Talk:AC/DC/Archive 8#Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2021

While Michael Browning's time managing AC/DC should certainly be covered in the article, I'm thinking the book may not be totally reliable as history, i.e. it probably contains factual errors. Nothing malicious, just details like names, dates and chronology. It was written primarily from Browning's own memories and not researched or checked against other sources. I find it hard to reconcile his account of booking AC/DC at the Hard Rock in Melbourne some time in mid 1974 and then booking them again a few weeks later when they were stuck in Adelaide with [http://www.ac-dc.net/archive/acdc_tour_history.php?subcategory_tour_id=1 this list of 1974 AC/DC tour dates], for example. It's certainly a usable source and an entertaining read but should be used with caution with regard to historical details. MaxBrowne (talk) 07:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

{{Archive top|result= This RfC was closed because consensus was reached against moving the page. Rational: AC/DC (the band) is the primary topic - Mlpearc (open channel) 23:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC) }}

• :AC/DC → {{no redirect|AC/DC (band)}}
• :AC/DC (disambiguation) → {{no redirect|AC/DC}}

– in line with standard encyclopedic logical conventions, the primary meaning is the electrical concept which should take precedence. AC/DC (band) is clearly secondary. Readers will concur. Thanks. Hansmuller (talk) 09:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

:This is a contested technical request (permalink). wbm1058 (talk) 10:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• Given the longstanding stability of this title, the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/AC/DC&namespace=0&limit=2200 huge number of links to this], and the page-move history, I feel that this is a potentially controversial request. wbm1058 (talk) 10:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

:: At 22:09, 29 August 2006 {{U|Nintendude}} moved AC/DC to {{no redirect|AC/DC (band)}}: {{tq|ambiguous topic}}

:: At 17:38, 3 September 2006‎ {{U|ProhibitOnions}} moved {{no redirect|AC/DC (band)}} to AC/DC: {{tq|Article moved without discussion; no real ambiguity}}

• Oppose - This is what just about everyone who types "AC/DC" in the search box will be looking for. Even in North Korea the band is what people will primarily associate with these initials. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose readers searching AC/DC are looking for the band, people searching alternating current or direct current will search for those topics there is no ambiguity in the subject and theres probably a guideline, police and MOS page against using acronyms or initials. Gnangarra 12:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. The electrical concept is in two different articles that aren't titled AC or DC. Nohomersryan (talk) 13:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose this is an entertainment blog not an encyclopedia. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose the band term is clearly the primary topic. The term "AC/DC" as an electrical concept doesn't make sense unless it's coupled with other terms - as shown by the disambig page. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Gnangarra's rationale. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose move and WP:SNOW close. There is longstanding stability for the band's page at this title.  ONR  (talk)  22:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

{{Archive bottom}}

{{Clear}}

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on AC/DC. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=781224538 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080424091345/http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=95431 to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/BLABBERMOUTH.NET/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=95431
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5mqv3Gpco?url=http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=tblTop100 to http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=tblTop100
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vh1.com/shows/dyn/the_greatest/62188/episode_wildcard.jhtml?wildcard=%2Fshows%2Fdynamic%2Fincludes%2Fwildcards%2Fthe_greatest%2Fhardrock_list_full.jhtml&event_id=862769&start=81
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080726214945/http://www.mtv.com/bands/m/metal/greatest_metal_bands/071406/index8.jhtml to http://www.mtv.com/bands/m/metal/greatest_metal_bands/071406/index8.jhtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071116103758/http://www.mcb.wa.gov.au/MCBNews/mediaRel.html to http://www.mcb.wa.gov.au/MCBNews/mediaRel.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080728070955/http://www.acdc-discography.com/CDBoxSets.html to http://www.acdc-discography.com/CDBoxSets.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=ind_focus.story&STORY=%2Fwww%2Fstory%2F08-24-2007%2F0004650891&EDATE=FRI%20Aug%2024%202007%2C%2008%3A05%20AM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081019032030/http://leisureblogs.chicagotribune.com/turn_it_up/2008/10/acdc-recycles-c.html to http://leisureblogs.chicagotribune.com/turn_it_up/2008/10/acdc-recycles-c.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.guitarworld.com/article/acdc_the_big_chill?page=0%2C1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080913214645/http://www.acdc.com/news/news.php?uid=24 to http://www.acdc.com/news/news.php?uid=24
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091004082803/http://www.acdc.com/news/news.php?uid=107 to http://www.acdc.com/news/news.php?uid=107
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=157776
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=157804
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140419024656/http://www.metalhammer.co.uk/news/2014-04-16/brian-johnson-ac-dc-not-retiring-yet to http://www.metalhammer.co.uk/news/2014-04-16/brian-johnson-ac-dc-not-retiring-yet
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/12/arts/music/12levi.html

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

{{sourcecheck|checked=true|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on AC/DC. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=787174636 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=ind_focus.story&STORY=%2Fwww%2Fstory%2F08-24-2007%2F0004650891&EDATE=FRI%20Aug%2024%202007%2C%2008%3A05%20AM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080913013210/http://www.acdc.com/news/news.php?uid=22 to http://www.acdc.com/news/news.php?uid=22
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080821031940/http://www.acdc.com/news/news.php?uid=19 to http://www.acdc.com/news/news.php?uid=19
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081022184111/http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/news/2008/10/17/acdcs_black_ice_rocks_into_walmart.htm to http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/news/2008/10/17/acdcs_black_ice_rocks_into_walmart.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100129122529/http://www.acdc.com/news/news.php?uid=129 to http://acdc.com/news/news.php?uid=129
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140416230710/http://www.classicrockmagazine.com/news/2014-04-16/ac-dc-deny-split-rumours-but-confirm-malcolm-is-taking-a-break to http://www.classicrockmagazine.com/news/2014-04-16/ac-dc-deny-split-rumours-but-confirm-malcolm-is-taking-a-break
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081016110316/http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/info.cfm?top=228&pg=715&st=191 to http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/info.cfm?top=228&pg=715&st=191

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

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The current picture shows an outdated lineup from 2009. Malcolm Young, Brian Johnson, Phil Rudd, and Cliff Williams are no longer members of the band. The picture should be replaced to show the current lineup of Angus Young, Axl Rose, Stevie Young, and Chris Slade. Wikitam331 (talk) 03:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

:The photo is of what might be regarded as the "classic" AC/DC line-up (Bon fans will disagree). Photos with the appropriate licensing from the Rock or Bust tour could be used in the article, but I'd still prefer a "classic line up" for the main pic. MaxBrowne (talk) 05:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

::Seriously? Too right, Bon fans will disagree. I'm just surprised that any AC/DC fans would not consider the line-up prior to Bon's death to be the "classic" line-up! As for a current line-up, surely it's now Angus & whoever he wishes to recruit, if there is even to be any more AC/DC. Gwladys24 (talk) 13:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

:::Best leave it until we get more news, which could be months, years or never. Flat Out (talk) 05:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

