Talk:Scorpions (band)/Archive 1

Retirement?
Didn't they retire? Shouldn't the years be 1965-2010? And they were formed in 65? Really? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfinator-x (talk • contribs) 22:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

From their website: "In 1965 Rudolf Schenker started up the SCORPIONS in Hanover. " Link: http://www.the-scorpions.com/english/history.asp

Also, no the date shouldnt be -2010 since the band wont break up until their tour ends which is 2012-2013 like the wikipedia article says (if I remember correctly). Jimmakos (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Genre in the lead
I find the sources in the lead to look rather ugly, placed there. Isn't it normally inappropriate to place sources in lead? I'm not sure if that's true, but I have read it on other discussion pages. Ximmerman (talk) 05:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Image on this page causes Wikipedia ban in UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7770456.stm  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.180.98.111 (talk) 12:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC) Surprisingly Nirvana - Nevermind is still free to view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irishrichy (talk • contribs) 16:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

IWF back down on censorship: Rugops (talk) 11:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7774102.stm

Naming
There is no such thing as "The Scorpions". The band's name is Scorpions, as seen in every CD cover they ever published. I am removing the bold element from the "The" in the main article. --Sn0wflake 05:01, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * while the band is technically titled "scorpions", "the" is (along with probably every other band name in the plural) always used before their name in common diction. you would not say "my favorite band is scorpions", would you? it's just incorrect for a proper noun. "the" is always used. i think the page should stay at "scorpions", but the band should be referred to with a "the", as they always are. 67.172.61.222 19:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, actually, I personally would say "one of my favorite bands is Scorpions". The name "Scorpions" is not in the same vain as say "The Ramones" or "The Beatles". The name was just meant to be "Scorpions". 216.145.178.161 (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, your personal willingness to always refer to them with no "the" doesn't make that a normal or consensus thing to do. Any band whose name is a plural noun is pretty much always referred to with the definite article -- it sounds stupid without it. 27.100.20.179 (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's Scorpions, not The Scorpions. Deal with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.253.186.82 (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Picture
A different picture is needed, not the album cover of a greatest hits album...especially 20th century masters.


 * The actual pic is quite bad too...someone please find a nice promo pic of the actual members and put it there...i don't know how to do it. The Chicken 18:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Request to move

 * ''On January 1, 2005, at 07:38 UTC, Aqua008 made a request that The Scorpions be moved to Scorpions (band). The page was moved on January 14, 2005 at 22:48 UTC by Frazzydee.  Below is a copy of the discussion.

As per Naming_conventions_%28definite_and_indefinite_articles_at_beginning_of_name%29 . This band does not use "the" as part of their official name.

