Jump to content

Talk:The Rolling Stones/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Merge with The Beatles

CodeCat (talk) 01:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

This is important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dukawalla (talk • contribs) 10:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
This is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dukawalla (talk • contribs) 10:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Their honorific title

Somewhere on this page, probably in the first section, their moniker "The World's Greatest Rock and Roll Band" should be addressed, as that title is listed as their's on the page Honorific nicknames in popular music, and generally speaking other artists have their honorific title- Elvis, Beatles, Beach Boys to name a few- displayed in the first section of their respective pages96.59.26.107 (talk) 02:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Flagging fortunes false narrative

Goats Head Soup went triple platinum.

Is this commercial disasters. Just the facts, Maam 1972 Exile On Main Street 3,000,000 3P 1972 More Hot Rocks (big hits and fazed cookies) 500,000 G 1973 Goat's Head Soup 3,000,000 3P 1974 It's Only Rock and Roll 1,000,000 P 1975 Made In The Shade 1,000,000 P 1976 Black and Blue 1,000,000 P 1977 Love You Live 500,000 G 1978 Some Girls 6,000,000 6P 1980 Emotional Rescue 2,000,000 2P 1981 Sucking In the Seventies 500,000 G 1981 Tattoo You 4,000,000 4P

Please note the '75 Tour of The Americas.

This is a quote from "The Rolling Stones" as on Wikipedia.

The 1975 Tour of the Americas kicked off in New York City with the band performing on a flatbed trailer being pulled down Broadway. The tour featured stage props including a giant phallus and a rope on which Jagger swung out over the audience. Jagger had booked live recording sessions at the El Mocambo club in Toronto to balance a long-overdue live album, 1977's Love You Live (UK 3; US 5), the first Stones live album since 1970's Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out! The Rolling Stones in Concert.

PLEASE NOTE: THIS TOUR STARTED IN BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA (known as the "balloon penis" tour by those of us there). This fact is documented if you will please go to the dates of "The 1975 Tour of the Americas" here on Wikepedia. PLEASE CORRECT.

Formed in Dartford

I don't think it's fair to say the Rolling Stones were formed in Dartford. To do so is to claim that The Blue Boys was the direct predecessor of the Stones because that was the only related entity formed in Dartford. If you buy that logic, then you're saying the Stones were formed by Mick and Keith (and Dick Taylor), not by Brian Jones and Ian Stewart, as is commonly accepted and clearly described later in this article:

Brian Jones advertised for band mates in the Jazz News and Ian Stewart found a practice space and joined with Jones to start a rhythm and blues band playing Chicago blues. Shortly thereafter, Jagger, Taylor and Richards left Blues Incorporated to join Jones and Stewart in their effort.

Keith is clear in his book that he interviewed with and auditioned for Ian Stewart at a London pub (I'm pretty sure it was the Bricklayer's Arms, but I listened to the audio version of the book so I can't quote chapter and verse) in response to Jones's ad.

You might make the case that the direct predecessor of the Stones was Blues Incorporated, since five of the original six members of the initial settled lineup (Jagger, Richards, Jones, Watts, and Stewart) played in it, but I've never heard that claimed and it would still make London the point of formation, or at least Ealing.

But I think the Blue Boys were formed in Dartford by Jagger, Richards, and Taylor, and then Brian Jones and Ian Stewart founded the Stones in London, later joined by Jagger and Richards and briefly Taylor. Jones and Stewart had nothing to do with Dartford and everything to do with founding the Stones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:F826:200:6233:4BFF:FEE8:B46F (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Here's some supporting evidence from the Brian Jones page http://www.rollingstones.com/artist/brian-jones/ at the Stones' website:

Brian was soon hitch-hiking to London where he would go to the Ealing Blues Club, sometimes sitting in with the Alexis Korner’s band. One night, Mick and Keith, on a visit to the club, saw Brian play slide guitar and were impressed with his rendition of Elmore James’s “Dust My Broom”. Soon after Brian, Ian Stewart, Mick and Keith formed a band, and began rehearsing at Soho’s Bricklayers Arms pub. On the 12th July 1962 they played their first gig at the Marquee Club, billed as The Rollin’ Stones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:F826:200:6233:4BFF:FEE8:B46F (talk) 13:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


Heh. Looks like Bill Wyman (and eventually the Dartford Town Council) agree with me:

A plaque marking the meeting between Mick Jagger and Keith Richards is to be replaced after The Rolling Stones' former bassist Bill Wyman objected.

