Talk:Appetite for Destruction/Archive 1

Archive 1

Best selling debut album of all time?

Isn't that Alanis Morissette's "Jagged Little Pill"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.73.43.193 (talk) 10:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC) "Jagged Little Pill is Alanis Morissette's THIRD album. Not her debut. 69.114.21.142 (talk) 00:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Album Cover

I'm not so sure about all the facts with the album cover art story. I do know about the robot rape picture part of the story, but the part about the cross might be somewhat wrong. In the United States at least, the CD version of the album was sold with a cover that showed a lot of small photos spread out on a black background. The skull cross logo was on the inside cover. Maybe this cover was different in other parts of the world, but the article should reflect that fact, if it is true. Konky2000 15:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The skull/cross logo was the cover of the album after the band compromised to get it released. It was from a picture that Billy Whited painted for the band. Axl got the tattoo afterward. This info is available in Slash's autobiography. The small photos were on the back of the album, not the front.

No, there definitely is a version with the cross on the back and the photos on front. I don't think ALL US CD copies are that way, but at least for a while that's how they were produced. That's how mine was, I just reversed the booklet in mine to make it look "right".76.226.139.41 (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Stickers

Supplied with my copy of the vinyl (bought new, with the original rape cover art) was a set of stickers on a single sheet. Is this worth mentioning? I'm not sure of how widely the stickers were available? (Yes, I do still have it, and no, I've never used the stickers). Jaruzel (talk) 14:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Gossip

Whoever puts this kind of garbage in articles needs to stop writing for Wikipedia:

Some trivia concerning the album's recording: for the moans during the break of "Rocket Queen", is has been rumoured that Axl Rose literally brought a girl friend into the recording studio and recorded himself having intercourse with her. Also, essentially all of Slash's beloved guitar work on the album was recorded not on a Gibson Les Paul as is commonly assumed, but rather on a superior hand-made imitation guitar, which remains his favoured instrument for the studio, though he no longer uses it onstage.

Unless one can use a citation, keep this crap OUT. --65.7.138.84 02:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)The Prowler

I agree. Unless someone provides a cite in the next coupe of days, it should be removed. Ashmoo 02:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

To the moron who calls that "crap" and "garbage", that whole paragraph is true (the girl's name was Adriana Smith). It was recorded with the mixing guys and Slash in the recording booth, enjoying the show. The guitar he used to re-record his tracks WAS a imitation given to him by Tom Zutaut since his own guitars were not good enough to use for the album. BOTH of these FACTS are mentioned in Slash's autobiography.

"Thrash"

Nothing in Guns N' Roses music is thrash metal related in the slightest... there seems to have been some confusion some of the 80s hard rock and Sleaze Rock bands are refered to as "trashy".. notice the absence of the "h"? - Deathrocker 02:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. "You're Crazy" seems pretty thrash to me... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.155.135 (talk) 06:17, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

No, "Angel of Death" by Slayer is thrash. Hear the difference? There's definitely metal influence, and they were friends with some thrash bands like Metallica, but in no way is this album thrash. 64.90.217.245 16:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm listening to You're Crazy right now. Thrash? Compared to The Carpenters, maybe.72.67.93.133 (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

What? Guns N' Roses isn't even heavy metal, much less thrash metal. Go pop in Reign in Blood, Ride the Lightning, or Rust in Peace if you want to find out what thrash metal is. -MetalKommandant (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Guns'N'Rosse played also heavy metal for sure. Listen to Paradise City and you'll find heavy metal riffs in it and in many other songs by them. Mairlon Silveira from Brazil, at 18:33, 8 September 2009.

I don't see the punk aspect

I really don't understand how this album can be considered to reflect any punk rock influence. If anything, it's anti-punk. Danthelawyer 08:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)danthelawyer

The sloppiness of the playing and the attitude are quite punky. 64.90.217.245 16:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The song "It's so easy" is pure punk rock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.39.235.68 (talk) 05:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Duff was influenced by such bands as The Sex Pistols and The Misfits. You can hear it in his playing. Also the track It's So easy is blatantly a punk song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.100.206.193 (talk) 03:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The "punk aspect" is the band's reckless attitude and lifestyle at the time.