The Scorpions &rarr; Scorpions (band)
To comply with Naming conventions, name of bands. Band simply uses "Scorpions" on cd covers and official site as per the external links in that article. -- Aqua 07:50, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd rather see the band article moved to Scorpions--all other uses seem to default to the singular, which the band article already disambs at the top. Niteowlneils 18:04, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * It's most common that plural forms redirect to singular, even if there is something like this that could hold that title. Disambigs, like Scorpion (disambiguation), address singular, plural, and other forms. -- Netoholic @ 18:11, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
 * I certainly won't lose any sleep if it ends up at (band), but there seems to be precedent for Scorpions instead--see Cardiac vs. Cardiacs. Granted, that's an unlikely pluralization, but there may be more that aren't listed at list of bands. Niteowlneils 15:57, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Support move. -- Netoholic @ 18:11, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
 * Support. Rd232 16:02, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose, Their official website it the-scorpions.com, and everybody I know, every DJ I ever heard for the past thirty years that I have known them, has always referred to this band as The Scorpions, so it's the common name of the band. It also happens to be a handy and unambiguous name.  People searching for this band using google would use "the scorpions" for the same reason--a search on scorpions alone would get lots of hits to arachnids. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:35, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Nah, I'll bet its the-scorpions.com only because a porn site registered scorpions DOT com. If I was searching and wanted to avoid the arachnids, I'd type in "Scorpions band".  We'll still have the redirect from The Scorpions. -- Netoholic @ 17:49, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
 * That doesn't explain the following:
 * Interview transcript, March 2000 "Since the Scorpions are based in Hanover, Germany, the Expo means, for us emotionally, much more than to probably a lot of other bands or artists" -Klause Meine, vocals
 * Interview, undated "We want to show the people that the Scorpions are still rocking." -Rudolph Schenke, guitars
 * Interview, undated " in fact I met the Scorpions in 1977 when they played the Marquee Club in London." -Herman Rarebell, former drummer
 * It appears to me that "The Scorpions" is more than just a pragmatic fix for cybersquatting. It's the name by which band members refer to the band. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:30, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - in all those quotes, The is lowercase. Just as if talking about a group of animals known as scorpions (as opposed to all scorpions), you don't leave out the 'the' in sentences like that. --SPUI 23:32, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Could you take a look at those sources again? It seems to me that the evidence you cite is simply the article "the" being used as part of the grammer in those sentences. Those same sites(not the last one, couldn't access it), especially the about.com one, provide many examples to support the no "the".
 * the "the" is always part of the grammar. whether or not it is in the official name of the band is irrelevant (i guess we might as well keep it at "scorpions" as per the albu, covers) because you will always use the name the exact same way (the Scorpions).67.172.61.222 19:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "What does it mean to be a Scorpion?"-1st site
 * This supports my point completely. "Scorpions" is just one way of referrin g to the band and the way that is used in some literature.  The Scorpions habitually refer to the band as the Scorpions (as do most people I know). There is no need to move this article, it's where most people would expect to find it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:20, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * "Scorpions Official Site" -2nd
 * "Scorpions/Deep Purple On Tour"-2nd site
 * "Scorpions' Rudolph Schenker"- title of article on 2nd site
 * "for two new songs on Bad For Good: The Very Best Of Scorpions is a sign"-2nd
 * From the naming convention page- "A simple rule of thumb is, would you capitalize the definite article in running text?" Those "the"s you quote aren't capitalized. I think the examples you cite are more like when people refer to "the United States" but that isn't the actual name. --Aqua 00:08, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a subtle point, but it's a good one. I accept it.  I still think "The Scorpions" is a perfectly appropriate location for this article, however, and I tend to oppose moves unless I believe them to be strongly justified. No change in vote. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:25, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Amazon seems to think they are called "Scorpions" without the "The".  Noisy | Talk 12:10, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. -Sean Curtin 05:08, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Jayjg |  (Talk)  18:55, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

note:while the band is technically titled "scorpions", "the" is (along with probably every other band name in the plural) always used before their name in common diction. you would not say "my favorite band is scorpions", would you? it's just incorrect for a proper noun. "the" is always used. i think the page should stay at "scorpions", but the band should be referred to with a "the", as they always are. 67.172.61.222 19:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Banned from radio
It has been suggested that some radio stations have banned "Rock You Like A Hurricane" from playing due to Katrina. Does anyone have any further info to verify this?

Heavy Metal?
Aren't Scorpions a hard rock band? For as long as I can remember, the media classed them as a hard rock, not heavy metal.
 * Yes, they are. I will change that. --Sn0wflake 16:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Removed the rest of "heavy metal" instances. Scorpions have nothing to do with heavy metal.


 * I changed the main reference to "heavy metal" on top of the page to "hard rock". - Cemendur

The Scorpions are a heavy metal band and nothing more. Maybe a little close to hard rock, but for the most part they are just a heavy metal band. 68.102.235.239 (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I will counter your unsupported assertion with one of my own. There is nothing heavy nor metal about the Scorpions. They are very clearly a Hard Rock band. Way more in common with Van Halen than Judas Priest. marnues (talk) 03:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The reason that they have them up as heavy metal is because they were a HUGE part of the hair metal scene, which was the precursor to heavy metal. So I think it's fine to keep it as both, but yea, hard rock before heavy metal in their case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.112.157 (talk) 21:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