It's also good to keep in mind that this page is to discuss issues regarding the main page and not a fan page forum to discuss your personal opinions on what constitutes the "classic line-up" or what your personal preference is for the main pic. That's irrelevant here. Please stay on topic. (Sellpink (talk) 03:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC))

Putting my two cents here. I've seen the image change over the years bouncing back and forth from Bon Scott to Brian Johnson led AC/DC. "Classic AC/DC" is too opinionated to justify the use of an image. The image should reflect the band in it's current state as much as possible unless the band has been disbanded for quite sometime with a more notable image of the band used properly. Since AC/DC was active relatively recently with several new members the image should reflect the Axl Rose led AC/DC.Acdcguy1991 (talk) 17:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

It's been attempted in many recent edits to restore Brian Johnson as the current lead singer. However, this is both unsourced and inaccurate, according to [http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/acdc-singer-brian-johnsons-car-takes-tumble-in-qualifying-race-at-silverstone-classic-festival-photos/ this blabbermouth article] written on July 30, 2017, where it is stated that {{tq|Johnson is apparently not returning to the group}}. Claiming that the article is outdated should be accompanied by a reliable source, otherwise these edits are simply introducing incorrect information, and could be interpreted as vandalism. -- Radiphus 14:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

:I havn't heard any changes since Rose was announced as the new frontman. I could be out of date - FlightTime (open channel) 14:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

:: As far as i know, there has been no announcement of a new lead singer. They may keep bringing in guest vocalists for future projects. We need to decide on either putting Rose with the other past members, without replacing him with anybody else (definetely not Johnson), or just leave him there with the other current members of the group until further notice. -- Radiphus 15:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on AC/DC. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=804048721 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101222042657/http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/100-greatest-artists-of-all-time-19691231/ac-dc-19691231 to https://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/100-greatest-artists-of-all-time-19691231/ac-dc-19691231

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

{{sourcecheck|checked=true|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

:The archive worked, but I've updated the URL of the original ref.--Gorpik (talk) 11:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

If you feel so strongly about including the section, it should be fairly simple for you to explain why it should be included. Please use the talk page here to justify the inclusion, rather than edit-warring over it. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

:Agreed, let's wait for an official band statement and not rely on a "friend of the band" opinion. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

::I added a link to the original interview with Australian website The Rockpit, while trying to avoid undue weight. Seems a reasonable source. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Every so often, someone adds Guns n' Roses to the Associated Acts list in the infobox, only for it to be reversed. Now, given that Axl Rose has completed a full tour singing with AC/DC and Angus Young has guested in several GnR shows, making this a two-way collaboration, I think we have reason enough to include GnR as an associated act. Or, in any case, we can settle the discussion here. Thoughts?--Gorpik (talk) 09:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

:Angus guesting with GNR, imo, doesn't justify the inclusion. It's usually used for acts with two or more other members in common. RF23 (talk) 10:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

::The two bands started in entirely different milieus and circumstances, they both have their own sets of fans who are not necessarily fans of the other band and their musical styles aren't even all that similar beyond falling under the broad "hard rock" category. It was only late in the two bands' respective careers that they started appearing as guests at each other's shows. So I'd be inclined not to include GNR as an "associated act". MaxBrowne (talk) 11:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

:::Guesting at live shows is not enough. The two bands should be recording together on more than one song. Binksternet (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, pretty clear consensus against including them. At least, now we can refer to this discussion.--Gorpik (talk) 09:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I really hate to be "that guy", but I have to point out some significant issues with this article that make me question if this FA is really still at featured article status. There are a high number of statements missing citations, a serious concern of whether or not there is any WP:OR in here. The number of one or two-sentence paragraphs are also a concern as it does not convey a professional standard of writing. Reading the prose, I would challenge that it does not appear professionally written at this time, and I can provide some specific examples on request if need be. I understand this is an FA from 2006 and the standards have changed, but it looks like this article needs some work to keep its star. Red Phoenix ^talk 14:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

: It definitely needs work. Uncited statements are easily spotted, so that alone is reason for concern. Maybe we can knock it into shape without needing to take it to FAR. --Laser brain (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

::I would really hope not to have to go that far. I'm a fan of AC/DC, but music articles aren't my forte when it comes to Wikipedia; I'm almost exclusively a video games article editor, and not one with a lot of time on their hands to aggressively research and go after this. I hope there is someone out there who can take this up. Red Phoenix ^talk 15:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

No we don't have to include everyone who ever filled in on a tour, but anyone who was in the band as a full member on a reasonably permanent basis should be included in the infobox. Axl Rose barely even deserves to be listed as a member, he's never sung on an AC/DC album and he's primarily associated with a different band whose fans don't even have that much overlap with AC/DC's fans. Including Rose in the infobox but not Bon Scott or Brian Johnson shows a complete lack of appreciation for the band's history. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:54, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I would be open to removing Larry Van Kriedt, Colin Burgess and maybe Dave Evans from the list of former band members, since their time in the band was short and they do not appear on any recordings (apart from one single with Evans). MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

:Yes, I don't think those ones merit being in the infobox. We have a whole article dedicated to past members.--Gorpik (talk) 08:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

:: OK tentative consensus to reove then. I'll do it and see what happens. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Bon Scott was heavily influenced by the scottish 'Alex Harvey Band'. Instead of the crazed-clown lead guitarist outfit of the Alex Harvey Band, AC/DC used the crazed schoolboy outfit. Bon Scott even sounded like Alex Harvey.

You can clearly see the stage look and vocal similarity here:

Alex Harvey Band - 1973:

and

Note: Malcolm and Angus Young were all scottish-born too. Must be in the genes.

:Main influence I hear is Chuck Berry to be honest. Anyway this is all original research. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

The page will be discussed at this MfD discussion page until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

AC/DC is in stand-by since 2016, but actually the band work for a new album with Brian and Phil Rudd.

In the page of wiki, it's wright Axl rose 2016-present and Chris Slade 2015-présent, it's WRONG.

Why a change my edit ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laazrockit (talk • contribs) 18:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

::See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAC%2FDC&type=revision&diff=912688522&oldid=912678986 previous comment].--Jimi Henderson (talk) 19:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Chris Slade is not actually member of AC/DC...Official actually member of AC/DC it's Angus and only Angus ! since 2016 Chris Slade does nothing with AC/DC...Axl play with Guns and nothing other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laazrockit (talk • contribs) 22:55, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Officially, what is currently known is that Angus Young and Stevie Young are the current members of the band. Bassist Cliff Williams retired after their last tour. As of August 2018 Drummer Slade currently doesn't know if he's in the band. Link below. https://loudwire.com/acdc-chris-slade-hasnt-seen-band-end-rock-or-bust-touring/

