Knowledge talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 56

1549:

of the records were only released in limited numbers, and several of the artists involved weren't very well-known. Thus these separate articles are mostly just infoboxes and tracklists; what little else they have is either unsourced or sourced to fan sites and the like. It seems to me that, since they form an informal series, it might be best to merge the verifiable content together into a single article covering the whole series. I think there's probably enough source coverage available to get such an article started, with the more significant installments receiving the most coverage and the rest getting smaller mentions. Before doing anything, I thought I'd ask for opinions. --

5184:: according to its homepage Music Story is now a "music metadata provider" (whatever that means) and there is no sign of any album reviews or ratings on its website, nor a means to search for them if they exist (clicking on "Catalog" or "Database" just returns you to the home page). So all we have in most cases in Acclaimed Music's word for it that the ratings on the old Music Story website are correct, because there are few archive links, and no idea who reviewed those albums at the time. As there are so many other more reliable and verifiable sources available, it doesn't seem worth relying on this site for reviews. 2460:, Wikiproject Albums cannot be both a task force of WikiProject The Beatles and a project itself. It has to be either one or the other. If it is set up as both, it causes confusion for software that uses the banner data to classify pages by WikiProject, for example, XTools, Pageviews tool, and CopyPatrol. The two projects should both have separate banner templates on the page. This is the case for all other types of WikiProjects. There's no reason to make Wikiproject Albums and Wikiproject Songs into special exceptions. Since there are only about 100 Beatles albums, this shouldn't be too hard to fix. 2039:

for replaceable refs, but most of them unfortunately, the directors are either not found in secondary sources (only primary sources, such as the director's and film company's websites) or there is no ref found at all. Also, while I have you both here, I would like to ask whether the record label listings in the "Studio albums" section is correct. As in, should Island Def Jam, Warner, and Atlantic Records be included or are they just distribution companies for the records and should be omitted? Both of your advice on these questions is much appreciated. —

4221:: "Nick DeRiso has written for USA Today, American Songwriter, All About Jazz, and a host of others. Honored as columnist of the year five times by the Associated Press, Louisiana Press Association and Louisiana Sports Writers Association, he oversaw a daily section named Top 10 in the U.S. by the AP before co-founding Something Else! Nick is now associate editor of Ultimate Classic Rock." I think that's quite impressive. I haven't looked into the other writers but I wonder if it might be worth treating Something Else! 5368:

down to a simple rating out of five stars or other scoring system." (Some disruptive editors are mass adding problematic ratings to articles, which prompted this discussion and about Scott Floman above.) The original MS reviews are probably RS and should replace AM when available (with the writer identified in the ref). I think that editors should be made aware on Albums/Sources that Acclaimed Music includes ratings and lists, etc., from sources that are not consider to be reliable by WP standards.

1099:, but one is a stub and one is a start? You have the name of the album, who recorded it, when it was recorded, when it was released, and a chart position. These to me equate to "a very basic description of the album", not even close to what I expect as an "overview of the album", a requirement for a start. And I certainly don't have a problem with the existence of stub articles. All I do is try to add an assessment based on the criteria, anyone can change it to what they think it should be. Thanks. -- 5205:, although images and part of the formatting haven't come through. What should, and did once, appear under "Discographie de …" was a line of album cover images with a star rating for each. In some cases, this constituted a gallery of five pages of images (i.e. an arrow head in the far right of the gallery took you onto the next five images). Clicking on each album cover then revealed a review (or a "chronique"), often about two or three paragraphs long and credited to a French journalist. 4174:, and I get this is an album review, I haven't considered its context yet, I'm just concerned about reliability here. I looked at its about page - it has many people listed as well as authors, however the results turn out to be mostly troubling - they seem like they do this as some sort of side job and are not professionals. The only one I did find was their co-founder (who is no longer with them as of 2015), Nick DeRiso, which lists something rather promising; currently, his 3038:

recently have not gotten any from Dead Press! so I doubt that's the case anymore. I would argue perhaps that the sites reports and interviews are fine but since the authors of the site hold little credibility, perhaps their reviews should be excluded? I'm also aware that the simple fact that the authors, and even the site owners themselves, don't have much in terms of experience outside of Dead Press! so I'm unsure whether that alone fails the site for its reliability.

31: 5706:

a well-known reviewer might carry more weight than one or two stars from a lesser known). I don't know that a RFC would help, but without a broader consensus to the contrary, it looks as if the mixed use of prose and symbols will remain. Adding Music Story to ALBUM/SOURCE can wait until its article can be improved. Any thoughts on adding a statement about Acclaimed Music? It looks like SELFPUBLISHed, but has a lot of support. —

4323:? the Billboard Music Awards and Billboard touring section needs some quick fixes, mainly the tables aren't closed out under the nominee/work section, and the 2018 section of the top rock tour needs to list the tour name (not in this lifetime... tour) instead of the band name. If you could help that would be appreciated. Also is there a tutorial or something on how tables work on Wiki because they have stumped me for years. 5534:, which started in 1987 and is the UK's leading monthly music magazine, has always had a rating system. But the sheer volume of reviews it includes in the magazine each month (usually over 100) means unless it's a release by a major artist, it can't dedicate more than a brief paragraph to each album. I often find it hard to extract more than a six or seven-word phrase from the review that is meaningful. Likewise, 526: 4640: 5071: 918:-- "Stub", or "Start" -- and, for optional extra credit, why? I would like to see what the members of this WikiProject think about this, so the more editors who post their opinions, the better. This isn't to settle a dispute about that particular article, it's to get a feel for what other editors think about assessing album articles that look like that. 2206: 5850:, MusicHound and Martin Strong – in which case, there are no end of ratings that deserve to be removed. (I know this because, in years gone by, I've done a sweep through of all albums by artists such as the Stones, Led Zep, the Band, Petty & the Heartbreakers, the Beach Boys, ELO, solo Beatles, adding ratings from those titles.) In the case of 4424:

obviously going to be a very notable album, and deleting or redirecting it now just to have it recreated again in probably less than a month from now is a waste of time. Exactly what is the "misleading" information in the article as it stands? It's in very basic shape, sure, but everything in there is confirmed detail so far from reliable sources.

5465:

scores and ratings became standard, this has meant that a full, dedicated review can be well represented in the text but, lacking a formal rating, it's absent from the ratings box, which then gets filled with ratings from the short-sharp variety of critiques – ring-ins, really. (I'm talking about for a period up to about 2004, which is when

5407:– the first two of which appear to be viewed as vital inclusions in ratings boxes for rock albums, anyway. Often, those books say barely a word about live albums or compilations, for instance. I recently did some work on a couple of Beach Boys album articles and, in the case of Larkin, he says nothing at all about their 1968 studio album 4802:, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time. 1999:, primary sources are acceptable to verify basic, objective facts. I haven't done a thorough search on every instance used, but it should be okay to verify something as basic as, noting the existence of a music video. Then again, if FLC has some sort of issue with that mindset, it'd be an easy fix too - RS's like 1729:

that it's more likely to justify an article on this artist than on the label! But I'm interested either way; My agenda of course is not to make peace as to get the article(s) created if they're encyclopedic. They've provided many (claimed) sources but many (perhaps even all) are useless, mainly owing to being

5560:

article to show that for a period they provided album reviews by recognized music writers/critics, maybe with some names (the French WP article is no better). The one-year old tag "may not meet Knowledge's notability guidelines for companies and organizations" does not inspire confidence in its being

4182:

I'm a veteran editor, writer and manager with more than three decades of experience in print and online publishing. Named columnist of the year five times by the Associated Press, Louisiana Press Association and Louisiana Sports Writers Association, I previously oversaw a daily section that was named

2038:

I thought they would be considered WP:PRIMARY too, but figured I would at least try. The references from Vevo and Vimeo are in place to cite the director used for each music video, which might be a little more than "basic information". Would this still violate WP:PRIMARY? I have searched and searched

1746:

The more general question is, do the charts we currently explicitly recognise adequately catch these digital downloads? I know they try to factor them in. But with the proliferation of paid download sites, and the fact that even free downloads do represent some sort of popularity (and are more easily

1548:

In the past I think at least a few of these were covered as subsections within the articles on the original Ramones albums, but were later split off. There doesn't seem to be much reliable secondary source coverage out there for these releases, which isn't surprising since the labels were small, most

