Talk:AC/DC/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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

To do

I've requested a peer review a few days ago, but I'm very busy right now, so I made a to-do list to improve the article. No-Bullet 03:00, 20 October 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 08:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd consider AC/DC to be a hard rock band, or blues rock, but not classic rock. They really made rock harder than anyone else did. Also, make sure that they are not refered to as a metal or heavy metal band, since, according to the many AC/DC biographies I've read, they seem to hate being called that. '74 Jailbreak '74 Jailbreak 16:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

'74 Jailbreak is right. They are a hard rock band. Several old copies of Rolling Stone, interviews with them, unofficial biographies, etc, all say this. They are blues influenced, with alot of scales from it. If anyone doesn't agree, I'd like to hear your comments.--Bass Masta 09:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Alot of the solos and riffs that Angus plays mostly come from the Blue Scale and alot of other scales. On what Bass Masta said, it's true. 124.178.34.146 11:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I wasn't suggesting they were heavy metal. I just thought the description of Classic metal - "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" - sounded a lot like a typical AC/DC song. Like I said, I'm no music expert, so I thought I'd leave this open to discussion. HK51

"Also, make sure that they are not refered to as a metal or heavy metal band, since, according to the many AC/DC biographies I've read, they seem to hate being called that."
Whether they "like" it or not is irrelevant; some of they're music is metal (for instance, note their inclusion on VH1's 40 Greatest Metal Songs).Helltopay27 00:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I think that they would know more about what type of music they play than VH1. When i think of classic metal, i think of bands like iron madden and accept, not bands like acdc. when i think of heavy metal, i think of bands like slipknot and system of a down, not acdc. I and most other people i know think ACDC is as much metal as jimmy hindrix. We should just keep hard rock as the only genre. Captanpluto123 02:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
We should be going by what reliable sources say, not what you think or what other people you know think. Removing heavy metal from the genre listing is understandable, but why remove rock and roll and blues rock? ĤĶ51→Łalk 21:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Motörhead influenced by AC/DC?

Could someone tell me when and where they ever said that? Until proven otherwise, I removed this from the article. Roda 18:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Reopening the external links debate, hopefully with less edit-warring and such

I was pretty happy with the external links as they were a month ago, but now I think a lot of the fairly low-quality links have been edited out and I'm pretty happy with that, though there were a few I thought should stay, link the Magazine Archives and the Crabsody in Blue site, but I won't complain if no-one else wants them there.

But what's bugging me now is the three "Profile pages" which are listed. We'd came to the conclusion a few months back that, seen as AC/DC have had so many record companies, it would be best to include them all just as "Profile pages". However. I've just watched the Live at Donington DVD and when I clicked on 'The Web' it listed http://www.acdcrocks.com as the official site, I can do a screenshot of this if anyone wants one.

So, to sum-up, I think the EL section should read as follows (also, I think we should put acdcrocks.com into the infobox as the official site):

Wikimedia Commons has media related to:

I know it's a pretty trivial issue! But I know how controversial editing these links can be. HK51 18:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

That layout you posted is OK for me. No-Bullet 19:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Gentlemen: Do we have to go back to link fighting again? Why did someone erase the old agreement from this page anyway? This was the old set up we agreed on and it should still carry the day, imo. Btw, accadacca.net is owned by Albert Music. Albert Music licenses Sony to sell AC/DC product. If any site is truly official, they are it since they have been AC/DC's partners for going on 33 years now. Nowhere on acdcrocks.com does it say it's the official site. You might note that Google now says accadacca.net is the official site, btw.

Oops forgot to add my IDNCC17 03:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

First off, I'm not asking for a "fight", I'm asking for a discussion. Most of the links you've posted are good, but there are some which we do not need, please read WP:EL. According to it, we should axe the following from your list:
  • AC/DC Fan Club - provides nothing of merit in terms of AC/DC's history, and links to message boards/discussion groups aren't generally tolerated
  • Electric Shock - adds little in terms of knowledge of the band's history
  • Rising Power- adds nothing of merit

http://www.acdcrocks.com is listed as the Official Site on the Live at Donington DVD and seen as Epic Records is currently the label AC/DC are signed to, I'd say it's the offical site. I'm aware of the band's long history with Albert, but Epic is the label they're currently signed to, thus, their site for them is most likely the official one.

