Talk:Guns N' Roses

Talk archives:
Previous discussion, mostly regarding N vs n in Guns N' Roses, can be found at Archive One Archive Two Archive Three

Remove new picture?

I would think the picture under the band name (currently the GN'R logo) should be removed, as that space is usually for an image of the actual band itself, in consistence with other band articles. Any thoughts? Ghostchild23 22:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think so too, i'll look for a picture of the new band tomorrow unless someone else changes it. Bucketheader 22:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I tracked down an image of the band appearing on the cover of the August issue of Rolling Stone magazine. It's the only image I could find containing some of the remaining members together – Flickr only has single shots, mainly of Axl, and hardly any of the other members. Sebi _[talk] 08:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The new image (Image:GnFnR.jpg) is not a copyright violation – the coloured boxes on the image description page are not questioning anything to do with copyright, but they are questioning the possibility of a freely-licensed image that can be found to replace the image in the infobox. Please do not remove the image because it is a "copyvio" (not intending to attack anyone in the discussion). Sebi _[talk] 07:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Why was that picture taken off of the page, it took a while to find that picture and I had a good summary, I think. Skeeker _[Talk] 00:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

There were those "replaceable fair-use" tags on the image, but not fair-use rationale. Apparently, it was deleted due to "invalid fair-use claim", or something. You could try uploading it again, but this time add a fair-use rationale and don't tag it as replaceable, as there are hardly any freely licensed images with a lineup of Guns N' Roses out there. –sebi 07:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I've found an image of the 2006 line-up (with Brain, not Frank Ferrer) on flickr [1]. I don't know much about copyrights etc. so can we use this in the article? Bucketheader 22:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It's licensed under the "Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDeriv 2.0", however, we can't upload it because images tagged with this license aren't permitted to be uploaded by image use policy (see here). Sigh. –sebi 22:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

So.. it can't be uploaded even with a fair use claim? Bucketheader 23:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Correct. And even if we could upload it with a fair use claim, it'd probably get tagged as replaceable. –sebi 23:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, ok. If the album is released soon, there'll probably be some promo shots of the band we could use anyway. Bucketheader 23:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Do we want a picture of the classic line up or the new one though? Skeeker _[Talk] 00:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ideally - the current band, but a picture of the classic line-up will probably have to do for now. Bucketheader 00:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Legacy section

The last two paragraphs in this section are both wildly innacurate, the show at the Key Club was NOT a reunion; it was a tribute show. Izzy and Duff both played a few songs with Adler's Appetite, that was it. Bucketheader 14:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• • I've reinstated the paragraphs because you seem biased towards the new version of the band. Six former GNR members getting together to pay tribute to the band's legacy is an occasion that deserves to be included in the legacy section. TheNewMinistry 18:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It was just a publicity stunt by Steve Adler, it was just a normal Adler's Appetite show with Izzy Stradlin on guitar, Duff McKagan played one song and then left, Slash and Gilby Clarke didn't play anything. Why Should Izzy Stradlin playing a set and Duff McKagan playing one song with Adler's Appetite be described as a reunion? Bucketheader 18:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject

I don't know how to but I think it would be cool for someone to start a wikiproject For Guns N' Roses. Simply because these guys are one of the if not the best band ever (I don't care much for the new stuff though), and it an A-Class rated article. So that would be pretty sweet. And I would imagine Bucketheader would like this. (No offense for assuming, that is if you don't like the idea) Skeeker _[Talk] 00:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. GN'R needs a WikiProject. FMAFan1990 03:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, i'd definitely be interested in a GN'R WikiProject. Bucketheader 14:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree too, a WikiProject would be great. Tom H 14:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to support. Sebi _[talk] 00:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I have made a proposal for this WikiProject at the Council's proposals page. Please add your name to the proposal's list of interested Wikipedians – the project can't go ahead if there is a lack of support. Sebi _[talk] 02:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks that was helpful. Did you do that yourself?. Skeeker _[Talk] 03:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Er, yes... Sebi _[talk] 04:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, WikiProject created. –sebi 07:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, this should be fun. Skeeker _[Talk] 20:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Tours

