Talk:Guns N' Roses/Archive 4

Article merge

Note: article merged from Ron "Bumblefoot" Thal per this AfD: see old talk-page here. JohnCD (talk) 12:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

Novemberain87- i dont think the picture should be removed because it represents the band and their views. if thats what they want on there then leave them be. novemberain87. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Novemberain87 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 19 May 2008 (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://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://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) If AC/DC, KISS, and Aerosmith can be called heavy metal on wikipedia, then I can't see why Guns N' Roses can't be. 68.102.235.239 (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC) KISS was definitely metal. ACDC was both Hard Rock and Heavy Metal. Aerosmith, I'm not sure about.(Albert Mond (talk) 03:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC))

Guns "N Roses played both of genres, Hard Rock and Heavy Metal, many songs carry the essence of both styles. Welcome to the Jungle sounds like a pure hard rock but Paradise City has many elements of heavy metal, many heavy riffs, heavier than hard rock riffs, listen to all guns' songs and you will find that guns' played hard rock and heavy metal alongside, not only hard rock. So you must keep it in the info box: Genres = Hard Rock/Heavy Metal. Fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.58.201.112 (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2009 (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)

The band has always been very specific about the capital N, hence the consensus you witnessed. Zig (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2008 (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)) Why bother? They are no longer anything such, now that Axl has taken over--Kitrina192 (talk) 23:27, 22 July 2008 (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 {{Fact}} 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)

Omoolzz (talk) 12:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)I don't know but Ihope so, it would be fantastic.Omoolzz (talk) 12:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

If it would happen, which it won't, ax wouldn't be on vocals, which is impossible since he owns the name. And, the only memebrs who have talked about it are izzy and steven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Typhillips111 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 16 May 2009 (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)

Jumping in: Really, the "original lineup" , or the one that included at least 4 of the founding members was the one that released the studio albums, should there then not be a new entry dubbed "New Guns N Roses"? Or at least certainly an emphasis on the fact that the current lineup is in no way shape or form associated with the G'N'R of the late eighties and the early to mid nineties? Except, of course, for the lead singer.. And has released no records except the often forgotten "Oh My God" which was ..well... God awful...also noteworthy...Kitrina192 (talk) 23:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should call the five players who did the first album (as well as the second one which was made up partially of older material) the "charter members"? (Although we need some other term to include Dizzy Reed who goes all the way back to Use Your Illusion, as well as Matt Sorum who came in around the same time as Reed and stuck it out for quite some time.)

On a related note, even though most of the many comings and goings are documented in the article, I still think we need to list the core of the current version of the band. Even though a couple dozen players have been in the new band, there is a relatively stable core of Axl Rose, Dizzy Reed, Chris Pitmann, Robin Finck and Tommy Stinson who remained with the band throughout the Chinese Democracy era. It is pretty confusing trying to track the personnel changes (especially if you look at Axl's official rantings, where certain band members are supposedly just employees of the band and where it is unclear who was fired or who quit or who was just taking a break to do other things.) Timothy Horrigan (talk) 17:25, 19 October 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))

As I said above in the discussion about heavy metal reference, Guns'N'Roses played hard rock and heavy metal alongside, listen to all guns' songs and you'll find that it's true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.58.201.112 (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2009 (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)

Here's the funny part - "Live Like a Suicide" is a studio album. All of those songs were recorded with crowd noise overdubbed into the mix. Also, this band isn't so prolific that 'trimming' of the main page discography should be required. Zig (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with Hondo77. Live albums should be included, so long as they are not bootlegs. I would also argue to include Live Era in the discography. The point is to make the information available to those who may not know that much about the band, without making them go on a scavenger hunt to find it. Gun's N' Roses do not have nearly the discography as other bands such as Iron Maiden. When they do get to that point, I could understand shaving it down. As it is now, it would only make things easier.Natt the Hatt (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

.... In a similar vein, I think there should be a special section created for G'N'R, titled "Theoretical discography" where "Chinese Democracy" and the other two albums "planned for release" should be.....--Kitrina192 (talk) 23:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Omoolzz (talk) 12:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC) I don't know but I've heared that that played it in studio and just put live sound effects on it. Does anyone know if this is true?

The wikipedia article for Live Like A Suicide describes it as a "faux live CD." --Leonard of Vince (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is true. Slash talks about it in his book.Natt the Hatt (talk) 00:03, 31 July 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... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.188.191 (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

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) Striking sock Rockgenre (talk) 19:58, 1 December 2009 (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) Striking sock Rockgenre (talk) 19:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is the definition of heavy metal has changed since the early days of guns n roses (in fact it has changed quite a few times since the phrase was first coined). Back in the late 80s and early 90s, Guns n Roses was considered heavy metal, was introduced as a heavy metal band on MTV, the radio, and in fact a real "source" is the fact that Guns and Roses won the "Best Heavy Metal video" at the MTV Music Video Awards in 1989! Since I can now source proper evidence, I will make sure to add it back if it is missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.188.191 (talk) 16:10, 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)

Please add GNR back to heavy metal since we now have a real source and a real argument for them being a heavy metal band. Guns N Roses won the 1989 Best Heavy Metal Video at the MTV VMA. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.188.191 (talk) 16:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Just as a note, Welcome to the Jungle is defined as heavy metal. I mean, come on. Whiffle Ball Tony (talk) 03:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No. Welcome to the Jungle is usually classified as hard rock or "sleaze rock". Funeral 14:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

First, consensus is no match for cited facts. I would like to see a WP policy that states otherwise. Second, there is certainly no consensus here regarding heavy metal classification (or not) for GN'R. I don't see a cite one way or the other; the two sleaze rock cites were not reliable sources, though (blogs). Frank  |  talk  01:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

come on guys are we not paying attention, read the above citation...guns n roses won "best heavy metal video"...that is a reference that can not be ignored...consensus does not override facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.188.191 (talk) 04:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL AT THE EDITORS OF WIKIPEDIA.... GRN is a heavy metal band.... --203.115.128.69 (talk) 07:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. GNR is a metal bnd. Vh1 Thinks too... --Alapachio (talk) 07:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