This is currently the way I think the section should look:

HK51 19:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Reviewing the article history, the El section was set in stone by a Wikipedia administrator using policy WP:EL as a guideline. Edits done to the section by regular editors established an agreed upon format. It somehow got spammed earlier. I re-established the section to follow Wikipedia policy, mainly WP:EL and WP:CON. WP:EL violations will result in the article losing it's GA status. DownUnderThunder 01:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a fight either. I'm simply asking for the consensus I posted above, that was agreed upon and set in stone previously by Wiki administrators, to be restored.

Nowhere in fact, in the history of this discussion, have any of those links been shown to break any of the rules by any Wiki administrator. I would still like to know why the original discussion was eliminated from this page as there were several wikipedians that concurred with my arguments during that discussion. I don't recall DownUnderThunder being there at all for any of that discussion, btw.

As for the merits of the individual links, let's go one by one, if we must.

  • AC/DC Fan Club This is the longest running, largest AC/DC fan club on the net that is also frequently updated with the most up-to-date news on AC/DC that you can find on the internet. It's also an official link of accadacca.net, the only truly official ac/dc website as I have previously mentioned. The photo albums alone on that site make it worthy of being linked alone.
  • Electric Shock - This is one of the most well known and longest running AC/DC sites on the web. The owner of that site is credited on AC/DC's Family Jewels DVD and has recently co-authored what will likely prove to be the most well documented AC/DC bio, "AC/DC: MAXIMUM ROCK & ROLL" which has already been released in Australia and is due out in America in January of 2007.
  • Rising Power- Not the most updated site so I'm not going to spend time defending it's merit. To say it adds nothing of merit is too harsh, imho, however.

Anyway, in conclusion, I know most of these links quite well, many of them I originally posted here under my old user ID including accadacca, bedlam, crabsody, electric shock and the mag archives.

If anything should be dropped, I'd like to suggest that we lose the highly offensive Rolling Stone link as well as that waste of site, Music Brains. Talk about links that add no merit to an AC/DC page! NCC17 19:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Nothing on Wikipedia can be "set in stone", if you truly believe that, you don't understand the concept of Wikipedia at all. Now, about the links, if we're going to have a proper discussion about this, you really need to read WP:EL.
  • AC/DC Fan Club - according to WP:EL: Sites that require registration or a paid subscription should be avoided because they are of limited use to most readers. And it also states that, only a website such as this should be included if: The web site itself is the topic of the article, or, It has relevant content that is of substantially higher quality than that available from any other website. Neither of which is true for this website. This website should be deleted from the EL list if this article has any chance of ever becoming an FA.
  • Electric Shock - I respect the fact that this is a well-known and long-running website and that it's owner is very respectable, I'm not slagging the website itself off at all, I do think it's rather good. But, I must refer you to a policy from WP:EL, in which it states that one should avoid: Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain once it becomes a Wikipedia:Featured article. This , in my opinion, is true of this website. It doesn't really give more information than any other of the websites, or the article itself already gives and therefore, does not merit inclusion in my opinion.
Seen as there's obvious confusion over which is the official AC/DC website, even if there truly is one, then I'll drop that from my argument and conclude that we have three Officials! HK51 21:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Hk51, no where on the WP:EL does it expressly forbid a site requiring registration! It only gives recommendations in very general terms. And that site btw, only requires registration with Yahoo. Of course Yahoo, at last check, is still the most popular site in the world. So, it's quite likely that most people reading Wikipedia would already have a free ID on Yahoo, is it not?

I also think removing Electric Shock is a mistake as well. You're talking about a website that was the bible for AC/DC fans before AC/DC even had any presence on the net. It didn't get to the 2nd spot on Google without having a ton of hits over the years. For a long time, it was the #1 ac/dc site on the web. NCC17 22:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy basically states that sites requiring registration should not be included in EL sections unless they're either the subject of the article, or there are no other decent websites on the Internet that provide information on the articles subject. In this case, seen as we already have sites which give out information without a requirement for registration, it seems strange that this message group is included. The fact that Yahoo is one of the most popular sites on the web, even if this is true, is completely irrelevant. You can't assume everyone is going to have a Yahoo ID.
To me, Electric Shock doesn't provide any more information that's already in the article and covered by the other sites. I respect its history and its standing, but I don't think it merits inclusion. The discussion on this site will probably always be open, Wikipedia policy doesn't necessarily suggest it not be there, but I think it's a waste of time having both it and Crabsody In Blue there, I'd pick either or. HK51 21:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, come on, we had this discussion before, www.acdcrocks.com is the official page, there's nothing to argue. The other links are completely unnecessary. Cheers. No-Bullet 19:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