• We need a page on the Appetite For Destruction Tour (1987-1990), even if dates themselves are hard to find
• The band played a single date in 1994 that was in promotion of Spaghetti Incident on January 20th.
• The 2001 tour wasn't part of Chinese Democracy Tour and was never called that. No one ever suggested it was, it's just been lumped in with that for some reason. The band originally planned 20 dates, but cancelled the 16 European ones cuz of Buckethead being ill or something. A page for this should be created.
• Once all this is done, a final page on all the tours summarising notes, attendance, number of concerts, dates etc in a table should be created

I'm gonna do some work, but was wondering if anyone else is up for it? And wanted to hear opinion on my point about the 2001 shows. (The Elfoid 00:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC))

Does any other band have a page detailing tour dates? I can't recall ever seeing one but it is possible I missed it. But it doesn't seem like the kind of info that belongs in an encyclopedia, too much detail that will be of use to too few people. Why not just add a link to http://www.gnrontour.com/ instead, since thats where most the info will almost certinally come from anyway? Danikat 22:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Concert_tours

All those bands have a category for concerts. (The Elfoid 01:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC))

Oh and please note that Guns N' Roses already have several tour pages already (Use your Illusion, Use your Illusion Schedule, GnR-Metallica Stadium Tour, Chinese Democracy Tour) - I just feel that we should have things for their other concerts, and split the 2001 gigs off from the CD tour since it wasn't named as part of it.

The bands on there are bands that have pages about their tours - some have more than others (e.g. Metallica has pages about 19 tours) (The Elfoid 03:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC))

They played 4 shows in 2001 and only 1 was at a major venue, so there's no point making an article just for that. And do you have a source to show they weren't part of the Chinese Democracy Tour? Bucketheader 00:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have a source that it is? It wasn't referred to at any point as Chinese Democracy Tour, just "Guns N' Roses Tour 2001". They'd not played since 1993...the tour was just promoting the new lineup really. Also it probably shouldn't have a page necessarily, but it could have it's own seperate place in the table if a table with tour information was included. From the gnrontour.com site I have a list of the number of dates played in each tour (early gigs, Appetite, Rolling Stone Support, Use your Illusion, 2001 Tour and Chinese Democracy). The first tour announced as for the CD album was the 2002 America one, though since the Europe one was just a few months before all of the 2002 gigs could qualify I guess.(The Elfoid 17:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC))

Reference says heavy metal

Wikipedia is not based on personal opinions. Raference says that they are heavy metal so if you remove it from the infobox you are vandalising the page. Keep heavy metal in the infobox! - JKKong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.250.73.96 (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia itself has, if you read accross the various pages, stated that GnR were what happened when punk rock and blues hit glam metal. The result was sleaze rock. Sleaze ROCK is a sub-genre of glam METAL which is why there's an issue.

(The Elfoid 17:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC))

Sounds reasonable. Can you provide a reference? Bulbous 20:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

http://wc01.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:kifqxqe5ld0e Here it says that they are heavy metal and AMG is a reference. - User:84.250.73.96 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.250.73.96 (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that reference specifically calls them a "raw and talented" "hard rock" band. Bulbous 14:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

http://www.rhapsody.com/gunsnroses/appetitefordestruction - sleaze http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1541675/20060925/guns_n_roses.jhtml - sleaze http://wm06.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:wiftxqu5ldde - 'sleazy sounding'

Sleaze rock has a much more rock 'n' roll vibe than most metal, and glam metal which it comes from has a lot more blues than most metal. Which is why the stuff seems more like rock music. I'd go as far as to say sleaze rock (which is often just called sleaze leaving the 'rock' status ambiguous) is a rock/metal crossover genre. It's because of this that despite GnR being sleaze meaning technically the heavy metal tag can apply, you really really need to specify.

