on the fact that the internal link to Wikipedia cites them as being the 4th best selling artist as does the RIAA cite where that information originated from. Additionally, later in this article they are listed as being the 4th highest selling band in the US. While I understand it is important that they are a BAND and not an artist (as I wrote in my edit sysnopsis) I didn't change any language related to the word "band". So, would it be possible to come to consensus on whether or not they are the 2nd or 4th best selling band in the US? --Bpmcneilly (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * They are the 4th highest selling act and the 2nd highest band. I must have missed the change later in the article, which is not surprising given the regularity with which this gets changed despite hidden notes.--  SabreBD  (talk) 18:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there any way to change the phrasing that you can think of? The distinction between act and band can be easily mistaken - in fact that's what I did, which led to my incorrect edits. At the moment I can't think of any better language to use, but if the distinction could be made clearer in some way it may that may be helpful. --Bpmcneilly (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Bootleg releases listed as official singles/EPs
Hello. I could post this comment on the individual song articles talk pages but it probably wouldn't get much notice so I'll post it here. A number of Led Zeppelin songs have listed singles and EPs, in particular those originating from Thailand. It should be pointed out that these were never official releases and are more akin to bootlegs. The Atlantic label catalogue numbers listed are not genuine and you won't find them in any official Atlantic Records discography. They are back-street unlicensed pressings masquerading as legitimate, made for a quick buck. On the Wikipedia discographies style guide it states: "What should not be included" and lists: 'Bootlegs, unless officially released, or can otherwise pass the general notability guidelines to deserve a separate article' and 'Unofficial releases of any kind.' It is my opinion these releases should be removed from the articles involved. The following article contain these releases: Thank you for your attention. RecordCollector123 (talk) 03:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "The Ocean"
 * "Boogie with Stu"
 * "Custard Pie"
 * "In My Time of Dying"
 * "Kashmir"
 * "The Rover"
 * "The Song Remains the Same"
 * It's been over a week. I'm going to WP:BOLD and remove them. RecordCollector123 (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Also the Polish releases aren't official either. They were made when Atlantic Records had no licence control over Eastern Europe prior to 1987. RecordCollector123 (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Fossils Of The Rock
THIS is just a proposal for your page: Legacy Led Zeppelin are widely considered to be one of the most successful, innovative and influential rock bands in the history of music & Art's. http://www.shabalin.it/led_zeppelin/fotr_eng.html  / http://milanoartexponews.wordpress.com/category/led-zeppelin/ Thank you.

Led Zeppelin unleash unheard recordings
From the BBC News site, yesterday.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Doc  talk  08:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Rock
Hi everyone! I would like to know what you guys think about changing the genre box on this page to just "Rock". One reason for this is that Wikipedia policy dictates that the genre box be as general as possible. The other reason for this is that I have been to the articles on Zeppelin's albums, and I have seen seemingly endless genre wars on pretty trivial aspects of the genre box (ie. What order should the genres be in). I think that by starting here and then focusing on the individual albums, we could (hopefully) end these ridiculous genre wars and hopefully focus on more important ways of improving both this article and the album articles. The musical style section can then be more specific about what specific genres Led Zeppelin falls into (which, I think, it already is). If there are arguments against this, just keep in mind that other bands, such as Queen and the Beatles, already have this more simplified approach. So shall we reach a consensus on this? Twyfan714 (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There is substantive discussion in the article prose about the genres, and they are sourced. The infobox should reflect what's discussed and sourced in the article. Unless you can produce significant reliable sources claiming that the band should be considered simply "rock" at the expense of other genres such as hard rock and heavy metal, that would be a no-go. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I am in favor of simplifying the band's overall genre as shown in the infobox. 'Rock' nails it. Binksternet (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have to say it sure would simply a lot of the "genre wars" if every infobox had one of a very limited set of simple genres, with the article going into more detail about subgenres with sources. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - the genre wars would continue, because editors, unaware of consensus - or indifferent - would unknowingly add genres, and they'd be reverted. However, the infobox should be as spare and concise as possible. Discussions of different styles within an album can be fleshed out in the article body, accompanied by reliable sources, of course.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•   00:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree in this case - I think the genres should only be made this general when the band in question has spanned too many different subgenres to list, such as the Beatles and Queen, whereas Led Zeppelin have never really changed style at all. They always stuck to hard rock, metal, blues, and folk rock. Poppermost2014 (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Associated Acts: The Yardbirds