To No-Bullet: So you say, based on something supposedly seen on a DVD that's how old? If it is the official AC/DC site as you claim, why does it not say so anywhere on acdcrocks? You'd think they'd want to post that information prominently, if it were true??? NCC17 03:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

To HK51: I think you're misquoting wiki guidelines (not rules, btw). It's obvious that this policy is mostly an attempt to discourage sites that require a subscription. It's also my belief that it's completely relevant that Yahoo is the most popular site in the world as the EL policy is clearly only there to discourage small sites requiring registration from being posted on Wiki. (Mainly newspapers.) As far as it's newsgroup's merits, can you name another AC/DC site that has band news updated daily, even hourly at times? None of the other links posted have that uniqueness.

I've also stated why Electric Shock is unique due the knowledge of the owner and his work on what will probably prove to be the most definitive AC/DC book, which incidentally was co-authored by Murray Engleheart. If I have to tell you who that is and his relation to AC/DC's career then I would guess you don't know as much as you think you do about AC/DC.

Anyway, my point is that people come to wikipedia to get AC/DC info. Either you want to give them the best resource links out there or you don't. If all you care about is what status this article gets (which who really gives a damn, imho - certainly not the average AC/DC fan) then keep gutting the best links and limit what info can be found here. NCC17 03:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is an encyclopedia, we're here to make quality articles. Wikipedia is not a repository of links. The information should be inside the article. No-Bullet 02:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
First off, the live at Donington DVD is only three years old, and as I said, I can do a screen shot of where it states acdcrocks.com as the official site.
Secondly, I'm not misquoting guidelines (which I never said were rules, I said they were policies IIRC), you can read it for yourself right here: WP:EL. I'm sorry, but nowehere does it state in WP:EL that the fansite policy is just there to discourage small sites, if that were so, it would say so. Also, I can't even check to see if what you say about this fansite is correct. Why? I don't have a Yahoo ID! That's why the policy is there. There are some, believe it or not, who don't have Yahoo IDs and don't wish to get one in the near future, thus, the site is completely useless to them.
Third, what the owner does in his free time is none of my concern. Even if he was in AC/DC, that wouldn't change my opinion on the site. I just don't see why it needs to be there. The owner's status has absolutely nothing to do with this. And low and behold, I have no idea who Murray Engleheart is. I actually don't care. You can launch your little subtle personal attacks at me all you like, it doesn't change the fact that you are wrong about the links. Why do you think people have been arguing with you and edit-warring with you for months over these links?
If people want AC/DC links, tell them to go and type "AC/DC" into Google. Like No-Bullet said, Wikipedia is not a link repository, it's an encyclopedia. I care about giving the best information out there on the band, if the article ever does get to FA status, I'll be happy for it and the team of editors who've worked hard at it these past few months, trying to get it perfect. If it doesn't, myself and all the other editors here will try our best to get it to FA again. Because, in case you don't know, FAs are the best articles on Wikipedia, and there's a reason why someone used these links as one of their reasons for objecting to the article's promotion to FA status. HK51 20:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The screenshot: http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/6338/vlcsnap38141dx7.png HK51 21:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
BTW, the back of the Family Jewels DVD also says "www.acdcrocks.com", at least the latin american version. No-Bullet 04:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


Look, I don't want to edit-war w/anyone. Especially, not like before. And my mention of Murray Engleheart was not meant as a subtle attack on you at all. I'm sorry you took it that way. What I am suggesting is that the book that will be coming out in January (in most of the world) will likely be the most definitive ac/dc tome ever available. It includes the participation and the cooperation of the actual band members which has never been done before and may not be accomplished again.

My point is that people viewing this article in the future will want to know where they can find the author's website. Not only should you look at current site information, you should look at a site's potential for accurate info in the future. That's why I support the links that I do. I would say also that much of the accurate info that's in this article comes from experts on the band like Arnaud and the owner's of the other site's that are currently linked here.

Rolling Stone & Music Brains certainly don't qualify to be here imo when you look at what info they have and what they will likely focus on in the future concerning ac/dc. However, I've compromised on them and I'm asking for your continued compromise on the links I've posted and support being here.

Btw, regarding the other issue, a screenshot from a three year old dvd does not constitute any proof of acdcrocks.com being ac/dc's official site. I can show you a picture of the Back In Black album that's brand new and they still haven't got the correct song order on it after 26 years!

