This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
as the logo is very well known it should be mentioned in the article. -- 217.10.60.85 ( talk) 14:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that my English is good enough to add this knowledge, but The Rolling Stones has announced that they will stop in 2012.
Shouldn't the period "till" (currently present) changed to 2012? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.83.55.238 ( talk) 11:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Just to thank those who have made and contributed to the timeline; it gives some key information in an easy to digest way. The addition of the lines for album releases is a lovely touch. -- bodnotbod ( talk) 15:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
since this seems to be generating a lot of edits lately, i hope a consensus can be reached here on the talk page.
the current list - rock & roll, rhythm & blues, blues, rock - is an accurate "minimalist" version. i object to the addition of "hard rock" for a couple of reasons: 1] we already have "rock", so "rock and hard rock" is like listing "bread and wheat bread"; and 2] if we *were* going to list miles of different genres i personally would include funk, soul, pop, country-flavoured rock, reggae-flavoured rock and psychedelic rock before listing "hard rock". obviously there may be different points of view regarding the "most important" of the many diverse genres the Stones have taken on, but plain "rock" seems like one we can all agree on.
and to the person who removed rock & roll from the list: the Rolling Stones have never forgotten what they started from, and have always made a big point of getting us to appreciate it. here's a very good essay that might help: http://www.timeisonourside.com/ecstasy.html Sssoul (talk) 06:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
HOW COULD ANY OF YOU FORGET HARD ROCK - Why is there no hard rock? They have so much hard rock songs... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.97.111.84 (talk) 05:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
consensus-seeking time again! i still favour the "minimalist" version: rock & roll, rhythm & blues, blues, rock. if more genres really have to be added, though, i definitely vote for listing rock & roll and r&b first. Sssoul (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
update: okay, since there are no objections i've changed it back to the "minimalist" version. if other genres really need to be added (which i doubt) i'd see way more point in adding soul or pop rather than subdivisions of rock - rock is a nice broad category that covers blues-rock, country-rock, hard rock, etc. but the info box isn't meant to be all-inclusive, so it seems way more fitting to go into the details in the article itself. thanks Sssoul (talk) 09:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I was thinking, it would make sense to add blues-rock to the genre box and maybe take out R&B, since the bulk of their records don't really have R&B tendencies. Thoughts? CheezerRox4502 (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
O.K., this looks just plain silly, having Rock, then Rock & Roll, then having Rhythm and Blues, followed by Blues. Rock & Roll is a subset of the more general category Rock, and Blues is a subset of Rhythm & Blues. Therefore I'm going to remove Rock & Roll and Blues as genre, because they are already covered by the genres 'Rock' and 'Rhythm & Blues'. Peter-T (talk) 10:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that folk rock should be in the genre box. Beginning in the mid-sixties, the band has played numerous acoustic songs, like Lady Jane, As Tears Go By, and Wild Horses, to name a few. The acoustic presence is just as big as blues and R&B, so shouldn't that make "Folk rock" eligible? Krobertj (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Pardon me, - I believe the top should read "The Rolling Stones is the name of an English Rock Band", - see, 'is', at the beginning, rather than 'they are' - this is too precarious an identification. Thank you, and sorry for the trouble, Jed Eno. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.234.183 ( talk) 20:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
So i guess an image got deleted from the 1962–1964 section....so what should we replace it with ??? anyone have an opinion
. Moxy ( talk) 00:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Prodigious examples of British English employing "the band has" are found here. The categorical argument that this is never the case can not be made. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous ( talk) 01:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
( edit conflict) It's not tangential at all: two editors have opined that the term 'the band have' is appropriate for an article written to UK English standards, and both have been summarily reverted without any discussion beyond insults and links to Google and The Times. Since you're concerned with Google hits, I searched google.co.uk, and 'the band have' checks in with 542,000,000 hits, as opposed to 'the band has' with 516,000,000; a slim majority, but a majority nevertheless.