The blue plaque, unveiled at Dartford station in February, says the pair "went on to form The Rolling Stones".

But Wyman complained, saying guitarist Brian Jones created The Rolling Stones and enlisted the other members.


Wyman, who left the band in 1993, told BBC Radio 5 live the plaque was disgusting.

"Mick Jagger and Keith Richards didn't create the Rolling Stones - they were part of The Rolling Stones like all of us," he said.

"Brian Jones wanted to form a blues band and he enlisted each member one by one.

"He gave the name The Rolling Stones, he chose the music and he was the leader."

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-kent-33277997 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:F82F:FF00:6233:4BFF:FEE8:B46F (talk) 19:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Top importance

Their status as Musicians are of Top-importance please change this TheDeathKingTheGodfather 04:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on The Rolling Stones. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Fixed one link, two URLs successfully archived by the bot, two were dead with no apparent working archived version. I'll talk to Cyberpower678 about this, as the two dead archives did return a 404. The WayBack Machine still returned them as if they were working, so it's just a matter of the bot not relying on WayBack Machine to have working versions and checking the status code — MusikAnimal talk 18:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Rolling Stones. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Genre

Hard Rock should be added. It is a genre listed on a great deal of the bands albums. It makes sense to be included.

SlaniCraft (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC) SlaniCraft (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Cuba 2016

Whats about Cuba?

--Asdfww (talk) 23:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Rolling Stones. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on The Rolling Stones. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Nicky Hopkins

Should he be listed as a "Past Member"? (from the "Let It Bleed" era) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.115.238.102 (talk) 06:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

2012–present: 50th anniversary and forthcoming new album - Relevancy of Random Mentions of Tour Dates

Looking through the above section, there are various mentions of tours in general such as "The Rolling Stones embarked on a Worldwide Tour on 1 Jan, 2001" or something like that. Individual tour locales are mentioned, but only if there was additional information attached such as "On 17 March 2014, the sudden death in New York City of L'Wren Scott, the longtime girlfriend/partner of Jagger, was reported by various news sources as the Rolling Stones were in Australia preparing for their first show in Perth. It was announced on their website that those shows were cancelled for that reason, and would be rescheduled at a later date." It is understandable with the band doing essentially nothing more notable in the public arena than just touring, as opposed to their 1960's/70's/80's careers, that their Wiki page would be filled largely with that type of content.

However, HurluGumene put in the following sentence "During summer 2016, the Rolling Stones announced 4 US shows due to occur in late 2016: in Indio, California on October 7 & 14 during the concert event Desert Trip and in Las Vegas, Nevada on October 19 & 22 at T-Mobile Arena, their first show in Las Vegas being already sold-out." which is nothing more than a press release documenting the bands current Fall tour schedule. It is neither notable (2016 isn't their last tour) nor noteworthy (the locales are not special in any sense and selling out a date is common) and, considering the content on the rest of this page, is completely irrelevant, IMO.

Not trying to be jerk, but too often these band pages fill up with fancruft/fanboy info where everything the band does is "notable" and there should be a line, somewhere, where this type of information falls below the level of "who cares". Comments? Ckruschke (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)Ckruschke

Per WP:NOTNEWS these types of announcements don't belong in Wikipedia. The event in question, once it has occurred, may be notable and merit coverage in the article but the announcement is not a notable event in itself. Piriczki (talk) 15:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject proposal: Psychedelic music

If interested, please offer support for a WikiProject focused on psychedelic music.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 01:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Keith Richards as lead guitarist?

As a guitarist, Keith mainly plays rhythm parts, which is especially evident when the Stones played with Mick Taylor. However, the article lists Keith as 'lead guitar' exclusively, while the real lead players, such as Ronnie Wood and Mick Taylor, have their roles as 'rhythm and lead guitar'. My point is, we should change this so that Keith is rhythm and the others are lead. AddingInstruments (talk) 09:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC) 

  @AddingInstruments  I agree with this notion but I'm assuming that lead guitarist will still be enacted under Keith as well as rythm as he was lead guitarist for the majority of Beggars Banquet and Let It Bleed.