Even if they have claimed that on a dvd, they do not claim it on Sony's site now. I wonder why that is??? NCC17 22:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

No-one's edit-warring, I specificly haven't edited the EL section again for that reason. At this moment in time, I see no reason why Electric Shock has to be included. I'm not saying it's a bad website, and I'm by no means disrespecting the owner in any way, I just don't believe it (from WP:EL), "provide[s] a unique resource beyond what the article would contain once it becomes a Featured article." To narrow that down, I don't think it gives the reader any more information that's not already in the article. If it offers any further information in the future, then we could take it into consideration again, but as of this moment, I, personally, don't believe it, like I said, offers the reader any more information than what's already there in the article.
It's all well and good if the site's owner has written a great book on AC/DC, but his site doesn't, in my opinion warrant inclusion here. If people want to find out more about the author of the book, I'm sure a URL of his site will be included in the book, if not, a standard Google search will bring up his site.
Rolling Stone does most definitely qualify to be here, as of this moment it's the only site we have listed which offers reviews on the band's albums. It also has several interesting articles, one of which is actually written by Rick Rubin. The biography section does show the band in a bit of a bad light...but it does show a differing POV than what's on, say, the Atlantic Records website. Thus, we're showing the reader two varying opinions on the band.
MusicBrainz, I'm not entirely sure about...but I've seen it listed on countless other band articles (see The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Kid Rock, there are many others too). Therefore, I'm sure it's included for some reason. However, if no-one can provide a valid reason as to why it should be listed here, I agree with you on this.
Why don't you think this constitutes as it being the official website? This is the only evidence I've seen which confirms any of the record sites we have listed as official, something I think we should take into consideration. None of the other websites have themselves listed as officials, but really, anyone could create a website and call it the official AC/DC website. Therefore having the word "official" in the actualy website does not necessarily make it so. And to further add to this, why would Sony say their website is official on the DVD if it wasn't? Surely for something like that, Albert Music would have taken notice and taken appropriate legal action against Sony for this offence?
To sum up, I'm willing to reach a comprimise with you, but not if it violates WP:EL. I see no reason to include websites which provide no further information than what's already in the article.
PS: I've just noticed the Crabsody in Blue website isn't working. I'm not entirely sure if this is something to do with my connection (I doubt this, seen as all of the other websites are working) or whether the site has actually closed down, so could someone else check it on their computer? Thanks. If it's down, it should be removed as soon as possible. HK51 20:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Crabsody in blue is working fine for me. No-Bullet 21:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm...it's still not working for me. Must just be my connection then, but all of the other sites are still working :S ...oh well. HK51 22:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
NCC17 - Please discuss here before you edit the EL section again. ĤĶ51→Łalk 22:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry dude, I believe this discussion belongs here. I'm reverting back to the edit that Administrator Soothing put in place. A decision which you agreed to abide by, btw. NCC17 19:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I see somebody at IP# 156.34.142.158 has gone back to anonymous vandalism to get their way regarding the links.NCC17 20:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Another anonymous link vandal at 142.166.250.167. Gee, I wonder who could this be? NCC17 20:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Look, you clearly do not understand the concept of this place. Just because I agreed with the conclusion fom last time, does not mean I can't change my mind. Nothing can ever be "set in stone" here, nothing. I'm sick and tired of your dictatorial control over not only the links here - but the ELs in other AC/DC articles; comments like Anonymous edits will be reported as vandals which you posted on the Bon Scott talk page just don't cut it. Ever heard of WP:AGF? Clearly not. Ever heard of WP:EL? Clearly not. Ever heard of WP:3RR? Clearly not.
Please, start making proper contributions to this article; I look at your edit history and I see nothing but silly little disputes over this EL section. Go look at User:No-Bullet's contributions if you need any inspiration, there's someone who's worked hard on this article. I look at your edit history and I see nothing but your ownership over this very section.
Even if you don't want to contribute in any other way except these links, then please make a proper retort to my comment to you on the 29th November. Good day. ĤĶ51→Łalk 21:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Look kid, I was editing this article and other AC/DC articles under another name long before you showed up here. I've made plenty of contributions which you are ignorant of. Btw, your opinion of these disputes as being silly shows me that you have no respect for what matters to other editors.

If you make an agreement with other people you should learn to stick to that and not go back on what you've said. Okay, so you changed your mind. That doesn't mean you get your way and that doesn't give you the right to make null and void the link agreements that an entire group of editors came to, does it? No wait, you think it does...

