Talk:Velvet Revolver

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleVelvet Revolver 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
DateProcessResult
February 26, 2011Good article nomineeListed

Josh Homme Involvement[edit]

I'm going to remove the unsourced section claiming that VR played with Josh Homme at the Bonnaroo festival because I can't find any record of it having happened anywhere outside of Wikipedia (where it's unsourced) and I notice something of an edit war going on in the article's history with one person (69.182.25.159) regularly adding unsoruced and untrue info linking Josh to VR, which then gets reverted. I'm assuming this one just got missed before. Danikat (talk) 07:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slash has left!?[edit]

Sources please, I have heard no talk of this before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.8.42 (talk) 22:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, he has not.Kitrina192 (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slash's backing vocals?[edit]

I haven't seen Slash singing with VR either live or on video. Does he really deserve the credit for "backing vocals"? Kreepin Deth (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She Builds Quick Machines - UK Charts[edit]

Anyone got a source for it hitting number 10? Can't find a trace of it.PMBO 15:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't. the music vid was released in the UK in support of the EP release in the UK. The song could only get in the charts on downlaods, and it hasn't hit the top 200 yet.GrimReaper75 14:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slash's Snakepit[edit]

I added it into the assossiated acts because two former members are in VR now.


Van Halen induction[edit]

Someone should add that their performance was panned by critics, Slash messed up the intro to ain't talkin bout love.

That is,however, merely a matter of opinion.

guns n roses reform[edit]

I removed a section saying that axl rose was joining velvet revolver because it wasn't sourced and there's no evidence for it being true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.96.100 (talk) 23:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Axl never wanted to join Velvet Revolver and the other members neither he have the right to name every band he makes as "Guns N' Roses" so he won't ever change band.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.66.105.153 (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Album - 'Libertad'[edit]

I saw the new album being added to the article and I thought I'd look it up to cite a reference and found these sources:

( Davehard 12:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC) )[reply]

The album is expected to be released in November. I believe the release is Tuesday, November 7, 2006 or November 14, 2006.

Look for the new album the first or second week in November.

according to slash the new album 'Libertad' is to be realesd in may 2007 not november 2006

Libertad showed up on the Internet on June 23, 2007. The store date is July 3rd, 2007?!? 24.68.69.28 22:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Kushner[edit]

The previous edit showed Dave Kushner as being an ex-member of Suicidal Tendencies. While the All Music Guide shows that he has appeared on a Suicidal Tendencies record, it doesn't show him as a member of the band.[1] It shows that he was a member of Wasted Youth and Dave Navarro's band. The VH1 biography for Velvet Revolver[2] shows that he was also a member of the Electric Love Hogs. I have omitted any reference to his membership of Suicidal Tendencies until this can be substantiated.

Capitalistroadster 12:17, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Supergroup?[edit]

Supergroup? Arent articles supposed to be neutral? This just sounds like a suck up article.

No a supergroup is a group that is formed from members who are already famous and have already become known. Velvet Revolver are formed mainly by ex Guns N' Roses members so they are counted as a supergroup. ( Davehard 18:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC) )[reply]
Following Wikipedia's own definition of supergroup ("music groups comprising members of great proficiency who had already achieved fame or respect in other groups or as individual artists"), I'd say Velvet Revolver qualifies. I think it's difficult to argue that Guns 'N' Roses and Stone Temple Pilots never achieved any notable fame or respect. BinaryTed 18:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

guns'n'roses got enough respect and fame (emojim)

Yeah seriously, there aren't many combinations of bands with the infamy of STP and Guns n Roses. Now it's even an extra bonus for me cause I love The Cult and Matt Sorum was in that before GnR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.243.89 (talk) 18:40, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

There is no question that VR is a supergroup, it has nothing to do with "sucking up", Audioslave was also dubbed a "supergroup" and it wasn't even as successful in the charts, and was formed by arguably less famous or influential people. --Kitrina192 (talk) 23:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Update[edit]

The paragraph beginning "As of August 2005" needs updating. Does anyone have info? Can we simply make everything past-tense, assuming that the "plans" were followed-through with? Mitchell k dwyer 21:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misc.[edit]

