Talk:The Who/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Copyediting

This article is too big, and lop-sided. It's nice to see that The Who are still touring, and they're still (IMHO) pretty good, but I think everyone would struggle to argue that the most important lineup, and therefore per WP:DUE, the one that should receive the most attention, is the one from 1964 to 1978. I'm looking at getting the size down to about 60K, which will probably end up with spinout articles like The Who Films, Awards given to The Who, List of live performances by The Who. More later... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Dubious

The article says Townshend toppled his Marshall stack the week after he smashed his first Rickenbacker. This isn't in Marsh or Fletcher's books, and I'm not even sure he had a stack in mid 1964. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

There is video footage on Youtube of the High Numbers at the Railway Hotel in 1964. Townshend appears to be using a Fender amplifier. I can't quite make out the speaker cabinet, but it could be Marshall, as described here: The Who's musical equipment. The description of the stack getting toppled over may or may not be true, but is it really needed? Following the initial statement about the first time Townshend smashed a guitar, all that's needed is a general statement to the effect that smashing/knocking over guitars, amps, and drums became "a thing". That avoids the problem of referring to a specific event that may never have taken place. Dubmill (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I've gone with that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

2010–present (WP:RECENTISM moved from article to keep the size down)

Roger Daltrey and Pete Townshend performing in Miami, Florida on 5 February 2010

The Who performed at the halftime show of Super Bowl XLIV at Sun Life Stadium in Miami Gardens, Florida on 7 February 2010. They played a medley of "Pinball Wizard", "Baba O'Riley", "Who Are You", "See Me, Feel Me", and "Won't Get Fooled Again".

The Who performed Quadrophenia at the Royal Albert Hall on 30 March 2010 as part of the Teenage Cancer Trust series of 10 gigs. This one-off performance of the rock opera featured guest appearances from Eddie Vedder, lead singer of Pearl Jam, Tom Meighan the lead singer of Kasabian, and Tom Norris of the London Symphony Orchestra.

Townshend told Rolling Stone magazine that the band had planned a tour for early 2010; Townshend later stated this was jeopardised due to the return of his tinnitus. He is experimenting with a new in-ear monitoring system that was recommended to him by fellow rocker Neil Young and his audiologist. The in-ear monitoring system was scheduled to be tested out at the Quadrophenia concert at the Royal Albert Hall on 30 March. Roger Daltrey stated that they had acquired new equipment—earpieces and the like—that he and the band are learning to use to enable Townshend to perform. The Who hoped to hit the road again in 2011, with "a new show," according to singer Roger Daltrey, or possibly a retooled stage presentation of the group's 1973 rock opera Quadrophenia.

On 11 October 2010, the Who's official website announced the release on 15 November 2010 of the Fortieth Anniversary Super-Deluxe Collectors' Edition of their Live at Leeds album, including the complete 14 February 1970 performance, and a 2-CD set containing the complete performance of 15 February 1970 at the City Hall in Hull, England.

Roger Daltrey had announced he was producing a biopic about Keith Moon called See Me Feel Me: Keith Moon Naked for Your Pleasure, which was to be released in 2012. Comedian Mike Myers was going to play the main role and would have taken drumming lessons to suit the character. However, according to Daltrey, as of 2011 this project may currently be stalled. The Who performed in London on 13 January 2011, along with Jeff Beck and Debbie Harry for a 'killing cancer' benefit concert.

In July 2011, Townshend revealed on his blog that he will be touring their 1973 rock opera album Quadrophenia with bandmate Roger Daltrey in 2012. Townshend wrote "The reason I am not on the road with Roger is that this is entirely Roger's adventure, one that is bringing him great joy. I don't belong on this 'Tommy' tour. I wish him well, sincerely, and I look forward to playing with Roger again doing 'Quadrophenia' next year".

On 4 November 2011, Roger Daltrey and Pete Townshend launched the Daltrey/Townshend Teen and Young Adult Cancer Program at the Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles, to be funded by the Who's charity Who Cares. The launch, followed on 5 November by a fund-raising event, was also attended by Robert Plant and Dave Grohl.

On 18 July 2012, the band announced a 35-date tour where they will play their album Quadrophenia in its entirety. Roger Daltrey and Pete Townshend will be joined by Zak Starkey on drums, Pino Palladino on bass, Simon Townshend on guitar/backing vocals, Chris Stainton on keyboards, Loren Gold on keyboards/backing vocals, and Frank Simes as Musical Director, and on keyboards/backing vocals.

On 12 August 2012, the band performed at the closing ceremony of the London 2012 Olympic Games as the final act, playing "Baba O'Riley", "See Me, Feel Me" and "My Generation". The Kaiser Chiefs covered the Who's song "Pinball Wizard". Controversially, American television network NBC played the Who's performance in a late-night segment of the closing ceremony after an advance broadcast of the new sitcom Animal Practice.

On 24 October 2012, as the result of an exclusive deal between FOX Sports' 2012 and Spirit Music, the Who's music publisher, the television network will feature a variety of the band's greatest hits from various albums spanning their five-decade music career throughout the World Series telecast on FOX as well as on the network's various social media sites.