If you wanted to change things, you shouldn't have erased the agreement we all settled upon and just decided arbitrarily that you would be the guy from now on that makes all the decisions here. NCC17 04:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't patronise me, kid. You most definitely haven't made any decent contributions to any AC/DC article in the past six months, just disputes over these silly links. It only appears to matter so much to you. People have constantly told you that these links breach WP:EL, yet, you never listen to them; assuming ownership of all the AC/DC-related EL sections.
I only agreed to your links because back then I had only been active on Wikipedia for a month or two, and was not aware of WP:EL. I didn't just swoop in here and change the links, you obviously have no idea what's went on here the past few months do you? I made a proposal at the start of this discussion, User:No-Bullet agreed to it and a few days later an anon IP chnged the section to what No-Bullet and I agreed to. No-one had any objection to No-Bullet and I's consensus, so the links stayed there, unedited, until you showed up again. I normally try my best to refrain from personal attacks and keep my cool, but you just don't have a clue.
I didn't erase the agreement, No-Bullet archived it; it's linked to at the top of this page. You are clearly the person deciding that you make all the decisions regarding these links. You can rant all you like that SoothingR came to your agreement, but he didn't. He agreed to change all of the record-site links to "Profile pages". Nothing else.
Get your facts straight. ĤĶ51→Łalk 11:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, so now you're removing Soothing's links from the talk page? What juvenile behavior! However, two can play this game.

None of these links violate the WP:EL by the way. The WP:EL is only a general guideline whose obvious purpose is to block pay sites from being listed as links on wikipedia. If you truly believe that it excludes all sites that you have to sign up for, which it does not, then you cannot possibly list acdcrocks.com here because you have to sign up on that site as well to get much of it's content.

And btw, not every editor has time to check in with this site daily or even weekly. So you waited two whole days and then you and NoBullet decided you had a new consensus and everybody is supposed to accept that? What a joke!

Okay, so NoBullet archived the discussion. Why take it off this page at all? It was a pretty important agreement that many editors had come to which, incidentally, solved a lot of problems this page was having. Now you're doing nothing but encouraging anonymous sockpuppets to constantly change things. Good going. I'm glad your ethics allow you to be okay with that. NCC17 18:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? I didn't remove any links on this page, I added what I thought the section should look like; something which you just edited, I have no idea what you're trying to do here. Don't edit other people's talk page comments.
I'm tired of this "discussion"; you haven't read a word I've said. It's all there in WP:EL. It states there not to include: Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain once it becomes a Featured article and A site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked to unless: The web site itself is the topic of the article, or It has relevant content that is of substantially higher quality than that available from any other website. There's no room for discussion here; it doesn't state this only includes pay sites anywhere in WP:EL, if that was the purpose of the policy, it would say that. An admin has even edited the links as they violate WP:EL - what does this tell you? Over the past few months, anons and users alike have edited this section to conform with what is a very simple policy to understand.
No, I posted up what I thought the section should look like, No-Bullet agreed, a few days later an anon IP changed the section. I left it because no-one seemed to have an objection. Then when you came along, I didn't edit-war, I discussed it with you. And with each comment, you've become increasingly more uncivil.
It's policy to archive old discussions, these pages take up a lot of space after a while and it makes it hard to edit with it being too big. Anyone can see the old discussion by selecting it in the archive box at the top of the page.
I am not encouraging anyone to constantly change things; that's a downright lie. You're doing nothing but getting yourself into trouble by breaking policy, yet again. Stop the personal attacks, you're making yourself look like a child. ĤĶ51→Łalk 22:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
And just to clarify, User:SoothingR did not come up with the link compromise you keep adding back into he article - techically, I did and you sorted it alphabetically. SoothingR only suggested the record company sites be listed as "Profile pages" and he also said the anon who removed the Yahoo! fan club link was in the right. ĤĶ51→Łalk 14:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

last album and tour

where did you get Angus' quote? are you sure this new album will be the last one for the band? are they going to split? i know the members are gettin' old and all, but, why is this new album the last one for the band? please respond. Jailbreaker22 16:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

That quote has been here a long time ago, sourced with the marshall pdf. I heard it something like that, so i left it. Now, i couldn't find a reliable source, so i deleted it. No-Bullet 19:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

FA?

