This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article currently claims "the band's social media profiles posted new artwork by Paulina Almira" with a broken link as a citation. I can't find any verification of this on current social media pages. BotleySmith ( talk) 13:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Voodookeef ( talk) 13:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Don’t think this was written by anyone in the Stones organisation as it contains syntax and style errors. Suspect it was someone wanting to make a name for themselves. Also anyone in the Stones organisation would know if McCartney and Elton John had played on any tracks and what the song titles are. Brenmar ( talk) 09:28, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Missing category Category:2023 in British music. Thanks for adding. 109.37.137.225 ( talk) 18:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change Watt to Watts 67.162.210.185 ( talk) 23:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Additional Recording was done across Studios A and E in Metropolis Studio, London. Assisted by Joe Brice and Barnabas Poffley. 157.231.98.150 ( talk) 12:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Rolling Stone Blues is written by Muddy Waters 89.132.122.175 ( talk) 18:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
The current personnel listing features Watts before Wood. I know that an overhaul will obviously be made once the record actually comes out, but there are two points that make me question the current status: One, that the previous Stones studio album (Blue & Lonesome) has Wood listed over Watts, establishing precedent. Obviously that's not much of an argument, which is why I'm more focused on the second point which is, much as I hate to say it, Charlie is gone. He's not only no longer an active Rolling Stone, he's also only on two tracks on this album. Aside from "alphabetical order" (which if you look at personnel in other articles for recent Stones releases — Licked Live In NYC, Steel Wheels Live, Voodoo Lounge Live, etc. — is clearly not applied across the board) I just don't know what the argument for having Charlie above Ronnie would be. Seeing as it's currently listed this way, though, I thought I'd better put in a Talk post rather than editing it myself. Any thoughts? McCartney75 ( talk) 19:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
The question at hand is not whether Watts was a member in 2019; it’s how to list people with respect to this album. Your chain of logic (he was a member in 2019, so he should be listed a certain way here) is your original research. Bondegezou ( talk) 07:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Outside opinions sought for the general issue at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_The_Rolling_Stones#Confirming_membership_of_the_band and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#Confirming_a_passage_in_WP:ALBUMSTYLE. Per WP:BRD, please leave it at the status quo ante. If you feel like other parties should be involved, please feel free to solicit them. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 07:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
It's generally best to list the personnel the same way they're listed in the album credits. If a consensus or a majority of editors working on a particular article agree that there's some compelling reason to deviate from that, then that would justify an exception. Speaking for myself, I think that in this case it's best to follow the album credits as we usually do. — Mudwater ( Talk) 21:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Additional thoughts on this: I think Koavf has presented a reasonable idea, as I understand it. Watts was a member of the Rolling Stones when they started recording this album, and he appears on several tracks, so it might make more sense to list him as a band member in the personnel section. That's not original research, it's an opinion that in this case it would be better to deviate from the general practice of following the album liner notes. In my opinion, it would still be better to stick to the liner notes here. That said, if most editors wanted to list Watts as a band member in the personnel section of the article, I'd be willing to go along with it. — Mudwater ( Talk) 22:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
@ EPBeatles: I agree with your change to the article. See the above discussion. It seems like there is not as clear a consensus if you are in favor of the original way this article was listed. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 21:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
As mentioned in edit summaries; the reviews section needs significantly trimmed in my opinion, it is difficult to read at a glance as it's a wall of text. It has nearly 40 reviews, which is the most I've ever seen in an album on wiki (for a quick comparison see reception sections of some featured album articles I just selected at random: ...And Justice for All (album), 4 (Beyoncé album), Dookie, God Hates Us All, Maya (M.I.A. album), Red (Taylor Swift album), Year Zero (album), Thriller (album), Disintegration (The Cure album)). Each paragraph is just a giant dense block of "In [publication], [writer] gave Hackney Diamonds [score] and said this album [opinion]" over and over. I propose a trim/rewrite by doing multiple things:
-re-wording some reviews to trim and breakup the monotony [ie changing a "[xx] writing for [publication] stated this album [three sentences of opinion]" to a "[publication] called the album [summary of review]". I don't even think the reviewer needs to be mentioned unless they're independently notable (such as Steven Hyden or Stephen Thomas Erlewine)
-removing reviews that mostly re-state what other reviews say (there doesn't need to be like 15 "[xxx] called it the best Stones album in xx years" reviews, those could hypothetically be grouped into a "Many publications - including [xx], [xx], [xx], ect - called the album the best modern stones" for reviews that don't say much unique.)
