Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Led Zeppelin/Archive 1

Heavy Metal?

Anyone else agree that Led Zeppelin should not be classified as Heavy Metal?

• Led Zeppelin is strictly not heavy metal as per comparisons during that era with Black Sabbath and Blue Cheer, for example. You usually can tell when someone knows about the music if they call it heavy metal or not. MegX (talk) 00:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hear hear, Led Zeppelin is not heavy metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marvelous marvin (talk • contribs) 00:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Personal opinions aren't required on Wikipedia. Just cited text. And Led Zeppelin being heavy metal... one of the first heavy metal bands at that... is well referenced. 156.34.226.197 (talk) 12:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

But led zep aren't heavy metal, they were blues rock orientated like the cream or the who, deep purple are heavy metal, and led zeppelin is the softest out of all of them.DangerTM (talk) 07:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I respect what you're saying User:156, but read what Plant and Page have stated publicly previously on this issue. Only a small fraction of what they recorded or performed could be classed as strictly "heavy metal" per se. Sure, they have been labelled as such by some in the media, but to brand them simply as a heavy metal band misses what they were trying to create as a whole. Whether you wish to call them heavy or not is subjective. I'm not going to get involved in any dispute over it. There is already enough vandalism on Wikipedia to worry about having to spend time over this issue. MegX (talk) 08:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

YES Zeppelin is good but not metal not even for the 70's they're more like hard rock or blues rock its not like we can convince the whole world their not metal but on their page metal should be removed from the genre section.--AWESOMENESNES (talk) 18:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Concert tour pages and reliable reference materials

Hi all. At the moment I am concentrating on filling out the various Led Zeppelin concert tour pages. Long-term, I intend to bolster existing pages with reliable references, namely sourced from:

• Dave Lewis (2003), Led Zeppelin: Celebration II: The 'Tight But Loose' Files, London: Omnibus Press. ISBN 1-84449-056-4.
• Dave Lewis and Simon Pallett (1997) Led Zeppelin: The Concert File, London: Omnibus Press. ISBN 0-7119-5307-4.
• Dave Lewis (2004) The Complete Guide to the Music of Led Zeppelin, London: Omnibus Press, ISBN 0-7119-3528-9.
• Chris Welch (2002), Peter Grant: The Man Who Led Zeppelin, London: Omnibus Press. ISBN 0-7119-9195-2.
• Q Magazine Special Led Zeppelin edition, 2003.

Regards Edelmand (talk) 03:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Tagging and Assessing Article Quality

Editors, I'm going to start tagging all Led Zeppelin-related articles shortly for quality assessment. Should get the majority of it done by Christmas. MegX (talk) 04:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Additional online resource materials on Led Zeppelin

The following site contains a listing of interviews with members of Led Zeppelin, with hyperlinks provided to the full interviews. This is a potential goldmine of information which could be incorporated into various Led Zeppelin wikipedia articles:

http://www.led-zeppelin.org/reference/index.php?m=interviews

Edelmand (talk) 05:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks Edelman. Have you read Led Zeppelin: The Press Reports by Robert Godwin? It has some useful review information that might come in handy for the individual tour articles. I've made a start on a comprehensive list of "Led Zeppelin in Literature". It's a massive project but thankfully there are a number of resources on the internet and the public libraries that can help out. MegX (talk) 04:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I hadn't heard of that publication thanks MegX. I'll see if I can track down a copy. Edelmand (talk) 11:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Model ourselves on the Smashing Pumpkins WikiProject?

Hey everybody, I really think we should model ourselves on Wikipedia:WikiProject The Smashing Pumpkins. It has a really neat and simple interface, and everything we need would be at arm's reach on the main project page itself. Also, the number of different categories needn't include concert tours, bootlegs etc, just three would suffice Category:Led Zeppelin, Category:Led Zeppelin songs and Category:Led Zeppelin albums.

As of now our project page is really complex; I mean what is the infobox to the right meant for anyway? The infobox simply seems to complicate matters further. Also, I made a new article template which I think looks better than the old one. Indopug (talk) 16:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

	This article is part of the Led Zeppelin WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Led Zeppelin. If you would like to participate please visit the project page. Any questions pertaining to Led Zeppelin-related articles should be directed to the project's talk page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

• Do we need to clone ourself from another band? Their project page looks exactly like the Led Zeppelin portal page at Portal:Led Zeppelin. If we did it like Smashing Pumpkins it would be merely duplicating the existing portal page layout. I'm all for including as much information as possible rather than excluding it. Also the navigation box is for Talk pages within the WikiProject only. I mention that on the template page. MegX (talk) 00:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Indopug. This page is too long and complicated. Keep it simple. Edelmand (talk) 11:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a Talk page, all it needs is an archive at the end of this month. MegX (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration

Hoping new editors will join after the New Years so what should be our first collaboration project? MegX (talk) 00:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin.... Indopug (talk) 08:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Okies... we need to work out who is doing what so we don't accidently delete each others work. Suggestions? MegX (talk) 00:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Jason Bonham

I've noticed in all Zeppelin articles the I have seen, that Jason Bonham is always written as filling in on drums. I believe that he should at least be given credit as an artist in his own right and be "playing drums". Thoughts?TauntingElf (talk) 07:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think "filling in" implies that he isn't a member of the band; which is true. indopug (talk) 09:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That's like saying Ringo Starr is filling in for Pete Best. Bands move on. If the band is playing under the name "Led Zeppelin" with Jason Bonham. Jason Bonham is a member of the band. Ron Wood is considered a member of the Rolling Stones, and he wasn't there during their golden era. I don't see how it would be any different with Jason Bonham. MegX (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, now that Jason Bonham's role as drummer is cemented (hes played a few small gigs with the rest of the band in addition to the most recent show) and now with Zeppelin thinking about playing together a bit more regularly he should be given credit as a member of the band. I would really like to hear about his performance recently to hear if other members of the band feel he fills his father's shoes. If you read his wikipage Jason Bonham it shows statements by band members that he fulfills the role of drummer quite well.TauntingElf (talk) 05:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Unlike Ron Wood and Pete Best, Zep won't record any new material with Jason. He's part of the band as a touring drummer, and touring musicians aren't members of the band. Of course, I'll change my stance if Page actually says that he considers Jason a member of the band. indopug (talk) 07:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The main Zep page has this statement, with citation, "Page has suggested the band may start work on new material." which would lead me to believe that Bonham would also play drums in the studio. He has support of at least John Paul Jones (see Jason Bonham). I would like to know where "won't record any new material" came from. TauntingElf (talk) 06:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If and when they record new material, and release it as Led Zeppelin, we'll add him :) By that bolded statement, I meant that on wikipedia, we generally call somebody a full member only when they record material. For example, Kurt Cobain announced that Pat Smear was a full member of Nirvana; however, since Cobain died, and Nirvana disbanded, before Nirvana record any new material with Smear, on Wikipedia he is not listed one of the main members. indopug (talk) 09:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

That logic works, I was just curious about that statement. So once we hear about them recording in the studio we can change it. That works for me.TauntingElf (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe closer than we think. Received a compilation email of news stories a few hours ago which suggest the imminent annoucement of a Europe and US tour by Led Zeppelin and a new studio album to coincide. Promoters have already confirmed two dates in the UK so far for 2008. Madison Square Gardens is the first US venue. I've been skeptical in the past of a full-blown Led Zeppelin tour happening, but it seems that it may finally happen. MegX (talk) 02:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

In all honesty, I hope they don't record a new album. I think of the Zep as 4 incredible musicians who made 8 perfect records. *Sigh* indopug (talk) 19:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The Old Man Carrying His Sticks

---

About this painting

- I think, it's too subjective, to say, Page liked the painting because it reminded him of his studies, something about hermetics. -

If you put the painting itself in context, its just a picture of an old bum

--

Your assertions, are quite subjective

you give me the impression, that page thinks it's cool to eat people

that's the impression you give me, with your comments on the painting

-

does Page eat people? I never heard or read that

- It's so loose of you, I just thought, you'd rather, emphasize their contributions to art, and, not frustrate things

.

If opinions are allowed to stay on wiki. then, I would argue

Page has said, he was not present when the painting was bought.

so, no cannibalism was in mind, when it was purchased.

but, if you say, it was.. then you are implying that Plant, had Page in mind when he bought it?

is that fair to imply these things? no it's not. Marvelous marvin —Preceding comment was added at 00:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, what? indopug (talk) 03:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hard to follow, but page was a vegetarian. DangerTM (talk) 10:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 20:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Led Zeppelin

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering if MegX's comments here represent the consensus of this project? I believe that it would be a real shame if we had a general collection of 30,000 articles that completely omitted all articles on Led Zep. Is there perhaps one (fairly recent) VersionID of Led Zeppelin you could point to that is usable, and free from defamatory comments? Could this project make an effort to get a usable version before October 20, even if the online version is vandalised shortly afterwards? Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Despite many efforts, not a single article so far has even been agreed to as A-class standard by anyone. So anything that does get printed is not good quality by Wikipedia standards. MegX (talk) 02:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with MegX. I don't think any of the articles in the project have reached the level of a good quality article. HelenWatt (talk) 06:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