432:

Yes that's my understanding too. That is what reliable industry sources say. But we seem to have a stylism issue that certain record companies promote commercial sales album of original songs by one artist (typically a hip hop artist) as a "mixtape" for stylistic/marketing reasons. That to my mind is

327:

I can understand what you're saying. It sounds much like the eternal "single, promotional single, or just random song" debate that erupts on so many album articles these days. The only resolution we've really gotten there is "whatever sources or the majority of sources say. I can't see any resolution

283:

I thought the question was between mixtape and album, not playlist. Nor am I sure what difference it makes, or why an artist labeling it as something other than what it supposedly is would benefit them in any capacity, promotionally or otherwise. I guess I mostly work in the rock music area, and rock

5705:

Thanks for the link, but I didn't find the discussion helpful. On one hand, eliminating prose would cut down on OR and be more appropriate for a ratings (numeric, etc.) table; while on the other, it would also eliminate many of the better, more reasoned reviews from easy visibility (a positive from

5367:

includes "The bulk of the information should be in prose format, though the text may be supplemented with the Album ratings template, as a summary of professional reviews in table form. The template is not to be a substitute for a section in paragraph form, since a review cannot be accurately boiled

3804:

I'm personally okay with it. I've avoided using it for the reason above (and doubts about its reliability), but since you brought it up, I don't see anything wrong with it if they're interviewing the source in question. The only problem it presents is that they are impossible to archive if the video

2567:

Finally, unless I am missing something, I am not seeing any benefit to separating projects under the general auspices of music. Not convinced by any argument above. Unilaterally removing projects without any discussion is not helpful for anybody, especially in view of the number of articles affected

2530:

It also goes to say, “’’’Banner templates, on the other hand, can be altered as an individual WikiProject sees fit, and—since they can be used to tag all articles relating to a WikiProject’’’” Pretty clear in my mind that there is no reason why to projects cannot be partially merged, i.e. all albums

2149:

for some time now and believe I have exhausted every outlet I have in expanding this article. I tried to get a peer review completed back in November but it was archived with no input. So I am coming here to you guys in hopes that this will attract reviews or even just passerby comments. I am hoping

2095:

I will attempt to find reliable secondary sources for as many as I can. Regarding the record labels, I think it's just a little confusing because they have two labels for North America (604 is for Canada, Roadrunner is for the U.S.), and then Island Def Jam, Warner, and Atlantic are the distribution

1255:

Does anyone know how often the Project's main table ("Album articles by quality and importance") is updated? It's not in real time. I am curious because yesterday I re-assessed several albums that had been listed as "Future" but have actually been released, and the quantities in the table do not yet

661:

I agree, no harm in redirecting the article to Steve Dahl. Not sure the fate of the cover art is an issue because then it would become orphaned, not being used in any article, and I think what happens then is that a bot would then tag it for deletion – redirecting song and album articles is a common

5362:

Some MS contributors seem to be professionals. But readers don't see this, because most all of the WP MS links are to Acclaimed Music, which doesn't identify them (Scaruffi is on the same list for WYWH & EL) and the WP MS article only identifies it a data provider. I think the value of a star

4423:

Agree with Sergecross73 – it's just survived an AfD, and even if it were to go to a second AfD, the album would be on the verge of being released by the time the AfD was closed, making it somewhat redundant... as the album will include arguably the two biggest worldwide hits so far of 2018, this is

3994:

I created an album page in one of my subpage sandboxes. I pasted it over a redirect that was on the page with the name of the album. The redirect went to the band which recorded the album. Now people are deleting my work. I can see the global tags on the talk page but evidently I am too stupid

2870:

in the band template. It also goes against existing tagging conventions. There are many overlaps and hierarchies of WikiProjects, but traditionally every WikiProject uses its own banner for tagging, and the task force parameters are used for actual task forces. Misusing the task force parameters is

2329:

Perhaps this is not clear....the Beatles banner had others project banners in its banner. No problem with multiple projects tagging an article. Did all the other projects even want a tag in theses articles and templates? Can't force project banners into other banners....as its up to each project to

1890: 1869: 1728:

that I can see. It was referred to me as a possible reliable source to justify recreating a record label article which was deleted as no evidence of notability. At least one of their artists has had some chart success but only on downloads, no physical media have been released AFAIK. It seems to me

695:

unless some sourced discussion particularly about it were added to the article. That's possible for sure, but it's not really a major album release by a major artist so it seems unlikely, unless it was really controversial at the time, that something sufficient to justify this new non-free use can

312:

200... I guess it's a "mixtape" because it didn't have a physical release (MP3 download or streaming only), but in this day and age I'm not sure having a physical release is that necessary for an album to "exist". I totally understand why In ictu oculi says that this is an album, it's not something

5526:

avoided ratings for almost its entire existence: it experimented briefly with a two-star system around 1995 for "recommended" and "bloody essential" albums, and then only used ratings during the last couple of years of its life as an A4 format magazine. So clearly very few albums until the mid-80s

5505:

JG66 has a point about there often being an "inverse relationship" between star ratings and the amount of prose that go with them. Speaking from a British perspective, I don't think any music reviews used ratings during the 1960s, and the only one of the four major weekly music magazines that used

5271:

and Music Story. Larrède wasn't the writer I was referring to above, in fact, but he and others appear to have the credentials. I appreciate that this doesn't testify to the reliability of the site per se – all I can say is that in its past incarnation, pre-"music metadata provider", it was and it

5209:

for a Ravi Shankar album. I'd always meant to add to the article Dan started – one of the reviewers has written books on jazz and a David Bowie biography. Somewhere I've got a list of additions about the contributors, in a Word file, which I was going to use to expand the article; I'll have to get

2121:

Just need one or two more "Supports"! A lot of the major legwork has already been done. If anyone has some time to look it over, that would be so wonderful! It's so close! And as I mentioned, I am more than happy to take a look at anything you have that needs to be reviewed (now or any time in the

883:

content if you could use sources that anyone could alter to say whatever they want at any time? Sources would become entirely pointless. Yes, anyone can edit, but that doesn't mean its "Knowledge, the place where everyone can write whatever they want." or "Knowledge, the place with no rules". It's

4021:

If you're interested in preserving the history of your sandbox, you could tag the article with this {{subst:db-move|PAGENAME|reason}} (replace PAGENAME with the name of your sandbox), then an admin would move your sandbox over the article so your edits get the proper attribution. Editors redirect

3037:

was unanimously negative due to the users malware warnings being set off. Whether or not this was indeed due to virus' being present on the site or simply their web-browsers giving false-alarms (something that I have experienced myself on other reliable and safe websites) is unknown but I for one

2920:

The primary reason for having this new curiosity regarding the websites status was sparked when I noticed several big names either re-tweeting Dead Press! articles or tweeting at the Dead Press! account directly, suggesting that these notable names in the industry do regard this site as reliable,

1129:

In the case of "Dave's Picks Volume 25", you didn't add an assessment, you changed an existing assessment. Those are two similar but different things. When you change an existing assessment, someone who is thinking about album article assessments has already graded the article, and you disagree

1028:

is a Stub album article. I whipped it up today, in my spare time. I have seen a fair number of album articles that look a lot like this one, except that this one has better references than most Stub articles. The refs in this case are to help with expanding the article, and also to show that the

1019:

I'd generally consider it a stub as well. Perhaps we need to look at this from another angle: if this isn't a stub, what sort of album article would be a stub? I mean this is already basically the bare-minimum for what we'd allow for an album article to exists. Any album article that doesn't even

5464:

I think a large part of the problem re unrepresented review ratings came about through the 2013 RfC where it was decided to only include formal ratings (no comments on "favourable", "mixed", etc). Certainly in the case of albums that were first released and/or had a major reissue campaign before

4211:

Yeah, I've come across this site and was thinking about writing an article on it sometime. In the case of that Marilyn Manson review, it might be worth investigating the author. His bio states: "Fred Phillips is a veteran entertainment writer ... He has written music reviews, columns and feature

3773:

Ok so in a scenario where an artist is being interviewed by a YouTuber with little or no journalistic credibility, would that be considered an unreliable source because of the interviewer despite the artist themselves being present in the video answering questions? I pondered on this when I came

2889:

