Jump to content

Talk:AC/DC/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 9

Poll closed

I've closed the poll on the external links. The result was: use the other set of links. So that's exactly what I do. Any attempt to change back to the set of links which didn't make will be considered vandalism and be removed immediately. Oh, and maybe needless to say...but I lifted the protection as well ;). Happy editing, my fellow wikipedians. Those about to rock, we salute you.—?? S??THING(?) 08:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The way this poll was conducted was highly objectionable.I voted on one side and found that I ended up being blocked with the unfair explanation being given that I was a 'sockpuppet'. Not just me, but all those who voted in the same way, ended up being blocked and having their votes removed. This seems to have been a coordinated move on the part of those with more rights than others.Did anyone bother to check whether these voters whose votes were removed were legitimate, by tracing their IPs? I myself have been contributing to the AC/DC page for some months now and it seems to me that all of us who voted against the external links were unfairly lumped into the arbitarily labelled category of 'Sockpuppets' so that there would be only one result to the vote.Furthermore, once all the participants were so labelled and banned from editing, there ceased to be any more debate. This would suit only one objective - a stage managed win for one side. Now, that is vandalism. The Archer 13:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Genres

Last night, Helltopay27 added Classic metal to the genre listing. Now, this morning, an unregistered user removed it and I was just about to remove it myself when it was initally added last night, but when I read the classic metal article, it read:

"Classic metal bands are typically characterized by thumping fast basslines, not so fast heavy, but "clean", riffs, extended lead guitar solos, high pitched vocals and anthemic choruses."

Now, in my opinion, this sounds a lot like a typical AC/DC song. However, I'm not an expert in music, so, I would like everyone's opinions on whether you consider AC/DC a classic metal band or not and whether we should include this in the article before I add it back in or not. HK51 08:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction

I've reincluded the quotes from the Rock N Roll Hall of Fame induction, under that section in the article.I don't see any reason for them to have been removed in the first place. The Archer 14:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC) The references for the above are - 

http://music.yahoo.com/read/news/12027761

http://www.lyricsfreak.com/a/ac-dc/biography.html I would appreciate it if someone would help me reference the quotes from the Hall of Fame induction to these links, on the main page.Thanks!The Archer 19:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I see no problem with including this quote - it's sourced and relevant. Anyone who wants to exclude it should state their reasons here, or leave it in. Unfortunately due to my techno-dunce status, I don't know how to reference it in the article :oI Bretonbanquet 19:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

There you go, referenced everything for you. For future *ahem* reference (pun most definitely intended ;-) ), to reference a quote, just place the link in between two square brackets. i.e. - [www.example.com]. The article's really starting to take shape now I think, nice work everyone. Happy editing guys! :-) HK51 20:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! HK 51, though I think that we'll have to wait and see what consensus there is, before that section takes final shape. Regards,The Archer 19:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed it, and explained why in the edit summary (ahem!); pleasantries, especially drunken ones, uttered at an awards show don't usually add anything of importance to an article, and thus slow it down. Steven Tyler's not very clever comments take up a lot of room and don't say anything of note about AC/DC ("make soup out of your girlfriend's panties," indeed). I removed Brian Johnson's more germane comment because it consisted largely of a long quotation from song lyrics.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 21:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, well let's see what people say - any other opinions on this one? We can see if there's a concensus either way. And thanks for referencing it by the way, HK51 :o) Bretonbanquet 21:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I think Tyler's comments should be left out, there's no real significance to them. But I do think a link should be left to them. Johnson's quote from the award ceremony (the one with the lyrics from Let There Be Rock) should stay. I think they show Johnson's respect for Scott and also I think it's important to include at least part of the acceptance speech, to show how well the award was received by the band. HK51 21:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking something along the lines of:

'During their induction to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in March 2003, AC/DC performed "Highway To Hell" and "You Shook Me All Night Long" with guest vocals by Steven Tyler of Aerosmith, who inducted the band into the hall, calling the band's power chord the ""The thunder from down under that gives you the second most powerful surge that can flow through your body."

The band thanked their fans for their support in an acceptance speech and Brian Johnson quoted the band's 1977 song "Let There Be Rock," written by Bon Scott. "In the beginning, back in 1955, man didn't know about the rock 'n roll show and all that jive. The white man had the schmaltz, the black man had the blues, but no one knew what they was gonna do, but Tchaikovsky had the news, he said, let there be rock" he later said, "Bon Scott wrote that. And it's a real privilege to accept these awards tonight." '

What are everyone else's thoughts on this layout then? HK51 21:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Better. I had no objection to the sense of Johnson's comments, though they are hard to edit down. One positive phrase from Tyler, as you have here, gets the point across without slowing things down and making him look foolish.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 22:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of their relative standing, or whether Steven Tyler was drunk or not, the quote (the whole quote) does put in perspective the impression that AC/DC creates among their fans and peers.A description of AC/DC's history or their success in the music industry, may not convey the effect that their music has had on fans and indeed the reason behind their popularity and success.That quote is actually quite colourful and clever too and it does not slow things down at all.On the contrary, it sounds well crafted and explains why AC/DC is often described as the definitive Hard Rock Band, without saying so. My viewpoint aside, since there is a separate Hall of Fame section as it is, there is not much cause to say that the quote slows down the article (which it doesn't, to anyone interested in AC/DC). Also, Tyler's own status as the acclaimed and successful frontman of one of AC/DC's greatest contemporaries, along with the fact that he inducted the Band and that this quote was essentially his induction speech, explaining who or what AC/DC stood for, lends enough weight to the quote. The fact of the matter is, AC/DC is a band that sings lyrics about Rock N Roll, Booze, Sex and more Rock N Roll, laced with tongue in cheek humour and fun, for the most part and there have been very few deviations from that theme. Tyler's quote captures the essence of the effect that AC/DC has on it's fans while staying in tune with the sense of fun and excitement that their music has. The "make soup out of your girlfriend's panties" portion while ribald, is very much part of the quote and the whole quote in it's entirety was reproduced on music news sites that reported the event and i've come across many.However, "the second most powerful surge that can flow through your body", does sound out of place and overdone.

Brian Johnson's quote from one of the most popular and definitive Bon Scott era songs, with the theme again being "Rock N' Roll" is entirely legit and as already said above, shows his respect for Bon Scott.

I think that the article should go back to showing the full quote from Steven Tyler, perhaps leaving out the powerful surge part.The Archer 19:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe. But things like Tyler's comments, which probably were a lot of fun to hear (and in that context probably did get the point across about what AC/DC stands for) look pretty daft in print, unfortunately, and I'd be for selective quotation to tidy them up.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 21:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That's actually a point of view. As long as the quote is legitimate, it's not Steven Tyler's intelligence that is under consideration here. Considering the circumstances and the subject material, an urbane comment on AC/DC from one of the 'suits' (incidentally, the band's own comment on the Music Execs attending the induction) present, could hardly have done better.I've already explained the context in which the quote should be taken and considered for inclusion.It would have been daft if an editor on Wikipedia had written that quote perhaps, but not coming from Steven Tyler commenting on AC/DC, in that setting.I think that we need some consensus on this.The Archer 22:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I still think we should just leave his comment about the band's power chord. Leaving the rest of it in, in my opinion, does clutter-up the article and slow it down quite a bit. The article is long enough as it is. HK51 17:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Rolls Royce??

"Some think it was murder, and that Bon Scott was killed by the exhaust from the Rolls Royce being redistributed in to the car, and some think Kinnear didn't even exist."

