Talk:Ron "Bumblefoot" Thal

Biased and poorly written

I'm wondering why someone nominated this page as biased. Please let me know what could be interpreted this way. Thank you :)

This article sounds like you're trying to promote him and get people to buy his stuff. 24.86.192.216 06:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC) The above was posted by me. Wasn't logged in. Cao 06:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It is also extremely poorly written.

I might have just accidentally reverted a legitimate edit. If so, my apologies, and feel free to correct it. Michael White^T·C 00:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

"Ron's debut solo album epitomizes instrumental guitar music for the 90's. groundbreaking compositions and unbeleivable solos that will impress all skeptics. Expect genius; you won't be disappointed." Bahaha thats like the least neutral thing ever. Any reason why the tag has been taken away? This is one of the worst music pages I've ever read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.169.118 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 3 July 2006

There are still numerous POV issues with this page. Some of the most glaring examples:

• "...his impeccably phrased and highly original and technical guitar work."
• "With groundbreaking compositions and unbelievable solos..."
• "Thal's vocals and instrumental work push the envelope of contemporary music."
• "...that demonstrates his true personality coupled with amazing guitar work."

The article is also very poorly sourced: it provides absolutely no third-party references as specifically required by WP:Verifiability. In short, it needs a great deal of editing help. Do not remove the cleanup template at the top of the article until editors have had time to address these significant issues. --Satori Son 17:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as one of the 2000+ September articles requiring clean-up, this is an easy one. Good structure and 90% info. Obviously it could be rewritten in a much better way as 99% of the stuff requiring attention.

With reference to a musical article written by a fan (as 99% of them) the citations are over the board but not over the wall. They remain in a domain of qualititative appreciation.

With reference to all rock bands and solo artists, I measure the article quality to the band/person renown. This article lies in the middle on both counts.

Finally, i was not convinced to replace my Stevie Ray V collection by this geezer.

Conclusions: got rid of all tags. -- Dilane 06:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Why So Harsh?

The writer is just a fan who wants to spread the word about Bumblefoot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhoCarez123 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You can't just edit something to make someone look better or worse. Just try and keep things fact based and unbiased. --71.187.137.113 (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Career

This is fairly small but it lists "Bumblefoot appears on every song of the band's new album, Chinese Democracy". This may be true(?) but the source shows "Drummer Frank Ferrer and guitarist Ron "Bumblefoot" Thal integrated themselves into the recordings seamlessly and will have their presence felt." with no reference that it's every track. SonicBrew (talk) 06:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Why was negative material removed?

In the edit (17:38, 31 December 2008), some negative material - which someone else put up, but I added a need for citations to, was removed only a few days after I added the cn's. Does anyone know why it was removed so quickly? I think it should be given time to see if anyone can actually back it up. If no one objects I'll re-instate it.Luminifer (talk) 23:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It might have something to do with the user RonBumblefoot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the article is in pretty poor shape and needs to be thoroughly checked to ensure that all the information is verifiable. Smartse (talk) 16:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Source for Jewishness?

-- Y not? 02:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

merge

i don't think it makes sense to merge, but if we do have to merge it seems silly to merge this huge article into the tiny thing it was made into in the merge. this has to be discussed more. Aisha9152 (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion has been closed—you cannot simply undo it because you disagree. The consensus was that Thal does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards on his own, and that there was minimal information appropriate to merge. If you want to dispute the closure, please follow the procedure at Wikipedia:Deletion review. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 21:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

merge?

there are claims that there is a consensus to merge this article with the guns n roses article, but i dont believe there is and i also dont think it makes any sense. bumblefoot is a famous studio musician, producer, etc, and was famous for all of these things before gnr. so i would like people to vote here on what they think. thanks. Aisha9152 (talk) 16:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

it actually already HAS been merged. Aisha9152 (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to explain this, but please give WP:MUSICBIO a careful read. We need to demonstrate how Thal meets these criteria with reliable, independent sources. It's not enough just to claim that he is famous outside GNR. We need the sources to back it up. For example, if we could find an article from Guitar Player magazine saying that Thal is an important record producer or considered an influential guitarist outside the realm of GNR, that would go a long way. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

you keep saying he is not notable outside of gnr. he is more notable outside of gnr than axl rose. why does axl rose get an article? this makes no sense. Aisha9152 (talk) 16:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• criterion 1 of what you gave me is ""Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable.[note 1] This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries" this has got to be easy to show i think the old article already was like that. Aisha9152 (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
• also this one "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article.)" Aisha9152 (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

although you actualy removed most of that in your "cleanup" so now he does seem unnotable except for point 1 which is still true. Aisha9152 (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Everything I removed was unsourced and didn't get us anywhere in terms of proving notability. It's a fine line, but I'm not saying he is not notable outside of GNR. I'm saying we haven't proved it with reliable sources. I'm all for restoring the article, but we've got to work on the sources to establish a consensus for bringing back the article. I spent an hour in library databases looking at back issues of newspapers and magazines; the result is what you see in the article before it was merged. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

the unreferenced stuff should have been tagged its going to be a headache going back and finding it all and bringing it back in the article with references. for instance the theme music work he has done which is easily verified. Aisha9152 (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It's all in the article history. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 03:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The Bumblefoot page definitely should not have been removed. He may not be extremely well known but he's certainly well known enough to have his own page. Deleting it and forwarding to the Guns & Roses page is completely illogical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.103.171 (talk) 00:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Draft for improvement

For anyone who wants to work on improving it for possible return to the mainspace, there is a draft based on the pre-merge article at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Ron "Bumblefoot" Thal. JohnCD (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Incubated version ready for restoration

The incubated version has been improved and I will restore it within a day, which will require a history merge to bring into the history the contributions made in the Incubator. Unfortunately in the meantime an editor has added another version; I have placed a copy of that in the editor's user space and reverted and temporarily protected here in order to avoid complicating the page history further. JohnCD (talk) 10:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Incubated version restored

JohnCD (talk) 14:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It's good to see the article back where it belongs. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

In case anyone is interested

We do have an unreferenced article rescue team here in Wikipedia that can certainly use more help. This article is a prime example of what the smallest spark of effort can accomplish! Please check out WP:URA! Then you, too can leave a trail of good work behind wherever you go! Any questions, feel free to check out my userpage or talk page. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 23:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Retrohead (talk · contribs) 21:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

General notes

• Avoid references in the lead because the intro should not contain exclusive information. Introduction cites are appropriate only if they support an information that some readers/editors dispute, or something that seems controversial.
• Do another read on the article for errors in the manual style of writing: albums should be italicized (check Alive! by Kiss) or linking key words when they are first mentioned in the body (Guns N' Roses in the Bumblefoot & Solo Career section). Avoid non-encyclopedic aberrations such as "1st, 2nd, &", etc.
• Check the source formatting: article titles should not be all in capital letters, names of websites/publishers should be wikilinked and written as their Wikipedia article.
• I see there are few Facebook and Twitter links used as references. Generally speaking, social media is not allowed in good article, usless a specification is provided (important information that isn't available elsewhere, for example).
• I see there hasn't been much work done here, so I'll be archiving the nomination shortly.--Retrohead (talk) 19:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Ron Thal discography

Support split - Discography section takes up more than one quarter of the page, and should be split to a new article entitled Ron Thal discography. Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support, although I think the naming should be consistent and it should be titled "Ron "Bumblefoot" Thal discography". RF23 (talk) 09:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Very clearly written by the subject or their PR

This article, it's formatting, rambling poor citations, and lack of any negative or neutral topics point to the article being heavily edited by either the subject or someone to them. 24.233.96.107 (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)