They can not be heavy Metal, If you check and read all their History on their own website you find that they call themselves as a Hard Rock band, even the media call them Hard Rock band--Thewolfcry (talk) 17:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What they call themselves is irrelevant. Motorhead claims to not be a heavy metal band and they are. The content on Wikipedia is built on valid references (which keep being deleted) and on consensus.... and the consensus here is, and always has been, heavy metal band. 142.166.163.242 (talk) 17:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There is patently no consensus on the genre, as the edit history shows. We also do not need five references for a genre – there are just as many references available for hard rock, so just adding references for metal achieves nothing. It should be remembered that heavy metal is a subgenre of rock, and if there is no consensus for heavy metal to be used alone (and I don't see one), then the genre should be as basic as possible, i.e. "rock", or both disputed genres, i.e. "hard rock and heavy metal". It is not the job of an encyclopedia to choose a genre when both are relevant and correct. Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The majority of the public considers as a Hard Rock band. So is erroneously the wikipedia in english, classify Scorpions as a Heavy Metal band, and in other languages classify Scorpions as a Hard Rock band. The wikipedia is discredited.--Frank Rocker (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Your comment doesn't mean a lot, unless you can provide some kind of proof that you are the voice of "the majority of the public". I refer you to my above statement, and remind you that English Wikipedia classifies Scorpions as both, not one or the other. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

LastFm is a British social network where your users and listeners classicificam certain artists via tags that vary widely and may represent genre, year, season, etc.. It is noteworthy that these tags are not always expressed correctly, but in the case of famous bands like Scorpions, do not disagree. This is proof that the majority of the public considers as a hard rock band. Out other sources, as own wikipedia in other languages​​, are articles that are classified as better. I am not here to impose my point of view. The argument is that heavy metal is a variation, not the main genre.

See this link: Scorpions--Frank Rocker (talk) 22:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * LastFm isn't close to being a reliable source. With regard to this page, both genres are sourced, and the page has been very stable since the opening line and the genres were fixed in this way. Prior to that, there was constant genre-warring. Therefore, this is clearly a consensus situation. Any changes to the genres will require a new consensus. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not intend to use as a source Lastfm. Just wanted to show that most of the public has a very different point of view. At one point I agree with you: a reformulation is not so simple. It's needed a voting.--Frank Rocker (talk) 23:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Major rewrite
This article needs an extensive rewrite, and not just to fix the NPOV. There are massive spelling and grammatical errors, as well as sections that are unclear if not just plain wrong. I'm starting on this, but it will take me a few days to complete. I apologize if I step on any toes, but I'd like to bring this article up to Wikipedia standards. - MordredKLB 05:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

-recommend citation- "The channel even supplied Scorpions with the nickname "The Ambassadors of Rock" to the chagrin of industry insiders who recognized the executive influence behind the scenes." - --Deanya Lattimore (talk) 10:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Irrelevance
I am removing the 'the Scorpions' issue from the beginning, it's not so important to be there. and who in the world claims that rock you like a hurricane was such a huge hit, to specify scorpions.. I think it should be removed too but I am leaving it there, sb could take care of it.

False information
The article says that Scorpions was the first Western rock artist to play in the former Soviet Union, which is untrue. Uriah Heep has played there (Moscow) in late 87', a year before Scorpions did.

Actually, it says "Western group", not even rock, which is even more wrong as the Beatles played in the former Soviet Union in the 1960s and ABBA did a tour (famously paid for in barrels of crude oil) in the 1970s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.104.11 (talk) 17:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought about this too when I read the article. I know that also Boney M visited the Soviet Union in the late 70's. This information should be re-written. --Aatox (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone keeps altering this article with false & unsubstantiated declarations such as: Michael Schenker being fired from UFO when he has said in an interview in the video-doc Too Hot To Handle that he quit because a co-member had punched him; that Michael Schenker quit the Scorpions Lovedrive tour due to alcoholism when he has said he quit because he realized he did not want to spend the rest of the year playing other people's songs. This article is now under a watch. If you make such claims you BETTER back them up with appropriate SOURCES & LINKS. So far you have FAILED to do this. SkibbingtonVonSkubber (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)SkibbingtonVonSkubber

DATE RELEASES
The article has two or more mistakes. First of all "Virgin Killer" was released in 1976 after "In Trance" (1975) and "Taken By Force" in 1977. "Tokyo Tapes" in 1978 and "Lovedrive" in 1979. If you don't believe me, try seeing yourself in the official Scorpions' site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.5.36.183 (talk • contribs). "Love at First Sting" was released in either 1980 or 1981, not 1984.