What Rolls Royce? Are we talking about Kinnear's car, the one that Bon died in? If so, it was a Renault 5 - where did Rolls Royce come from? That's funny, but very wrong. Bretonbanquet 17:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Past members in the infobox

Is it necesary to have names like Paul Matters or Russel Coleman in the infobox? They aren't named anywhere else on the article nor the minor members article. I think it will be better to have them listed in the minor members article and remove them from the infobox. No-Bullet 17:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

They are in the minor members article - I'm pretty sure I put everyone who's relevant in that article, so as not to clutter up the main AC/DC article, and to stop people starting lots of little individual articles for each one. Like you, I'm not sure those guys need to be in the infobox - I reckon the Young brothers would be hard-pressed to remember them anyway! Bretonbanquet 17:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they should be in the infobox either, none of them were really proper members of the band were they? They were just there as occaional fill-ins and probably only played a few gigs amongst them. We should wait to hear a few more views on this before we delete them from the 'box though. HK51 20:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Current members. There's already a very detailed chart of line-ups through the years. BabuBhatt 22:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I would say that the infobox should contain current members, plus Scott, Wright, Slade, Mark Evans and maybe Dave Evans - all the others were pretty minor really, and could be covered by "other members" and a link to the minor members article. It's important to have Scott there at the very least - he's an absolute must. Bretonbanquet 23:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I'd 100% agree with what Bretonbanquet said. And I think Dave Evans should definitely be included. Although he didn't do much to shape the band's sound etc. he is quite an important part of the band's history. HK51 23:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree too. Despite the Young brothers' dislike of Dave Evans, he was their first frontman and they had a single with him.Mark Evans, Simon Wright and Chris Slade should all be included too. That goes without saying.The Archer 19:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll erase those names from the infobox and leave only the most importants. No-Bullet 00:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Some really good photos I've found

I found several images on Dave Evans's official website of several of the minor members of AC/DC (see the 'Photos' section) which I think would be great to include their articles (as pictures of these guys are quite hard to find!). Trouble is I've never uploaded an image before (that I didn't create myself) and was wondering what has to be done to insure I'm not infringing copyright etc. by uploading them. I think it might be better for someone with the know-how to upload and display them! HK51 17:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

RE: Good article status

Whoever passed the article didn't take it off the nominee list and add it to the Good Article section. I'm going to go ahead and do this now, anyone who disagrees can just make it a nominee again and explain why here. HK51 10:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The one who passed the article was an anonymous editor and left no comment, i.e., he/she just changed the template and left no comment. This looks like a passing vandal (or a sockpuppet). For the sake of keeping the integrity of the nomination process, I think it is better that the article goes back in its place in the nomination queue. Otherwise an editor who was involved in the article really made the decision to GA which would be unacceptable. RelHistBuff 10:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeh, you're right. Looking at the guy's talk-page it doesn't look like he's the sort for reviewing articles! Right-o, back to nominee it goes. HK51 10:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


Soothing has suggested the following links be changed to this format: (See my talk page)

The reason being is that nowhere on acdcrocks.com does it say that it's an official site, as I have said previously. Google does not list it that way either, btw. Furthermore, AC/DC's publishing company and business partner for 30+ years is Albert's Music while Sony has distributed recordings for AC/DC for only the last 3. They had to securing a contract through Albert's, not the other way around. In any event, if any page should be considered official, history should be the first consideration and AC/DC's entire career has been w/Albert's. Sony/Epic is just another company in a long list of distributors for the band, historically speaking.

I also propose we rid ourselves of any link to Rolling Stone and Music Brains. In the first place, Rolling stone shows nothing but contempt for AC/DC as has been pointed out previously in the last external links argument/discussion. Secondly, Music Brains offers nothing which cannot already be seen on Wikipedia's AC/DC page. It does offer a small bit of info on AC/DC bootlegs but much of that info is inaccurate as far as I can see. NCC17 15:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

That's far enough about the record company sites, but we do need some links other than the official sites. All the articles I've looked at have them, Aerosmith and Metallica to them a few. HK51 15:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I assume you mean fair enough but, yes, I agree that we do need links from other sites and that's why I and many others had previously posted these below on the AC/DC page. Before Fair Deal gutted them all, they were on this site for nearly two years with no complaints.

I'm of the opinion that all or the majority of them be brought back to replace the the useless Music Brains link and the link to Rolling Stone magazine. Having Rolling Stone magazine linked on the AC/DC page is akin to a John Kerry page having a link to swiftvets.com. NCC17 18:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think is Ok having the non-official links in the external links section, but I also think we need to have the link to rolling stones (we already discussed that) and the link to music brainz (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_MusicBrainz#Goals). No-Bullet 20:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I think we should keep the layout NCC17 has suggested and add Rolling Stones and Music Brainz to it. Why? Although most of us here love the band, there are those that don't, and just because we disagree with them on many of their issues with the band, it's no excuse not to incude their points of view. Showing different points of view make an article far more interesting, we're showing what those that love the band see and also showing what those who dislike the band see.
My layout suggestion:
Everyone's thoughts? HK51 20:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
It's Ok for me. Also add Profile page by Atlantic Records. No-Bullet 00:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Done :) I hope there's no objections. If anyone's wondering on the order I've listed them, it's purely alphabetical. HK51 00:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

If at all the Rolling Stone link has to be on there, I would have preferred that it be the last one on the list. As it is, I'm not sure how it appears so high on the list, if it is indeed alphabetical.The Archer 06:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You do have a valid point about the Rolling Stone link, HK51. I still think the Music Brains link is worthless and offers misleading information but I can live w/it seeing as how the better links are posted again.

Since they are both there, I believe they (RS & MB) should be included in alphabetical order, as well. Does anybody object to that? NCC17 08:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

No objections, nope, you haven't placed them in alphabetical order though. Everything that begins 'AC/DC' should've been listed first, which includes the RS and MS link. Meh...the order doesn't matter much anyway! Just makes it look neater IMO. I shall leave it as is, as I don't want another edit war over it. HK51 16:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was going alphabetically by the names RS & MB. After all, it seems to me that they could all be technically called AC/DC pages. I left the ODP link where it was because that's where Soothing had it placed before (under the record company profile pages) and also because it links to many other AC/DC pages. NCC17 17:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Btw, for the record, this was the alphabetical revision I came up with.
Wikimedia Commons has media related to AC/DC.

This layout or the one HK51 came up with above is fine by me. My layout does purposely de-emphasize the RS link because many of us feel they are negatively biased against AC/DC as shown before here in their album reviews. NCC17 21:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

That's alright then, no more complaints from me. Unless anyone else has anything to add. HK51 17:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Has no one read WP:EL? Fan sites in general are frowned upon unless significantly notable. This article has an Open Directory link which includes all of them and yet no less than 4 still remain in the EL section??? Also WP:EL is pretty strict about chat groups and yet there's a link to one of those too. Fansites are allowed is talkpage concensus is reached(which there has been here...sort of) but there is definitely still some work required to gleen out that section some more or this article will never reach FA status. As for now it's still miles away from even reaching GA status. Start from the bottom up. 142.166.234.41 22:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Fair Deal, if you're not going to properly sign in, you really have no business starting to gut the links again. You find something wrong with every link posted on every page you edit. For those that don't know Fair Deal, he is from Fredricton, NB, CA are as shown by the IP locator at [1]. He's the only one complaining and wasting everybody's time with this link nonsense. NCC17 23:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

For God's sake leave the links alone! 142.166.234.41 or Fair Deal or whoever you are, you can't just jump into a page and delete important links without discussing it with everyone here. I don't care what you think, you should have discussed it here first. And also, maybe it needs some work to one day become a FA but at the moment it's well up to GA standards. If anyone has any other issues with the external links, or anything else about the article for that matter, please discuss it here first. We do not want another edit war starting, especially now that this article is a GA nominee. HK51 00:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

