Talk:The Who/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

There Influence is WAY understated

This barely touch's on their influence on hard rock... not only were they doing it before it had a name, they played louder then all of em, and set the stage for Hendrix, type of rock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnybritches (talk • contribs) 01:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi good ol' sockpuppet! I've thoroughly expanded and improved the "Legacy" section. I hope it looks much better now. Greetings, Scieberking (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Superbowl & woodstock

I think The Who are the only ones to perforn in both the Superbowl halftime and at Woodstock but I have no citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.131.168 (talk) 00:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Featured in the video game Rock Band

"The who best of (rock band edition" should be added, as well as some type of mention. Rock band is one of the biggest music games out there. Ran4 (talk) 05:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Highly Fanboyish

This article is written in a fanzine tone while including without any proof that the Who has influenced Queen, Led Zeppelin, Kiss etc etc. The author gives Rolling Stone Biographies as a source, but the biographies of neither band hardly mentions the influence of the Who.

The other source clarifies and states with a quote that Page based his guitar work on Townsend's work for the Led Zeppelin I album .--Articrole (talk) 10:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC) striking sock

That quote was found to be unverifiable and apparently fake. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pete_Townshend#Influenced_Jimmy_Page Thanks. Oh! And you (Articrole) have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Occultaphenia... --Scieberking (talk) 07:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Too Much US bias

In the article. For a British band, I mean. Are all the endless recitations of US tours really necessary. And why aren't those tours (often, the same ones) in Europe and Asia etc featured? You'd think that reading the article that the US was their one and only market and their support for fans. It should be either trimmed (preferable imho) or balanced.Jatrius (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

pic of pete down at the bottom

shouldnt the caption say Pete Townshend 2007? idk how to change it. 68.6.181.160 (talk) 22:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Edited it. Mace8 (talk) 11:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Boris The Spider

Would you please add an article for "Boris The Spider"? It is not only a good song by The Who, but it is also a good Halloween song, since spiders feature regularly in that particular holiday. It could be linked to not only pages about The Who, but also Halloween.

74.223.82.114 (talk) 21:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

More pictures

If someone could find some suitable pictures for this article, particularly from their heyday (with Entwistle and Moon), then that would be really good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.186.189 (talk) 09:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The photo in the infobox is an improvement, but there's an extraneous "]" right below it. I tried to edit it out, but I couldn't locate it.69.204.67.42 (talk) 09:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I tried my best, unfortunately most of the pictures on Wikimedia are either solo shots or recent. The picture of Keith in 1975 is the better of the two I added, but I think it's important that we try to find pictures of the group from their early Mod days and the Woodstock period. The Who were a very fashion conscious band and had several unique styles over the years. We should try our best to reflect that. --MichiganCharms (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Possible information to add somewhere

They are among the Holy Trinity of '60s British Rock 'N' Roll were The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, and The Who. See Matt Kent and Andy Neil, The Who: The Ultimate Collection (Santa Monica: MCA Records, 2002), 3. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to add it, it would probably fit best in the lead. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

WHAT ABOUT THE KINKS????!?1?1?1?1?!??!??!? OR THE SMALL FACES???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.177.225 (talk) 04:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It's all subjective, if you can find a source to add that claim to their articles do it. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Early Days section

The first few sentences are incoherent:

"The parent of The Who was a trad jazz band started by Townshend and Entwistle called The Confederates. Townshend played banjo and Entwistle French horn (which he used in The Who and solo). Daltrey met Entwistle in the street with his bass slung over his arm and asked him to join."

If the original group consisted of Townshend and Entwistle, how was Daltrey in position to ask Entwistle to join?StN (talk) 07:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Daltrey invited him to join his band, it needs to be edited. Thanks for pointing it out. -MichiganCharms (talk) 13:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Rock Operas

The article correctly says that The Who are credited with devising the rock opera concept. However, it should also point out that this is a widely held error : it is now acknowledged in the music industry that The Pretty Things' SF Sorrow should be credited as the first example of the genre. 88.105.251.139 (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

No, the music industry credits The Who's "A Quick One While He's Away" as the first recorded example of a rock opera. 208.120.255.206 (talk) 09:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Who/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I am failing this GA nomination because this article does not meet the good article criteria right now. Issues include lack of sourcing and overall subpar quality (in terms of reliability), as well as prose. For example,