Adding new Genre

I have noticed that blues has been removed without any reason I can find, I would like to propose to add Blues back as well as adding Blues rock under genres. Not to touch the earth (talk) 20:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Not to touch the earth: You need a reliable source and consensus before the genre will be allowed to stay. - Mlpearc (open channel) 02:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Blues genre

@Gentlecollapse6: Looking through the page history, this is an established genre, regardless of what you think, see WP:BURDEN. Since this genre has been accepted by page watchers (unofficial consensus) you have the burden of your cause and must gain consensus as to why it's not correct. - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

My evidence is: there is literally no source on this page which refers to The Rolling Stones as a blues band, or as making primarily blues music. It's an unsourced claim. Your evidence is "the unexamined status quo" which isn't really valid support at all, is it? User:Mlpearc GentleCollapse16 (talk) 03:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
This shouldn't be too difficult to find, say, in a decent biography of the band. I think part of the problem is that, given how the Stones have endured, their early blues (or rhythm and blues) tag gets lost as the story rolls on. But "rock" seems pretty inadequate, imo, given that it wasn't a widely used description for a specific style until 1966 (when it was adopted to differentiate from "pop"). I think it's fair to say the Stones' career was launched by their long residency at the Crawdaddy Club, which, certainly in the early '60s, presented only blues and R 'n B acts. As the AllMusic bio puts it, the Stones "became the breakout band of the British blues scene". JG66 (talk) 03:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm finding plenty of mentions in Philip Norman's Stones and Chris Salewicz's Mick & Keith of the band's early identity as an R 'n' B group. This from Dave Marsh's piece in The Rolling Stone Record Guide: "As everyone past infancy should know, the Rolling Stones in their initial incarnation were the greatest white blues and R&B band that ever was." JG66 (talk) 04:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material; the removal of "blues" was justified in this instance then. Dan56 (talk) 03:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Here's a source that might perhaps verify the idea that they're a blues group (at least early on): "when they first appeared they were a blues group almost exclusively", said Peter Guralnick. But how can anything be added now that the page is completely protected? Dan56 (talk) 03:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Dan56 Same as always, once consensus is reached, make an edit request. - Mlpearc (open channel) 04:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
*sigh* Dan56 (talk) 06:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
In their early days, they were essentially a Chess cover band. They bought blues to the pop audience. –Ojorojo (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Featured article status nomination for Rolling Stones

I have nominated Rolling Stones for featured article status and am seeking your opinions on this. Begoon Sssoul Moxy Plant's Strider Gentlecollapse6 HurluGumene Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Rolling Stones/archive2 --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

EDIT: If you did not want this page nominated at this time, I apologize for doing so as I was attempting to assist and only after nominating it realized that nominations require the approval of frequent editors to the page in question. I personally believe this page to potentially be of the appropriate calibre for nomination. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on The Rolling Stones. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Rolling Stones/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 21:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


Well, The Beatles has been FA for years, The Who has been GA for a couple, so this really needs to follow suit. I've done one Stones GA myself, so I know enough about the basic history, plus I've got Keith Richards' autobiography to hand if you need any additional sources. In the meantime, I'll go and get my vinyl copy of Let It Bleed, stick it on full blast, and go and read through the article. I can't see an immediate need to quick-fail it, so give me a day or two to read through it, and I'll see what comments I can give you. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I tend to copyedit articles as I go along, and stop and ask questions en route.

Thanks for taking the time to review this and no rush. If you can find any references from the book, please do let me know. I have the band written book According to the Rolling Stones somewhere (and a couple other third party ones) as well, so could always leaf through that if there are any questions it might be able to answer. Hopefully this article can make it to GA and then on to FA eventually and join The Beatles there. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

There are a number of claims in the article that are not sourced. I have added {{fact}} tags so they are easy to spot.

 Done I have addressed all the {{fact}} templates present as well as the better source ones. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
The book citations all need page numbers. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

There are lots of sources that are given as bare URLs. These should be fixed by using proper reference templates.

@Ritchie333: Do you mean things like "Booth 2000, p. 276."? If so, those aren't URLs, clicking them leads you down to their relevant bit in "Sources". With that said, if you want them all converted the the traditional referencing, I will happily do that, will just be a lot of work. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
In short, anything that is <ref>[http://example.com Example website]</ref> should be fixed per WP:BAREURLS. Book citations in plain text eg: <ref>Smith, John My Life as Keith Richards' Stunt Double, Strange Books, 2009 p. 123</ref> should be converted to {{cite book}}, or even better still using shortened footnotes with Harvard referencing, of which the article has numerous examples already. See Help:Shortened footnotes for more. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Lead