You're kidding me? "Love at first sting" was released in 1984. This info is on THEIR OFFICIAL site. Check it out if you want! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.73.212.26 (talk) 17:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

So you're not sure, first poster, whether it was 1980 or 1981 yet you are sure it was not 1984? I don't need the official site to verify the date - I was a fan in 1984 - but suggest you visit it. Or look at the date on the album credits. Or look at music mags and papers from 1984. Or listen to those who know more than you do. 86.129.2.169 (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Al

Hi. The first poster was me. As you see, the comment about Love At First Sting release date is not mine. It was added afterwards (after my "unsigned" signature). ;) I only made a comment about Virgin Killer, In Trance, Taken By Force, Tokyo Tapes and Lovedrive. Jimmakos (talk) 00:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Lady Starlight
The original version of Lady Starlight from Animal Magnetism (1980) features a lonely guitar in the opening of the guitar solo. I have heard of a version of the song that is very similar to the original but that features the same guitar on a sythesizer. The effect is completely different. To me it is very magical, a masterpiece on its own. It must be an edited/newer version of the same song. I was wondering on which album/year that version of the song first appeared. If any of you knows, please leave a comment.

ICE77 -- 81.104.129.226 20:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Flag icons.
Someone has removed the German nationality flag icons I inserted besides band members' names in the Scorpions members' articles' infoboxes. Why? -- Kevin Browning (talk) 11:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Read Template:Infobox musical artist... no flags! Read WP:FLAGCRUFT... flags are frowned upon and will be removed very quickly from most music articles. If you see a flag in a music related article... it just means no one has caught it yet. Feel free to remove them. The Mariah Carey example shown for the musicians template is how all infoboxes are to look... no deviations. No flags. Andcommas for spacing delimiters not coded breaks. Hope that helps. 156.34.215.218 (talk) 12:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Logo
Whoever made this "official logo for the Heavy Metal band Scorpions"...

150px

... ought to familiarize themselves with kerning before declaring it as such.

(I'm just saying.)

99.147.204.10 (talk) 15:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

constant misspelling of Hannover
Hello, I have changed two or three times the wrong spelling of their hometown HANNOVER today, and whenever I look back into the page, it has been re-changed into the wrong (american) spelling. I am not that computer-fit in order to know how to fill in these forms here, so forgive me if I am writing in the wrong space. But I am from the same town, and I can reasure you, its name is HANNOVER, not Hanover!!! A simple look into any map would have helped also! Why is this being held under the wrong name? And when I correct it, why is it put back into the wrong spelling repeatedly? "Hanover" is a village here in Pennsylvania, and whenever I see it, I get annoyed by these Americans who don't care about spelling. But at least write the german town of Hannover correct, please! Why is it so hard to look into a german map? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.131.202.167 (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The spelling link being re-added is a re-direct link. If there is a spelling error on the city article you need to correct and move that page first before changing any spelling here. 156.34.213.177 (talk) 22:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am from Germany and the german city is called Hannover. And not Hanover. Check the homepage of the government of Hannover at http://www.hannover.de/ Thank you.220.225.248.46 (talk) 20:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Learn your history. Hanover (one n) is the correct English spelling for town and region since the House of Hanover ascended the British thrown. Also, we Germans don't say København either when we talk about Kopenhagen, er... Copenhagen, do we? De728631 (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

From the Hanover article:

Note: Hanover is the correct English spelling, even though the German spelling is with a double n. It should always be used when referring to the British House of Hanover (even if one chooses to write the city the German way). Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Questionable picture
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7770456.stm

Was reading this page and then saw on the BBC that there was a furor about the same page.