Re-Recorded

should it be mentioned that Axl re-recoreded it in 1999 [1] Bencey 13:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

yes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Britannia10 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't We Add

A list of which skull is which? MaulYoda 01:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yea, someone did now, but could whoever did or someone who knows cite it, my friends think differently than it says. a citing would prove them wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.159.251.165 (talk) 01:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

what?

Is it night rain or nighttrain?

Neither, it's Nightrain Bucketheader 11:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

MTV video ban is false.

The thought that the original album artwork (rape scene) was the cause for MTV to ban Welcome to the Jungle is completely baseless. First of all, the Welcome to the Jungle video wasn't released until at least six month's after Appetite's first single/video, Sweet Child o' Mine.

Band documentary books will tell you that record stores refused to sell the album with graphic artwork and that this was the reason for the cover change.

"Welcome..." was the band's first video. Get your facts straight.

FA

Hey, we should prep this for featured article. Skeeker _[Talk] 08:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

That's going to take a ton of work. LuciferMorgan 19:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Move proposal

There's a proposal at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Incomplete and contested proposals to move this page to Appetite for Destruction (Guns N' Roses album). I don't think that's necessary since this is the primary topic with this name. Crazysuit 05:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

GA

Sorry, but as mentioned before there is no information on recording or production of the album, the legacy section isn't a legacy section, it's about sales figures. There is no section pertaining to critical reception or critics reviews of the album. There is no information on what an influence the album has had. There is no introduction of the band 9who plays what, who the members are) or the recording process, the first section is about songwriting credits. M3tal H3ad (talk) 06:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"Banned" cover?

I've made a small change. This article lists quite clearly the reason for the changed cover - people refused to stock it. Ergo, the caption below the image of the original cover which claims it was "banned" is inaccurate. As such, I have removed the word banned.72.67.93.133 (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

blah blah

Should the cover images be exchanged with each other?

Like the ongoing discussion with "Virgin Killer" by Scorpions, it is noted the cover image featured on the top of the page should be the original one, and the additional image the one which is released later or replacing the original one.

In this article it says: "The album's original cover, based on the Robert Williams painting "Appetite for Destruction", depicted a robot rapist about to be punished by a metal avenger. After several music retailers refused to stock the album, they compromised and put the controversial cover art inside, replacing it with a cover depicting a cross and skulls of the five band members --"

It clearly states the "robot" version is the original cover art and the more common "cross" version is the later, replaced cover art. According to Wikipedia guidelines, shouldn't the images thus be in opposite order - even if the now-"additional" cover art is not the most common one, but it was the _original_?

I didn't dare to change the pictures, but shouldn't this be the way it's meant to be? 88.192.188.80 (talk) 14:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Highest selling debut of all time?

We all know Boston was, but if you look at the articles, Boston is 17x Plat., while it says in September AFD went 18x, should we add something about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KILLER BOB11694 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Adriana Smith

I added Adriana and someone toock it down, why? See Rocket Queen. Alright, there is no proof that Adriana and Axl had *** in the studio but still, it's worth agnologing, even if it's in a new section called "Unconfirmed additional personal" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.198.113.60 (talk) 18:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

There is "proof" about Axl and Adriana's sex being recorded to mix with Rocket Queen. It's in Slash's autobiography, and he was a witness to it. It was Axl's idea, and they went with it.

Cover art

We should use the cover art most are familiar with, as the one used is only on the re-released 2008 vinyl version, isn't it? Everyone is familiar with the cross, I say we keep the cross. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KILLER BOB11694 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Why can't I use this source?

I put a simple link to the list that Metal Rules put together of "The Top 100 Heavy Metal Albums"(I also used it on the page for Rainbow's Long Live Rock 'n' Roll album) a link that has been used as a source on the page for Metallica's Master of Puppets album. If it can stay on that page then why did it have to be removed here and on the Long Live Rock 'n' Roll page]]? 19:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockgenre (talk • contribs)

yeah

yeah i agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.99.190 (talk) 01:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Metal