Is this a Michael article? RickK 04:30, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

this should mention the plagiarism suit filed against them "http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=103190"

Misinformation?[edit]

Under the main article heading "Contraband," it says:

"The band consequently declined an invitation to tour with KISS after learning that Poison would be a part of the bill, in an effort to distance themselves from being lumped in with bands from the 80's who had re-grouped at the time to make a buck; Velvet Revolver were out to make the statement that they were a new band. The members of Poison, naturally, were far from impressed"

It then gave a source. I checked the source and it says something like that, except it wasn't Velvet Revolver, but rather Nikki Sixx of Motley Crue didn't want to be lumped in with 80s bands.

Quote: "Nikki Sixx has a hard-on for Poison for some reason. I can't figure it out. I really don't. At one point he didn't want to be affiliated with the bands of the '80s."


according to slash the new album 'Libertad' is to be realesd in may 2007 not november 2006

Izzy Stradlin[edit]

Is Izzy an Member from VELVET REVOLVER?????--213.101.235.17 (talk) 10:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- No. Natt the Hatt (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, he is not, though he contributed to the jams preceding the recording of "Contraband"--Kitrina192 (talk) 23:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i think Izzy joined them for a while just to have fun but he didn't wanted to be a member of the band for ever — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.66.105.153 (talk) 19:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of name?[edit]

I remember reading somewhere that the origin of the name of the band is a reference to Albert King's nickname "The Velvet Bulldozer". I'll try to find the site if I can, but if someone knows about this that'd be great.Hypershadow647 (talk) 05:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


no in his autobiography slash said he wanted to call the band revolver but then scott said why dont we call it velvet revolver and they all like it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.87.188.102 (talk) 23:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

=the main picture sucks[edit]

really —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.60.153 (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genre[edit]

What kind of music does Velvet Revolver play? I mean, seriously, they're not grundge nor glam. Hard rock? Post-Grundge? Rock N' Roll? Alternative Rock? Just put something there! Melody and Tyranny (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LMAO VR is not Heavy Metal, I'm taking it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.63.31 (talk) 04:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking up?[edit]

Probably worthy of mention, Scott Weiland says that the band will probably be breaking up. Doesn't sound official yet, but sounds like it'll happen at this rate.

Can i just add that the article of the break up was posted on April Fools day and is only on paragraph long. Is someone taking the mick? I reckon so —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.92.181 (talk) 14:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Anyways, here's a link to where I got this http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=93384 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.100.87 (talk) 02:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • apperently it's official now... this could mean a classic GN'R reunion LukeTheSpook (talk) 04:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Must be deja vu for the others. But they may continue with another lead vocalist so until there's official word that VR are no more, it's still present tense. Willo kenobi (talk) 12:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This source is wrong. It's using Weiland's "this is our last tour" comment as a statement they've broken up. No definitive statement has been made yet and Weiland's comment in Glasgow cannot be used as a source that they're breaking up, and neither can a rock fansite misinterpreting this quote. And considering Velvet Revolver are currently touring, "was a band" is incorrect; they're still active. Funeral 21:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I heard a news story on the radio that said Scott Weiland was leaving to return to Stone Temple Pilots. However, Slash was quoted as saying that Velvet Revolver would continue with another singer.Natt the Hatt (talk) 22:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Slash recently said that he is using the web to find a new singer. That means they're looking for a new singer and not breaking up. A GnR reunion would be great but that's what Slash said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaoticfables (talk • contribs) 03:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Libertad[edit]

Wow. Scott left. You just gotta move on.