  • I think you need to drop the "lead" and "rhythm" descriptions and just go with "guitar", as the group is famous for not having one of the other but just swapping between lead and rhythm as necessary.
@Richie333: Very true. Do you think it is alright to leave "lead" by Mick's name in the lead as he does do the vast majority of the vocals on their songs? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that's fine; indeed, it's generally only fans who know that other band members have sung lead. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 Done Thanks! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "During this period, they were first introduced on stage as "The World's Greatest Rock and Roll Band" - this (and the rest of the paragraph) isn't in the body of the article, and everything in the lead needs to be
I have included the line quoted roughly where it lies within the article timeline, but am wondering, do you have any suggestions on how to incorporate the rest? I will look at it further and see, but was wondering if you have any ideas. Thanks! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I've sorted this out during copyediting. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 Done Thanks! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll come back to the lead.

1962–1964: Building a following

  • "Bassist Bill Wyman joined in December 1962 and drummer Charlie Watts joined the following January" This is glossed over a bit; information you might want to include is why they chose somebody who was five years older than them and married as a bassist, and see if you can get a source for Carlo Little, who turned down the job in favour of Watts, and Mick Avory, who was billed to play at an early Marquee gig but didn't show.
  • There needs to be some mention that Richards was known as "Keith Richard" for most of the 1960s.
@Ritchie333: I know that as a fact and am happy to add it, but have not found a source to cite it online. Is it mentioned in Life or? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Here is a source - not the greatest but certainly seems to pass WP:RS and is sufficient for a GA. Also, discogs.com has snapshots of the original LP artwork, and if you look at the liner notes for the original 1969 issue of Let It Bleed, he's credited as "Keith Richard" throughout. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't using discogs as whenever I have in the past it gets tagged as not being RS enough. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
You can cheat ;-) Discogs is not a reliable source, but the original LP sleeve notes are. So you can get the information off a discogs snapshot, but use {{cite AV media notes}} giving the title, publisher and catalogue ID. The information is verifiable because somebody who doesn't believe what discogs has can go back to the original LP. That it's difficult to get hold of is not against policy. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: I have added the title and publisher, but I am not sure where to find the catalogue ID, do you know what it ix? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "The band refused to play it at live gigs" - this needs a better source
@Ritchie333: I unfortunately cannot find a better source within the past hour or so of searching online. I am tempted to just remove the sentence but am hesitant all the same due to the scope of this article. What do you think? Can you maybe see if you can find a source? The other alternative of course is to remove it with an edit summary explicitly stating the sentence and that it was removed (to find again easier should a better source be uncovered). That's the challenge in finding stuff from the 1960s I guess . --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 Done I took out Wyman's book from a local library and have found mention in book of it so have referenced the page number. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Now that's dedication to the cause! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Do we have any more background into how Lennon & McCartney decided to give "I Wanna Be Your Man" to the Stones?
 Done Yes we do, I have added it. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 14:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Original band name - is it Little Boy Blue and the Blue Boys Band (per Nelson Intro) or The Blue Boys (as used here) or The Blue Boys Band? (This has bugged me for a long time (I know!)). Tedmarynicz (talk) 10:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

1965–1967: Height of fame

  • "The album was recorded at Chess Studios in Chicago and RCA Studios in Los Angeles" - is that the UK version, the US album, or some mix of the two?
@Ritchie333: They typically bounce between locations. This has also become evident as a practice that seems to follow Jagger around as he bounced all over the globe recording with Super Heavy. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • There needs to be consistency between "Number 1", "Number-1", "No 1", "No. 1" etc throughout the article
 Done --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "the album was Andrew Oldham's last venture as the Rolling Stones' producer (his role as the band's manager had been taken over by Allen Klein in 1965)" - instead of just putting Klein's involvement with the group as a throwaway comment here, it would be better to explain why he took over Oldham at the relevant point in the narrative, and expand on it
 Done I have taken the parentheses and turned it into a sentence discussing this. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The paragraph about the early 1967 drug busts and tabloid documentation could do with an additional source; as far as I know it matches what I've read myself but with contentious claims towards living people, a second source is generally a good idea.
I have added more sources to that section, what do you think of it now Ritchie333? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • As well as "We Love You", mention that The Who cut a tribute single to the Stones, and promised to continue releasing covers while Jagger and Richards remained incarcerated.
I did not know about that and would add it, but cannot find a source as of yet for that to cite it - I will keep looking. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

1968–1972: "Back to basics"

