Talk:Ramones

Band members section

Joey was the drummer for the first few rehearsals, I don't think that's worthy of being mentioned in the band members section. I mean, they started in early 1974, and by their first gig in March they already had Tommy on the drums. It's more that Joey was going to be the drummer rather than he was the drummer.

And for 'Elvis Ramone', can anyone find a source that says he was an official member and not just a fill-in for two shows? Without an official source, he should not be in the band members section. -Joltman (talk) 16:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I don’t really have an opinion regarding the Joey Ramone issue but in the case of Elvis Ramone the existing source within the article already supports his membership in the band. A Google search on him reveals several additional sources that state he was hired with the intention of him being the new drummer but that he was fired after two performances. If he was hired and fired, he was a member, regardless of how short the time may have been. Nothing I’ve seen notes that he was hired as a touring drummer until they could find a full time one. He was hired as a member and therefore deserves recognition as such. NJZombie (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Should Wikipedia generally (i.e. within the lead and article body; not infoboxes, titles, etc.) refer to this band as "the Ramones"?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is a longtime dispute regarding the first sentence of Ramones, specifically, whether it should begin as "The Ramones" or "Ramones". Current policy regarding the naming conventions of music groups doesn't appear to adequately address disputes regarding the use of definite articles in an unofficial capacity.

It's universally agreed that the band is officially known as "Ramones" because that is how they are credited on their CDS, audiotapes, and records. However, most other publications refer to this band as "the Ramones". Interviews reveal that the members of the group also refer to their band with a definite article in everyday speech. [1] [2] Other articles, such as Electric Light Orchestra and Nazz, take the same approach being proposed in this RfC.

This is not an RfC about changing the title of the article, but in how Wikipedia writes about this band and others with similar naming disputes. In the survey, please answer Yes or No in reference to the title question. ili (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes, for the sake of consistency and the common syntactical usage of the name. Depending on how you interpret WP:THE, the band members' everyday speech should be considered authoritative. And Wikipedia already uses unofficial definite articles for a countless number of group entities, like "the NFL" and "the RIAA". ili (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. (I came here from the RfC notice.) Based on my reading of WP:THE, the lead sentence and sentences throughout the page, where syntactically appropriate, should use the form "The Ramones" (in the lead sentence) and "the Ramones" (elsewhere). The pagename should stay as is (without "the"), as should the explanatory note in the lead sentence, and "The" should not be bolded in the lead sentence. I think it's tricky to rely on what some of the band members have been quoted as saying in interviews, but it's reasonable to consider how sources generally word the name in common use, when deciding how to write text here. (I looked at the reference list, and quite a few sources use "the" in their titles, though not all do.) On the other hand, the "official" designation should be used for the pagename. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
• Yes per the two above comments. This would be consistent with how we handle Eagles (band), another band whose name does not officially include the word "the" but is often referred to as such. -- Calidum 21:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
• Yes per other comments. As a band, they were and are commonly called "the Ramones". Most merch simply uses the style "Ramones", but that's not very relevant to an encyclopedia article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
• No I see mentions of different interpretations of WP:THE. The following sentence, specifically referring to bands, makes it crystal clear to me. "This only applies if the definite article is used by the band on their musical publications (CDs, audiotapes, records, etc.) or on their official website. Conversely, some bands – such as Eurythmics, Eagles, Pixies and Odds – do not have the in their names, even though they may sometimes (or even often) be referred to as "the (Name)" in everyday speech. In all cases, default to the form of the name that is actually used by the band themselves, and use "(band)" to disambiguate if necessary." As mentioned in a previous conversation on this very talk page, despite how the band may say the name in interviews, the band officially uses Ramones as the name, not the Ramones. That goes for their official album releases, merchandise, website, etc., just as the above policy states. If the rest of the article wants to refer to the band members as "the Ramones" I see no issue with that as it's talking about the members, but the article name, infobox and lead sentence should refer to them in the way their official named which does not contain "the" in the title. NJZombie (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Now that you explain it that way, I can see the logic, but I still think it fails the principle of least astonishment, for all the reasons that have already been said. ili (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