I still maintain that there should be a technical solution, I was looking at one page which was a member of 5 different projects, and because there is no technical solution at the moment, then 5 separate edits might be needed to, say, reassess the article. What a complete waste of time, for what

307:

is actually a good example of how the descriptions album/mixtape/playlist have become blurred. Drake calls it a "playlist" (the record even uses this word on the front cover), reviewers have described it as a mixtape, but it's hard to see how it is any different to an album... it was recorded in

3844:

A potential problem is that non-professionals/amateurs may edit the interviews so that the artists' original statements are out-of-context, etc., and do not present the artists' intentions (clever editing may be difficult to see). Professional writers' must preserve their credibility to remain

3056:

Yes, thank you for this. When I was cleaning up and revamping the source list, this was a discussion I was going to start up as well, just because I think I've used the source here and there in the past (before I knew it was listed as an non-RS) and I didn't recall having issues with malware or

2559:

I note Starcheers comment about what is added into the Beatles project and I don’t disagree, (if a Beatle said hello then it gets added to the project) but should be taken up at that project. As for the redirects – that is becoming a WP problem – redirects for song, song (song) and song (artist

1641:

back in 2007. I've done my homework on this...I've got two books sitting in front of me that cover most of these bands, and there's mention of perhaps one of these covers albums. If there were adequate source coverage out there to make a real, decent article out of any of these, I wouldn't have

1636:

in reliable secondary sources; one or two reviews on niche websites can be enough to support a stub or start-class article, but aren't going to be enough on their own to save an article if it's put to scrutiny such as at AFD. I've worked on album articles for Knowledge since 2006, and have been

5441:

I hear what you're saying about the need to avoid the abundance of review ratings with nothing in the way of accompanying article text. My point is that it's a good rule of thumb but a) one needn't be overly rigid about implementing it (i.e. as long as a decent portion of the ratings given are

3473:

I haven't commented before because (a) I'm on holiday in California, (b) I'm not familiar with American music websites, (c) it's not a music genre I work in, so I'd be unlikely to ever cite the website myself. But editors whose opinions I respect seem to think the website is okay, so I have no

1590:

I scrutinized each article, including the cited sources, before bringing this here. A single review in Allmusic isn't enough to pass GNG; that's been proven hundreds of time at AFD. The Vindictives album has a couple others, but I question whether one is reliable ("Ink 19"...it's not listed at

5763:

or elsewhere, I agree we're some way from establishing that it merits that sort of recognition on Knowledge. I like what the site offers, and I believe it's well maintained and accurate, single-operator or otherwise; but I can't argue with those who object to its inclusion on the grounds of

5142:

didn't produce a consensus. With several review/rating options available, WP should not have to resort to using sources of questionable reliability just for another star rating with no commentary to back it up. This might also apply to ratings by other reviewers that are found on Acclaimed

1947:) and the review seems to have stalled. May I please ask that anyone interested take a few moments to review it and leave comments and support for its promotion? It would be greatly appreciated and I would be happy to reciprocate if you have anything that needs commenting. Thank you! — 2657:

But what about the technical reason mentioned here: "If it is set up as both, it causes confusion for software that uses the banner data to classify pages by WikiProject, for example, XTools, Pageviews tool, and CopyPatrol." Do you believe that this is incorrect or perhaps irrelevant?

2348:

What you did, Moxy, whether intentionally or not, is to decide that an album recorded by Ringo Starr could no longer be in WP Project albums. There is no valid argument for changing something that has been in place for at least 8 years to my certain knowledge and probably much longer.

5354:

are to Acclaimed Music, rather than the MS archive. AM only shows the star rating – no writer, date, or commentary. The MS pages at least show the writers and that some reasoning is behind the ratings, which would seem necessary for a FA. As Richard noted, MS only shows a rating for

5908:

album reviews, as far as I can see. I appreciate that it's preferable to include either an active website (which in MS's case is going to be of little-to-no use, given the company's change of operation) or an archive link, but is it a condition of inclusion in the list of sources?

4773:

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template

5646:

Okay, I'll see what I can add to Music Story. I take your point that it hardly inspires confidence right now; also, that French WP is of little help. The change regarding our album ratings was not an RfC after all, I've just discovered, just a discussion that resulted in a vote:

2474:

Unfortunately, articles in this project also include every song/album by each member's solo career and family members such as Yoko Ono and Julian Lennon. Worse yet, someone thought it was a good idea to create redirects for every non-notable original recording by each one (see

4460:""God's Plan" and "Diplomatic Immunity" were already featured on the Scary Hours EP released earlier this year, so it's likely the singles won't land on Scorpion...test song "Nice for What" was produced by Murda Beatz and could possibly be featured on the new project as well." 1888:

Being new and leading-edge tech may not be a problem. Music publishing is changing (colossal understatement). That's why it occurs to me that we might be a bit out of date so far as charts are concerned. But staying up to date on this is not going to be a trivial matter, and

2545:

What actually happened is a there was a large scale culling of articles from related projects, albums & songs by removing the joint banner –I do not follow any individual artist banner, but to suddenly see, say, Hey Jude removed from the songs project is pretty scary.

1632:(I contribute to Punknews from time to time and have been following the site for over a decade; I'm familiar with the relative reliability of its coverage). The review of the Vindictives album is by one of the site's staff, so it's reliable as a source. Still, GNG requires 5775:

article, I'm planning to expand the lead slightly and perhaps introduce subsections under History, to differentiate between the two eras of the company's operation (online music encyclopaedia; music service and data provider). I suspect that further investigation into the

3422:

I assume he means, moved from off the unreliable list to onto the reliable list. In response to SilentDan, I'd wait a little longer, like another day or two, just because 3 participants isn't the strongest consensus. But I'd say "soon", if there's no opposition presented.

1595:

and I can't find any other mention of it on WP) and in any case the combined coverage from all these sources amounts to perhaps 5 or 6 sentences' worth of verifiable content for WP. I honestly don't think these pass GNG individually, but they might as a single article.

2280:, which would actually say there cannot be co-ordination between projects. FWIW, It means every Beatle album (and any album or related category remotely connected to the Beatles have now been removed from this project. A discussion has already been started by me at 5201:: Unfortunately, this site had a complete revamp a year or two ago, perhaps even by the time Dan56 started the article here. It used to contain artist bios and album reviews by artist, similar to AllMusic, and there are some pages saved at archive.org. Here's the 1156:

A very basic description of the topic.... The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to become a meaningful article.... Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary

2890:

should be a technical solution. Cart before the horse and whatnot. And if one report can handle different projects under the same banner, I can't see why all the software can't. In the meantime, it looks like this discussion has taken a larger dimension

2744:

I would have thought any merges would be with consent (as they were with the Beatles and Pink Floyd) and the relevant projects might take the work on. Also, a request at Technical Help Desk would probably supply a short program to automate the changes.

3250:

So would mentioning that articles after that revamp would be eligible then? Makes sense to me if that's the case, and looking at this profile on LinkedIn, Zach does appear to be decently experienced so it seems that the source is more reliable now. -

762:

shouldn't have chronologies for franchises (e.g. Hunger Games "soundtrack chronology") and members of a group (e.g. Wu-Tang Clan members chronology), but I don't know if this counts as consensus. I remembered about this because I found another one in

5538:

reviews about a dozen albums in depth, and then crams the rest of the month's releases into a single page with a one-line review. So you're often going to find that up until the 1980s, the best prose comes from reviews that have no ratings attached.

855:

Just wanted to say that it's hilariously ironic that a website based on the idea that "anyone can edit" would frown upon citing other websites based on the idea that "anyone can edit" as a citation source -- even when, in several cases, they're more

5780:

will continue to unearth something useful. (Eg, Jean-Noël Ogouz appears to be another veteran music journalist and published author/biographer.) So how do you think the article looks now – does it sufficiently establish the site for our purposes?

2563:“Plus we should not be forcing these projects into this other template because they're so small and diminished they look unimportant.” …because the artwork… Irrelevant, because editors will format multiple project banners so they all look small. 5450:(like Larkin, RS etc. even when those sources do explicitly discuss the album in question) give the flimsiest of a "review" each time, and it's often impossible to find anything meaningful to then include in an album article here. For example: 3077:

Depends on how old the material is (I think?). I could be wrong, but I thought I saw something on this organization that was cited for some band here, and the article struck me as unprofessional. Maybe they're better now than they used to be.