On 1 November 2012, the Who commenced their Quadrophenia and More tour in North America. On 19 November 2012, The Who released the highly demanded remastered live album Live at Hull, the band's performance in Hull the night after the Leeds gig was recorded; previously only available as part of the long deleted Live at Leeds deluxe boxset. The live album features new mixes like the inclusion of Entwistle's bass (from Live at Leeds) on a few tracks which were originally missing due to a recording mix-up that night. Moreover, a limited edition vinyl box set of all eleven Who studio albums and the Who's songs played at the 2012 Olympics Closing Ceremony, along with the remastered mono single "My Generation" were also released.

On 12 December 2012, the Who performed at The Concert for Sandy Relief at Madison Square Garden, broadcast live via television, radio, cinemas and the Internet across six continents.

In August 2013, the music critic site Clickmusic suggested that teenage boy band One Direction's song "Best Song Ever" had many similarities and sounded much like the Who's 1971 hit "Baba O'Riley". Rumors have followed that the Who might sue One Direction for plagiarism, as well as a wave of comments from fans on both sides on social media.

References

Timeline

A few editors have put a timeline together, which is great. However, it's full of dates that are completely uncited to any reliable sources, so I'm parking it here for the time being.

Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Who/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 16:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hi, I'll review this one, but it may take some days to finish due to the sheer length. FunkMonk (talk) 16:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
• Already now, I can see that several paragraphs end in sentences without end citations. Please fix this throughout, I think there are almost ten of these issues.

Should all now be fixed. Apart from one, these mostly fell out of copyediting. The single offender was the information about the 1989 tour, which I've replaced with two Allmusic reviews. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• Also, have the issues raised during the first GA reviw been fixed?[1]

I've just checked, and they should all now be resolved. I copyedited and re-sourced the entire article, so a lot of the issues were irrelevant. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• "The most notable line-up consisted of singer Roger Daltrey, guitarist Pete Townshend, bassist John Entwistle, and drummer Keith Moon." How about saying the original line up? I would say this is basically what people think of when they think of the Who, this is not like Deep Purple, which had a gazilion line ups with different fan bases.

I can't say that because it's factually incorrect! The original line-up is Daltrey, Townshend, Entwistle and drummer Doug Sandom, and Neill & Kent's book state they did about two months of gigs billed as The Who before Moon joined. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe it could be said in another way. How about "best known", "main", or "signature" line up? For some reason, "most notable" gives me the idea that there were several line ups existing at almost equal lengths of time, just not as successfully, tough that was not the case. FunkMonk (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I've gone with "best known". There is an IP who likes going around removing "best known" from leads claiming it violates WP:NPOV and edit warring aggressively over it (see Cleo Rocos' entry in WP:LAME), but we'll worry about that as and when (or even if) it happens. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Hah weird! How is "most notable" a less POV term? Just because it sounds fancier? FunkMonk (talk) 15:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Some people just want to right great wrongs..... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, nice, that guideline came in handy here: [2] FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• "The release of the album Tommy in 1969" Could we note it as their fourth album here? Until then, the lead doesn't mention any album, so the unitiated might believe it was their first.

Done. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• I find it a bit odd that two inconsequential 1980s albums are mentioned and linked in the lead, when the three pre-Tommy albums aren't, I'd say they are much more notable, at least My Generation.

I wasn't sure, but the first two albums hit the top ten in the UK so they can go in. I've shuffled the lead around so it now mentions every studio album. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Shouldn't the intro at least mention their album-based films?

Yes, I think so. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• If the two last suggestions add too much content, I suggest removing the list of early hits from the intro instead. I see no reason why these should be named, they're not more important than their later hits, which are not listed at all.

I'm not sure I agree. The band were very much a singles act in the early years (as were most bands) and several sources point to Tommy as being a specific point at which they went from being a "singles" band to an "album" band, saving their career. As it is, I've trimmed other bits out of the lead to keep the size down. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Since you've already added the other stuff, there's no problem, because my suggestion was more of a trade off... FunkMonk (talk) 15:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• I see some unnecessary white space that could be removed with slight rearrangement of images. For example, last image could be moved to the right, no reason Jack Black should take up so much space (he gets more than the adjacent one of Townshend!). He could be given the upright parameter to make him stretch less down. The left/right position of the two images under A Quick One and The Who Sell Out could be inverted, and the white space removed. The guitar under the next heading could be moved to the right, so not to interfere with the title below.FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Done (I think), though bear in mind some readers look at Wikipedia via a mobile app, where the concept of "white space" does not exist. I don't actually like the guitar image at all - it's dimensions are all wrong - so I've removed it. I'll see if a free image of the Woodstock site is available. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

You could rotate the image to make it less ungainly? FunkMonk (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• Image licenses look fine, except for those extracted from old billboards. I'll bring it up on Commons and see what's up. FunkMonk (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that a photo published in the US before 1977 without any notice or information about who owns the copyright means it lapses. Anyway, we'll see what happens on Commons. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Shouldn't Zak Starkey be listed in the infobox as at least a past member? His involvement seems to have been pretty consistent, in spite of not wanting to be labelled as a "full-time member", he appears to be a de facto member.