So what is it that we're talking about if the issue of the appropriateness of the aforementioned term is just tangential? Radiopathy •talk• 02:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
There are any number of things that can be proven with statistics, but that doesn't make them proper. In the same way, there are plenty of examples of incorrect spoken grammar, such as "...me and John went to the store..." or "...I could care less..." or "...it's not that big of a deal..." which are patently incorrect and yet very commonly used. That doesn't make them proper for an encyclopedia with policies, a style manual, and global readership. In 10 or 20 years (or 50...or never) the current form of referring to a band in the plural may change. Right now, that's the accepted usage, and that's how Wikipedia does it. I personally think the American habit of writing dates in MMDDYYYY format is ludicrous, but that's how we do things, so despite my personal reaction against it, I leave it alone when others change it in articles I've put it into. YYYYMMDD or DDMMYYYY makes so much more sense, but...despite RFCs on it and plenty of comment from the community, there isn't a single way of doing it around here...and that's sometimes how style things go. This is way less ambiguous than dates because the Stones are clearly a British band. Wait...even in American English, they are something. :-) Frank | talk 13:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help) has more on this.
Jezhotwells (
talk) 22:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)I got into the solution, and I think I hear my Mom calling me. Enjoy. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous ( talk) 00:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I don't understand why you can't say both "The Rolling Stones are" and "The band is". I'd say that a band is a singular thing, but that one should use the plural if the subject is the band name and the band name is explicitly plural. The Rolling Stones are a band, but Pink Floyd is a band. This seems like how actual spoken English would generally work. john k ( talk) 07:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I think we need a Legacy section on this one. NandO talk! 00:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Since Allmusic have changed the syntax of their URLs, 2 link(s) used in the article do not work anymore and can't be migrated automatically. Please use the search option on http://www.allmusic.com to find the new location of the linked Allmusic article(s) and fix the link(s) accordingly, prefereably by using the {{ Allmusic}} template. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed. This applies to the following external links:
-- CactusBot ( talk) 19:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone else think hard rock should be added to the genre list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.166.17 ( talk) 20:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Seeing that I've basically had any changes I've written into the lead erased, I'll put my complaints here. First, Brian Jones was the founder of the band. He was also a multi-instrumentalist--- perhaps not at the very moment he and Keith Richards agreed to form the band, but very quickly. Also, saying The Rolling Stones played the blues in a different manner than their more "primitive" American counterparts is not just really poor writing but it smacks of racism or at least an elitist attitude on this side of the puddle. Perhaps this might help a "little": Keith Richards discussing the early Rolling Stones, and far more. Leahtwosaints ( talk) 23:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Sources, not peculiar personal feelings are what we go by since we do not censor. Face the facts, they blues the RS played were primitive, that's what the source says. They weren't playing uptown BS. The groundless charge of racism seems anxious and is pointless. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous ( talk) 07:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Article states Wyman retired in 1990. This is not true. 1990 may be the last gig he played as a member of the Stones. However, he did not offically retire until very early 1993. Please correct (PershingBoy) 205.204.248.86 ( talk) 16:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
What a mess. This article needs to be locked and taken over by a few people who can write. Dickdock ( talk) 08:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I think the Rolling Stones are a HARD ROCK band too. Songs like Brown Sugar and Start Me Up have a hard rock sound. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.165.73.215 ( talk) 12:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I think brown sugar is defitnantly a hard rock song all these edit nazis who just wanna say that they were'nt a proto-type for other hard-rock bands dont get it's not like were calling them heavy metal i wish people would stop changin my genre contributions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.166.155.2 ( talk) 8 August 2011
Consensus established last yearTheArtistAKA 02:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Please check sources, and their reliability, before jumping to conclusions (POV) and passing on speculation of non events, i.e. ones that may or may not happen. Such as, Contactmusic thinks there may be no Stones tour cuz Mick's feelings are hurt. Mick has not said anything of the sort - just a "maybe" statement, so where that comes from is anybody's guess. There are great fan boards for this stuff. If you checked the actual report, [1] which is has no author attribution - nothing is established about the doubtful future a Stones tour, whether they will tour or not. The report is only about a Marquee reunion gig, and for some reason, though declared obvious, Keith can't go to it. The report thinks Keith's autobiography ruined any chance of a anniversary tour, without substantiation. Furthermore, contactmusic.com - the actual source - is of dubious merit. Who are they? Who is the publisher, the editor, the owner? As best as can be deduce, it is a crowd sorucing site which Anyone can write for it in exchange for possible free tickets and other schwag. TheArtistAKA 18:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Here's the text removed by two editor's and explanations as to why it is in many cases an inferior repetition of points already made in the lede, as well as often reliant on dubious sources:
With a successful career spanning five decades, the Rolling Stones have been considered as one of the most prolific, [1] enduring, [2] controversal, [3] influential [4] and one of the most best rock bands in history. [5]
Let's break it down.