For a topic as important as the article Led Zeppelin, even a Start-Class article would make it into the selection; as a B, the article breezes onto the DVD. The normal quality threshold is B-Class, not A, so this project has several that are suitable. For the biography project, "Led Zeppelin" scores 1695, and for the Rock Music project it scores 1810 - that's higher than some African nations! So we can't realistically omit the main article. it's probably in our 10% most important. Even the members of Led Zeppelin get very high rankings, but we might be able to make the case for omitting those if this group feels strongly that they don't deserve the B-Class tags. Can nothing be done to fix the problems? Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 03:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia should cover all nations, so I don't understand why a band would be considered more important than a sovereign entity. I agree with the above posters, the articles on Led Zeppelin simply aren't that high a quality to warrant inclusion. ZhaoHong (talk) 22:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep an eye out

Multiple IPs (one user) are attempting simple wp:engvar vandalism on several Led Z related pages. Worth double checking previous edits before adding anything new. The Real Libs-speak politely 22:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific on the IP addresses? I know of three - one from New York, one from London, and another in Canada, who consistently vandalise. MegX (talk) 00:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Heavens!!! Not a Canadian vandal! There is no such thing :D . The IP range I've spotted recently is a floater. It also goes after Deep Purple and Black Sabbath as well. They really have it out for WP:ENGVAR. The Real Libs-speak politely 02:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Opinions on changing a Led Zeppelin album article

An editor wishes to change the LZ debut album from "Hard rock, heavy metal, blues-rock, folk rock" to just plain "Rock". Not a bad idea if it were done to every single "Rock" album on Wikipedia. But I question targeting this one album (which has elements of the four different genres listed first) and not going after all the other albums (either from LZ or from anyone else) If this is a guideline or rule implemented by WPP:MUSIC that all articles do this then great. I've been pushing to, either do that or, remove the genre field completely (which was the best change ever attempted here in years) All LZ albums cover several styles. If they all said rock.... perfect... but every rock artist should have to follow that rule... not just Led Zeppelin. And certainly not for just this one album. Wesley the stealth genre warrior Dodds is creating a new proposal for stricter genre guidelines. Do we wait and see what it says. Or does the LZ project go ahead and do what should have been done four years ago on Wiki and start distinguishing "genre" from "style"? The Real Libs-speak politely 17:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Almost impossible to classify a band like Led Zeppelin. They played everything from reggae, to funk, to folk. Their debut album is probably the most blues-rock oriented though, then you come across a folk song like Black Mountain Side... It easier for other bands though. AC/DC virtually play the same song over again with a different title, same with punk bands. MegX (talk) 22:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I actually preferred that the debut album's genre by just "Heavy metal". While the Zep certainly incorporated a lot of styles--blues, folk, funk--that would not make them, say, a folk rock band. What they are is a heavy metal band (who played a variety of styles), and their debut is often considered to be one of the first heavy metal albums. In a similar example, although there are a couple of reggae tunes on it, London Calling shouldn't have reggae in its genre field.

If Heavy metal isn't agreed upon, the overarching "Rock" is sufficient as four genres (not all appropriate ones either) are too many. As for changing every rock band/album's infobox to rock, I don't see the logic of that. Why should either Sex Pistols or Nevermind the Bollocks have "Rock" when "Punk rock" is perfectly apt? indopug (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I made no mention of wanting the Sex Pistols to be called "rock". MegX (talk) 04:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Iwas replying to Wiki libs' "If they all said rock.... perfect... but every rock artist should have to follow that rule" . . . that doesn't make much sense.

WD's new draft for guidelines allow for both parentage and subs if it is a valid description of the album style. And this particular album is the foundation for all hard rock and heavy metal albums that followed... but also oozes blues-rock equally.If anything... folk rock is probably the weakest style shown on the disc since it really only applies to portions of 2 tracks. I, personally, think the field should have stayed deleted. But if it stays it should be accurate. In either case I just question targeting this one album of LZ... and not their other albums (which all contain similar/accurate representations of the music styles contained on each) and not mass targeting The Grateful Dead and The Rolling Stones and Thin Lizzy... Motorhead... etc, etc etc. Why this one album? The Real Libs-speak politely 15:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I assume because he's interested in editing/reading about this particular article, and not those ones. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

So I guess "rock" is fine then? And I'm not a "genre warrior" (as in I don't generally fight over genres) or whatever; I've been meaning to whip this album into GA-standard for a while now (I wrote most of the Background and Album cover sections, a while back), and I'm just fixing the easily fixable details. Besides, its better to handle genres on a case-by-case rather than a one-size-fits-all. indopug (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