NCC17. Usually, I've always considered it fairly easy for me to control my temper on the internet. However, by looking at some of your writing on talkpages the opposite is about to appear true. You're really on the edge of performing personal attacks again: if you're not going to properly sign in, you really have no business starting to gut the links again, as if that is an actual reason to withhold somebody from editing Wikipedia. And by calling http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AC/DC&diff=next&oldid=72487678 his edits] "vandalism". His edits was perfectly good faith, and there was no reason to suggest otherwise. He was removing a non-notable Yahoo fangroup (HK, how is that an important link?) and correcting the spelling and style of two other links. How does that equal vandalism? Consider this your final warning.—?? S??THING(?) 05:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Considering the amount of arguments there have been over these links, whoever this is should have made his suggestions on the talk page before removing any. Fair enough on correcting the spelling and style, but anyone who's frequented this page over the past few months knows the arguments they're gonna cause by just jumping in and removing them. We had all already agreed on those links and the last thing anyone wants now is an edit war. HK51 12:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not authorizing the anon's removal of the link (I personally feel it was right, though. Then again, the situation was so stressed that taking it to the talkpage would have been wise), I'm just condemning the response to his edits. It most definetely wasn't vandalism.—?? S??THING(?) 19:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Soothing, there does not seem to be anything right in the anonymous removal of links, especially when this is a volatile issue here and it should have been discussed. Your condemnation of the response to the edits would seem evenhanded, if only you would not turn a blind eye to the actions of Fair Deal, or whoever it is from the NC area that is perpetrating the vandalism in question.Otherwise, it would seem that the only objective of the repeated warnings to NCC17, regardless of the reason, would be to protect the vandal in question and punish someone whose only crime seems to be pointing out that vandalism.The Archer 15:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

- i really like this article now -ishmaelblues

Heavy Metal

AC/DC is not heavy metal, it's hard rock and rock & roll, why do you keep adding it into the infobox? No-Bullet 23:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I keep adding it back in because it was there before I started contributing to this page and I think it should stay there. There are certain songs I personally would class as Heavy metal. Just because the band disagrees with this classing their music as this genre, does not make it untrue. HK51 01:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I've never said anything about what the band said, I just think their music isn't heavy metal. In the heavy metal article does't say anything about AC/DC, except in related styles and in the hard rock article says:
"The two genres have some crossover for example; the pioneers of heavy metal, such as Black Sabbath, Deep Purple and Led Zeppelin are often considered both "Heavy Metal" and "Hard Rock"... whereas, bands such as AC/DC, Aerosmith and Kiss, are normally referred to as just "Hard Rock" and not "Heavy Metal"." No-Bullet 02:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Because the term "Heavy Metal" means different things to different people, this is going to be hard to resolve. Personally, I wouldn't class AC/DC as heavy metal because then how would you class a band like Iron Maiden? They're clearly worlds apart, yet are they both heavy metal? I don't think so. But then a lot of people, particularly those who don't really know much about heavy music, would class AC/DC as metal. So without a real definition of Heavy Metal, this is going to be difficult. For myself, I would class early AC/DC as hard blues rock, with the later Johnson-era stuff just being hard rock or hard boogie rock. Bretonbanquet 11:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Two things here.One, some of the music sure does sound like metal. Two, it is undeniable that AC/DC have been a huge influence on many groups that fit firmly into the metal pantheon.However, unlike say a Black Sabbath, AC/DC have never themselves tried to blur the line, fimrly calling themselves a Rock N' Roll bandThe Archer 11:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that are certain songs written in the Brian Johnson era that do sound like heavy metal and just because these songs are few and far between doesn't mean we should not include their genre. I mean, we have blues rock in there (and rightly so) and AC/DC have very few blues rock songs, Ride On is the only one I can think of off the top of my head. So, my point is, AC/DC are a hard rock and rock and roll band, with a few heavy metal and blues rock songs. HK51 12:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to get into an argument about something that I think is insoluble, but 90% of all the pre-1979 AC/DC songs are blues-based, hence they are blues rock. "Ride On" is one of the very few slow blues that they did, others being "Crabsody In Blue", "Little Lover" etc. Half of Powerage is very bluesy indeed. The closest I would say to heavy metal that they got was perhaps the Fly on the Wall era stuff, or Blow Up Your Video, even then the blues structure is still there. Hardly Judas Priest or Iron Maiden. But as I say, this argument could go on for evermore. Bretonbanquet 12:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, if the majority don't want to include it, I'm not going to argue with it. Again, the songs I would class as heavy metal are few and far between (I would class a few of the Fly on the Wall album as such, and not many more), but I still think it should be included in the genre listing. But I won't argue with it if no-one else wants it there, I'm not an edit-warring type. Also, it was in the genre listing before I began contributing to the article, so I'm sure there must be a few others who support my opinion. HK51 12:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty much the way I look at it - I think it's the kind of thing that gets edited in and out several times a month, and life's too short to argue about it. If people want it in, fine, if they don't, fine. Short of having a big vote which everyone would agree to stick to, there's no real solution. At the moment, I'd say it's about equal for inclusion or exclusion. Bretonbanquet 13:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, then i'll erase the heavy metal genre of the infobox, it's not a big thing, i just don't want to star another edit war. No-Bullet 16:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Punk & Stuff

I'd like to see more references in this article as a whole. For example, the quote, "The band were tagged as a punk rock band by the British press, ..." needs some referencing or clarification. The whole of the press certainly didn't. Which part of the press? Had the writer misunderstood British tongue in cheek humour? I don't know but it sounds most unlikely. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Candorwien (talk • contribs) 09:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

GA

I've decided to pass this nomination and make the page a good article. Here are a few suggestions toward featured status:

  • Weasel words, particularly in the later sections, are a problem. "It has been said that..." etc. won't fly at the next level. This problem even made me pause and wonder about making this a GA, but I think the article succeeds in enough other ways.
  • Citations - current referencing is spotty. An FA on this topic would probably have twice as many footnotes as the current version.
  • Lists - FAC reviewers don't like lists within articles. I don't particularly mind them myself, but I'd suggest branching off the list material into a subordinate page. With enough verification the list page might even become a featured list (see Joan of Arc and Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc for an example).

On the bright side, praise goes to the editors here for thorough and balanced coverage. It doesn't read like fancruft or an industry puff piece. The tone and scope are handled admirably. Congratulations, and keep improving. Durova 14:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Cool :) Alright, I've taken the 'Tributes' section out of the article and created the article List of tributes to AC/DC in popular culture. I've literally just copied and pasted everything over, so the article could really do with some work (it really needs a better opening paragraph too!). There's a lot of great editors working on the various AC/DC-related articles so I don't even think I need to ask for it to be improved! I'll go through the main AC/DC article and try and improve the weasel words then. HK51 16:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking about splitting the "Band Members" section into a new page, the article will be shorter and we'll removing a list. What do you think? No-Bullet 01:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, I'm not so sure, there really isn't enough information there. You'd really just be creating an article made-up of what, essentially, is just a table. Has a similar thing been done with any other articles? It might give us a few ideas of what else to include. HK51 17:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I've saw it in Iron Maiden band members. We'll have to get rid of that list eventually :(. No-Bullet 20:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
The way they've done it in the Iron Maiden article is pretty good actually. I'd be in agreement if we done a similar thing to what they've done; still including a 'Band members' section, but only showing the current and original line-ups, then having a seperate 'Band members' article which would obviously be linked to in that section. I'm still not sure about having an article that's really just a table though, but if it works on another article, it'd be ok I guess. Any other thoughts on this? HK51 21:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

We can merge the Minor members of AC/DC article with that table and create Past members of AC/DC. No-Bullet 22:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Great idea :) I'd be in favour of doing that. HK51 22:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Done. Past members of AC/DC. I just copied and pasted everything, so feel free to add or remove anything. No-Bullet 22:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Great work No-Bullet :) HK51 23:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Hollywood Walk of Fame

Why is this article in the bollywood Walk of Fame category? None AC/DC's members appear to be on the list of stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. HK51 00:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Dave Evans

There is a promo video of Dave Evans singing for AC/DC here, perhaps this should be incorporated into the article some way? - Deathrocker 22:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Youtube material can be added to wikipedia. Anyway, I'd add the link in the Dave Evans article. No-Bullet 01:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

new album name

is anyone sure that ac/dc's new album will be called "Strap It On"? if so, please respond. --Ac-dcfreak785 13:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Strap it on was just a rumour. I think the album won't have that name. The release date is also uknown. No-Bullet 18:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
No-one knows what the album title will be. But 'Strap it On' is just a rumor. I don't really think it's notable enough to stay within the article, especially as it's failed to be cited. HK51 19:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Origin

Please don't keep editing an entire pharagraph on the lead section. AC/DC is an australian band, even if most of the members are british, the band was formed in Australia. Thanks. No-Bullet 02:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we could put something in there to the effect that most of the band were born in Britain - I did that in fact, but the unregistered user who keeps vandalising the article only wants his badly written version, so we'll just keep reverting it till he gives up. Bretonbanquet 15:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Can admin not just ban this guy or are all articles to be governed by whichever unregistered vandal has all day to revert his sorry edits? Bretonbanquet 15:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Why do people keep changing the AC/DC article to say that AC/DC is an Australian band?