With a successful career spanning five decades, the Rolling Stones have been considered as one of the most prolific,
and enduring,
"controversal" [sic]
"influential"
one of the most best rock bands in history.
TheArtistAKA 00:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Please flesh out the Discography section. since i am new to this article i wanted to request it first here. Maybe just grab some text from the daughter artcle. Include a quote from early on, say from a critic about a span of albums instead of singling any one out. Just my 2c. -A98 98.92.189.110 ( talk) 06:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
It appears that the following statement in the first paragraph is not correct:
The group's earliest line-up consisted of Brian Jones (guitar, harmonica), Ian Stewart (piano), Mick Jagger (lead vocals, harmonica), Keith Richards (guitar, vocals), Bill Wyman (bassist) and Charlie Watts (drummer).
From a newspaper clipping posted to Mick Jagger's official Facebook page, it would appear that the original lineup that played on July 12, 1962 at the Marqee was Mick Jagger (vocals), Keith Richards, Elmo Lewis (guitars), Dick Taylor (bass), 'Stu' (piano), and Mike Avery (drums).
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150922059921606&set=a.90724416605.97008.508291605&type=1&theater — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.131.62.121 ( talk) 18:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I see "US" used throughout this article, rather than "U.S.", to which I am accustomed. I was about to begin changing it, but figured I'd better check here first. I'm fairly well-versed in British Engilsh, but not so much so with punctuation. Is it that "US" is generally written without the full stops in British media? Joefromrandb ( talk) 14:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the Chicago manual of style recently deprecated the 'U.S.' spelling, but people have been following Wikipedia's manual of style for years by not presenting it in that way in articles about UK topics.
BTW, the MoS also advises not to use 'USA' except when it's part of a name, e. g., 'Team USA'. Radiopathy •talk• 22:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I would like to propose the addition of hard rock to the list of genres. AmericanLeMans ( talk) 20:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Should he be listed under "Past Members"? Joefromrandb ( talk) 07:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
my catholic school girlfriends and i met the boys on our class trip at the empire state building in nyc while they waited to meet with hollywood palace people they were fun and untainted by fame at the time im sure this was not the highlight of their trip but it was for a few schoolgirls who are now almost as old as they are not obsessed but still makes for a great story Ann M — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.221.28 ( talk) 00:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
This section seems unnecessarily detailed - almost daily updates of the band's scheduling. While many fans may be excited, it's not in line with how other bands' pages are written. JohnAKeith ( talk) 18:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning that band's name in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. Piriczki ( talk) 12:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I see no mention of Nicky Hopkins piano on a lot of tracks from the 70's — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.238.16 ( talk) 11:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
didnt they announce they were retiring. If so then shouldn't it say the Rolling Stones WAS a band instead of ARE a band 24.101.172.61 ( talk) 02:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
The history section in this article is huge. There really should be a summary of that in this article, for people who want a brief overview of their story, and the complete history in a new article... -- Jules.LT ( talk) 15:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Good idea, make that great idea, but that's gonna take some heavy lifting. I suggest creating the history page, then trimming the main page. Luck y'all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.238.91 ( talk) 23:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion regarding the difference between a wikilink and a reference in regards to the following sentence:
In 2008, Billboard magazine ranked the Rolling Stones at number 10 on its " Billboard Hot 100 All-Time Top Artists" chart.
