Talk:Guns N' Roses/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Edit request on 15 January 2012

The Slash Tweet inappropriately has a sic reference when it should not. Slash signs all of his Tweets using an emoticon avatar [Iii|);'], intended to represent his signature hat, a wink, a smile, and a cigarette. The sic should be removed as he clearly wasn't misspelling a given word.

24.13.177.226 (talk) 06:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Not done Sic means 'it appears this way in the original', which frequently means misspelling, but is meant to highlight that we're paying attention, as should the reader. Dru of Id (talk) 06:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 April 2012

you have the incorrect "Doug Goldstein" linked to the Guns N Roses biography, as their manager in 1991. I knew him, and that is clearly NOT the Doug Goldstein. who has a long history of involvement with Bands before G n R. relink to the correct person!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.153.29.101 (talk) 04:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

•  Done Could find no article for the other Goldstein so just unlinked his name. AIRcorn (talk) 04:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

all of the songs by guns n roses that "made it" were written in 1987 or prior.....axl is still living in the past.....yet he states for people to move on..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.218.18.115 (talk) 03:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Stop The Edit Wars

From now on any changes made to the time or the personal in this article will be reverted unless there is previous discussion and consensus before the changes are made. This has been going back and forth for far too long. Ridernyc (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

"New" Guns N' Roses vs. New "Guns N' Roses"

I believe it's against site policy to refer to the post-1996 GNR lineups as Guns N' Roses in quotation marks, as it shows bias, which is something Wikipedia is against. I've changed the header from New "Guns N' Roses" to "New" Guns N' Roses as I believe this follows Wikipedia policy more closely. Bacardimayne (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

EDIT REQUEST ON APRIL 13 2013.

Guns n Roses are an american Glam Metal band not Hard Rock band — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.233.65 (talk)

Source? --Onorem♠Dil 23:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Linguistics

This article, as almost every one on Wikipedia, need an exhaustive linguistical correction.

For example, titled and entitled are two different words with different meanings:

Correct: ... titled Appetite for Destruction. Incorrect: ... *entitled Appetite for Destruction.

81.184.154.202 (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Sleaze Metal genre

Really? It keeps getting reverted by Flat Out saying that it needs to be discussed, yet there is no discussion to be found on the talk page. Oddly enough, this non-existent genre was just added a week ago by one IP, removed by another IP later that day, and then has been reverted ever since stating "Changes to genre need to be discussed. " when the addition of this so-called "genre" was never discussed in the first place. Are you even paying attention to what you're reverting? Anyway, I'm removing the "genre" addition of Sleaze Metal as it clearly doesn't belong. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 04:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I made an error in an attempt to remove "sleaze metal" as a genre which, as you point out, was added without discussion. I was inadvertently putting it back in by selecting the wrong version to restore. Thanks for picking up my mistake. I have apologised to the XLRider for my mistake, and you have corrected the article for which I am grateful. Flat Out Let's discuss it 07:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Influences

In checking an addition of Fall Out Boy to the list of bands influenced by GnR, I found that the existing source listed did not support the claim that many of the bands were influenced by GnR. Also, that bio is a subset of Wikipedia and therefore not a reliable source. Flat Out let's discuss it 05:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Intro Paragraphs

I'm not sure why the names of the new live members are being listed in the intro. Technically, Axl Rose is the only official member of the band. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.97.126 (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Before changing an established lead, you should have first provided sources that state that Axl is the only official member. As for sources for the current lineup; The Guardian, The Hollywood Reporter, NY Daily News, MTV, Sound Spike, LF Press, Gibson. As far as I'm aware, Axl has never referred to them as just the live members; "he said, he's made peace with the fact that some people will never think of the current lineup as the "real" GN'R. In fact, he admitted that even he refers to the current band as "Guns" and the classic Use Your Illusion roster as "Old Guns."" - MTV" HrZ (talk) 14:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

"As of August 2013, no official statement about a new album has been released. "

This statement is pointless. There's no need for it. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site or a news article. If we did this, every actor, every musician, every band, every author, etc. would need similar statements. This would be ridiculous. There may never be another album, so until there is, there's no need to announce that there isn't one. No statement says the same thing. Not to mention, the statement is unsourced. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Further illustrating my point, if we need this line, then why don't we also need statements along the lines of "As of August 2013, no official statement about an official tour has been released" or "As of August 2013, no official statement about the band's status has been released" or "As of August 2013, no official statement about Slash returned to the band has been released" or "As of August 2013, no official statement about Axl Rose still being alive has been released"? Am I making my point? We could end every paragraph with a statement like this. It's dumb to try and prove a negative. See: Evidence of absence. Jauersock^dude?/_dude. 13:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Last paragraph in history section

Can somebody clean this short paragraph up? It appears to be in broken English and I don't know for sure what exactly it's trying to say about the listed tour dates. I've fixed paragraphs like this before but I'm reluctant to do this one in case I get a few facts wrong in the process, so I'd rather leave it to somebody more knowledgeable and with a better grasp of English :) Vicious Friendly Fish (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Genre in the infobox

I would like to reach a consensus on changing the genre in the infobox to just "Rock". The reason for this is that Wikipedia's policy dictates that the genre(s) in the infobox be as general and simple as possible. More info on what specific genres Guns N' Roses play can be fleshed out in the musical style section (which, by the way, I think needs a bit of expanding, as well as separation from Legacy, but I digress) with appropriate sources. Twyfan714 (talk) 22:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Influence on Pop culture

I think this article needs a paragraph about their references in pop culture. Such as references in film, music and so forth. Most recently being referenced lyrically in Death Grips' new single. noskap (talk) 05:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Recognition of the original band members...