I keep changing the article to say that they're a British band. This is because almost all members (both current and previous) are British, they were born in Britain, and they have primarily British influences. They are also often regarded as a British band, and are included in polls of British bands. My edit keeps on getting changed back to saying they're Australian, and Australian only. And now I'm being accused of vandalism, and threatened with being blocked. I am not deliberately trying to give false facts on the article, I am trying to improve it. Surely I can't be banned for that?

PS: I have only just found out how to use the talk page. It's not exactly obvious, and the help page was anything but helpful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Suicidal Lemming (talk • contribs) 12:29, 17 September 2006.

If you didn't know how to use the talk page, or contact any other user involved to discuss it, why did you just keep reverting your edits? It just looks like you're a vandal - what are we supposed to think?
Anyway, now you've found this page, we can discuss it. You shouldn't make potentially controversial edits without discussion, then we don't get revert wars like this one. I put in a paragraph expressing your sentiments, but worded in a more encyclopedic fashion, yet you just reverted back to your version, which is frankly a little confrontational and not at all appropriate for an encyclopedia. This is partly why I for one assumed you were a vandal.
"Improvements" do not always mean the same thing to different people - so hopefully we can discuss what to do next without anyone getting blocked. Bretonbanquet 15:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
And continuing to revert the article just makes you look more like a vandal. Wait until a resolution has been reached!! Bretonbanquet 15:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about changing your edit; I hadn't actually seen it so re-edited back to mine, which I regret now. I put yours back in, then saw this post. I'll stop reverting now. Sorry for any inconvenience by the way. Suicidal Lemming 15:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem - when other concerned users like No-Bullet come along, all this can be discussed and a conclusion agreeable to all can be implemented. Bretonbanquet 15:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Did the group not form in Australia? Are the Youngs also Australian (as well as British)? Were they Australian at the time of formation? Did they not release almost all their material first in Australia? I think there should be some discussion about what is meant by "=insert your country here=" band. Candy 18:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Considering that almost all members are British, and they were primarily influenced by British music, I would personally class them as a British band.
But I see your point - it's very hard to say which they are exactly. I know that they're included in music polls and lists for both countries, and different people have different interpretations on which country they truly belong to. Perhaps it would be best to state both Australia and Britain as their country of origin, and have a paragraph explaining the situation? Suicidal Lemming 21:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the band is australian because it was formed in Australia, it doesn't matter if the members were born in GB, that's why the origin section on the infobox should be completed with Australia. No-Bullet 22:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but due to the fact that they're British, maybe it would be best to say that they are rather than ignore it. It's pretty confusing and downright wrong to say they're simply Australian.

They technically originated in Britain anway, as that was where they were born. I think it would be best to say that they're both, because I'm not going to simply leave it as just Australian. Suicidal Lemming 18:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

My 2p worth - can anyone find out which country's passports the Young brothers hold? Are they Australian citizens or British citizens? If they took Australian citizenship, then they're Australian regardless of where they were born. Cliff Richard is not Indian. In any case, two of the current band are definitely British and one is definitely Australian, so "British/Australian" or "Australian/British" sounds to me like the best solution. To use a similar example, Fleetwood Mac are described as "British/American" due to two members being British and two American. Let's try and be accurate and say AC/DC are collectively a mix of the two nationalities, which is the undeniable truth. Bretonbanquet 18:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


I jsut went to look at the BeeGees artcile in Wiki - "The Bee Gees were Manx-born Anglo-Australian singing trio that became one of the most successful musical acts of all time.". They were IoM born, formed in Manchester and move to Oz I believe. perhaps AC/DC could be called Anglo-Australian also? Would that be acceptable to all? Candy 18:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Except that the Youngs ( and Scott) were born in Scotland, not England :o) Bretonbanquet 19:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's best to say that they're a British-Australian band, and have a short paragraph explaining the situation. But yes, I'd be very happy with a compromise. Suicidal Lemming 16:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

OK I will make the change. I'm going for Australian-British as this will satisfy most. Alpha in precedence Candy 20:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Great :) No-Bullet 23:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm happy with that. When will the change be made? Suicidal Lemming 15:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
You can do it yourself, if you want. No-Bullet 16:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I think calling the band Australian-British is miss leading. The whole article refers to the band as Australian, the band was formed in Sydney Australia according to the bio they all have residences in Australia, the Youngs refer to Sydney as home. Bon Scott is buried in Fremantle Western Australia where he grewup went to prison. The members played in other AUstralian bands prior to forming, they also work in Australia. so besides being born in Scotland and emigrating to Australia with their parents what is British about the band. Gnangarra 16:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Their influences, and the fact that they regard themselves as British. It will be changed to correct it, no doubt about that. I'll make the change then. Suicidal Lemming 19:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, but there's nothing Australian about Brian Johnson (26 years in the band) or Cliff Williams (29 years in the band), so I think the only correct way is the way we've decided. Glad it's sorted out! Bretonbanquet 22:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I've now made the change, I hope it's satisfactory. It shall be left this way, and no more reverts to this new info please. Suicidal Lemming 19:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Whats sorted out you've just been dictatorial in the claim its settled Gnangarra 23:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
32 references used in this article not one those references call them British, so I changing to Australian Gnangarra 00:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You mean dictatorial in the sense that several of us discussed it on here and agreed on Australian / British? You have dictatorially changed it to something that nobody except you wants. I'll change it back, and we'll continue the discussion here like we are supposed to, if that's OK with you. Bretonbanquet 00:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted to referenced material as per WP:CITE there is not one named reference that calls them British. So you can agree all you want between each other but unitl you provide references the match that of the current one then its an Australian Band only. Gnangarra 01:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
2003 "It's a very good night to be British because three of the finest acts of the last 30 years came out of Britain and three are here to be honored," said singer Elton John.[2] there were 5 inducties that year The Clash(UK), The Police(UK), Costello(UK), Righteous Brothers(US) and AC/DC if AC/DC was considered British Sir Elton John would have referred to 4 acts(whether he likes them or not). Rolling Stone magazine(web site)[3] refers to AC/DC as "this veteran Australian quintet", Rolling Stone is an accepted Authority on music and the music industry they wouldnt make the mistake of not calling them British in their Bio. Gnangarra 10:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Just my two cents on the nationality question: Angus, Malcolm and Bon were all born in Scotland but emigrated to Australia at very young ages. Bon was 6, for example. Each of their families became Australian citizens and have lived the rest of their lives in Oz. AC/DC was also formed while each member was a citizen of Oz. Cliff Williams, an Englishman, joined the band in '78 becoming a permanent member and Brian, a Geordie, replaced Bon in 1980 after, of course, Bon's untimely death. Phil Rudd, the other longtime member was also born Melbourne, AU.

Here's where things get difficult. Angus now lives in Holland, and both Brian and Cliff reside in Florida. Brian, in fact, has lived in Florida for around 20 years now. At last report, Phil was living in Tauranga, NZ and has lived in and operated various businesses for many years in thet country. Frankly, I'm not certain where Malcolm permanently resides but it's pretty well known that the Youngs return to Oz during Christmas and other special occasions. For example, when they've received awards from the Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA).