Can someone please edit and clean up the Libertad part? It really puzzling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.63.7 (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A new section should be created for after "Split from Scott Weiland" for, I dunno "Search for new singer" where everyone could put rumored replacements, etc...The aforementioned section needs to end with Scott leaving, not random wanderings about who the next singer will be.... --Kitrina192 (talk) 23:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Langdon only in running for vocal spot of VR[edit]

This statement appears on the page: "On July 31st, 2008 Royston Langdon, ex-lead singer of Glam Rock band, Spacehog, was announced as Velvet Revolver's new lead singer by Entertainment Weekly" I could not find on Entertainment Weekly or any other news site that Langdon was taking over Weiland's spot. All they say is that he's on a short list. This site confirms such: http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2008/07/royston-langdon.html What do you think? Coolmanwc4 (talk) 02:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right, I haven't seen any site actually announce him as new lead singer. Let's delete this until there is an announcement? Shlomi Hillel (talk) 18:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Mustaine and James Hetfield????[edit]

I doubt they were actually considered to be VR's singer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.222.97 (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LENNY KRAVITZ[edit]

He confirmed he isn't in, so I took that paragraph out

http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=102665 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.222.97 (talk) 21:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rumours, rumours, rumours[edit]

You guys got any actual evidence of these rumours, like sources? I've noticed a couple of vocalists linked to the role who I've never ehard of before, which leads me to think that someone is just making crap up if they aren't actually that person trying to scam a little extra publicity from the band's pending future ... Nearly famous writer (talk) 04:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction[edit]

The intro to this article seems to have a bias against Scott... For instance, when it says that Weiland was fired for erratic behavior and so forth, well... That was what Slash, Duff, and Matt said themselves. Menwhile, Weiland announced that the band was over at a show prior to his supposed "termination" as lead singer. In any event, the introduction should be more neutral... towards both parties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.93.249 (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Singer List?[edit]

Hi. I have an idea that would allow people to view various prospects for Scott Weilands replacement in an easier way rather than just posting sentences in the "Split from Weiland" section... How about someone ends the "Split..." section with a closing paragraph about Scott leaving and then they form a new section titled something like: "Rumored replacement singers" or something like that. And that section can have an opening statement saying "Numerous individuals have been considered for scott weilands replacement; they include:" and then below, write a list of every person who has been rumored. It is easier to find names rather than searching through a section of the article that doesnt even have a title relevant to the fact that VR is looking for a new singer... Anyways, please let me know what you think on this idea... I am open to criticism and it doesnt bother me if you disagree with this idea, just let me know, thanks. Zach —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachslash (talk • contribs) 08:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Patrick Harris?[edit]

Neil Patrick Harris as lead singer? I'm pretty sure that was a bad joke by someone...no evidence of it elsewhere that I've seen. Kaeljae (talk) 02:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Stapp plz[edit]

that would be the best band ever —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.155.45 (talk) 04:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grunge?[edit]

It may just be because of Scott Wieland's involvement with the group, but a bit of Velvet Revolver's music sounds very grunge-y to me. I'm just going to throw this in the air and see if it sticks; Would it be worth adding "grunge" as one of their genres? 138.217.108.26 (talk) 05:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

De mi coresponsal para los velvet revolver:pues neta k son la mamada —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.132.96.58 (talk) 00:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

definitely not grunge, its hard rock. grunge is defined by self introspection , morbid topics, metal influenced, certain scale modes. For example, the first STTP album Core was definitely grunge, despite not being from seattle. Shhsbavavaa (talk) 07:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Origins: Early Incarnation?[edit]

Can the fact that Matt invited Slash and Duff to contrbute to the Soundman soundtrack be considered the earliest incarnation? It seems no different than a simple "guest" appearance by them (e.g. Duff's debut solo album, Slash's Snakepit, etc.) and it didnt seem to lead to them forming a group. The earliest incarnation of Velvet Revolver (in my opinion) would have been Slash, Duff, Matt and Buckcherry duo Josh Todd and Keith Nelson (first people they jammed with looking to form a group) or alternatively it could be Slash, Duff, Matt, Dave and Izzy (In Slash's book he says Dave joined the group then Izzy started writing with the band, however some sources online say Dave was invited only to be the live guitarst) with Izzy suggesting that both he and Duff performing vocal duties.