In the Guns N' Roses page, under "band members", it states nothing about them and doesn't even show them in the timeline chart, but Tracii Guns was the original lead guitarist and was replaced by Slash. It shows Slash as the original lead guitarist. Check Tracii Guns Wiki page for reference. Also...Ole Beich was the original bassist and replaced by Duff McKagan and Rob Gardner was the original drummer and replaced by Steven Adler. Tracii Guns, Ole Beich & Rob Gardner were there for a brief term in 1985. THis information is on Tracii Guns' wiki page AND is on "List of Guns N' Roses band members" wiki page...but doesn't show on the "Guns N Roses" wiki page, anywhere. It should show on this page, as well, as this page gets a lot more traffic than the other page, I am sure and fairly, it should show this information on all their available pages. Tracii Guns and Axle Rose combined their 2 bands "L.A. Guns and Hollywood Rose", to form Guns N Roses. 71.228.214.31 (talk) 04:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Bumblefoot's status

So, for months there has been too much speculation about Bumblefoot's status on the band. The matter has been raised again recently when DJ Ashba quit, and even more now that one journalist said Ron was indeed out of the band, according to "a source". I wonder if we should wait until the band, Bumblefoot himself or maybe the label say anything about it before we update the article, or if that report is enough. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 17:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd say wait until either the band officially confirms it or Bumblefoot himself flat out states "i'm no longer in GNR". An 'anoynmous' source isn't reliable, even though it's probably correct. RF23 (talk) 05:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Even though it hasn't been officially announced, it was journalist Gary Graff (a reliable source) who reported on it, so I'll include it but make sure it's noted that it's not 100% official. RF23 (talk) 10:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The Genre Section

The genre infobox is really out of hand. Simple descriptions (a perfect band example would be the Stones' page: Rock, Blues, Pop) are all that is necessary. All that this extra shit does is create controversy between those who think GNR are a "punk rock" or "electronic rock" (seriously?) band and those who are normal. 96.59.26.107 (talk) 22:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

There's no controversy when the genres are sourced. Guns N' Roses has created music that has spanned multiple genres, therefore multiple genres are listed. RF23 (talk) 00:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

And the Beatles didn't? Obviously the Beatles discography spanned a far greater wealth of music through influence than the Guns N' Roses, however in their infobox only two genres are listed. It is more streamlined and effective that way. Hard rock and heavy metal sum up the overarching influence throughout Guns N Roses entire career, rather than some influences here and there, much like pop and rock summarize the breadth of Beatles' music. TheDeathKingTheGodfather 03:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

TheDeathKingTheGodfather has a point. The infobox genres should fit the band's description from the opening sentence. Guns N' Roses are American hard rock/heavy metal band, but they could not be defined as an American electronic/blues rock/industrial rock band.--Retrohead (talk) 18:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll concede on this one. I just finished moving the genres and merging the sources into the article. I never really considered the infobox genre to be "What style of band are they" instead of a "What genres of music have they done", but it definitely makes more sense that way. RF23 (talk) 12:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Which is it: "Guns N' Roses are" or "Guns N' Roses is"?

Since multiple editors are reverting one another over this issue, it seems it is time to revisit the 2006 discussion which previously addressed it. My reading of that discussion is that the outcome favored "Guns N' Roses is"; Arjayay draws the opposite conclusion, so we can't simply go by that outcome as a guide.

I'm conversant with Commonwealth Englishes and aware that "[groupname] are" is standard in some non-US varieties of English, though I was raised American. I don't know whether everyone currently interested in this issue — Arjayay, PubliusHadrianus, Ringerfan23 and me (ElKevbo seems to be the only member of the original 2006 discussion still actively editing; Archiveng and Jauersock were involved in the next-most-recent dispute over this issue) — is aware of the US vs. Commonwealth English difference in how groups are treated grammatically.

Of note is the fact that, before September of this year (unless I missed some edits), the article had begun "Guns N' Roses is" since October of 2013, which at least implies consensus on the part of everyone who edited it between then and September 2015. (Prior to the brief dispute between Archiveng and Jauersock, it was "is" going back to March 2012, when there was another brief dispute between HrZ, MiMiN and Prayer for the wild at heart; both of the disputes prior to this one were resolved in favor of "is", and it was "is" for some time prior to March 2012 that I haven't dug back far enough in the history to determine.) Speaking of which, Ringerfan23 was active as a frequent contributor to the article for months before abruptly deciding to change the grammar of the first sentence; I wonder what prompted them to change their mind?

I look forward to discussing this grammatical quandary with all of you until we can establish a new consensus. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 15:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Although this isn't a US v UK English dispute, the advice at Comparison of American and British English#Formal and notional agreement is still very useful.
As Guns N' Roses is/are an American band we have to decide whether the title Guns N' Roses is a singular, or a plural, and use the appropriate verb form.
If singular, as in our articles on Metallica, Megadeth, The Velvet Underground, Nirvana or Blondie (sorry I can't think of a singular US sports team) we use the singular "is".
If plural, as in our articles on the Ramones, The Stooges, The Byrds, The Ozark Mountain Daredevils, The Osmonds (!) or the New York Jets we use the plural "are"
So, is/are Guns N' Roses singular or plural?
Both the individual words, "Guns" and "Roses" are plurals, (not just words ending in "s") whilst " 'N " is a contraction of "and", so the 2 plurals are compounded into a further plural.
IMHO Guns N' Roses are clearly plural, so we should use "are". - Arjayay (talk) 16:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Arjayay. Mlpearc (open channel) 16:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't recall ever being in a dispute over this, but I checked and my argument then was the same as Arjayay's: proper nouns that are plural in form take a plural verb in both AmE and BrE. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 17:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

As with many grammatical rules which are commonly misunderstood, there is a test to see which verb form to use. If the members of a group can reasonably be referred to as the singular form of the group name, then the group name is to be taken as plural and "are" would be the correct form. For example, a member of the Stooges can be called a Stooge, and a member of the Ramones is a Ramone (just as family names are treated, the Joneses are, but Jane Jones is). But applying this test to Guns N' Roses, it's clear that an individual member of Guns N' Roses is neither a Gun, nor a Rose, nor a Gun N' Rose. Thus, "Guns N' Roses" is an indivisible name of a group of musicians, and "Guns N' Roses is" should be used. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 18:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I am unaware of any AmE versus BrE distinction that would be relevant. Then again, I really only know AmE. However, I tend towards "Guns N' Roses is", and that's what I used while copyediting. I support the test proposed by GrammarFascist, which elegantly handles every circumstance I can think of.PubliusHadrianus (talk) 03:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

−Hello Missingbleeckerbob here. I see there is a debate about whether to use "is" or "are" for Guns N' Roses. I agree with GrammarFascist. No one in the band is a Guns N' Rose unlike a Beatle, a Bangle, a Traveling Wilbury, a Ramone and so on.

