Talk:Rush (band)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Rush (band) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 19, 2006.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
Archive 1: 2002 – Dec 2006
Archive 2: 2007 –


Contents

[edit] Politics?

I've often sensed Rush has a sublte socio-political message to send, perhaps best described as Libertarian. I'm NOT talking about songs like Subdivisions; the message there hits you over the head. I'm talking about Trees, Temples of Syrinx, etc.

Can anyone comment on this? Has it ever come up during band interviews? Exbuzz (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't discuss these things as if this were a general forum, however, if your intention is to include such things in the article, then we need to satisfy WP:V. However, I'm fairly certain nothing remotely reliable or worthy would be found. My understanding is that the band shies away from political stances, or at least revealing them. Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This article is a mess

The article looks like crap. It is waaay unorganized. The members and style sections are at the top? Why is there a seperate article for their history? Why is that unsourced? Why are there sections about the members? This isn't featured material. A FAR is in near sight. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 23:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is just fine. It remains fairly close to the article that was voted to FA status. And several dedicated administrators and editors (many of the same admins and users who got it featured in the first place) have worked hard to maintain it as such and to keep newbies and no nothings from coming in and complaining and trying to change(ruin) it. If it ain't broke... and it ain't... don't try to fix it. 156.34.222.121 (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, seems like the user has a stylistic issue with the article. Sorry to hear that. This article has remained remarkably stable since it was promoted to FA status - no edit wars, no wholesale changes. In fact, the only changes have been the addition of sourced material mostly. An opinion of disjointedness and then an insinuation of FAR is a little disrespectful to the editors. Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
While I think that Burningclean's premise is voiced in a hostile manner, I'd like to hear his suggestions. I don't think there's anything wrong with the article, and note that the bands in the articles he's raised to FA have far less history and scope than Rush, and that ought to be considered. That said, if he can present some solid ideas with rationales, I'd like to hear them. The bitch-fest above, though, does not cut it, nor does the 'FAR threat' he gives. ThuranX (talk) 01:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Calmly is fine. (but after 20000 'account' edits and 30000 'anon' edits... I am allowed to be b*tchy :D ) I am simply trying to nip another "User:PainMan" in the bud. No one wants to see anything like that bulldoze through here again. Wisdom89... as always... you have the com. 156.34.222.121 (talk) 01:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I didn't mean for it to be hostile. The anon above is very hostile. You should take a look at WP:CIVIL. FAR isn't always a nomination of whether or not it is kept, it can also be a type of peer review. I'll list some suggestions. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 04:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions

You all should also keep in mind that the FA criteria for bands has changed since this was promoted. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 04:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

  • The "Style and Influences" section is way to short for a band like this.
  • "Style and Influences" should be before "Band members" and they should both be placed after the history portion. Y Done
  • The sound samples should be reformated so that they fit in with the prose. (see Alice in Chains to see what I am talking about.) Y Done
  • The "external links" section has too many ELs. See WP:EL Y Done
  • "Fan convetions" either needs to be expanded and sourced or removed entirly Y Done
  • "Awards" should be split onto a different article (ie: List of Rush awards). Y Done that for WP:FL status. Maby try FL for the discog too. Keep in mind, those last two are suggestions. And getting FLs is pretty fun if you ask me.
  • Okay the three biggest problems:
    • "Style and Influences" is way too short for a band such as Rush. Look at Opeth, they are know by probably less than 500,000 people, and look at that Style and Influence section.
    • All of the references are unformatted. They should be in {{cite web}} format, or akin for the type of ref.
    • The biggest problem that I see: Whay is there a seperate article for the history? It isn't even sourced. That should be merged into the main article and sourced.

The last three "suggestions" that I listed make me see this article as not FA worthy. The rest is stuff that should be taken care of, but doesn't mean it should be demoted. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 04:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