A wikilink, highlighted by blue text, simply links to other related Wikipedia articles and is not to be confused with references, which are reliable outside sources enclosed within the <ref></ref> tags. The reference for the sentence in question is Billboard Volume 120, No. 38 dated September 20, 2008, page 16, not the other Wikpedia article which is linked in the sentence. If the other article lacks reliable sources, that is an issue that should be addressed in that article, not this one. Piriczki ( talk) 22:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Who cares what Robert Palmer said about the Rolling Stones?!? This is completely inappropriate and unnecessary and irrelevant information. Please desist from adding information which pointless like this. ( 120.149.120.26 ( talk) 08:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC))
I have tried to improve the introduction to the article by removing, for instance "early mission was to share...", and my version has now been reverted twice by the same IP. I really can't be bothered to press the issue and prefer to leave it to the community to decide which is more encyclopedic. Needless to say, the Stones did/do not have a mission (check any dictionary for the correct use of the term), and simplifying a lot for the sake of argument, they happened to share a liking for a particular kind of music, and even that statement is open to many nuances. -- Technopat ( talk) 23:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I think you mean "thier" not "there", but then again ts only grammar, which too is why the edit shouldnt be included. As per you lack of copyright knowledge, Wiki cant use youtube as a ref if its not an offical/original clip. Some guy uploading an interview that he doesnt have copyright to cant be used. Both have responded yet you havent understood thier comments. Murry1975 ( talk) 15:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I see someone has changed the title that included "Decline" to something softer. Actually I came here to say that I feel the divisions are a bit arbitrary. I personally would have Altamont as "the end of an era" at the end of one of the sections. At the moment it is in the section titled "The Golden Age". A quick read of the events there will give anyone an idea of why this IMO doesn't seem quite right. Britmax ( talk) 08:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Like with the Beatles' Wiki infobox, The Rolling Stones' infobox should just list "Rock, pop", since these are general terms which cover all the sub-genres that the band played, instead of cluttering it up by having loads of different genres. As this is the current consensus on the Beatles' page, it should also be one on here. You'reNotMyBrain ( talk) 19:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
You can see these changes: here. 93.139.6.205 ( talk) 15:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I hope I need not point out the Opportunities for Commonality where they exist our out preference, and in spite of repeated explanations that both "the sand are" and "the band is" is common and proper in England. Despite apparent prejudice that would have the Queens being quaint and archaically bound, the Time UK, per a search of it's site, has used the phrase "the band is" 327 times. Since context does matter, here is one example "Non-followers of McFly may be surprised to learn that the band is still in business, never mind successful enough to sell out four consecutive nights at the Albert Hall. " The phase "the band are" occurs 464 times. Let's call the ratio 3/4 and proof of commonality. I eagerly await word from anyone who can say commonality is not a policy in effect in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.44.136 ( talk) 23:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I was reverted by an editor because allegedly "was lead" is British English. Yet from oxforddictionaries.com, set in UK English, we get this example: 3. Be in charge or command of: a military delegation was led by the Chief of Staff. Therefore I can't see how the form "was lead" can be supported as correct UK English usage. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 13:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I would like to reach a consensus on whether to change the genres in the infobox to just "Rock, pop, blues". I have been trying to do this on other articles because Wikipedia's policy dictates that the infobox must be as general and concise as possible. The musical style section can elaborate more on what specific genres the Rolling Stones fall into (with reliable sources). Twyfan714 ( talk) 21:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: |first=
missing |last=
(
help)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
as the logo is very well known it should be mentioned in the article. -- 217.10.60.85 ( talk) 14:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that my English is good enough to add this knowledge, but The Rolling Stones has announced that they will stop in 2012.