Before we do this, I would like to find out why someone (not me!) put in a comment saying "do not add touring members". My concern is once you add Starkey, then somebody will want to add Rabbit, then the horn players on the '89 tour ... and suddenly the infobox is twice as big and takes up the entire screen :-/ I felt Starkey deserved a mention in the lead as he's unique amongst touring members to turn down a offer to go full-time (as sourced to Townshend's blog). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, since the Who were mainly a four musician band, I'd think a drummer would be of a very different status than for example a member of a horn orchestra. "The band" and its members would logically always refer to these four, not their backing orchestra. FunkMonk (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

This sounds like a discussion that is best taken to the main talk page and resolved via consensus, if I'm honest. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Not a deal breaker in this at all anyay. FunkMonk (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• "played professional engagements from the very beginning" Sounds a tad too formal for this purpose, reword?

Changed to "gigs" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• "from the more working-class Shepherd's Bush" Working class area? "Mainly" could also look better than "more". Seems a verb is missing between working class and area name.

I've reworded this bit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• The title "With Moon" seems rather redundant as a subheading and feels tacked on. It's not as if this is a BC/CE situation. I doubt any biographies make this distinction either.
• Likewise, "After Moon" should be clearer, "after Moon's death", and there is no reason everything after should be subheadings to this.

I think we need some sort of partition though, as otherwise the "History" section has 15 headings. Marsh p508 (the first chapter following Moon's death) starts off "Here ends the story of The Who. In its wake, a new one began..."' How about simply changing it to "1964-1978" and "1978-present"? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Nice, yeah, I think that is a more standard thing to do, and gives a better chronological overview. FunkMonk (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, now done. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• "so changed their name to The Who " Any elaboration on this? No reason for the name is given here.

There's a little bit in Marsh that I've added. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if the long section about films is appropriate here. Not even the albums get such an in depth treatment. I suggest splitting it up in a Who filmography article, and summarising the info where it is chronologically relevant in the rest of the existing text.

I was contemplating creating a spinout article, but in fact this can all be easily copyedited into the "history" section. McVicar in particular is off-topic as it's primarily a Daltrey solo project with tangential involvement from the main group. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'm only past the first section, so it will take a while before the entire article is reviewed! May take a few days, hope you don't mind. FunkMonk (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC) FunkMonk (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Take as long as you need. It took me a week to GA review Madonna (entertainer) and at the end I felt mentally exhausted. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• "They had also jettisoned Druce as manager" Jettisoned? Isn't it a bit hyperbolic? Fired?

I went with "replaced" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Likewise with " involvingcutting-edge fashions", unless it refers to something specific.

Removed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• " distributed American Decca product in England." "Releases" instead of "product"? Sounds like they were packing meat or something...

I've rewritten this entire sentence. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• "the group have achieved to date" Shouldn't it be "has"? Group is singular.

Only if you're American! Since this is a British band, the article uses British English. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• "when it saw a proper remix and CD reissue" I guess it was more of a "remaster" than a "remix"?

It really was a remix (as cited by Howard, and also the sleeve notes of the 2002 CD reissue) - the album had never been previously been issued in stereo and due to the legal problems with Shel Talmy that lasted for decades, the band could never get their hands on the original multitrack tapes to do so. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• "and mod was on the wane" Sounds a bit esoteric, add mod culture/style?

I've gone with "was no longer popular" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• "fake commercials between songs" Fake seems a little harsh, made up/mock or something like that?

"mock" sounds good Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• "which saw the national press turn on them" of what country?

I've replaced it with a specific paper and quotation. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• There could be a sentence about the significance of Tommy when it is first mentioned, as "rock opera" and all that, now it is glossed over, with some rather vague press statements.

I've expanded a bit more in this area. I think it took a few months to become popular, it wasn't like Sgt Pepper where everyone stood up and paid attention the day it was released. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• "kicked offstage by Townshend" Again a bit hyperbolic.

Hmm. I'll tell you how Marsh describes it on page 350 : "Townshend put one of his Dr. Marten boots squarely into Hoffman's ass, swatted him with his Gibson SG, and as the Yippie fell into the photographers' pit, played on." What words would you suggest? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Ouch, didn't realise it was to be taken literally! FunkMonk (talk) 18:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• " and portions of it appeared on the subsequent film" No easter egg links.

Replaced with "the Woodstock film" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• "An unpleasant omen of things to come" Omen is again hyperbolic, sign/indication instead?

Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• "On 2 May 1979, the Who returned to the stage" Another Easter egg link.

I didn't realise there was a link there. Removed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• "John Lydon was considered the role of Jimmy, but Townshend decided Lydon was too intelligent and too obvious a casting choice, and the role eventually went to Phil Daniels." Is all this explanation really necessary in this article?