Is that this article? Because frankly I dont see anything sinister in its current incarnation. Not sure if it was quietly removed but really, seems like we should inform IWF that its been removed.

JamieHughes (talk) 05:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The image in question is the album cover of Virgin Killer. --Matt314 (talk) 06:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to annoy the censors ... the offending picture is viewable here: http://www.the-scorpions.com/english/discography/records/virgin_killer.asp The picture is in dubious taste, but censoring it is way out of proportion. Especially when you think of what's available elsewhere on the web. UrsusMaximus (talk) 09:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Furthermore heres a load of them on amazon. http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-media/product-gallery/B0000073NK/ref=cm_ciu_pdp_images_0?ie=UTF8&index=0 doubt we will see IWF block amazon. Fkmd (talk) 12:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a suggestion but on the actual album page would it be a problem if the updated album image was used? I think I read that there is one, this will be better for Wikipedia as a whole since the image is questionable (Im not getting involved with the whole cencorship debate) and since my University does not have the page blocked I don't really want to go accessing it again to post the suggestion there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.105.219.59 (talk) 10:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, who are these self appointed idiots. i might move to Iran, who some day soon will have a more enlightened policy! should we start turning all album cover images black a la 'Spinal Tap'? - "You should have seen the cover they wanted to do. It wasn't a glove, believe me" Jw2034 (talk) 11:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * A way around reading the page if your ISP has blocked it (like Virgin Media has for me) is to search Virgin_Killer on www.Google.co.uk and look at the cached file (http://216.239.59.132/search?q=cache:wp_W9zBZXq0J:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer+Virgin_Killer&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk) Darkieboy236 (talk) 13:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * yes, this is one of the obscely stupid aspects of the whole thing. this is part of a bigger game being played by the IWF - several serch engines hold cached copies of the page that remain unblocked., buti'd hazard a guess that if the IWF went after Google, Microsoft, Amazon, eBay and the like for showing the image they'd be torn limb from limb - however, charitable foundation Wikipedia with no legal or lobbying power is fair game (and if Wikipedia is forced to change, it strengthens their case against the others). Jw2034 (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The BBC news article on this has a direct link to the Scorpions website, which also hosts a picture of the album cover. That is so stupid it is funny Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The picture is in poor taste, but unless it is found to be illegal it shouldn't be censored in this way. Amazon has now removed the pictures, except for the US imported version, but a simple google image search shows the picture for those that want to see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DorsetBear (talk • contribs) 17:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Controversy
Now, Wikipedia was blocked. I saw this latest: Wikipedia Foundation responds to IWF over child pornography allegations --222.127.223.70 (talk) 08:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It is just the page of the "Virgin Killer" album that is blocked on en.wikipedia, however it is still accessible from the secure server at: [secure.wikimedia.org]. The problem I have is that a third party is deciding what can and cannot be censored, which is very frightening given the current power madness and moves towards a police state that are happening in Britain. Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So you're telling us that you're into child pornography and want it to be freely accessible?
 * BBC News coverage Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 17:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