Google search 'guns n roses sleaze' and you'll get loads more examples. (The Elfoid 23:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC))

"Sleaze rock"?? What the fuck are you guys talking about? I've come across the term on Wikipedia and nowhere else - not books, magazine articles, discussions - if anything it's a highly informal coinage. And last time I checked when we're citing sources we ought to go for something a bit more authoritative and objective than "Wikipedia itself" which can, after all, be edited by any dickhead with a logon (including you and me, of course). And anyway, the current revisionist history on the usage of the term "heavy metal" originates in the late '80s/early '90s when speed-metal bigots claimed the term for their own and anything not emanating from/anticipating NWOBHM was deemed off-limits. Check out most literature from the '80s and earlier on metal and you'll find the likes of Van Halen, Kiss, our beloved Gunners and sometimes even Aerosmith and AC/DC "metal". For fuck's sake, Led Zep was once considered one of metal's founding bands, but you get a blank stare when you try telling most people that today. I don't mean to rant - I'm not really a huge metal fan anyway - but just because you don't think something is "metal" doesn't mean it was always considered outside the genres bounds, and to erase the label's historical application is simply dishonest - un-encyclopedic, actually. So I say we should put the "heavy metal" label back up on the GN'R page with a citation (and there are plenty of sources). To anyone who wants to remove the label from the inbox thereafter just because they don't think it fits: grow up, get over yourself and remember that if a genre category has frequently been applied to a band it's encyclopedically valid whether you like it or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.246.215 (talk) 04:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess the real issue is wether to use the traditional definition of "heavy metal" which includes the early legacy groups that began the genre, or to use the modern colloquial definition. I vote for the traditional definition. The inclusion of additional sub-genres, such as sleaze and glam-rock should be enough to display that, though it is still heavy metal, it is distinct from the hard core bands such as Blind Guardian or Tool. F-451 (talk) 04:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Article name

I changed the article name by uncapitalising the N in "Guns N' Roses". It was later stated that the move was against consensus. Apologies if I wasn't aware of this, but our manual of style uncapitalises conjunctions (and thus, abbreviations of conjunctions) from article names (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Album titles and band names). Spellcast 20:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

GA nominated

This article has been nominated for the GA noms. Tarret^talk 21:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of September 17, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: The article has some WP:MOS problems. These are mostly minor, so I will not go into great depth. I will however mention that the Accomplishments section needs to be altered or removed, as it is not a part of the desired discography section for WikiProject Rock music articles (see FA-class examples such as AC/DC). The list would better be served as part of the prose chronology of the band (i.e. this album won the blank award in...)

2. Factually accurate?: While the amount of sourcing is quite decent, there are some serious issues when comparing the article to the GA criteria, as well as WP:V and WP:RS. I will list the vital ones here.

• Some of the sources used are unacceptable even disregarding GA or FA status desired. About.com often mirrors content from other sites (including Wikipedia) wholesale. IMDB does not have solid fact checking, and though this is debated, is often considered a questionable source. Since its status as an RS is controversial, it is best to not use in a GA-status article.
• There are entire sections without a single citation. The bare minimum would be a citation at the end of each paragraph and for quotations, but citing any fact likely to be challenged is desirable. The most egregious sections include: Foundation - L.A. Guns/Hollywood Rose merge, Appetite for Destruction, The Spaghetti Incident?, and the last paragraphs of Touring success and controversy and GN'R Lies.
• Without sourcing, much of the content which interprets the style and impact of the band could quite possibly be original research. The Music style and Legacy sections need sourcing to ensure that OR is not present.

3. Broad in coverage?: The article is most certainly comprehensive.

4. Neutral point of view?: Though on the surface the article is usually neutral, I find some attention needs to be paid to giving equal weight to all significant views. One sentence mentioning accusations of racism and homophobia in One in a Million and then four directly refuting it (much of it uncited) is not equal weight.