If the public consensus seems to be that GnR are a heavy metal (see their Grammy for "Best Heavy Metal Video", "Welcome to the Jungle" being ranked by VH1 as the 2nd best metal song ever, "Paradise City" being #21 on that same list, frequent rankings among lists of the best heavy metal bands), then who are we to say they aren't heavy metal? The GnR article even says they are influenced by heavy metal (which seems to be pretty obvious from their sound). I don't understand why people are so adamant about not letting this be a secondary genre - we can still keep Hard Rock as the primary genre. But seriously, Hard Rock is a catch-all for lots of bands. Are you telling me that other Hard Rock bands like The Who and Rush have a similar sound? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 17:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This is crazy how heavy metal can't be added. There are so many sources that say GNR are metal and a lot of people think so too. Come on, Ted Nugent has heavy metal listed as a genre and so does Rush. 68.102.235.239 (talk) 23:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

??? Rush was a cut/dried heavy metal band for their first 6 studio releases. And still revisit the genre often on their studio output. The foreward in their official biography states they are "the most popular heavy metal trio of all time". Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 00:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really disagreeing on Rush being labeled heavy metal, I was just pointing out that GNR is a more cut out metal band than Rush but yet they have heavy metal listed as a genre and GNR doesn't. 68.102.235.239 (talk) 03:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Heavy metal really needs to be added as it is a correct genre for GNR, and it is inaccurate to just call them hard rock as they have other musical styles including heavy metal, blues-rock, and sleaze rock. 66.210.75.2 (talk) 16:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The biggest problem, as mentioned numerous times, is that they have never played anything heavy metal. Their "blues-rock" is just standard/straight-forward hard rock with a blues influence. And sleaze rock is a fairy tale genre that doesn't actually exist in the real world. The Real Libs-speak politely 16:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

^ Why do people keep saying they've never played anything Heavy Metal? Listen to My Michelle, Coma, Don't Damn Me, Riad N' The Bedouins, Scraped, Perfect Crime, You're Crazy, and others. And isn't one of the definitions for a Heavy Metal band that there are loud soaring vocals accompanying distorted guitars? That fits Guns N' Roses perfectly. They've been listed heavy metal so many times over, songs appearing on heavy metal lists, the band appearing on heavy metal lists, the solos appearing on best metal solos, the riffs appearing on best metal riffs. And the majority here are saying to put Heavy Metal as a genre, why can't you do that? And everytime I enter a Guns N' Roses CD into my iTunes it comes up as Metal, it's happened on every album with the exception of Use Your Illusion I. This contributes towards an inaccurate article and should be changed immediately, I will in fact change it, as we've showed more than enough reasons why this should be changed.

To those who oppose adding Heavy Metal as a genre of Guns N' Roses you are quite wrong and obviously not around during their time. In that time the very epitome of american Heavy Metal used to be was bands like Guns N' Roses, Van Halen, KISS, and even Aerosmith. Heavy Metal should be listed as Guns N' Roses primary genre, although now a days it sounds like Hard Rock back then that is what true Heavy Metal sounded like. Just because the band isn't as heavy as Slipknot, Slayer, or Sepultura does not mean they aren't Heavy Metal.Xx1994xx (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC).

Guns'N'Roses played both genres, listen to all Guns'N'Songs and you'll find heavy metal riffs in them, listen to Paradise City, it has many heavy metal riffs, you can notice it when he sings "take me down tio the paradise city...", you'll realize that the riff is much too heavy that shouldn't be called a hard rock riff but a metal riff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.58.201.112 (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

REFERENCE!!!

[[6]]

Audio

shouldn't someone put up some samples of GN'R songs on the article? maybe one for WElcome to the jungle (opening riff for sure) and maybe one for Oh My God or another newer song. It would really help the article alot. LukeTheSpook (talk) 03:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You can hardly put anything newer than "Oh My God" because nothing newer has been officially released, public showcasing of illegal leaks isn't very professional....--Kitrina192 (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Song with Jay Z

I just heard a song with Jay Z and Guns N' Roses. This is an interesting and unusual musical crossover and I think it is notable enough to mention on this page. Anyone who knows more care to add it somewhere? Cazort (talk) 21:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The song is actually a collaboration between Jay Z and Lenny Kravitz and is only titled Guns and Roses. Although Axl is admittedly a rap fan, there's no sign of GNR in the song aside from those three words. The writers seem to be using the GNR name as a slang/metaphor reference. Zig (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Lead photograph - classic lineup vs. current lineup

I know this has been discussed before, and alot of effort put into the current photo, but IMO the infobox photograph should really be of the classic lineup of the band (Axl/Slash/Izzy/Duff/Steven). The photo should help confirm the identity of what the reader is looking for, and the classic lineup is significantly more stable, recognizable, and iconic of the band itself. Also, the current lineup keeps changing (Robin Finck has 'probably' left, there is still no official word on Brain Mantia vs. Frank Ferrer), and with no album release, promotion, or scheduled tour dates, the current band is effectively inactive. Please discuss/vote before making any changes. Zig (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

We haven't been able to find any any pictures of the old band that are freely available to use on Wikipedia. If you can find one that falls under the fair-use policy, then upload it. I'd prefer a picture of the old band together too. Funeral 21:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect capitalization?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No concensus to move. Keegan^talk 04:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• I believe the correct way to spell this band's name would be Guns n' Roses, not Guns N' Roses. The most notable reason is that as per WP:MUSTARD, the word "and" and its contractions (such as "n'") should not be capitalized. Also, all of their album show have the band name in all caps, like GUNS N' ROSES, so the band hasn't intentionally capitalized the "n'". Should I fix the capitalization? Xnux the Echidna 17:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• كمشة زوامل —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.252.46.232 (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Small note: Check how the band actually lists the name. If they capitalize the "n", then the article title is currently correct. - J Greb (talk) 03:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
    • MoS Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks):

      "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting 'official.'"

    • Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) (emphasis added):

      "[E]xcept for articles ('a', 'an', 'the'), the word 'to' as part of an infinitive, prepositions and coordinating conjunctions shorter than five letters (e.g., 'on', 'from', 'and', 'with'), unless they begin or end a title or subtitle."