2642:

and here you are, still thinking it reads "uncoordinated." Leave it alone. Bring all the projects together -PROVIDING it's agreed with the projects. Don't make the mistake of thinking because you have done something once it was ever the right

1289:

when I work on assessing articles for WikiProject Colombia, I notice that the table updates every 24 hours, so I imagine it's the same for all projects... I think if you check back in eight or nine hours you'll see the table has been updated.

3367:

Overall, I wish I knew more about the rest of their staff - if anyone has anything else to add on it, it'd be helpful - but I am impressed with their founder, who has actual musical and writing education and experience. I'm leaning towards

4916:

The way he is referenced in WP articles, it is not clear which of his reviews were professionally published (with some oversight) and which are from his own self-published book or website. How should he be considered a reliable source?

1828:, couldn't find much chart info at their site but the wikipedia article on them states that "the chart data for the main Cashbox charts is provided by Digital Radio Tracker" so I have the same concerns as raised above for drt, thanks 1747:

manipulated... but that's the job of the charts to figure it out), and the vested interest of at least some chart compilers in the physical media and the older download sites, there may be an issue here. Digital downloads are not just

179:

Thanks. Let's sort this out. When we see an album of original songs for $ 15.00 on Amazon.com or iTunes being sold as a "mixtape" it clearly is not a mixtape - a free release of mixed material, but just a marketing gimmick or stylism.

2542:) for both projects with alternative assessment on subsequent days. Pretty clear then that the software likes and can handle merged projects. I use this as a clear example as a reason why tools DO work with a single combined banner. 1944: 1029:

album is notable and therefore should have its own WP article. I'm guessing that you've seen some album articles that look like this too. Or if not, that's okay too. Anyway, that's what I think a Stub album article looks like.

2059:, personally. As far as your second question goes, I'm not entirely sure. Personally, I'd add them all, (or wouldn't revert someone else who added them all at least.) But I'm not sure what the FL standard is. I spotchecked some. 4814:. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals. 4442:. I agree now that it would not be grounds for deletion, however I don't want to start an edit war if I were to remove the "Possible tracks" section, so i'm not certain on what's the right way to go at cleaning up the article. 5437:

s reviews. (That magazine's site disappeared off the face of the earth for years; then, in the last year or two, from what I saw, archive.org suddenly had hundreds of Blender Guide pages available where there were almost none

2637:

I am against separating the templates, more, not less integration, is needed. I have read all of above and see no reason to separate (I saw some vague things which weren't substantiated), the link you gave me originally,

1064:

I'll work on adding some prose when I get a chance, yes. But, suppose hypothetically that I left the article the way it is. It should not be redirected or deleted, because it clearly meets the notability guidelines at

4961:

Since most all of Floman's reviews are from his website (and archives) or from his self-published book, I've added him to ALBUMAVOID, with the note that only his reviews in reliable third-party publications are usable.

2716:

Of course, and perhaps we should be looking to join the relevant music projects up, seems so wasteful to have 2, 3 or more projects assessing the same article by the same criteria and coming up with different classes!

1977:) Hi, the article looks good but think there may be problems with the vevo and vimeo references as they are primary sources so suggest that they be replaced with reliable sources references such as those in this list 5214:. I'd agree that many other sources exist and their reviews are far easier to access, but I don't see that as a reason to deem this an unreliable source, especially if an archived url can be found for each review. 2552:

If it was agreed to remove projects, then somebody should have had a word on the technical helpdesk, who would have been happy to give you a little program to duplicate the relevant project banners, so nothing was

5126:

How is a reader supposed to know that Music Story may have been a RS for album reviews at one time or that Acclaimed Music is not just another website that includes self-published ratings (it does have ratings by

4811: 4062:

Never new the trick of using my subpage so an editor can decide if it can be included. I will give it a try (after adding more sources and perhaps a review and Billboard ranking). Greatly appreciate your help.

3726:

Is this normal that no remedial action has been taken so that WP usages keep up with external realities? Can y'all suggest where to apply for bot fixups, or perhaps another way to fix sooo many now broken links?

5232:

Well, that at least clarifies what the website used to be, though it doesn't really touch on why it should be considered reliable. (The links weren't loading for me, so I couldn't really see it fur myself, FYI.)

4283:

and really have no idea what I'm doing when it comes to that. The charts table needs to be alphabetized by default and the certifications table needs to be expanded. Any help on this would be greatly appreciated.

3828:

If the artist is clearly shown, I can't see why the source would be deemed unreliable. Besides, artist will often share their own interviews on Facebook, etc., which can be an additional evidence of reliability.

4763:

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

2583:

OK so it's clear that we should remove the banners from the template and replace them individually. Will look at a bot to do this. No point in trying to explain any further......will work on this this weekend.--

5854:

and any of the other Beatles albums on Music Story, my argument would be that none of the star ratings are unattributed, strictly speaking, because they complement the six-page artist biography written by Loïc

2843: 2539: 2916:

I remember years ago having the same issues with this site when I started on Knowledge as a contributor, being very sceptical of the website as a reliable source. But I'm starting to question this lately...

1047:

entry. I think, rather than worrying over virtually meaningless labels like "stub" or "start", you should work on writing some prose to ward off future editors who may wish to redirect or delete it someday.

5575:

or other section with something like "Acclaimed Music's lists of ratings by reviewers may include those that are not considered reliable by WP standards; only cite individual ratings by reviewers that meet

5345:

I'm glad someone was finally able to provide some links to the originals. I couldn't get usable info out of the Lennon page, but the Shankar page eventually loaded. It is odd that the article MS links for

4932:

Generally, with situations like this, we'd only use him as a source in instances where he was clearly published from a third party source that had editorial oversight. So, anything traceable to things like

1165:

An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete.... The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas.... Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need

774:

Should something like "Chronologies should only be for single artists and composers, and not for multiple artists in a group or film franchises" be added to those templates' documentation, or to another

192:

surely that is the last thing we should do. As a 3rd-party objective source we aren't here to assist artist's marketing practices but to give objective information from reliable and consistent objective

4438:

None of the tracks are technically confirmed to be on the album yet, especially since two of the projects are from a previous EP. While the only single that's known for certain on the rollout would be

2741:, etc? I think it comes down to Kaldari's claim to determine whether that's viable. However, it certainly wouldn't be worth going through the thousands of existing articles to "merge" such templates. 1024:

Let me give you a two part answer: (1) Just because a Stub album article is hard to find, doesn't mean that a Start album article is a Stub. Again, I'm basing "Start" on the project guidelines. (2)

4726: 1020:

have a track list or personnel listing would almost certainly be redirected to the musician's article. If we call this a start, then we'd pretty much be eliminating stub class from albums altogether.

5210:

back to you once I discover what I've done with that list. Acclaimed Music picked up Music Story as one of only two French sites/magazines that deserved inclusion there at the time, the other being

3712:

I see 1720 results (the combination of old name 'albumchart' and new name "album chart"?), many which are the broken YYYY-MM-DD format. Hey, if even only half are broken, that's 800+ broken links.

2227: 4222: 5113:, a music review aggregation site apparently operated by one person. These only show ratings (1–5 stars) without reviews, writers, dates, etc. Some link to archived reviews for music-story.com 4305:

I've put the charts in alphabetical order at least, but the referencing needs work and checking to see if they come from reliable sources. I'll work on that, and have a look for certifications.

4187:

What do you guys think? I have no idea what to think of this source, what with its other co-founder being a pro at SQL programming rather than writing, and the above article's writer listing no

1806:

Regarding the record label article it would be best IMHO if significant coverage in at least two reliable sources could be found to justify recreating its article. Looking at the details of DRT

5824:

has a lot of criteria). Should we assume that all its reviews are OK (similar to AllMusic) or just the ones by certain authors? I'd be hesitant to use unattributed ratings for albums such as

1130:

strongly enough to change it. Not that there's anything wrong with that. In the meantime, three editors, including myself, have posted in this discussion. I'm hoping to hear from a lot more

497: 130:, thinks that the articles should be called albums instead of mixtapes, but these projects was released as mixtapes. Commercial mixtapes at that. Do they have a point, do these projects like, 4818: 3789:

Hope to hear your thoughts on this and perhaps when a verdict is brought an amendment can be made on the page to specify the reliability of these sorts of videos. Thank you for your time. -

1230:

I would still classify that second one as a stub. I generally think it would need context and additional information besides immediately jumping to the tracklist before promotion to Start.

