857:- It's not meant to burden the reception section with Rolling Stone reviews, but because two different reviews with two different ratings were published, it seems like it's best to present them both instead of choosing between one or the other. Most publications will only offer one "canonical" review/rating of an album, but as mentioned, this appears to be a case where that it is not true. Dave Marsh is a very notable critic, so his review is certainly notable. And on the other hand, the review that is still available on Rolling Stone's site is the Cohen review. If the issue at hand is the exceeding of 10 reviews, I think we can remove one of the retrospective ratings.
1427:
this is not a valid RfC is not off topic. Feel free to explain why. Please remember that every time you make an ignorant comment, I die a little inside because I have to respond to you. In short, you're nto helping at all. In short, as a member of the albums project, I have not seen an album article's response broken into two sections. I may not work on a lot of "classic" albums, but I'd be happy to see a few. A quick search shows that this does exist on
421:
344:
319:
411:
390:
269:
251:
220:
919:. I do not have to compromise a Knowledge (XXG) article like a fanatic just to prove it. The readers will not know that the review is by Marsh from a glance at the ratings box, so I fail to see what good this does: all you are doing is showing two scores without context. Is Debra Rae Cohen a very notable critic? If not, then take hers out.
611:
AllMusic has reviews for an original release, a special edition and an anniversary release, each by a different reviewer and each with a different score, it makes perfect sense to supply them. If a publication had five, I might think thatâs too many, but if local consensus is that each one is needed, I see no reason to override that . If
1174:
of a "Legacy" section discussing retrospective appraisals of the album, along with "Retrospective review" scores in template form; my revisions also added a few scores to the section discussing "Contemporary reception" of the album. No reasoning was given in Walter's edit summary; he instead chose to
615:
were to review an album and then revisit the review and change it, it makes sense to list both. The template holds only ten reviews, but as a table, the cell can hold many more and there is no prohibition against that, so if we feel that the information should be conveyed, there is no artificial rule
1426:
You need to learn to read. I'll let you read what I wrote again. The first is not an attack, it's a clear statement to explain why I went straight to ANI. That the editor upset me and I used poor language to explain what I think of the editor's additions is also not a personal attack. That I believe
1398:
is a short one liner comment addressing the concerns. Please remember every time you write a comment on the talk page, the audience is not just the target of the comment but every editor who in future reads that discussion. Personally I would have appreciated if you elaborated your response and made
664:
You're linking to style advice. It's not even a guideline. The template cannot contain more than ten parameters. There are reviews and review scores, and we're discussing the review scores, and the advice does not stipulate how many review scores are permitted per review site. Multiple review scores
1712:
at heart, but whereas the eccentric
Mancunian was more of a dictatorial leader, Lillywhite encouraged the creative input of others". By the way, it's possible to vary word choice (even though I didn't) from what the original source says and not be violating WP:OR, so either you don't understand the
1693:
applies for psychedelic bands who recorded loops, cut the tapes, rewind the tapes when recording, made off the wall studio effects... This is not the case at all for this rock album. Lillywhite decided to record the drums elsewhere in the building because the sound was not enough interesting in the
514:
is 10 scores; awkwardly cluttering one row in this box with two scores still makes it two scores, for a total of 11. And because it is blatant favoritism to one particular publication, of no benefit to the reader. Pick a score, the three-and-a-half or four stars, but we do not need both to bludgeon
539:
You know that you're addressing more than one editor. I initially restored the one you removed yesterday and gave you a reason: it's one of the most respected music publications. It's quite common to include two reviews from the same source. There is no favouritism, blatant or otherwise. We do not
610:
Itâs not unique. Using two reviews for a single publication is used on occasion. It's not one score, itâs two. I donât care how many reviews are present as long as they fit into the infobox and they are professional, reliable sources. When we have 10 reviews and add
Metacritic, we have 11. If
1521:
There is a consensus above that this RfC is premature and (hence an abuse of the RfC process). There is no talk page discussion that reached an impasse for the RfC participants to refer to. Accordingly I have commented out the RfC tag. Please continue using this thread for a
1036:, so by continuing here, I may be petty but not a liar, like you. Going forward, nothing you say can be trusted. And I would say, pedantic, rather than petty. But I suspect you use that word since people frequently use it in conversation with you.