    • This should be moved. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Per Common usage, mainstream press capitalizes the N -- our guidelines are not meant to be applied robotically with an absence of common sense. older ≠ wiser 05:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Oops: I made this move before the above objection was posted while this move was still in ==Uncontroversial proposals==. Sorry. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Eh, not such a big deal. Certainly nothing I'm going to get too worked up over. older ≠ wiser 05:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Though it should be moved back at your first convenience, and a proper move discussion should be commenced at Talk:Guns N' Roses.--Father Goose (talk) 07:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Consensus is that the 'n' should remain capitalised - the way that the band and the majority of the media spell it. See archive one on the Guns N' Roses talk page (I can't find a direct link since the move messed it up) and this discussion on the Guns N' Roses WikiProject. — Travelling Tragition ^(Talk) 16:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Supported — the MoS clearly states that "[s]tandard English text formatting and capitalization rules apply to the names of bands and individual artists"; the "n" should be decapitalized. If the band capitalizes it, that doesn't make it the right way to capitalize it. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 03:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - The band don't seem to have a preference, as they always capitalise the whole name, not just the first letters, however on the Sweet Child o' Mine article the cover of the single is clearly shown as Sweet Child O' Mine. Chappy^T_C 11:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I have some URLs for a picture of the original (I mean classic) lineup

http://show.zoho.com/ImageDisplay.im?i_n=guns_n_roses.jpg&u_n=e6R89Ge6r86g and http://www.gibson.com/Files/aaFeaturesImages/guns-n-roses.jpg and http://991.com/newGallery/Guns-N-Roses-Reckless-Road-Gun-424810.jpg and http://teacherweb.ftl.pinecrest.edu/snyderd/APHG/images/Guns%27n%20Roses1.jpg I think that should be good enough. Check 'em out —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.157.8 (talk) 09:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

is/are

While I agree that American bands should have American English, using "is" is not correct because Guns n' Roses use a plural term as a name. In both British and American English bands that use plural terms in their name, should use "are" rather than "is" Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia must remain consistent. American band, American gr. rules as per WP:ENGVAR. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 17:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

American English has nothing to do with it, in both American and British English, bands that have a plural term in their name are refered to as plurals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_differences#Formal_and_notional_agreement

Proper nouns that are plural in form take a plural verb in both AmE and BrE; for example, The Beatles are a well-known band; The Giants are the champions.

hope that clears things up. Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Over emphasis of Chinese Democracy in the first section.

The early reference to the work on "Chinese Democracy" has tones of self-promotion, and should probably be placed in a different section further down in the article.

The band is currently working on the infamous album Chinese Democracy, which has been in production for over a decade. Once released, the album will be the first original recording from Guns N' Roses since the 1991 releases of Use Your Illusion I and Use Your Illusion II. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aharm (talk • contribs) 17:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Supergroup?

Shouldn't Guns N' Roses be considered a supergroup? Not only did the original members (Axl, Tracii, Izzy, Ole and Rob) play in either Hollywood Rose or LA Guns, but all the current (bad) members have played in famous bands as well, like Nine Inch Nails, Buckethead's band etc. So shouldn't the first line say:

Guns N' Roses are an American rock supergroup, formed in Los Angeles, California in 1985.

NOT

Guns N' Roses are an American rock band, formed in Los Angeles, California in 1985.

? 60.242.127.62 (talk) 07:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)60.242.127.62

No. "In the late 1960s, the term supergroup was coined to describe 'a rock music group whose performers are already famous from having performed individually or in other groups.'" — Travelling Tragition ^(Talk) 17:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Sales Figures

the sales figures seem out of date, for example, 38 million on this articles clashes with the adding up of the figures on the discography page: over 50 million.

maybe I'm just being stupid and counting the wrong kind of cd etc, but it seems like a contradiction, so one of these pages needs editing.

their overall worldwide "90 million" figure, it would seem, is therfore also out of date, once a sourcde is found should it not be revised upwards?Komodo123 (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I found a more recent page which estimates worldwide sales at 100 million, is this an appropriate source?:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ent/6072129.html

and this one: http://leisureblogs.chicagotribune.com/turn_it_up/2008/10/guns-n-roses-re.html

and this: http://www.fox59.com/pages/landing_entertainment/?Guns-N-Roses-releases-first-Chinese-Demo=1&blockID=115848&feedID=1301

are any of these reliable enough to revise the 90mil figure upwards?

if any are good enough, which one should i use as the reference?

Komodo123 (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Genre again

Appetite for Destruction, GN'R Lies, and Use Your Illusion 1 & 2 were Hard Rock. The Spaghetti Incident? was a Punk Rock cover album. Oh My God was an Industrial Metal single. Now, Chinese Democracy has both Industrial and Hard Rock songs. Considering that two Nine Inch Nails members contributed to the making of the album and only two people from the classic GN'R lineup, that's hardly shocking. I think the genre should be updated from "Hard Rock" to "Hard Rock, Industrial Metal" to reflect the changes that have happened over the span of the past decade. The title track for the new album is called an Industrial Metal song, as is Shackler's Revenge from Rock Band II, and as was their last single, "Oh My God" from 1999. Sadistik (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

And your source is..? Who says "Chinese Democracy" is industrial? Who says "Shackler's Revenge" is industrial? Even if you did have a source, why would these two songs make them an industrial band? Should we call them synth-techno-hip hop-electro because of "My World" and "Silkworms"? Until Chinese Democracy is released, we don't what genre it is.

But yeah, that song that didn't come out on an album, came out on a soundtrack, and was played live a couple of times and then dropped was industrial. So I guess they're an industrial metal band, huh? — Travelling Tragition ^(Talk) 23:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I sourced my edits. MTV said that Slash quit the band because Axl wanted to move in an Industrial direction and Slash was trying to keep the band the way it was. You reverted them anyway. Kinda redundant for you to ask for sources again, but hey. The two singles GN'R have released in the past decade have been Industrial. I guess that means they're still a hard rock blues band. Also, Shacklers Revenge is an Industrial song as well. That makes all three songs they've officially released since 1996, when Slash quit the band. Axl added two Nine Inch Nails members, and tried to add a third, but he wasn't interested. Sadistik (talk) 14:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Guns n Roses are a hard rock band... and that's it. No metal anything, no industrial anything, no punk anything... just a hard rock band... plain and simple. The Real Libs-speak politely 01:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

If GNR aren't metal, then Soulja Boy isn't hip-hop. Seriously, they are a metal band. Other sources (AMG, Metal Mania's playing of GNR vids) agree with this. FMAFan1990 (talk) 04:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Soulja Boy isn't hip hop. He's more like talentless-commercial-bubblegum pop. But that's a different argument altogether. :-) — Travelling Tragition ^(Talk) 18:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

How about a real reference? Bulbous (talk) 04:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

That MTV article is hardly a strong source. It's just a passing reference to the now-unproven rumours as to why Slash left the band. If you read Chinese Democracy#Sound, there's actually a quotation from Axl where he says the album isn't industrial. And having members from NIN is completely irrelevant; are they punk because they have a Replacement, avant-garde because of Buckethead, pop because of Fortus? — Travelling Tragition ^(Talk) 18:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

::I agree that hard rock is the only descriptor that needs to go into any Guns N Roses related article no matter whether its the band article or any of their albums or songs. They're all hard rock. Fair Deal (talk) 19:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Striking sock Rockgenre (talk) 19:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC) MTV is not a reliable source. AMG isn't exactly great either. I won't put a genre on this band as it would be my own POV but I will say that, until we have much better sourcing (i.e. NME, Q etc. etc.), the genre shouldn't be changed from what it is now. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 21:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's finish it: Guns"N'Roses played hard rock and heavy metal too. Study all songs' musical structure and you'll find it's true. That's all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.58.201.112 (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Possibly time for Finck to go?