Axl Rose said in numerous interviews in 2016 that he was helping his fellow musicians out and that he was just filling in for Brian Johnson. Unofficially the rumor is that Brian Johnson, Angus and Stevie Young, Cliff Williams and Phil Rudd will be releasing an album and touring in 2020. I propose that the band member section be changed to reflect that the Drums, bass, and vocals are currently unknown and a section in the main article explaining why those current members are currently unknown. RyanConnell5150 (talk) 20:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I am seeking consensus (per this discussion) in regards to my RfPP report (which was denied) The denial is not the issue, what I state in the report is. For years now IP's have been going to the pages of Bon Scott, Angus Young, Malcolm Young and changing "Australian" to "Scottish" in the lead. Yes they were all born in Scotland, but the band was formed in Australia and that what we've gone by forever. I have made hundreds of reverts on those pages throughout the years and I think it's time to set indefinite semi-protection on them. IMO this is getting old. Opinions ? - FlightTime (open channel) 22:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

:I'd be in favour of that. The Youngs and Bon Scott were Australian citizens, regardless of where they were born. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

:I agree, too. It is quite tiring to see those editions once and again.--Gorpik (talk) 11:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

:: I would not agree to that. We're using our most powerful tool for something that can be resolved with a simpler solution. The most I would be willing to consent to is extended page protection and a comment describing the situation. (brought here by request at :Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians) Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

:::Extended would work also. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• Saw this advertised at the pump. Similar to Walter, I'd not be in favor of indefinite semi-protection. I'd only be willing to endorse pending changes protection and probably only for this page, not the band member pages. I understand this is a frustratingly common occurence, but for these editors, they think they're helping. It's very bite-y to prevent them from editing this whole page because of a dispute over one word. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:14, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

::::{{re|Wugapodes}} What's the difference between going to the page to revert and reviewing a PC post (time/work load wise I mean)? - FlightTime (open channel) 21:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

:::::Not much, but that's not the main consideration of the protection policy. This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and in order to protect pages administrators need evidence that protection is the only way to respond to heavy and persistent vandalism. This is neither. Looking at the band member pages, IP editors edit them maybe once a month, and the edits aren't even vandalism. Most of the edits seem to be good faith. While the consensus of registered editors may be that they're Australian, these people were born in Scotland. Stating that they're Scottish isn't vandalism ("On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge."); that a person born in Scotland is Scottish is a reasonable opinion, and editing the page to reflect that is a good faith attempt to correct what seems to be an error. Our protection policy explicitly forbids using semi-protection "to privilege registered users over unregistered users in (valid) content disputes" and the fact that so many people disagree with registered editors suggests that the articles should be improved to explain why people born in Scotland are not considered Scottish. We don't protect pages because dealing with anonymous editors is inconvenient, and the nationality-related edits are neither frequent nor egregious. That's why the request for protection at RFPP was rejected and why I also am opposed to this request as well. — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

:::It's not really a dispute. A lot of it is nationalist vandalism. This page doesn't see as much of it as the band members' pages. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

::::Indefinite semi-protection looks to me like overkill for this issue. Bondegezou (talk) 14:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

:::::{{re|Bondegezou}} Would you consider permanent Extended confirmed protection ? - FlightTime (open channel) 21:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

::::::Extended protection is a higher protection level than semi-protection. Semi-protection allows editors with 10 edits and 4 days tenure to edit while extended confirmed protection restricts editing to registered users with 30 days tenure and 500 edits. — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

:::::::I think a better approach would be to find a form of words that acknowledges both the band's Australian-ness and their Scottish-ness. Bondegezou (talk) 10:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

:This sounds like exactly the type of situation pending changes was designed for. I see a lot of similar issues come up on other articles there and once click is all that's necessary to take care of it. Pending changes has the great advantage that it doesn't BITE the newcomer but also prevents the edit from being widely seen. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• Admittedly I've had 1 or 2 articles indef-protected purely due to vandals/socks (and the article(s) were barely ever edited), In this specific case indef-protecting would exclude everyone editing it and given it's a highly edited page I'd much prefer something less overkill like Extended-confirmed protection. –Davey2010^Talk 20:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

A lot of editors are saying that Extended confirmed would be more appropriate, that would work for me. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

If that's the general consensus then it works for me also. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

: Extended-confirmed would certainly be better than indef-protected. Abzeronow (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

:What? Indefinite semi-protection is too restrictive but extended-confirmed protection is OK? That's backwards from my understanding of the protection levels. If the goal is to allow most changes while screening out IP and just-registered editors from changing nationalities then extended-confirmed is stepping up from a .22 to an elephant gun. Pending changes protection would be the relative BB gun in this situation. It seems a much less disruptive solution to the specific issue complained of. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

:: Didn't see that semi-protection was proposed, thought by what Davey said, they meant admin-only protection. Yes, I agree that pending changes is the best solution since it is less bite-y to newcomers and it can catch good faith edits that assert these Australians are Scottish (they are Scottish-born, but Australian nationals). Abzeronow (talk) 17:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

:::{{reply to|Abzeronow}}, the original request made by {{u|FlightTime}} at RfPP was for indefinite semi-protection. I took that as understood as the basis for discussion. Apologies if I assumed incorrectly. I've generally seen the admin-only protection of the type you mention as "full protection", which I don't think anyone would favor. Thanks for your reply. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:51, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

::::I think my misunderstanding of {{noping|Abzeronow}} first comment in this thread, started the confusion, but my original thoughts were of indef semi-protection. Sorry for the mix up, - FlightTime (open channel) 21:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

It's common knowledge that Angus, Brian, Cliff and Phil are back in the studio, recording a new album making use of Malcolm's past session material. Surely it's time to shift Axl to the past members... even Axl says Brian is back! Stub Mandrel (talk) 19:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

:Common knowledge is not how Wikipedia works. See WP:RS. HiLo48 (talk) 23:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Done AnotherUserame000 (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Is he in or is he out? Infobox lists Brian as a member, whereas the Current Members does not. BigJoeRockHead (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

It would not be difficult to cite the significance of many tours that AC/DC embarked on, and I don't believe it was a necessary move to remove the pages. I say we bring them back. SweetTaylorJames (talk) 05:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|AC/DC|answered=yes}}

Axlrose is not a member of AC/DC. He filled in for Brian Johnson who is now back with the band. 72.9.126.57 (talk) 03:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

:{{Not done}}. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|AC/DC|answered=yes}}

Please remove Axl Rose (Lead Vocals) and Chris Slade (Drums) from members section on the right hand side and 'Current members' at the bottom, as this is false. Current line up includes Angus Young, Stevie Young, Phil Rudd (Drums) and Brian Johnson (Lead vocals). Evidence Below. Thank you.

https://www.straight.com/music/1113406/acdc-rumour-update-photo-shows-phil-rudd-and-brian-johnson-vancouver MintBerryCrunch12 (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

::See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAC%2FDC&type=revision&diff=912688522&oldid=912678986 diff].--Jimi Henderson (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

:::{{ping|MintBerryCrunch12}} File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. GoingBatty (talk) 00:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

You do realize that Brian Johnson is back in the band, right? AustinDeLarra (talk) 05:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

:There are lots of rumours, but no official confirmation. Wikipedia does not deal with rumours, however insistent they are.--Gorpik (talk) 07:09, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

::Then why does the wiki page for Johnson state that he is once again the lead singer for the band? Looneybunny (talk) 21:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

:::Same as with everything on Wikipedia, because someone had written it :) It is one of the many rumours and I have just rewritten that so it is closer to what the source says.--Gorpik (talk) 11:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

The only actually official member of AC/DC is Angus, not Chris Slade and Axl Rose, référence ? Nothing ? Axl and Chris Slade play the Rock or bust tour and nothing (talk).