A banter between 2 doesn't really reveal too much of a consensus. Their is a consistency through all of Led Zeppelin's album pages showing a format that matches between the band's main page and the albums actual style(s). And these layouts are long standing and have never been altered by any of the regular members of this project. So their muct be an agreement to have them laid out as they are. Either change them all or change none. And all LZ pages become rock... then all Pearl Jam, all Thin Lizzy, all CCR, all Soundgarden... etc, etc, etc would have to become "just rock" as well. The Real Libs-speak politely 17:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Historically the album has included the four genres that are on the page for a very long time. I believe that having four genres listed is too many and that only the first three should remain in the article. I believe that the folk rock link should be removed and that hard rock, heavy metal and blues-rock should stay in the infobox genre field. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 21:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Not so sure. I believe if you're going to limit the catagories to three it should be hard rock, blues rock, folk rock. IMO there is no heavy metal per se on the album. Even the heaviest track "Communication Breakdown" cannot be called heavy metal, in the sense of the word. MegX (talk) 01:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin is considered one of the first pivotal metal albums. It's actually the genre most associated with it. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I consider Black Sabbath's debut album the first heavy metal album and that didn't come out til 1970. This position has also been taken up with a number of authors in recent years. Many no longer include Led Zeppelin in their listings eg. 2007's Metal: The Definitive Guide by Garry Sharpe-Young, has no Led Zeppelin to be found anywhere. In his preface to the book, Sharpe-Young states that "within the meaning we now know today as heavy metal, the music of Led Zeppelin can no longer be considered as such." I note your posiition on this seems to label "Led Zeppelin" only rock and delete the others eg. [1]. If the decision is to give albums only one label, I am quite happy with it being "rock". 01:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a common misconception that metal started with Black Sabbath. Read Heavy metal music; the likes of Jeff Beck Group, Blue Cheer, and yes, Led Zeppelin all preceeded Sabbath. Also, Sharpe-Young isn't the sole source on the genre; the consensus among various sources published over the decades is that Led Zeppelin is a heavy metal band. I'm fine with just listing "rock" in this album infobox, but to say it isn't a heavy metal album is simply ludicrous. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not a common misconception. Led Zeppelin is no longer considered a heavy metal band, today, not the 1970s. I don't reference wikipedia articles because they are not written by experts. I named but one author, there are others. Would you also care to explain why you believe "less is more" than you go and do this type of edit where you've added an extra category to a Cure? [2] It's thinks like this that make me question why this is being done in the first place to this specific article. MegX (talk) 02:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

As someone who did quite a bit of research when working with others on the heavy metal article, I can confidently say that Led Zeppelin is still considered a metal band. Many sources that don't are often poorly researched in the first place. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

As someone who has written about Led Zeppelin, and a member of this WikiProject, as opposed to you, I believe you are wrong. Better stick to your alternative music articles Dodds and leave this one to people who know what they're talking about. MegX (talk) 05:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Please be more civil in your replies. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Debating what genre fits the album is better suited for the album's talk page. I think the phrase "Led Zeppelin is no longer considered a heavy metal band" should be "Led Zeppelin is no longer considered a heavy metal band by young people who were alive when the band existed" I can recall like it was yesterday when that first LZ album came out. It was heavy metal. Stephen Thomas Erlewine describes them as the definitive heavy metal band and that their first album was the turning poin t in the evolution of heavy metal. Rolling Stone describes them as the most important heavy metal band of all time.... but I digress. My main concern was the targeting of just this one album and no other albums (either by LZ or anyone else) Why break up the consistency in the LZ album formats flows and styles??? It just didn't make any sense? If we want to label them all Rock then great... I will start with Pearl Jam and Alice and Chains and Smashing Pumpkins.... they are all just rock bands too. I hate overkill... but not at the expense of accuracy. It has been pointed out that folk rock is the odd duck in the list of four that are on the album. Hard rock is a given. Heavy metal and blues-rock fill in the gaps. The folk bits are there... but not so much. Psychedelic rock could hold as much water as folk rock. But neither are as up top as the others mentioned. The Real Libs-speak politely 02:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You're forgetting one thing. Wikipedia is not a time capsule. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. The English language evolves over time, words and meanings change. The same thing goes for "heavy metal". I am old enough to remember when Led Zeppelin's first album came out. To me "heavy metal" was a journalists lazy excuse to put bands into one box (like describing music as being "hip") rather than describing the music. It should be noted that even back then people, including journalists, were unsure where and when the term came from and what it actually meant. As for "My main concern was the targeting of just this one album and no other albums" that's pretty obvious - Led Zeppelin is not an alternative or punk band. MegX (talk) 03:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you've gone off on a bit of a tangent. "Led Zeppelin is not an alternative or punk band". Well . . . yeah, they're not. And? WesleyDodds (talk) 04:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