This article is the subject of several news reports today. I've seen a template for wikipedia articles cited in media and/or the subject of media coverage, but I can't find that right now. It was a template that goes on the talk page. - Michael J Swassing (talk) 18:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it worth the blocking of the entire article, when it (and the picture in question) is available to all via chached pages on google, amongst other search engines? If people want to see it they can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Impamiizgraa (talk • contribs) 19:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the question of why block the whole page when the image is of course a separate thing that can be blocked on its own. Mind you, I'm just surprised these fucking nannies didn't just outright block Wikipedia altogether...Lonemagpie (talk) 16:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Are the Scorpions pedophiles? Is that why they made the album cover they did? 204.52.215.107 (talk) 03:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Seriously, I recommend joining the real world at some point. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you just check the article of the album? It's clearly explained there. --128.246.48.130 (talk) 06:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Virgin Killer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Virgin_Killer.jpg Why don't you include this? Afraid of censorship? --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 12:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Include it where??? It's a fair-use image and that means it is only fair-use in the article about the album itself and no where else. No album covers, posters, covers or screenshots can be used anywhere on Wikipedia other than in the article directly related to the uploaded file itself. Wikipedia is overpopulated with dumbf*cks who can't figure that simple policy out. The Real Libs-speak politely 16:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately this is not true as the IWF-wikipedia article demonstrates, but still and all, not here. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Why are you so afraid of censorship? --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That question makes absolutely no sense. The image is perfectly fine in the article about the album. Wikipedia policy does not allow it, or any other album cover, to be used anywhere other than the article that the cover is sourced from. The Real Libs-speak politely 19:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That question makes sense as you used the sign "*" instead the letter "u" in your first answer. --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 23:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Is there a point to this? If so, please make it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Why don't we use the "Virgin Killer" album picture? Why should we be bullied into self censorship? I personaly like the picture, and the cracked glass effect covering the girls chacha is very tastefull. The IWF is only unblocking this page because they know they need the support of average internet users, and they don't want us to realise that they are just PC bullies. Fatcud —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC).
 * I reported you to the authorities.
 * They are afraid of censorship but won't admit. --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 16:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not appropriate as it is fair use and the initiator of this thread is suggesting we make a point, which is against policy. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. It has nothing to do with censorship and everything to do with fair use. I suggest Schwarzschachtel actually reads what people are saying to him/her. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This should end the discussion, as IWF lifted their concerns. --Kempm (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Taken B-side
I think you should consider removing taken b-side(2009) from the discography section of tis page [] as it is an unofficial compilation album, circulated only in p2p networks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.67.239.0 (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

addition of information
Scorpions are a heavy metal   /hard rock   band from Hanover, Germany, probably best known for their 1980s rock anthem "Rock You Like a Hurricane" and their singles "No One Like You", "Send Me an Angel, "Still Loving You", and "Wind of Change", History-in-Rock (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC) recorded by their "classic lineup" consisting of Francis Buchholz (bass), Klaus Meine (vocals), Rudolf Schenker (guitar), Matthias Jabs (guitar) and Herman Rarebell (drums). History-in-Rock (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC) The band has sold over 75 million albums worldwide and were ranked #46 on VH1's Greatest Artists of Hard Rock program.

Formation and early history (1965-1973)
Rudolf Schenker, the band's rhythm guitarist launched the band in 1965. At first, the band had beat influences and Schenker himself did the vocals. Things began to come together in 1969 when Schenker's younger brother Michael and vocalist Klaus Meine joined the band. In 1972, the group recorded and released their debut album Lonesome Crow, with Lothar Heimberg on bass and Wolfgang Dziony on drums. During the Lonesome Crow tour, the Scorpions opened for upcoming British band UFO. Near the end of the tour, the members of UFO offered guitarist Michael Schenker the lead guitar job; an offer which he soon accepted. Uli Roth, a friend of the Schenker brothers, was then called in temporarily to finish off the tour.

The departure of Michael Schenker led to the breakup of the band. In 1973, Uli Roth, who had helped the Scorpions complete the Lonesome Crow tour, was offered the role as lead guitarist, but turned the band down, preferring instead to remain in the band Dawn Road. Schenker eventually decided that he wanted to work with Roth, but did not want to resurrect the last Scorpions lineup. He attended some of Dawn Road's rehearsals and ultimately decided to join the band, which consisted of Roth, Francis Buchholz (bass), Achim Kirschning (keyboards) and Jürgen Rosenthal (drums). Roth and Buchholz persuaded Rudolf Schenker to invite Klaus Meine to join, which he soon did. While there were more members of Dawn Road than Scorpions in the band, they decided to use the Scorpions name because it was well-known in the German hard rock scene and an album had been released under that name.