-removing reviews from publications that aren't typically included in articles. [This will be the part that obviously needs the most discussion, there's some obvious ones - like I know it's the Stones, but an AARP: The Magazine review, really?]. The review publications I personally haven't seen in many articles are: The Arts Desk, The Big Issue, Evening Standard, Financial Times, The Scotsman, AARP, Assosiated Press, The Australian, Esquire, Hot Press, Irish Examiner, Irish Independent, Irish Times, No Depression, RTE, Salon, Slant, Spill, Toronto Star, Wall Street Journal.
This is the discussion for the potential changing of the reception section. Of course there's no strict guidelines for this section and maybe nothing should be removed, the section just seems excessive to me. Please respond below. RF23 ( talk) 16:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
It's not at all clear what this means, and makes for a clumsy opening sentence. Whatever it means, if it's genuinely important, we should explain it in a sentence. If it's not important, we should leave it out of the lead. Popcornfud ( talk) 11:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
@ StarfoxFan:, please undo this edit. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 20:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
The lead currently ends: "Marketing included publicity stunts, merchandising such as worldwide fashion retail pop-ups, and cross-promotion with several sports teams." I removed this at some point, but someone added it back. While worthy of coverage in the article, is this of such significance it needs to be in the lead? I can't think of other album articles that describe such marketing activities in the lead. What do others think? Bondegezou ( talk) 10:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to add a chart listing the releases, or wait until future reissues for its 25, 50th anniversaries, etc? Orastor ( talk) 18:41, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Would it be bad to write about the 12 songs on the album, like on other major albums, Abbey Road? The first 9 tracks definitely deserve this I think... Classics in the making.
Orastor (
talk)
22:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)( Blocked
sockpuppet of
Oatsandcream, see
investigation)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article currently claims "the band's social media profiles posted new artwork by Paulina Almira" with a broken link as a citation. I can't find any verification of this on current social media pages. BotleySmith ( talk) 13:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Voodookeef ( talk) 13:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Don’t think this was written by anyone in the Stones organisation as it contains syntax and style errors. Suspect it was someone wanting to make a name for themselves. Also anyone in the Stones organisation would know if McCartney and Elton John had played on any tracks and what the song titles are. Brenmar ( talk) 09:28, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Missing category Category:2023 in British music. Thanks for adding. 109.37.137.225 ( talk) 18:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change Watt to Watts 67.162.210.185 ( talk) 23:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Additional Recording was done across Studios A and E in Metropolis Studio, London. Assisted by Joe Brice and Barnabas Poffley. 157.231.98.150 ( talk) 12:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Rolling Stone Blues is written by Muddy Waters 89.132.122.175 ( talk) 18:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
The current personnel listing features Watts before Wood. I know that an overhaul will obviously be made once the record actually comes out, but there are two points that make me question the current status: One, that the previous Stones studio album (Blue & Lonesome) has Wood listed over Watts, establishing precedent. Obviously that's not much of an argument, which is why I'm more focused on the second point which is, much as I hate to say it, Charlie is gone. He's not only no longer an active Rolling Stone, he's also only on two tracks on this album. Aside from "alphabetical order" (which if you look at personnel in other articles for recent Stones releases — Licked Live In NYC, Steel Wheels Live, Voodoo Lounge Live, etc. — is clearly not applied across the board) I just don't know what the argument for having Charlie above Ronnie would be. Seeing as it's currently listed this way, though, I thought I'd better put in a Talk post rather than editing it myself. Any thoughts? McCartney75 ( talk) 19:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
The question at hand is not whether Watts was a member in 2019; it’s how to list people with respect to this album. Your chain of logic (he was a member in 2019, so he should be listed a certain way here) is your original research. Bondegezou ( talk) 07:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Outside opinions sought for the general issue at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_The_Rolling_Stones#Confirming_membership_of_the_band and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#Confirming_a_passage_in_WP:ALBUMSTYLE. Per WP:BRD, please leave it at the status quo ante. If you feel like other parties should be involved, please feel free to solicit them. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 07:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
