Talk:AC/DC/Archive 2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Contents |
Protection
I've protected this page, because there seems to be an editwar over what URLs should be included in the external links. I guess we should put it to a vote so this dispute can end.
User NCC17 and Cirreus want the section to look like this:
| “ | ” |
Whereas several others want it to have it looking like this:
| “ | ” |
All those wanting NCC17 and Cirreus's layout vote here
- NCC17 18:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Bretonbanquet 20:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Soleil Noir 07:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- t(-_-t).tekwon 02:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
All those wanting the other layout vote here
- No-Bullet 00:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- HK51 12:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- BuBZ 21:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Sabrebattletank 02:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- 62.101.75.108 15:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Anger22 19:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Raull 20:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
For the record
For the record, Circeus suggested the above compromise in regards to Fair Deal's previous complaint over the links. If you call in an administrator to settle things as Fair Deal did, you ought to abide by their decision.NCC17 18:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Why Rolling Stone Magazine has no business being linked on AC/DC's page
From a review of the the RS Record Guide:
" The first page gives us reviews of albums by Aalon (who?), Abba, AC/DC, Ace (Aalon’s partners in oblivion), Johnny Ace, Ace Spectrum, and David Ackles. The high-scoring album on the page is The Johnny Ace Memorial Album (at 4 stars), while the low-scorers are the three AC/DC albums High Voltage, Let There Be Rock, and Powerage, all of which get a “box” (not even a single star!), meaning:
“Worthless: records that need never (or should never) have been created. Reserved for the most pathetic bathwater.”
Damn, that’s harsh. Sure, High Voltage is no conceptual disco set in a futurist urban landscape, like the 2-star-rated Cream City by Aalon, but it’s the AC/DC of the Bon Scott era, the source of some surprisingly heartfelt lyrics and arguably Angus Young’s most bluesy-nutso stage, that the RS Guide has just blithely dismissed as offending “anyone within sight or earshot.” By comparison, the AllMusic Guide (AMG hereafter, representing current conventional critical wisdom unless I disagree with them) gives the AC/DC albums 4½, 4½, and 3½ stars, respectively."
NCC17 01:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- I never agreed with the rankins of the magazine, but still, we need to have the link on the page, it's a must. We can't leave out the link to one of the most well known sites just because we disagree with their rankings.
- By the way, the official page is www.acdcrocks.com, when you search for ac/dc on yahoo or google it says: "Official site of the classic heavy metal band, AC/DC. Features biography, timeline, photos, merchandise, and tour information." [2]. Also, in non-official pages, acdcrocks is listed as the only official link. [3] No-Bullet 03:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with No-Bullet on this, just because we disagree with their rankings doesn't mean we should leave out one of the most well-known sites, it's not really showing a NPOV is it? And yes, acdcrocks.com is the official site, accadacca.net is not. Oh, and stop using your sock-puppets to vote, it's not really fair. HK51 13:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Rolling Stone is not a nuetral source when concerning ac/dc. the magizine has consitintly since there first review of high voltage shunned and delibratly underrated and belittled the band, often ranking the bands musics and member noticably below reason in th epov of rock listeners and not nessesarly AC/DC fans. - Ishmaelblues
- Can you verify this "deliberate"-bit? Anyways, I'm just going to HK51 here: just because we disagree with their rankings doesn't mean we should leave out one of the most well-known sites.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 16:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- I really don't know why Rolling Stone needs a special mention. In the UK at least, the mag is meaningless - and since they do nothing but slag the band off, what does it add to the article? Nothing. And why should it get a mention when many other mags / sites don't? I don't think reviews have any place whatsoever on Wikipedia anyway, even links to them. It's impossible to keep a neutral pov when you have links that are clearly biased in one way or the other.
- The two sites being talked about are both just record company sites, and one is no more official than the other. This is a band that discusses nothing, tells you very little and answers no questions, so any notion of an "official site" is fairly meaningless anyway. The Epic one is just trying to sell stuff. Bretonbanquet 19:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
read the ac/dc bio on the stone site http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/acdc/biography its full of back handed insults an attempts to make the band seem smaller than they are. the magizine is woefully pov and not wikipedia quality to use in this case -ishmaelblues
- Not only is it clearly impossible to accomodate the linking of reviews with the neutral POV policy, but Rollingstone is hardly considered respectable by anyone in either music criticism or cultural studies, anyway. It's not a matter of disagreeing with their rankings, even, but rather that they are an institution who has always moved with/embraced fads in music, and of zero worth to anyone interested in it with any seriousness. In any case, no one can correctly claim that such a review of a band's career, positive or otherwise, fits with neutral POV. AC/DC's own official site, informative or otherwise, should be included however because it is the band's official internet presence.
- --Soleil Noir