Which bits were you thinking of taking out? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Just the recasting bit, not really relevant here. FunkMonk (talk) 18:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay. It's an interesting fact, but one better suited to Lydon's own article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking it would make plenty sense in the article about the film. FunkMonk (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• "Bono of U2 said, "More than any other band, The Who are our role models." This is already noted earlier, one recurrence seems redundant.
• Likewise with: "the display describes them as "Prime contenders, in the minds of many, for the title of World's Greatest Rock Band."

I've fixed both of these by writing something else about their Rock and Roll Hall of Fame exhibit from the official source. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• This seems like an arbitrary choice for an external link: http://john-bauer.com/thewho.htm

The moral of this story is, when you're reviewing a link, don't just think "oh, that'll be a critical analysis of the Cincinatti Disaster" but do click on the link and have a look at it. (Removed) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think it looks great now, so I will pass it. More of these, please! Only remaining issue before a potential FAC I can think of is the copyright status of the billboards, but the worst case scenario is jut that they would have to be hosted locally here, so not much of a difference. FunkMonk (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for a good review. If you enjoyed this, run full speed to Keith Moon which is at FAC right now. Main things for FAC here are to use some more sources (Moon's article uses a wider spectrum of books), plus there are some facts that I know from unreliable sources (eg: the 1989 tour was done to pull Entwistle out of debt, Townshend spent a lot of the 80s and 90s claiming he didn't actually like The Who at all) that would be nice to properly verify and put in. It's all doable, and the aim is to get it as TFA for 2 May 2014 - exactly 50 years since the most notable best known line-up played their first full gig together. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Nice! I'll have a look, thought it had passed already. As for additions, did the whole "pedophile" business (which I never fully understood) have any effect/relevance to reunions of the band? FunkMonk (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. It should be mentioned on Townshend's own article for sure, but a combination of WP:BLP and WP:DUE would probably prevent mention of it here. Most of the commentary on the last ten years is from online news sources, and not one of them brings it up in any substantial detail. Now, compare that to Jimmy Savile and Gary Glitter..... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Alright then. FunkMonk (talk) 15:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

2015 "Final tour" and citing Townshend

I've thought about this for a while, but the recent news announcement about the "final tour" in 2015 is a good occasion to mention it. For decades, Townshend has been a good interview subject for journalist, telling them what they want to hear and what's on his mind. Unfortunately, it means just citing one interview, barring particularly notable ones like the '68 piece for Jann Wenner, is fraught with problems, and you really can't get a solid factual piece of information from it. Sometimes he likes The Who, sometimes he hates them, sometimes he thinks his guitar playing is great, sometimes it's awful. And how many times has he threatened to disband The Who? It was only a year or two ago we were hearing that the group would be finished forever and ever unless he could get some in-ear monitors. Now, if we get continual and sustained coverage over the next year that this really is the last hurrah, and if Daltrey starts agreeing that is is, then it will be correct to write about it as such. Until then, I'm afraid that Wikipedia is not the news. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Musical style

This page needs a musical style section. See led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd. Also, is The Detours notable enough for its own article? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• The article is 53K of prose and the basic style of the band is covered in the main narrative. The Who's musical equipment is a content fork that could be transmogrified into a general "style / influence" article. Bear in mind that The Who have been around longer than both Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd, and been far more prolific (those two bands have done one gig each in the last 15 years, while The Who have done lots), so there's not as much room for other things. The Detours certainly has coverage in the major biographies, but I'd be careful of introducing a POV fork, as they were never signed, never recorded professionally, and were basically just another covers band (even Townshend didn't write for the band in 63) - it was the change to The Who that kick started things. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Theres only basic info on the style of the band through the article, and you can trim down some of the history or move it to the albums pages. For what it's worth, The Quarrymen were never signed and they are notable only through what they became. In my opinion, the background section should be split int a new article and the added space could be used for a musical style section. An article on a band should not just be the history of the band.~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think moving stuff to album articles is going to work - the Woodstock gig is an important part of this history but you can't listen to most of it outside bootlegs, and they've released one album in the last 30 years while still touring. However, taking Van der Graaf Generator (and its GA review) as a base, I would basically expect a Musical Style section to chart their style as progressing from R&B covers to mod to hit singles to hard rock to prog with synths to stadium rock, with all the exceptions in between. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying trim back too much -- the Woodstock gig is very important since the Who were not particularly popular until Woodstock. We can just move stuff out if you think the article is getting too long and cannot afford a musical style section. Also, most of the background can be contained within the members articles or a seperate Detours article. Alternatively, we could split the article into sub-articles like The Beatles has done (The Beatles in 1966, The Beatles in India, etc.) However, this may not be the best course of action since the Beatles are more culturally significant than the Who and necessitate greater coverage. Anyway that's just my 2 cents. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The Hillbilly Bugger Boys

Before the Who were known as the Who they were called... YES! The Hillbilly Buggers Boys!!!

