Talk:Ramones

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleRamones 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.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 18, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 13, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
September 29, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
October 26, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
April 17, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
December 13, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
November 7, 2009Good article nomineeListed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on April 23, 2023, and April 23, 2024.
Current status: Good article

Richie Stern[edit]

https://books.google.ca/books?id=dBZlyEn5H1gC&pg=PT47&dq=richie+stern&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjGmcu_3pbXAhVm34MKHWFaDi4Q6AEILjAB#v=onepage&q=richie%20stern&f=false http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/6157546/tommy-ramone-legs-mcneil

The article currently says that Dee Dee played both guitar and bass in their early history. According to these sources, Dee Dee and Johnny both wanted to play guitar, and their friend Richie Stern was supposed to be the bassist. When it became clear that he could not play bass, Dee Dee became the bassist and Johnny the only guitarist. The current wording implies that Dee Dee played both guitar and bass at the same time. Should this detail be added into the article? --DeathTrain (talk) 10:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ramones. 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:

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) 02:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ramones. 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:

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) 22:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Genre[edit]

Newsflash! The Ramones were a punk rock band. There was a discussion on this talk page about adding "pop punk", I rebutted the editor, was never refuted, and suddenly the talk history is deleted and phantom genres have been added. Basically, although other bands playing Ramones-style punk can accurately be labeled pop-punk, it is inane to label the band who put out the first punk rock album (and never significantly modified their sound) as such. They pretty much created punk. The modifier "Pop" punk suggests punk was already a thing, and the Ramones played a more "pop" oriented version of it. They didn't, they defined punk. Calling the Ramones "pop punk" is like calling Black Sabbath "doom metal" or callintg the Beatles "Britpop". Show me your sources! The ones that were on the old talk page I've already debunked, and was never rebutted. And "Power Pop"? Give me a fuckin' break :) Keithramone33 (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page history is always available by clicking the tab at the top of the page. The earlier discussion was not deleted, it was archived and is available by searching the archives linked in the box above. - SummerPhDv2.0 23:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, but it was removed from current discussions, and the points that it established were ignored (ie- "pop punk" and "power pop" were added... and RESTORED after this last post! Despite never being addressed.) What is the justification, from credible sources, for saying the Ramones' music belongs to those genres? Tell me that, before restoring them again.Keithramone33 (talk) 11:42, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They indicate the sources in particular here.--Jimi Henderson (talk) 12:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For now I've removed "power pop". The Holmstrom source is fine for the article but not the info box. Holmstrom merely said in an interview "some people considered the Ramones power pop". He didn't identify who thjose people were... was it fans? musicians? journos? He was not writing that the Ramones were a Power Pop band in an article in his occasional function as a rock journalist. Maybe I'll tackle the stupid pop punk label another time, but as there were multiple links I don't have time to deal with it now. Thanks Henderson for pointing out the sources.Keithramone33 (talk) 12:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The first Ramones album is not poppy enough to be pop punk. It is just bubblegum influenced punk. It wasn't until "Road to Ruin" that the ramones could be described as pop punk as that album had a more bubblegum pop sound to it than previous albums.FreakyBoy (talk) 11:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Richie Ramone[edit]

Did his mum write this article? How is he only drummer to be sole composer of a Ramones song? Isn't I wanna be your Boyfriend solely credited to Tommy? The article takes some tyre pumping from Joey at the time and makes Richie out to be the most pivotal band member. Don't get me wrong he's an excellent drummer but the current tone over exaggerates his place in the overall scheme of things. Tigerman2005 (talk) 13:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of an RfC about including the word "The" in song/album article titles[edit]

Hello there! I started a discussion on the page Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music on 7 July, and it hasn't received any responses. This RfC concerns the use of the word "The" in band names in parentheses in the titles of articles about songs and albums. Further elaboration can be found on that discussion page. I would appreciate thoughts from anyone who may be interested in the discussion. Thank you. –Matthew - (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Appearances[edit]

Do you know where there are any shows or movies that the ramones appear? No affence, but there was one in SpongeBob in RandomLand from "SpongeBob SquarePants". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael grutsch (talk • contribs) 21:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Influence - in Polish[edit]

One of the most common words for 'leather jacket' in Polish is Ramoneska, from the band's name. Worthy of mention? Malick78 (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if you can find a reliable source for it. Benicio2020 (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning "the" in the band name[edit]

Concerning the use of "the" in the band's title, there's a misinterpretation of the policy WP:THE, provided by User:ILIL. The policy states "some bands – such as Eurythmics, Eagles, Pixies and Odds – do not have the in their names, even though they may sometimes (or even often) be referred to as "the (Name)" in everyday speech. In all cases, default to the form of the name that is actually used by the band themselves". The cited examples given now in the article consist of interviews with two individual band members in which said members casually refer to the band as "the Ramones" during interviews. My interpretation of what the line "default to the form of the name that is actually used by the band themselves" means is what the band as whole refer to themselves via official releases by the band, their official website, and not what members refer to it in what is referred to in the policy cited, as "everyday speech." The policy specifically states that using "The" "only applies if the definite article is used by the band on their musical publications (CDs, audiotapes, records, etc.) or on their official website." None of the main LPs and EPs use "the." (Yes, some compilations do as do albums by other artists covering the band but these do not outweigh the main official releases.) The band's website, which despite now only featuring their band logo is still official, is ramones.com, NOT theramones.com. In fact, they don't even bother to register theramones.com in order to redirect to the ramones.com.