Well, about a week ago, Daniel Bryant told me in my user talk page that the ac/dc article could be a FA, and i was thinking in nominate it. What do you think?? No-Bullet 19:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've no problems with it being nominated...but I'm not entirely sure if it's ready for FA status, it needs some expansion, especially in the Brian Johnson era section. The Influences section could also do with some work. But if other people think it might be ready, I say go ahead with it. HK51 21:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, then please help me to expand those sections. Thanks =) No-Bullet 00:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
The influences section only named bands, so i've moved it to List of tributes to AC/DC in popular culture. No-Bullet 01:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'll do my best to find a few new things. Oh, do you know how to cite something from a DVD documentary as a reference? HK51 18:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
You could cite it with the ref tags like a normal reference. No-Bullet 17:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The DVD didn't give out a whole lot of information that wasn't already in the article :( Hmmm...I guess I could buy a book on the band or something. Either way, digging up information on AC/DC is hard! HK51 20:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is it that the artical says that Angus said the new album would be a double, yet the reference says it was Brian? Ferdiaob 02:48, 04 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 04:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Official Biography

Just out of pure curiosity, has there EVER been an official biography of AC/DC on either DVD or Book? Ive found countless unofficial ones and i know that AC/DC has an official biographer, but ive never found an officially sanctioned bio. Ferdiaob 01:37, 06 December 2006 (UTC)

I've heard that there is an official biography in the making.

There is, it's called "The Story of AC/DC: Let There Be Rock" by Susan Masino
http://www.amazon.com/Story-AC-DC-There-Rock/dp/0825634695 MwM 18:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Picture

The Artist picture of the band in the infobox is small and kind of blurry. Can someone find a better one? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Necko (talk • contribs) 22:14, 7 December 2006.

Influences

I think we should remove that section for both articles, it just lists bands from Musicmatch and AMG. What do you think? Cheers. No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 18:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

True. I'd be happier if we could find sources which show each of these band's actually saying AC/DC influenced them, if not, just cut it. ĤĶ51→Łalk 22:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Having said the above, it would be good if we could maybe find some sources showing a few bands saying they've been influenced by AC/DC, and also if we could even find out who influenced AC/DC themselves (I'd always heard Little Richard was an influence). This would make a great addition to the article imo, but not until we find sources! ĤĶ51→Łalk 22:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Any of the unofficial biographies will include quotes from Angus about Chuck Berry etc, plus Malcolm's Rolling Stones influence etc. Maybe start there. I would but I haven't got the books with me. Bretonbanquet 22:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Members

Did we not agree a few months ago to use the "Classic" line-up in this section? I.e. the one with Bon Scott? It seems the most relevant to me. The Dave Evans line-up was of little impact whatsoever. ĤĶ51→Łalk 22:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know why people think that lineup is so important. The classic formation is also more suitable for that section. No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 23:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I'll add the "Classic" line-up back in now. ĤĶ51→Łalk 23:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Who says the "classic" line-up included Mark Evans and not Cliff Williams? It seems hard to justify, and "classic" is a POV word... Bretonbanquet 16:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, that was just what was on the archive page when I copy/pasted it; Cliff Williams is probably more relevent. Well then we should find an alternative to the word "Classic", because I just don't see the point of having the Dave Evans/Original line-up there, that line-up just wasn't important; they only released one single IIRC, which was later re-recorded., therefore, I don't know why people think D. Evans deserves a special mention in that section over Bon Scott.

User:209.105.206.97 wants the Dave Evans line-up there (from my talk page) "because that is what the earlist lineup is", but I don't see the point in that argument. It's the earliest line-up sure, but why should it get preference over a Bon Scott line-up? ĤĶ51→Łalk 16:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I certainly don't see the point in having the original Dave Evans line-up there - they might have been the first but they're hardly vital to the story. Isn't there a timeline of line-ups somewhere? If so, then the only line-up you need to have separately is the current one. A lot of people would argue that it's the "classic" line-up anyway, the line-up that recorded "Back In Black". I just don't see any great relevance in plucking another line-up from the 70s and putting it in a separate section, just because they recorded the best music according to most of us. Bretonbanquet 18:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The member timeline page is: Past members of AC/DC. I see a relevance to a Bon Scott line-up in that Scott is very integral to the story, it was with him the band earned their international success. Having said that, you're right, it is hard to justify any line-up as "Classic", so I'd be happy with just the current line-up there, just as long as the Dave Evans line-up isn't placed there as well. ĤĶ51→Łalk 23:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there should be a classic lineup section. classic is an opinion. Wikipedia deals in facts, not opinions. I consider the first line up the original lineup. I also think that bon scott was the best singer of the three; also that brian johnson was the most influential. we should just classify the lineups by date, not by which one was the classic one or not. Captanpluto123 05:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Lead Section