1623:
Dismissive much? No, it's painfully obvious when orthodox recording techniques are used and when they are not. If you don't like the term, that's one thing, to fabricate excuses to claim its either PEACOCK or OR are simply wikilawyering.
519:
liked the album in 1981, at the expense of eliminating a more useful representative in the ratings template. Which is what we'd have to do if you continue to pursue this special treatment for another damn row of gold stars attributed to
1744:
at heart, but whereas the eccentric
Mancunian was more of a dictatorial leader, Lillywhite encouraged the creative input of others According to Kevin Moloney, there was a DIY approach to making the record with some of the more
1176:
1310:, Dan56 made a bold edit and you reverted that. It is past now. Please move forward and explain why you think Dan's edit was inappropriate and what, (if any) is your preferred version of the content that Dan added. --
1179:
against me. This, along with his past bad-faith accusations towards me, impairs my faith in his ability to discuss this with me civilly. So I am opening a request for comment, for other editors to help decide this.
153:
1399:
a strong enough argument. This discussion will probably be referred to, in a future RFC, if both of you are not able to reach an amicable solution to this dispute. So please comment keeping that in mind. --
1380:, AGF is not optional, Unless there is strong evidence of blockable offence or a policy violation that should be reported, editors are expected to join the discussion instead of attacking each other.
1009:
You're not good at
English; a publication is a piece of published material; an edition or issue of a magazine is a publication. This is what you choose to respond to? Gzus. So petty, Walter.
1444:
1830:
1359:. It's hard to assume good faith when other editors ping on talk pages of articles that have been on your watchlist for years and they don't read what you've already written.
1757:"Lillywhite employed a creative, experimental approach as the producer, recording smashed bottles and silverware skimmed against a spinning bicycle wheel for sound effects"
1484:. It is an attack on another editor's edit. A neutral RfC would merely state or link to the text of a proposed Legacy section and ask whether it should be included or not.
769:
Should two scores from
Rolling Stone, from the same year, be included in the ratings box? A recent addition included a second score, bringing the total scores in the box
1591:
I disagree that it is not a PEACOCK term in any way, but it seems it's been removed. What could be done is that claim could expanded, which is what I thought was done.
147:
665:
are perfectly legitimate, unlike changing the talk page comments or !votes of other editors. And your RfC question was far from neutral which is why I changed it.
1137:. If you all want to make this article a touch bit tacky while pretending to ignorance of clear-cut guidelines, go for it. It is merely a U2 article, after all.
593:
Are you saying that in this unique instance, two review scores crammed together into one slot is actually one review score and it does not total 11 in the box?
79:
1254:
Because, you came straight here and edited the article again after the last time you were told wasn't a problem, just to make the point that there were two
477:
977:, and even if it were it would be a different issue of the magazine, which is another publication. And the limit defined by the guidelines specifies 10
1825:
562:
If it is quite common to exceed the 10 score limit outlined by the template guideline, then it is quite clear some editors are doing something wrong.
467:
85:
1440:
1240:
Why did you go directly into an RfC instead of holding a regular discussion on this talk page? This seems like a pretty aggressive thing to do.
1835:
1573:
who included the "Unorthodox" adjective in the article to provide the entire quote, on which they based their work to include this sentence.
443:
1815:
1722:
902:
866:
30:
285:
44:
1258:
reviews. You wanted to make it clear to everyone and the rest was just whipped cream on the bullshit you've been spouting for a month.
1780:
As stated, the techniques were far from conventional, so the choice of wording was appropriate. Also, do not use italics in a quotes.
99:
1820:
757:
746:
Engaging in personal attacks (and linking to essays) does not help your cause and I am convinced of the case for including 2 scores.
104:
20:
434:
395:
74:
1810:
280:, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the
281:
276:
256:
231:
1674:
1606:
65:
1158:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
747:
168:
135:
1785:
1629:
1596:
1507:
1456:
1364:
1263:
1224:
1041:
1000:
826:
698:
670:
624:
584:
553:
350:
324:
576:
It's not quite common to exceed ten reviews, it is common to have more than one review represented in a single slot.
190:
185:
109:
199:
1718:
898:
862:
237:
1293:
1245:
964:
355:
329:
129:
1781:
1625:
1592:
1503:
1489:
1452:
1377:
1360:
1305:
1283:
1259:
1220:
1167:
1124:
1037:
1032:. A review, by itself, is not the whole magazine, so it's clear that the writer meant a publishing house.