• The following are unsourced paragraphs/sections.
• First para of "Early days"
• "The band crystallised around Townshend as primary songwriter and creative force. Entwistle made songwriting contributions. Moon and Daltrey contributed songs in the 60s and 70s." Very disconnected and unsourced.
• Much of "Early singles and My Generation".
• First paragraph of "Lifehouse and Who's Next"
• "Synthesizers can be found elsewhere on the album, in "Bargain", "Going Mobile", and "The Song is Over". Badly worded and unsourced. One cannot "find" a synthesizer in a song.
• First para of "Who Are You and Moon's death", and there is a {{fact}} tag.
• "Decline and breakup" Second paragraph.
• Most of "Reunions"
• The entire "1990s" section.
• Several paragraphs in "2000s"
• "The Who Tour 2006-2007", and it should be an en dash.
• "The Who Tour 2008-2009" Many stubby/unsourced paragraphs. For example "A New Zealand and Australian tour with the support of Counting Crows is scheduled for 2009, starting on March 21st in Auckland, New Zealand then following on in the Australian cities of Brisbane, Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney and ending in Perth on the 4th April." Source needed, bad wording ("with the support of"), dates have ordinals and generally too long a sentence.
• Second half of "Influence" section.
• "Townshend and Daltrey received Kennedy Center Honors at the 31st annual awards ceremony on December 7, 2008. The Kennedy Center Honors are America's highest cultural honor. The Who are the only rock band to receive the award." Needs a source.
• Web inline citations need to be format with URL, title, publisher and last access date per WP:CITE/ES.
• Source quality is not very good. For example, what makes the following sources reliable?
  • http://wildwednesday.com/
  • http://www.rocksbackpages.com/article.html?ArticleID=2844
  • http://www.everyhit.com/halloffame.html
  • http://www.popmatters.com/pm/features/article/47713/all-by-himself-no-more-an-interview-with-eric-carmen/
• ". Joining them were the New York City Fire and Police Departments, a nod to the 2001 charity concert in New York - The Concert For New York City - where The Who performed "Who Are You", "Baba O'Riley", "Behind Blue Eyes" and "Won't Get Fooled Again" for them." What does "a nod to" mean here?
• "In 1990, their first year of eligibility," Explain what "eligibility" is for the reader.
• "A 2-CD live album Join Together had to poor sales in 1990" Ungrammatical "to".
• "In 1978, the band released Who Are You, a move from rock opera towards a radio-friendly sound, though it did contain one song from a never-completed rock opera by Entwistle." Generally awkward.
• "Who's Next was followed by Quadrophenia (1973), which can be seen an autobiographical or social history piece about early 1960s adolescent life in London." Sounds like OR.

Those were just examples. Please work on the prose and sourcing extensively before renominating. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Doug Sandom

Shouldn't Doug Sandom be removed as a former member, as the band was not officially "the who" when they fired him, they were just a group of friends playing together? --Trougon (talk) 11:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Concert tragedy

Was surprised to find nothing about the Cincinatti concert tragedy.--66.162.50.2 (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

But WHO?

I suggest a disambiguation link at the top of this article to the World Health Organization, in view of the current Swine Flu situation, to be removed when the epidemic ends or we're all dead, whichever the sooner. 190.21.139.154 (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Live at Leeds

There is absolutely no reason to not include Live at Leeds in The Who's discography on this page. Since when do only studio albums qualify? That's ridiculous. Other bands pages don't omit live albums, particularly live albums of importance as Live at Leeds certainly is. It's one of their primary releases and biggest selling albums. Only Who's Next is a certified bigger seller.208.120.255.206 (talk) 03:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC) :When there is a separate discography page for an artist or ensemble only studio albums are to be included in the main page discography list. The link to the main discography page provides the reader with the details on other releases such as compilations, live albums or soundtrack recordings. It has nothing to due with the importance of an individual album, it is just the standard layout rules. Peter Fleet (talk) 03:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC) striking sock

That is stupid as hell and it isn't a rule anywhere that I can see. What's with the bias for studio albums and against live albums? Are you telling me that Live at the Apollo isn't listed as part of James Brown's main discography on his page? Because that would be utterly absurd. Look at U2's page. They have a separate Discography page, but their notable live releases are also on their main page. That better be the case for other artists where a live release is one of their most notable and definitive releases, like the Allman Brothers Band Live at Fillmore East and Frampton Comes Alive. I see no valid reason whatsoever to limit these lists to studio releases.208.120.255.206 (talk) 03:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It is an agreed on format that all music article follow. Only studio albums are included when there is a more detailed discog page on Wikipedia. GripTheHusk (talk) 03:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)striking sock

Show me this rule. I don't see it anywhere.208.120.255.206 (talk) 03:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Since when is it a rule that only studio releases are included in discographies on an artist's main page? I don't see that rule anywhere. I was directed to WP:MUSIC. That page says nothing of the kind. If it's a real rule, then it needs to be reevaluated. There is no rhyme or reason to it. It's just a senseless bias for studio albums. Certain live albums are so crucial to an understanding of an artist that omitting them is utterly unencyclopedic. James Brown's Live at the Apollo, the Allman Brothers Band's At Fillmore East, The Who's Live at Leeds, Peter Frampton's Frampton Comes Alive - these albums are DEFINITIVE releases from these artists. It makes no sense whatsoever to omit them because of some wrongheaded rule that studio albums are what's important.208.120.255.206 (talk) 03:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC) ::Neither the Allman or Frampton albums are listed on their main subject pages? As for the James Brown example, that article has an entire section titled "Notable albums" (as well as notable singles etc) - those sections would be deleted in their entirety if the article were put to GA or FA tests as they fail WP:NPOV. There is a lengthy discussion on the musician project talk page about the preferred layout of an article discography section. The debate was over whether it should be a list or a table. In either discussion the clear consensus was that which ever layout was chosen only studio albums would be included if the band's discography was large enough to warrant a separate article of its own. The consensus was also clear that if the artist had more than 15 studio albums no list/table would be added at all as it would result in unnecessary article length. Aussie Ausborn (talk) 21:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)striking sock