Since Orane mentioned in the FA nomination that the lead section does not meet the criteria. I think we should rewrite the section, so I've been trying this in my sandbox (User:No-Bullet/Sandbox). What do you think? No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 23:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me, great job, makes a welcome improvement on the old lead. Add it in as soon as you can. ĤĶ51→Łalk 23:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Done, but I still think it need some work, my english is far from perfect and it needs expanding the Johnson part. Cheers. No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 04:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Cleaned up the grammar and stuff just then. I agree about expanding the Johnson part of it - I'll see what i can do later on. ĤĶ51→Łalk 19:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Expanded the lead, I still think it needs a little more work, but tell me what you think. Oh, don't you think we should move the stuff about them being ranked #4 in VH1's 100 Greatest Acts of Hard Rock and about them being the second highest earning entertainers in Australia to the "Recent events" section? ĤĶ51→Łalk 20:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right, the last paragraph with the sales and everything should be moved, I'm not sure what to do with the VH1 ranking, do what you think it's better :). Cheers. No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 01:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I moved the VH1 ranking further on down the lead and the second highest earners thing into "Recent events". In the Recent events section, I have also removed the Helen of Troy musical section as it is more to do with Brian Johnson and not the band as a whole (it's covered in his article) and also the section about the Family Jewels DVD - I don't see a reason why it deserves a special mention, all of the info on it is covered in its article. This ok? ĤĶ51→Łalk 02:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Great! No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 16:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I think its a good start; but i don't like all of it. I don't think you should call acdc a heavy metal band. the band is very offended by the term, as well am I. i don't think acdc sounds remotely like led zepplin. but besides that, its great. Captanpluto123 05:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The band isn't called a heavy metal band in the lead, they're called a pioneer of heavy metal music. For example, I wouldn't call Led Zeppelin themselves a metal band, but they sure did inspire a lot of modern heavy metal groups, as did AC/DC. ĤĶ51→Łalk 14:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

rough and tough dvd

where in the world did you find this upcoming dvd? you need to cite this or it will be removed. Jailbreaker22 23:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Might be a bootleg - the same editor added a bootleg album which I've already deleted - I didn't notice he'd added the DVD as well. Bretonbanquet 00:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

i noticed the dvd was removed. looks like no one cited it. Jailbreaker22 16:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I have seen the DVD in UK and it states "Made in Germany" and cites "VEO STAR ENTERTAINMENT GMBH" all of which looks OK? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.4.206.104 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 18 December 2006.

List of tributes to AC/DC in popular culture

I've just requested a peer review for the former FLC List of tributes to AC/DC in popular culture and I'd be grateful if anyone here could give any feedback on it. Its peer review sub-page is located here: Wikipedia:Peer review/List of tributes to AC/DC in popular culture/archive1. Thanks. ĤĶ51→Łalk 11:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Australian?

Well only one of the members, the rest are either English or Scottish. Please make that clearer. 82.34.1.182 15:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)Both Malcolm and Angus are from Australia. They founded the band in Australia, therefore making the band Australian.

Copy editor in need of clarification

Is this sentence, "The track selection of this album was heavily weighted towards the more recent T.N.T. and included only two songs from their first LP, Little Lover and She's Got Balls", supposed to mean:

  • "included only two songs from their first LP, Little Lover, and She's Got Balls" OR
  • "included only two songs from their first LPs, Little Lover and She's Got Balls" ???

Random Passer-by 17:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi :o) the album included only two songs from their first LP (which was called High Voltage) - those two songs were Little Lover and She's Got Balls. Bretonbanquet 18:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah! A perfect explanation. I was wrong on both interpretations. Good thing you're here to correct me. Thank you. Random Passer-by 18:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
My pleasure - thanks for your input :o) Bretonbanquet 18:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Continued Success (1977–1978) - a suggestion for discussion

I've been copy editing AC/DC and in my opinion the following sentence is half meaningless rock-journalese and detracts from the encyclopedic tone of an otherwise excellent article but I haven't removed it (so interested editors can discuss this among themselves):