The official GN'R MySpace page (myspace.com/gunsnroses) was updated the other day and he's no longer on the lineup as a member. Sadistik (talk) 07:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It needs an announcement really, not a "he isn't listed on MySpace." — Travelling Tragition ^(Talk) 21:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems like Finck indeed left. source 1, source 2, source 3, source 4. Entourage911 (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Information on Guns n Roses first Album

I have a question, their first album cover that was pulled from the shelves played Guns n Roses and replaced with the other cross and skulls, was that called Raping of society? And at concerts how did they get away with selling t-shirts there being it was a woman with her shirt torn and a breast hanging out like she just had been raped...Sorry I can't find a picture I do have the album and the T, yep showing my age and very proud to say I've enjoyed seeing them three times... By the way both T and album are in mint condition....'' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.214.90.92 (talk) 09:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Finck and Brain (and Pitman)

http://web.gunsnroses.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20081123&content_id=a1&vkey=news&fext=.jsp

"The current GN'R lineup of lead singer Axl Rose, guitarists Ron "Bumblefoot" Thal and Richard Fortus, bassist Tommy Stinson, keyboard and piano player Dizzy Reed, synthesizer and programming wiz Chris Pitman and drummer Frank Ferrer is all over the record in addition to the many other contributors on this epic project. This is GNR's first studio release since 1993's The Spaghetti Incident?." Classic Case (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

http://web.gunsnroses.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20081123&content_id=a1&vkey=news&fext=.jsp

Check again, it does not say Chris Pitman.

Finck and Brain are no longer in the band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollywood Vampire (talk • contribs) 20:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Audio and pics

This article needs more audio samples (Sweet Child O' Mine, Welcome to the Jungle) and photos (band logos, band shots). Does anybody want to upload any? 60.242.127.62 (talk) 19:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added a sample of "Welcome to the Jungle" to the article. - Aphasia83 (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Supergroup

The current line-up consists of an ex-LA Guns vocalist (Axl) a Nine Inch Nails guitarist (Robin) and an ex-Primus drummer (Bryan). LA Guns were not famous until after Axl left, but Nine Inch Nails and Primus are well known bands. A supergroup is a band whose members have achieved fame from another band. Shouldn't GNR be considered a supergroup? 60.242.127.62 (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

No. They've never formed as a supergroup. They formed from two extremely unpopular bands. I think the term applies to a band who formed with already popular members. If, hypothetically speaking, Slash, Matt, and Duff were to return, you would say that two members were from the popular rock group Velvet Revolver, and one from The Cult and Velvet Revolver. BTW, L.A. Guns weren't popular back then.

Future.

When Rose kept visiting the forums, he's made many hints towards future albums. Naming a few songs, off the top of my head here are a few: "The General", "Oh My God" (reworked, with new vocals), "Down By The Ocean" (Featuring Izzy Stradlin), "Zodiac", and "The Quick Song" to name a few. I'll add this into "Future", not the song names, as they're subject to change, just the confirmation of future album(s). —Preceding unsigned comment added by KILLER BOB11694 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed it as it lacks a reference. Please cite a reliable source when putting material like this in.--Yankees76 (talk) 18:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

http://www.mygnrforum.com/index.php?showtopic=133020&st=90 <--- Link, over several pages of text, this is where it starts, Axl Rose is under the name "Dexter" and talks about songs... —Preceding unsigned comment added by KILLER BOB11694 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Use this source then: [7]. Message boards aren't generally considered reliable sources. In this case Rolling Stone picked up the story. --Yankees76 (talk) 04:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, sorry, I was just using the original cite where it occured. I just forgot to use a source, I usually remember... —Preceding unsigned comment added by KILLER BOB11694 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a suggestion for someone with, I guess, more established user access than mine to change the Future subtitle to not include (2007-present). Obviously 2007 is well in the past now. W390024 (talk) 14:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Former band members

Most bands have the former members in the info box. Can we do the same here?LedRush (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

axl said its unclear who's in the band now. looks like guns n roses has become a nine inch nails thing. the only real line-ups now are the touring line-ups. should we put that in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocknroll47 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

THE FREE ENCYCLOPEDIA

First, sorry for my bad english, i'm argentinian.

Maybe, i have confused, but when I opened the edit article option, y read a note that said new information will be erased, and writter IP will be blocked, because the article was ok :S

If it's called the FREE ENCYCLOPEDIA, we all can put our point of view, nowone can block my IP because y changed the article by my ideas ¬¬, And if it is one of the Wikipedia creators he or she must warn the people first...

Greetings from Argentina.
Guns'n Roses you ROCK!
AGUANTE Guns'n Roses!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.191.67.107 (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC) 

No. New info will not be erased. Unsourced info will be erased, as well as libellous, slanderous material. If you have useful info and can cite reliable sources you can include it any time.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 18:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh no...

I edited the Velvet Revolver section of Axl Rose's article to add his latest interview with Spinner.com. Problem is, I took it from Spin magazine and cited it as if the interview was directly to Spin magazine, because I completely missed the part in Spin magazine that said the interview was from Spinner. So now I'm confused as to how to add that info in this article. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 02:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Metal? Part III

I've noticed there's a lot of argument over this. On the one hand, you have their Glam Metal look, and on the other you have minor stylistic differences between Gn'R and most Glam Metal bands like Nitro and Dokken. Any opinions? (Albert Mond (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 03:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC).