5. Article stability? The article is not the subject of any recent or on-going edit wars.

6. Images?: Images are all accounted for with fair-use rationales.

While it is often customary to provide a hold period to improve issues with an article, if the article meets either the quick-fail criteria or the improvements would take more than a week's time to complete, then an article should not be placed on hold.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. — VanTucky ^Talk 23:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

hola kpos soy nahuel de argentina tengo 15 año y tengo una banda de rock...me gustaria conocrlos tal ves no lo lean a esto o no le llegue pero son una masa los re amo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.45.234.253 (talk) 00:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Changed to "gay"

Changed "homosexual" to "gay," the term preferred by gay men, in accordance with Wikipedia policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabanks (talk • contribs) 06:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Appetite for Destruction FA

We should all pitch in to make Appetite a Featured article, seeing as how this one isn't going so well. Skeeker _[Talk] 08:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I submited it for a GA nomminee. Skeeker _[Talk] 05:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Sleaze rock

Guns n' roses are also sleaze rock and are influenced by sleaze bands like Hanoi Rocks. Here are some references [2], [3]. --Born Again 83 (talk) 00:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention!! --Born Again 83 08:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Read up the article, I already put them as sleaze rock. Someone took it down. Someone needs to put it back up, WITH CITATIONS and hidden text saying not to remove it. My comment has 3 more cites, too.(The Elfoid (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC))

Appetite For Destruction era

A few months back a book called 'Reckless Road' was released (Written by Marc Canter, who followed the band during the Early years upto AFD) which chronicles all the gigs and line up changes as well as when the songs where created and when they where first played. Some of the information in that book is also backed up by interviews given in a Summer Issue of Classic Rock. I am aware that Classic Rock is not seen as a valid, unbiased source BUT I was wondering if the book 'Reckless Road' could be considered as a source for this article to enlighten people more on the creation of the band. I am not sure exactly how the sandbox works (I'm pretty poor with Wikipedia guidelines if I'm honest!) but would like to draft a version to show, but I am not sure if TOO much information can be given. I just wanna put up my information and then show it, but not be branded a vandal - any ideas how I do this? CheersRenegade MUFC 23:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Reckless Road is definitely reliable, especially since most of the old band members endorsed it. Funeral 23:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

The origin for "Welcome to the Jungle" needs a source. In interviews given 20 years ago, Rose stated he was inspired to write those lyrics after he and Stradlin ran away from Indiana as teens to New York City and got lost in the Bronx. I'm not saying one is right over the other, but a source would clear it up. I've put a few tags throughout the article, once these are addressed I see no reason why it can't pass. Also check the date on the Rolling Stones LA Concert, I'm pretty sure that was in 1989. --Mike Searson (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

No effort has been made to improve the article, i suggest you fail it. M3tal H3ad (talk) 05:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm leaning that way, myself. Not like I asked for a complete rewrite! I'll give it a few more hours, though.--Mike Searson (talk) 06:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of December 12, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Yes

2. Factually accurate?: Yes, but needs sources.

3. Broad in coverage?: Yes

4. Neutral point of view?: Yes

5. Article stability? Yes, aside from vandalism by nine-year-olds

6. Images?: Could use a few more

The only thing holding it back is the sourcing. I know the claims within the article can be sourced. Once those citations are made and it is resubmitted I will pass it with flying colors.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.