If they were they would not be singled out for these edits. As Wiki libs has stated: Why was this album targeted but not others? As I said earlier: Why was a genre restored to the Cure but you want to take it away from here? MegX (talk) 04:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

"If they were they would not be singled out for these edits". You are accusing me of something that is completely false. the subject's genre has nothing to do with it. In the case of a band article, it's better to be more comprehensive when listing genres in the infobox. With albums, short and simple is the best way to go. That's my rationale. And honestly, I like Led Zeppelin more than I like The Cure anyway. Please read WP:AGF. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I refer back to the comments by Wiki Libs, not mine: "Why was this album targeted but not others?" MegX (talk) 22:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is "targeting" anything. Like I said before, I'm interested in bringing this article to GA status (eventually), so I'm editing it and IMO trying to make it better. indopug (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

? Getting the actual Led Zeppelin article up to a GA would be a much more appreciated effort in the grand scheme of things... although this album, being pretty much the first heavy metal album, would be an ideal follow-up after getting the main LZ page beyond where it is right now.... perpetually doomed to "Wiki-spin" All of their pages are both "fanboy" targets and vandal targets. The main LZ page is a failed FA and a GA attempt has not been done since March of '07. I don't think a GA push for the LZ (album) page has ever been discussed by the WikiProject-Led Zeppelin... as far as I can tell. I would be curious to hear the opinion of Edelmand, who has been the primary editor of all things Led Zeppy for quite a long while. The Real Libs-speak politely 15:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, getting the ban article to G/FA status is well beyond my means as of now; it simply requires too much effort. Led Zeppelin I, though, is quite possible, and I do have access to a couple of sources (Hammer of the Gods and the first chapter of Complete Music of Led Zep available on GoogleBooks), not to mention countless magazine article reprints on the net. So, in the next few months, yeah I'll probably give it a good go. indopug (talk) 15:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the whole "Hammer of the Gods" as an RS has been pretty much beat to death (Mex X can probably speak to that one in more detail) Anything in HotG is to be taken with a LARGE grain of salt and should have a second source to back up what it written in that book. As a dependable reference, Hammer of the Gods is more "National Enquirer" sewer level than trustworthy "Encyclopedia" level. That is as concrete a consensus as there is when it comes to LZ related pages. Hammer of the Gods... only as a desperate last resort. The Real Libs-speak politely 15:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe anything can be achieved by deleting sections of the existing Led Zeppelin and Led Zeppelin (album) articles. Compared to many Led Zeppelin biographies, what's written now is bare bones as is. The vandalism and "fanboy" material usually gets reverted anyway. If anything the tone of these articles are bordering on a negative-to-neutral POV as is. Hammer of the Gods, like any source, has it's place but it's biggest drawback is that it comes from a sensationalist angle, so the facts are skewed in favour of selling the book. Davis also relied on a lot of hearsay from Richard Cole as his source of information, and Cole by his own admission, was the perpetrator of many of the incidents blamed on the band. The best balanced biographical account I've come across is Keith Shadwick's Led Zeppelin: The Story of a Band and Their Music 1968-1980 (ISBN 0-87930-871-0). Other useful books include sociologist Susan Fast's In the Houses of the Holy: Led Zeppelin and the Power of Rock Music (ISBN 0-19-514723-5), and Dave Lewis and Simon Pallett's Led Zeppelin: The Concert File (ISBN 1-84449-659-7). MegX (talk) 23:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Friends Tuning

Hello, after checking some tabs on the net and having discussed with friends about the song's tuning I realised the tuning used by Jimmy Page is surely not an Open C6 (CACGCE), but just Open C(CGCGCE). Though I can't currently play the song with a guitar to check if I'm wrong.

If someone could check for me on a more accurate source than just my ear and the internet's tablatures it would be great.

As soon as I can try these tunings out on my guitar I will re-edit, but it might take a while.

Thanks for contributing to wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manux (talk • contribs) 03:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Did Richard Feynman play on "Fool in the Rain"?

See the discussion at Talk:Fool in the Rain#Surely you're joking!. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 20:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

No, he did not. MegX (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Too many quotes

There are far too many quotes in the Led Zeppelin articles. A bit more substance and explanation to the articles would be appreciated rather than simply adding quotes from books. HelenWatt (talk) 03:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)