996:
844:
822:
694:
666:
620:
580:
549:
1732:
1499:
619:
And you're not using reason, you're using bad math. I will refrain from any further personal commentary.
55:
1535:
1408:
1319:
442:
on
Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
960:
70:
125:
1740:"The studio atmosphere Lillywhite fostered was very different from that of Martin Hannett. Both were
1028:
1566:
219:
1763:
1714:
1648:
1570:
1529:
1428:
1402:
1339:
1313:
1026:
894:
858:
505:
161:
1665:"According to Kevin Moloney, there was a DIY approach to making the record with some of the more
1024:
1289:
1241:
204:
175:
1523:
1219:. I have not seen such a section before and it's nit recommended at the style guide for albums.
1203:
1181:
1138:
1104:
1065:
1051:
1010:
982:
920:
880:
805:
778:
680:
651:
634:
597:
563:
525:
1485:
1119:
1099:
839:
725:
RfC: Should two scores from
Rolling Stone, from the same year, be included in the ratings box?
51:
959:
there's still only 10 publications in the box, exceptions can be made for cases like these --
1771:
1699:
1614:
1581:
612:
201:
1481:
1134:
1207:
1185:
1142:
1108:
1069:
1055:
1014:
986:
947:
924:
884:
809:
782:
684:
655:
638:
601:
567:
529:
1766:
embellished what
Joblins wrote. The page in question is 65, in the reference, not 66-68.
1030:
995:
You're not good at counting. Ten publications. One publication has two alternate review.
495:
Why are you so bent on having two review scores from
Rolling Stone, from the same year?
426:
141:
1762:
If
Lillywhite is Experimental at heart, it doesn't mean that he was on that album but
1096:
The ratings template was not made to pay tribute to the popularity of any one source,
804:: "Include no more than ten reviews in table form ... keep a neutral point of view".
1804:
973:
There are actually 11 publications, since the source used to verify the score is not
1749:
recording techniques involving hitting a kitchen fork off a spinning bicycle wheel."
1669:
recording techniques involving hitting a kitchen fork off a spinning bicycle wheel."
1767:
1695:
1610:
1577:
879:, to show readers just how important the magazine is to this article's topic...
24:
343:
318:
1432:
1288:, I assume your response was addressed to Dan56 and not to me, Beyond My Ken.
943:
416:
410:
389:
268:
250:
1436:
801:
770:
647:
511:
540:
need several of the other reviews though. I appreciate the addition of the
1448:
439:
203:
1681:
adjective was used for the musicians, not for Lillywhite's work. b)
875:
While we're at it, let's make a special little ratings box just for
1789:
1775:
1726:
1703:
1633:
1618:
1600:
1585:
1544:
1511:
1493:
1460:
1417:
1368:
1328:
1297:
1267:
1249:
1228:
1211:
1189:
1163:
RfC: Should this addition of a "Legacy" section have been reverted?
1146:
1129:
1112:
1073:
1059:
1045:
1018:
1004:
990:
968:
951:
928:
906:
888:
870:
849:
830:
813:
786:
759:
702:
688:
674:
659:
642:
628:
605:
588:
571:
557:
533:
893:
Dude, we get it. You don't like Rolling Stone. Time to move on...
596:
You're right. I am doing something wrong: using reason with you.
1064:
Hmmmm... maybe I won't drop it, just to match your pettiness.đ
1480:. This RfC is not neutral, which is one of the requirements of
213:
205:
15:
838:- Itâs one of the most prominent music sources in existence.
1558:
Lillywhite employed other unorthodox production techniques
284:, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
942:
We should not give more weight to a particular reviewer.
1651:, here are the quotes of the Joblings' book - page 65.
1445:
List of Billboard Year-End number-one singles and albums
1443:. I suppose I shouldn't have started with the albums at
1574:
1394:
1388:
1386:
is not referring to the content but more of an attack,
1382:
1355:
1350:
1345:
1171:
1033:
499:
650:
quite clearly says "include no more than ten reviews"
160:
1708:
You conveniently left out the full quote: "Both were
739:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
438:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
1576:. I ask it once again, if not, there will be a rfc.