In this case, Guns N' Roses is a singular entity as a band.

Here is a good example:

"It depends if the plural has a singular that can refer to the members.

The Beatles is my favourite group In this context, we're referring to the group directly.

Paul McCartney is my favourite Beatle, but I like the other Beatles too In this context, we consider each band member a Beatle, in which case we can absolutely use the plural form." Missingbleeckerbob (talk) 23:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

References

{{Reflist-talk}} template inserted here by GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 16:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Members of GNR have been informally referred to as "Gunners" on occasion. Would it make any difference that the band name is specifically two entities put together (Hollywood Rose & LA Guns)? RF23 (talk) 15:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Two requests:-

1. Can we please avoid any discussion of The Beatles, or any other non US band. BrE grammar is different from AmE grammar, and this will only confuse matters further.
2. Can anyone quote a reputable AmE grammar textbook that covers this matter? So far everything (my comments included) is entirely unsourced, so is just the writers PoV.
   The phrase "As with many grammatical rules which are commonly misunderstood, there is a test to see which verb form to use." is just empty rhetoric without a reliable source.
   We need a source to state what parameters, or tests, are the determining factor(s) in this instance. What is that source? And what, exactly, does it say?
   Unfortunately, grammar does not appear well covered on the internet, especially by reputable, reliable, sources, so we may need a "dead-tree" source; but everything in Wikipedia should be based on a RS, and until such a source is provided, we are just discussing our preferences and PoVs, and will never reach a lasting consensus. - Arjayay (talk) 09:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I usually try to avoid getting involved in things like this, but "Guns N' Roses" is a band. It is an entity. That should resolve the issue, though I know from past experience that it won't. Neutron (talk) 17:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

In collective nouns, AME English prefers the singular form, while BRE prefers plural. However, the fact that both "guns" and "roses" are plurals is more important. Use plural forms, BRE or AME isn't important in this particular case. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to think that this would settle the issue, but it likely won't. I checked Wikipedia's Manual of Style and it explicitly says that in AME collective nouns (such as band names) are "almost invariably" treated as singular, that is, "Guns N' Roses is". Applying this guideline, we should use "Guns N' Roses is" throughout the article, unless someone can conclusively show that Guns N' Roses is one of the rare exceptions. PubliusHadrianus (talk) 01:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that because it's a plural anyway, the rules of collective nouns are unimportant when a noun is in plural form.

British English. The Beatles are/were - The Clash are/were American English The Bangles are/were - Van Halen is/was

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_American_and_British_English#Formal_and_notional_agreement

"Proper nouns that are plural in form take a plural verb in both AmE and BrE; for example, The Beatles are a well-known band; The Seahawks are the champions, with one major exception: in American English, the United States is almost universally used with a singular verb"

Spacecowboy420 (talk) 05:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I went to the library and found dead-tree sources

Good news, everyone! Well, not the best possible news, because I didn't find any grammar guides that covered the question of how to handle band names specifically. Still, I think we can take guidance from the following sources. I have done my best to preserve formatting found in the originals; ellipses that were present in the source are unmarked, while elisions I have made are indicated by brackets like so: [...] for clarity. I used {{tq}} to show what's a quotation and what isn't, since the quotations themselves contain both quotation marks and indenting, making use of either of those as the sole indicator potentially confusing. (I have still used blockquote for each one as well.) All other formatting, including indentation and italics, is as found in the sources, except bolding which I used to indicate the most relevant phrases for our purposes. I tried to include as much context as seemed appropriate so as to avoid the appearance of cherry-picking. Note that the source information for each quotation is listed before the quotation.

• The American Heritage Book of English Usage. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. 1996. pp. 11, 36–7. ISBN 0-395-76786-5.

In American usage, a collective noun takes a singular verb when it refers to the collection considered as a whole, as in The family was united on this question or The enemy is suing for peace. It takes a plural verb when it refers to the members of the group considered as individuals, as in My family are always fighting among themselves or The enemy were showing up in groups of three or four to turn in their weapons. [...]

Be careful not to treat a collective noun as both singular and plural in the same construction. Thus you should say The family is determined to press its (not their) claim.

Collective nouns always refer to living creatures. Similar inanimate nouns, such as furniture and luggage, differ in that they cannot be counted individually.

^p.11

In Modern English, a compound subject connected by and normally takes a plural verb: Rebecca and Martha play in the same band. The house and the barn are on the same property. Their innovative idea, persistence, and careful research have finally paid off. When a subject is followed by a conjoining prepositional phrase, such as as well as, in addition to, or with, the verb should be singular: Jesse as well as Luke likes jazz. The old school along with the playground is up for sale. Sometimes compound subjects are governed by a sense of unity and by notional agreement take a singular verb: My name and address is printed on the box. His colleague and friend (one person) deserves equal credit. This sense of unity is not simply a stylistic flourish. Using a singular or plural verb changes the meaning of the sentence. Eating garlic and drinking red wine sometimes gives me a headache means that the combination of garlic and red wine can cause a headache. With a plural verb (give) the sentence implies garlic and red wine act separately; either can bring a headache.

^p.36–7

• Booher, Dianna (2009). Booher's Rules of Business Grammar: 101 Fast and Easy Ways to Correct the Most Common Errors. New York: McGraw-Hill. pp. 44–5. ISBN 978-0-07-148668-2.

In most situations, collective nouns act as a single unit, so they need a singular verb. [...] On occasion, however, these collective nouns can refer to the members of a group individually. When that's the case, make the verb plural.

The team argued among itself about how to present the results.

