Talk:Aerosmith

Armed Forces Day

I removed the sentence that said:

Aerosmith commenced recording a new album on Armed Forces Day 2006.

References

While the cited source does indeed say that the band began recording a new album on "Armed Forces Day 1986", that's doubly uninformative. Armed Forces Day is not a major event in the United States, and I suspect that many Americans don't even know what month it falls in. None of the band members appear to have been military veterans, and their closest connection to any armed forces seems to be that their fan base is called the Blue Army. And besides that, it's not even clear what album is being referred to; the next album mentioned that the band released was a compilation album consisting mostly of previously released material (Devil's Got a New Disguise: The Very Best of Aerosmith). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:16, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Lead - Dream On

The new Rolling Stone list of the 500 greatest songs clearly states Dream On was the band's "breakthrough hit" (https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-lists/best-songs-of-all-time-1224767/david-bowie-changes-2-1225138/). Why does this article's lead not convey that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RationalAnalysis (talk • contribs) 22:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

The lead section summarizes the information found in the body of the article. See MOS:LEAD. If there's a failure to convey information, it seems like it's in the body. Larry Hockett (Talk) 22:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

"Aerosmith/ZZ Top Tour" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Aerosmith/ZZ Top Tour has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 28 § Aerosmith/ZZ Top Tour until a consensus is reached. 2600:1700:9BF3:220:34F4:792E:B1E7:2AB0 (talk) 06:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

touring members section incomplete

It looks like someone started with the template for articles for bands, and instead of deleting the touring members subsection they added a couple of examples to maintain the template's format. It makes sense they probably just got the subsection started, and reasonably expected other editors would come along and continue fleshing the subsection out from there?

I'm really glad they did that because it resolved the talk question that led me here (a talk question on an unrelated band's article asking why touring members are frequently being added and deleted...the template format's parenthetical "dates active" used here clears up that question and demonstrates that except where information is just factually incorrect, deletions are inappropriate)

Considering Aerosmith's been touring for dang near a century I thought the Aerosmith article's touring members section would be a good one for comparison - I wasn't expecting it to be so incomplete. I traded the problem that led me here - for its solution and a new, unrelated "problem" ...and so it goes wandering down rabbit holes right back into the Wikipedean labyrinth of Oz.

So. I'm adding Russ Irwin, who toured with Aerosmith for 17 years. I'm sure there must be countless others? Hopefully a more ambitious editor will come along whose more interested in fleshing the subsection in this article out further.

Pimprncess (talk) 18:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe the intent of that section was "current touring members." Creating a section of all musicians that performed with Aerosmith throughout their history seems challenging, would be hard to find reliable sources, and probably doesn't add much value to the article. Davidwbaker (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I see that now - the two listed in the main article's parenthetical are both (start year - present). I also noticed after you replied - there's a whole separate linked article to "members of Aerosmith" with an impressive table listing touring members over the years. So I found what I was looking for, when I looked in the right place for it

)

Thank you so much for your reply. This article's recognition as a top-rated "good music article example" is well-deserved! Pimprncess (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Years active?

If the bands calling it a day next year, should it be 1970-2024? 146.199.187.32 (talk) 01:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

No, because they haven't been active in 2024 yet. That field describes the current state, not what we believe will happen going forward, if that makes sense. Larry Hockett (Talk) 02:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

This has been going back-and-forth since the band's announcement. It has only announced a retirement *from touring*, not a disbandment, so surely the band and its members must still be considered active until the band communicates otherwise?

Joe Perry also stated this week that new music is a possibility, so there's every chance they could remain active outside of touring (much like the Beatles in their latter years).

There ought to be a proper rule on this to prevent the constant back-and-forth. 86.29.207.75 (talk) 23:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Someone just removed the hidden note.

Can it be put back in? 76.179.17.77 (talk) 02:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Done. UndergroundMan3000 (talk) 02:55, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. 76.179.17.77 (talk) 02:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Genres

When this article went through GA review, I believe these were the musical genres that were settled upon in the infobox: hard rock, blues rock, heavy metal. These are all sourced within the article.

Over the past four months, there's been a lot of good-faith editing, deletion, and restoring of additional musical genres, including genres as diverse as alternative rock to rhythm and blues, with dubious sourcing. There are currently nine genres in the list.

Infobox guidelines recommends two to four in the list.

I propose reverting back to the three genres. Let's stick to what is sourced and the band is primarily known for. Let's not using the genre list to exhaustively describe all of the genres of music that some of their songs may have aligned with.

Also, per MOS:MUSICCAPS, the vast majority of genres are not proper nouns. The genres in the list should be lowercase, except that the first word in the list should be capitalized. Davidwbaker (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article may not meet the good article criteria due to the article's length. At over 12,000 words, WP:TOOBIG says that it probably should be trimmed. After a quick skim, I think there are several sections that are too long and could be trimmed, including the third paragraph of the lead. Is anyone willing to do this, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 19:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Aerosmith

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Issues unaddressed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

At over 12,000 words, WP:TOOBIG recommends that the article be trimmed and information spun off, and I think that should happen with this article. There are also some unsourced statements, and sources in the "Further reading" section that could be incorporated into the article or removed, but these are minor compared to the length concerns. Z1720 (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

How would you like to see it spun off?★Trekker (talk) 19:19, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@StarTrekker: I am not a subject matter expert, but here are some recommendations:

• The lede can be reduced, especially the third paragraph
• "History" can be spun off or reduced.
• "Influence and legacy" can be reduced

• "Awards and achievements" already has its own article: some of the information could be moved there.

Hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

StarTrekker, do you intend to work on the article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29 I would not mind contributing if there is a consensus of what to do. I think moving all awards and similar to the specific article is a good idea. A history article seems like a decent idea Imho. A legacy or influence article I could also see being a good idea.★Trekker (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I don’t have as much time for Wikipedia anymore, but just my two cents since I was very involved in getting this article to GA status the first time around and contributing many sub-articles and content:

• Is there a precedent for spinning off history articles for music groups? Just trying to find a good example.
• A lot of the 2007-present history suffers from recentism and can be truncated and/or moved to other articles like tour & album articles. Sadly, a lot of the tour articles were deleted due to notability disputes and mostly lack of sourcing…this is a whole other issue that needs to be addressed, but it kinda ties in with the main article. Since 2007, the band only released 1 album and the Guitar Hero video game. There was also some band conflict w/ Steven Tyler in 2009-10, the Joey Kramer drama circa 2019-20, several tours, solo endeavors, the Vegas residency, and the scuttled farewell tour. Content should mostly focus on those things, but there’s a lot of fluff that can be pared down.
• Definitely agree a lot of the awards narrative could be moved over to the Awards article. I actually thought the mindset on GA the first time around was to have more of these narrative sections in the main article, instead of just links to sub-articles, but I guess that’s changed.
• Agree on Legacy & Influence sub-article. See above.

Abog (talk) 00:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there is precedent for spinning off history articles. Beatlemania and The Beatles on The Ed Sullivan Show are good examples: events from the history of the band can be spun off if there is enough coverage of the event to warrant an article. Considering the length of the article, this should be considered. Z1720 (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Gotcha. I thought others were suggesting a “History of Aerosmith” article or something to that effect, which I haven’t yet seen with other bands. Definitely makes sense to spin off detailed content into sub-articles. In Aerosmith’s case, I think siphoning off details into the album and tour articles make the most sense. Abog (talk) 03:43, 24 October 2024 (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.