If the borderline, bubblegum Poison albums and half of Europe's songs can be listed as metal than I don't get why an album 10 times heavier can't. Appetite is mentioned in our heavy metal article and Rolling Stone has called it metal. Source: http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/6597908/61_appetite_for_destruction . Rockgenre (talk) 03:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Can we get some people responding here.Rockgenre (talk) 19:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there a better source than that one? It would take a few good sources to overturn the consensus for this article. 142.167.160.111 (talk) 00:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC) Striking sock Rockgenre (talk) 20:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There are 5 other sources on GNR's main page for them being metal and this album is mentioned in wikipedia's heavy metal article. It's metal.Rockgenre (talk) 02:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

:::Wikipedia can't be used as a source for itself. 142.167.160.111 (talk) 10:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC) Striking sock Rockgenre (talk) 20:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey I got another source here, Rock: The Rough Guide(It's used on the 1960s in heavy metal music page here). A quote from page 929, "It remains among the few LPs of the '70s able to stand toe to toe with modern metal masterpieces such as Metallica's Master of Puppets and Guns N' Roses' Appetite for Destruction". Rockgenre (talk) 01:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe that citation should pass. But a supporting citation should be found for it to avoid IP tampering. I've seen the recent edit history for this issue and I would like to point out that adding a reference for heavy metal here does not mean that heavy metal can be added to any of the song articles related to this album. Individual references specifically mentioning the song title being a heavy metal song must be found. Like this article, to avoid any further confusion, at least two separate citations which pass Wikipedia's criteria for sources should be found. I do not think Rolling Stone is a good reference for heavy metal related subjects. As a North American publication it may cater to its readership there. But for my home country, and others I've lived in, it is not respected and is read by very few. Cold Goast (talk) 01:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC) Striking sock Rockgenre (talk) 20:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Songwriting Credits

There are no sources listed for the "actual" songwriting credits. What is posted seems to be in contradiction with other sources, especially in regards to Slash and Duff McKagan's writing contributions. Here Slash is credited as the sole music writer for Sweet Child O Mine while in Slash and Izzy Stradlin's interview with Guitar For The Practicing Musician in 1988, Slash claims he only came up with the famous intro and Stradlin' wrote the rest of the song. This section needs considerable sourcing in order to justify its claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.9.162.247 (talk) 07:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

If this is the inspiration for the Neutrality notice at the top of the article, I have clarified things a little (I hope) by adding a tag to the Track Listing section calling for more references. I agree that the so-called "actual" songwriting credits seem fishy and might be based on rumors and innuendo that have been circulating for 20 years. Without more references on where those credits came from, and soon, I propose that the whole section be reverted to "all music and lyrics written by Guns n' Roses except..." as can be seen in the album notes themselves. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Been quite a while since this was brought up. The album itself credits all songs to Guns N' Roses, with Arkeen and Weber co-credited on a song each. Allmusic gives the same credits (apart from "Rocket Queen" - Adler, Rose?). I'm assuming that most of, if not all, of the credits currently there are based on what Slash says in his autobiography. Will have to have a re-read to find the pages, apart from that, cant find anything else that, at the moment, that lists individual composers. HrZ (talk) 14:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I changed the writing credits to reflect what the album itself says. Akdrummer75 (talk) 04:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Someone has changed the songwriting credits back to unsubstantiated listings. Until reliable sources are provided, the credits should reflect the album and Library of Congress credits.

Title of "Best-Selling Debut Album of all time"

It states in this article, that, as of last month, this album has sold 28 million copies worldwide. However, In the article for Hybrid Theory, it is states a global sales total of 29 million. If I am correct, wouldn't that make Hybrid Theory (the Debut Album of Linkin Park) the best-selling Debut Album of all time? I would also like to note that the article, List of best-selling albums worldwide, it still lists hybrid Theory as selling 24 million copies, and that when i googled the sales total, i got mixed results ranging from 19 Million copies worldwide, to 45 Million Copies worldwide. Can we clear this up? Get a RELIABLE SOURCE that states what Hybrid Theory's total sales are, and IF they are higher than that of Appetite For Destruction, or not? ~L.H.C.D.1~ (talk) 00:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Best-selling debut album in the USA, not worldwide

You should correct that AFD is the best-selling debut album in the USA. The best-selling debut album worldwide is still Alanis Morissette's Jagged Little Pill. List of best-selling albums worldwide —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.237.99.5 (talk) 04:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Album Cover (again)