It's identical to the point I presented above months ago. My stance hasn't changed from then to now. As far as the failure in regards to principle of least astonishment, that's an article about a rule that "applies to user interface and software design" to which Wikipedia articles have no connection or obligation to follow. WP:THE, however, is a policy for Wikipedia articles which specifically states the name should only use the definite article "if the definite article is used by the band on their musical publications (CDs, audiotapes, records, etc.) or on their official website" which they don’t in either instance. As far as confusion as to why the lead sentence uses "Ramones" instead of "The Ramones" that's what the footnote I originally placed is actually for before it got altered. If a user can't figure it out past that, how much further are we supposed to hold their hands through an article? NJZombie (talk) 04:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• Yes. The Eagles and other examples serve as precedent, and if the issue is about overall usage, that's a different RfC. I think this is about Readability and writing to the general reader, who would find the dropping of the article odd. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 22:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
• Yes IMO this has little or nothing to do with their official name, it's more about the normal and non-awkward way to write a sentence. North8000 (talk) 00:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. If the band routinely refer to themselves that way, and so do reliable sources in most cases, that is then the common name and should be how the article refers to them. From what I can find, that is indeed the case here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
• Yes Otherwise the prose would be bizarre. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. "Jackie is a bookie / Judy's taking loans / They both came up to New York / Just to see the Ramones." Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

  "Tryptofish looked back here / Tryptofish is glad / To see this amusing quote / From Mr. Newyorkbrad." --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

• Yes Newyorkbrad's argument above is irresistible. Jschnur (talk) 01:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, based on what they are commonly known as. Idealigic (talk) 22:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
• Yes For consistency and they are mostly referred to as that. Sea Ane (talk) 22:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, to do otherwise is pedantry when this usage is so universal. Retswerb (talk) 07:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Power Pop

The Ramones are, of course, a PUNK ROCK band, nothing else.

The first "Power Pop" source says: "Tom Petty, The Cars, Blondie, The Bangles, XTC, and even Ramones and R.E.M — in their early stage — and many others at some point had at least a song or two, if not more, that can easily be labeled as power pop." Yeah? The Ramones also have songs that are country ("questioningly"), hardcore ("animal boy", "weasel face", etc), acoustic ballads ("i want you around", "i won't let it happen", "don't come close" etc.), new wave ("chop suey", "howling at the moon"), girl group wall of sound ("baby i love you"), surf punk ("california sun", "surfin' bird", "sheena is a punk rocker", "do you wanna dance?", "rockaway beach", "surf city", "surfin safari" etc), horror punk ("chain saw", "pet sematary", "...basement", "zero Zero ufo"), hard rock ("death of me", "highest trails above", "i just wanna have something to do", etc.), and more. Should we add all these genres? Suppose I could find some blogs and a random scenester that remarks that "wart hog" and "the crusher" are the Ramones contributing to the development of rap rock (rap punk?)... would that be fair game for the infobox?

The second source is from a non-notable blog.

The third is from Punk Magazine founder John Holmstom, but as I have noted previously on this page- Holmstrom merely said in an interview "some people considered the Ramones power pop". He didn't identify who those people were... was it fans? musicians? journos? He was not writing that the Ramones were a Power Pop band in an article in his occasional function as a rock journalist.

I hate the "pop punk" tag too, but I can rewrite that part of the article to reflect the sources accurately. The "power pop" label is bunk.

Edit: I ended up leaving some reference to "power pop" in the article, in a way that doesn't mangle reality, but you've got to stop putting it in infobox. It isn't so, and THERE IS NO NOTABLE SOURCE, and never will be, THAT DESCRIBES THE RAMONES AS A POWER POP BAND. They are so strongly identified as purveyors of punk rock music, and you are diluting that truth with these ephemeral associations with other genres. Keithramone33 (talk)

Richie Stern as a band member

Should Stern really be counted as a member of the band if he only lasted a few rehearsals and never actually performed with them? Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 17:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Note that I removed Stern and he was put back due to "lack of consensus" here. Interesting, though, is there hasn't been any answer to my question yet. It seems odd that someone who never performed with a band is listed as a member. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 17:27, 3 August 2024 (UTC)