  • Worth mentioning that Beggars Banquet was delayed for months over a Mexican standoff with the "toilet" cover
 Done --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "The following year, the band's contracts with both Klein and Decca ended (cf. "Schoolboy Blues")" - this needs further explanation
 Done I am not sure exactly what is meant by "cf." but have added explanation per your request. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "featured an elaborate cover design by Andy Warhol" - a description of the cover would be useful
 Done A description and mention of its controversy at the time has been added (and, of course, sourced). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "Following the release of Sticky Fingers, the Rolling Stones left England after receiving financial advice." What financial advice? ("Get out of the country or the government will take all your money away"?)
 Done That is basically exactly it. I have added a reference to that sentence. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Some background into the Rolling Stones Mobile Studio would be helpful, it just appears in the prose out of nowhere
 Done You are definitely correct, it did appear out of nowhere without any explanation. Due to this, I have added a small paragraph of it a bit earlier in the article (still within same section though). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

1972–1977: Mid '70s

  • "According to a 2006 article in the Independent" - why is the Independent important here?
 Done I removed it as aren't important there by any means, it originally cited the Daily Mail but I found that other publications published (basically) the same thing. Following your advice not to reference the Daily Mail, I picked that publication to replace it in prose to remove all reference of the Daily Mail. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

1989–1999: Comeback, return to popularity, and record-breaking tours

  • "The tour was the last to feature Wyman" - I think earlier in the prose we need to mention Wyman's earlier solo albums, as the prose suddenly announces him recording a fourth one
 Done You are right, it was rather abrupt. I have added mention of him starting his solo career earlier where chronologically appropriate, also mentioning that it predates solo material released by Richards and Jagger in the 1980s onward (and, of course, cited it all). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

2000–2011: A Bigger Bang and continued success

  • "In a 2007 interview with Mick Jagger after nearly two years of touring, Jagger refused to say when the band is going to retire" - I think this is outdate, at least in the place as it's ten year old. I think we should get rid of this section and find a more recent quotation from the past year saying the same thing, and put it in the relevant place
 Done While I recall that quote from 2007, I could not find it - but I was able to find one from 2015 so I redid the quote, swapped the citation (therefore fixing below as well) and moved it down lower in the section where it makes more chronological sense (instead of jumping from 2015 to 2008). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • What makes melodicrockconcerts.com a reliable source?
 Done Absolutely nothing that I know of, this has been addressed by the above and is no longer a source within the article, so I am marking this as 'done'. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

2012–present: 50th anniversary and covers album

@Ritchie333: It looks fairly relevant there to me, do you mean putting it in "Band turmoil and solo efforts"? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Yup, that Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 Done Thanks for the clarification. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • This whole section suffers from the recentism that Wikipedia generates by being continually updated; there is too much "In [month] they did this .... in [month] they did that .... in [month] they did the other." See if you can mix it up a bit.
I have joined a few smaller paragraphs together in the section (i.e. where they talk of same year and makes sense to). As for the recentism, what do you think of it now Ritchie333? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Yup, it's looking better. Obviously major things like Glastonbury, Hyde Park 2 and Cuba need to go in, but it's just a question of balance without information overload. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Glastonbury & co is already mentioned in the section. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Musical development

This section seems to be lacking a bit. There's much more you can write about styles; for example, start off with the early Chuck Berry influences, the move to original material by the mid-1960s, the experimentation on Their Satanic Majesties Request, back to basics from "Jumping Jack Flash" onwards, inventing stadium rock in the early 70s, later experiments with disco and reggae. Also mention Richards' development as a guitarist through the 60s, and graduating to doing the odd lead vocal by the end of the decade. I'd expect this to fill up several paragraphs.

Similarly, the "Early songwriting" section should be expanded to include "Songwriting" generally.

I think there need to be a "Critical reception" / "Legacy" section, that talks about awards received, overall sales figures, major overall assessments at various points at their career. Have a look at the GA Genesis (band)'s "Legacy" section for some ideas.