No. 72.43.153.30 (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

where did you hear that?Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 06:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Petetownshend.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Petetownshend.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Simon Townshend

I notice Simon Townshend's article says he is a "full touring member of The Who". Does this mean that he should be in the "current member" list with Pete Townshend and Daltrey? What kind of contractual relationship is "full touring member"? Pkeets (talk) 04:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

That statement in his article is uncited, I guess. Scieberking (talk) 06:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

They just discussed it in a radio interview he did in NYC. However, they didn't explain what it meant there, either. Pkeets (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Could be mentioned in the current members list then. He's a Townshend after all... :) Scieberking (talk) 14:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I dunno. I'm thinking the touring Who might be contractually different from say, the recording Who. When Pete did the last album, he and Roger didn't use any of the touring musicians. Pkeets (talk) 03:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Correct to User:Pkeets! They have a status but it's below that of Pete and Roger. I'm fairly well versed with the band- I once knew one original member-- and I uploaded most of their photos that way.

The only official members of The Who are Pete Townshend and Roger Daltrey, after the deaths of Keith Moon and John Entwistle. Even when The Who were the four to original bandmates, they frequently had other sidemen- particularly during on tour supporting Tommy and the film film of the same name which followed. Entwistle was responsible for the musical arrangements for the horn section. In addition, keyboardist John Rabbit Bundrick, Simon Townshend, and many famous musicians ranging from Tina Turner (as "the Acid Queen"), to Sting (as a "mod") backed them up or played the roles of the characters in Tommy. Heck, even David Gilmour has been a "touring member"! They attempted to tour with longtime friend and drummer Simon Phillips, but Daltrey wasn't able to handle Phillips' (far more normal) approach to playing the drums. When they did tour before losing Entwistle, I watched from an excellent seat in Washington, D.C. at the curtain call, when only the remaining trio took a bow. I didn't understand why they did that, thinking it was rude. Just as they were feeling rejuvinated, Entwistle died the day before their tour. So, currently, Pino Palladino on bass guitar, and drummer Zak Starkey, (who had some of his first drum lessons from Moon, his Godfather), and Simon Townshend are only given credit as supporting musicians- "members" if you like, but just on the tours. To be honest, It's a bit scary to need this question answered here! I hope I was helpful- guess we all learn one way or another here in cyberspace Wikipedia! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 19:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The original four bandmates of The Who never toured with sidemen. The Tommy tour with additional musicians that you're talking about was in 1989, long after Keith Moon's death. The likes of Tina Turner and Sting also never toured with The Who. They appeared in the movies Tommy and Quadrophenia, respectively. David Gilmour has also never been a touring member. He played one show with them at Hyde Park in 1996. They did not just "attempt" to tour with Simon Phillips. They toured with him in 1989. 72.43.153.30 (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

not true..i saw them with a keyboard player in the 70`s..not sure who it was but I know what I saw and it was pete roger john and keith out front Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 06:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Did you do a lot of drugs in the '70s? 72.43.153.30 (talk) 13:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Mods or rockers

Why does the first sentence describe them as a "rock band"? I have always understood The Who to be a mod group, so it should describe them as a mod group. This could at least be reflected in the categorisation of the article. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

In fact, the article on mods and rockers, in the section on contrasts between the mods and the rockers, does point out that the mods listened to groups such as The Who. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Rock is a fairly broad genre and they fit in there as well as anything. They've shifted styles at least once a decade. Pkeets (talk) 04:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Is this guyfor real? The Who were a quintessential ROCK band. However "mod" they were was strictly passe by 1967-1968 - which at that period of time they truly broke through the charts and began receiving more press coverage on both sides of the Atlantic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.28.57 (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

discography

DECCA record DL75064, an album on vinyl with the title "Magic Bus On Tour", having the same cover as the single "Magic Bus" does not appear in the discography. Songs include: Disguises, Run Run Run, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, I Can't Reach You, Our Love Was, Is, Call Me Lightning, Magic Bus, Someone's Coming Doctor, Doctor, Bucket T. and Pictures of Lily. From DECCA Records, a Division of MCA, USA. Kit Lambert, producer; Chris Stamp, executive producer; recorded in England. No date of issue. Uncas69Uncas69 (talk) 19:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Compilations are usually not included as part of the discography on the artist's page. This album is included on The Who discography#Compilations. GoingBatty (talk) 23:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Quote correction for citation #10

The article quoted in citation #10 actually does NOT capitalize the article "the" before the names of the bands, unlike the way it's transcribed into this article. To whit: "Along with the Beatles and the Rolling Stones, the Who complete the holy trinity of British rock." There was a recent mediation about the mid-sentence capitalization of the Beatles / The Beatles, if you're interested, as it might have some good points to consider in editing for this band: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/The_Beatles Thanks, Wordreader (talk) 06:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Other Hit Songs

In one song, known as Bell Boy, was realeased in 1978 before Moon died. In this song, Moon sings the refrain:

Bell Boy, (I gotta get ready now) Bell Boy, (bite your lip, button down) Bell Boy, (Carry the bloody baggage out) Bell Boy, (always running at someones heels___________________) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyguyguy67 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Not sure what your point is. Anyway, it was released in 1973 on the Quadrophenia album. 72.43.153.30 (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Legacy and Influence