It's generally best to list the personnel the same way they're listed in the album credits. If a consensus or a majority of editors working on a particular article agree that there's some compelling reason to deviate from that, then that would justify an exception. Speaking for myself, I think that in this case it's best to follow the album credits as we usually do. — Mudwater ( Talk) 21:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Additional thoughts on this: I think Koavf has presented a reasonable idea, as I understand it. Watts was a member of the Rolling Stones when they started recording this album, and he appears on several tracks, so it might make more sense to list him as a band member in the personnel section. That's not original research, it's an opinion that in this case it would be better to deviate from the general practice of following the album liner notes. In my opinion, it would still be better to stick to the liner notes here. That said, if most editors wanted to list Watts as a band member in the personnel section of the article, I'd be willing to go along with it. — Mudwater ( Talk) 22:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
@ EPBeatles: I agree with your change to the article. See the above discussion. It seems like there is not as clear a consensus if you are in favor of the original way this article was listed. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 21:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
As mentioned in edit summaries; the reviews section needs significantly trimmed in my opinion, it is difficult to read at a glance as it's a wall of text. It has nearly 40 reviews, which is the most I've ever seen in an album on wiki (for a quick comparison see reception sections of some featured album articles I just selected at random: ...And Justice for All (album), 4 (Beyoncé album), Dookie, God Hates Us All, Maya (M.I.A. album), Red (Taylor Swift album), Year Zero (album), Thriller (album), Disintegration (The Cure album)). Each paragraph is just a giant dense block of "In [publication], [writer] gave Hackney Diamonds [score] and said this album [opinion]" over and over. I propose a trim/rewrite by doing multiple things:
-re-wording some reviews to trim and breakup the monotony [ie changing a "[xx] writing for [publication] stated this album [three sentences of opinion]" to a "[publication] called the album [summary of review]". I don't even think the reviewer needs to be mentioned unless they're independently notable (such as Steven Hyden or Stephen Thomas Erlewine)
-removing reviews that mostly re-state what other reviews say (there doesn't need to be like 15 "[xxx] called it the best Stones album in xx years" reviews, those could hypothetically be grouped into a "Many publications - including [xx], [xx], [xx], ect - called the album the best modern stones" for reviews that don't say much unique.)
-removing reviews from publications that aren't typically included in articles. [This will be the part that obviously needs the most discussion, there's some obvious ones - like I know it's the Stones, but an AARP: The Magazine review, really?]. The review publications I personally haven't seen in many articles are: The Arts Desk, The Big Issue, Evening Standard, Financial Times, The Scotsman, AARP, Assosiated Press, The Australian, Esquire, Hot Press, Irish Examiner, Irish Independent, Irish Times, No Depression, RTE, Salon, Slant, Spill, Toronto Star, Wall Street Journal.
This is the discussion for the potential changing of the reception section. Of course there's no strict guidelines for this section and maybe nothing should be removed, the section just seems excessive to me. Please respond below. RF23 ( talk) 16:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
It's not at all clear what this means, and makes for a clumsy opening sentence. Whatever it means, if it's genuinely important, we should explain it in a sentence. If it's not important, we should leave it out of the lead. Popcornfud ( talk) 11:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
@ StarfoxFan:, please undo this edit. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 20:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
The lead currently ends: "Marketing included publicity stunts, merchandising such as worldwide fashion retail pop-ups, and cross-promotion with several sports teams." I removed this at some point, but someone added it back. While worthy of coverage in the article, is this of such significance it needs to be in the lead? I can't think of other album articles that describe such marketing activities in the lead. What do others think? Bondegezou ( talk) 10:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to add a chart listing the releases, or wait until future reissues for its 25, 50th anniversaries, etc? Orastor ( talk) 18:41, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Would it be bad to write about the 12 songs on the album, like on other major albums, Abbey Road? The first 9 tracks definitely deserve this I think... Classics in the making.
Orastor (
talk)
22:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)( Blocked
sockpuppet of
Oatsandcream, see
investigation)