Correction of year
===Commercial success (1979- History-in-Rock (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)1992 History-in-Rock (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC))===

Celebrating the Cheka
The article mentions that they performed a concert at the Kremlin in honor of 90th anniversary of the founding of the Checka. This is quite a thing, can someone please explain why they did this and if there were any criticisms of it? I mean... if a band performed in honor of the x anniversary of the Nazi Machtergreifung or of the founding of the Kampuchea, surely the band's Wikipedia article would mention the ramifications. The Cheka was the military and security arm of Lenin's communist government, which was known for sheer brutality, as they operated on the platform of killing and imprisoning all who questioned the Soviet gernment. They operated the Gulags and the Prodrazvyorstka. I mean, really..? The Scorpions celebrated this? This article should explain why and what ramifications the band endured for it. Mdriver1981 (talk) 00:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * New comments go at the bottom of the page. The source explains it all pretty well - the band say they didn't know that the concert was in celebration of the Cheka. It's extremely unlikely that they were aware of it - it would be a very ill-advised thing for any band, let alone one as politically-aware as Scorpions. Many artists have been caught out in this way by Russian tour promoters and I doubt there were any ramifications for the band. Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Protection
Why is this protected you guys? What's the problem? Cousin Kevin (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Unprotected. The semi-protection was due to the Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia incident over a year ago. Prolog (talk) 11:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Deadly Sting
What aboud that Deadly Sting compilation (without the Merciry Years suffix)? Is it a part of the official discography? It's a 1 disc release with completely different tracklist. http://www.discogs.com/Scorpions-Deadly-Sting/release/1137628 Dliauchuk (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It's basically a variant of the same album. Scorpions were only released on Mercury in the USA this for international release they simply call it Deadly Sting. Also record companies often alter track listings of greatest hits albums for different counties to reflect the songs that they feel will create more sales in that market and that it the case here as well. If you like it may make sense to add a few sentences to the album page for the t Deadly Sting  Merciry Years the discusses the different versions and track listings for each. Jeffreybh (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is that "Deadly Sting" is released in 1995, two years before the other one. I believe it should be a candidate for being in the album list rather than "Deadly Sting: Mercury Years". Does this make sense? Dliauchuk (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Headlining Tour
There should be some "TOUR" mention that Scorpions were Headliners for the Monsters of Rock European Tour, Nuremberg, Zeppelinfield - August 30, 1986, (& UK). There also should be some attendance figures to emphasize the hugeness of it. It was shoulder to shoulder while the Scorpions' career was peaking. Even the trains had standing room only going to the concert. Local citizenery attending the open air event encompassed practically every rocker under the age of 45. It was very evident that Germans' supported their home grown band and a testament to the Scorpions overwhelming popularity during this persiod of time. The enormity of the event can only be evidenced by the Scorpions warm up band, the OZ man. 

Scorpions are or Scorpions is?
What's the verdict on this? I know with the Rush article, it was decided on "Rush is a band". You can leave "their" in, because it refers to a group, not a solo act. I'm sorry if I bring up an old issue, but "Scorpions are a band" doesn't read right. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 07:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Record Sales
The Scorpions don't sold over 200 Million Albums, The Correct Sales  are over 100 Million Albums/records sales! http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=137804, Plaese bring Forward Proof for the Record sales of 200 Million Albums--91.4.79.74 (talk) 08:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

minor technicality but....
it should be origin: hanover, FDR germany or west germany, because thats what country it was in 1965. same as if you go on any german persons page born 1947-1989, it will say they were born in west or east german — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.157.244 (talk) 20:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Glam Metal?
I reckon the Scorpions were glam metal with their catchy hooks and melodies as well as their pop production. I reckon it should be added. Jamcad01 (talk) 05:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

First Paragraph and Lineup
The first paragraph says "...formed in 1965 by guitarist Rudolf Schenker, who is the band's only constant member". Yes and no. Certainly Schenker is the only one who have been their from the very begaining. But, both Jabs and Meine have been there since at least 1977 (Meine since 1970ish) - a long, long time. So saying Schenker is the only "consistent member" seems a bit inaccurate. =//= Johnny Squeaky 19:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Album covers
Perhaps there should be a special section dedicated to their controversial album covers? They've had more than a few and a lot of them were produced specifically to cause controversy. The band was quite famous for this. BigSteve (talk) 11:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice idea IMO Goodyntox (talk) 15:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

