Talk:The Who

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Who article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 31 days

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

The Who has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones Date Process Result January 3, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed January 27, 2007 Peer review Reviewed February 22, 2009 Good article nominee Not listed September 30, 2013 Good article nominee Listed October 14, 2014 Peer review Reviewed January 6, 2015 Featured article candidate Not promoted A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 23, 2005. Current status: Good article

This  level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Rock music Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Biography: Musicians This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Top-importance). England Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. London Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Pop music Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The opening summary of this article states the band has sold over 100 million records worldwide and are among the best-selling music artists of all time. The Wikipedia article on the best-selling music artists of all time, however, does not mention The Who, even in its 75-100 million categories.

I'm not qualified to say which is correct, but there's a very clear inconsistency here I hope someone can resolve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Birnam (talk • contribs) 19:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is referenced to The Independent, a scrupulously reliable source. The Wikipedia list you cite is not necessarily reliable, and I would pay it no mind. --Jayron32 20:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr Birnam: You may wish to post your request on Talk:List of best-selling music artists, along with the reliable sources. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 14:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the image in the infobox shrunken? 207.190.177.171 (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About four days ago (as I'm writing this), the Who announced a super deluxe box set related to the Lifehouse sessions, spanning 155 tracks across 10 discs, along with a Blu-ray disc, a 100-page hardcover book, and a 170-page graphic novel that's developed for at least four years now. I'm attempting to sort these sources out and I'm wondering how much should be included in the articles for the Who, Lifehouse (rock opera), and Who's Next. The box set is estimated to be released in September 15.

https://www.thewho.com/the-who-announce-super-deluxe-multi-format-release-for-whos-next-life-house/

https://variety.com/2023/music/news/the-who-whos-next-boxed-set-11-discs-atmos-1235672925/

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/the-who-whos-next-life-house-deluxe-edition-annoucement-1234790099/ Carlinal (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pawnkingthree: Reviving an old discussion: Talk:The_Who/Archive_4#The_Who_versus_the_Who.

I'm fairly new to this. The problem here is the need for consistency. If we do it one way for one thing (New York Times versus The New York Times), then it must be done always that way no matter what for everything. Even when it looks completely out of line with almost every other source in the world (just about).

I can understand the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc.. I can not understand the Who. It makes no sense. It looks completely bonkers. Yet, some editors maintain we must go all in, and do it for everything because of the MOS and consistency. Language doesn't work that way - it's often chaotic, illogical and not consistent. Whatever the rule is on this, it should be based on most common usage, and ultimately consensus. MOS is a guideline not a rule, and we are free to change the guideline on a case by case basis. There will be exceptions to any guideline, this should be one. Any proper noun two words long and starts with "The" is a good candidate for an exception. -- GreenC 22:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Language may be chaotic, illogical and inconsistent, but that doesn't mean an encyclopedia should be. There's nothing wrong with having a style guide.

MOS:THEBAND states that all bands should drop the capitalization mid-sentence. I don't quite see how two words in a band name versus three or four makes any difference. Of course the MOS is a guideline subject to the occasional exception but there must be a good reason for the exception. I get that you think it looks completely bonkers - I was on the side of The Beatles rather than the Beatles during that battle over a decade ago - but ultimately it was decided that common usage and consensus favoured the lower case. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't see how spelling it The Who is "chaotic", it's actually normal. We use most common usage all over Wikipedia, in many ways. Except with this. It's an aberration. Inconsistent.

Washington Post

.

Then there is this:

the Washington Post. An italic lower-case the is bizarre and jarring, nobody does that. But that's the logic. That one RfC doesn't address these issues with blue linking because I think if it did it would run into its own logical inconsistencies and complications ie. the rule for proper nouns that are italic, we don't blue link "the", but for proper nouns that are not italic, we blue link "the". -- GreenC 02:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I honestly don't see any difference between "the Who" and "the Beatles." I would say "a Who record" just as I would say "a Beatles record". I would say "a record by the Who" just as I would say "a record by the Beatles." Genuinely not getting the distinction, sorry. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you respond to what I wrote in the second paragraph? You see nothing with with "a record by the Who", is that correct? -- GreenC 17:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. I don't understand the distinction you are making between newspapers and bands. Newspapers such as the Times seem to come under the general

MOS:THECAPS, notes there are "special considerations" around certain topics such as bands. Perhaps someone else more knowledgeable about the MOS can chime in because I'm clearly not grasping your points. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Because we normally blue link proper nouns, and proper nouns are normally capitalized. If you say "the

New York Times" and not "the New York Times. See the difference? It's the same logic with The Who. The italics of newspapers makes it more clear what the point is. It's strangely bizarre to blue-link a leading lower-case "the" in a proper noun. -- GreenC 05:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]