There's no need to add a laundry list of bands. I could probably go out this weekend find at least one garage band that likes the Who. It's not hard. So I would advise that this section is only expanded when there is an obvious acknowledgement from multiple high quality sources that the influence is an important one to mention in this article. Cheers. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I completely disagree with you deciding quotes from members of Pearl Jam, Rush, U2, Flaming Lips and such are inappropriate for this article. They are all properly referenced and they are all known to be hugely influenced by The Who. I don't know where you're getting the idea that we need multiple high quality sources for each quote. Certainly not from Wikipedia. One high quality source is all that's needed per quote. You have seen fit to include quotes by the Beatles and Oasis. You are not the arbiter of what is a worthy quote and what is not. Your territoriality is unwarranted. I've been editing this article for over a decade. I added those quotes years ago where they remained without objection until you. I'm putting them back. 72.43.153.30 (talk) 13:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to disagree all you like - the world would be a dull place if everyone agreed with each other, wouldn't it? :-)

Anyway, the changed quote is okay from my view, so that can remain. The principal reason for cutting out information in the past is that the article is 59K of prose, and our guidelines for article size state that "At 50 kB and above it may be beneficial to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries". The article is big and covers a lot of ground, and for anyone coming in who just wants to know a bit about the band, it's going to be a bit overwhelming for them. So the article was trimmed down from an earlier size when we had a potential featured article candidate (which ultimately did not pass, but the by-product of a FAC is to improve the article anyway) and done out of rough consensus of myself, Curly Turkey and SandyGeorgia, among others.

It doesn't have anything to do with importance, reliability of sourcing (I think most of them are what we'd normally consider reliable sources, but, in my view, when compared to Dave Marsh's book they're not the best possible ones), but we've just got a finite amount of acceptable article space, so some stuff has to go. Now, if the other major players in the article can put forward their view, we can reach an agreement, but until we do, I advise nobody changes the article without consensus, otherwise it runs the risk of being protected. Be cool. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The length of the article was one issue, but another was editorial: reading a long list of "and band X said 'the Who was awesome ', and band Y said 'I rilly like the Who' and band Z said ..." is just tedious. The Who has had such wide influence that such a list could easily come to dominate the article. RSes are a minimum requirement for inclusion in the article---they're not a licence to drown the article in boring quotes. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

But 72.43 is correct that the content was reliably sourced, which I think is where the confusion lies. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I know they were—nobody said they were removed over sourcing issues. With the sheer number of bands over the years that have claimed the Who as an influence we need some way to sum them up without overwhelming the article—that would be true even if there weren't size issues. I'm sure there are a number of different approaches to it, and I'm sure the "Legacy and influence" as it is could be improved. There's a logic to the current approach: begin with the earliest bands to have picked up the influence, and then move on through more generalities while highlighting bands for whom the Who were a key influence (like with Paul Weller). This could probably be tweaked forever, but it's important to be discriminate—I mean, if a band puts out a list of their top 20 favourite bands, and the Who is 19th, does that warrant throwing in this section, even if "reliable sourced"?

I agree the Vedder quote's a better one than Gallagher's—I hated that quote. I wouldn't be surprised if there are a lot better ones out there, though. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The "xxx" era

I don't like these section headings - as well as being factually misleading, they give the impression of the person named to be the group leader, which is not the case. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Please add THE HIGH NUMBERS

The band that the Who developed from was called THE HIGH NUMBERS. They played sped-up covers of classic 50s rock'n'roll and r'n'b in lesser known English clubs (sort of punk). This set music in US and Britain apart because most American bands got famous through TV and most British ones had achieved a reputation from playing live. This was when teens were shifting towards subculture. If you observe all the kids on the HIGH NUMBERS concert, most of them are drinking and smoking and making out. We studied the Who and the High Numbers in Pop Music class. Here's a video of the High Numbers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBendsEKJCY Never heard of the Detours!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphaharlot (talk • contribs) 08:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

-Alex--Alphaharlot (talk) 08:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

"Never heard of the Detours" - doesn't sound like your pop music class was that good; the information in the article comes from critically acclaimed book sources. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe that they were called the "High Numbers" while being managed by Peter Meadon. They had previously been the Detours, then very briefly, the Who. Meadon convinced them to change their name to "High Numbers" to appeal to mods. "Numbers" were a subgroup of mods, not to mention a slang term for marijuana (hence the pun "high" and "numbers"). The mods liked to smoke grass and pop pills. They fancied getting high regularly. When Kit Lambert became their manager, they went back to calling themselves The Who. I have a book at home (Maximum R&B) that discusses this. It is also mentioned in a DVD documentary. I can bring it to quote if you like. The editor that started this thread has a legitimate point. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

All of this is in the article already and sourced - what's your point? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 03:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the editor is likely looking at only the lead. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Just responding to the lead. But, I'm glad that the info has been included. Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Add "protopunk" to list of genres in info box?