662:

occurrence on Knowledge and nobody worries about what happens to the cover art in those cases. If necessary the JPG file could always be proposed for deletion after the redirection occurs.

4320: 831:

should apply: if many have been removed over a period of time without objections, then it's probably OK to continue. However, adding to the guidelines/documentation ideally should require

5722:

Okay, on the article expansion front, I've just added some more details. I've not been able to find my fabled Word document, so I'm simply searching for hits for some of the contributors

5651:. A notification of the discussion was posted on the Albums project page but there was nothing about a vote taking place that would have such a wide-ranging effect on all album articles. 2315:

Just for clarification, if something tagged as Beatles project has 'album=y' appended then it will appear in this project. The assessment and importance will also show in this project. --

5872:

If there are no objections, I'll add Music Story to WP:RSMUSIC with the note "Use a citation the complete review if available". What is the best link to add under "Website/Archives"? —

1145:

In my original post I quoted from the WikiProject Albums assessment guidelines. I would encourage interested editors to also look through the general article assessment guidelines, at

2430:

stepped up and helped with the Beatles banner. I have been in the process of adding the album/song project banners for such articles under the Beatles project ever since (for example,

454:

You might be right. You seem to know more about mixtapes then me, these projects could be digital albums but label as mixtapes, but I don't know the other editors would agree to that.

4516: 197:. We've had this problem before with Korean and Japanese record companies marketing 15 minute EPs as an "album" and so on. There should be objective industry standards we can follow. 379:

up as a example, when an artist said their project is a mixtape, album or anything else. Do we trust the artist or the majority of sources. Sorry if I sounding confusing about this.

2334:. Plus we should not be forcing these projects into this other template because they're so small and diminished they look unimportant. They are just as valid as another projects. 4026:

and requires more reliable sources to establish notability. Sources are needed to verify the information, otherwise anyone could insert false information and claim it to be true.

2871:

not a good solution. My personal suggestion would be to ask for a bot to migrate these parameters into separate WikiProject banners on the affected talk pages and then remove the

764: 2680:

I would need to see evidence - I have already shown one piece of evidence where unmerging would cause problems. Perhaps the problem is with the software and not the projects? --

556:

would be an alternative to deletion, but in that case the non-free use of the album cover art being used in the infobox would need to be reassessed since it's unlikely to meet

1642:

brought this up. I appreciate your take on it, but I respectfully disagree that any of these have enough available reliable source material to survive as separate articles. --

393:

Why not simply fix what mixtape means per reliable sources and apply it? If something is retailing on Amazon with unmixed original songs in what possible way is it a mixtape?

5846:

On the issue of unattributed ratings, I can only repeat what I was saying above about how this situation mirrors the treatment many albums receive in books by Colin Larkin,

5294:

I've tried looking for three of the first four albums that come up on Ojorojo's first link above, and managed to get archive copies of all of them. Here are the reviews for

629:

Think redirect would be better, doesn't the image pass free use as it is the only visual identification of the album and therefore helps understanding of the album ? thanks

4217:

I've visited the site now and again for its articles on the Beatles, almost all of which are written by DeRiso. (I had no idea he'd left, in fact.) His bio, at the end of

1576:

with reliable sources reviews so they should stay as seperate articles but if the remainder do not pass a reliable sources search agree that they could be merged, thanks

1215:? Should it be assessed as "Stub", or "Start"? Again, it's not a dispute about that particular article, I'm using it as an example of a more general question. Thanks. 3034: 1339:

shows the history of updates to the assessment page for albums. Like Richard says, it updates approximately every 24 hours. You can actually update it manually by going

687:

Redirecting is fine. I only mentioned the cover art issue because some editor simply move that to the new article after the redirect; however, the new use does not meet

5415:

and others are simply listed with a rating. And that's the approach Strong takes generally, from what I've seen of his book. I'd say the situation with Music Story and

5411:, although the period is discussed; same with MusicHound – the band's career is discussed in general terms, key albums (good and bad) are then discussed in detail, but 4831: 3325:. As mentioned above, they've been in the industry for roughly a decade - founded in 2007, but it sounds like it really became more of an official publication in 2010. 5491:

still doesn't, I believe? – a review from there is never going to have a presence in the ratings box even though, one would hope, prose appears in the article body.)

5442:

represented in prose in the reception section – that's what matters), and b) it's a rule that we often have to break to ensure that album guides such as Larkin and

2176:

listed at GA (I saw that so long ago and am familiar with your contributions), you should do just fine fixing anything that's wrong with it within the nomination.

3881:

I echo Ojorojo and Walter's concerns. If its really important, it seems like other sources should cover it too. I'd use extremely sparingly, and in accordance to

1537: 3572: 1810:, am a bit concerned at the element of snooping on radioplay in cars and tablets etc which may also be unreliable as the technology seems experimental, thanks 5313:. JG66 might be right here – I've looked up some of the reviewers and they are all professional journalists, so I've struck my vote while I investigate more. 3677:

with {{albumchart|UK2|date=nnnn-nn-nn}}. Then I wonder how many times someone has specified the date using YYYY-MM-DD instead of the documented YYYYMMDD (see

5139: 4730: 4706: 4693: 4681: 4669: 4657: 3972: 3948: 729: 97: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 2418:, so I think he should weigh in on this. It seems to be more than just about sharing a banner. Because of the issue, I brought it up at the Beatles project 5327:

Another quick one on MS reviewers/contributors: it must have been Loïc Picaud I was thinking of above. He co-founded Music Story in 2008 and, according to

5052:

tag to album articles for a while now and simply inserting the tag does not get the talk page placed in that category, so I think it should be removed. -

2813: 3335:

The website's founder and one of its editors, Zach Redrup, has a BA degree in music journalism, and has written for a number of other publications too.

4456:

The right approach would be to add sources for any than can be confirmed through reliable sources, and remove any that can't be. Doing a brief search,

4407:

I'd just worry about cleaning it up, though even then, I'm not sure exactly what Tomas is referring to, as there's not much in the way of content yet.

2560:

song), but obvious and less obvious spellings, other capitalisations, it’s pure name grab and serves no significant purpose with modern search engines.

5461:. There are times when I've felt I'm really scraping the barrel to adhere to that guideline, "The bulk of the information should be in prose format …" 4722: 3557: 1532: 5843:

Sorry, got distracted … I've not found any of the MS contributors to be anything but the real deal, so, yes, I suggest we treat it as we do AllMusic.

4984:

It is about Indian soundtrack albums. Nowadays, instead of physical CDs, they compile all the tracks together and upload it to YouTube, calling them

4212:

stories for several newspapers, Web sites and a national wire service …" So, obviously, one wonders: which newspapers/websites/national wire service?

2075:(FA) doesn't seem to though, although, that could also just be that their record label situation has historically been pretty straightforward too... 1733:

but there are also a number of blogs etc (which may be primary sources as well of course). And there is this chart (and possibly other similar ones).

5527:

are going to have any presence in the ratings box from British publications - but obviously the reviews are the most RS contemporary ones available.

4553: 2386:

Moxy has now undone his edit which caused all the problems, but the conversation should continue in case others are now of the same view as Moxy. --

1673: 1542: 5304: 5422:

As far as Acclaimed Music goes, I was in favour of using the site to support an album's standing in critics' best-of lists, particularly. For the

4534: 3127:

sources after 2009, but that's because in 2010 they revamped their website with bringing on new writers and professional editors from places like

2172:

That looks good enough for me to say with confidence that you should go for it. As long as you don't get any nitpickers like you did when getting

922: 5568:

with the note "If available, link to the original review rather than only a rating linked to an aggregator" and any other identified limitations.

4144: 4056:. I commented out the review categories. I will source the opening paragraph to the Nonesuch Record company announcement and the Band's webpage. 132: 5580:. Additionally, these should only be used when the actual reviews are not available; seek out the reviews in full and cite them individually." 5298: 1725: 691:. The cover art would been acceptable in a stand-alone article about the album/EP, but be really hard to justify in the article about Dahl per 603: 5648: 4364: 3029:: using twitter, if you search for example "from:FOZZYROCK @deadpresszine" it will display the tweets Fozzy has sent/mentioned to Dead Press! 1390:(currently inactive) without any explanation; I noticed because it messed up the list formatting. The table is currently unsourced. Thanks, 986:

I'd classify it a stub, because there's virtually no prose written at all. It's all just a giant track list and list of production credits.