Shouldn't the alternative rape cover be up in the info box as an "Alternative cover"?Jasper420 01:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

think about you

just wondering is think about you about heroine, i am a huge GnR fan, listened to that song many, many times, read slash's auto biography and another book about guns n roses and have never heard that before. can someone confirm it or show me a source please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.201.105 (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Do we need the little bits of info on the songs?

these are all covered on other wiki pages, especially on the singles, must the main page have them

also do you want me to put in a table with all the certifications the album has worldwide (ie Diamond in Canada, Platinum in the Uk etc) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billynofriends (talk • contribs) 13:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Appetite for Destruction/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

Article requirements: Y All the start class criteria Y A completed infobox, including cover art and most technical details Y At least one section of prose (excluding the lead section) Y A track listing containing track lengths and authors for all songs Y A full list of personnel, including technical personnel and guest musicians Y Categorisation at least by artist and year Y A casual reader should learn something about the album. Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC) ==Re-assessment== Start class: Y A reasonably complete infobox Y A lead section giving an overview of the album Y A track listing Y Reference to at least primary personnel by name (must specify performers on the current album; a band navbox is insufficient) Y Categorisation at least by artist and year C class: Y All the start class criteria Y A reasonably complete infobox, including cover art Y At least one section of prose (in addition to the lead section) Y A track listing containing track lengths and authors for all songs Y A "personnel" section listing performers, including guest musicians. B class: Y All the C class criteria Y A completed infobox, including cover art and most technical details Y A full list of personnel, including technical personnel and guest musicians N No obvious issues with sourcing, including the use of blatantly improper sources. Y No significant issues exist to hamper readability, although it may not rigorously follow WP:MOS Origins and Cover art contain no sources. It'll need that to reach b-status! Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 01:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 14:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Switch HM/HR

ALL the songs except Sweet Child have Heavy metal first!! 108.81.33.59 (talk) 03:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Songwriting Credits

Songwriting credits are not sourced. This has been an ongoing issue. The only sources for Appetite For Destruction are the album itself and the Library of Congress copyrights. So-called "actual" credits are continually edited in the article without substantiating evidence. Please refer to archive of talk page for history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.65.213.18 (talk) 08:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

(feat. Micheal Jon Pi a.k.a Daniel Scott Peck "Danni" stage name, on all drums on this album recorded without knowing for this album from a Hollywood, CA. band concert called "Harlot" in 1987. for instance, the drums on "Sweet Child of Mine" on this album are from a "Harlot" song called "Lock Up Your Daughters" and so on. Micheal Jon Pi father name is Jon David Pi and mother name is Renae Jean Smith. Jon writes most of the hit songs in the world and Renae also. Renae had a stage name as Bo Derek in the movie 10.

Song information section

I haven't seen this in other album articles, Song information is this a new MOS ? I've removed the songs that had no references. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Update: I've removed the entire section until consensus is reached. Mlpearc (open channel) 20:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Artwork in infobox

I have currently moved the "original artwork" to the infobox as I believe it should be as per Template:Infobox album guidelines. However, I am still a little curious as to whether they should also be switched in their positions.

• Guidelines state "An image of the official front cover of the original version of the album" for the first image space
• Guidelines state "An alternative cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original" for the second image space.

To me, it is very clear that AFD fits these descriptions with the Girl artwork up top and cross artwork down below. However, better judgement tells me that the most popular art (cross) should be up top. Let's discuss! Either way, I think they should both be in the infobox. — DLManiac (talk) 06:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Genre

I propose removing Glam metal from the genre list. It isn't properly sourced. The only source that even mentions glam (billboard's 25 year look back) as seen here in an archived copy becuase the page is down) only states " glam fans fawned over their look". It simply states that glam metal fans enjoyed the look of the band, it states nothing about the sound or style of the album being glam metal. Almost every source lists the genres for the album as rock, hard rock and/or heavy metal. RF23 (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

That isn't the source verifying "hair metal". Dan56 (talk) 18:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, missed that completely. Well, I did some searching for more sources and it's kind of divisive. A few straight up say that GNR weren't hair metal and that Appetite helped destroy it or countered it, but others rank it among the best hair metal albums of all time. I'm not sure what the protocol is for directly conflicting sources like that.RF23 (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