Not that big a deal, but thought it was worth a mention. HrZ (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other Projects[edit]

Is there really any need for a whole section based on what the other members have been doing, especially when most have articles of their own? (Loaded, Jane's Addiction Slash (album), etc) Seems a bit excessive and most (if not all) of it can be mentioned within the article. (HrZ (talk) 14:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Lead sentence[edit]

Myself and 63.248.11.9 are in a disagreement over the articles lead sentence. I feel that "Velvet Revolver is a hard rock supergroup consisting of former Guns N' Roses members Slash, Duff McKagan, Matt Sorum, and Dave Kushner, formerly of punk band Wasted Youth. Stone Temple Pilots vocalist Scott Weiland was Velvet Revolver's lead singer from their formation until 2008." reads better. 63.248.11.9 feels that this is too long, changing it to "Velvet Revolver is a rock supergroup consisting of guitarists Slash and Dave Kushner, bassist Duff McKagan, and drummer Matt Sorum (all former members of Guns N' Roses except Kushner, formerly of Wasted Youth). Stone Temple Pilots frontman Scott Weiland was Velvet Revolver's lead singer from 2003 until 2008." Would like to hear other editors opinions on the matter. HrZ 14:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in support of the longer version. In my opinion, it gives a little more detail than the shorter version. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 22:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Er, they feel the first version is too long? Because the second version is easily just as long, if not longer. Anyway, I support the first version, it reads better than the alternative. Swarm X 21:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Velvet Revolver/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Swarm X 14:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. I'll conduct the good article review for this nomination. I know it's long overdue; I'll have the review completed by today and hopefully it won't prove difficult to promote. A preliminary scan looks good, so bear with me and I'll get the review up ASAP. Regards, Swarm X 14:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

Criteria check

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Wow, that's a lot of references.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Should have something along the lines of a 'musical style' section. Here's a good example of a short one. Nothing major.
     Done. Hope that is good enough? HrZ (talk) 14:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Looks like the article's well monitored as well.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    All images free.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Other than 3a, everything looks good. Swarm X 21:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments! I added a Musical style section here. I hope that is sufficient enough and correct, admittedly I'm not the best at writing those type of sections. HrZ (talk) 13:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, good. At least now the article doesn't neglect the topic. It's passed my review is now listed as a good article. Swarm X 18:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Taylor is new singer[edit]

Corey Taylor, former frontman of Slipknot and Stone Sour is the new singer of Velvet Revolver! It should be updated in the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.207.72.168 (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done It has not been confirmed. So it won't be updated. HrZ (talk) 10:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Corey Taylor is NOT the new singer, they made some recordings with him but decided he was not the man for the job. Burbridge92 (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hiatus or rather saying unsaid breakup?[edit]

See [3] Saemikneu (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Velvet Revolver[edit]

  • Moved the above discussion here so everyone can comment. HrZ (talk)

I am very surprised you call "work" and "keeping neutral" the reversion of other people's edits. I am not proposing something radical that will shatter your... "neturality". Just better structure and more careful approach treading this article. Like keeping the hiatus activities in another section, making the flow better. Because you doesn't sound solid at all like some Humpty Dumpty going and screwing other people's work. If that's what you call "work", then I'll be really astonished to see what other contributions you have. Do you call it... "work" again? "We disagree and need to discuss" and bam! - revert. How are you proposing to do this discussion? Or should I report you for disturbing other people's work, just because you are enforcing misplaced sense of superiority. Or you go ahead and report me, then I'll be more than happy to respond to any kind of negativity. Because if you want to contribute - give the best, put the positivity. And up untill now, I've seen nothing but negative feelings and disturbance of my work from your part.

The Mad Hatter (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Negative feelings? I'm trying to work with you through discussion. You reply with scare quotes, claim I am enforcing some superiority and and somewhat threaten to report me. Report me if you like, I don't feel I've done anything wrong here much like you don't feel you have. I do have a problem with the way you do things. It comes across as, we either do it your way because you say it's the best way (in your own opinion), or we revert back to the original and the status quo remains, which is just terrible if I am to believe you, and I am being disruptive. Your work seems to consist mainly of removing sourced content, some slight re-wording and changing section titles (you even removed the recent one-off reunion mention, surely that should be included). How is this improving the article? That is why I feel the need for discussion, which you were more than happy to do the very first time you made these changes in May last year. Since then, you have periodicly returned to make the same changes, largely without explanation and without discussion. I can't know your reasons for making these changes if you don't explain, how am I supposed to clarify my reasons for inclusion (even if you disagree with them) if you are unwilling to discuss? Why do you feel the need to remove sourced content? How is it very unprofessional? Why does it come across as a crappy fan page? Is there content that doesn't comply with Wikipedia policy? If it infact does come across the way you say it does, then I would want to work towards improving it because this would also help me improve as an editor. You mention keeping the hiatus activities in another section, I disagree because a hiatus section within a specific timeline (2008-2011) cannot become as bloated as much as one just for side-projects (due to the time restriction). Everytime a band member does something, it will be updated, let's not forget the anonymous IP editors and their need to include every scrap of info released every week. Wither you agree or not, that's what I think. Would you have found that out from the edit summary? Not likely.
If I am to believe policy, if we cannot come to consensus on these changes, then the status quo remains. Per WP:STATUSQUO:

If you make a change which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit - leave the status quo up. If there is a dispute, the status quo reigns until a consensus is established to make a change. Instead of engaging in an edit war, propose your reverted change on the article's talk page or pursue other dispute resolution alternatives.

And that includes the content then I wanted to remove/re-write as well. Another editor believed the info in continued hiatus should be included, I disagreed but didn't think of it as that big of an issue to seek resolution elsewhere, so there it remains. So, are you willing to discuss this, work together and come to some sort of compromise? HrZ (talk) 12:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Velvet Revolver is broken up[edit]

Sorry to be that guy but they're done. Since none of the members have said that exactly then it shouldn't be added to the page but I want to add this common sense. They're done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.130.166.48 (talk) 06:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a source stating they are done, then the change will be made. McKagan recently stated that they are nowhere, but he did not say they were finished. HrZ (talk) 08:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We shouldn't have anything changed until proof but I think that should be put out into the universe for people who don't know the band yet to understand that while we can't say they are done since it isn't fact but common sense says they are — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.130.166.48 (talk) 11:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a "hiatus" has only been a hiatus once it's over and they're actually back together. until that time i would also agree that they're currently broken up.69.146.92.16 (talk) 21:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you agree or not is irrelevant. I personally don't see them getting back together, but until a reliable source states that they have, the article won't be changed. HrZ (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
a dictionary. there's your reliable source of the definition of "hiatus". can we change it after all 5 members die without getting back together? or will it still be a hiatus cause matt sorum never used the term "broken up" on his death bed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.127.85.42 (talk) 01:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is talking about the definition of hiatus, but whether or not they have broken up. No reliable sources exist that state they have in fact broken up, primarly due to the fact none of the band members have stated they have broken up. Any arguement to the contrary has to be supported by a reliable source per Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I suggest you read them if you are to contribute to the project: WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Regards. HrZ (talk) 15:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Band split?[edit]

At no point has the band ever confirmed that they have 'split up'; on the contrary, the members have always insisted that they are 'on hiatus' and will get back together if they find the right vocalist for the group. Maybe the passage of time has determined that we consider them to be dissolved regardless of what claims they make but in any case a consensus on the matter should be reached. On another note, the death of Scott Weiland should not affect whether we opt to consider the band as being 'active' or not because he was no longer a member of the band at the time of his passing. 86.148.12.135 (talk) 22:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whether they are disbanded or on hiatus, they are certainly not active. It will remain that way until the band releases something that states otherwise. DLManiac (talk) 23:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They may not be active but it certainly goes against the norm on Wikipedia to list members of a band with a stated 'hiatus' as disbanded. There are groups' who have been inactive for a longer period of time than VR where the most recent members are still listed as 'current'. In fact there are bands that have been inactive for longer that are listed as active. Is there a Wikipedia guideline for this kind of thing? Regards, 86.189.140.190 (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meaningless Photo Caption[edit]

Okay, so the caption on one of the photos currently reads "Former singer Scott Weiland. Velvet Revolver's April 1 show at the Heineken Music Hall in the Netherlands was at the time the band's last performance with Weiland." which if you think about it for more than a second is utterly meaningless, since every show is that artist's last performance "at the time". Not sure what a better wording would be so just putting it out there for someone to formulate something more meaningful.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Velvet Revolver. 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) 10:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Velvet_Revolver&oldid=1194203331"