  • There's no hard requirement to use cite templates for references. The influences section has been trimmed down from time to time so it does not become huge. I don't see why length there makes the article un-FA. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
First off I'd like to say that more often than not Burningclean and myself disagree on all things Wikipedia band articles; however, in this instance, Burning is absolutely correct and I myself was thinking about an improvement drive for this article. The fact that this article hasn't changed since its FAC isn't necessarily a good thing; now a lot more is expected from band articles and Burning is absolutely correct on all counts above.
Apart from those excellent suggestions I'd like to say that my biggest concerns is that "Reputation" section which goes beyond fan-boyish gushing. "Despite his high esteem and popularity", "Peart's iconic status as a drummer.", and "Peart is widely regarded by music fans, drummers, critics, and fellow musicians as one of the greatest drummers in the history of rock, this high esteem continuing today as it has throughout his playing career.[70] He is also regarded as one of the finest practitioners of the in-concert drum solo". The overall tone too is blatantly POV; even if you have sources citing it, statements like these aren't fit for an encyclopedia like Wikipedia.
I also want to add that the way Burning was ganged up against was shocking; this article needs a do-over and FAR might be the best place for it. indopug (talk) 05:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
ganged up on? For coming in here in a hostile manner? Really? He was told to talk calmly by multiple people, a sign that his comment was easily recieved as troubling and that multiple people said so put the burden on HIM to tone it down. that's not ganging up, we told him to tell us what's wrong without bombastic threat, a behavior which both of you continue to manifest. 'do it our way or will insult your efforts with an FAR without talking to you about compromise 'cause we want it that way' is the message you both send, and frankly, it makes you both look like big jerks. When a simple list was presented, Wisdom responded. You two continued to demand absolute fealty or FAR. Hardly the best way to achieve any improvements. ThuranX (talk) 13:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
You don't think the IP was the least bit hostile? I beg to differ. Wisdom is doing a really good job on cleaning it up. The cittions are my problem because if this were at FAC right now, I think the majority of the people would want formated citations. Burningclean [speak] 18:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I am never hostile. Unless its for a valid reason. This article did not have any issues that required an editor with no previous interaction/experience with the article's regular editors suddenly storming in and insulting everyone who had ever worked on it. The article has already had a few stormtroopers march in and throw insults and demand changes without thinking that the article already has a dedicated group who look after it. The first defence when that happens is to say HEY!, back-off, step away from the page and try again later... without the insults. It certainly made you step back and try a different approach. Some of your suggestions had some merit. Some had partial merit. And some were a waste of time. But at least you broached them in such a way that others had the opportunity to review them and decide as a community. Rather than have it lambasted and changed without anyone else getting an input. I've been a regular Wiki-editor for 4 years. I've seen situations where AGF and cutsey-lovey-dovey tactics work in a dispute. And other times when it requires a hammer. In the end as long as the quality of the page is maintained... everybody wins. 156.34.222.121 (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
You should never be hostile for any reson. If you think that was a "valid" reason, then that was "a waste of time". I really don't care how long you've been on wikipedia, what does that have to do with this. I wanted to read about Rush and i noticed it was a featured article, when i looked at it, it certainly didn't look like a featured article. Wisdom cleaned it up pretty nice, there are a few kinks still however. I didn't back off and try another approach, I just listed what I thought sucked, because that's what someone wanted. If there were so many "stormtroopers", then don't you think the article should be cleaned up a bit so there aren't any more. I think that sounds like complete common sense. Have you even read the below discussion? If you did, you would have noticed that I lifted up a bit because Wisdom cleaned it up. Burningclean [speak] 22:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

My response:

  • Ok, as far as the style/influences section is concerned, and its placement with in the article: This is purely a stylistic concern, and it's really not necessary to go around comparing your personally desired format from other featured articles to this one. This is more or a less a preference issue.
  • Again, the same goes for the sound files. There is no rule/guideline that discourages their placement outside of the prose, unless it's in a box arbitrarily off to the side with no real purpose. Each song was picked as a representative tune for each era in the band's progressive history, hence why they are placed at the beginning of each section. You could be bold and place them in the body of the article yourself. I won't object - and I'm sure others wouldn't either.
  • There are only four external links that I can count. Hardly a cornucopia of superfluous links. I suppose the official rush radio site can go for all I care, but the others have merit and add to the article beyond the content therein.
  • The fan convention section, well, this I don't really mind too much about. I'm not sure why it was even placed in the article. I'll remove both links as they are empty and just take up space, as minimal as it may be.
  • The awards section was split into a different article in the past, however, it was suggested long ago to reinsert it back into the article. As a stand alone, it really didn't stand the test of a single article. There were other spin off articles from the main one too (trivia and pop culture relevance), and both were nominated for deletion and changed into a redirect effectively destroying them.
  • I won't comment on your important points, as they seem completely valid. That's something that can be worked on here though, through this discussion, and not FAR.
  • As for the separate article for the history. During the nomination for FAC it was suggested by many peers to trim down the section and make a parent article as it was excruciatingly too long..and dwarfed the rest of the sections. Wisdom89 (T / C) 05:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I've taken the initiative and tweaked some of the minor concerns. The other editors of the article will need to chime in order to determine whether there is consensus for these suggestions to be addressed. As I see it, the style section is brief, but descriptive enough without being detracting. It's written in summary style and serves its purpose with aplomb. Regarding the "fanboyish" stuff that was brought up above, all I can say is no, I don't agree. Each statement is backed by references. Wikipedia isn't proclaiming Peart's iconic status or the talent's of the band members, the citations are, and I feel that the statements reflect this. I also find it mildly interesting that nobody has made reference to the negative criticisms in the article, only the positive. Wisdom89 (T / C) 05:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
If the concerns are not addressed, Indopug and I will take this to FAR. If this article were an FAC right now, I would strongly oppose. FAR is the best place for this right now. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 18:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Since no one else has responded yet, I am addressing the concerns. However, my opinion is this: Taking this article to FAR after the changes I've already made (please comment), in addition to simply believing a section should be longer is a tad extreme. Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Looks better to me. Seems like the discography and sales sections can be grouped together under an Albums (or similar) section label. Still thinking about that. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I would have no problem with that at all - believe it or not it has crossed my mind before. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
There is still a lot of fanboy cruft throughout. I really would like for the stly section to be bigger. FAs are supposed to go along the lines of this, taken directly from the FA criteria page: ""Well-written" means that the prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of professional standard." —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 19:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I just don't really see it. Also, I'm not entirely sure why there is a problem with the citation formatting. Per WP:FOOT, the formatting is just fine. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
On WP:CITE#HOW it says that sources should be inline. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 19:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Footnotes are inline references. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- That states that one of the standard style formats should be used, not that Cite template have to be used. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The citations are fine. Someone needs to reread CITE#HOW, but it's not Wisdom. ThuranX (talk) 13:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is/are