It looks like you're saying there's no official policy saying live albums are not to be included. Which is good, because that would be an utterly senseless policy. Live at Leeds is one of The Who's most important albums by any measure, whether it be notoriety, critical acclaim or sales, and as such it belongs on the list. 74.73.110.46 (talk) 05:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

1983

The Who were not active in 1983. They did nothing together. They didn't perform any concerts, they didn't record anything, they didn't release anything new. Who cares if Pete Townshend waited until that year to announce the demise of The Who? It doesn't make it an active year. What if he had waited until 1986 to make that announcement? Would we then have a years active stretch going from 1964 to 1986? Of course not. The Who's last active year, before their reformation as a going concern in the late nineties, is 1982.208.120.255.206 (talk) 03:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Balance

I'm working on balancing this article. I think it gives too much weight to the 1990s and 2000s and too little weight to the 1960s and 1970s. 74.73.110.46 (talk) 02:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the article is balanced much better now. The 60s is the largest chapter, the 70s is very nearly as long, the 90s is the shortest, the 80s is the next shortest and the 00s chapter is shorter than the 60s and 70s chapters but longer than the 80s and 90s chapters. Given the activity of The Who across those decades, I think that's the right balance. 74.73.110.46 (talk) 07:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

So who made Eric Clapton a member of The Who? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.54.27.154 (talk) 22:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Who project is currently defunct??!

I just added an infobox to John "Rabbit" Bundrick, the keyboardist who tours with The Who and has worked on albums by The Who and individual members' albums since the death of Keith Moon at the least. On the talk page, there's a little tag saying that the article belongs to the workgroup for The Who which is currently considered to be inactive. Is this true? Since when? What's going on? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 02:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Eddie Van Halen

"I immediately hear a Pete Townshend influence" is a personal statement by the blogger at weblogs.variety.com. Eddie has NOT cited Townshend:

"He yanks on the device, the tonal quality shifts and I immediately hear a Pete Townshend influence".

Secondly this source is a personal weblog and does not pass WP:RS. --Scieberking (talk) 13:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry forgot to log in. --Scieberking (talk) 13:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Try reading the whole article. The citation is not for the writer's impression. It's for EVH himself saying "it's got an old Who thing in there." Additionally, got to youtube and listen to EVH play "Summertime Blues" Who-style from Live at Leeds almost note-for-note. 98.113.216.32 (talk) 03:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Eddie saying "it's got an old Who thing in there" does not mean he has cited Townshend as an inluence on his overall playing in a proper interview. For instance, Led Zeppelin have played Velvet Underground "Waiting For the Man" quite a few times, and praised the band. It does not mean Zeppelin was influenced by Velvet. Secondly Eddie has NOT mentioned Townshend anywhere in his interviews. Find a proper source him citing Townshend, if you really want to add this sort of thing. DON'T revert until clarifying. Thanks. --Scieberking (talk) 06:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

So, your quibble is that he's cited The Who, but not specifically Pete Townshend? It may have escaped your notice, but Pete Townshend is The Who's guitarist. When EVH mentions The Who in regard to his guitar playing, I doubt he's referring to Keith Moon. 98.113.216.32 (talk) 04:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Did the who play in Germany in the 70's? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.173.70 (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

how much money are the who getting for the super bowl halftime show? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.12.231.231 (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone should add that the Who performed the half-time show for Super Bowl XLIV in Miami, Fl, on 2-07-10. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Godetan101 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The Who at Woodstock

Unless I just plain up missed it, I didn't see any reference of The Who playing My Generation at Woodstock... 165.138.95.59 (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

--Wikirockroll (talk) 22:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)== Godetan 101 ==

Please note that in the section 2010s,it says in line 1 all about the who and the superbowl.thank you for your patience :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikirockroll (talk • contribs) 22:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I was speaking about the original Woodstock, their 1969 performance. I had forgotten to sign in that day, but no matter. The relevance of this inclusion may be more notable than many people realize. This event was one of the major invents involving the "hippy" counter-culture. I'm not asking for a detailed examination of that performance, but there should at least be a sentence or two on their involvement in this article in the appropiate section(s). This would show relative consistency between articles of similar types. WolfpeacefulI'm Bisexually biased... get over it! 17:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you "just plain up missed it." The Who's Woodstock performance is covered in this article. 206.216.34.171 (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Minor Edit

For the section the 1980s (Change and Breakup), I added Townsend's album All the Best Cowboys Have Chinese Eyes in addition to the later albums that were previously mentioned.V Schauf (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed it, since that paragraph is talking about post-breakup Townshend albums. 206.216.34.171 (talk) 23:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Associated Acts?

