This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Rolling Stones article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject The Rolling Stones, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Rolling Stones on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.The Rolling StonesWikipedia:WikiProject The Rolling StonesTemplate:WikiProject The Rolling StonesThe Rolling Stones
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music
This article was copy edited by Dhtwiki, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 10–16 October 2022.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors
A random spot check of articles about albums by the Rolling Stones finds that they all use this structure for the lead sentence — eg, Sticky Fingers is the 9th British and 11th American studio album by the English rock band the Rolling Stones.
It's not at all clear what this means, and makes for a clumsy opening sentence. Whatever it means, if it's genuinely important, we should explain it in a sentence. If it's not important, we should leave it out of the leads for these articles. Popcornfud (talk) 03:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While what was the first, second or third album might be important, I find it odd to be talking about the 9th (or whatever) album as the first thing we say about an album. For lots of acts, the counting becomes complicated, as with UK and US releases for the Stones, and then we end up with clumsy sentences like this. I'd drop the wording and have the first sentence give the release date, as that's more interesting. Bondegezou (talk) 10:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was thinking that if we want to drop the numbering entirely, then we could just write something like "[such and such] is a 2023 album by the Rolling Stones."
I'd still like to hear from someone who knows what this opening line is trying to say because I still don't understand it. If it's important, there will be another way to explain it. Popcornfud (talk) 10:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this wording is unnecessary and it is common for me to make an album article and someone else to come along and add in that it's the "Xth album by [artist]" in the lead. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
@Popcornfud: In the 1960s, the Rolling Stones released different albums in the U.S. than they did in the U.K. These were differently-named albums with different track listings, or sometimes even same-named albums with different track listings. Sounds weird by today's standards, but the same was true of the Beatles, and other bands as well. You can see this briefly outlined at The Rolling Stones#Discography, and in more detail at The Rolling Stones discography#Studio albums. That's the meaning of the "Xth British and Yth American studio album" thing. With that being said, I too think that it's generally not very helpful to say what number album it is, after the first one or two or three albums by an artist. — Mudwater (Talk)20:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. Would it be misleading to just include the number without consideration for UK/US release, and just do it in pure chronological terms? ie just reduce each of them to "the 10th album", "11th album", "12th album" etc based only on the order? Popcornfud (talk) 07:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Popcornfud: Yes, that would be misleading, or more confusing. The track listings of the U.K. and U.S. albums overlap a lot, which is why they're generally considered as two different chronologies. There have been a number of discussions about this, if I recall correctly, and there's a consensus to keep the chronologies separate. So I think the choice is to maintain the "Xth British and Yth American studio album" wording, or to remove it from most or all of the articles. Pondering this further, I don't have a very strong opinion either way about that part. — Mudwater (Talk)10:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. In that case, I think we should go with the following format:
[Album name] is a [year of release] album by the Rolling Stones.
Where appropriate, the lead can then continue with something like "It was the first Rolling Stones album released in the UK and the second in the US", or whatever. From the sounds of it, this would only be useful context with their earlier releases, after which it seems to quickly get into diminishing returns. Popcornfud (talk) 10:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've never been a big fan of "[Album name] is a [year] album by [band name]." I think it's better to say "[Album name] is an album [or a live album] by [band name]." Then the lead paragraph should give additional key information, including the release year, or exact release date if known. Obviously though not everyone feels this way. — Mudwater (Talk)12:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know others don't feel this way, but I personally feel the "Xth album by [artist]" lead sentence structure phrasing is helpful as it places the album in context. If we're not going to do that, then I feel the lead sentence at least needs to contain the year of release. I'd be fine with either "a 2023 album by the Rolling Stones" or "an album by the Rolling Stones released in 2023". Popcornfud (talk) 02:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In pondering this a bit further, maybe we should just leave things the way they are. It seems that most of the RS album articles say the "Xth British and Yth American studio album" in the lead sentence, and state the release date either in the lead sentence or the lead paragraph. I think that's fine, overall, though not all the articles need to follow an exact formula. — Mudwater (Talk)11:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I gotta say, I think it's 100% not fine. I don't think any uninitiated reader will understand it.