So, are we to include every country that can make some claim on AC/DC members? If we do that, the article would have to read Aussie/English/Scottish/Yankee/Dutch/New Zealander etc and so on! lol

My point is that the band was formed in Australia. No matter how many lineups they've been through, the seminal players (Ang & Mal) were Aussie's when they created AC/DC and I think that's how the article should read. NCC17 14:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Well actually, America and Holland etc. have no claim whatsoever on the band. Just because they lived there at some point doesn't mean thay are a part of that country. And that's exactly the point I've been making. Agreed, they have spent enough time in Australia to be considered Australian, but considering that almost every single one of them is actually regarded as British, it makes the band both. The band will remain as Australia/Britain, and it will not changed. We've agreed on it, and you will all stop reverting it back to the mistake of before. Suicidal Lemming 15:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This is getting beyond ridiculous. Looking at the current line-up of AC/DC, which is very relevant to the article indeed, one member is unequivocably Australian, and two are unequivocably British. Two past members (Wright and Slade) are also absolutely British, and one (Mark Evans) is undoubtedly Australian. Regardless of the nationality of the Young brothers and Scott, this alone is enough to warrant the term "Australian / British".
The fact that they formed the band in Australia is important, but it cannot deny the fact that at least two current members are British. To say the band are 100% Australian is simply inaccurate and any edit to that effect should be removed instantly. The question of the nationality / immigration of the Young brothers and Bon Scott should be addressed in the article without it having a bearing on the nationality of AC/DC as a band. Whether or not they are "considered" one or the other, even by someone as *relevant* as Elton John, this is an encyclopedia and we should be concerned with facts, not what Elton John thinks, or Rolling Stone, or anyone else. Rolling Stone hate AC/DC, so their viewpoint can be discarded as an unbiased source anyway. It doesn't matter how many people say they're all Australian, two members are completely British - that is a fact. Bretonbanquet 17:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you find a source to cite AC/DC being considered a british band and leave the things as in this revision: [4] No-Bullet 17:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
One more thing - when you type ACDC into the search bar, it comes up with a list of results. Under the result for the band, it refers to them as an Australian band, and just Australian. I have no idea how to change this. Could someone do so, or tell me how to? Suicidal Lemming 20:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
What do you expect to get when searching for an Australian Band. The info box Says Origin it refers to the origin of ACDC(band) not the individual members past or present. The Bands Origin is Sydney Australia that where it was formed, thats where it first played, thats where its early albums where initially released and thats where 32 references to this article say the band is from. Gnangarra 00:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I have again reverted to Australian, the reason even after asking for Verification of the cliam the bands origin is British that hasnt been forth coming. From where I sit the article has 32 references all of which say the Band is Austrtalian including Rolling Stone magazine an undesputed authorative source for all thing music and used a source for most articles on wikipedia about music. What I think is happening is that there is confusion between the defination of "origin" and the definition of "nationality". I dont dispute that members of the band both past and present are British citizens and that as British citizens they may(still unverified) appear on British charts because of this, but that doesnt change the origin of the band. Gnangarra 00:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I will keep reverting the article until you find a source saying the band is British. No-Bullet 17:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Origin of members is the same as the origin of the band. It will remain as both, as it is the correct and sensible thing to do. Do not revert to the previous error. Suicidal Lemming 17:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
origin of the Band and Nationality of the Members of the band are not the same thing Gnangarra 17:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

From User talk page

Stop reverting to the mistake made in the AC/DC article Please stop changing the AC/DC article back to the mistake made before. We have discussed it, and all agreed that it is true that they are both British and Australian. All you are doing is creating arguments, making large mistakes and getting yourself into a revert war that you can't win. Stop it now, and leave it as it is. Suicidal Lemming 15:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Please take the time to learn the meanings of origin and nationality. PLease also read all 32 sources for the article as your claim is unverifiable Gnangarra 00:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
My claim is 100% true. It is both Australian and British; if you had any common sense, you could see that. Stop reverting to the old error. Suicidal Lemming 17:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Please keep this discussion here only and refrain from personal attacks, I am only referring to the sources/references used in this article to correct the information in the Info box. I have asked for Verifiable reference to the claim the band is British which have yet be provided. Additionally please dont remove {{fact}} until you are able to provide a reference for the claim. Gnangarra 17:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Surely the facts that almost all of them are British and that they have primarily British influences is enough to make the claim that they are a British band? Therefore, the article will remain so.

You know where I stand. There is literally 0 chance of getting me to change my mind, so it's best just to stop now. Suicidal Lemming 17:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Based on the last comments from Suicidal Lemming who has violated WP:3RR, WP:CITE, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:OWN plus a couple of others. I suggest that this edit war and the users policy abuse be reported to Wikipedia Administrator noticeboard for more help. 207.179.148.97 17:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Almost every single members are British - check their pages and history. That is proof, and I have verified my claim. Why would I need an opinion from the Rolling Stones Magazine when the facts are right there? Personal attack, well, I didn't actually know about that rule, and I apologise. It was a fairly immature thing to do. I'll cross that out on his talk page. Also, I'm not the only one constantly reverting, so it's not fair to say only I did it, now is it. Suicidal Lemming 17:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

apology accepted Gnangarra 18:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I would like to say that while considering what happens to the article and users, everyone should remember that it's the facts that count. Almost all members are British, yet most have spent a large amount of time in Australia. Ergo, the band is both Australian and British.

Why would we change the article to fit in with what the Rolling Stone Magazine has said, or what Elton John has said? They themselves may not be in full possession of the facts, unlike us. The article should not be changed because someone important has an opinion - the article should be made to fit in with the facts. By this logic, AC/DC are both Australian and British. It is incorrect to state otherwise. Suicidal Lemming 18:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

lets move forward, the Band AC/DC formed in Sydney Australia, they played their first gig in Sydney, they recorded and released their first album in Australia. The article is about the "band" not about the "band members" they have their own articles, the infoxbox refers to the origin of the "band". As individuals I suspect that the current "band members" are all British citizens, as such would appear on lists of british entertainers as individuals. WP:Verify requires all facts to be verifiable, all I am asking is for a reliable source external to wikipedia that says "the british band AC/DC" or something very similar, where RollingStone comes in is that it is a recognisable authority on this style of music the bio they have on AC/DC doesnt refer to them being "british" or "australian/british" it calls them australian, and that any source provided needs to as reliable and authorative as them. The elton john quote looked like it was possible that he was supporting the position of the band being british(the only grey refernce currently in the article), so I took the time to investigate the comment made and found that three other bands undisputalbly british were also inducted. From this I deduced that he was not referring to AC/DC (ok thats borderline original research). The only facts I am using are the references already stated in the article, it is possible that there may be other information about the origin of the band that isnt verifiable from these references, You have indicated that you have possession of other facts please provide them.
third paragraph of the lead is acceptable, I'm not removing it from the article all that is needed there is a reference to a UK/british list that shows AC/DC within the contest of what is being said. WP:Verify and WP:CITE have a more thorough description of whats required, any editor can request this by adding {{fact}} that its against wp policy to remove it without providing the requested information or alternatively the whole statement can be removed. Gnangarra 18:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Surely the whole "mostly British members" thing would count as proof that the band is half and half?