Quite simple. If you want to add metal, bring up reliable sources for this claim. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 06:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I would say influence of AC/DC is enough to be put under Metal --71.93.81.135 (talk) 02:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright. Even though I'm undecided, I added heavy metal to the genres because Allmusic says it. Here's the reference: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:kifqxqe5ld0e (Albert Mond (talk) 02:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC))

Allmusic has been rejected as a reliable source for genres on Wikipedia. There is already extensive discussion on the topic on numerous GnR related pages with an overwhelming consensus to just keep it at its most accurate and have only hard rock in the box. The Real Libs-speak politely 10:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I've no objections Discoh8er (talk) 12:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Scratched Robin from the 94-98 section.

It said he was one of the core members of the new G'N'R but he left a few months ago.MarthsBullet (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The new picture in the infobox

The new picture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Axl_and_Tommy.jpg) is not really a good picture. You can hardly see their faces. The previous one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Download_Feastival_2006_-1.jpg) was much better. - Aphasia83 (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

While this obviously is true, the problem is that it features past member Finck. How can it be that there's only two pictures in the article? I'd say there's room for a few more... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 15:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, one solution would be to simply crop Finck out of the picture. Is that doable? - Aphasia83 (talk) 15:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You may try, but I guess Tommy would look awkward then... ;-) The new picture is nice, should be kept somewhere else in the article at least. Wouldn't mind a pic of the classic bandmates and maybe one showing later members like Brain, Finck and Buckethead. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 16:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

A pic of the classic lineup would be great for the article, but the trouble is that only free images are allowed on Wikipedia. And sadly I don't think there are that many free images to choose from. - Aphasia83 (talk) 16:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's some. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 17:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Fastest selling debut album in history

In reference to Appetite For Destruction: "The album still remains the fastest-selling debut album in history."

I've removed the above statement from the lead paragraph since the only source provided led to a list of user-generated Amazon.com reviews. For all I know the statement could be true, but we can't include it without a verifiable source. Aurum ore (talk) 02:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC

How can Appetite be the fastest-selling debut album, if it went relatively ignored for months until MTV put on the video? Repkow (talk)

You want another proof of why Apetite for destruction still remains the fastest-selling debut album in history? ok here [8] fron rolling stone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.149.81.94 (talk) 04:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

There's not even one "fast" in this whole article. There's a difference between "fastest" and "biggest". --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 05:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

oh yea my bad, but anyway is the BIGGEST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.149.26.230 (talk) 03:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Axl neurotic?

This is total conjecture. Where are the sources? Is the page editor a licensed psychiatrist? Sounds like sour grapes from ex-members or fans' world of fantasy. Repkow (talk)

Garbage

This is a really badly-written article. It's full of grammatical errors, typos, and kind of seems like it was written by a 15-year-old. Like that one opinionated bit where it says Tom Zutaut "falsely warned other scouts they suck", which basically the same as writing "Guns N' Roses do not suck" in the article, which is not very encyclopedic.

Oh and this part is just great:

The band didn't want to play just single gigs . They managed to book a tour with the aid of Duff. The tour stretched from L.A. to Seattle, where Duff lived at the time. On their way there, the car that they were driving in broke down, with a long way to go. They hitch-hiked on a truck a bit of the way but they couldn't stand the driver so they ditched him and got a ride with two girls. They made it to the final gig in Seattle. What was supposed to be the last gig in their tour turned out to be the first Guns N Roses show played. It was in a club called Gorilla Gardens.

First of all, learn how to use a comma instead of just writing a bunch of redundant sentences. Secondly, this paragraph is filled with useless information; "The band played a gig in Seattle" would suffice.

I could probably go on about how the article is filled with worship and praise for the band, but pretty much every band article is like that, so it's a little too late to complain at this point. --98.201.44.27 (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Garbage

I agreee i think this article needs to be rewritten/reworded, the person who wrote this article was not the most gifted in terms of writing. I think this article has become very poorly worded. I propose that this article is completely rewritten.

I think the part titled 'Legacy' is one of the worst things I've ever read on here, and is filled with irrelevant facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidJ1082 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Deterioration?

that means to make worse. who says axl made gnr worse?? that's just an opinion!!! we should change it to "hiatus" or "decline" or "reformation" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocknroll47 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Spaghetti Incident Section Mystery "his"

The Spaghetti Incident section says that GNR did a cover of a Charles Manson song, at "his" request. In the sentence that's currently in the article, "his" does not refer to anyone in particular. It could mean Charles Manson, it could mean Rose, it could be anyone. It would be good to make this clearer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.25.123 (talk) 05:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Also i have read Marilyn Manson's bio book and talks about trent (fron NIN) introducing him to Axel. Manson tells him about how he uses a part of Charlie's song on his yet to be released Album and then Axels beats him to it by recording a song and realsing it first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.69.75.75 (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

GNR are metal!

I don't get why Aerosmith(a band which has nothing to do with metal) can be call a metal band, while GNR(who appeared on VH1's 40 greatest metal song, were mentioned in Metal: a headbanger's Journey, Heavy: the story of metal, who Axl has called himself metal) can't? The fact that metal isn't a genre under thier name makes no sense. Rockgenre (talk) 11:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC) :The topic has been discussed several times and the strong consensus is that regardless of whatever style they dabbled in, they are primarily just a hard rock band. That term applies to over 95% of their music. And it is the only term that needs to go in a box field who's main rule is "aim for generality" Aussie Ausborn (talk) 14:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC) Striking sock Rockgenre (talk) 19:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion of thier genre is biased. No way is Aerosmith 95% metal and yet they are listed as a metal band. And do you know how many soft songs Black Sabbath have? Why don't I give you some example: "Planet Caravan", "Fluff", "Solitude", "Changes", "Laguna Sunrise", "I'm going Insane(Radio)", etc. Rockgenre (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