These are opinions/subjective interpretations of a creative work (WP:SUBJECTIVE), not concrete facts. Given them due weight accordingly in the infobox, which in my opinion would just be listing "hair metal" last, behind "hard rock" and "heavy metal". Dan56 (talk) 20:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, since the three genres currently in the infobox are all cited in the article (hard rock and metal are cited three times and hair metal once in the Reception and legacy section), there's no reason to cite them again in the infobox (WP:INFOBOXREF) @Ringerfan23: Dan56 (talk) 20:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

No Proper Reception Section

Why is there no real/proper reception part of the page with scores/ratings? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom2123 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you have the wrong idea about what a "real/proper reception part" should be. Please read WP:CRIT, or MOS:ALBUM#Critical reception, which states "the bulk of the information should be in prose format, though the text may be supplemented with the {{Album ratings}} template" (emphasis added). Of all the reviews/critiques discussed in the section, only three (Robert Christgau, Ann Powers, and Stephen Thomas Erlewine) gave this album a score. Mentioning them in prose is preferred as it is more practical; in an article, significant items should normally be mentioned naturally within the text rather than merely tabulated. Dan56 (talk) 02:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Appetite for Destruction. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150708033526/http://gc.guitarcenter.com:80/interview/mike%2Dclink/ to http://gc.guitarcenter.com/interview/mike-clink/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150711101911/http://eil.com:80/features/Definitive_200.asp to http://eil.com/features/Definitive_200.asp
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://rateyourmusic.com/lists/list_view?list_id=66329&show=25&start=75

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 14:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Appetite for Destruction. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100817010302/http://www.musicstack.com/articles/historic-controversial-album-covers-part-two to http://www.musicstack.com/articles/historic-controversial-album-covers-part-two
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071224153007/http://babellist.xnet2.com/0101/msg00062.html to http://babellist.xnet2.com/0101/msg00062.html
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5mr48CgXN?url=http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/07/03/052023.php to http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/07/03/052023.php

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 02:52, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hair or Glam?

Why is the genre referred to as "hair metal" rather than "glam metal" in the infobox? I get they're synonymous but I thought the official name used on Wikipedia was 'glam' rather than 'hair'. Solitude6nv5 (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Chuck Eddy, the source, calls it a "hair metal" record. According to Billboard's Chris Titus, the album adopted glam metal's aesthetic; I could not find any sources that directly call this a glam metal album. Dan56 (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Solitude6nv5:, I have found another source--Chuck Klosterman--who calls it a "pop metal" album. Would that be preferable? Dan56 (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Dan56: No, Hair Metal is fine. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I would take hair metal over pop metal, though I'd never think of GnR as any kind of metal at all, I would never consider them 'pop metal'. Solitude6nv5 (talk) 09:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Album art changed to 2018 release?

Why was the album art changed to the new one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrepoiy (talk • contribs) 22:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what you are talking about; the art listed in the main infobox image is the art it's always been, the one listed in the "Remastered version" section is the 'new' one.RF23 (talk) 10:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Opinion not substantiated

Describing the album as having met with "universal acclaim" is hyperbole and not referenced. The similarly dubious claim that the album is regarded as "one of the greatest albums of all time" is not substantiated and not a claim that has much merit. Is there a citation or other reference for these claims? Teejay63 (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Opinion not substantiated

Describing the album as having met with "universal acclaim" is hyperbole and not referenced. The similarly dubious claim that the album is regarded as "one of the greatest albums of all time" is not substantiated and not a claim that has much merit. Is there a citation or other reference for these claims? Teejay63 (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Album cover in the lead?

Shouldn't the more well-known cross-and-skulls album cover be in the lead and the controversial, original one as the alternative cover, since almost all pressings have the cross-and-skulls cover? Seaparrot876 (talk) 10:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Hair metal?

why is this album genre called hair metal, which is synonymous with glam metal. Most other articles prefer glam. I get that it's what the citations say but why not use the preferred term Mewhen123 (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

unexplained reversion

Hi, my last edit was reverted without explanation. My edit summary gave a reason for my primary change. The other changes in the edit were minor punctuation corrections and one typographic improvement. If there was an objection to one of these changes, it could have been partially reverted. Can anyone explain the objection to the entire set of changes, warranting reversion? 136.62.202.34 (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)