The committee has spoken out against one another to various reporters.

However, sentences like the last two generally sound better if reworded:

The team members argued among themselves about how to present the results.

The committee members have spoken out against one another to various reporters.

(I realize Booher is not the most authoritative source on grammar, but hers was the only source specifically on business writing I found that had relevant content.)

• Wallraff, Barbara (2004). Your Own Words. New York: Counterpoint. pp. 223–4. ISBN 1-58243-282-1.

" 'It's become painfully obvious how little organic beef, pork, and chicken is available in stores.' That's is, not are, correct? [...]"
[paragraph and a half correcting questioner's misuse of the term pronoun omitted]
[...] Since three nouns are the subject of the clause, shouldn't the verb be plural? Not necessarily. I'd say you're using the three to express one concept: meat. And as Garner's Modern American Usage explains it, "If the subjects really amount to a single ... thing, use a singular verb." You would want to say "The recipes I have for the main course and the dessert won't work because of how little meat and chocolate are available." In this new example, though, meat and chocolate are conceptually separate, and the idea expressed in full would be "... how little meat and how little chocolate are available." But in effect you are saying "how little organic meat is available," so the singular verb is fine.

(To my surprise, Wallraff does not yet have an article about her here; she has written a column on English usage in Atlantic Monthly for many years and has published a number of books on the subject as well, so I expect research will reveal her notable by the WP:N standard.)

So, pulling out the bolded sections, we have:

• "In American usage, a collective noun takes a singular verb when it refers to the collection considered as a whole"
• "It takes a plural verb when it refers to the members of the group considered as individuals"

I take this to mean we can use as our guideline hypothetically expanding a sentence's subject to decide how the band name is being used. The article's first sentence can be expanded as "The band Guns N' Roses are an American hard rock band from Los Angeles formed in 1985"; the expansion "Members of Guns N' Roses are an American hard rock band from Los Angeles formed in 1985" wouldn't make sense as the predicate is the singular "an American hard rock band".

• "In Modern English, a compound subject connected by and normally takes a plural verb" [emphasis added]
• "Sometimes compound subjects are governed by a sense of unity and by notional agreement take a singular verb"
• "Using a singular or plural verb changes the meaning of the sentence"

I would argue that as the single name of a single band, the phrase "Guns N' Roses" should be viewed as having such a "sense of unity", and that we should strive to avoid having sentences imply they are referring to the members of the band individually when the sentence in question is referring to the band as a unit. It's not "Guns are and Roses are too"; it's "The band named Guns N' Roses is". I'm all for using a plural verb in a sentence like "Guns N' Roses have long hair", because the expansion of that sentence is "Members of Guns N' Roses have long hair." Other sentences should use sngular verbs, to avoid seeming to refer to the members of the band individually when that is not appropriate.

• "Since three nouns are the subject of the clause, shouldn't the verb be plural? Not necessarily. I'd say you're using the three to express one concept"
• "If the subjects really amount to a single ... thing, use a singular verb"

In my analysis, the phrase "Guns N' Roses" is used to express one concept: the band which goes by that name. The band is a single thing, and we should therefore use a singular verb.

(Other books I consulted but found nothing relevant in: The Harper Dictionary of Contemporary Usage; The Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage; The Wordwatcher's Guide to Good Writing & Grammar; three books by William Safire; and a second book by Barbara Wallraff. In those books (as I did with the ones I did cite above) I looked in the tables of contents and indexes for the terms band names, collective nouns, company names, corporate names, group names, musical groups, plural nouns, and plurals, and then checked whatever was written about any of those topics. I include the list of books I found nothing in both so others can avoid wasting their time in their own searches and, of course, so that others can check for themselves that the books I say have nothing relevant to contribute to this discussion don't in fact have any such content.)

My reading of the above-cited sources, taken together, is that the correct grammar for the sentence "Guns N' Roses are/is an American hard rock band from Los Angeles formed in 1985" would be "is" rather than "are", and that singular verbs (does, is, was) should be used for the band name "Guns N' Roses" throughout the article, with a couple of exceptions. When a sentence is using the name "Guns N' Roses" to stand in for "members of Guns N' Roses", however, the correct grammar would be plural verbs (do, are, were), as in the sentence, "On April 20, 2011, Ashba said in an interview at the Revolver Golden Gods Awards that [members of] Guns N' Roses have been 'working on new songs every day' " which should thus remain "have", not be changed to "has". And in quotations, of course, whatever grammar the person being quoted used should be retained, even if it is incorrect.

Proposal: Can we perhaps agree, based on the guidance given in the above-cited sources, that when an instance of "Guns N' Roses" could be replaced with simply "the band" without changing the meaning of the sentence, the correct verb forms are singular to agree with "band", and when an instance of "Guns N' Roses" could be replaced with "members of the band" without changing the meaning of the sentence, the correct verb forms are plural to agree with "members"?

But can we talk about how annoying it is that they punctuate their name "Guns N' Roses" when properly it should be "Guns 'n' Roses"?

Thank you for reading this wall of text. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 14:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I knew I was going to forget something. Pinging @Mlpearc, Prayer for the wild at heart, Missingbleeckerbob, PubliusHadrianus, Ringerfan23, Neutron, and Spacecowboy420: Please consider responding here again, since we now have printed grammar guides to consult as Arjayay had suggested we do. (I pinged just the people who have already commented on this page since the question was reopened by me on 22 October.) Thanks to all of you in advance for participating in this continuing conversation. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 16:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

As I said before, I agree with "is". We are not talking about "guns" and "roses" here. We are talking about a single entity named "Guns N' Roses." I don't think the plural nature of the words in the name makes any difference. By the way, I tried to think of a similar situation and checked out our article on 10,000 Maniacs, the intro to which begins, "10,000 Maniacs is a United States-based alternative rock band..." Neutron (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Should we take any steps to formalizing this? I imagine there are other articles with similar debates that have/could arise. PubliusHadrianus (talk) 20:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you GrammarFascist for researching this question. I agree the sentence is "Guns N' Roses is an American hard rock band". You can reverse the sentence "An American hard rock band is Guns N' Roses".