Shouldn't the period "till" (currently present) changed to 2012? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.83.55.238 ( talk) 11:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Just to thank those who have made and contributed to the timeline; it gives some key information in an easy to digest way. The addition of the lines for album releases is a lovely touch. -- bodnotbod ( talk) 15:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
since this seems to be generating a lot of edits lately, i hope a consensus can be reached here on the talk page.
the current list - rock & roll, rhythm & blues, blues, rock - is an accurate "minimalist" version. i object to the addition of "hard rock" for a couple of reasons: 1] we already have "rock", so "rock and hard rock" is like listing "bread and wheat bread"; and 2] if we *were* going to list miles of different genres i personally would include funk, soul, pop, country-flavoured rock, reggae-flavoured rock and psychedelic rock before listing "hard rock". obviously there may be different points of view regarding the "most important" of the many diverse genres the Stones have taken on, but plain "rock" seems like one we can all agree on.
and to the person who removed rock & roll from the list: the Rolling Stones have never forgotten what they started from, and have always made a big point of getting us to appreciate it. here's a very good essay that might help: http://www.timeisonourside.com/ecstasy.html Sssoul (talk) 06:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
HOW COULD ANY OF YOU FORGET HARD ROCK - Why is there no hard rock? They have so much hard rock songs... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.97.111.84 (talk) 05:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
consensus-seeking time again! i still favour the "minimalist" version: rock & roll, rhythm & blues, blues, rock. if more genres really have to be added, though, i definitely vote for listing rock & roll and r&b first. Sssoul (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
update: okay, since there are no objections i've changed it back to the "minimalist" version. if other genres really need to be added (which i doubt) i'd see way more point in adding soul or pop rather than subdivisions of rock - rock is a nice broad category that covers blues-rock, country-rock, hard rock, etc. but the info box isn't meant to be all-inclusive, so it seems way more fitting to go into the details in the article itself. thanks Sssoul (talk) 09:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I was thinking, it would make sense to add blues-rock to the genre box and maybe take out R&B, since the bulk of their records don't really have R&B tendencies. Thoughts? CheezerRox4502 (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
O.K., this looks just plain silly, having Rock, then Rock & Roll, then having Rhythm and Blues, followed by Blues. Rock & Roll is a subset of the more general category Rock, and Blues is a subset of Rhythm & Blues. Therefore I'm going to remove Rock & Roll and Blues as genre, because they are already covered by the genres 'Rock' and 'Rhythm & Blues'. Peter-T (talk) 10:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that folk rock should be in the genre box. Beginning in the mid-sixties, the band has played numerous acoustic songs, like Lady Jane, As Tears Go By, and Wild Horses, to name a few. The acoustic presence is just as big as blues and R&B, so shouldn't that make "Folk rock" eligible? Krobertj (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Pardon me, - I believe the top should read "The Rolling Stones is the name of an English Rock Band", - see, 'is', at the beginning, rather than 'they are' - this is too precarious an identification. Thank you, and sorry for the trouble, Jed Eno. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.234.183 ( talk) 20:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
So i guess an image got deleted from the 1962–1964 section....so what should we replace it with ??? anyone have an opinion
. Moxy ( talk) 00:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Prodigious examples of British English employing "the band has" are found here. The categorical argument that this is never the case can not be made. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous ( talk) 01:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
( edit conflict) It's not tangential at all: two editors have opined that the term 'the band have' is appropriate for an article written to UK English standards, and both have been summarily reverted without any discussion beyond insults and links to Google and The Times. Since you're concerned with Google hits, I searched google.co.uk, and 'the band have' checks in with 542,000,000 hits, as opposed to 'the band has' with 516,000,000; a slim majority, but a majority nevertheless.