A recent edit added The RD Crusaders as an associated act of the Who. I agree this should be an associated act for Roger Daltrey, but is it really an associated act of the Who? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

"group" is a singular noun. The plural is "groups". To whoever just changed my edit from "the who is..." back to "the who are..." please get in touch. I consider it essential that wikipedia should respect an impeccable grammar. The fairly recent notion that plural verbs can be used to describe units comprised of members is frowned upon (even if recognised) by the OED and Webster's. I'm going to change the verb back to the singular now. I hope to see it remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.214.253.23 (talk) 15:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

In the context of bands, in the UK group is indeed plural. Since The Who area British band, the British mode should be the accepted one. Aaronite (talk) 18:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Musical impact

Do you think this section looks a little fanboyish and arbitrary? I'd imagine it would be relatively easy to make a lit of 100 bands who can be sourced as being "influenced by" the Who. Do we need to list them here? How do we choose which ones to list? I come here after removing a similar section from the Pink Floyd article after what seemed like consensus in talk. This page was mentioned as having a similar section, so I came here to see what we can do. --John (talk) 06:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed it and I think the article is better without it. --John (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary at all, but would be agreeable to some discussion. Radiopathy •talk• 17:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Me too, let's discuss. What reason is there to keep such an unencyclopedic and arbitrary list? --John (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you take a whack at Led Zeppelin's page, while you're at it? 206.216.34.171 (talk) 02:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok. --John (talk) 02:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Huge improvement on this page. Thanks, John. There's a silly amount of resistance on Led Zeppelin's page. 206.216.34.171 (talk) 00:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Quote from the "New Zealand Truth"

Speaking as a Kiwi who was around in 1968 (admittedly in the 6th form in a small rural town in the far north) I really do not think that a quote from "The New Zealand Truth" should be used in anything purporting to be a serious analysis. The Truth was an extremely conservative weekly tabloid that always featured semi naked women on the front page. At the time they were pretty anti 'youth' and the description "unwashed, foul-smelling, booze-swilling no-hopers" was typical of their description of any visiting rock band who were not mainstream.

I don't actually remember the tour although I was undoubtedly aware of it at the time. I lived a long way away from anywhere where the tour touched. It may well have been a disaster but I would not rely on the The Truth's report as reliable evidence.

Russell Fulton <russell@fulton.geek.nz> 121.99.72.238 (talk) 09:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The quotation in this case shows the clash between the contemporary press and the band, and the subtle difference is that the article is talking about what the newspaper said, to demonstrate the antagonism. It isn't using The Truth itself directly as a source, but it uses a secondary account from one of the principal book sources I used to get the article up to good article status, and several more agree that the early '68 tour was an unpleasant experience marred by hostile authorities and press for the reasons you state. I can drop the quote and put a vague reference to negativity, but I'd prefer the quotation to stay. What does anyone else think? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2014

The line "Meaden had in fact merely written the lyrics, as the tune for "Zoot Suit" was "County Fool" by the Showmen..." should read "Meaden had in fact merely written the lyrics, as the tune for "Zoot Suit" was "Misery" by the Dynamics". It is a long-standing error that 'Country Fool' was cribbed for 'Zoot Suit' and the correct artists to be credited have long been known by any self-respecting Who fan. You may wish to compare yourself: Zoot Suit - - Country Fool - - and Misery - - as conclusive evidence of this fact. 212.215.230.100 (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I made the change just now. Willondon (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Well spotted, 212 - the error came about because I cited an old version of Neill & Kent's book, and Fletcher's Keith Moon book, which while good, is over 15 years old. However, a Google Books preview of a 2011 revision of Neill / Kent explicitly states the fact as was cited in the article was incorrect. I've changed the source appropriately. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

*the* Who?

I'm sure the last thing that anyone wants is another The/the debate, but I made this revert at another article and it strikes me I've not got my facts right in my comment about the "RfC/RfM on band names". In the case of the Beatles' band name, it did indeed go through that process; I think what's happened is I've since seen editors cite this as a reason for lower-casing "the" in other band names, and I guess I've just done the same.

While mindful of not wanting to stir up a hornets' nest on the issue, am I right in saying that "the ..." is to be used here, for the Who and all other band names? Seems to be the case in majority of mentions, but I notice The High Numbers in the infobox and a couple of mentions of The Who early in the article (last sentence in both 1st and 4th paras under Background). JG66 (talk) 02:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The High Numbers is like that in the infobox because it's not running prose and it looks better with capital The. Similiarly, if you click on I Can't Explain you'll see "Single by The Who" in the infobox. But yes, in running prose it's the Who. Thanks for asking! Rothorpe (talk) 04:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that – I had no idea lists were treated differently. I changed those two examples of "The Who" (in prose, of course) to "the Who", btw. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 08:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks, Rothorpe (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

If the list is in prose, lower case the is appropriate. If the list is bulleted or otherwise columnar, then we capitalise. Binksternet (talk) 03:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi-hats and Moon

Keeberh (talk · contribs) recently wrote "There are multiple examples of Kieth Moon using a hi-hat in his drum setup in the years after 1966. Notably, the Pictures of Lilly Kit from 1967, and the white Premier kit with gold plated lugs from 1976." This is indeed correct, but the specifics about Moon's kit sits better on his own article (here). The problem, though, is that the inserted text doesn't just claim that, but goes further to state "but was occasionally forced by stage hands and/or studio technicians to include it in his set-up against his wishes". I find that hard to believe. Frankly, doing things "against his wishes" is just not something Moon did - ever! Strong claims need strong sources, and you'll need one for this claim to stay, I'm afraid. What is your source of information? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}

When I reverted, saying that it was unsourced, I didn't mean the claim that Moon used hi-hats after 1966. It was the claim that Moon was forced to do so that I thought needed a source. Willondon (talk) 04:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. You need only watch The Kids are Alright to see him hammering away on a hi-hat on Who Are You, and missing his cue against the backing track. Of course, being Moon, it's put in a very unorthodox position. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Lasers helped influence special effects for a film?