174:
981:, not 10 publications. An exception to what end?
544:book's review, but if there are two reviews from
353:, a project which is currently considered to be
33:for general discussion of the article's subject.
1713:guideline or you're intentionally being dense.
1447:, because there's nothing like this section at
1500:no discussion and it had no reached an impasse
512:the maximum capacity for this ratings template
742:A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
548:, we would likely include them both as well.
8:
1831:B-Class Ireland articles of High-importance
616:stating they cannot or should be excluded.
384:
313:
245:
1050:Pffftt. What exactly have I lied about?
1392:again is offtopic comment on RfC. Only
777:reviews to two represented in the box.
386:
315:
247:
217:
1441:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
7:
1498:It's also invalid because there was
1034:You stated you were going to drop it
733:The following discussion is closed.
579:Yes, you are doing something wrong.
432:This article is within the scope of
349:This article is within the scope of
274:This article is within the scope of
1644:Unconventional recording techniques
452:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Ireland
23:for discussing improvements to the
1526:discussion to improve the page. --
633:Metacritic is not a review score.
294:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Albums
14:
50:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome!
1826:High-importance Ireland articles
1439:, while something similar is at
1154:The discussion above is closed.
802:MOS:ALBUM#Album ratings template
648:MOS:ALBUM#Album ratings template
419:
409:
388:
342:
317:
267:
249:
218:
45:Click here to start a new topic.
1217:It should never have been added
821:It's been explained why above.
472:This article has been rated as
1738:This excerpt of Joblins' book
365:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject U2
236:It is of interest to multiple
1:
1836:All WikiProject Ireland pages
1790:08:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
1776:21:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
1727:16:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
1704:14:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
1634:08:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
1619:03:12, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
1601:00:05, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
1586:13:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
1545:17:11, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
1512:15:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
1494:13:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
1461:23:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
1418:22:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
1369:21:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
1329:17:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
1298:10:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
1268:03:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
1250:02:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
1229:03:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
1212:21:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
1190:21:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
760:18:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
446:and see a list of open tasks.
42:Put new text under old text.
1147:04:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
1074:15:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
1060:15:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
1046:06:43, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
1019:06:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
1005:06:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
991:04:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
969:17:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
952:05:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
929:22:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
907:11:33, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
889:07:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
871:03:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
455:Template:WikiProject Ireland
1816:WikiProject Albums articles
1656:"Lillywhite encourages the
1569:. So I have asked the user
1130:02:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
1113:01:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
1023:It's got multiple meanings
850:01:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
831:21:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
814:20:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
787:20:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
703:02:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
689:02:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
675:02:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
660:22:43, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
643:22:42, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
629:22:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
606:22:17, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
589:21:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
572:20:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
558:19:54, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
534:19:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
515:readers with the fact that
297:Template:WikiProject Albums
1852:
1605:Whatever, "unorthodox" is
478:project's importance scale
1170:reverted in its entirety
679:Awfully defensive there.
471:
404:
337:
262:
244:
80:Be welcoming to newcomers
1821:B-Class Ireland articles
1156:Please do not modify it.
736:Please do not modify it.
1561:, is problematic. The "
368:Template:WikiProject U2
1811:B-Class Album articles
226:This article is rated
75:avoid personal attacks
230:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
100:Neutral point of view
1694:studio to his view.