So what is it that we're talking about if the issue of the appropriateness of the aforementioned term is just tangential? Radiopathy •talk• 02:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
There are any number of things that can be proven with statistics, but that doesn't make them proper. In the same way, there are plenty of examples of incorrect spoken grammar, such as "...me and John went to the store..." or "...I could care less..." or "...it's not that big of a deal..." which are patently incorrect and yet very commonly used. That doesn't make them proper for an encyclopedia with policies, a style manual, and global readership. In 10 or 20 years (or 50...or never) the current form of referring to a band in the plural may change. Right now, that's the accepted usage, and that's how Wikipedia does it. I personally think the American habit of writing dates in MMDDYYYY format is ludicrous, but that's how we do things, so despite my personal reaction against it, I leave it alone when others change it in articles I've put it into. YYYYMMDD or DDMMYYYY makes so much more sense, but...despite RFCs on it and plenty of comment from the community, there isn't a single way of doing it around here...and that's sometimes how style things go. This is way less ambiguous than dates because the Stones are clearly a British band. Wait...even in American English, they are something. :-) Frank | talk 13:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help) has more on this.
Jezhotwells (
talk) 22:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)I got into the solution, and I think I hear my Mom calling me. Enjoy. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous ( talk) 00:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I don't understand why you can't say both "The Rolling Stones are" and "The band is". I'd say that a band is a singular thing, but that one should use the plural if the subject is the band name and the band name is explicitly plural. The Rolling Stones are a band, but Pink Floyd is a band. This seems like how actual spoken English would generally work. john k ( talk) 07:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I think we need a Legacy section on this one. NandO talk! 00:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Since Allmusic have changed the syntax of their URLs, 2 link(s) used in the article do not work anymore and can't be migrated automatically. Please use the search option on http://www.allmusic.com to find the new location of the linked Allmusic article(s) and fix the link(s) accordingly, prefereably by using the {{ Allmusic}} template. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed. This applies to the following external links:
-- CactusBot ( talk) 19:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone else think hard rock should be added to the genre list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.166.17 ( talk) 20:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Seeing that I've basically had any changes I've written into the lead erased, I'll put my complaints here. First, Brian Jones was the founder of the band. He was also a multi-instrumentalist--- perhaps not at the very moment he and Keith Richards agreed to form the band, but very quickly. Also, saying The Rolling Stones played the blues in a different manner than their more "primitive" American counterparts is not just really poor writing but it smacks of racism or at least an elitist attitude on this side of the puddle. Perhaps this might help a "little": Keith Richards discussing the early Rolling Stones, and far more. Leahtwosaints ( talk) 23:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Sources, not peculiar personal feelings are what we go by since we do not censor. Face the facts, they blues the RS played were primitive, that's what the source says. They weren't playing uptown BS. The groundless charge of racism seems anxious and is pointless. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous ( talk) 07:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Article states Wyman retired in 1990. This is not true. 1990 may be the last gig he played as a member of the Stones. However, he did not offically retire until very early 1993. Please correct (PershingBoy) 205.204.248.86 ( talk) 16:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
What a mess. This article needs to be locked and taken over by a few people who can write. Dickdock ( talk) 08:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I think the Rolling Stones are a HARD ROCK band too. Songs like Brown Sugar and Start Me Up have a hard rock sound. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.165.73.215 ( talk) 12:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I think brown sugar is defitnantly a hard rock song all these edit nazis who just wanna say that they were'nt a proto-type for other hard-rock bands dont get it's not like were calling them heavy metal i wish people would stop changin my genre contributions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.166.155.2 ( talk) 8 August 2011
Consensus established last yearTheArtistAKA 02:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Please check sources, and their reliability, before jumping to conclusions (POV) and passing on speculation of non events, i.e. ones that may or may not happen. Such as, Contactmusic thinks there may be no Stones tour cuz Mick's feelings are hurt. Mick has not said anything of the sort - just a "maybe" statement, so where that comes from is anybody's guess. There are great fan boards for this stuff. If you checked the actual report, [1] which is has no author attribution - nothing is established about the doubtful future a Stones tour, whether they will tour or not. The report is only about a Marquee reunion gig, and for some reason, though declared obvious, Keith can't go to it. The report thinks Keith's autobiography ruined any chance of a anniversary tour, without substantiation. Furthermore, contactmusic.com - the actual source - is of dubious merit. Who are they? Who is the publisher, the editor, the owner? As best as can be deduce, it is a crowd sorucing site which Anyone can write for it in exchange for possible free tickets and other schwag. TheArtistAKA 18:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Here's the text removed by two editor's and explanations as to why it is in many cases an inferior repetition of points already made in the lede, as well as often reliant on dubious sources:
With a successful career spanning five decades, the Rolling Stones have been considered as one of the most prolific, [1] enduring, [2] controversal, [3] influential [4] and one of the most best rock bands in history. [5]
Let's break it down.