Can it be added that The Who helped influence special effects for the 1979 classic horror film Alien? I have it on good authority and reference that they unwittingly helped influence special effects for the egg chamber scene, which was being filmed on a soundstage next door to The Who who were testing lasers for an upcoming show, by using blue lasers? References: http://www.totalfilm.com/features/60-greatest-movie-trivia-facts/alien-1979 http://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/scifi/alien-opened-day-1979-11.html/2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.87.43.151 (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Touring members

There's too much unverifiable content in this section to meet the GA criteria, so I've removed everything that does not appear to be cited elsewhere in the main prose. If you want to re-add it, please supply a reliable source that confirms the touring member's participation. Cheers. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Genres

I think it would be a good idea to just include Rock and Pop, or perhaps just rock, in the Infobox, rather than all these subgenres which currently fill it. The guidelines do say to be general after all, and the Who's genres can be expanded on in the 'Musical style' section of the article.Poppermost2014 (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I think we should get @Dan56: into this discussion, as he's done a lot of these, but frankly every time I see somebody fiddle with genres in an infobox I want to get myself a stiff drink. We can do with "Rock" for The Who, that's fine, possibly "Pop" is acceptable because their early singles such as I'm a Boy and Happy Jack are certainly related to that genre, or even "Power pop". Beyond that, I'd get rid of everything else. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Who concert dates

Hello I was researching your dates to find out exactly when I attended a Who concert in Bakersfield, CA in 1973. It was at the coliseum I believe. I did not see the dates but it was around October I think. I'm 54 so it's been awhile but I'm positive about the year. Thank you.166.147.72.37 (talk) 05:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)Ginger

According to Neill & Kent, the best source (imho) for gig dates, the only 1973 dates in California were in November - the Cow Palace, San Francisco on 20 (the infamous gig where Moon collapsed and Scott Halpin stood in) and the Inglewood Forum, Los Angeles on 22-23. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Notice

After looking through this more, Ritchie333, I'm happy to say that you've done this page quite well! Don't know when you plan on taking to FAC, but before you do, I should note that Daily Mirror isn't exactly a top-notch source (FN279). Also, are any of the "Further Reading" texts used as references like those in "Bibliography"? If not, I'd remove them. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi SNUGGUMS. A shame the peer review was closed (though it had been open for a while). There are still outstanding issues for me to do, and that's one of them. I think the Daily Mirror (one of the sources that John would vomit at and remove on sight, and for good reason, it's tabloid trash) was just a holding source for a counterpoint. Crisco was due to do an image review, and he (or indeed, anyone) hasn't done so. The article is looking much better but I don't think it's ready for FAC yet, though if all of that can be completed, it might be. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that wasn't by any means the only issue, just the one that concerned me most. I wouldn't blame John for doing so. He's also very openly anti-Daily Mail and would eliminate that too without hesitation. Damn bot closed too soon. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Why not just re-open the review? Plenty of articles go through multiple reviews. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I've seen people try to re-open reviews only for bot to close them before long. You could request another PR or hold one here on the talk page. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, by "re-open" I meant open a new review. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Continued from Peer Review

I'm going to continue my comments from the Peer Review here.

• having sold more than 100 million records: as of?

I think Snuggums asked the same question, and I addressed it, however if nobody wants it in there it can be removed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• In 1967, they achieved success in the US after performing at the Monterey Pop Festival, and with the top ten single "I Can See for Miles". They released The Who Sell Out at the end of the year, and spent much of 1968 touring the US.: I might drop that whole last sentence, or at least "They released The Who Sell Out at the end of the year,"—it seems out of scope for the lead.

It was a little bit more than just touring, they strengthened their stage act and went from a good band to a great one, but maybe that's my POV showing. I've removed "the US" for now (they toured Europe and Australia too). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• where Townshend injured his arm onstage: oh, come on! He impaled his arm on his whammy bar while windmilling! You can't seriously leave out such juicy details!

He's still a living person, so per WP:BLP, I think we should err on the side of being conservative. If I wanted "juicy details" I'd cite The Sun more! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Musical style

• and then to mod: is "mod" not rock? Either way, some sort of brief explanation would be helpful.

It's already linked and explain in the "Early career" section, should we repeat the information here or move it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I suppose, but it was introduced more as a fashion than a music style; I think a brief explanation would be helpful. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, there's a bit in now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Entwistle's bass has been described as displaying "the strong influence of Rhythm and Blues"...His bassline on "Pinball Wizard" was described as "a contribution of its own without diminishing the guitar lines"...as "a bass solo with vocals": quotes need attribution. It might be simply just to rewrite.

I don't understand, all three quotes have inline cites to specific book sources with page numbers. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

That's citation; attribution tells us who said what (rather than vague "was described as" type of writing). Either way, if they're not particularly choice quotes (say, quotes that are themselves widely quoted), I'd paraphrase them, anywas. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've reworked this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• has been described Moon's arrival in the band: what happened here?

What appears to be the case here is that I was in mid copyedit, my youngest son came downstairs to complain that one of his siblings hit him, who retorted with "no I didn't", at which point I went off to tell them to go and play in separate rooms and try and get along (and wondering if such words would work on ANI), came back downstairs, saw the edit window with a summary parked in it, and hit "Save Page", forgetting what I was doing earlier. (Sorry, that was a bit long winded). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I blame my kids for every plague in my life, too Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• lead parts on his drum kit: meaning drum solos? Drum riffs? I'm not sure what this is referring to.