WP:ENGVAR talks about this, and I'm pretty sure it says Canadian bands, just like Canadians, use the correct language, and not "they is."

142.162.200.157 (talk) 02:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

English differences reminds readers that British English can use either the plural or the singular form for collective groups, while American English prefers just the singular. This has been discussed many times before, and the consensus is to use the word "is", as the band is a single entity. You wouldn't say Citibank are a company, you'd say Citibank is a company. Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times before, and the consensus is to use the word "is",

What consensus?

You wouldn't say Citibank are a company,

Nah.

And Canada uses the same as Britian.

142.162.200.157 (talk) 02:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Canadian English is a blend American and British English. Right, you admit that you wouldn't say "Citibank" are. You wouldn't do that for any company or organization. A group is also a collective and falls into the same category. Wisdom89 (T / C) 03:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You didn't answer the first question.

The consensus was reached long ago, dig through the archives if you wish to see the discussion. Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, you admit that you wouldn't say "Citibank" are.

Huh? I said nah. That's two negatives.

142.162.200.157 (talk) 03:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

der no consensus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.200.157 (talk) 04:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Rush is a Canadian rock band. I'm Canadian, and that is Canadian English. And while we're on the topic of Canadian English, there are a few other words used in this article that maybe should be converted as well:
  • favor = favour
  • centerpiece = centrepiece
  • traveled = travelled
  • clamor = clamour
and other words such as bandmates and drumkit that really should be split with a hyphen. I've attempted to edit these words in the past, but it always seem to get reverted rather quickly. 142.68.130.128 (talk) 02:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Source? Consensus?