:::The previous post is not his/her opinion. It is the opinion of a great many editors who have all contributed to this article and have discussed its merit within the box. As one editor wrote in an earlier post. "why should we include heavy metal when the only song it applies to is Civil War?" Fair Deal (talk) 02:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC) Striking sock Rockgenre (talk) 19:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"Civil War" is in no way thier only metal song. Aerosmith is a band that only has one metal song("Nobody's Fault") and yet metal is one of thier genres. All you need are ears people. "Welcome to the Jungle" and "Paradise City" both made VH1's 40 Greatest metal songs list. And Appetite did make the Metal Rules list for a reason. GNR were heavier than all the hair metal bands that are called metal on thier pages. "Nightrain" metal, "Rocket Queen" metal, "Better" metal, and many more. If you only listen to "Patience" then of course you aren't going to call them a metal band. They did a lot of heavy metal songs! Rockgenre (talk) 02:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The Metal Rules website is not a reliable source for content on Wikipedia. Aerosmith's origins pre-date this band's origins by almost 15 years. In the late 1960s and early 1970s the terms hard rock and heavy metal were interchangeable. After 1980 the terms and what they described became notably different so anything after that year that is hard rock is not likely to be known as a heavy metal band unless they have a clear change in musical style at different point in their career (examples like Metallica and Megadeth were thrash bands in the 1980s but more mainstream hard rock in the 1990s) Guns N Roses are primarily a hard rock band with little or no heavy metal in their music at all. Whereas Aerosmith, coming from an entirely different era, are known as a pioneer of heavy metal since they were there right at the beginning of it all. Even the example you quote in your post like Nighttrain and Rocket Queen do not sound even remotely close to what 1980s heavy metal had progressed to from where it started in the 1960s and early 1970s. GripTheHusk (talk) 03:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC) Striking sock Rockgenre (talk) 19:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Metal Rules is used as a source on the page for the "Sign of the horns", so your arguement doesn't hold up. And also with Aerosmith your arguement doesn't hold up because other bands originally described with the term "heavy metal" are not listed under genre with heavy metal on this site(examples: Humble Pie, Grand Funk Railroad, Heart, Pat Travers, etc.) Next, the source for Aerosmith being metal is Allmusic, so why is it that when I use Allmusic to prove GNR are metal, it's a bad source, and with Aerosmith it's fine? Hypocrisy. And you are completely forgetting the '80s hair metal scene which GNR are about 100 times heavier than all those bands. "Nightrain" and "Rocket Queen" are metal songs. Rolling Stone even confirmed that GNR are a heavy metal band. I see no reason why my sources had to be removed. This site is suppose to be neutral, so I see no reason why you people are denying these sources. Rockgenre (talk) 04:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

::Guns N Roses weren't glam metal? Wikipedia is built on consensus among a group of editors as to what content is valid and what sources have enough weight. Your comment about metal rules being a reliable source is not an argument because in the page you mention the website is just a direct quote from an interview. Not an opinion from one of the site's amateur contributors. The website has no professional journalists only amateur volunteers who's opinions cannot be cited. Also as far as your comments on the metal rules fansite you should read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Aussie Ausborn (talk) 05:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC) Striking sock Rockgenre (talk) 19:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No you got me wrong. I think GNR were NOT a hair metal band. I said that they were "100 times heavier" than the hair bands. Rolling Stone and Allmusic(which is currently the source for Aerosmith being metal), legit sources, have refered to GNR as metal.Rockgenre (talk) 15:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi RG - unfortunately, allmusic is kind of a crummy site, particularly for genres, and most editors seem to agree that it is not a valid source for genre. Regardless of that, if you have a Rolling Stone citation, then I think that would be more compelling. Can you provide it? Luminifer (talk) 01:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

(My personal stance? genre is pretty meaningless and should be removed entirely from the infoboxes on wikipedia. re: GnR's genre, I think that they are about the same genre as Mötley Crüe, Skid Row (American band), L.A. Guns, and early Aerosmith (their biggest influence, I think)... Given that it seems all of these other bands are listed as 'metal' (which is an incredibly loosely defined term), then I would say you do have a point here.) Luminifer (talk) 01:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I know I'm late, but to respond to Rockgenre, when the other user said GnR was 95% hard rock, I don't think they meant you had to be 95% metal to be a metal band, but more that GnR is -according to them- 5% or lower metal content. (Albert Mond (talk) 09:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC))

I thank you both for supporting thier genre. Here's the source: http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/gunsnroses/biography "Combining heavy-metal technique with punk attitude". Rolling Stone also supported that GNR were metal on thier 100 greatest singers list, source: http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/greatestsingers/page/64 " but it's his fearsome screech on full-throttle metal like "Welcome to the Jungle" that can still peel paint off the walls, more than 20 years later." and they were also mentioned on VH1's documentry Heavy: The Story of Metal. I will add heavy metal back as a genre. Rockgenre (talk) 20:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The consensus on this talk page, even in this discussion, is stil against adding it. So it cannot be added against the agreement not to add it. Wether B (talk) 20:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Striking sock Rockgenre (talk) 19:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Guns n Roses have never been heavy metal. Ever! 194.150.201.66 (talk) 12:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Read this quote and policy

"What we think the music sounds like has no relevance here"-WesleyDobbs Just a quote from one of our fellow wiki editors that I think sums up how I feel the anti-GNR being metal editors should think about. You people have been judging GNR based on what you hear rather than source. And here's a policy that I think some of you should read Wikipedia:Truth "This is important to bear in mind when writing about topics on which you as a contributor have a strong opinion; you might think that it is a great place to set the record straight and Right Great Wrongs, but that’s not the case.". Whether someone of you disagree with GNR being metal you are only using your opinions and not sources, so you are going against a wikipedia policy. I do intend to add metal back as a genre. Thank you all. Rockgenre (talk) 03:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Read previous discussions. Read WP:CON. It's been discussed. It doesn't apply. The Real Libs-speak politely 14:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Since when does a wikipedia policy not apply? And I'm sorry, but source is better than biased opinion. It doesn't matter what it sounds like to you because that "has no relevance here". They have been in several metal documentries, have videos played on Metal Mania, had songs on a "40 greatest metal songs list, are called metal by Rolling Stone and Allmusic, "Paradise City" has Black Sabbath's "Zero the Hero" riff, etc. Source>opinion.Rockgenre (talk) 19:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:CON is a policy. Hope that helps your confusion. The Real Libs-speak politely 23:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Truth policy as well and again "What we think the music sounds like has no relevance here" I think sums up how we should view this topic. Source>opinion, it's that simple. Why are you denying source?.Rockgenre (talk) 00:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Um, no, you are wrong. [WP:TRUTH]] is not a policy. It is an essay. An essay is an idea. A policy, like WP:CON is the law. The Real Libs-speak politely 00:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I was wrong, but still why are you denying source? What you think something sounds like has no relevance.Rockgenre (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I take it you've seen this documentary before, but here's proof they are a metal band http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbJt44gJJL0&feature=related .Rockgenre (talk)Rockgenre 00:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Simple. weak references - STRONG consensus. Strong consensus wins every time. Consensus says no... then no it is. The Real Libs-speak politely 01:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You calling a Documentary done by VH1, a list they did as well, and Rolling Stone, a hugely successful magazine "weak"? Strictly your opinion and again "Source>opinion".Rockgenre (talk) 01:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

And for what's it's worth they were much heavier than half of the rest of '80s metal. I don't get why L.A. Guns, Skid Row, Tesla, etc. can all be listed as metal bands, but GNR can't.Rockgenre (talk) 01:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Then it would be a more positive contribution to Wikipedia to remove heavy metal from any article where it doesn't apply (unless it has been discussed) then to try and add it to a page where it has been discussed thoroughly and is now a dead issue. For your list of others above, the Skid Row article has been discussed in great depth and the field is populated by the consensus version. For the others I cannot recall. You can't just say something deserves to be added to an article because it exists in other articles. Read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS it is a good guideline for good editing. The Real Libs-speak politely 13:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

'first and only group to date to achieve this feat'?