What do you think of merging Early songwriting into Musical development and working from there? I think that merging them would be a way to partly address the musical development concern and would just expand on the framework laid out by the section. As I see it, the songwriting section is essentially musical development and as such should be included/merged into it (not as a sub section) and then expanded upon.
As for the rest of what you mention, I think that it is a good idea overall, but isn't that essentially the history section and repeating information from there (more or less)? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Not really, as it's designed for a different audience. People may get bored of the history after a certain point and just jump straight to this section. I would definitely include the following:
  • Exotic instruments (already mentioned)
  • Using two guitarists ("the ancient art of weaving")
  • Jagger setting the basic template for rock frontmen
  • Richards leading the entire band, while most groups follow the drummer
  • I think the stuff about open tuning, currently in the history, can probably move down here
  • Watts being a jazz drummer in a rock band
  • Importance of musical collaborators, particularly pianists / keyboardists - particularly as studio sessions have fluid lineups with Wyman absent quite a bit, and can drag on forever
  • Influence of drugs - wouldn't go overboard on this but I don't think anyone will cry WP:BLP for asserting that Keith Richards might have taken drugs once or twice. In particular, Richards use of heroin in the 70s meant that Jagger got used to running the show, and when Richards recovered, Jagger didn't like having his power diminished, hence leading to "World War III".

I think if you write a sentence or two about each of those (with appropriate sources), we should be pretty much there. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I was going to advise taking List of awards and nominations received by the Rolling Stones as a starting point, but that article doesn't exist, unlike List of awards and nominations received by The Beatles, List of awards and nominations received by Michael Jackson or List of awards and nominations received by The Who. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
So what do you want me to do? www.acesh owbiz.com/celebrity/the_rolling_stones/awards.html This isn't the best source but its information seems to check out and has led me to official websites of the awards mentioning the stones or publications doing so. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
No, I think what you've got for awards is fine, I'm just surprised there isn't a "list of awards" article for the Stones already. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Do you think that the sections should be merged though Ritchie? Additionally, would you want the ideas you mention above (i.e. "art of weaving") mentioned in musical development or the subsection (should it not be merged)? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I think put it all in Musical development for now - that should suffice. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: In regards to the Jagger/Richards feuds I know that it mentions somewhere how Mick would plan (in concert) for the song to start at a particular time and enter at a particular note (or something like that) and then Richards would move it around to mess with/spite Jagger, but I cannot find it online nor have I been able to locate it in a CTRL + F search of a Life PDF I found. I am sure it is in the book, I just can't find page number. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I have added the majority of what you mention above, but I was wondering if you know of any references off hand for the fluid lineup bit and what I mentioned above? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
The most immediate sources I an think of are - this Rolling Stone article which quotes Wyman on making Exile on Main St. - "not everyone turned up every night. This was, for me, one of the major frustrations of this whole period." while this one says "as widely reported, tracks tended to be recorded by whatever members of the group happened to be around at the time of the sessions", noting Richards and Taylor both playing bass on the album. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: I have included the listed things you wished to see from above and was wondering what you thought of this demo of section merging and if it is what you meant. If it is what you meant, I will merge it over here and, upon merging, kindly ask that you delete that particular sandbox for me. If not, feel free to edit it or clarify what you meant. Thanks! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
That is pretty much it in a nutshell, except I'd want to go and just review the prose and sources carefully once it's in place. Structurally, that's nailed it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: I have moved it over now and have gone over the text, removing some slight repetition. I do want to get rid of that citation needed template, but I am not sure (per the above) what to do as I know it was said in Life but I could not locate it in the PDF. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Band members

  • This needs sources.
 Done --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 Done I am not sure why he was not included, anyhow, that is fixed now. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Tours

  • This seems to duplicate the history. A better idea would be took about the importance of tours, the contrast between the basic set-up of the 60s, to starting to fill large halls by the '69 tour, moving to stadiums in the 70s, including catwalks, lighting, PA improvements etc etc.
@Ritchie333: In one of the books I have, there is practically the equivalent of an entire (smallish) chapter (broken up throughout book - thank goodness for word indexes to keep track of where 'tour' is mentioned!) that has Mick and Charlie discussing stage design from various/past years. I have now expanded the section and am wondering what you think of it. I could easily add more if you do not think it enough. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
That looks a lot better, now for specifics:
 Done --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • What makes stonesexhibitionism.com a reliable source?
@Ritchie: It is an official website of the band that they use for their exhibition that travels the globe, consider it like rollingstones.com. If you want more proof than my word, Rolling Stone mentions the URL specifically [1]--TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "The most famous and heavily documented of all the band's concerts was the Altamont Free Concert at the Altamont Speedway in 1969" - are you sure about that? I'm pretty sure Hyde Park July 5 1969 is a contender.
 Done I see that you copyedited that out, I did not write that bit, but I agree with you. I would also argue that the stones show in Cuba in 2016 is another contender (albeit weaker than the original Hyde park) and was the biggest concert/act the island nation has ever seen (to date). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "During the 1981-1982 Voodoo Lounge tour" - don't you mean 1994-1995?
Let me get back to you on that (need to look back at book but can't atm) --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 Done Looked back at book and confirmed the years, not sure where I got Voodoo Lounge from as I know that that was in the 90s. Anyhow, I have corrected the tour name to the American tour. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Intermezzo