RandySavageFTW (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I am a late arrival on this discussion. Wisdom you may need to catch me up. It's hard to see who is on which side of the debate. Fnlayson, I do not wish to pick on you but your earlier edit summary about the article using Canadian grammar/spelling by consensus is wrong because, in fact, the article is actually doing the opposite to what Canadians use. Rush are a Canadian band. But historically the article has been written in incorrect American form. WP:ENGVAR dictates that the grammar of the article should reflect the nationality of the article subject. In which case 'Rush "ARE" a band" would be correct as that is proper Canadian English grammar. Whoever, some Canadians tend to ignore correct grammar simply because we are immersed in the spelling/grammar of our neighbours to the south and therefore we end up using American spelling and grammar as norm. This article, right or wrong, has been written historically in that incorrect form. And, despite wp:engvar, when a page has been been in a certain style for a long time there isn't a need to switch it even if its wrong. Unless there is consensus to do so. It would be my vote, as a patriotic Canuck, to have the article written properly. But there are lots of other issues on Wikipedia this one is rather minor and I can live with it just the way it is right now. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 21:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey Anger, nice to see you again. Since you are Canadian yourself, I will defer to you. However, from my understanding of Canadian English and those Canadians I've spoken with (I actually work with a few), the syntax is a mixture of American and British variances and thus there is no correct way to use the singular or plural for this article, and in fact, there is no one correct way even if the band was British. It's just preference. We should obey WP:MOS and make sure that it's consistent throughout. Wisdom89 (T / C) 23:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Like Wisdom, it's my understanding that while textbooks in Canada may favo(u)r the British style, in common usage things are a fairly even mix. As such, my feeling is that if a significant group pushes for a conversion to 'proper canadian' style, then that's fine, but otherwise, edit warring over it is childish, and it should be left as it has been. As this is mostly the work of a single editor, 'randy savage', and not a major consensus shift, I say it stands as is/was, that is 'is'. ThuranX (talk) 23:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I get used to hearing both depending on where I am. Southern Ontario and Southern British Columbia use a very "Americanised-ized" English form. The east coast and the midwest are likely to be more British in style. Strangely Southern "O" and "BC" dwellers will "speak" differently from what they "write" which makes it even more confusing. As long as it's consistent. I, myself, tend to look at a group of humans as a "they" rather than an "it". So saying "they is a band" hurts the ears a little. Maybe if I was from Arkansas "they is a band" would sound normal.(apologies to anyone from Arkansas its just a joke) For this article as long as it is consistent throughout then great. It was elevated to a featured article in the current English form. So why change it. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 23:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"They is"are is still incorrect in American English. "Is" in American usage is for a person or a single entity. "They" is still multiple persons, while a band, company and other named group are single entities. I'd prefer to use proper Canadian English, American English or other version in keeping with an article's subject. But consensus wins out. It is not productive to keep switching back and forth on things. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
"They are" Is incorrect grammar? Since when? "They are making their way over to our table now." not 'They is making their way over to the jug band.' They are is proper grammar. ThuranX (talk) 01:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Duh, right. Was supposed to be "They is". I started writing that, reworded it and missed fixing that part. Struke-out wrong word above. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

They is tryin' ta figger out which trailer park is the biggust. Thanks for the clarification and thanks for the chuckle. I is ready to give up for the day. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 01:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

In fairness o all, 'they is',while redneck-ish, is not the only American group to violate grammar regularly. 'youse guys is really startin'sa piss me off, and yous gonna disappear permanent-like if yas don' move along' represents another stereotypical pattern, lest someone thing we're bashing southerners or midwesterners. 02:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Logo

Back in February I made a comment about the use of the "Starman" logo that was never addressed. Basically there's no commentary in the article about the logo (who designed it, what it symbolizes, etc.), or supporting references. Based on the lack of commentary it appears to be used primarily as decoration, which isn't appropriate use of non-free content. If some supporting referenced commentary could be added, that would be great, but for now I've removed it from the article. I also removed it from the article on 2112, because per WP:NFCC #3 "minimal use" it should really only be used in either that article or this one, but not both. I also removed it from the userbox template, as NFCC #9 clearly doesn't allow non-free images to be used in userboxes or userpages, only in the article namespace. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

A pertinent interview with respect to this topic can be found in a 1983 issue of Creem magazine. Hugh Syme, the man behind most of the band's covers and graphic representations is asked about the image by interviewer Jeffrey Morgan.

Morgan: On the inside cover of 2112 is the first appearance of what has become a logo for the band.

Syme: Initially, that logo didn't begin as an identity factor for the band, it just got adopted. We didn't consider it a mascot overall icon of representation for the band at the time. What I did do with that particular cover was read their lyrics, and understand that there is a good force and a bad force: the good force was music, creativity, and freedom of expression-and the bad force was anything that was contrary to that. The man is the hero of the story. That he is nude is just a classic tradition ... the pureness of his person and creativity without the trappings of other elements such as clothing. The red star is the evil red star of the Federation, which was one of Neil's symbols. We basically based that cover around the red star and that hero. Now, that hero and that kind of attitude about freedom of expression and the band having that kind of feeling ... at the time, it never ready occurred to me, to be honest with you, that they would adopt it quite so seriously as a logo. Because it's appeared just about everywhere, thereafter.

This should provide enough content to include with the graphic in order to keep it in the article. Peter Fleet (talk) 00:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

So add a sentence to this article like: Hugh Syme creator of graphics on many of Rush's albums stated that the Starman logo, "... didn't begin as an identity factor for the band, it just got adopted." in a 1983 interview.<ref>Morgan, Jeffrey. "Article name", Creem magazine, Month 1983.</ref>
with the reference info properly filled in. Add this with more details to 2112 (album) maybe. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Rutsey