There might a difference between a group and a band. "The point is that names such as 'The Bangles' reference the individual band members, and names such as 'Iron Maiden' reference the group as one entity. So you would indeed probably say "The Bangles (the band members) are performing" and "Iron Maiden (the group) is performing".".....it's about what you're referencing to."

"The official rule is: if it acts as a singular unit, it gets a singular congugation; if it acts as a group of individuals viewed individually, it gets a plural congugation. There is no difference between common and proper nouns." Missingbleeckerbob (talk) 22:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

References

{{Reflist-talk}} template inserted here by GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 22:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

So, in a nutshell, the fact that "Guns n Roses" is in a plural form, is less important than the rules regarding collective nouns?

Also, just to make it a little more complicated, we have to remember that in certain bands such as the Beatles (ignoring the fact that they are British) individual members are referred to using the singular form - "John Lennon was a Beatle" as well as "John Lennon was a member of the Beatles" Gun's n Roses took their name from Hollywood Rose (because of Axl Rose) and L.A. Guns (because of Tracii Guns) so it is a true plural term, as opposed to Alice in Chains (there was no member called Alice or Chains, and members didn't identify themselves as "I'm an Alice in Chain"

I put it all down to English being an evolving language with no definitive authority, as such I still feel that the plural form is best in this situation (maybe because I'm a Brit, trying to talk about American grammar or maybe just because it sounds nicer to my ears), however I'm starting to feel that it's one of those situations where neither usage could be considered to be incorrect, or proven to be correct. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 04:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

In a nutshell, Spacecowboy420, we need some way to decide this question. Arjayay (who favors "are") suggested we seek answers in printed grammar guides, and, agreeing that that seemed the best way to settle the question, I sought out such guides and reported what I found in them. I'm aware it must seem convenient that what I found appears to support my position (that "is" is correct), and I would welcome other editors sharing passages from other grammar guides to help settle this issue. As I said, I looked for guidance that dealt specifically with the situation we have with Guns N' Roses, or even just with band names in general, but did not find anything on those topics; discussions of collective nouns and compound subjects were the most relevant things I found, so that's what I shared.

Regarding the provenance of the name "Guns N' Roses" originating from the surnames of Tracii Guns and Axl Rose... I don't think anyone ever referred to Axl as a Gun or Tracii as a Rose just because the band was named Guns N' Roses, nor would, say, Izzy Stradlin have been called a Gun, a Rose, or a Gun N' Rose. The members of this band simply have not been referred to using a singular form of the band name in the same way that Susanna Hoffs is called a Bangle or Ron Asheton was called a Stooge. So I think that perhaps that line of argument should be shelved.

English is of course an evolving language. Nevertheless, one consistent grammar needs to be used within an article, and it falls to us to choose which one. Thank you for responding, Spacecowboy420 (and @Neutron, PubliusHadrianus, and Missingbleeckerbob: thanks to you as well); is your position that we should wait and consult other grammar guides, that we should not consult grammar guides at all, or something else? —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 22:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem with waiting for a printed guide, is that I'm pretty sure there is not going to be a definitive guide to grammar, that is not contradicted by another printed guide. Unless there is one specific guide (CMOS etc) that is agreed on, we will be in the same situation as we are now, just with printed guides to back up our different opinions, rather than just opinions.

Is there a specific manual of style that is used for American English articles? If not, maybe it would be best to either try to achieve some form of consensus with a vote, or go back to whichever form was used when the article was originally created. It does however seem a little frustrating that we are unable to find a conclusive resolution to this issue. As I previously stated, I like the "sound" of the plural form, but I am far more interested in finding a conclusive answer, than pushing my personal preference. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if there is a nice solution via MOS:COMMONALITY for this article. As long as it isn't worded in an awkward manner, this might be a good opportunity to make it suitable for both British and American English. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Or rely on how Guns n Roses members refer to the band? "Axl: "I don't exactly know what GUNS N' ROSES is, but I know it's my job in the sense of an obligation and I'm good with that." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spacecowboy420 (talk • contribs) 07:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Spaghetti Incident

Should "The Spaghetti Incident?" be listed in the discography section ? reference this edit Mlpearc (open channel) 21:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

In this article's current Peer Review, Retrohead mentioned that it was not an official studio album; rather, he stated it was a compilation and gave strong reasoning behind it. He suggested taking the route of removing the "studio albums" heading from the discography. And that was done. I was only putting the note there because I've seen inexperienced Wikipedians and IPs mess with it without regard to this kind of thing. dannymusiceditor ^{~talk to me!~} 22:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Cover albums are still studio albums. But besides that, yes it should be listed in the discography section. And it has just as much of a reason to be there as GNR Lies, which is technically an EP, so on and so forth. I think that maybe if we were dealing with a band that had dozens of albums and multiple cover albums, it would take more consideration. But as the list is so short, then it should be included. Also, see Def Leppard#Discography which includes "Yeah!" which is a studio album of covers by Def Leppard, just for another example. – DLManiac (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

My intention with removing the "studio albums" label was to keep the GNR Lies EP and The Spaghetti Incident in the discography because they are not studio albums in the classic sense, but are still notable enough to be there. I do beleive that the description in the opening sentence of G N' R Lies should be changed to "extended play", and correct the enumeration of the following albums.--Retrohead (talk) 12:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Past Members in infobox

When did the past members get placed back in the infobox? It is now messy and lengthy. Was there any discussion before the link to the band member page was replaced with this list? –DLManiac (talk) 23:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I replaced it at one point because I thought it looked better with the flatlist. Also wasn't aware that that was the prefered way of doing things, but after seeing that's generally done with bands with that many members (like Megadeth or Jefferson Starship) I put it back to how it used to be. RF23 (talk) 12:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Small typo

"Rose mentioned that the expense of the record would be negated by the recording sessions wielding multiple albums"

Please change "wielding" to "yielding".