1675:wp:original research
1607:wp:original research
771:past the limit of 10
105:No original research
1429:The Beatles (album)
435:WikiProject Ireland
277:WikiProject Albums
232:content assessment
86:dispute resolution
47:
1753:is transformed in
1677:, because a) the
1300:
1175:immediately open
492:
491:
488:
487:
484:
483:
383:
382:
379:
378:
312:
311:
308:
307:
212:
211:
66:Assume good faith
43:
1843:
1660:input of others"
1542:
1539:
1533:
1415:
1412:
1406:
1397:
1391:
1385:
1358:
1353:
1348:
1343:
1326:
1323:
1317:
1309:
1287:
1280:
1177:an ANI complaint
1127:
1122:
1103:
847:
842:
773:, and the total
755:
750:
738:
613:Robert Christgau
509:
460:
459:
458:Ireland articles
456:
453:
450:
429:
424:
423:
422:
413:
406:
405:
400:
392:
385:
373:
372:
369:
366:
363:
346:
339:
338:
333:
321:
314:
302:
301:
298:
295:
292:
271:
264:
263:
253:
246:
229:
223:
222:
214:
206:
179:
178:
164:
95:Article policies
16:
1851:
1850:
1846:
1845:
1844:
1842:
1841:
1840:
1801:
1800:
1646:
1565:" adjective is
1553:
1537:
1531:
1528:
1410:
1404:
1401:
1393:
1387:
1381:
1354:
1349:
1344:
1337:
1321:
1315:
1312:
1303:
1281:
1237:
1197:
1165:
1160:
1159:
1125:
1120:
1097:
1094:
845:
840:
794:
767:
751:
748:
734:
727:
503:
497:
474:High-importance
457:
454:
451:
448:
447:
425:
420:
418:
399:Highâimportance
398:
370:
367:
364:
361:
360:
327:
299:
296:
293:
290:
289:
227:
208:
207:
202:
121:
116:
115:
114:
91:
61:
12:
11:
5:
1849:
1847:
1839:
1838:
1833:
1828:
1823:
1818:
1813:
1803:
1802:
1799:
1798:
1797:
1796:
1795:
1794:
1793:
1792:
1782:Walter Görlitz
1764:Y2kcrazyjoker4
1760:
1754:
1751:
1747:unconventional
1736:
1715:Y2Kcrazyjoker4
1683:Unconventional
1671:
1667:unconventional
1662:
1649:Y2kcrazyjoker4
1645:
1642:
1641:
1640:
1639:
1638:
1637:
1636:
1626:Walter Görlitz
1593:Walter Görlitz
1571:Y2kcrazyjoker4
1555:This sentence
1552:
1549:
1548:
1547:
1516:
1515:
1514:
1504:Walter Görlitz
1474:
1473:
1472:
1471:
1470:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1464:
1463:
1453:Walter Görlitz
1421:
1420:
1378:Walter Görlitz
1372:
1371:
1361:Walter Görlitz
1332:
1331:
1306:Walter Görlitz
1301:
1284:Walter Görlitz
1273:
1272:
1271:
1270:
1260:Walter Görlitz
1236:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1221:Walter Görlitz
1214:
1196:
1193:
1168:Walter Görlitz
1164:
1161:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1093:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1038:Walter Görlitz
997:Walter Görlitz
954:
937:
936:
935:
934:
933:
932:
931:
895:Y2Kcrazyjoker4
859:Y2Kcrazyjoker4
852:
833:
823:Walter Görlitz
816:
793:
790:
766:
765:
764:
763:
762:
729:
728:
726:
723:
722:
721:
720:
719:
718:
717:
716:
715:
714:
713:
712:
711:
710:
709:
708:
707:
706:
705:
695:Walter Görlitz
667:Walter Görlitz
645:
621:Walter Görlitz
617:
594:
581:Walter Görlitz
577:
550:Walter Görlitz
506:Y2kcrazyjoker4
496:
493:
490:
489:
486:
485:
482:
481:
470:
464:
463:
461:
444:the discussion
431:
430:
427:Ireland portal
414:
402:
401:
393:
381:
380:
377:
376:
374:
351:WikiProject U2
347:
335:
334:
322:
310:
309:
306:
305:
303:
300:Album articles
272:
260:
259:
254:
242:
241:
235:
224:
210:
209:
200:
198:
197:
194:
193:
181:
180:
118:
117:
113:
112:
107:
102:
93:
92:
90:
89:
82:
77:
68:
62:
60:
59:
48:
39:
38:
35:
34:
28:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1848:
1837:
1834:
1832:
1829:
1827:
1824:
1822:
1819:
1817:
1814:
1812:
1809:
1808:
1806:
1791:
1787:
1783:
1779:
1778:
1777:
1773:
1769:
1765:
1761:
1758:
1755:
1752:
1750:
1748:
1743:
1737:
1734:
1730:
1729:
1728:
1724:
1723:contributions
1720:
1716:
1711:
1707:
1706:
1705:
1701:
1697:
1692:
1688:
1684:
1680:
1676:
1672:
1670:
1668:
1663:
1661:
1659:
1654:
1653:
1652:
1650:
1643:
1635:
1631:
1627:
1622:
1621:
1620:
1616:
1612:
1608:
1604:
1603:
1602:
1598:
1594:
1590:
1589:
1588:
1587:
1583:
1579:
1575:
1572:
1568:
1564:
1560:
1559:
1551:December 2020
1550:
1546:
1543:
1541:
1534:
1525:
1520:
1517:
1513:
1509:
1505:
1501:
1497:
1496:
1495:
1491:
1487:
1483:
1479:
1476:
1475:
1462:
1458:
1454:
1450:
1446:
1442:
1438:
1434:
1430:
1425:
1424:
1423:
1422:
1419:
1416:
1414:
1407:
1396:
1390:
1384:
1379:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1373:
1370:
1366:
1362:
1357:
1352:
1347:
1341:
1336:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1330:
1327:
1325:
1318:
1307:
1302:
1299:
1295:
1291:
1290:Beyond My Ken
1285:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1257:
1256:Rolling Stone
1253:
1252:
1251:
1247:
1243:
1242:Beyond My Ken
1239:
1238:
1234:
1230:
1226:
1222:
1218:
1215:
1213:
1209:
1205:
1202:
1199:
1198:
1194:
1192:
1191:
1187:
1183:
1178:
1173:
1169:
1162:
1157:
1148:
1144:
1140:
1136:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1128:
1123:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1110:
1106:
1101:
1091:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1057:
1053:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1035:
1031:
1029:
1027:
1025:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1002:
998:
994:
993:
992:
988:
984:
980:
976:
975:Rolling Stone
972:
971:
970:
966:
962:
958:
955:
953:
949:
945:
941:
938:
930:
926:
922:
918:
914:
913:Rolling Stone
910:
909:
908:
904:
903:contributions
900:
896:
892:
891:
890:
886:
882:
878:
877:Rolling Stone
874:
873:
872:
868:
867:contributions
864:
860:
856:
853:
851:
848:
843:
837:
834:
832:
828:
824:
820:
817:
815:
811:
807:
803:
799:
796:
795:
791:
789:
788:
784:
780:
776:
775:Rolling Stone
772:
761:
758:
756:
754:
745:
744:
743:
740:
737:
731:
730:
724:
704:
700:
696:
692:
691:
690:
686:
682:
678:
677:
676:
672:
668:
663:
662:
661:
657:
653:
649:
646:
644:
640:
636:
632:
631:
630:
626:
622:
618:
614:
609:
608:
607:
603:
599:
595:
592:
591:
590:
586:
582:
578:
575:
574:
573:
569:
565:
561:
560:
559:
555:
551:
547:
543:
538:
537:
536:
535:
531:
527:
523:
522:Rolling Stone
518:
517:Rolling Stone
513:
507:
501:
494:
479:
475:
469:
466:
465:
462:
445:
441:
437:
436:
428:
417:
415:
412:
408:
407:
403:
397:
394:
391:
387:
375:
358:
357:
352:
348:
345:
341:
340:
336:
331:
326:
323:
320:
316:
304:
287:
283:
279:
278:
273:
270:
266:
265:
261:
258:
255:
252:
248:
243:
239:
233:
225:
221:
216:
215:
196:
195:
192:
189:
187:
183:
182:
177:
173:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
131:
127:
124:
123:Find sources:
120:
119:
111:
110:Verifiability
108:
106:
103:
101:
98:
97:
96:
87:
83:
81:
78:
76:
72:
69:
67:
64:
63:
57:
53:
52:Learn to edit
49:
46:
41:
40:
37:
36:
32:
26:
22:
18:
17:
1756:
1746:
1742:experimental
1741:
1739:
1733:wp:synthesis
1710:experimental
1709:
1691:experimental
1690:
1687:experimental
1686:
1682:
1678:
1666:
1664:
1657:
1655:
1647:
1562:
1557:
1556:
1554:
1527:
1518:
1486:Softlavender
1477:
1400:
1311:
1255:
1216:
1200:
1166:
1155:
1121:Sergecross73
1100:Sergecross73
1095:
978:
974:
961:Ilovetopaint
956:
939:
916:
912:
876:
854:
841:Sergecross73
835:
818:
797:
774:
768:
752:
741:
735:
732:
693:Not really.