Malcolm? Timtam90 (talk) 04:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The members should be the founding members and shouldn’t have Stevie young in it....

“Members” with the original crew and then “active members”... Don’t really care about this band but it feels disrespectful that Malcolm isn’t in the members when he helped found the band and wrote songs...

This would be like Led Zeppelin saying members and putting John Bonham's son as the drummer.. and you have to actually look/ know who played on the albums. He should be the first thing...

If you joined in 2014 you don’t count sorry Stevie Timtam90 (talk) 04:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

:I think it was better when the infobox included key past members like Malcolm Young, Bon Scott. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AC/DC&oldid=890788011. How about we restore this? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

::I agree. I'm fine with not having some guy who played a few gigs before they ever recorded anything, for instance, but relevant past members should be there. {{ping|Timtam90}} if you look at the infobox parameters, that is the current members list; it is not in this article, but the consensus for all music band articles. Your Led Zeppelin example is irrelevant because they are not an active band.--Gorpik (talk) 07:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Why do they have Axlrose as lead singer? Brian’s been back for months. Venom0674 (talk) 04:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

:Yeah we heard the gossip. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

::Hi ya'll, please consider adding this information, it seems that the boys are back to the (almost) classic lineup as photos have been uploaded to their official website and then removed. Please see [https://loudwire.com/ac-dc-photos-brian-johnson-phil-rudd-reunion/ this article]. Cheers! Ronnieroxx (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

:::The article says that the info is not confirmed.--Gorpik (talk) 08:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

::::Well, it is now confirmed, https://pwrup.acdc.com . Would you be so kind and update this event and also the member list? Thanks! Ronnieroxx (talk) 12:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

:::::Is it not more accurate to set Brian, Cliff and Phil's return to August 2018, instead of September 2020? The studio sessions for the upcoming album started in August 2018, with Brian, Phil and Cliff involved.

Magnuskberg (talk) 22:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.128.185.90 (talk)

::::::Yes, when there is a good source for it. The band were basically on hiatus after the tour with Axl finished, with no bass player, and restarted when the recording sessions started. Brian, Cliff and Phil were clearly part of the band from that point, and not from September 2020, which is pretty ridiculous. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|AC/DC|answered=y}}

Axl Rose is out, and Brian J is back, as per the article itself, and even the band's official website. Please update the current band members to bring it up to date. 98.207.176.151 (talk) 10:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

:File:Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I see in this article it says the three of them rejoined in 2020. Because it was confirmed in 2020, that makes sense BUT there were pictures of them recording in 2019. The article List of AC/DC members states that they rejoined in 2018. Obviously the two articles should say the same year, but should that be 2018, 2019, or 2020? TJD2 (talk) 06:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

:We don't really know yet. Let's wait a bit, probably the band themselves will clarify this issue as they start giving interviews to promote the new album.--Gorpik (talk) 07:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I would argue that Axl Rose should be removed from any indication as official member of AC/DC. There is not a single source that states this. He was never listed as a member on the bands website, and he never claimed to be either. He was stepping in ON TOUR to assist the band completing their remaining dates, much like Stevie Young did back in 1988 or Paul Gregg did in 1991. We state Wikipedias facts on reliable sources, but it are only insinuations and perceptions from some Wiki members who have appointed Rose as official member. Magnuskberg (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|AC/DC|answered=yes}}

This article states that the first drummer of ACDC was Colin Burgess when in fact the very first was Peter Clack (with the band for 10 months). Please add Peter Clack into this article where necessary. Reference "Peter Clack" Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Clack Awezt (talk) 02:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

:{{Not done}} Clack's article states that he was "an early member" of AC/DC, not the original drummer. In fact, according to the source used for that article, Clack was the second drummer, following Burgess.--Gorpik (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|AC/DC|answered=yes}}

Where it says "origin," add New South Wales between Sydney and Australia. Australia has administrative subdivisions and they deserve to be recognized. Trevor LaFleur (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

:File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. [[User:Eggishorn|Eggishorn]] (talk) (contrib) 06:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|AC/DC|answered=yes}}

Would like to correct the fact that Ballbreaker and Stiff Upper Lip were both re-issued & remastered for 2004; not 2005 and 2007 as the article currently says ("In 2003, the entire back-catalogue (except Ballbreaker and Stiff Upper Lip) was remastered and re-released. Ballbreaker was eventually re-released in October 2005; Stiff Upper Lip was later re-released in April 2007.").

The images in these links can prove that:

https://www.discogs.com/es/ACDC-Ballbreaker/release/925105

https://www.discogs.com/es/ACDC-Stiff-Upper-Lip/release/6513241

Juansleony (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC) Juansleony (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

:File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Discogs is not a reliable source, please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 21:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The current article doesn't mention any source neither. And, anyways, this is not about discogs as a source, instead, is about the pictures of boths discs as what matter. Online, everywhere, you'll find both Ballbreaker and Stiff Upper Lip back covers stating 2004 as the year of their re-issue by Epic/Columbia/Sony. I just used pictures from discogs because they were decent in resolution, not because discogs is the/my source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juansleony (talk • contribs) 05:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

: {{done}}. {{u|Juansleony}}, every piece of information needs a source, and Discogs is indeed not reliable. We can't cite images either. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 02:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I have never heard their work being called blues rock. Wolf O'Donnel (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

:You've heard "Ride On", right? "The Jack"? "Down Payment Blues"? ok the blues influence is more obvious in the Bon era, but it's always been there. [https://consequenceofsound.net/2020/11/ranking-every-ac-dc-album/4/] [https://www.rockandbluesmuse.com/2020/11/14/review-ac-dc-power-up/] [https://www.google.com/books/edition/AC_DC_The_Early_Years_Bon_Scott/TSa3DwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=AC/DC+%22blues+rock%22+-wikipedia&pg=PT91&printsec=frontcover] MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm a Kiwi so our variety of English is similar ("Labor" party and all). I'm pretty sure Australia uses -ise rather than -ize? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I added the thunderbolt symbol (⚡) as it is their common style of writng the band name. However, I noticed mobile operating systems (e.g. Android) render it ad an emoji rather as an Unicode character. Is there a way to prevent operating systems to render it as yellow emoji? Should I write it AC6pxDC with an SVG symbol instead? Thanks in advance.--Carnby (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

:I think WP:TRADEMARK is probably applicable here - specifically "Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration, or simply substitute for English words or letters (e.g., "♥" used for "love", "!" used for "i")" - and it should just be "AC/DC" which is also the article title. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

::Well I decide to put that strange symbol because there are other pages using stylisations. Do you think this stylisation and this one should be removed as well?--Carnby (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

:::Not really interested in getting involved in WP:OTHERSTUFF - I have no interest in either of those pages so other editors can decide that. As far as AC/DC goes, as the logo appears to be a trademark[https://rosenbaumfamularo.com/major-bands-use-law-to-protect-merchandise-from-counterfeiters/] I stick by my interpretation of WP:Trademark. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

::::We are not obliged to use non-standard characters to indulge artists' idiosyncracies. Do we have to retitle Prince's page to https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/af/Prince_logo.svg/130px-Prince_logo.svg.png?