5035: 4995:. Since it is hard data from an official primary source, there is no copyright violation because it is fair use. Did I do the right thing? 4598: 3779: 3775: 2457: 2423: 1978: 1878: 1843: 1629: 1592: 4866:

Although he is sometimes identified as a "music critic for Goldmine magazine", references for his quotes and album ratings do not mention

2538:

What happens when say, a song or album is show in two projects but assessed differently, say, a stub and a c-class? It gets analysed (see

308:

professional recording studios with various producers, features full-length songs, some of which were released as singles, and topped the

4577: 4546: 4457: 3723:. Only... all the previously existing usages of YYYY-MM-DD were not changed to conform to the new URL format at that external web site? 2523:

which goes in the article at the bottom of the article. Let’s be clear, I am ONLY talking about project banners which go on the talkpage.

416:

a compilation of favorite pieces of music, typically by different artists, recorded onto a cassette tape or other medium by an individual

5206: 4617: 1569: 1527: 1326: 1271: 433:

misleading. If we then slap "(mixtape)" on an album that is in no sense a a mixtape as our own article describes it, what are we up to?

1092: 4789: 4647: 3057:

anything. I still need to look deeper to make a call, but at the very least, I think its a good idea and look at it again either way.

2891: 2639: 2516: 2277: 2251: 2202:

Awe thanks man! I remember that nomination haha...I appreciate it though, I'll go ahead and nominate it. Thanks for the encouragement

1565: 1522: 5430:

album ratings, archived MS pages should be used, and hopefully more pages will become available, just as they did quite recently for

5311: 5084:

It should be deprecated or completely removed if possible (it is possible!) and that category should be speedily deleted after that.

4463:. So perhaps the best approach, for now, would be to delete the "possible songs" section, and add a sentence to the capacity of what 2276:

has amended the Beatles project banner to remove all the albums from WP:albums, and other projects. His rationale for this change is

4912: 3459:

Yeah to clarify I meant to move Dead Press! to the table of reliable sources, and I have no objection to waiting a few more days. -

3105:

So perhaps a limit on what articles to use by era? Like if they're older than what I have referenced to have been promoted maybe? -

1974: 1517: 1376: 1073:-- despite its being a lowly Stub! (In contrast to the other article, which, not to tip my hand or anything, is clearly a Start.) 47: 17: 5828:(I try to avoid similar AllMusic "overviews"). How to treat Acclaimed Music probably needs more input and a separate discussion. — 5419:

is consistent with those examples: the album's mentioned ever so briefly in the biography, and the rating is an offshoot from that.

3583:

The thing is, I'm pretty sure Setlist.fm is a user contributed site. So why is it being used on these articles? It's not listed on

3199:

In May 2010, the website saw a complete revamp and brought a whole new drive to its contribution to the music scene the world over.

932:

A very basic description of the album. Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a title and track listing.

4778: 4084: 1875:

Thanks also for info on DRT and Cashbox... I'd missed the connection. So they're essentially the same chart, and the same source.

1146: 871: 5451: 4941:

would be usable, but not the self-published stuff. (Though I suppose his own website could be used in the same capacity we use

3971:

A RfC has been opened on the question "Should succession boxes appear in song and album articles?" Please add your comments at

2735: 2404: 1933: 607: 4239:

I don't recall reading the website in the past, but I'd agree with that, I've come to similar conclusions. Looking over their

2788:

If you're going to have a special hybrid tagging system, you need to create your own templates from scratch rather than using

1846:

may be helpful, it doesn't include obvious general reliable sources such as reliable newspapers and general magazines, thanks

1149:. Scroll down to Stub and Start, and click "show" to display the more detailed criteria. Here's part of what it says there: 496:

Hi all. I welcome you to join a discussion on the use of personnel lists in album article at the MOS. Discussion can be found

3693:

and in the first 20 results of 1000+ I see 12 wrong date format usages and only 5 correct! So many usages are wrong, such as

1885:

it seems to me that the information there may be behind a paywall. So even if reliable, it wouldn't be a very good reference.

961:

Reference to at least primary personnel by name (must specify performers on the current album; a band navbox is insufficient)

5253:

You have to be patient, but the page does come through eventually. The writer of that album review, Christian Larrède, is a

4991:

soundtrack album as an instance. The personnel has been provided in the YouTube's description box. All I did was port it to

4218: 3626:"About setlist.fm" includes "Anyone who likes to share their knowledge about setlists is welcome to add and edit setlists". 2921:

gladly sharing their articles and promoting them in the process. I have found more of these interactions and they include:

5393: 5387: 4798: 3547: 2431: 2091:

Awesome! As usual, Sergecross73, you come through with a fast and efficient answer! :-) I will leave most of table as is,

1703: 1610:

Punk news.org is also a reliable source and I still believe GNG is passed for both of them and they should remain, thanks

3859:

It sounds like a blog or other poor-quality source. If the content is important, use that sort of source sparingly. Keep

5947:

Sure, understood ("consistent with the other entries"). I think a general link is fine until something better turns up.

5820:

The Music Story article now shows that it is/was a RS for album reviews (I am tempted to remove the notability tag, but

4894: 3033:

Because of this I thought perhaps another discussion was required regarding the sites reliability, especially since the

1470: 1014: 5163:

per comments above. Willing to reconsider if there's something we're missing here, but as is, doesn't look like an RS.

5114: 793:

I recall this as well and think it's a good idea. I also recall this being widely agreed but I don't have a citation. ―

5024: 4891: 4848: 4530: 4404: 2860: 2828: 2821: 2060: 1506: 1124: 811: 595: 537: 515: 459: 423: 384: 274: 223: 153: 5359:, although the YS WP article links to a Beatles discography page that takes a while to navigate through to get to YS. 4819:

article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject

3872: 3413: 827:

I don't remember if there were other discussions, but I routinely remove extra chronologies for band members. Maybe

5777: 5723: 1637:

involved in dozens of deletion discussions and discussions about sources and GNG. One of these articles is one that

552:. No independent sources cited showing that this is notable enough for a stand-alone article. Perhaps a redirect to 5403: 5202: 4837:

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the

4591: 4571: 4096: 4051:

Thanks for the process information. Is the computer turned on? Did you source the Knowledge page? <blush: -->

3782:

page and debated whether or not it fitted the definition of: "If the artist in question was subject to any form of

2150:

to bring this article to FAC in the very near future, but I don't want to nominate it if it is not ready. Thanks –

1707: 1207:

Do any other editors have an opinion about this? The short version of the question is this: All would agree that

696:

be found. What will happen then, as Richard320 points out, is the file will be orphaned and eventually deleted per

599: 38: 879:

Its not ironic at all. Think of how that would work conceptually. What would be the point of requiring sources to

4492: 4447: 4360: 4127: 940:

An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and lacks adequate reliable sources. It should have:

756: 4914: 4163: 3163:

What would you say to a situation like Dead Press! then? I'm not sure when the site got potentially revamped. -

3864: 3584: 1792:

Thanks for your detailed information - I don't know too much about charts but will read up your links tomorrow

1730: 5331:, has authored books on Bowie, Serge Gainsbourg, McCartney, Red Hot Chili Peppers, and the French rock scene. 4883: 4487:

Edits are being made, it's just that we really don't know much about the album, so there isn't much to put on.

3394:

Since we've been the only ones contributing to this discussion, is it safe to say that it should be moved? -

2330:

pick there articles. Not sure why the album project would care about ringo star navigation templates etc...

1668:

Do Digital Radio Tracker chartings count for anything? Probably a silly question but I can't see anything at

1096: 5090: 5001: 4613: 4159: 3123:, but usually for a particular reason, like website revamps or something.. For example, they only allow for 2476: 1669: 1322: 1267: 815: 438: 398: 202: 138: 4515:

Hello. There is an ongoing debate on the criteria for the one-hit wonders in America listings over here at

3501:

Since it's been a couple of days, shall I list the site as Reliable? Everyone seems to be in favour of it.