I've gone through the whole article now, and fixed a bunch of things but there's more work to be done. In particular, the missing parts for "Musical Development" / "Legacy" and "Tours" needs expansion to meet WP:WIAGA #3a "Broad in its coverage". I think this is some way off meeting the GA criteria, but I'll leave the review on hold for a moment to see what happens in the next week or so. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Legacy section has been added and I will continue to tweak it over the coming days. The tours section has been significantly expanded (to approx same size as entire lead). As for the Musical Development section, I will work on that pending your response to the question above regarding it. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I think structurally things are moving in the right direction and we just need to clear everything up. I'll put the review on hold, and once all the issues here are addressed, I think we should be able to pass this. Good work so far. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I think we are now pretty close to clearing up Musical development concern. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I have gone through the article and checked the references. The Daily Mirror is a tabloid newspaper and should not be used for articles involving living people, so I've had to remove that. A few book sources had incomplete information, so I've had to tag those with {{page needed}}. Once the tags are fixed, and all other issues listed here are addressed, I think we'll be done. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I have added additional sources to the page needed tagged areas mentioning them and have addressed the citation needed tags that you added. I have placed a hold on Mick Jagger: The Story Behind the Rolling Stone at the local library so should have it in a couple of days, as for Can't Be Satisfied, I don't have access to that book through the library and have not found an online PDF of it. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I have swapped the prose for something slightly different and added a source. And with that, I think this now meets the GA criteria, so I am passing the review. Well done! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much Ritchie! What would you suggest adding to the article to have it meet FA (I do plan to return it there asap)? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, first of all, check the FA criteria carefully. To get it up to FA, you've got to get every good book source going, and make sure every single citation is to one of them, and ensure that only web sources are used when absolutely necessary (eg: for quotes about influence from third party, or for very recent events the books haven't caught up with). A fatal question you can get at FAC is "why haven't you used source 'x'". Read through User:Tony1/How to improve your writing and copyedit the article thoroughly (or, better still, get somebody else to help copyedit it). SchroCat is one of the best copyeditors still active, to pluck a name at random. It's going to take you a couple of months to do all that, and it's a long hard slog. Expect the FA review itself to be about two months long, and you're basically looking at about 6-7 people doing the same in-depth analysis. So don't rush into it! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! So would you say that the article (at present) uses too many internet sources? Also, do you have any suggestions for DYK hooks Ritchie? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


Fair use rationale for File:The Rolling Stones - Paint It Black.ogg

Standard FUR waffle
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

File:The Rolling Stones - Paint It Black.ogg 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 non-free use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 00:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I've removed these for the minute; I can't easily write FURs for them as I didn't upload them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Tours

"When you're out there in this vast stadium, you have to physically tiny up on stage, so that's why…

"When you're out there in this vast stadium, you ARE SO physically tiny up on stage, so that's why…

[seems more likely, but it is Charlie Watts, he could have said anything]Paul Santon (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

SchroCat, TheSandDoctor What's going on with this recent spate of edits? The narrative jumps from "In 1969, Jones..." back to 1962 (which can't be right, so I've removed it), while elsewhere there are new citations which are free text and not formatted (I don't mind which you choose, but FA reviews will pounce on that as a sign of "not ready"). What's going on? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it's a typo. I left "In (month) 19XX" in thedraft re-write, and it's come over with a typo in it. I'm not sure there has been any changes to the citations yet (although there may be a couple of temporary ones from a couple of questions I've asked): that'll come after the text is sorted. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Jones did leave the group in 1969, so that bit should probably be reworked/moved (SchroCat), (misread that entirely, thanks for removing Ritchie) but I am not aware of any newer citations being in a different format as they were all generated the same way (via the automated visual editor tool). Thank you for pointing that out though Ritchie333. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Timeline

(Pinging Jimi Henderson as he reverted my change.)

The timeline looks messed up in multiple browsers (Chrome 61, Firefox 56 on Linux) for me as this image shows.