With a successful career spanning five decades, the Rolling Stones have been considered as one of the most prolific,
and enduring,
"controversal" [sic]
"influential"
one of the most best rock bands in history.
TheArtistAKA 00:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Please flesh out the Discography section. since i am new to this article i wanted to request it first here. Maybe just grab some text from the daughter artcle. Include a quote from early on, say from a critic about a span of albums instead of singling any one out. Just my 2c. -A98 98.92.189.110 ( talk) 06:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
It appears that the following statement in the first paragraph is not correct:
The group's earliest line-up consisted of Brian Jones (guitar, harmonica), Ian Stewart (piano), Mick Jagger (lead vocals, harmonica), Keith Richards (guitar, vocals), Bill Wyman (bassist) and Charlie Watts (drummer).
From a newspaper clipping posted to Mick Jagger's official Facebook page, it would appear that the original lineup that played on July 12, 1962 at the Marqee was Mick Jagger (vocals), Keith Richards, Elmo Lewis (guitars), Dick Taylor (bass), 'Stu' (piano), and Mike Avery (drums).
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150922059921606&set=a.90724416605.97008.508291605&type=1&theater — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.131.62.121 ( talk) 18:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I see "US" used throughout this article, rather than "U.S.", to which I am accustomed. I was about to begin changing it, but figured I'd better check here first. I'm fairly well-versed in British Engilsh, but not so much so with punctuation. Is it that "US" is generally written without the full stops in British media? Joefromrandb ( talk) 14:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the Chicago manual of style recently deprecated the 'U.S.' spelling, but people have been following Wikipedia's manual of style for years by not presenting it in that way in articles about UK topics.
BTW, the MoS also advises not to use 'USA' except when it's part of a name, e. g., 'Team USA'. Radiopathy •talk• 22:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I would like to propose the addition of hard rock to the list of genres. AmericanLeMans ( talk) 20:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Should he be listed under "Past Members"? Joefromrandb ( talk) 07:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
my catholic school girlfriends and i met the boys on our class trip at the empire state building in nyc while they waited to meet with hollywood palace people they were fun and untainted by fame at the time im sure this was not the highlight of their trip but it was for a few schoolgirls who are now almost as old as they are not obsessed but still makes for a great story Ann M — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.221.28 ( talk) 00:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
This section seems unnecessarily detailed - almost daily updates of the band's scheduling. While many fans may be excited, it's not in line with how other bands' pages are written. JohnAKeith ( talk) 18:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning that band's name in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. Piriczki ( talk) 12:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I see no mention of Nicky Hopkins piano on a lot of tracks from the 70's — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.238.16 ( talk) 11:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
didnt they announce they were retiring. If so then shouldn't it say the Rolling Stones WAS a band instead of ARE a band 24.101.172.61 ( talk) 02:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
The history section in this article is huge. There really should be a summary of that in this article, for people who want a brief overview of their story, and the complete history in a new article... -- Jules.LT ( talk) 15:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Good idea, make that great idea, but that's gonna take some heavy lifting. I suggest creating the history page, then trimming the main page. Luck y'all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.238.91 ( talk) 23:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion regarding the difference between a wikilink and a reference in regards to the following sentence:
In 2008, Billboard magazine ranked the Rolling Stones at number 10 on its " Billboard Hot 100 All-Time Top Artists" chart.