If it were just a handful, then it would be an Australian band only, but almost all of them come from Britain. They are British citizens with British heritage. Personally, I would find that to be acceptable proof. Why would this not count? Suicidal Lemming 18:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

its 3am here my last words for tonight. The difference is between "band" and "band members" the article is talking about the "bands" origin(where it began) not the "band members" nationality. Gnangarra 18:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I second Gnangarra's opinion; nowhere have I seen AC/DC touted as a British band or a British-Australian band. AC/DC are an Australian band - formed in Australia, influenced by the Australian pub rock scene, had many of their early albums released seperately or, in one case exclusively, in Australia. I just don't see a British influence there at all, I mean, the only proper British citizens in the band are Cliff Williams and Brian Johnson who both joined a good while after the band initially formed. The Young brothers, although born in Scotland, grew up in Australia and I'm quite confident that they're Australian citizens and would declare themselves so. And I really don't see why their British roots should be mentioned in the leading paragraph. It's virtually unimportant. There's already an extensive section about the Young brothers time in Scotland and of course there's also their own articles. HK51 20:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

And another thing: Why have you placed Britain in the origins part of the infobox? It is downright wrong to say the band originates from Britain. They were formed in Australia and shaped their sound there, they originate from Australia HK51 20:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with both of you. Take a look here, the first paragraph says: "AC/DC first came into being in 1973, when Australian guitarist Malcolm Young's previous band..."
They were born in britain, but even the british press says they're australian. No-Bullet 20:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I've reached the point where I'm past caring, but "origin" is a fairly pointless thing to have in the infobox anyway, and "nationality" is more important in my opinion. AC/DC kicked off in Australia, but moved away in '76 because they outgrew the music scene there so quickly, and collectively never had a base there again. Two years in Australia and 30 elsewhere, mainly in Britain. The other thing I wanted to say is that OK, Cliff Williams joined 3 years after the band formed, but has been a member for 29 years, with Johnson present for 26. To say they're an Australian band is misleading, no matter how "accepted" it is. This isn't a great article, and rucking about things like this makes it all a bit of a farce. Bretonbanquet 23:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

But the origin of the band is Australia, so the band is australian. They moved to Gb later, but the band is still australian. No-Bullet 00:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
If you can't see that "the origin of the band is Australia, so the band is australian" is a total non-sequitur, then there's no point in having this discussion. Bretonbanquet 16:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, then i'm not right. The 32 sources in the article aren't right either. I'm still waiting to someone to show me a reliable source saying they're british. No-Bullet 01:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know who's saying they're a British band - I'm certainly not. What I am saying, and which is incontrovertible, is that at least two very long-standing members of the band are British, thus to say they're an Australian band is misleading. I don't know why anyone needs a source to prove it. Do you want 32 sources that say Johnson and Williams are British? If we are still banging on about "origin", I just don't see the relevance of it beyond explaining the beginnings of the band in the article.

Also there is a huge difference between AC/DC being Australian and them being "generally accepted" or "considered" to be Australian. If we are just pointing out the fact that the music media consider them to be Australian, we should make it clear. If we are blindly taking the music media's opinion to be fact without bothering ourselves whether it's true or not, then that's a sad state of affairs. I shan't be bothering to push this any further, so put what you like, but it'll still be misleading. Bretonbanquet 11:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

AC/DC is a band that was formed (or born to use the biographical equivalent) in Australia. Some of the members had British/Scottish roots and those indisputable facts are reflected in their own biographies. This article is about the Australian band called AC/DC. -- I@n 13:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Look, no-one's denying the fact that there have been many British members of the band. I just don't see how the band can originate from both Australia and Britain as Sucidal Lemming seems to think. The band was undeniably formed in Australia and this is where they developed their sound. And I think the origin is very important, I mean, where a band originates from is where they get their sound. Almost all the band biographies on Wikipedia I have looked at have it listed.
Now, it gets complicated as two of the current members are both English. So, I think changing the third paragraph of the lead to:
"Although the founding members grew up in Australia and the band itself was formed in Sydney, most of both the current and previous members are either British or of British descent. The band is often included in both British[citation needed] and Australian music polls and statistical lists."
Would be acceptable. Everyone's thoughts? HK51 13:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
this is all I've been wanting to have happen plus see your suggested third paragraph there are 31/32 references in the current article not one of them is a British(UK) music poll, all I want to see here is a reference to support that section similar to the Australian one, 2nd to only the wiggles earnings or something similar. So a top earnings list UK Band/Musicians most popular UK band type thing. Gnangarra 14:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
This was what I was referring to its been removed recently for example, in 2005 the band finished second in a list of highest-earning entertainers from Australia – trailing only The Wiggles – despite neither releasing an album nor touring that year.<ref>{{cite web | title=Wiggles wriggle back into top spot | work=TheAge.com.au | url=http://www.theage.com.au/news/people/wiggles-wriggle-back-into-top-spot/2006/04/12/1144521401699.html}}</ref>
Perhaps underneath the origin, we could state the nationality of the band? They are a mix of British and Australian, so perhaps this would be better. I saw this on the article a few months ago, but it's gone for some reason.

Would this be acceptable? Suicidal Lemming 20:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with classing the band's nationality as Australian-British and keeping the origin Australia. I'll wait for a few more views on this before I change it. HK51 21:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree too, but what do we do with the lead section? No-Bullet 23:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Huh? A band cannot have a nationality, only people can. Why can't you accept that the band is Australian? Inventing clasifications to suit your argument doesn't change the facts. -- I@n 01:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I@n, I find the comment, "A band cannot have a nationality, only people can," is somewhat debatable in common usage and we are not debating the nationalities of the individual band member. We know the nationalities of the musicians, we know where the music originated but we are trying to hammer out how this should be explained as succinctly and accurately as possible. By common usage I believe that people may say "British Intelligence Services" or "Indian Press" or "Chinese Merchant Navy" to imply the origin of these organisations or structures. To say I cannot use these because the Intelligence Services, Press or Merchant Navy are not people seems counter productive to the use of an adjective.
This is about how we apply the correct adjective (or not) to describe AC/DC. Your comment doesn't really help to further the debate and if you read the comments more carefully I suspect you would see we already understand what you have stated but not the other way around . Candy 03:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I do undertstand the debate and was responding to Suicidal Lemmings statement "Perhaps underneath the origin, we could state the nationality of the band?" above. Stating the bands origin as Australia is clear enough in tbe infobox. In the text we need to establish a phrase which is supported by citations. -- I@n 04:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Why would only one band need to have a band member nationality in the info box, we are also making presumptions(reasonable at that) based on place of birth that the band members are british citizens. The proposed third paragraph covers this position, to add information into the Info box should be something thats taken to the Wikiproject music to create a standard format for all bands. Gnangarra 04:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Now I think that it is a stretch to say that the place of birth determines a persons origin. If I was to say that ACDC was British(2 out of 5 were), I could also argue they were Scottish(with 2 out of 5 as well). It is saying a person that has lived in Australia nearly all their life, with not even being able remember his birth country is not Aussie. Here it is called Un-Australian. --Bass Masta 13:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

I am referring this dispute to WP:RfC for input please leave the article in its current state. Gnangarra 11:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Only saw this after I reverted. Feel free to change it back until this has been sorted out. Suicidal Lemming 11:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Have done, be aware the we have now both revrted twice in the last hour and that any further reverts of this information will be against WP:3RR. If you see any vandalism you'll need to ask an other editor to revert. Gnangarra 11:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

RfC

As the editor who promoted this to GA status just a few weeks ago, I find it distressing to see this article on RfC. As a neutral party, I'll summarize what I see in this dispute:

  1. The band formed in Australia. Their first releases were in Australia only.
  2. Some of the band members were British. Of these, some of them emigrated to Australia at a very young age. Two non-original members have never been Australian citizens. (I hope I've gotten this part right).
  3. Their influences were mainly British. Or their influences were mainly Australian. I'm not sure because both sides have been argued (without references provided on the talk page).
  4. Most verifiable sources identify them as Australian.

Since the version of the article I approved for GA listed the band as Australian, let's take that as baseline (fair or not). The claim that some editors seem to be making is that - in some way - they're better described as a hyphenated Australian-British band. Per WP:V, burden of proof lies with the people who want to redefine this as a hyphenated band.

Fair disclosure: I'm not a rock historian and most of the editors here know AC/DC better than I do. I'm also neutral in the sense of having no national pride at stake (I'm a Yank). So how would these solutions strike the editors here:

  1. Pro-hyphen editors provide evidence for certain members' British origins and identities: include a subheading (probably a fair way down in the article) that details the British origins of certain band members.
  2. Pro-hyphen editors provide verifiable evidence of hyphenated band identity such as a Rolling Stone or other notable industry publication article that identifies the band as Australian-British: larger subheading about British origins and identities.
  3. Pro-hyphen ediors provide strong evidence for a hyphenated identity: this is a little hard to quantify, but it might include a founding (and creatively influential) member stating, "I think of us as both Australian and British" in an interview or detailing a list of specifically British bands as creative influences. In this case, introduce the group as both Australian and British in the opening paragraph and put the article under both categories.