Picture

If we could just get a picture for the infobox the article would pass GA with ease. I have sourced everything that needs to be sourced. Can anyone go onto Flickr, emailing users for permission of the use of a picture? (preferably the current line-up, and incorperate a photo of the original in the text)
Thank you,
Skeeker _[Talk] 01:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I looked through a lot of pictures on Flickr and left comments for about a dozen people who had good pictures. Hopefully one of them will embrace the spirit of Wikipedia. GrimmC (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Victory! GrimmC (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Added the new picture. May change as more image permissions come in. GrimmC (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You can feel free to use my picture. http://www.flickr.com/photos/22052353@N00/279287378/, if you need another one. --Blisterman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.40.186.249 (talk) 14:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Guns N' Roses reunion

• I have recently heard that Guns N' Roses will possibly be having a "classic line-up reunion", sans Izzy and Steven. And also that the intended line-up will be:
  
  *Axl Rose - lead vocals, keyboards
  *Slash - lead & rhythm guitars
  *Gilby Clarke - rhythm & lead guitars, backing vocals
  *Dizzy Reed - keyboards, backing vocals
  *Duff McKagan - bass, backing vocals
  *Matt Sorum - drums, percussion, backing vocals
  
  Can anyone verify this? 76.227.110.225 (talk) 05:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You heard wrong - that isn't happening. Funeral 19:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Slash makes it pretty clear in his book that this is very unlikely. All rumors of a reunion should be ignored. GrimmC (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Legacy

Legacy section is kind of slipshod and doesn't really say much of anything; in addition appears to have been used as a place to post random news about the band. It should probably be rewritten. GrimmC (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

original lineup

Most often in popular media the original lineup is referred to as Axl, Duff, Izzy, Slash, and Steven. I've merely made that clear in the article, and added some citations. We know they are not the original members in the purest sense of the word, but this particular editor Funeral has decided he will not allow it. I even changed it to state the "most famous" and put a blurb in there clarifying the original lineup statement. Geez, and Funeral you send me messages about edit wars and no original research. You are the one being antagonistic for no reason. Why don't you communicate first instead of wiping out others' work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.45.72.26 (talk) 00:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Classic, most famous.. etc.. etc..etc...its all POV fanboy crufting and not required on Wikipedia. 142.167.87.205 (talk) 00:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

"Most famous" is WP:POV - I could argue that the Use Your Illusion-era were the most famous line-up (no that that matters - editors' POV has no place on Wikipedia). "a blurb in there clarifying the original lineup statement" that source clarifies nothing, it's simply an article written by someone who doesn't know much about Guns N' Roses. A website referring to them as the original band does not mean they are, nor does it reflect popular opinion (or facts); there are plenty of Internet articles referring to Axl Rose as Axel Rose. Does that mean his name is spelt Axel? Funeral 00:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Jumping in on this discussion. I noticed it was you "Funeral" who suggested "most famous", so it appears you are contradicting yourself, no? Are you the fanboy? Just searching some myself on Google I find more references for this usage ([4] and [5]). There is nothing wrong to add clarification to the article, since it appears obvious that most people and media refer to that group of five as the original members. Going and making all these statements about fancruft towards your other editors is not useful at all. Be respectful and most importantly... relax. I support adding a reference acknowledging this "original" group, what have you. Icsunonove (talk) 00:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

When I suggested they were the most famous, I didn't mean to suggest we should put that in the article. Sorry for any confusion. Funeral 00:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem, but there is no need to bite new editors on here and speak in such an unfriendly manner. I think this addition to the article is possible with good citations. It's very common to refer to this group of five as the original and core Guns N' Roses; we simply make it clear they are not explicitly "original". Anyway, the argument goes the same with your example about Axel. If it was very common that his name was (mis-)spelt as Axel (which I do not believe is really the case), there is no harm in pointing that out. It is the same as us having a redirect from Axel Rose to Axl Rose. If it helps the readers, it is all good. Icsunonove (talk) 01:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The original lineup of any band, are the members who recorded the debut album. A logical conclusion does not have to be sourced. Appetite for Destruction, the debut album, was recorded by: Axl, Slash, Izzy, Duff, and Steven. BETA 03:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Genre debate

If you read up this page, there are a total of five major, reliable references that refer to the band as being sleazy. Four specifically call the genre sleaze rock, while allmusic guide just says they are 'sleazy sounding'. Leading sleaze website Sleaze Roxx classifies Guns N' Roses as sleaze rock. I think it's fair to say they qualify as a part of the genre? (The Elfoid (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC))