Done thanks for catching that Cannolis (talk) 14:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

A gig tonight

The band announced a gig tonight in LA, if someone want to add it in text. --37.33.130.250 (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• A Wikipedia article is not an appropriate place to announce gigs. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Guns N' Roses. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150831105707/http://blogs.elpasotimes.com/beat/2015/08/30/qa-bullet-for-my-valentine-frontman-mathew-tuck/ to http://blogs.elpasotimes.com/beat/2015/08/30/qa-bullet-for-my-valentine-frontman-mathew-tuck/

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

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Guns N' Roses. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150708033526/http://gc.guitarcenter.com:80/interview/mike%2Dclink/ to http://gc.guitarcenter.com/interview/mike-clink/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130116130810/http://www.rocknlive.org:80/2012/06/25/exclusif-interview-richard-fortus-des-guns-n-roses-au-compulsions/ to http://www.rocknlive.org/2012/06/25/exclusif-interview-richard-fortus-des-guns-n-roses-au-compulsions/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150320012721/http://www.mtv.com:80/bands/a/avenged_sevenfold/news_feature_060103/ to http://www.mtv.com/bands/a/avenged_sevenfold/news_feature_060103/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090310112510/http://www.zeenews.com:80/entertainment/music/2008-11-24/486170news.html to http://www.zeenews.com/entertainment/music/2008-11-24/486170news.html

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

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Has Tommy Stinson left?

I apologize if I've missed a media article confirming this (please correct me if I'm wrong), but do we know for certain that Tommy Stinson has left the band? Yes Duff McKagan has been brought back into the fold for the reunion show (and perhaps further shows down the line if it gets to that) but is this the new official lineup of the band or just a 'reunion' (if it can be called that) lineup? Are Duff and Slash in it for the duration? So far I haven't seen anything in the media that suggests this is a more permanent arrangement and I certainly haven't seen the words 'Tommy Stinson out of GNR' anywhere. Thank you. Regards, 86.189.140.190 (talk) 15:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Members

Various people have been going through and changing this article to make this "reunion" lineup the official member list, and I am against these changes until more is known. All we really now is that Slash and McKagan are set to reunite with the band for Coachella, and they have stated that they'd like to do a reunion tour. I don't think this makes them "members" nor the other guys "former members". This could all blow up during Coachella and we'll never hear of it again. I'd like to wait for official statements that this is a permanent lineup before making such changes. Thoughts? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that them coming back for a reunion tour qualifies as them being members. And the only one who is being considered a former member is Tommy Stinson (Which I definitely hear where you're coming from) but I think that his removal and the inclusion of Slash and McKagan is really the most accurate option. — DLManiac (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I guess it comes down to the definition of a member which can be pretty slippery. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you really think Melissa Reese is an OFFICAL Band Member ??? There is no word that Pitman is out ..

I would second this.. If Melissa is an official member, then what about all the other backing musicans thay had on the UYI tours?.. somebody with an account should fix her to be under the category "touring member"

What constitutes a touring member or an official member? How is Melissa any more or less of touring member than Frank or Richard? Gilbey and Matt were only ever touring members according to Axl...

When they are confirmed by the band as a full member they are an official member, and not just a backing musican for live performances.. in a sense she doesnt add anything to the band, that Teddy Zig Zag Andreas didn't add to the band during the Use Your Illusion Tour.. and he was NEVER conscidered a real part of the band, but a touring member.

Chris Pitman was considered a part of the band, and it's apparent that Reese is replacing the role he used to have, therefor, it's pretty safe to assume she's part of the band.RF23 (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Where is the source confirming Frank is an actual member? I think he is one but I can't find anything to link to any more than I can for Melissa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8804:8840:115B:64F0:570E:9726:883D (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Frank has been a member of the band since 2006 and the fact that he's still the drummer indicates he's an actual member of the band. He drummed on the latest studio release and will likely be on the next one.RF23 (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Guns N' Roses. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/misc/recordingsessions.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120108195231/http://www.guitarworld.com/zakk-wylde-what-guns-n-roses-would-have-sounded-if-he-had-joined to http://www.guitarworld.com/zakk-wylde-what-guns-n-roses-would-have-sounded-if-he-had-joined
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150505092622/http://gawker.com/5954050/axl-rose-performed-at-bridge-school-but-guns-n-roses-is-still-a-fresh-corpse-this-morning to http://gawker.com/5954050/axl-rose-performed-at-bridge-school-but-guns-n-roses-is-still-a-fresh-corpse-this-morning

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) 20:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Corrections / Sources Re: Reunion

It should be noted in that on April 1st, at the Troubadour for the "warmup" gig, classic lineup drummer Steven Adler was scheduled to perform with the band and could not make the gig due to a back injury that was first reported by the L.A. Weekly on April 2nd and verified by several sources, including Adler.

In addition, the L.A. Weekly was the only media outlet to review the warmup gig at the Troubadour on April 1st and their review should be included here for the historical record, which is also the first piece to report on Axl Rose's ankle injury, Adler's injured back, and Melissa Reese.

Source: http://www.laweekly.com/music/heres-what-it-felt-like-seeing-guns-n-roses-at-the-troubadour-6784478

Thanks again, Art — Preceding unsigned comment added by Art Tavana (talk • contribs) 07:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Dance Music and Glam Metal?

I am not sure if adding a "" tag was the right way to deal with it, but there is a questionable statement in the intro: i.e., "Guns N' Roses has been credited with reviving the mainstream popularity of rock 'n' roll, at a time when popular music was dominated by dance music and glam metal." We see sweeping statemnts like this a lot in rock band's articles, evidently because there is a common but erroneous belief that at any time exactly two genres dominate the music scene to the exclusion of all others. If you actually go back and look at what topped the charts circa 1988 or so, you don't necessarily see a lot of glam metal, and in any case Guns N' Roses themselves could be classified as glam metal. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

That was taken directly — probably paraphrased a bit too closely — from the source, which was Rolling Stone if I recall correctly. Feel free to cut it if you think that's best. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Guns N' Roses. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091208190634/http://www.thebiographychannel.co.uk/biographies/guns-n-roses.html to http://www.thebiographychannel.co.uk/biographies/guns-n-roses.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://gc.guitarcenter.com/interview/mike-clink/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jussitegelman.com/jussitegelman.com/Bio.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eonline.com/gossip/planetgossip/detail/index.jsp?uuid=2ec9c617-6394-40e3-bd9e-29cd304270b5%2F
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110312080829/http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=147720 to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=147720
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.variety.com/article/VR116266.html?categoryid=16&cs=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 12:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Axl's Pre-"Hollywood Rose" Band, Named "Rapidfire" Is Somehow NOT Allowed for Inclusion On The Guns N'Roses Wikipedia Page.