Does this look fair to everyone? Durova 04:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Part one in your solution isnt needed as this isnt disputed, that current and past members of the band are/were british citizens. The other parts are fine thats all I've asked is that those wishing to change provide proof that the band (not the individual members) originated somewhere other than Australia. Gnangarra 14:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, this is fair, at least for me. No-Bullet 21:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
It's been almost a week and nobody posted a source. I'll delete the last paragraph in the lead section. No-Bullet 21:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

An anon editor has added a trivia section which seems to have been sourced from http://www.angelfire.com/al/ACDCpage/FAQ.html. Some of these (eg. "Dracula Rocks" don't appear to be verifiable - no such movie I can find) which gives me doubts about all of them. Can any trivia experts comment? I personally hate trivia sections and wouldn't be opposed to it being removed. -- I@n 15:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a trivia expert and I also hate trivia sections. I think some of the information there is false and unverifiable, so I'll try to find a reliable source. No-Bullet 16:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I didn't find anything, I'll wait a day or two and if nothing happens I'll remove the section. No-Bullet 23:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like a good plan. Thanks. -- I@n 02:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Some people still have to learn that just because it's printed it doesn't make it reliable! Candy 06:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

If you ever do find a reliable source for this information, it would be best to incorporate it into the List of tributes to AC/DC in popular culture article. HK51 22:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Original lineup?

I suggest to replace this:

Original line-up

with this:

Classic line-up

  • Angus Young — lead guitar
  • Malcolm Young — rhythm guitar / backing vocals
  • Bon Scott — lead vocals
  • Mark Evans — bass
  • Phil Rudd — drums

since the 'original lineup' with mark evans isn't as relevant as the "Bon Scott era". What do you think? No-Bullet 00:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I prefer having the 'Classic' line-up as it was AC/DC's first stable line-up. HK51 06:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

No place fo both? Candy 12:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I think theres good reason to retain the Original line up, and the suggestion of the more recognised "classical" lineup is interesting, but then it raises the question of should each variation of line up be listed. Gnangarra 14:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
there is this Past members of AC/DC already linked so suggest that original/current in the article is sufficient Gnangarra


Pioneers of Heavy metal

"Although the group is generally considered to be a pioneer of hard rock and Heavy metal music, along with Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath,[4] the members have always referred to their music as "rock 'n' roll"" I think Deep Purple should be added to the list as they are one of the major influence to the development of both hard rock and heavy metal, not as popular as sabath and zep but still very influential. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.111.8.97 (talk) 15:12, 10 October, 2006.

I only added those names because that what's the source says, however, I think it should be right to add Deep Purple because that is what it says in the Hard rock article: "The two genres have some crossover for example; the pioneers of heavy metal, such as Black Sabbath, Deep Purple and Led Zeppelin are often considered both "Heavy Metal" and "Hard Rock"." No-Bullet 23:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Typo

During the intro section the last paragraph has a typo. It says "Well know band" and should be well known band. However, I can't find a way to change it, so you guys will have to do it. 20:43 PM CST Presidentjlh (UTC)

Cliff Williams

I'm not to sure we want to write that Cliff Williams "announced his retirement from the band". Literally all of the Williams news dials back to an interview he gave with Gulfshore Life in which he said "after this tour I’m backing off of touring and recording". The publication decided to report that as his "retirement" and various other music news outlets picked up on that. However, check Rolling Stone's article here. They correctly report that he "hinted at retirement" and that's a much more accurate description of what actually happened. I don't think we should be in the business of trying to interpret primary source material, but we should be realistic about what's really happening here. --Laser brain (talk) 12:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

It's pathetic and NOTNEWS. MaxBrowne (talk · contribs) saw fit that this unreferenced bit of crap be included on this FA article.[5] I took serious issue with the completely OR statement "putting the future of the band in doubt" bit; and I was banished from his talk page subsequently. Just garbage. Doc talk 12:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
MaxBrowne's been scrambling to justify at least some of the previously unreferenced attempt at content inclusion. I will scrutinize it carefully. Doc talk 12:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Are we done now? Several media outlets (e.g. SMH, Guardian) *did* report that the future of the band was in doubt, both after Brian Johnson's departure/sacking and after Cliff Williams' intended retirement. I am a competent editor and I don't like being disrespected. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
If several media outlets reported that the future of the band was in doubt... why didn't you use them as references?! I don't think you understand the difference between adding referenced content and adding your own OR. In fact, it's quite easily proven that you don't. Content with no references, as well as content that is unsupported by references provided, cannot remain. It's so simple. Doc talk 09:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
My preference is always to go back to the original source, in this case Gulfshore Life and Rolling Stone, but like most I read about it from from other sources originally. Media outlets do "OR" all the time. All you really needed to do was snip the "putting the future of the band in doubt" part. Instead you went into full-on revert bully mode, which is always going to get people's backs up. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
The WP:BURDEN is on you when you include something here. You don't add it first, then look around for references. You don't add it expecting others to reference it for you. Do not add unreferenced material! Media outlets certainly do OR all the time. However, it's against policy here. Doc talk 10:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the lesson, now go back to trolling ANI. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Hey, guess what? No one is going to disagree with me on this one. Get it? You lose. Doc talk
So it's about WP:WINNING now? Stay away from me, you are everything that's wrong with wikipedia. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Facepalm Facepalm . Do not edit mainspace articles if you want me to "stay away from you". You add unreferenced, OR garbage. I am not only perfectly within my rights to remove it: I am duty-bound as an editor. Removing it protects our readers from seeing unencyclopedic garbage passed off as fact. Thanks fer stoppin' by. Doc talk 11:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I am a content creator, mainspace is what I do. Your editing stats indicate that you are more interested in drama, especially trolling at ANI. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
You cannot declare this edit to be legitimate "content creation".[6] You simply cannot. There's no fucking reference!!! You seriously do not know what the hell you're talking about. Doc talk 11:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Hope its okay to jump in here, after further research I can find no reference to support your edit MaxBrowne. The thing about Wikipedia is that we can't speculate things that we have no clear reference for. Also, just because you are "content creator" does not mean you can not be fact checked by your peers, that is the basis of Wikipedia. RexPatricius (talk) 11:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Your analysis is correct. I'm disappointed that MaxBrowne is being so unreasonable about this. There's simply no justification for his edit under policy. He basically made it up out of thin air. Content creators should know that referencing their content is sort of important. Perhaps there are other examples of OR? I would say the odds are good after this debacle. Doc talk 11:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Nothing was made up out of thin air, similar statements were made in several media outlets. Your abrasive approach has caused way more drama than needed to happen, all you needed to do was remove "putting the future of the band in doubt with "not supported by source" and we'd be done. Instead you went into wholesale revert bully mode. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
It is not my, nor anyone else's, responsibility to clean up your edits. The burden is solely on you. I also don't have to hold your hand and gently delete your unreferenced content with a smile and a song. I could care less that you think I'm a "bully". Follow policy. Doc talk 13:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Good idea, start with the one on civility. It's not just about being nice, it's about improving the encyclopedia. Getting people's backs up doesn't do that. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Now the Daily Mail source is back again, which is incorrectly reporting what Williams said to Gulfshore Life. I don't think this is the way to do this. @Mlpearc: I would appreciate your joining the discussion here instead of just reverting the recent changes. --Laser brain (talk) 13:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I tried "indicated", which is somewhere in between "hinted at" and "announced" because it didn't sound too ambiguous to me. Can play around with the wording if you like but should probably leave the actual quote intact. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Ahem, back to the matter at hand. I don't think it's supportable to say anything more than that Williams talking about scaling back his activity with the band. And I agree with Doc9871 that this amounts to NOTNEWS and isn't worth mentioning. Just because something can be sourced doesn't mean we have to include it in the article. Anyone who's been around the music business knows that musicians talk about stopping/starting/doing something else all the time, and trigger-happy journalists love to pick up on such statements and write articles about the doom of the band. I say we use common sense and leave this material out until there's an official announcement that Williams has left the band. --Laser brain (talk) 11:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Follow-up comment - Obviously things have changed now that the Rock or Bust tour is over and Williams has given an interview confirming his retirement. At this time, the article is suffering from a bit of a stability problem (considering it is an FA) and currently the lead and section on Williams leaving aren't completely accurate or in compliance with WP:LEAD. --Laser brain (talk) 12:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on AC/DC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Heavy metal