::::{{ping|Chaheel Riens}} I humbly accept the editors' consesus. However the thunderbolt symbol as far as the U.S. law (and Wikimedia policy) is concerned, is not coyrightable. Also, I think we need a precise guideline about all these "stylisations".--Carnby (talk) 09:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|AC/DC|answered=yes}}

In the 7th paragraph under the "accolades" section, change "The RIAA also certified Back in Black as double Diamond (20 million) in US sales, and by 2007 the album had sold 22 million copies, which made it the fifth-best-selling album of all-time in the US." to:

"The RIAA also certified Back in Black as double Diamond (20 million) in US sales, and by 2021 the album had sold 25 million copies, making it the fourth-best-selling album of all-time in the US.

See the following website for reference:

https://www.riaa.com/gold-platinum/?tab_active=top_tallies&ttt=T1A&col=certified_units&ord=desc#search_section JFaga (talk) 20:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• Done ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 22:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

First paragraph in the introduction: 'but the band themselves call it simply "rock and roll".' Should be 'but the band themselves call it simply "rock and roll."' gangplank galleon (talk) 06:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

:Not an error, because the band don't call it "rock and roll.", but "rock and roll" - they don't punctuate it. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

He was in the Easybeats of course, he was about 10 years older than Malcolm and Angus. He was very supportive of them, he'd roadie for them and fill in on guitar or bass if someone was sick or unavailable, but he was never a full-time member of the band. He is included in List of AC/DC members and it may be ok to include him in the AC/DC#Former_members section, but not in the Infobox. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:11, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

:Agreed. This is a recent addition to the infobox and, in my opinion, a wrong one.--Gorpik (talk) 14:10, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Some AC/DC material got released by the label Earache Records 2600:2B00:A600:5200:40AB:80D:CF89:7872 (talk) 20:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

:We need a source to know, so can you send the website link where we can see the material? If it’s not a reliable source, we might not put it in. Vaughan J. (talk) 22:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Power up is a really good album; I play it a lot. The release date should be listed as November 13th 2020. 2603:8000:D900:EF0E:D54F:7F9D:513D:427B (talk) 00:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

:If you look at the article about the album here, or look here, you can see the release date is listed as 13 November 2020. Vaughan J. (talk) 06:47, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Missing "Who Made Who" album in 1986 2601:245:4300:FB20:79A0:C09E:4666:2A2B (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

:Who Made Who is a soundtrack album, to the movie Maximum Overdrive. On the discography section, it shows only studio albums, so there's no need to add Who Made Who on the discography section. VJtheDJ (talk) 07:39, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

It's bad enough constantly arguing about whether AC/DC are an "Australian band" (of course they bloody well are), now we have to say "English singer Brian Johnson" and "English bass player Cliff Williams" and "Welsh drummer Chris Slade" and "American singer Axl Rose"? And to me "Native Australian" means "Aboriginal Australian". This is getting ridiculous. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|AC/DC|answered=yes}}

The album For Those About To Rock was AC/ DC's first number one album and most importantly, it was the first HEAVY METAL ALBUM to reach number one on the Billboard 200 chart.

Being that AC/DC is a heavy metal band according to its Wikipedia description and sound!! 2600:6C67:447F:F6FC:B122:AB36:385B:5643 (talk) 14:58, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

:The band, and many of their fans, hate the term "Heavy Metal", but worth noting (with proper sourcing) that it was a #1 billboard album. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

: {{not done}}: your request is unclear. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Also please provide reputable sources. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

{{Edit semi-protected|AC/DC|answered=yes}}

In fact, the title AC/DC did not come from sister Margret, but from their sister in law. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vi8gE-i2IFc at 1:09. 108.16.122.101 (talk) 05:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

:File:Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: This is Interesting, but since there are plenty of sources that attribute the name to the sister, I don't feel comfortable going ahead with the change (based on a youtube video). I will leave this open for others to check and decide. M.Bitton (talk) 12:57, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

:File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. This is a tricky one, but I think it's more likely that he misspoke as opposed to the variety of sources reporting this incorrectly. Is there any further reporting on this, any other instances of this being attributed to their sister-in-law? Actualcpscm (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

::{{re|Actualcpscm}} I seriously doubt he misspoke. See [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOb11bSfxeY this] (@15m) where Angus repeats the same thing (explaining that it was his sister in law, the wife of George, that came up with the name). I suggest reopening the edit request to attract more input. M.Bitton (talk) 13:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

:::In that case, we have two instances of Angus making this attribution; maybe we should evaluate how reliable the sources for the other story are. I don't know much about AC/DC, so I think it would be better if someone with some understanding of the field provided insight.

:::As far as I understand it, edit requests should be used when there is a clear suggestion and the only remaining hurdle is for a user with the proper permissions to check and implement that suggestion. I don't think using them to attract discussion is really their intended purpose. Referring to WP:EDITXY, any open request should meet the SUNS criteria. In my opinion, controversy or uncertainty should be resolved before re-opening the request. Actualcpscm (talk) 13:45, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

::There are a bunch of interviews where Angus or Malcolm says sister-in-law, but there are also some where Angus says sister. I suspect that the truth is the sister-in-law, and that when the term sister is used it is just a short hand, especially since there is one instance where an interview says "your sister Margret" and Angus corrects him to sister-in-law. 165.106.136.108 (talk) 18:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|AC/DC|answered=yes}}

Please change "Malcolm and Angus Young developed the idea for the band's name after their sister, Margaret Young, saw the initials "AC/DC" on the AC adapter of a sewing machine." to "Malcolm and Angus Young developed the idea for the band's name after their sister in law (by their brother George) saw the initials "AC/DC" on the AC adapter of their sister Margaret's sewing machine."

Sources: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vi8gE-i2IFc (1:09)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOb11bSfxeY (15:00)

See "Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2023" for discussion on topic. 165.106.136.108 (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

:File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done:

Already stated here, - FlightTime (open channel''') 20:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

:I am not sure if you read the above. It is not "stated here" 108.16.122.101 (talk) 02:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|AC/DC|answered=yes}}

Please change "...after their sister, Margaret Young, saw the initials "AC/DC" on the AC adapter of a sewing machine..." to "...after their sister in law (by their brother George) saw the initials "AC/DC" on the AC adapter of their sister Margaret's sewing machine..." 108.16.122.101 (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

:File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Tlx|Edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|AC/DC|answered=yes}}

Change ‘Australian band’ to ‘British band’.