Somemone Please Explain to Me Exactly How Axl's Pre-"Hollywood Rose" Band, Named "Rapidfire" Is Somehow NOT Allowed for Inclusion On The Guns N'Roses Wikipedia Page. It Should Be Added, Because It IS Factual, and Relevant to The Band.Namdaed18 (talk) 17:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@Namdaed18: Please see Template:Infobox musical artist. Under assosciated acts it states that listing groups with only one member in common should be avoided. Hopefully that helps. I don't know if Rapidfire is mentioned else where in the article, but if it's not, it can be mentioned as long as there is a source to back it up. Rapidfire can't be listed as an associated act since they only have one member in common with Guns N' Roses. Bowling is life (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2018

Please change "tabboo" in the following: "Several years later, Rose conceded that he had used the word as an insult towards black people who had tried to rob him, also using the word because it was tabboo." to "Several years later, Rose conceded that he had used the word as an insult towards black people who had tried to rob him, also using the word because it was taboo." Remove hyperlink tabboo and maybe add link to taboo if required. Looks like some sort of trolling has happened here, tabboo links to an unrelated wiki article. 203.43.150.40 (talk) 01:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Don't assume it was trolling - that's unlikely given how heavily protected this article is. But I have fixed the issue. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 02:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2018

JuanLytle1 (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

In 2018, Izzy Stradlin and Steven Adler returned to Guns N' Roses

 Not done exactly which source states this? dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 20:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Queen link

change ((Queen)) to ((Queen (band)|Queen)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:4500:1760:a104:6bd6:626c:2146 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done with thanks, NiciVampireHeart 19:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Road Crew Link

The mention of a band name as "Road Crew" includes a link, not to an article about aforementioned band but to the crew that a band takes with them on the road - link should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.219.125 (talk) 11:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Remove

Guns n roses is the most overated bands, not correct Rizzo160 (talk) 01:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

It's been removed. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Glam Metal

I know of this many sources calling them a glam or hair metal band, that should be more then enough for it to be added to their infobox. Category adder :D (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Article length

User:FlightTime reverted some edits I made (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guns_N%27_Roses&diff=1041702100&oldid=1041701905) and said they should be discussed here on the talk page. I don't mind discussing them. Since June, the article has been tagged for being too long. The tag says that the article should be split up or condensed. So I'm condensing it. The level of detail makes the article really hard to read. I believe my edits helped. Also, User:FlightTime said that these edits had already been reverted by somebody else, which is not accurate. Amandil21 (talk) 01:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

My inaccurate claim. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:15, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, User:FlightTime. Amandil21 (talk) 01:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

You're very welcome. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Seeing no reaction to my post here on the talk page, I am continuing to work on condensing the article. Amandil21 (talk) 06:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Cite error (1)

There is an undefined refname in the Use Your Illusion Tour section. The reference BranniganWinwood2014 was removed in this edit while the refname was still in use.

The first instance of this:
<ref name="BranniganWinwood2014" />

should be replaced with:
<ref name="BranniganWinwood2014">{{cite book|author1=Paul Brannigan|author2=Ian Winwood|title=Into the Black: The Inside Story of Metallica (1991–2014)|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=mm5zAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT29|date=November 4, 2014|publisher=Da Capo Press, Incorporated|isbn=978-0-306-82189-9|pages=29–}}</ref>

Thanks 89.241.33.89 (talk) 13:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done --Ferien (talk) 18:12, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you 89.241.33.89 (talk) 19:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Cite error (2)

There are multiple undefined refnames at the end of the Album release and promotion section. All of these were added in this edit, but never defined. All the refnames should be replaced with CN tags.

Each of the following:
<ref name="ABCNEWSYE"/>
<ref name="GUARDBEST"/>
<ref name="RSENDOF"/>
<ref name="UCRBEST"/>
<ref name="SPINBEST"/>

should be replaced with:
{{CN|date=October 2021}}

Thanks 89.241.33.89 (talk) 13:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done --Ferien (talk) 18:12, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you 89.241.33.89 (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Re-fixed those; I copy/pasted them from the ChiDem article not realizing they weren't defined in this one. RF23 (talk) 17:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Adding Blind Melon to Associated acts

I believe Blind Melon should be added to Guns and Roses associated acts. Before the band Blind Melon was formed. The lead singer Shannon Hoon meet Axl Rose through his sister's highschool friend. Axl Rose and Shannon Hoon we're both from Lafayette, Indiana. Axl Rose ended up inviting Shannon Hoon to the studio while Guns and Roses were recording Use Your Illusion I and Use Your Illusion 2. Shannon Hoon ended singing back up vocals on many songs on the album and later was in the Don't Cry music video singing with the band. Soon after the band Blind Melon was formed with Shannon Hoon being the lead singer. Blind Melon went on to your with Guns in Roses in 1993 in support of the Use Your Illusion Album. MichaelPaulAguilar (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for my errors when typing. I meant to say Blind Melon went on tour with GnR in 1993. MichaelPaulAguilar (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

MichaelPaulAguilar, I disagree. I don't think that comes close to being considered an associated act. See the "associated_acts" section at {{Infobox musical artist}} for reference. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with both. I wouldn't say it's not close, but I wouldn't say Blind Melon would qualify as an associated act. Shannon Hoon would be a better case, because of his repeated guest appearances live in addition to his session work. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Ole Beich was fired before the first show

The first band interview took place on March 24, 1985, two days before Guns N' Roses' first ever show at the Troubadour on March 26, 1985. In the interview, the Troubadour show is announced and Duff McKagan is mentioned as the bass player of the band (the razcue.com link is dead). So, even though Ole Beich was included in the flyer for the show at the Troubadour, he never played at it. Additional confirmation in The Days of Guns, & Raz's by Raz Cue --Pixie126 (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

References

GNR and its musical style

I was making constructive changes in this band's article, where I added the glam metal genre, however, all my contributions were reversed without a clear reason, that's why I'm here, the truth is that Guns N Roses belonged to that genre, or to be clearer, they were within what is classified as Sleaze. I know there will be a fan that does not accept this fact, leaving aside these problems, I would like to know the reasons for these discrepancies in my editions.