So it seems obvious in the first sentence that the policy is referring to "the name that is actually used by the band themselves" as what they use on their official releases and not what a member, or even multiple members, say in an interview. The band itself doesn't refer to itself as The Ramones but individual members may and if they do, this doesn't mean it's an official statement on what the band's name is. Referring to the band as "the Ramones" throughout the article, when referring to their actions as band members (ie "the Ramones returned to the studio" or "the Ramones were tired after a long tour" still works and can still be used because your talking about them as a group of individuals using the same pseudonym. The opening statement though should use the official name, per the cited policy, and it shouldn't contradict the article's title from the start. From there, the note explains that the band is often referred to with the definite article which also explains why this very article features frequent references to them as "The Ramones."

Lastly, three of the four band articles cited within WP:THE to support keeping "the" also do NOT use "the" when referring to the band in the first sentence of their articles. NJZombie (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is an encyclopedic article, not an LP sleeve. If they're casually referring to themselves as "the Ramones", then that's simply how the band must be referred to in regular usage, even though the definite article is not officially part of the name. Readers should be able to infer that "The" is not part of the band name by simply reading the article title, the bolded portions of the first sentence, and the footnote itself. If disagreements persists then an RfC should be made. ili (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I think you're the one who is misinterpreting WP:THE, as you've conveniently left out the very first sentence of the paragraph: This only applies if the definite article is used by the band on their musical publications (CDs, audiotapes, records, etc.) or on their official website. It clearly distinguishes between musical publications and everyday speech. Thus, "default to the form of the name that is actually used by the band themselves". Not the CDs or records, but the band members. ili (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's clearly you misinterpreting WP:THE and its first sentence. I didn't "conveniently" leave out the first sentence at all. I used it to back up what I'm saying. It's stating that you're only using "The" when the band, not the band members, use the definite article officially on things like albums or their website, which they do not. It's what the band as an entity refers to itself as, not what the band MEMBERS refer to it as.NJZombie (talk) 21:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Band members section[edit]

Joey was the drummer for the first few rehearsals, I don't think that's worthy of being mentioned in the band members section. I mean, they started in early 1974, and by their first gig in March they already had Tommy on the drums. It's more that Joey was going to be the drummer rather than he was the drummer.

And for 'Elvis Ramone', can anyone find a source that says he was an official member and not just a fill-in for two shows? Without an official source, he should not be in the band members section. -Joltman (talk) 16:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t really have an opinion regarding the Joey Ramone issue but in the case of Elvis Ramone the existing source within the article already supports his membership in the band. A Google search on him reveals several additional sources that state he was hired with the intention of him being the new drummer but that he was fired after two performances. If he was hired and fired, he was a member, regardless of how short the time may have been. Nothing I’ve seen notes that he was hired as a touring drummer until they could find a full time one. He was hired as a member and therefore deserves recognition as such. NJZombie (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]



RfC: Should Wikipedia generally (i.e. within the lead and article body; not infoboxes, titles, etc.) refer to this band as "the Ramones"?[edit]

Overwhelming "yes". Levivich 14:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is a longtime dispute regarding the first sentence of Ramones, specifically, whether it should begin as "The Ramones" or "Ramones". Current policy regarding the naming conventions of music groups doesn't appear to adequately address disputes regarding the use of definite articles in an unofficial capacity.

It's universally agreed that the band is officially known as "Ramones" because that is how they are credited on their CDS, audiotapes, and records. However, most other publications refer to this band as "the Ramones". Interviews reveal that the members of the group also refer to their band with a definite article in everyday speech. [1] [2] Other articles, such as Electric Light Orchestra and Nazz, take the same approach being proposed in this RfC.

This is not an RfC about changing the title of the article, but in how Wikipedia writes about this band and others with similar naming disputes. In the survey, please answer Yes or No in reference to the title question. ili (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