A wikilink, highlighted by blue text, simply links to other related Wikipedia articles and is not to be confused with references, which are reliable outside sources enclosed within the <ref></ref> tags. The reference for the sentence in question is Billboard Volume 120, No. 38 dated September 20, 2008, page 16, not the other Wikpedia article which is linked in the sentence. If the other article lacks reliable sources, that is an issue that should be addressed in that article, not this one. Piriczki ( talk) 22:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Who cares what Robert Palmer said about the Rolling Stones?!? This is completely inappropriate and unnecessary and irrelevant information. Please desist from adding information which pointless like this. ( 120.149.120.26 ( talk) 08:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC))
I have tried to improve the introduction to the article by removing, for instance "early mission was to share...", and my version has now been reverted twice by the same IP. I really can't be bothered to press the issue and prefer to leave it to the community to decide which is more encyclopedic. Needless to say, the Stones did/do not have a mission (check any dictionary for the correct use of the term), and simplifying a lot for the sake of argument, they happened to share a liking for a particular kind of music, and even that statement is open to many nuances. -- Technopat ( talk) 23:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I think you mean "thier" not "there", but then again ts only grammar, which too is why the edit shouldnt be included. As per you lack of copyright knowledge, Wiki cant use youtube as a ref if its not an offical/original clip. Some guy uploading an interview that he doesnt have copyright to cant be used. Both have responded yet you havent understood thier comments. Murry1975 ( talk) 15:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I see someone has changed the title that included "Decline" to something softer. Actually I came here to say that I feel the divisions are a bit arbitrary. I personally would have Altamont as "the end of an era" at the end of one of the sections. At the moment it is in the section titled "The Golden Age". A quick read of the events there will give anyone an idea of why this IMO doesn't seem quite right. Britmax ( talk) 08:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Like with the Beatles' Wiki infobox, The Rolling Stones' infobox should just list "Rock, pop", since these are general terms which cover all the sub-genres that the band played, instead of cluttering it up by having loads of different genres. As this is the current consensus on the Beatles' page, it should also be one on here. You'reNotMyBrain ( talk) 19:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
You can see these changes: here. 93.139.6.205 ( talk) 15:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I hope I need not point out the Opportunities for Commonality where they exist our out preference, and in spite of repeated explanations that both "the sand are" and "the band is" is common and proper in England. Despite apparent prejudice that would have the Queens being quaint and archaically bound, the Time UK, per a search of it's site, has used the phrase "the band is" 327 times. Since context does matter, here is one example "Non-followers of McFly may be surprised to learn that the band is still in business, never mind successful enough to sell out four consecutive nights at the Albert Hall. " The phase "the band are" occurs 464 times. Let's call the ratio 3/4 and proof of commonality. I eagerly await word from anyone who can say commonality is not a policy in effect in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.44.136 ( talk) 23:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I was reverted by an editor because allegedly "was lead" is British English. Yet from oxforddictionaries.com, set in UK English, we get this example: 3. Be in charge or command of: a military delegation was led by the Chief of Staff. Therefore I can't see how the form "was lead" can be supported as correct UK English usage. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 13:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I would like to reach a consensus on whether to change the genres in the infobox to just "Rock, pop, blues". I have been trying to do this on other articles because Wikipedia's policy dictates that the infobox must be as general and concise as possible. The musical style section can elaborate more on what specific genres the Rolling Stones fall into (with reliable sources). Twyfan714 ( talk) 21:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: |first=
missing |last=
(
help)