545:
541:
521:
516:
498:
473:
433:
354:
282:project page
275:
238:WikiProjects
184:
171:
165:
157:
150:
144:
138:
132:
122:
94:
19:This is the
1478:Invalid RfC
1172:my addition
371:U2 articles
148:free images
31:not a forum
25:Boy (album)
1805:Categories
1567:wp:peacock
1563:Unorthodox
1435:, but not
1433:Abbey Road
1235:Discussion
1092:Discussion
819:Absolutely
510:? Because
286:discussion
1437:Let It Be
1351:commented
88:if needed
71:Be polite
21:talk page
1731:This is
1679:creative
1673:You did
1658:creative
1524:WP:CIVIL
1449:The Wall
1340:DBigXray
915:plenty,
356:inactive
330:inactive
186:Archives
56:get help
29:This is
27:article.
1685:is not
1519:Comment
1451:, etc.
1346:already
1135:Fuck it
911:I like
500:Why not
476:on the
449:Ireland
440:Ireland
396:Ireland
228:B-class
154:WPÂ refs
142:scholar
1768:Iennes
1696:Iennes
1611:Iennes
1578:Iennes
1482:WP:RFC
1195:Survey
1126:msg me
1118:Okay.
979:scores
846:msg me
792:!Votes
291:Albums
257:Albums
234:scale.
126:Google
1204:Dan56
1182:Dan56
1139:Dan56
1105:Dan56
1066:Dan56
1052:Dan56
1011:Dan56
983:Dan56
944:Rzvas
921:Dan56
881:Dan56
806:Dan56
779:Dan56
681:Dan56
652:Dan56
635:Dan56
598:Dan56
564:Dan56
526:Dan56
169:JSTOR
130:books
84:Seek
1786:talk
1772:talk
1719:talk
1700:talk
1630:talk
1615:talk
1597:talk
1582:talk
1508:talk
1490:talk
1457:talk
1431:and
1395:this
1389:this
1383:this
1365:talk
1356:here
1294:talk
1264:talk
1246:talk
1225:talk
1208:talk
1186:talk
1143:talk
1109:talk
1070:talk
1056:talk
1042:talk
1015:talk
1001:talk
987:talk
965:talk
948:talk
925:talk
917:dude
899:talk
885:talk
863:talk
827:talk
810:talk
783:talk
699:talk
685:talk
671:talk
656:talk
639:talk
625:talk
602:talk
585:talk
568:talk
554:talk
546:Spin
542:Spin
530:talk
468:High
162:FENS
136:news
73:and
1721:âą
1538:ray
1532:Big
1411:ray
1405:Big
1322:ray
1316:Big
957:Yes
901:âą
865:âą
855:Yes
836:Yes
753:WBG
176:TWL
1807::
1788:)
1774:)
1725:)
1702:)
1689::
1632:)
1617:)
1609:.
1599:)
1584:)
1510:)
1502:.
1492:)
1459:)
1367:)
1296:)
1266:)
1248:)
1227:)
1210:)
1201:No
1188:)
1145:)
1111:)
1072:)
1058:)
1044:)
1017:)
1003:)
989:)
967:)
950:)
940:No
927:)
905:)
887:)
869:)
829:)
812:)
800:-
798:No
785:)
701:)
687:)
673:)
658:)
641:)
627:)
604:)
587:)
570:)
556:)
532:)
524:.
502:,
362:U2
325:U2
156:)
54:;
1784:(
1770:(
1759:.
1735::
1717:(
1698:(
1628:(
1613:(
1595:(
1580:(
1540:á
1536:X
1530:D
1506:(
1488:(
1455:(
1413:á
1409:X
1403:D
1363:(
1342::
1338:@
1324:á
1320:X
1314:D
1308::
1304:@
1292:(
1286::
1282:@
1262:(
1244:(
1223:(
1206:(
1184:(
1141:(
1107:(
1102::
1098:@
1068:(
1054:(
1040:(
1013:(
999:(
985:(
963:(
946:(
923:(
897:(
883:(
861:(
825:(
808:(
781:(
749:âŻ
697:(
683:(
669:(
654:(
637:(
623:(
600:(
583:(
566:(
552:(
528:(
508::
504:@
480:.
359:.
332:)
328:(
288:.
240:.
191:1
188::
172:·
166:·
158:·
151:·
145:·
139:·
133:·
128:(
58:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