  • Yes, for the sake of consistency and the common syntactical usage of the name. Depending on how you interpret WP:THE, the band members' everyday speech should be considered authoritative. And Wikipedia already uses unofficial definite articles for a countless number of group entities, like "the NFL" and "the RIAA". ili (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. (I came here from the RfC notice.) Based on my reading of WP:THE, the lead sentence and sentences throughout the page, where syntactically appropriate, should use the form "The Ramones" (in the lead sentence) and "the Ramones" (elsewhere). The pagename should stay as is (without "the"), as should the explanatory note in the lead sentence, and "The" should not be bolded in the lead sentence. I think it's tricky to rely on what some of the band members have been quoted as saying in interviews, but it's reasonable to consider how sources generally word the name in common use, when deciding how to write text here. (I looked at the reference list, and quite a few sources use "the" in their titles, though not all do.) On the other hand, the "official" designation should be used for the pagename. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes per the two above comments. This would be consistent with how we handle Eagles (band), another band whose name does not officially include the word "the" but is often referred to as such. -- Calidum 21:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes per other comments. As a band, they were and are commonly called "the Ramones". Most merch simply uses the style "Ramones", but that's not very relevant to an encyclopedia article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No I see mentions of different interpretations of WP:THE. The following sentence, specifically referring to bands, makes it crystal clear to me. "This only applies if the definite article is used by the band on their musical publications (CDs, audiotapes, records, etc.) or on their official website. Conversely, some bands – such as Eurythmics, Eagles, Pixies and Odds – do not have the in their names, even though they may sometimes (or even often) be referred to as "the (Name)" in everyday speech. In all cases, default to the form of the name that is actually used by the band themselves, and use "(band)" to disambiguate if necessary." As mentioned in a previous conversation on this very talk page, despite how the band may say the name in interviews, the band officially uses Ramones as the name, not the Ramones. That goes for their official album releases, merchandise, website, etc., just as the above policy states. If the rest of the article wants to refer to the band members as "the Ramones" I see no issue with that as it's talking about the members, but the article name, infobox and lead sentence should refer to them in the way their official named which does not contain "the" in the title. NJZombie (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you explain it that way, I can see the logic, but I still think it fails the principle of least astonishment, for all the reasons that have already been said. ili (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's identical to the point I presented above months ago. My stance hasn't changed from then to now. As far as the failure in regards to principle of least astonishment, that's an article about a rule that "applies to user interface and software design" to which Wikipedia articles have no connection or obligation to follow. WP:THE, however, is a policy for Wikipedia articles which specifically states the name should only use the definite article "if the definite article is used by the band on their musical publications (CDs, audiotapes, records, etc.) or on their official website" which they don’t in either instance. As far as confusion as to why the lead sentence uses "Ramones" instead of "The Ramones" that's what the footnote I originally placed is actually for before it got altered. If a user can't figure it out past that, how much further are we supposed to hold their hands through an article? NJZombie (talk) 04:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. The Eagles and other examples serve as precedent, and if the issue is about overall usage, that's a different RfC. I think this is about Readability and writing to the general reader, who would find the dropping of the article odd. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 22:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes IMO this has little or nothing to do with their official name, it's more about the normal and non-awkward way to write a sentence. North8000 (talk) 00:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. If the band routinely refer to themselves that way, and so do reliable sources in most cases, that is then the common name and should be how the article refers to them. From what I can find, that is indeed the case here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Otherwise the prose would be bizarre. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. "Jackie is a bookie / Judy's taking loans / They both came up to New York / Just to see the Ramones." Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Tryptofish looked back here / Tryptofish is glad / To see this amusing quote / From Mr. Newyorkbrad." --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Newyorkbrad's argument above is irresistible. Jschnur (talk) 01:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, based on what they are commonly known as. Idealigic (talk) 22:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes For consistency and they are mostly referred to as that. Sea Ane (talk) 22:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, to do otherwise is pedantry when this usage is so universal. Retswerb (talk) 07:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Power Pop[edit]

The Ramones are, of course, a PUNK ROCK band, nothing else.

The first "Power Pop" source says: "Tom Petty, The Cars, Blondie, The Bangles, XTC, and even Ramones and R.E.M — in their early stage — and many others at some point had at least a song or two, if not more, that can easily be labeled as power pop." Yeah? The Ramones also have songs that are country ("questioningly"), hardcore ("animal boy", "weasel face", etc), acoustic ballads ("i want you around", "i won't let it happen", "don't come close" etc.), new wave ("chop suey", "howling at the moon"), girl group wall of sound ("baby i love you"), surf punk ("california sun", "surfin' bird", "sheena is a punk rocker", "do you wanna dance?", "rockaway beach", "surf city", "surfin safari" etc), horror punk ("chain saw", "pet sematary", "...basement", "zero Zero ufo"), hard rock ("death of me", "highest trails above", "i just wanna have something to do", etc.), and more. Should we add all these genres? Suppose I could find some blogs and a random scenester that remarks that "wart hog" and "the crusher" are the Ramones contributing to the development of rap rock (rap punk?)... would that be fair game for the infobox?

The second source is from a non-notable blog.

The third is from Punk Magazine founder John Holmstom, but as I have noted previously on this page- Holmstrom merely said in an interview "some people considered the Ramones power pop". He didn't identify who those people were... was it fans? musicians? journos? He was not writing that the Ramones were a Power Pop band in an article in his occasional function as a rock journalist.

I hate the "pop punk" tag too, but I can rewrite that part of the article to reflect the sources accurately. The "power pop" label is bunk.

Edit: I ended up leaving some reference to "power pop" in the article, in a way that doesn't mangle reality, but you've got to stop putting it in infobox. It isn't so, and THERE IS NO NOTABLE SOURCE, and never will be, THAT DESCRIBES THE RAMONES AS A POWER POP BAND. They are so strongly identified as purveyors of punk rock music, and you are diluting that truth with these ephemeral associations with other genres. Keithramone33 (talk)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ramones&oldid=1220469774"