I added The Yardbirds to the Associated Acts category in the infobox, and this edit was reverted. However, even if an accepted rule of thumb (that I was not aware of) for discerning "associated acts" is whether 2 or more persons were members of both acts, it seems that in this case The Yardbirds were absolutely critical to the formation of Led Zeppelin. So much so that they initially considered themselves to BE the continuation of The Yardbirds, until they reflected on the idea more. In the case of Led Zeppelin I think The Yardbirds should be considered an associated act regardless of the rule of thumb. Do you agree? ● Thane &mdash; formerly Guðsþegn  09:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW, The Yardbirds article has Led Zeppelin as an associated act. So, either I'm not the only one not aware of this rule of thumb, or others can see the plain truth that they are an associated act.  ● Thane &mdash; formerly Guðsþegn  09:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, as the editor who reverted your change, I have to agree with you: Led Zeppelin were originally called "The New Yardbirds", and Page and Dreja were both members. I'll make the change, and the discussion can continue.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  18:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. ● Thane &mdash;  06:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Adding a section about the band lineup
Hi, there appears to be no section which states which band member did what, and when they were part of the band. From what I gathered, almost all other wikipedia pages on mainstream bands have a section called "band members" 2601:8:9800:64C:129A:DDFF:FEAA:BDF6 (talk) 02:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Except Led Zep has the same lineup for its entire existence and it is all covered already in the article. I think we will just be repeating things here to state the obvious.--  SabreBD  (talk) 08:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This is an interesting one. Although I think you are strictly correct, they have performed as Led Zeppelin with different drummers on several occasions, most notably with Jason Bonham in 2012. I'm not sure what the rule on this is but that was a full concert, with support acts, with the headline act billed as Led Zeppelin. Surely that counts? Even if it doesn't though, people reading the article may not know that Led Zeppelin only ever really consisted of the original four members so surely the "band members" section should still be included, for the sake of consistency, even if it only shows the four members? The U2 and ZZ Top articles both have it but The Beatles one doesn't (which is strange because they did have line-up changes before they became huge). FillsHerTease (talk) 11:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The band members are listed in the infobox, which is there to summarize key elements of the prose. I think that's sufficient, unless the band member history is complex enough to require one of those graphs (see Red Hot Chili Peppers for example). I think it's typical to list "official" band members only, those that were credited on albums and so on. Jason Bonham could be considered a touring musician at best. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 12:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's great thank you but opinion isn't really what's important here. What's important is the Wiki 'standard'. Most other band pages have a Band Members section, regardless of whether they have had multiple line-up changes or not, so the question is whether it is the 'standard' to have that and if so one should be included for Led Zeppelin. If Jason Bonham is only a touring musician then that's fine but that should also be included in the Band Members section the way it is for all other bands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FillsHerTease (talk • contribs) 10:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That is also just an opinion and there is no standard here, just what consensus on individual pages agrees.--  SabreBD  (talk) 11:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * During the Celebration Day concert Plant introduces Jason saying "We wanted to bring Jason in" and in my opinion Plant meant that this was a perfect chance to make Jason a official member.  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 03:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Cite or not
Does this edit need to be cited ? or does him playing the concert make a cite moot ? Mlpearc ( open channel ) 05:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Playing with the group does not mean he is a member. This definitely needs a very good quality citation.--  SabreBD  (talk) 08:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. (should of known :P )  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 19:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Original research
When I was checking out the sources of this article I found an important quote that is not referenced: "the biggest band of the '70s". I read the Rolling Stone magazine source in the article and there is no mention of this. These sources and  do not mention any of that. Or someone wrote something that is not in accordance with the attested sources, or that quote in this article has original research. --Zoldyick (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The correct reference is Gilmore, Mikal "The Long Shadow of Led Zeppelin" Rolling Stone 10 August 2006: 58 but I don't know how to fix it. Piriczki (talk) 14:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Is it a problem with using the sfn referencing system?--  SabreBD  (talk) 22:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I figured it out now and fixed it. Piriczki (talk) 12:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for that.--  SabreBD  (talk) 13:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Led Zeppelin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110815051421/http://atlanticrecords.com/legacy-artists/led-zeppelin to http://atlanticrecords.com/legacy-artists/led-zeppelin/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 11:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)