Definitely not drum solos, no!. I'll see what else Marsh or Atkins has to say on the subject. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• The group integrated feedback as an integral part of the guitar sound: the group did this? And was it really an integral part? They weren't Sonic Youth.

Sonic Youth weren't around in 1964. And if Daltrey didn't like the feedback sound (at that point he was the leader and spokesman), he would have stopped it. I've changed it to "a deliberate component", which is more the emphasis I want to give. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps Daltrey would have stopped it if he didn't like it, but that doesn't mean he necessarily actively took part in choosing to include it. How about "feedback became a deliberate part" or something? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I went with "deliberate part"

• Moon stopped using the hi hat in 1966, and started using Premier drum kits on an exclusive basis: this "stopped...started" seems to imply one was related to the other. Also, what was the significance of Moon dropping the hi hat?

Reworded. As for the significance, he was the only notable drummer in 1966 to do it.

That still doesn't make it clear why it's mentioned. Is it a difference that would have been noticeable to contemporary listeners? If not, is it worth mentioning? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟

I'll see if I can still pull out another source for this, but hopefully there's a bit more meat in there

• Townshend coined the term "power pop" to describe the Who's style: a brief explanation of "power pop" would be nice.
• I'm surprised "power chord" is left to the "Legacy and influence" section
• particularly after the Who and the Experience met at Monterey: it may not be obvious who the Experience were (gasp!)

I've expanded it in full

• albeit with Moon's distinctive drumming: why "albeit"?

Soft pop songs don't generally sound like somebody playing toms like a herd of elephants in the background! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

That's the thing, I guess—we really haven't got much of a picture of Moon's drumming. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• creating more than mere three-minute pop songs: Wasn't this already happening before Tommy?

Kind of, with "A Quick One" and "Rael", but they weren't commercial highlights. Even in late 1968, the Who were still plugging singles like "Magic Bus" on British kid's TV, as that's what the public knew them as. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe "focusing on" or "turning their focus toward", then, istead of "creating"? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I've redone this - they carried on having hit singles throughout the 70s, so it's not really true to say they abandoned that style. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• and using backing tapes live: like Milli Vanilli?

I've reworded this, but if you mean the audience weren't hearing a complete live instrumental, then yes. This is the best example I can think of, the acoustic guitar and synths are all tapes, but the vocals are all live (pretty obvious when you listen to Moon really). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Who author John Atkins: do you mean "biographer"? He didn't write the Who, did he?

Reworded Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Who author John Atkins praised Moon's ability to be able to synchronise with the synthesizer backing on "Won't Get Fooled Again".: this seems to jump out of nowhere.

See below Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• I think it'd be nice to go into each of the instruments in separate paragraphs, say: Townshend's guitars, Entwistle's bass, Daltrey's vocals, Moon's drums, and "other" (such as synths). We've got a couple of sentences on the backing vocals, but virtually nothing on Daltrey's! We're getting info all over the place, and I'm having trouble fitting them together into a comrehensible mental picture.
• Overall, I think this is the weakest section I've read so far. It's not particularly well organized, it's so vague, and seems to miss keys information—no mention of power chords! ... No explanation of "power pop" ... vague hints of what Moon was about ... even vaguer hints about Daltrey's vocals, pretty much summed up as "guttural"—what, he sounded like Alice Cooper? I'd recommend rewriting, starting with identifying what key points need to be explained, and then filling in the details from there.

I think Snuggums and Retrohead both mentioned this. Half the problem is finding good sources that actually give substantial information in one place, most just talk about a particular style or part of it at a specific time in the overall narrative. I'll have a think about this lot. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Right, I've had a reorder of this and it's now split into band, voice, instruments, each going up in chronological order. I've know got an idea of what's left - Townshend's guitars (specifically the Rickenbacker, Gibson SG, Les Paul and Eric Clapton Strat, some of which can be moved from history), bit more on synths, and Jones and Starkey's drumming styles. That should get us in the right direction. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've redone this section to include more on gear. The problem I've had is the main book sources generally assume some basic working knowledge of the Who (not unreasonably), so it seems you can't easily a citation for some basic style details. I've gone elsewhere, and added more information about the gear. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Legacy and influence

• made one of the first notable concept albums: this means Tommy? It seems to imply a different album than the aforementioned "rock opera".

It's not sourced, and "notable" is in the words to watch so it shouldn't be in there even for a GA. Nuked. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• their embrace of pop art: which reminds me, wasn't The Who Sell Out a statement about Pop Art? Should that have been mentioned earlier?

That was a celebration of pirate radio, specifically (obvious if you hear the album). The Pop Art connection comes from their early stage costumes, including Moon's target T shirt, Entwistle's jacket with medals, and Townshend's jacket made of flags. (let me run off and find a source for that lot).

But the jacket was Pop Art, wasn't it? I thought I read that the ads all over it weren't supposed to be snide anti-conumerist statements, but an embracing of Pop Art. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I've added a bit more about the Pop Art connection

• Several notable artists have been influenced by the Who.: I think "several" is an understatement, and also redundant as we've just been told they were "one of the most influential rock groups from the 1960s and 1970s".