5760: 5584: 5572: 5239: 5169: 4951: 4824:

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

4526: 4477: 4413: 4346: 4261: 3891: 3868: 3837: 3794: 3653: 3612: 3592: 3562: 3522: 3506: 3464: 3429: 3409: 3399: 3378: 3307: 3256: 3168: 3137: 3110: 3063: 3046: 2808:

are set up, it declares that WikiProject Albums is a task force of WikiProject The Beatles. So tools like

2305: 2081: 2013: 1383: 1054: 992: 894: 736: 455: 419: 380: 342: 290: 270: 238: 219: 169: 149: 5583:

Please provide a link to the 2013 RfC re: not using "favourable", "mixed", etc. This should be noted in

3973:

WT:Manual of Style/Record charts#RfC on whether succession boxes should appear in song and album articles

1464:. Selfless then launched a sub-label, Clearview Records, who continued the series through the late '90s: 1043:...They both look like stubs to me. Neither really contain any encyclopedic prose; they look more like a 582: 5956: 5942: 5918: 5881: 5867: 5837: 5790: 5751: 5735: 5715: 5660: 5605: 5548: 5544: 5500: 5380: 5340: 5322: 5318: 5285: 5244: 5223: 5193: 5189: 5174: 5154: 5095: 5063: 5046: 5006: 4971: 4956: 4926: 4853: 4838: 4750: 4621: 4538: 4496: 4482: 4451: 4433: 4429: 4418: 4398: 4368: 4332: 4328: 4314: 4310: 4292: 4288: 4266: 4234: 4205: 4193: 4171: 4103: 4089: 4072: 4042: 4008: 3984: 3960: 3924: 3912: 3896: 3876: 3854: 3839: 3823: 3811: 3798: 3762: 3736: 3658: 3642: 3617: 3596: 3527: 3510: 3483: 3479: 3468: 3434: 3417: 3403: 3383: 3311: 3292: 3280: 3260: 3221: 3209: 3172: 3142: 3114: 3092: 3080: 3068: 3050: 2988: 2903: 2884: 2850: 2792: 2754: 2726: 2711: 2689: 2675: 2652: 2632: 2606: 2592: 2577: 2496: 2469: 2451: 2395: 2378: 2358: 2343: 2324: 2310: 2293: 2263: 2239: 2219: 2197: 2190: 2178: 2159: 2133: 2128: 2107: 2102: 2096:

labels for international sales. A reviewer at the FLC suggested removing them, but I'm not so sure... —

2086: 2072: 2064: 2050: 2045: 2018: 1990: 1986: 1968: 1958: 1953: 1920: 1916: 1902: 1855: 1851: 1837: 1833: 1819: 1815: 1801: 1797: 1775: 1719: 1715: 1685: 1651: 1619: 1615: 1605: 1585: 1581: 1558: 1411: 1399: 1360: 1331: 1299: 1295: 1276: 1244: 1232: 1224: 1201: 1178: 1139: 1116: 1059: 1038: 997: 980: 899: 844: 820: 787: 746: 709: 671: 667: 638: 634: 623: 509: 505: 463: 442: 427: 402: 388: 347: 322: 318: 295: 278: 243: 227: 206: 174: 157: 2299:

That makes no sense. There's no conceptual reason why an article can't be under multiple WikiProjects.

1759:

is another possible chart (now mainly online but apparently independent). Again no explicit mention at

5930:

Just trying to be consistent with the other entries. How about a general link to the Wayback Machine?

5030:

template to denote unreferenced articles, I find that extremely unnecessary, there are currently only

2520: 1866:

significant coverage in at least two reliable sources could be found to justify recreating its article

5135: 4992: 4522: 4488: 4443: 4392: 4375: 4356: 4352: 4036: 3678: 3630: 2899: 2802: 2750: 2722: 2685: 2648: 2602: 2573: 2391: 2354: 2320: 2289: 1465: 867: 859: 832: 332:, first party accounts are okay for basic fundamental details on something. I would have assumed the 5893:

since loads of that publication's reviews have appeared at archive.org. But then I see our link for

2856:. This hybrid tagging system is confusing. For example, it is unclear to editors if they should add 1405: 533: 519: 5483: 4868: 4125:'s reviews: one review of the original album whose earliest known publication was in the 1981 book 2236: 2216: 2156: 2068: 1911:

Hi, the essay looks good, agree if the info is paywalled it would have verification issues, thanks

1676:

hasn't been edited for months. At least a pointer in the right direction would be appreciated. TIA

1647: 1601: 1554: 1491: 1475: 1408: 705: 619: 611: 328:

other than occurring here either, really. I just recommended whatever the artist says because, per

5726:. I get the impression that a lot of their writers have common ground as contributors to the book 4471:

sure doesn't have much of a Knowledge presence. Can't believe no one's writing this article yet.)

2519:

specifically refers to stubs and projects and says there are problems joining stubs together i.e.

1387: 5577: 5514:

brought in star ratings when it switched from newspaper to magazine format in 1982, I think, and

5259: 5085: 4996: 4604: 4255:...but it does appears like it mostly applies to a handful of the writers, albeit prolific ones. 4244: 4068: 4053: 4004: 3006: 2479:, for example) and which are tagged with the Beatles' project banner using the song parameter. -- 2259: 1825: 1755: 1480: 1313: 1284: 1258: 449: 434: 409: 394: 361: 198: 127: 116: 5481:

either finally succumbed or had only adopted formal ratings in the previous year or so. Or take

4136: 4088:

re: whether or not we should categorize all songs by an artist by specific genre(s). Thanks! ---

4078:

Invitation to participate in discussion re: how we categorize all songs by an artist by genre(s)

3935:

Succession boxes are being added to song articles for specialty charts, such as Mainstream Rock,

3786:

audio or video in the possible form of a television documentary or an informational DVD/VHS..."

181: 4812:

RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace

2597:

You do realise that if you do separate the projects you will still have problems, don't you? --

5938: 5877: 5833: 5711: 5601: 5565: 5376: 5234: 5164: 5150: 4967: 4946: 4922: 4746: 4472: 4408: 4280: 4256: 3980: 3956: 3886: 3882: 3860: 3850: 3830: 3790: 3648: 3638: 3607: 3588: 3517: 3502: 3460: 3424: 3395: 3373: 3303: 3278:

I would say it's definitely gotten better. I am in favor of moving this to the reliable list.

3252: 3164: 3132: 3106: 3058: 3042: 2997: 2970: 2880: 2465: 2300: 2076: 2056: 2033: 2008: 1996: 1898: 1771: 1737: 1697: 1681: 1435: 1430:

paid several bands (all of whom were on Lookout!) to record cover versions of the first three

1395: 1049: 1008: 987: 889: 840: 783: 578: 367: 337: 329: 300: 285: 250: 233: 213: 187: 164: 122: 3352:

The other editor is Mike Heath, who I found less on. I found it interesting that he's on the

2846:

still works is that it uses categories to determine WikiProject ownership, not the data from

1426:

label, and could use some group input on an idea. In the early 1990s, independent punk label

5540: 5314: 5185: 4945:- as a way to potentially check what something says, but not cite it directly as a source.) 4757: 4557: 4425: 4324: 4306: 4300: 4284: 4279:

Is anyone good at the certification tables and charts? I'm trying to work on the section at

4122: 3996: 3806: 3750: 3732: 3542: 3475: 2952: 2934: 2123: 2097: 2040: 2025: 1982: 1964: 1948: 1912: 1847: 1829: 1811: 1793: 1711: 1611: 1577: 1501: 1496: 1460: 1427: 1423: 1306: 1291: 1066: 828: 682: 678: 663: 649: 630: 545: 501: 354: 314: 256: 5110: 4384: 4140: 4028: 3603: 3577: 2895: 2783: 2746: 2718: 2681: 2644: 2598: 2569: 2387: 2350: 2316: 2285: 1486: 1445: 1440: 885: 863: 807: 5267:(which I'm surprised to see hasn't got an article here on English Knowledge), as well as 5120:

link and the company's "about" page describe it as "an international music data provider"

4243:, its impressive that there have been features on the website by high level sources like 3362:

There's a bunch of contributor/writers listed, though it doesn't say anything about them.

2284:. Anybody else have an opinion? This will also be posted at songs and Beatles projects -- 1706:) hi, can you please give some details about the chart. Also, has it been referred to in 5952: 5914: 5863: 5786: 5768:

Acclaimed were to be accepted, however, I think your suggested wording is mighty fine.)