The Sleaze rock article was deleted because it was a fairy tale genre and didn't really exist. Hard rock will do just fine. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Sleaze glam gets a mention on the glam metal page actually, though more detail's needed. (The Elfoid (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC))

Discography

Regarding the decision to remove "Live LIke a Suicide" from the Discography section because it's not a studio album, I have to ask "Who says only studio albums can be in the discography section?". That EP isn't just live versions of their studio songs. Rather, it is their only indie release prior to "Appetite" and, thus, very significant. Excluding their first release just because it's a live album seems misguided. Hondo77 (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The link to the discography is there for anyone who wants to go deeper into detail. There are many band pages which keep the discography on the main page trimmed down to just the major label studio releases and save the gems for the discography pages (see Pink Floyd, Iron Maiden etc) Keep it general.. studio albums only. No superfluity. 156.34.222.121 (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

So there's no policy against putting "Live Like a Suicide" on the main page's discography, it's just somebody's preference? Hondo77 (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:HMM

Don't you think that Guns N' Roses should be under the scope of WP:HMM? —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 20:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

i approve! 71.17.159.25 (talk) 06:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Reconciliation

Would it be possible for the editors of this page and the page for L.A. Guns to agree upon the reasons for Tracii Guns leaving Guns N'Roses? The GN'R page states 'A short time later, guitarist Tracii Guns left the group to reform L.A. Guns,' whereas the L.A. Guns page states that 'Tracii quickly left the band due to differences with Axl Rose.' Not meaning to start an edit war and I'm not sure which version is truly correct but in the interests of consistency.... Less whining, more reclining (talk) 08:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

-neither statement contradicts the other so I do not see the problem. "A lot of the truths we cling to depend on point of view" - Obi Wan Kenobi...

Heavy metal

I don't see why Heavy Metal can't be added as a secondary genre to Hard rock. I mean many sources such as all music books websites etc have cited GN'R as heavy metal. besides it is not like it's saying they are primarly Metal but secondry to Hard Rock. they even are apart of wikiproject metal. TG 50 (talk) 00:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It should remain. It is vandalism if it is deleted, especially if it is sourced the way I had it. Burningclean _[speak] 03:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. GNR is definitely a heavy metal band. I don't see why it couldn't just be added beneath hard rock. Whiffle Ball Tony (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The main problem with adding heavy metal is that the band has never actually played heavy metal in their entire career. Therefore adding it would fall under "purposely adding false information" which falls under WP:VANDAL and can be reverted. Peter Fleet (talk) 22:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by them never playing heavy metal in their career? Just listen to "Welcome to the Jungle". If AC/DC can have heavy metal listed as a genre, then I think that Guns N' Roses should, too. Whiffle Ball Tony (talk) 23:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Peter Fleet, you are wrong. And I had it sourced, therefore, it would be vandalism if it is deleted. Burningclean _[speak] 23:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Several editors including Funeral and Libs have been outspoken in their opposition to it. And now add Peter Fleet to that group there is an overwhelming consensus that it not be added. I have never seen a valid reliable source added that supports it (unlike the earlier given AC/DC example where there are several strong references) I will have to side with the majority that it not be added. Wikipedia works on consensus and the consensus here is that hard rock says it all. And the earlier remark "just listen to Welcome to the Jungle"??? Ummm there isn't a shred of heavy metal in that song why would you POV it as an example? It negates rather than supports your argument. Fair Deal (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I had a source though. I could probably find a few more if that is what it takes. I personally don't think they are full heavy metal, just extremley boarderline. What would it hurt to add and source it? Burningclean _[speak] 00:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus can "override" sources, though. Go to an emo band's page, My Chemical Romance, for example, and add emo to the infobox and it'll be removed straight away -- even if you have 100+ sources -- because there's a clear consensus amongst editors. And I think there's a strong enough consensus here that GN'R weren't metal. Funeral 13:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)