Maybe we could add "protopunk" to the list of genres mentioned in the info box (after rock, hard rock, and power pop). That shouldn't be too much of a stretch, considering that this was the band that smashed their instruments and sang "My Generation" to hordes of angry mods. They were certainly a big influence on the thousands of garage bands that were here in the states during the 60s. In the mid-late 70s they influenced a lot of the groups associated with the punk movement, particularly in London. The Sex Pistols did a version of "Substitute." The Clash's "Clash City Rockers" and "Guns of the Roof" tip their hat to the Who and the Kinks. It probably shouldn't be hard to find sources to confirm what is obvious. What do you think? Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

If you've got two sources that state that verbatim, cite them and add the genre. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Given how big the band is, that's probably not too hard---I think two sources would be sufficient to mention it in the body, but not the infobox. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Quickest way to extinguish a joint

I'm not happy with these changes. I don't consider Spin to be as bad a source as The Sun or the Daily Mirror, for sure, but I just don't think we need a one off incident documented in quite so much detail, unless there are other sources that document similar incidents elsewhere (eg: like Tinnitus). The video has also been removed. So I think per WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:RECENTISM we should leave this out. However, I'm open to persuation. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I say ditch it. I was at that concert. Odd moment, but not notable enough. 72.43.153.30 (talk) 01:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Band members

I have semi-protected the article for three days as an IP insists on removing the comment "The Who's personnel page does not list members of the Detours as members of "the Who". Unless this is changed, Colin Dawson, Scot Halpin and Gabby Connolly should not be included here" and adding those members anyway, with no edit summary or discussion here. What does everyone else think? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I think WP:V requires the IP to provide a source showing that those members were in fact part of the Who, especially if the band does not acknowledge them as members on their web page. Additionally, it would help the IP's cause to explain here why they should be added—and see if consensus can be generated toward adding them. —C.Fred (talk) 13:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I've got several sources, not least two biographies used extensively in the article, that says they were never were part of The Who, merely members of an earlier group. We don't include any members of the Beachcomers in the infobox, including the four that regularly played alongside Moon for some years before he switched to the Who, after all. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

As the IP is continuing to edit war, I have now semi-protected the article for a week and rolled it back to the version discussed above. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Maximum R&B

Is there any reason Maximum R&B isn't listed under the genre section for the band? Feels appropriate to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.212.95.208 (talk) 17:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Who. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.petetownshend.co.uk/diary/display.cfm?id=459&zone=diary

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Who. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/petetownshend/articles/story/9306658/the_rolling_stone_interview_pete_townshend

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Hendrix

72.43.153.30 (talk · contribs) - you wrote "I don't care what Fletcher says". You should care, as his biography used in the article is not just a reliable source, but a critically acclaimed one with a solid reputation for factual accuracy, so it's what we tend towards to verify information. If you have a better source, please list it here and we'll look into it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, also I had a quick chat with Drmies about the Marshall stuff, and consensus between us was it could go as it's mentioned elsewhere. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oh, is that the editor? Well, they reverted, reinstating the poor sourcing, but I see now that RS is a challenge. I'd love to see a picture of all four members of The Who windmilling at the same time. Thanks Ritchie, Drmies (talk) 14:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

On the same lines, I've taken out "guitar smash" as I only know of one documented instance of Entwistle destroying a bass backstage c. 1971, I have never seen a source showing Daltrey smashing a guitar, and Moon kicking his kit over was generally repairable. If you want one band where everybody trashed everything, I'd probably plump for Nirvana. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

It still hurts to see stuff like that. Do you know your John Hyatt? ? And is that a Jazz Chorus in the backline? I don't think anyone has ever smashed one of those. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Please heed WP:BEANS. Willondon (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Hah! He'll never get that guitar back in tune having pointlessly detuned the E string like that. Silly boy. Now the paradox with Townshend is despite all that guitar trashing, his Gibson J-200 acoustic (as heard on the intro to "Pinball Wizard") has stayed in active service for decades. I have only ever smashed a guitar once, accidentally, when I leaned my Takamine acoustic up against a chair and it fell off, smashing in two at the headstock as it hit the ground. I got it repaired. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to change photo in "The Who Hits 50!" section

I propose to change the photo in the article section "The Who Hits 50!" with the following photo. It more in focus, of a higher resolution, and shows more of the performer's faces.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Who,_Oakland,_CA,_May_2016.jpg Davidwbaker (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. Don't forget you can be bold and do this change yourself. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I similar change was reverted on the Roger Daltrey page because I failed to first seek input from others via Talk. --Davidwbaker (talk) 01:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2016

The Who influenced bands such as Rush and Red Hot Chili Peppers and Kiss, also kurt cobain from nirvana said he liked the band

2601:342:0:8F5A:F4F6:9FB0:E3B6:B46C (talk) 05:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Omni Flames (talk) 06:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Omni Flames (talk) could you change legacy and influence part with the sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:342:0:8F5A:84A5:EAA8:B785:16A2 (talk) 15:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

This IP is, of course, a sock of Никита-Родин-2002. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion about use of flatlist in infobox

There is currently a discussion at Template talk:Infobox musical artist about whether some infobox parameters should be assigned to the hlist class. All this would do is remove the inconvenience of having to use {{hlist}}/{{flatlist}} on all artist pages.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2016

In the section Lifehouse and who's next change the Certification level from 6x platinum to 3x platinum as Who's Next was certified 3x platinum in the U.S 2600:1006:B120:E2D4:9C93:253E:749D:9CCC (talk) 02:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Done Thank you. I used the other url listed here. Mlpearc (open channel) 02:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Now Qwertyyiopoiuytrewq has changed it to 4x. I can never remember which is right and going back and checking the source every time is laborious. Which is it? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Caps

@2.97.162.43: please don't change "the Beatles" to "The Beatles". That argument really has been done to death and we have heard it all. See Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/The Beatles. Sorry. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

What is the "full" Tommy?