AC/DC is not an Australian band. The band members are British. Just because they’ve lived in Australia for a time, does not mean they’re Australian and it certainly doesn’t make their band Australian. The original members themselves identify/identified as British. AC/DC will ALWAYS be British. 2001:8003:F228:1500:C429:38C1:3999:57AB (talk) 08:35, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

:File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: see above Cannolis (talk) 09:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

:File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: You have to know that Angus and Stevie are both Scottish, as they were born in Glasgow.

:AC/DC is an Australian band, as they started in Sydney, Australia.

:Yes, the Young family lived in Australia, as they migrated from Scotland 10 years before the band was made. But, that doesn't change their nationality to be "Australian". They're still technically Scottish.

:And yes, the other band members other than Angus and Stevie (Brian and Cliff) identify as British, as they were born in England. But there's Phil Rudd, born in Melbourne, so technically ⅖ of the members are British.

:Hope that makes you understand why they're an Australian band. — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 03:05, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted the GA nomination added on 26 March. {{u|Vaughan J.}}, see the GA nomination instructions and this thread. If you still want to nominate the article, please get the input of significant contributors here on the article talk page first. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Is there any source supporting writing the band's name as "ACϟDC" with a Greek Koppa, or is this an invention by wikipedia editors because the symbol looks a bit like a lighting bolt? It was added back in this edit without comment [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AC/DC&diff=prev&oldid=959375968]. From a google search this appears to be a very uncommon way of writing the band's name, with a search turning up ~ 70 uses across the internet, mostly on usocial media. 192.76.8.88 (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

:{{removed}} as unsourced. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Vaughn J., per the GA instructions, did you ask other major contributors to the article if they agree the article is ready before you nominated this for GA? I see {{u|Bretonbanquet}} and {{u|Gorpik}} are still active among major contributors, for example. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

:No not yet. I'll go ask them if they agree if they it is ready for it or not in another section of this talk. I do feel like it does meet the citeria for GA, but I'll ask them in another section. — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 06:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

:I have a question. According to the instructions, to be a reviewer you must not have made significant contributions to it. This would mean I am not a good candidate for doing the review. Am I missing something? Gorpik (talk) 07:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

::Judging from [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/AC/DC this] I'd say you have not contributed enough for it to be a problem, and you could do the review. The top few people on that list would not be able to review as they've contributed quite a bit more. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

:::What you're saying is, if an article is nominated for GA, and if I'm the top 1 in authorship in the article, then other people can review it even though they are below top 1? — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 11:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

::::No, the concern is that a reviewer should not review text they created. If someone has created a significant amount of the text in an article, they should not be a reviewer of that article. In this case Gorpik has made quite a few edits but the fraction of text they've created is quite small, so they would not be reviewing their own text. That means they can review. Someone in the top five or ten editors on that list would be reviewing their own text, and should not do the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

:::::Ohhhh got it! That is noted. — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 11:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

::::::OK. Then I'll do the review. Thanks for the clarification. Gorpik (talk) 11:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

{{Archive top|bg=#E6F2FF

| status = Agree

| result = The majority of the people I pinged agrees that this article is ready. — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 06:21, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

}}

Pinging active users that have contributed to this article: @{{u|Bretonbanquet}}, @{{u|Gorpik}} and @{{u|Palindromedairy}} to ask this question below:

Do you guys agree that this article is ready for it to be a GA nominee yet? Reply with "Agree" or "Disagree" and then tell me if you think if it's in the criteria or not. — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 06:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

• Agree. The article is well written, comprehensive and stable. It has lots of recent editions (mostly by yourself), but they are mainly technical; this is, they improve references, wordings and the like, not actually doing major updates on the content. The article is well organised and includes criticisms and controversies in a fair way. Gorpik (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
• Agree. There will likely be some adjustments to wording, grammar, or minor factual points to resolve, but fundamentally I think it's ready. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

{{Archive bottom}}

{{edit semi-protected|AC/DC|answered=yes}}

In the "Discography" part of the infobox, just put it as "AC/DC discography", as having it as "Albums and singles" and "songs" is unneeded. 2601:407:4181:4260:8C9C:4997:7A42:813 (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

:"Albums and singles" and "songs" link to separate articles. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

:{{Not done}} – "Albums and singles" and "songs" link to seperate lists. — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 00:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

{{Talk:AC/DC/GA3}}

AC/DC are not a heavy metal band. Their riffs are extremely rock, and their solos are just blues pentatonic. They lack the darkness, speed, and heaviness other blues based heavy metal bands had (like Black Sabbath.) Catiscool300 (talk) 17:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

:This is a subject that has discussed already, and there are references that support that "heavy metal" as its genre among others. HorrorLover555 (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

::{{noping|HorrorLover555}} Agree. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

:::Genre warriors are among the most irritating editors. I know the band don't like the term "heavy metal", but that's because they were heavy metal before it was really a thing. You won't find many heavy metal fans who don't like AC/DC. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

The article is currently a Good Article Candidate and there is no consensus for removal of heavy metal from their genres. As indicated by HorrorLover55 this has been discussed previously (check the archive above or its [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:AC/DC/Archive_index index]). There has been long-standing consensus to leave it in.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 13:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

{{archive top}}

Hi, I recently moved High Voltage (1976 album) into a compilations section of the AC/DC discography, and my edits were reversed and I was referred to the archive talk page which discussed this matter. I'm pleased I was referred to this history, I wasn't aware there was such conjecture about this, over a decade ago.

For what it worth, I agree with Hoponpop69. The 1976 album "compiles" songs from two Australian studio album. The band did not go into a studio and record anything for this, hence, IMO (and like Hoponpop69), it is a compilation album. That’s the definition of a compilation. (I am not saying it's a "greatest hits", but a compilation). NB: I have no issue with the two articles (one for the original/Australian studio album (74) and one for the compilation/international album (76).) I understand the argument from a decade ago, saying the 76 version a new album for audiences outside Australia, but that's not the definition of what a studio album is. So in saying that, I understand this has been discussed and the conversation got a little personal, so I am keen to avoid that, but wondering if this topic could be revisited? and if so, please consider these points as to why I’d be categorising 1976 album as a compilation. Thoughts? Tobyjamesaus (talk) 23:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

:I'll be honest, I don't really think that it needs to change into a compilation album, as it has been a studio album for North America, as it has been settled by consensus long ago, and there are enough reliable sources to show that it counts officially as a studio album. HorrorLover555 (talk) 04:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

::It's tricky as both points of view are technically correct. The OP's point that nothing new was recorded is true, and in that literal respect the '76 album is a compilation. But (as he points out) that's only a meaningful description in Australia and New Zealand. Everywhere else, this was a new album. Imports of High Voltage '74 and TNT were incredibly rare (in the UK at least), and High Voltage '76 was the first exposure this music really had in the rest of the world, and most of it was barely 12 months old. So it's a collection of then-current material you couldn't realistically buy before. To my mind, the term "compilation" is better suited to either Greatest Hits collections, or packages of outtakes, demos, b-sides and whatnot. High Voltage '76 was more a "repackaging" for the international market than a true compilation. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

:{{ping|Tobyjamesaus}} Besides arguments for it being a compilation album, there's also a case for High Voltage (1976) being a re-issue of T.N.T. with two tracks from High Voltage (1975 [not '74]) added in and the album re-titled. Similar re-issues have occurred for other artists breaking out of their local markets into a wider "international" scene (e.g. Face to Face by the Angels/Angel City). However, neither "compilation" nor "re-issue" is how High Voltage (1976) was described in the majority of independent reliable sources. Since it is generally referred to as a studio album we should leave it in the Discography list of this article and in the Studio albums section of AC/DC discography (i.e. status quo).shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

::Agreed. HorrorLover555 (talk) 04:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

::Agreed! — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 23:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

I assume good faith that Australian English apparently insists there be a space in this word, but since it keeps going back and forth on the correction, I suggest the following:

1. Showing an Australian dictionary/reference as a source on the talk page that definitively shows there must be a space. Perhaps have a banner that shows this.
2. Marking "band mate" with {{tl|Not a typo}} so it won't be "corrected" by spell-checking tools any longer.

Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 22:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

:# Ian McFarlane's Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop (an Australian reference used in this article) has on-line entries for numerous Australian artists. He uses "band mate/band mates" in his articles on [http://web.archive.org/web/20040615101752/www.whammo.com.au/encyclopedia.asp?articleid=146 "Buffalo"], [http://web.archive.org/web/20040831120347/http://www.whammo.com.au/encyclopedia.asp?articleid=1044 "Neil Finn"], [http://web.archive.org/web/20040615182940/http://www.whammo.com.au/encyclopedia.asp?articleid=875 "Harem Scarem"] and [http://web.archive.org/web/20040725114705/www.whammo.com.au/encyclopedia.asp?articleid=747 "Underground Lovers"]. I could find no instance of his using "bandmate/bandmates" in his encyclopaedia.

:##Consider: {{Citation | author1=Moore, Bruce | title=The Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary |date=1998 | publisher=Oxford University Press | edition=3rd | isbn=978-0-19-551771-2 |page=826 }} has definitions for mate and at 3c it shows: "(in comb.) a fellow member or joint occupant of (team-mate; room-mate)".shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)07:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

:#:Thanks. I just realized I had access to the "Australian Oxford Dictionary (2 ed.)" (2004) via the Wikipedia Library. For mate under definition 3., it says "each of a pair, especially of birds. ■ (colloq.) a partner in marriage. ■ in comb. a fellow member or joint occupant of: teammate | room-mate." No space in those or in Moore's work. Also, I'm not sure McFarlane's is a definitive book on spelling/grammar. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 04:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

:#::For anyone's verification, here is the [https://www-oxfordreference-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/display/10.1093/acref/9780195517965.001.0001/m-en_au-msdict-00001-0033365?rskey=76LLUq&result=33341 Wikipedia Library access link to 'mate' in the dictionary] and the book is {{ISBN|9780195517965}}. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 05:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

:You asked for an "Australian dictionary/reference", which I understood to mean Australian dictionary or Australian reference. You're right that McFarlane is not a definitive spelling/grammar book but rather provides examples of Australian English usage by a reference in the field of music. From your citing AOD (2nd), I gather that you are saying the article should use bandmate or band-mate? I'd prefer band-mate if band mate cannot be used.–shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:09, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

::Sorry for slow response and also for not being more clear as what I was looking for in a dictionary/reference (I meant a straight-up spelling/grammar reference rather than any reference book) before. Anyway, the RegExTypoFix rule will also correct band-mate to bandmate. But if you want to enclose that spelling within {{tl|not a typo}} (like is being done now), any correction will be avoided. Since the version without a hyphen seems to be globally predominant, I doubt the rule will be changed, but you can always ask about it at WT:AWB/T (we've changed rules after discussion before). Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 06:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

:::Unless a better ref than AOD is supplied I suppose it should be left as "bandmate" then.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

{{ping|StefenTower}}: I was wrong. I've just returned from a local library where they have:

{{Citation | editor1=Butler, Susan |title=Macquarie Dictionary |date=2017 |publisher=Macquarie Dictionary Publishers | edition=Seventh | isbn=978-1-74261-981-1 }}, on p. 928 you'll find:

:-mate a suffix indicating a person who shares in the specified way with another as flatmate, roommate, workmate, teammate.

Consequently "bandmate" is acceptable by the authoritative source on Australian English ("Nationally and internationally regarded as the standard reference on Australian English."){{cite web |url=http://unimelb.libguides.com/content.php?pid=130967&sid=1123371|publisher=University of Melbourne|title=Reference|url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150103005711/http://unimelb.libguides.com/content.php?pid=130967&sid=1123371 |archive-date=2015-01-03}}

{{Reflist-talk}}

Hope this is definitive enough. I will change this article to suit this reference.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

:Thank you for following up and fixing in the article. It's good we have a recent dictionary to go by. Perhaps this is a spelling that has evolved as including the hyphen seemed to be a prior convention. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 17:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

{{Talk:AC/DC/GA4}}

People are saying there's a consensus to include heavy metal as a genre, where is that discussion? --FMSky (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

(Man, I need to get better at the edit summary thing)

@FMSky I was referring to this discussion here. There was also a lot of discussion about them as a "metal" act in this section as well. Carlinal (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

::From 2007?????? --FMSky (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

::Its obviously so incredibly nonsensical to list a bluesy hard rock band as heavy metal when one of the main characteristics of heavy metal is that it doesnt have any blues influences anymore --FMSky (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

:::I do find it unfortunate that there hasn't been any re-discussion of this in the last 5 years but I'm certain info in the genre section of this article can provide some justification; since Back in Black they've departed further from blues rock and songs like "Hells Bells" and "Big Gun" aren't anything like with "The Jack" or "Down Payment Blues". That's the best I can come up with I'm afraid. Carlinal (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• Anyone with any knowledge of the history of heavy metal knows that it evolved from "bluesy hard rock" bands. Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, and even Black Sabbath all showed a pronounced blues influence in their work, as did other early metal bands such as Budgie, Uriah Heep and Blue Oyster Cult. I'm fully aware that most of these pioneering bands didn't/don't like the term "Heavy Metal". That doesn't mean AC/DC weren't a huge influence on both NWOBHM and American glam metal. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

::What even is your point? I dont deny that they incluenced heavy metal, but that doesnt make them heavy metal themselves, especially since ACDC never abandoned their bluesy rock sound --FMSky (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