  • "The previous albums gave some ground to unheard elements, like backing vocals, but still feature the AC/DC minimalism signature; loud, simple, pounding riffs and grooving backbeats.< ref name="AMG" / >" (I have no idea what the first half of this sentence means and if "elements" are "unheard" then how are they on an album ??? !!!)
The sentence should be "some ground to previously unheard elements". Anyway, I added that to the sound sample, so remove it if you want. No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 22:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
What I find slightly odd is the idea that this was the first album with backing vocals on it. Has no-one heard the previous albums? Bretonbanquet 22:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
In the Bonfire book says that, I'll quote you the paragraph: "The unleashing of Highway To Hell in 1979 however was a whole new shipping container of nitro glycerine. The savagery of the guitars on Let There Be Rock and Powerage gave some ground to previously unheard of elements like background vocals albeit, it suitably AC/DC type background vocals." No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 00:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I've re-worded the paragraph. I hope it meets with your approval. I think this citation might need to be slightly more specific though: < ref name="Bonfire">Engleheart, Murray. "AC/DC", Bonfire, 1997-11-18. Retrieved on 2000-03-23. </ref >. Is it from a booklet released in the box set Bonfire? Or a news article or press release about Bonfire? Random Passer-by 13:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's wrong. Powerage had backing vocals, and so did some songs on Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap, like "Love At First Feel". "Bad Boy Boogie" from Let There Be Rock etc. Highway to Hell might have polished the backing vocals up a bit, but it wasn't a new idea. Bretonbanquet 01:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you all for the response, especially No-Bullet. I'd rather fix it than replace it, if fixing it's possible, because the second half of the sentence is so descriptive but, either way, it can wait until (my) tomorrow. Please keep discussing it as I'd love to hear further constructive suggestions. Random Passer-by 01:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
My internet service provider was DNSed today so I've had no internet access but I will keep my word and come back to this article as soon as possible. I also left a note for the League of Copyeditors requesting a second copy editor to have a look at the article. Random Passer-by 01:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, no problem :) No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 05:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Departure of Rudd (1983)

"goings-on" in the following sentence probably ought to be replaced with something more descriptive (suggestions welcome): "A music concept video with the same name, Fly on the Wall, featured the band at a bar, playing five of the album's ten songs, with various additional goings-on including an animated fly." (My apologies that I didn't sign this yesterday). Random Passer-by 01:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Did the Young family move to Adelaide or Sydney in 1963?

While I've been copy editing, IP 138.130.161.241 changed "Sydney" to "Adelaide" in the History section. It's the only contribution from that IP. I'm drawing it to your attention because I don't know if it's a correction by an anonymous editor or vandalism (most of the google hits say they moved to Sydney) and I don't want it to be missed because all my minor edits push it off the article's first history page. I've reverted it for now. Random Passer-by 10:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Copy edit

I'm done. I've left a note at the League of Copy editors and another editor should eventually proofread my work. In the meantime the regular editors should check to ensure I haven't accidentally altered the meaning of the article while I was copy editing. If you make further changes, or if specific changes are requested during the article's FAC, and you want me back then please feel free to leave a note on my talk page in addition to the League of Copy editors. Good luck with achieving featured article status and in the future. Random Passer-by 14:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

...

"Rudd finished most of the drum tracks for the next album but he was replaced by Simon Wright after the band held an anonymous audition."

Not true. Rudd did ALL of Flick Of The Switch, not most.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.157.229.60 (talk) 04:34, 12 January 2007

Plurality

Grammar was correct the first time. AC/DC is a band. AC/DC are members of a band. Not AC/DC are a band. Jerry lavoie 16:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:MoS matching spelling/grammar to match that rules used in the subject's country of origin. "AC/DC is" would only be correct in the United States. Since the band is Australian the gr./sp. rules "AC/DC are" is correct. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 16:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
No. It does not matter that the band is Australian. The name of the band (singular) is AC/DC. You can substitute the name with the word 'band' in any sentence, and the rules of plurality are the same. The band is old = AC/DC is old. This is k nown as a discretionary plural, as described in English_plural, as incorporated in WP:Mos by reference. In this case, it would be equally correct to use 'is' or 'are', so the original editor's format should not be changed. Jerry lavoie 20:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The lead had 'are' originally, thus, seen as you've stated both are correct, it should stay. Everything else in the article must be converted to have 'band' as plural for consistancy. ĤĶ51→Łalk 21:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to follow up. The proper Wiki-guideline for that is WP:ENGVAR. Basically, match article language to the subjects origin. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 21:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

In other matters of English variation, it seems that "in the charts" is the UK phrase, while "on the charts" is the North American phrase. During a copyedit, I innocently converted "in" to "on", but you are welcome to revert them. –Outriggr § 04:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)