In November 2016, The Who announced that 5 UK dates the following April (previously scheduled for that August and September), would include a full live performance of Tommy. The Who have never played the whole of Tommy live, specifically the "Underture" has never been played live - ever. So is this really the "full" Tommy or just what a not-so-reliable source thinks it is? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject proposal: Psychedelic music

If interested, please offer support for a WikiProject focused on psychedelic music.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 01:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

ECP

Just an explanatory note. I put the article under ECP due to sock puppetry by Никита-Родин-2002 (talk · contribs). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Никита-Родин-2002. If someone wants to change it, that's fine with me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2017

RogellParadox (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

New bass guitar player

RogellParadox (talk) 17:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Pino Palladino is not a touring member anymore. It's possible to see in this live video, Pete himself introduces a new bass player, called Jon Button.

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPD2fVnxZD8

Jon's page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Button

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- Dane ^talk 03:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, how about official Who page? https://www.thewho.com/history/current-touring-band/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by RogellParadox (talk • contribs) 16:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 July 2017

THERE IS A MAJOR ERROR IN THE 'MY GENERATION' SECTION. IT SAYS THE LP WAS NOT RE-ISSUED UNTIL 2002. THIS IS BLATANTLY NOT TRUE! VIRGIN RE-ISSUED IT IN 1979 WITH THE SAME COVER - AND IT IS THE COMMON VERSION OF LP AND SOLD EVERY DAY ON EBAY!!!! 81.99.234.30 (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Timeline

What on earth is the point of having a timeline, with such few entries? Stick to facts and prose. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I"d expect to see one for such a long-running group, to be honest. There's timelines at FAs like The Beatles and The Kinks. (Although I did just check Pink Floyd and found there's been some back and forth on that one). And is there not also a case for including Zak Starkey in the members section in some way? If he's "peformed and recorded with The Who since 1996" as his article says, is he not a member of the band for all intents and purposes?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

He was there until about two days ago, when an editor unilaterally removed all the touring members from the list. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I missed that, due to their failure to mention it in the edit summary. I've restored - this is necessary information, timeline or no timeline.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

A timeline with all the musicians, official and touring, would make more sense, certainly. Might we include session players like Nicky Hopkins and Chris Stainton who played piano in the studio? Unlike the Beatles and Stones, the Who seldom used outside musicians, preferring to just play everything themselves, so it's not a big list. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes it would definitely make the post Kenney Jones era easier to follow, and is more useful than the original attempt. I would include Hopkins and Stainton.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Kennedy Center Honors

Far too notable an achievement to have been excised from this article. I'd add it back myself, but the protection status of this article is too severe for me to do that. What prompted it? Clashwho (talk) 18:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on The Who. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121212210841/http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/49292974/ns/today-books/t/who-i-am-rock-icon-pete-townshend-tells-his-story/ to http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/49292974/ns/today-books/t/who-i-am-rock-icon-pete-townshend-tells-his-story/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081229191111/http://www.kennedy-center.org/calendar/index.cfm?fuseaction=showIndividual&entity_id=20531&source_type=A to http://www.kennedy-center.org/calendar/index.cfm?fuseaction=showIndividual&entity_id=20531&source_type=A
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151010234756/http://entertainment.suntimes.com/movies/lambert-stamp-spotlight-shifts-two-made/ to http://entertainment.suntimes.com/movies/lambert-stamp-spotlight-shifts-two-made/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120202085800/http://www.brits.co.uk/artist/the-who to http://www.brits.co.uk/artist/the-who
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131224133639/http://www.kennedy-center.org/explorer/artists/?entity_id=20531&source_type=A to http://www.kennedy-center.org/explorer/artists/?entity_id=20531&source_type=A
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150315065515/http://thewho.com/history/current-touring-band/ to http://thewho.com/history/current-touring-band/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 December 2017

Under Discography/Studio Albums, please change:

• Who Are You (1978)

to

• Who Are You (1978)

The song appears on the album, but has been incorrectly linked due to both album and song having the same title.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Are_You Chadbirch (talk) 06:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Done Thank-you for pointing that out! regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 06:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Recommended edit of section 1978-1983

The sentence starting "Drummer Phil Collins...", the phrase "but Townshend had already asked Jones". Jones refers back to much earlier text. I recommend the full name with tag be used, e.g. Kenney Jones. (There's a lotta guys named Jones). DaveDixon (talk) 03:43, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Done Sorry about the long wait. Clashwho (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)