I think we should add heavy metal. I think the only reason why people don't consider AC/DC metal is because they don't down-tune their guitars and have blast beats and stuff like that. But songs such as "Hell's Bells", "Let There Be Rock", "For Those About to Rock (We Salute You)" and "Whole Lotta Rosie" ARE metal songs. They are way heavier and louder than Led Zeppelin. The heavy riffs, strong vocals, etc. make AC/DC a metal band. Not all AC/DC songs are metal. But some AC/DC songs are metal. Also, heavy metal has citations. Statik N (talk) 02:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

@Statik N: What sources do you have to support the inclusion ? I wouldn't oppose adding it if there are sources. - Mlpearc (open channel) 02:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
There are 4 sources for heavy metal in the lead of the article. Statik N (talk) 02:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
:P, I assumed this was a new addition. I can only access the first reference and with just one reporter on one weekend, I'd have to oppose. - Mlpearc (open channel) 02:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
I also oppose. Sources can be found for a large number of genres and sub-genres, of which HM is one. It's about the majority of reliable sources, not just a couple that someone has found. Many people consider AC/DC to absolutely not be heavy metal, so adding this sub-genre has always been controversial. Being heavier than Led Zeppelin is hardly a rationale for considering a band to be HM. AC/DC are not even close to the style or heaviness of widely accepted metal bands of the same era, such as Iron Maiden, Judas Priest or Budgie. Genres should only be added or removed if there is a clear consensus to do so. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
With the really strong vocals, the loud electric guitars and heavy riffs, I think AC/DC are definitely kind of metal. I'm going to add more sources for metal. Also, both hard rock and blues rock only have one source while heavy metal has four sources (and I'm adding more sources for metal). Statik N (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Many people probably don't consider Aerosmith, Led Zeppelin or Kiss heavy metal bands either. However, all those bands have heavy metal on their genre fields. Statik N (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
@Statik N: Aerosmith, Led Zeppelin or Kiss genre's have nothing to do with other bands, it is highly conceivable that a Techno-Punk band can have Heavy-Metal songs or albums. - Mlpearc (open channel) 19:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
What I'm saying is if bands such as Aerosmith and Led Zeppelin can get called metal then why can't AC/DC get called metal? If people consider Aerosmith and Led Zeppelin metal then why don't they consider AC/DC metal? Statik N (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I know exactlly what you mean, but that still has nothing to do with AC/DC - Mlpearc (open channel) 19:32, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

(e/c) It really doesn't matter what happens on other articles because each article is dealt with separately. Personally I think the idea that LZ can be called heavy metal is ludicrous, but I don't edit that article. Maybe there's a consensus there, I don't know. But there needs to be one here if another genre is to be added. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Also, we don't need large numbers of references for the same fact in the text. One or two will suffice. For the infobox, a consensus is required. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Before the New Wave of British Heavy Metal, about the only band that really embraced the term "Heavy Metal" was Judas Priest. Even Motörhead, silly umlaut and gothic lettering and all, rejected the term "heavy metal", preferring "hard rock" or "rock n roll". Several members of AC/DC are on record expressing similar sentiments. They're Beatles and Rolling Stones fans, they just play louder. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

José Norberto Flesch on Axl Rose Joining

IMO, I think the article needs to be consistent. The current situation seems to be one reporter (José Norberto Flesch) reporting that Axl has joined the band. The other "journalists" seem to be running with it. Does this constitute a reliable source or not? If so, we should list Axl as a current member. If not, we should not list him as a current member. My personal opinion is that this single source is not reliable, but we should word the article just like the band would, ambiguously. --Bark (talk) 19:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

However, Axl Rose somehow ostnovnoy added to the group. Is there any serious argument about this?--Jimi Henderson (talk) 12:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
There's always argument about stuff like this, for any band that has "core members" and then some musicians who rotate over time. What's the definition of a full member versus a "touring member", "touring musician", "guest musician", etc? These things have never really been defined so they get argued about across many articles. An example I always cite is Toto. They have a core of guys who formed the band, basically Steve Lukather, David Paich, and various Porcaro brothers. Every time they make an album or tour they have different drummers, bassists, sometimes keyboarists, on an on. Who's a member? --Laser brain (talk) 13:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
@MrBark: It seems to be reliable at this point, if a better source says its wrong, we can change it, what a concept</sarcasm> :P Mlpearc (open channel) 13:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
No need for sarcasm. The very nature of reliability is that more than one source makes a report. Unfortunately, this band rarely makes official statements. Consequently, there's always a lot of rumors with them. (See the story about the cover band singer joining the band before Axl committed?) It also seem that reporters these days just like to propagate the initial rumor instead of hitting the street to investigate for themselves. In any event, I just wanted to endorse some consistency within the articles, one way or the other. --Bark (talk) 14:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree <s></sarcasm></s> on the other hand, Unfortunately, this band rarely makes official statements, this band has never been in this situation before either. Mlpearc (open channel) 14:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
How this constitutes Rose becoming an official member of the band is a mystery to me. They're not currently touring with him, nor recording with him, nor have they announced that he's officially joined the band. He was hired to finish the tour. It's finished. An absence of further official statements doesn't mean we have to go with some no-mark reporter who has no connection with the band whatsoever, as far as I can see. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree there has been no official word that axl is in the band permanently. The sources cited are from a internet forum. No official news sites list axl as the official lead vocalist. Angus hasn't even commented if the band will continue. Until we hear it from the horses mouth I say we drop axl as a permanent member and make him a former touring member. Not even AC/DCs website lists Axl as a official member. The sources cited are invalid and are just spewing rumors. That's all it is is rumors. No official word has been given that Axl is a full time member of AC/DC.F4280 (talk) 08:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Is the band still Australian?

The current members are Angus Young (Australian), Chris Slade (Welsh), Stevie Young (Scottish) and Axl Rose (American). How is this band still Australian? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Because it was formed in Australia by Australians. There's nothing that says bands take the nationality of their members as the lineups change. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
The band is Australian as it was formed in Australia & established itself there before conquering the world. I think there have only ever been two members that were actually born in Australia, with most being born in the UK - but there's no way you'd describe AC/DC as a British band. Gwladys24 (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Would it not be simpler to just drop the descriptive due to the confusion caused over the nationality of the band makeup? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1015:B11B:7D3E:AF2:E6C7:5B25:6274 (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
No, do not remove the descriptive text. The band was formed in Australia and will always be Australian. How is that confusing ? Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 20:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Per wiki policy, please remain civil and assume good faith as your response appear to lack thus, although I apologize if that was not the intention of your chosen language.
You ask how is it confusing? I have just glanced at the archives and seen evidence that for 10 years, people are confused about the issue based off the different national makeup of current and former members. The confusion, based off looking at former peoples arguments, is not based of formation location. People are clearly not looking at that, and are confused by a subject t you avoided. I do concede the point you make.
Considering the issue keeps cropping up, and has for ten years, the above suggestion - from a non involved editor I.e. myself, who has made no edits to this article or the talkpage until today- was, would it not be easier (to avoid continued debate and thus save everyone some time) to change the intro line to simply "AC/DC are an rock band..."? The rest of the article remains the same detailing their Australian origin. This was not a suggestion to remove or take credit away from anyone, but to avoid repetitive debate.2600:1015:B11B:7D3E:AF2:E6C7:5B25:6274 (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
An alternative would be to reword the whole first sentence to something akin: "AC/DC is a rock band, formed in Sydney, Australia during 1973, by brothers Malcolm and Angus Young." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1015:B11B:7D3E:AF2:E6C7:5B25:6274 (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:AC/DC/Archive_3&oldid=1177392337"