In the section on the Use Your Illusion Albums, it states that G N'R were the first and only group to release two albums on the same day and have them reach #1 & #2. Now the page on the craptacular Nelly says his albums Sweat and Suit achieved the same feat. Now this statement may be true, but I don't think its clear that it means a multi-person group, or the article on Nelly is wrong and needs to be re-edited. I'm not sure of the facts, but anyone in the know should either clean up the grammar or alter the Nelly article. Gimmeallyourlovin' 03/10/09. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gimmeallyourlovin (talk • contribs) 11:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Is Guns N' Roses a heavy metal band?

Fuse listed Welcome to the Jungle on a METAL list they did. Don't believe me see http://www.fuse.tv/ontv/shows/let-it-rock/metalmania.html . They are a metal band. Fuse, VH1, Rolling Stone, Allmusic and many more list them as metal. Source>Opinion, people.Rockgenre (talk) 01:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

See previous discussion and consensus. The Real Libs-speak politely 01:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Also note that your link above does not link to a valid reference. It links to an amateur fan poll. Perhaps you will benefit from reading WP:RS. The Real Libs-speak politely 01:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Libs do you see how many times people have come to this talk page and were pro GNR being metal? There is a reason why this has been discussed many timesbecause it is a controversial issue not listing them as a metal band when they are. GNR were never just a hard rock band. The fact that you people deny many major Television stations and respectable sites is flat out insanity. I'm not going to say Primus, Alice in Chains, and Soundgarden were never metal because I don't think they are. The thing that disgusts me must about this thing is that almost every person being against GNR being metal have used nothing but biased opinion no source to back up the claim that they were never a metal band. Rockgenre (talk) 01:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Thank you. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 01:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

G'N'R are definitely a heavy metal band. As you can see Allmusic lists them as such. Also if you see the heavy metal music article, you can see that Ian Christie refers to them as major players in the Sunset Strip glam metal scene (although they represented the antithesis to bands like Poison and Motley Crue). I've heard this same argument also expressed in VH1's "Story of Metal". If you look at the Rolling Stone website coverage of the band, you can see the magazine routinely describes the band as metal. I'm actually very interested to know what the arguments against the G'NR being metal are. (I changed the section header to a more sober one so that it's clear for somebody dropping by what we are discussing here) indopug (talk) 04:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Indopug hit it the nail on the head. There is no reason why they shouldn't be listed as a metal band because everywhere you go they are viewed as one. Rockgenre (talk) 04:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The Allmusic link only shows Rock/Pop listed as a genre for the band. The argument against in all previous discussions was very clear and very simple. The genre field is supposed to be general and all encompassing. GnR have 1 or 2 songs that could easily be described as heavy metal. The rest are hard rock. The reason everyone agreed on hard rock was because ot was the most all-encompassing description of the band. The band recorded an EP of acoustic tracks. Folk or folk rock is not tlisted here. The band recorded an album which had many punk cover songs. But Punk rock is not listed here. One or two heavy metal songs does not a heavy metal band make. If that be the case we can add punk to the R.E.M. box because they recorded o few punk songs or techno/electronica to the U2 box because they have experimented in that area. It is similar to the agreement reached for Queen and all Queen related pages. That band experimented with all sorts of styles. So the best way to describe them is "Rock" GnR have experimented in a number of styles, incl. 1 or 2 heavy metal songs, but in the end... they are just a hard rock band because hard rock will cover off over 95%+ of the music they recorded. If you wish to alter the rules of the template field so that it includes superfluity then that is a discussion to be brought up at the template talk page. The Real Libs-speak politely 15:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Having been one of the primary authors of Heavy metal music, that meant I had to do a lot of research on the genre. As depicted by scores of sources covering metal music, Guns 'N Roses is widely considered not just a metal band, but one of the most important of the 1980s. In contrast, hard rock is often just used as a broad term to cover all rock music with a "hard" edge (metal, punk, grunge, and so on). It's difficult to use as a genre classification. If you want to label GNR as a specific rock genre, it's going to be heavy metal, not hard rock. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Guns is definitely a Metal Band. Or was considered as such durring the late 80's and early 90's.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That's 4 to 2 in favor of GNR being metal. Can we add it in now?Rockgenre (talk)Rockgenre 16:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

"GnR have 1 or 2 songs that could easily be described as heavy metal"-Libs. Did you find a source that says only two of their songs are metal? Sounds like original research to me, Libs.Rockgenre (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Saying that "4 to 2 is in favor" is NOT a consensus. A consensus is not a vote. It is a discussion to reach a unanimous agreement, and as far as I am concerned, I see no agreement here, but rather a discussion that is still going on. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 18:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

What's your argument against GNR being metal? Our heavy metal article, Rolling Stone, Fuse, VH1, Allmusic, Ian Christie and many more refer to them as metal. Saying "they only have one metal song" or something like that is original research. Rockgenre (talkRockgenre 23:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have not said anything on the subject at all. I am merely pointing out your erroneous assumption that there is a consensus. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 23:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

::::The consensus, if you go back through the talk archive for this page, is still against using any term other than hard rock. If Rockgenre's Fuse or VH1 links are to be considered reliable sources then those sources also support using the term heavy metal in the Nirvana article. Allmusic says they are a rock/pop act. And Christe's book says they incorporate elements of heavy metal. It doesn't says they are heavy metal. Every band that has a istorted guitar is incorporating an element of heavy metal. The consensus for this is still hard rock only. 202.20.0.166 (talk) 02:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Striking sock Rockgenre (talk) 19:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. Both Allmusic and the Christe book classify the band as heavy metal. You are misrepresenting the sources. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