But "many" or "lots and lots" reads too much like a fan's point of view, which I'm keen to avoid. What word what you recommend. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I meant, since it's redundant, why not drop it? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

See below Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Bono of U2 said, "More than any other band, the Who are our role models.": Why start with Bono? Why not start with a contemporary band, and then work through bands where the influence is more obvious (bands with lots of big, dramatic power chords, etc)?
• On that note, I don't really see any rhyme or reason to the selected bands and quotes. The whole second paragraph seems rather tossed together.

I've thrown it out and redone it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Didn't Paul McCartney write "Helter Skelter" in response to "I Can See For Miles"? I'd consider that a rather eye-opening example of how deep and immediate their influence was.

Yes, and that wasn't the only Beatles' connection either. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• The band has also been called "The Godfathers of Punk": this after the mod revival and Britpop?
• the MC5: are more often referred to as proto-punk, aren't they? Again, this is happening a-chronologically, starting with the late-70s London scene, and then moving to the late-60s Detroit scene, etc.

I've reworked this a bit so things are a bit tighter and in the right order. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• It might be more informative to describe what kind of influence the band has had, rather than having fawning quotes from a bunch of bands. U2, for example again—this is not a band for whom the Who seems like an obvious influence. Do the sources not give any examples of how these bands incorporated their Who influence? It's been twenty years since I collected guitar magazines, but I seem to remember articles going into these things. I remember Townsend saying stuff about a Purcell influence on his use of power chords, as well—is this not mentioned in your sources?

What's happened here is that I started working on the article and trimmed out everything that was unsourced, then trimmed out everything that didn't match the citation given, then trimmed out everything I didn't think was particularly noteworthy ... and what we've now got is what's left. I'll have to redo this lot. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've redone this - finding actual sources where bands cite the Who as an influence and say why seems to be like looking at a needle through a haystack. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Just because I'm like that, I'm going to take another break. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@72.43.153.30: I am not about to start an edit war on an article I am trying very hard to improve to featured article status (as you can see from the large array of comments upthread), but in summary, we generally don't cite stuff in the lead, and we put due weight on recent events to avoid recentism. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but I think pinging only works for logged-in users. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Most important British rock acts.

OK, so, sorry to undo your undo but I don't know how else to start a conversation with you? This is the first time someone has undone one of my updates! I won't change it again until we have discussed it and agreed. OK? Putting opinions aside, the reference article simply doesn't say anything like "For much of their career they have been regarded as one of the three most important British rock acts, along with the Beatles and the Rolling Stones". The article starts by saying that "Along with the Beatles and the Rolling Stones, the Who complete the holy trinity of British rock". Unless I'm missing something? I just don't see how it is saying that they are one of the 3 most important British rock acts? FillsHerTease (talk) 10:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Replace it with a sentence summarising brief sales figures and chart positions. Neill & Kent has this, but only up to 1978, Atkins may have more up to date figures, so may the RIAA archives. As you can see from the peer review and talk page conversations above, it's not been particularly looked on favourably. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I would like to wait for JG66 to respond before making any further changes. I'm sure we can come up with something that we all agree on... FillsHerTease (talk) 12:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

As Binksternet has also reverted another attempt to put it back in, I think consensus is to leave it out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

This is what I wrote in my edit summary: "several things are wrong with this addition: the sources do not support the phrase 'much of their career' or 'one of the world's best-selling bands of all time'. Also, the lead section is not for new information but for summary information." I am sympathetic to the general drift of the text addition, that the lead should say that the Who are huge, but it should be based on text found in the article body, a summary of cited statements about how big they are. Binksternet (talk) 13:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

(Or you could always ping me, Ritchie333?) FillsHerTease, that's very good of you – I have to say I read your original change as coming purely from an anti-Who PoV. Personally, after looking at the mention of the band being "One of the most influential rock bands of the 20th Century" (in the BBC article) and Rolling Stone's "Along with the Beatles and the Rolling Stones, the Who complete the holy trinity of British rock", I thought they did support the grand statements in the Lead. Obviously, there's a bit of a gap in the Lead currently, as a result of its removal.