What exactly is a "British album" and what exactly is an "American album"? If an album is both British and American (whatever that means), what does it mean for an album to be, say, a 25th British album but a 27th American album?
Before the intent was explained to me, my best guess would have been that some Rolling Stones' albums were not released in both territories, meaning that an album would have been, say, the 10th released in the UK but only the 8th released in the US. But that guess would have been wrong.
I also can't believe that this complex distinction is really the most important thing to tell readers about the article subject, from the very first sentence of the article. Popcornfud (talk) 11:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Popcornfud: To be clear, are you suggesting that we should avoid saying It was their [Xth] British and [Yth] American studio album, and instead should say It was their [Xth] album released in the U.K. and their [Yth] album released in the U.S.? — Mudwater (Talk)01:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Current: Hackney Diamonds is the 24th British and 26th American studio album by the English rock band the Rolling Stones, released on 20 October 2023 on Polydor.
Proposed rewrite: Hackney Diamonds is an album by the English rock band the Rolling Stones, released on 20 October 2023 by Polydor. It was the 24th Rolling Stones album released in the UK and the 26th released in the USA.
But we should only include that second sentence ("It was the 24th...") if it's actually important, relevant or useful information. That might differ depending on the album. I'll leave it to those with more knowledge of the band to determine that. Popcornfud (talk) 12:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i can see you've been trying to make an article that has 2 separate album listings less complicated. while i respect that, it's standard protocol on most wiki's to list which chronological place it has, and this entire conversation seems to have stated that rolling stones articles shouldn't.
i recommend we go with the case of the beatles, where only the british albums are really listed as most american releases are compilations. despite there being less american albums for the rolling stones, it still applies.
i'm going to go ahead and revert popcornfud's edits. if you have any more permanent solutions, let me know - just don't go deleting the chronological placing. Vancouvercalico (talk) 00:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You've reverted a change across 10 articles that was proposed here almost two months ago and for which a consensus was formed (see above). That's disruptive.
If you have a concrete idea for how to better tackle this problem, you should propose it and get consensus for that before making changes. Popcornfud (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i admit, it could be pretty disruptive to make a mass consensus change. but when the decision you were reverting took away vital pieces of info, that isn't the greatest either.
I don't understand why you think it was necessary to revert 10 articles rather than implement whatever idea you're advocating for instead.
Can you write out here exactly how that would look, so everyone knows what you're talking about? I proposed the exact wording we agreed on above before implementing it. Popcornfud (talk) 01:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Hackney Diamonds is the 24th studio album by the english rock band the Rolling Stones"
actually, looking back at the article, it's a bit redundant to say "the english rock band the rolling stones", if/when someone edits it we should probably cut "the english rock band" Vancouvercalico (talk) 01:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that wording, but another editor opposed it, or something similar, above.
If you insist on going ahead and rejecting the status quo, then I suggest you implement your preferred version across all the articles now. If other editors oppose you, please, just put it back to the prior consensus and then we can all discuss further.
"If you insist on going ahead and rejecting the status quo" aaaaaaand this is the point where i tap out.
feel free to edit the articles as you see fit - i think i've lost this one. i made a promise when i joined to take a wikibreak as soon as i ended up in an edit war, and today is that day. Vancouvercalico (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When the chronology of an album is somewhat more complicated as it is with the Rolling Stones, then we should address it gracefully. Making every single album article have the same "Xth British and Yth American" format is clunky—everything but graceful. The suggestion by Popcornfud was much better: It was the [Xth] Rolling Stones album released in the United Kingdom and the [Yth] released in the United States. Otherwise, we could list the British chronology in the first sentence, and address the American chronology somewhere else further down. I definitely don't agree with Vancouvercalico going around and re-inserting the clunky wording, along with capitalised "The" despite our guideline MOS:THEMUSIC which says to write a lower-case "the" in running prose. Binksternet (talk) 02:54, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know one of the original band members of the real Rolling Stones band who toured the south of the UK between 1957 and 1962. Did you know that Mick Jaggers band stole the name from another band in 1962 ?? 103.80.120.50 (talk) 14:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