When I view the Allmusic page it only lists rock/pop under genre. For the band to be labelled as heavy metal shouldn't the bulk of the band's work actually be heavy metal? The debut album contains no heavy metal songs. The Lies EP is simple rock performed on acoutic guitars. And there are only a handful of tracks on the double Illusion release that come close to being classed as heavy metal. Adding it to the genre field seems to be stretching the template guideline quite a bit since it describes so little of their output. Perhaps the field could be left blank and the section on musical style be re-done. It is currently just a small paragraph of unreferenced original research with another unrelated paragraph listing supposed influences. Fozforus (talk) 14:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Striking sock Rockgenre (talk) 19:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"The debut album contains no heavy metal songs." Original research, you have no proof..Rockgenre (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

:::The consensus after many discussions for that album concluded that it wasn't a heavy metal album. So the previous post is quite accurate. Rolling Stone is not the final say for what a band is. It can support. But any challenged content needs to have multiple independent refs in order to outweigh an agreed consensus. Aussie Ausborn (talk) 00:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Striking sock Rockgenre (talk) 19:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

VH1 also supported Appetite being metal Aussie, you are only using biased opinion and not source. Simply put "Source>opinion".Rockgenre (talk) 00:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

By my reading Aussie Ausborn is referring to consensus and not opinion. What is the VH1 source for heavy metal. If it is one of the network's "Top 100" or "Top 50" programmes then they don't count as they are just opinion polls. Does a valid reference from that website for heavy metal exist? Most of their biographies are copied from Allmusic. And Allmusic has already been challenged earlier in this discussion so it should be negated. No one has answered an earlier question by User:Fozforus about Allmusic only listing rock/pop under genre. In the Allmusic biography it lists a bunch of adjectives (none dealing with music) and says it is what good hard rock and heavy metal should be. That statement doesn't call the band heavy metal. It contains no decription of the band's music at all. It says their music was "gritty" with a "hard", "bluesy" base. That is the only description directly referring to music. And gritty, hard and bluesy says nothing about heavy metal. The Rolling Stone link that has been mentioned says they combined heavy metal technique with punk attitude. Again, like the Allmusic bio, that does not say the band is heavy metal. Just that they combined an element of heavy metal with an element of punk. Since these are the links mentioned most. And these links do not actually support the addition of heavy metal to the field. Can someone please provide one that does. The previous editor keeps repeating no original research. But then quotes websites where original research is required on order to make the references work. The weight of consensus and verifiability still leans toward having only a single genre included in the infobox. And heavy metal isn't it. Wether B (talk) 01:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Striking sock Rockgenre (talk) 19:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I honestly thought we went over this before. Well, personally, I've always associated them with '80s metal scene. I think a lot of people do. However, at current, I'm not sure that they are actually a metal band, and I'd like to think I'm sitting on the fence... which I'm not, but I'd like to think that. I think I read someone saying that Allmusic just lists them as Rock/Pop, which is incorrect. In the 'Genre styles' section, it clearly lists Hard Rock, Heavy Metal, and Album Rock. Their Black Sabbath and Megadeth articles use similar formats. However, I'm with some other people when I say I don't believe AllMusic is that great for genres (which isn't to say it's wrong, but just that it isn't necessarily the best source). Also worth note, it lists earlier metal acts such as Judas Priest, Van Halen, and Alice Cooper as some of G'n R's influences. (Albert Mond (talk) 01:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC))

I'm terribly stubborn with these things, so we're not likely going to end this anytime soon. Sorry Ladies and gents.

"What is the VH1 source for heavy metal." Their documentary "Heavy: The Story of Metal". "they combined heavy metal technique with punk attitude" let's see our definition on technique, " A way of accomplishing a task that is not immediately obvious", so basically they played like a metal band. And if we're going to use personal opinions here and completely throw out sources, well then I personally think they're were way heavier than a lot of the other '80s metal. Compare them to Poison, Cinderella, etc. and I find GNR way heavier. Even Primus who have nothing to do with metal, can be listed as a metal on this site, so I don't see why GNR can't.Rockgenre (talk) 01:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

:::Is that video considered a reliable source? Most VH1 programs are not. Has it ever been questioned on the WP:RS discussion board? The Wikipedia article about the show has no references. And the link to the VH1 page for the show does not work. If it is anything like the "Metal-A Headbangers Journey" then it would not be considered a reliable source as that documentary is simply one man's opinion and not a source based on multiple experts in the field of music. BC Rocky (talk) 02:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)Striking sock Rockgenre (talk) 19:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

@RockGenre: Not sure about whether or not they're heavier on the whole than Poison or Cinderella. Haven't listened to enough of either. I disagree with your statement on Primus, however (and AllMusic lists them as three different types of metal, at that).(Albert Mond (talk) 02:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC))

Personally, I think Primus have more in common with Rush and prog than funk metal and alt metal and for the record I think "Primus sucks"(I'm a fan). They themselves have regected the term, and Ler is very unhappy with his past with Possessed. Though Claypool and Ler were in a metal before Primus.Rockgenre (talk) 03:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Punk metal?

I'm not sure how reliable this source is, but it's from the BBC ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/reviews/8xjw ) and they mention Appetite for Destruction giving birth to punk metal. "Yet they traded on a dynamic that balanced them between the lifestyle they portrayed and the no-nonsense kick-ass aesthetic of their sound. Punk metal was born." Should this be mentioned in the article that they may have helped give birth to that style? Rockgenre (talk) 00:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

...I guess. Of course, I'm not sure how much 'punk metal' means, since really it's mostly an umbrella term, I think. (Albert Mond (talk) 11:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC))

Are you kidding? Punk-Metal fusions were already being done for years before Guns N Roses came along. Plus, GnR don't sound remotely punk enough to labeled this. Theburning25 (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Ron Thal (Bumblefoot)

if anyone disagrees that bumblefoots page should have been removed and merged into here losing almost all info on the page, there is a discussion here Talk:Ron "Bumblefoot" Thal#merge? Aisha9152 (talk) 22:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Poor Ron is now the only GN'R member (past or present) without his own Wikipedia article! A previous version of the article is now in the Incubator Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Ron "Bumblefoot" Thal where it can be edited in preparation for return to mainspace. The main problem is lack of references to demonstrate his individual notability. The article history is no longer attached to the article since it's been incubated: the history is still at its original location attached to what is now a redirect page. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 12:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)