MTV Unplugged
Hi, I just added a few pictures of the MTV Unplugged Tour. Feel free to add one: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Grombo Grombo (talk) 07:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Finally!
Someone fixed a fatal error on this page. Now we just need to fix some things and she can already be considered one of the best articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Rocker (talk • contribs) 17:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Wrong TOUR DATES and TOUR NAMES
Under the CONCERT TOUR section, the are many mistakes regarding the concert tour dates and their names. I will start with most recent concert tours. "Get Your Sting And Blackout World Tour" was a concert tour in support of "Sting In the Tail" and It started on March 15, 2010 and ended on October 8th, 2011 and it should be in the separate article. Official tour after that was "The Final Sting World Tour" and it was in the support of album "Comeblack" and it started on November 4th, 2011 and finished on December 17th, 2012 and it should be also in the separate article. Next tour was dubbed "Rock 'n' Roll Forever" and included all Scorpions concerts between July 2013. and November 2014. (excluding MTV Unplugged concerts and Orchestra tours in Russia) and should be also in separate article. This tour was not in the support of any album. Upcoming "50th Anniversary World Tour" should be also in an separate article because it is also a new tour in the support of latest album "Return to Forever". My point is that all those tours are separate tours, they all have different official names and they all promote different projects an because of that they should also have separate articles. If the tour is named "The Final Sting World Tour", than that tour is not "Get Your Sting and Blackout" and etc and if the tour is named "Rock 'n' Roll Forever Tour" than that tour is not "Get Your Sting and Blackout World Tour" or "The Final Sting World Tour" and etc. Get my point?? Sometimes concert tours have legs that have special names (for example U2's ZOO TV Tour 1992/1993 have Europen leg that was named "Zooropa Tour" and Australian leg named "Zoomerang Tour") but it was all part of the same tour. This is NOT the case with those Scorpions tours i'm affraid.

Also one thing about Humanity World Tour. This Tour started in 2007. in Russia and ended up in Estoril in 2008 with a special acoustic concert. Tourdates from 2009. are series of special concerts (including festivals, anniversary concerts, special concerts with ex-Scorpions members, anniversary concerts etc., orchestra concerts) and they are not related with Humanity World Tour in any kind of way.

Same situation is with the Unbreakable World Tour. Unbreakable World Tour started in Odessa in on April 28th, 2004 (not in Hanover, because the concert in Hanover was a special promo show where they played only tho new songs and the show was played in some radio studio) and it was wrapped up in December, 2004 in Puerto Rico. In 2005. and 2006. also there was a series of special Scorpions concerts including series of concerts where Scorpions were opening acts for Scorpions in concerts in U.K. and Netherlands, anniversary concerts, festivals, orchestra concerts in Russia, kick off concert for FIFA World Cup in Germany etc... So 2005. and 2006. tourdates DON'T BELONG under the Unbreakable World Tour articles tourdates section. There is only one exception. Asian dates in 2005 (Doha and Cairo) are part of the official tour dubbed "Acoustica 2005 Middle East Tour: Peace For All" and there should be also a separate article including all the information regarding this small tour.

Same goes for 2002. and 2003 dates. There were no official concert tours under the name "Scorpions World Tour 2002" and "Scorpions World Tour 2003". Those two years Scorpions have played also a series of special concerts. That included series of concerts with Deep Purple, Whitesnake, Dio and Dokken (those concerts also didn't have any official name), different festivals in Europe and Orchestra shows. Only official tour from 2002./2003. era was "The Living Tour 2002" which included concerts in 14 Russian cities. So "Scorpions World Tour 2002" and "Scorpions World Tour 2003" articles should be deleted and somebody needs to create an new article named "The Living Tour" and include those Russian dates inside.

I hope you all agree (or majority of you) with me, because in my humble opinion all of this is written incorrectly and somebody should correct this A.S.A.P.. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpavletic (talk • contribs) 14:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)