Setting the date to a specific one fixes the issue. Please don't revert as this might be a problem for others as well. Bjelleklang - talk 17:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Bjelleklang I use Chrome and the other version is messed up. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:54, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
What operating system are you on? Version 61.0.3163.100 is broken for me, but 61.0.3163.98 on Android looks okay. As for User:Jimi Hendersons suggestion to change browser; no point. The template is broken for whatever reason. While changing browser (or OS) might work for me, it would still be broken for an unknown number of other users using browsers which displays messy timelines. Bjelleklang - talk 18:22, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Found a fix for it, the template contained some styling 
textcolor:black align:left anchor:from shift:(11,-4)
which messed it up. Switched back to using the page creation date as the end for the timeline. Bjelleklang - talk 18:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Windows 10, but that's not a fix, (changing browsers) as you well know. Not sure if the template is broke or just the way it's made to perform, your screenshot is exactly what I see also. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of The Rolling Stones Museum

Can people please reply on the tag of nomination for deletion of The Rolling Stones Museum? I don't know this Wikipedia well enough. Ymnes (talk) 18:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ymnes: Thanks for posting it here. A list of users active within this Wikipedia project can be found here. Some administrators do, however, watch this article closely (as well as Mick Jagger) as they have both been heavily vandalized in the past (this one enough to have moving indefinitely fully protected). Thank you again for posting it here and on the talk page of the WikiProject! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Tongue images

Re this edit, can you please help me to find another place in this article to put that tongue image File:The Rolling Stones Tongue Logo with white background.jpg, not so close to the other tongue image?   — Jeff G. ツ 11:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Rolling Stones. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Question? A help request is open: The link at 'archiveurl=' causes 'page not found / error 404', but the original 'url=' link is still working fine.. Replace the reason with "helped" to mark as answered.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Rolling Stones. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Rolling Stones. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Tour page move

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Tax exiles vs. UK residents

One thing in the article that is not entirely accurate is the suggestion that the band has been tax exiles since 1971-1972, because it has to be pointed out that Bill Wyman, Charlie Watts, Mick Taylor and Ronnie Wood moved back to the UK in subsequent years and Mick Jagger and Keith Richards own property in the UK as well. 60.240.8.249 (talk) 06:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning that 60, do you have any reliable references stating when they returned from tax exile? (To be clear: I will look for them as well, but if you have any, please do send my way). --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
@TheSandDoctor: Is it the case that they can only spend a certain amount of time in the UK in any tax year? Eagleash (talk) 17:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
@Eagleash: That is what I am unsure of. I have found (unreliable) references stating that Mick owns property in England, but have not found any stating it to be principal residence (or, more importantly, when the "tax exile" might have ended). I do, however, know that the Rolling Stones' corporate body is owned by Promogroup (a holding company they set up based in the Netherlands and Caribbean). I have yet to be able to look further into when the exile has ended. Unfortunately, without a reliable source specifying a year/decade, it is hard to add. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
@TheSandDoctor: I have long understood that it hasn't. They can own property in the UK but it doesn't necessarily mean that they are 'resident'. Quick google results. Eagleash (talk) 18:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the ref @Eagleash:. In that case, nothing to update in the article then. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. Eagleash (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll rephrase that - I was specifically referring to certain members, not the Stones as a whole. 60.240.8.249 (talk) 10:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Eagleash: --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
@TheSandDoctor: I don't think it makes much difference... if any. The individual members, I'm pretty sure, can only spend a certain amount of time in UK because of their individual tax status. If something can be found to verify, one way or the other, then all well and good. Eagleash (talk) 21:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Recent reverts

@Piriczki: and @Twofingered Typist:, could you please discuss your differences here instead of just blindly reverting each other? Cheers! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie: @Piriczki: I simply reverted an unexplained edit and pointed out nicely to Piriczki that edits should be explained in the edit summary box. That's it! They've apparently chosen to revert again without explanation. No differences here — just suggesting the courtesy of following WP's accepted practice of giving other editors an idea of why a change was made. Cheers! Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, Piriczki trimmed the size of the article down with a summary "ce", which normally means "copyedit", and comes with the assumption that no facts were changed in the article. Given there's an active peer review where a complaint has come in about article size, it certainly looks like a good faith edit that merits discussion if you disagree. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, missed that. Thanks. Twofingered Typist (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Rolling_Stones/Archive_6&oldid=1073171078"