Greetings Wikipedistas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misunderstood Darkened (talk • contribs) 22:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Your personal opinions on the genre don't matter. We only use what's reflected in the preponderance of sources about the artist. That's how Wikipedia works. --Laser brain (talk) 00:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

There was a long discussion about genre's a while back. While Appetite certainly falls under the glam metal umbrella (as sourced on it's page), that hardly describes the sound of the band as a whole. Same reason they're not a punk band because of Spaghetti or an industrial band because of Chinese.RF23 (talk) 01:22, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Everything else aside, please provide reliable sources which support your contention. THEN an actual discussion can begin re its inclusion. Until then, it's just like, your opinion, man. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 11:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

You know, the funny thing is that someone did provide a list of reliable sources, below, two years later, and this discussion didn't begin. The whole thing was just ignored. Also, WP:BOLD doesn't really fit with some self-appointed gatekeepers in here's attitudes of "discuss it with us, first". I mean, who the fuck are you anyway, Єl Cid? Axl's Wikipedia bodyguard? I don't fuckin' think so. I rather suspect there are a lot of G'n'R fans in here just not liking that appellation and getting their panties in a twist. I guess it looks like "just, like, your opinion, man" only matters one way, then, huh? 2601:1C2:5000:1472:74F3:B380:5EA0:DB35 (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Colleague, I didn't say that the musical genre of a group is defined by the genre of a job, that was your statement. Just highlight that the first album and the beginnings of GNR were glamorous, which is no reason for stereotypes. We also realize that when they give their concerts, they usually offer the repertoires of Appetite for Destruction, Use Your Illusion I and Use Your Illusion II, which can apparently define the genre of an artist. The typical fan of this group does not remember the versions of The Spaghetti Incident, or the last release of 2008, which is popularly classified as the album of Axl and company. Let's try to be fair with the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misunderstood Darkened (talk • contribs) 01:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Like I stated, consensus was reached (which is how things work on Wikipedia, it doesn't matter what you think) a while back on the genres included in the infobox. Glam metal (listed as hair metal) is included in the musical style section further down in the article. If you continue your disruptive editing, you will be blocked from editing.RF23 (talk) 02:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with RF23's sentiments. You have quite a way to go before reaching a new consensus so quit trying to force the issue by changing things to your liking. Robvanvee 06:24, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I understand, I don't take too much seriousness on issues like this, but I wouldn't like to offend someone. What was said in my last edition of the main article was somewhat sarcastic and immature of me. I will not have time for another debate. A greeting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misunderstood Darkened (talk • contribs) 00:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

editon = edition

locked article2603:8000:D300:D0F:D5D:8295:289E:24F5 (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Completed, assuming that you're referring to this. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2022

There's a line in the "November Rain" section that says that November Rain is the longest song to ever chart in Billboard's top 10, that's no longer true (Taylor Swift's 10 minute re-released / unabridged version of "All Too Well" is, https://www.billboard.com/artist/Taylor-Swift/chart-history/HSI)

Please update the line (or erase it completely, iirc radios didn't really play the longer version of November Rain at the time so not sure why the longer version was the one that billboard used for its charts or why this random "fact" about the longer version of November Rain is relevant anyway). Thanks! 98.177.92.76 (talk) 02:45, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The text says, " it was at the time also the longest song in US chart history to reach the top ten." Which was, and still is, true, so no reason to remove it. RudolfRed (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

pop songs are usually short, it is pretty significant when a song longer than 5 minutes charts, as its not supported by industry, radio, to support songs like that. It also requires a sustained attention span unlike most popular music. Shhsbavavaa (talk) 08:00, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Reverted edits

An editor has repeatedly reversed my edits to Sweet Child o' Mine, Paradise City, Welcome to the Jungle, etc. in which I changed the lead genre to hard rock rather than rock, as listed on the main page. I've had a similar dispute before, and I know that I'm correct, but the editor in question will not concede. Any ideas on how to move forward? Sincerely, Key of G Minor. ^Tools: (talk, contribs) 17:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Maybe because you're not necessarily correct? A band article is not uncommonly labeled something more specific than the generality of their song articles. dannymusiceditor ^oops 17:47, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but on their page, they're listed as hard rock, and thus on any other page, they should be referred to as such. Sincerely, Key of G Minor. ^Tools: (talk, contribs) 18:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Not really. I get uniformity is nice, but I really don't see how specifically defining the band in the lead of a song is so overtly important, especially considering they have some ballads which may not make immediate sense to write "hard rock" on. Now, if it were the reverse - listing something specific in the lead of a song as opposed to generality on the main article - I'd have a problem, and I imagine many others also would. dannymusiceditor ^oops 18:35, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

But it says on their page that they're a hard rock band. Any other articles should say such. The editor in question said it himself.

(talk page stalker) Concerning this exchange, Key of G Minor is correct. Lynyrd Skynyrd are listed as a Rock band, so any page referring to the band, it's listed as Rock.

— FlightTime (open channel) 17:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC), User talk:Soetermans, Reverted edits on Sweet Home Alabama and Tom Morello

Sincerely, Key of G Minor. ^Tools: (talk, contribs) 18:40, 2 July 2023 (UTC)