:::Several sources describe them as heavy metal, so that's good enough. Consensus is long established and genre arguments are boring. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• I agree with MaxBrowne2's sentiment "genre arguments are boring." Arguments about AC/DC's genres have occurred since their inception over 50 years ago. Historical sources for "heavy metal" as the fourth of their four main genres:
• Melody Maker{{'}}s writer back in 1976 states "AC/DC was 'the biggest heavy-metal event in Australia since the death of Ned Kelly'... 'not many British bands of the reckless high-speed energy that AC/DC display...'"{{cite news |url=http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article131795744 |title=Mixed Reaction to AC/DC London Show |newspaper=The Canberra Times |volume=51 |issue=14,533 |date=13 November 1976 |accessdate=5 February 2024 |page=18 |via=National Library of Australia |agency=Australian Associated Press (AAP) }}
• "AC/DC are not one of those heavy metal outfits who have to turn up the sound to disguise their faults. Their music has rhythm and body to it... simple as it is. But at the Odeon gig the volume was at times too overpowering." Ian Cross (1978).{{cite news |url=http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article110929165 |title=Tiny Angus Is Cult Figure |first=Ian |last=Cross |newspaper=The Canberra Times |volume=53 |issue=15,789 |date=14 December 1978 |access-date=5 February 2024 |page=24 |via=National Library of Australia }}
• Garry Raffaele reviewed Judas Priest's Sad Wings of Destiny in 1981 and disparages their calculated HM style, "Now take AC-DC for instance. That's heavy metal but with an abandon, a cut-the-rope passion."{{cite news |url=http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article126861851 |title=Great Tackiness |first=Garry |last=Raffaele |newspaper=The Canberra Times |volume=56 |issue=16,866 |date=30 November 1981 |access-date=5 February 2024 |page=10 |via=National Library of Australia}}
• Boston Globe{{'}}s Steve Morse (1982), considers For Those About to Rock, "[it's] designed to expand the band's image as a 'heavy metal' band (a term Young hates), has more chest beating lyrics than usual"{{cite news |url=http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article126869893 |title=AC-DC, the Biggest Seller |first=Steve |last=Morse |newspaper=The Canberra Times |volume=56 |issue=16,902 |date=6 January 1982 |access-date=5 February 2024 |page=11 |via=National Library of Australia }} shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
• :Thank you for these sources. I forgot to mention this yesterday but there's also the fact that when RetroCosmos reviewed this article for a GAN there was no mention or problem with the heavy metal link. So why is this a problem now? Carlinal (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
• Found two other sources:
• Ken Tucker from the Windsor Star refers to AC/DC as "top of the heavy-metal heap".{{cite news |last1=Tucker |first1=Ken |title=AC-DC: Heavy metal with skill |url=https://books.google.ca/books?id=jF0_AAAAIBAJ&pg=PA45&dq=ac/dc+heavy+metal&article_id=1072,227573&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjRo9H06ZSEAxV2AjQIHdf-Dp0Q6AF6BAgNEAI#v=onepage&q=ac%2Fdc%20heavy%20metal&f=false |access-date=5 February 2024 |publisher=The Windsor Star |date=16 November 1983 |page=C17 |language=en}}
• Martin Siberok of the Montreal Gazette, reviewing one of AC/DC's shows, refers to the band being heavy metal twice.{{cite news |last1=Siberok |first1=Martin |title=AC/DC heavy metal KOs fans at Forum; Grand Funk flunks |url=https://books.google.ca/books?id=sVkiAAAAIBAJ&pg=PA41&dq=ac/dc+heavy+metal&article_id=1170,2426365&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjRo9H06ZSEAxV2AjQIHdf-Dp0Q6AF6BAgMEAI#v=onepage&q=ac%2Fdc%20heavy%20metal&f=false |access-date=5 February 2024 |publisher=The Montreal Gazette |date=15 September 1986 |location=Montreal, Quebec |page=D-7 |language=en}} HorrorLover555 (talk) 18:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

:::The concert reviewers were most likely just journalists rather than experts on heavy metal music and what heavy metal is or isn't, but that's not important. Every now and then another WP:GENREWARRIOR comes along and takes exception to AC/DC being described as heavy metal, but this "controversy" is well covered in the "genre" section under "musical style". We can include the description "heavy metal" in the lead and infobox without fear of violating NPOV. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

::::Agreed.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

::::I agree as well. HorrorLover555 (talk) 00:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

::::Agreed! — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 01:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

::::I couldn't agree more. Carlinal (talk) 22:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Off-line source:

1. Glenn A. Baker (1984) writes "although AC/DC were the leaders of the mid-Seventies new wave of heavy metal, their hard-rock sound borrowed more from the blues tradition of [Berry] and [Diddley] than it did from Deep Purple or Black Sabbath. The band dealt exclusively in power, but mercifully eschewed the HM clichés of sword-and-sorcery and exaggerated stage poses. A sense of humour, so lacking in other HM outfits, was the very essence of AC/DC's motivation and modus operandi."{{cite journal |journal=The History of Rock |editor=Michael Heatley |first1=Glenn A. |last1=Baker |author-link1=Glenn A. Baker |title=High Voltage: The Positive Charge of AC/DC |publisher=Orbis Publishing |location=London |volume=10 |page=2227 |year=1984 }} Here Baker directly states AC/DC's genres as "hard-rock" and "heavy metal" based on "blues" music. This specifically contradicts {{u|FMSky}}'s point "incredibly nonsensical to list a bluesy hard rock band as heavy metal". Furthermore, according to Baker, not only did they "influence" heavy metal they were "leaders" of the new wave of heavy metal in mid-70s.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

{{Reflist-talk}}

PunkRockFan86 have recently removed the former touring musicians and touring members two times, but have been reverted back the way it was. — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 08:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

:Should a timeline (from the band members article) be added too? Carlinal (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

::The timeline is already in the list of members article, so I don't see the point in having it on the band's main article. HorrorLover555 (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

::As {{u|HorrorLover555}} said – I really don't see a point in having it there. I do get other articles (e.g. Nirvana and Metallica) does have a timeline on them, but it doesn't have seperate articles about the members. — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 23:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm questioning why every song and album that was produced by Vanda & Young is credited to the two separately (i.e. Harry Vanda • George Young). Not only do both original copies of and reissues credit them as "Vanda and Young", wouldn't that refer to them as a joint duo and not as two co-producers? Carlinal (talk) 03:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Half the band are British, but they're an "Australian Band? They've had one British member from day 1, and two British members since 1980. This isn't recent — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.161.143.72 (talk • contribs) 09:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

:Australia is full of immigrants. The band was created in Australia by people living in Australia. Where they were born counts for little. HiLo48 (talk) 09:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

:Please read this discussion here. That has been discussed multiple times, and there is a general consensus that the band is to be listed as Australian. HorrorLover555 (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi {{u|HorrorLover555}}

As per comment added to your individual talk page several hours ago; I note you edited the 'the Americas' to be 'North America'. Since 'the Americas' is more encompassing, that seems the more sensible wording. Can you advising please your thoughts behind your suggestion of 'North America'? Your contribution is welcomed and appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonjofan (talk • contribs) 02:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

:As I had stated in my response on my talk page, {{tq|I changed the Americas to North America, because it would make a lot more sense to note when they first performed on North American soil, as the first show was in Austin.}} HorrorLover555 (talk) 05:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

:{{u|Bonjofan}}: It makes a lot more sense to say "North America" instead of "the Americas", since {{u|HorrorLover555}} said on his talk page that {{tq|it would make a lot more sense to note when they first performed on North American soil, as the first show was in Austin, [Texas].}} — VAUGHAN J. (t · c) 06:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)