Talk:Aerosmith
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archives |
*/Archive 1 (Jan. 18, 2004 - Sep. 5, 2007) |
Contents |
[edit] Guitar Hero
A Guitar Hero: Aerosmith page has been created. Please link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mm03gt (talk • contribs) 00:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] "String" of Multi-Platinum Albums?
Toys in the Attic was their third album...the previous two constitute a string? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.91.61.98 (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- The "string of multi-platinum albums" refers to the five mutli-platinum studio albums they released in a row in the 1970s that started with their 1973 album Aerosmith, and ended with their 1977 album Draw the Line. Five multi-platinum albums in a row...I'd consider that a "string". Abog (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Toxic Twins.jpg
Image:Toxic Twins.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] name Aerosmith
What's the origin of the name? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 03:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- After playing their first gig at the Nipmuc Regional High School in 1970, the band took the name Aerosmith, suggested by drummer Joey Kramer. The name means nothing in particular; it simply was the only name that no one hated. Janadore (talk) 09:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Criticism
why is there no criticism listed on this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.166.218.4 (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Because it generally isn't appropriate for articles on music groups. There are mentions of criticism throughout the article though (selling out in the 1990s; poorly-selling albums in the 1980s, etc.) as well as in related articles (Steven Tyler criticized for saying "home of the Indianapolis 500" while singing the National Anthem; ticket prices on certain tours costing too much money, etc.). Abog (talk) 23:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] History 73-97
I bought the CD name Aerosmith - History 1973-1997 (Golden Hits). It isn't on discography in article. Here is cover to see:
FRONT: http://img136.imageshack.us/my.php?image=imgwb8.jpg
BACK: http://img85.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img2vj7.jpg
CD: http://img237.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img3gg0.jpg
And here: http://www.soundsbox.com/album.php?al=1188, I was find that album, but there is another cover. The CD was used, so maybe seller, changed cover, or is it may be fake? Please, if anybody can help. Leave the message on: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyskusja_wikipedysty:Kofeina
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.28.82.167 (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- It looks like a bootleg to me. There are so many bootleg and unofficial compilations out there, that it's hard to keep track of and come up with any sort of definitive list. There are only about 25-30 official releases (studio, compilation, and live) by the band and their record companies Columbia and Geffen, or the parent label Sony Music. Everything else is probably either manufactured by another company, is a repackaged/modified version of a prior release, or is a bootleg assembled by someone else. Looking at the images you have provided, there appears to be no identification of the band's record label or any other legitimate company that manufactures music, so methinks it is probably a bootleg. --Abog (talk) 21:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Re: Thx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.28.82.167 (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] External links
Would like to add
- AeroNewsDaily.com - News About Aerosmith
for the guideline listed as: "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Thanks Sakutak (talk) 04:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm cool with that, unless somebody else has a problem with it. Abog (talk) 05:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] GA Failed
I'm sorry, but I failed the GA nomination for Aerosmith. This failed mainly because of criteria 1: the prose. Especially the organization of the article.
Firstly, the lead is a problem. The first paragraph was good, but the second focused too much on their discography. It was too in-detail for a lead. You don't need to talk about every single and every album. Also, the names of the band members should be in the first paragraph of the lead. Remember, the lead is the highlights of the article, it shouldn't go into that much detail.
Secondly, the organization of the article was not to my liking. Although the article is separated into years, it is rather jumbled, with tours, singles, and albums mixed together. I think it would be advisable to split their singles/albums and their tours into different sections. That would make the article more organized and flow easier. Also, you should have an "Awards" section for all of their awards. What you should do is just break the article up more so it flows.
The article meets the other criteria:
2. It is adequately referenced. Definitely.
3. Appropriate broadness. Yes. Just need to break it down.
4. Written from a neutral point of view. Fine.
5. Article is stable, with no edit wars. Good.
6. Images are used liberally. Good.
It would be very optimistic to put this on hold and expect this to be done in a week, which is why I didn't. With a little fixing, this can easily be a good article. Good job on everyone who contributed to this. Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 01:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)