Yes I apologise for that JG66 and you were right to undo it. Although I didn't think what the lede said was supported by the reference, I am in no way anti-Who and I should have started a discussion or at least changed what was written rather than just removing it. My bad. You're right that The Who merit a significant statement in the lede. I think my interpretation of the "Holy Trinity" quote is that, along with The Beatles and The Stones, they were the first three, the first wave, the ones who inspired all the others. My problem with the original quote was not that The Who weren't incredibly important, it was that saying there were 3 most important British rock bands was simply not possible. My first thought was "what about Led Zeppelin, what about The Sex Pistols, what about Radiohead etc."? So it wasn't The Who I had a problem with - but I can see why you would get that impression sorry - it was just that British rock has been so important and so significant that limiting it to 3 bands over the course of the last 50 years simply won't do! I hope that makes sense? :-) FillsHerTease (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Why is it not possible that The Who are one of the three most important British rock acts along with The Beatles and The Rolling Stones? I've heard that from many quarters for decades. They have even been regarded as The World's Greatest Rock Band, something even the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame acknowledges. The Rolling Stone line about the Holy Trinity of British Rock is certainly NOT about The Beatles, The Rolling Stones and The Who being the "first three" or the "first wave," because MANY British rock bands pre-date The Who, including the likes of The Kinks, The Animals and The Yardbirds. So if they're not referring to a "first wave" with their Holy Trinity line, what do you think they're referring to? 72.43.153.30 (talk) 17:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, the 1992 Rolling Stone Album Guide opens The Who section with, "Ranking just below the Beatles and the Rolling Stones in the Great Triumvirate of British rock, The Who..." 72.43.153.30 (talk) 18:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with however it pans out, but I would have thought the Who merits a statement of that magnitude in the opening paragraph. Most readers would expect it, I'm sure (although I appreciate Binksternet's point about wording). I was trying to find something suitable at Rock's Backpages, but … well, there's quite a selection there!. JG66 (talk) 16:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@JG66: (that better? :-D) It does merit some sort of mention like that, yes, just haven't worked out what yet. Hey, as the header says, I don't WP:OWN the article, so somebody else can always have a go! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

FAC stuff

Ping: @John:, @Curly Turkey:, @SNUGGUMS:, @Binksternet:, @JG66:, @Retrohead: : I've been procrastinating over this for too long and I think it's time I finally did the deed and put it up for FAC. At the moment, I see the following outstanding issues:

• Images have not been reviewed at all. Some of them, such as File:The Who in Miami 2010-02-05.jpg just seem to have been put in there because it's a picture of the Who, without thought to its relevance (I think this one has been in there since before I started serious work on the article in mid-late 2013). All images need alts and caption formatting checked.
• The touring members could do with a source to check it's all correct. I'm surprised Rabbit isn't touring with them.
• We still need a source for exactly when Townshend noticed he had tinnitus, which could be any time from about 1977 (when footage in The Kids Are Alright shows him talking about having "terrible ears") to 1989's "Who on Ice" tour where the expanded personnel was largely down to him insisting on a lower volume level.
  • Not having any luck tracking it down, but it appears he made it public in 1987. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I can't think of anything else. If anyone else can, shout soon otherwise I'll nominate it in a week or so if these issues are resolved and I get no other objections. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, the FAC is now up - let's see how things turn out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• I wasn't expecting you to put this up for FAC so soon. Skimming over, I do see some things that I think need worked on:
  • The significance of the power chord is almost entirely glossed over. This was a central aspect to the Who's sound, and probably the most significant part of their legacy, to the point where is nearly impossible to imagine post-Who rock guitar without power chords. You could almost devote an entire paragraph to that itself—what it is (root-fifth chords with extremely simple fingering), where it came from (Townshend cites Link Wray especially, as well as even Henry Purcell), how Townshend used it and what role it played in their music, and the inescapable part of rock guitar it has since become.
  • I see no mention of distortion as a part of Townshend's sound. On page 14 of Atkins 2000 there's a description of his early use of distortion, where he and a few others began by simply strumming so hard that it would distort the amps; Entwistle used distortion, too.
  • The Gallagher quote in the "Legacy and influence" section strikes me as a bizarre and totally out of place—here we have a band that's directly influenced more bands than perhaps any other besides the Beatles and the Stones, and we're highlighting a quote about someone sying they were indirectly influenced by the band? Then the line "Oasis were influenced by the Who" seems to contradict this by implying the influence was direct.
  • No mention of Jimmy Page, who did sesion work with the band ( "I Can't Explain" and "Bald Headed Woman"), or Zeppelin—apparently Robert Plant wanted Moon on drums, the band name came from remarks made to or by either Moon or Entwistle, and there's otherwise a pretty clear Who influence on the band.
  • This book calls the Who a "formative influnce" on Pink Floyd (more evidence of their early impact). I get the feeling you could track down their influence on many other early contemporaries.
  • In general, I think the "Legacy" section needs to be beefed up—it jumps from the Beatles straight to protopunk, and doesn't addresstheir influence on hard rock and metal[1][2][3] at all. An endless list of bands would be tedious—perhaps another approach is to single out particular genres and the way they wer influenced, and then highlight bands from those genres that were particularly influenced by the Who (like the Jam).
  • Interesting story of how the Who stole the show from the Cream of all bands.
  • No mention of tribute albums such as this, this, or this.
  • I still don't understand why you don't want to say explicitly how Townshend hurt his arm. He did it doing his signature move—I don't see what's "tabloidy" about that at all—it feels more to me like information's being buried.
• These are just a few things I've picked out while skimming through the article. It's certainly a fine article, but I don't think it's quite ready for the leap to FA yet. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I know you're trying to make a point, but you refer to the power chord as though it were the distinctive feature of the band, where I would rather say it was Entwistle's prominent bass playing. These are mentioned in the same sentence in the article, giving them equal weight there. Still not enough coverage of the impact of either, though. - Hoops gza (talk) 09:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• • I mean the popularization of the power chord itself, which is normally credited to Townshend, and which has become one of the most basic elements of rock guitar. Townshend didn't invent it, but he's the one that made it synonymous with rock guitar—and it's far more prominent to the band's sound than, say, feedback. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

True indeed. - Hoops gza (talk) 09:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I need to follow up this lot but real life is intervening, more later. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)