Wanted to see what the other main editors thought about this. Recently a user placed the birth and death dates of Rutsey within the article. Now, it's been a while since I perused WP:MOS and what not (not sure if it's even covered in there), but is this conventional? Does it belong here, or just within the article for Rutsey himself? Personally, it doesn't bother me, but, it kind of sticks out being that, while pivotal, he's a minor component of the article. I mean, if Jeff Jones passed away tomorrow, would we do the same thing? Anyway, those are just my thoughts. Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, given that no one seems to take issue, I'm just going to remove those details. I don't think they're particular necessary for the main Rush article, the info can be found in John Rutsey. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Rush appeared in an episode of Trailer park boys, season 3, episode 5 "closer to the heart" thought it should be in the article but didnt know where to put it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.176.53 (talk) 09:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that was just Alex Lifeson, and it is already mentioned in that article. Cheers. Wisdom89 (T / C) 15:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Band history and former members

Hi - I would like to know why my revisions to the band history (regarding Lindy Young and Mitch Bossi) have been removed. I believe they are relevant to the article and I made sure that I cited multiple sources. I understand there is a more comprehensive article on the band history linked here, but I don't feel that a concise paragraph summarizing some of the bands early lineup changes (as part of the main article) is extraneous information.

I think that if Jeff Jones is listed as a former member (having played ONE gig with the band), then Lindy Young and Mitch Bossi should be included as they were members of Rush for longer periods of time than Jones was. Mrose77 (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey there, I think the reasoning is as follows (at least for the the inclusion of Jones at the expense of others): Jones was a founding member of Rush in its earliest incarnation with Lifeson and Rutsey. His tenure really doesn't have any bearing here. As for Young, well, his stint overlapped with and was mostly with Hadrian' and Judd, so it's somewhat confusing (and argumentative) to include him as a early member of Rush. Bossi, ok, I'm not sure about this one. He was asked to join Rush once they reformed, and I believe he stayed for a few months, but again I think he is omitted from the concise/main article for the sake of brevity, conciseness and directness. Wisdom89 (T / C) 16:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kiss has more consecutive gold albums?

Kiss' album, Music from "The Elder", didn't go gold or platinum according to Wikipedia. That means they have 12 consecutive gold albums to Rush's 24.LedRush (talk) 04:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Consecutive Gold studio Albums?

In the fourth paragraph states "These statistics place Rush fifth behind The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Kiss and Aerosmith for the most consecutive gold and platinum albums by a rock band." I would like this to read "These statistics place Rush second behind the Rolling Stones for the most consecutive gold and platinum studio albums by a Rock Band." I don't think live albums and greatest hits compilations are the same thing as a new album going gold.LedRush (talk) 04:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think according to the RIAA it's the most gold and platinum albums, period, not consecutive. I believe you are correct. This should be changed. Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Sure, seems fine. What's the reference for this; RIAA's site? Really both studio and all albums rankings could be mentioned in the article. Although that's too much info to do both in the lead. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't get the reference. I just looked up the other four bands mentioned above Rush and counted the consecutive gold+ studio albums they had.LedRush (talk) 05:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
At my count, Rush: 16, Aerosmith: 15, Beatles: 13, Kiss: 12 and The Stones: 25 LedRush (talk) 05:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Looks like the info can be pulled from RIAA artist tallies. Correction: That does not help much. All albums are listed. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, we can start with that list and check each band with more than 16 gold albums. Does that count as "original research"? LedRush (talk) 05:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's easier to count from the RIAA tally list, using the number 24 as the magic number for Rush. I believe this is what the statistic in the lead is going by. At least, that what I remember doing when I originally put it in : ). Counting. Is it original research? Well, yes and no. We're counting ourselves, but this is a reliable source that can be fact checked. Wisdom89 (T / C) 05:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

24 is the number of gold albums. I wanted to put the list for consecutive gold studio albums. The RIAA tally list doesn't list consecutive albums, nor does it distinguish studio ones.LedRush (talk) 05:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's kinda my point. Consecutive albums is difficult to prove, and even harder when you're attempting to establish where Rush falls with respect to other rock bands. Wouldn't the total number suffice? Wisdom89 (T / C) 05:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The source, as it is, doesn't support the "consecutive album" claim made in the article. How did you get comfortable with that claim?
Anyway, I have counted the number of consecutive albums myself and the claim is accurate. Also, my proposed claim about consecutive gold studio albums is also accurate. Unfortunately, I don't know how to cite it. Basically I just searched for the artists sales on the site and checked it against a list of all albums found on Wikipedia. We could just site to a search page like this (http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH_RESULTS) for each band with more Gold records than Rush has consecutive ones (as those are the only ones that could have more consecutive ones and the cite would show which records actually went gold).LedRush (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Starman Logo

Does anyone know what the starman logo is supposed to signify? Capitalist Shrugged (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

From 2112, it represents the individual against the tyrannical masses. Wisdom89 (T / C) 00:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)