5747: 5656: 5496: 5385:

Rojo: well, that applies to a good many other album ratings as well. Those in Larkin's

5336: 5281: 5219: 5128: 4467:

is saying above. (I'm rather shocked - for someone who is on top of the musical world,

4230: 4114: 3758: 3567: 3120: 3015: 2628: 2620: 2588: 2374: 2339: 2281: 2231: 2211: 2167: 2151: 2145: 1643: 1597: 1550: 701: 688: 656: 615: 144: 5898: 5254: 4131:, and another review of the remixed album whose earliest known publication was in the 5821: 5079: 5054: 4439: 4379: 4378:

It looks good to me and the sources are reliable. If you think it should be deleted,

4064: 4016: 4000: 3720: 3552: 2925: 2255: 2250:

Hello, there's a proposal to delete all Knowledge portals. Please see the discussion

1760: 1573: 1218: 1172: 1133: 1076: 1070: 1032: 974: 692: 565: 557: 549: 835:

or a very limited discussion. But being bold is a good way to prompt a discussion. —

5934: 5886: 5873: 5829: 5756: 5707: 5597: 5372: 5273: 5268: 5146: 4963: 4918: 4887: 4742: 3976: 3952: 3846: 3634: 2979: 2876: 2798:. That template can only handle one WikiProject per banner. The way templates like 2461: 2411: 1940: 1894: 1807: 1767: 1693: 1677: 1391: 836: 779: 724: 697: 194: 5328: 5510:- these two decades are the "classic rock" period that JG66 focuses his work on. 4181: 3198: 1164: 1155: 1018: 965: 960: 955: 950: 945: 939: 931: 313:

recorded in his bedroom and released for free as a stopgap between major albums.

5772: 5557: 5132: 5117: 4902: 4873: 4639: 4567: 4023: 3744: 3728: 2943: 880: 564:

While all constructive contributions to Knowledge are appreciated, pages may be

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2694:

Should the change made to the Pink Floyd banner be undone too in the meantime?

1882: 5398: 3587:

at all so I don't suppose a discussion regarding this site has taken place. -

2835: 2820:

belong to WikiProject The Beatles, but not to WikiProject Albums (except that

2817: 1740:

for a sample chart. I should have supplied that in the first place, apologies.

1455: 1450: 794: 726: 553: 4830:

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the

4796:

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members

2282:

User_talk:Moxy#Template:WikiProject_The_Beatles:_Difference_between_revisions

232:

Are there instances where RS's and artists disagree? Does this happen often?

5948: 5925: 5910: 5889:: hmm, not sure what to suggest. I was thinking we could do the same as for 5859: 5782: 5743: 5652: 5588: 5553:

While I continue to mull this over, these are some preliminary suggestions:

5492: 5364: 5332: 5277: 5215: 4988: 4561: 4252: 4226: 4167: 4118: 3754: 3353: 3041:

Anyway, thank you for your time and hope to hear back from you guys soon. -

2624: 2616: 2584: 2427: 2370: 2335: 2273: 2004: 261: 111: 5106:

Music Story album ratings appear in a number of album articles (for example

4240: 3345:, which appears to be a print magazine, so they're also probably reliable. 4517:

Talk:List of 2010s one-hit wonders in the United States#Inclusion criteria

3516:

Go for it. We can always discuss further if anyone objects in the future.

3336: 2623:) 15:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC).....we will work on this. Feel free to help.-- 2556:

WPBiography is not under the umbrella of WP:Music, so a total red herring.

2531:

appear in albums and artist project, providing both or all projects agree.

588:

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing

5649:

Template talk:Album ratings/Archive 1#Request to remove subjective labels

4519:. It'd be nice if we could get some more opinions on the matter. Thanks. 4175: 3346: 3202: 2000: 910:

Hello everybody. About article assessment: How would you rate or assess

4587:

Whether or not MusicBrainz authority file numbers should be included in

3967:

RfC on whether succession boxes should appear in song and album articles

3206: 5123:

and makes no mention of album reviews by professional music writers.

5121: 4942: 1513:

Right now, several of these releases are covered in separate articles:

1431: 1340: 1044: 3328:

They have a dedicated staff, completely with an editorial team, shown

1881:

doesn't seem to mention either of them, or have I missed it? But from

3124: 2007:

frequently announce things like music videos being released anyways.

1748: 4225:: it's an RS but dependent on individual contributors' credentials. 2512:

Several points have been made and I would like to respond to each.

265:, a playlist, but the sources called it a mixtape, there was even a 4909:

The Story of Rock and Soul Music: Album Reviews and Lists 1960–2016

4863:

Scott Floman is cited as source in several album and song articles.

3474:

objections if you want to move it to the list of reliable sources.

3329: 3322: 2055:

Yeah, I would think it would fall within acceptable application of

1868:... I'm actually working on an essay inspired by this episode, see 4468: 3538:

This is a website that has been sourced on good articles such as:

2961: 2844:

Knowledge:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Album articles by quality log

2540:

Knowledge:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Album articles by quality log

1939:

Hello, WikiProject Albums! I have nominated this discography for

884:

the place where anyone can edit. And they can. Not being able to

5731: 4349:

be removed? A lot of misleading unconfirmed information on it.

3995:

after 11 years on Knowledge to figure out how to delete them :)

266: 5931: 4770:

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

3627: 3340: 2071:(FA) list off the multiple record label variants for releases. 5487:– a prestigious publication that never had formal ratings, as 4248: 3647:

Fully agreed. And now we'll have a discussion to link to too.

3128: 148:, should be classified as digital albums instead of mixtapes. 25: 5446:(and Strong, and MH) are represented. It's worth adding that 3949:

Knowledge talk:Manual of Style/Record charts#Succession boxes

700:, unless another acceptable non-free use is found for it. -- 5518:

started using ratings in the latter half of the 80s, as did

4638: 4319:

thank you. If you have a second, could you look at the page

1766:

I'm not sure at all of any of this. That's why I came here.

524: 4052:

No, I did not. I did copy a previous album page for the

2731:

You mean like having "album=yes", "song=yes" parameters on

1842:

Regarding reliable sources for the record label, this list

1738:

http://kwwkdb.com/drt-national-airplay-top-50-rock-chart-2/

4876: 3700:

Oh, and if I search using the other name for the template

3119:

Well, we've set up situation like that in the past at the

2414:

removed the embedded album/song tagging for that one with

5730:. Also, that in its new incarnation, it could be akin to 4109:

Citing Christgau's book vs. original Village Voice column

3910:

Precisely - I meant to mention that. Use them sparingly.

359:

In ictu oculi is mostly talking about the articles like,

5042:

articles that are applicable and I have been adding the

4321:

List of awards and nominations received by Guns N' Roses

4121:

article, regarding the ratings template and how to cite

5107: 5039: 4864: 3945: 3942: 3939: 3936: 3716: 3694: 3674: 3197:

Their "about" page says they were formed in 2007, but:

2839: 2809: 2419: 2415: 2366: 2331: 1375:

Could someone help me verify the production credits of

1336: 1212: 1208: 1025: 911: 606:

process can result in deletion without discussion, and

373: 371: 5759:: Yes, regarding a possible statement on Acclaimed at 5363:

rating without any supporting commentary is minimal.

4251:, and that their writers have written for places like 4108: 571:

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the

2548:

There should have been a discussion first, not after.

923:

Knowledge:WikiProject Albums/Assessment#Quality scale

765:

The Matrix Revolutions: Music from the Motion Picture

5276:

and a good number of sources we accept as reliable.

3629:Maybe it is too obvious, but it should be added to 921:To refresh your memory, here are the guidelines at 269:about it and most of the editors voted as mixtape. 1422:I've been working on some articles related to the 5310:appears to be a rating only, with no review text 3845:active and therefore are more suitable sources. — 1382:? Several entries were removed from the lists in 888:as a source doesn't prevent anyone from editing. 4599:Knowledge:External links/Noticeboard#MusicBrainz 2226:If anyone is interested, the nomination link is 1211:should be assessed as a "Stub". But what about 544:No evidence that this comes close to satisfying 218:Okay, but should it go by reliable sources too? 4556:about a possible redirection of the article to 951:A lead section giving an overview of the album. 4544: 4403:No, not even that's correct in this instance. 2615:The problem is the mixture of the templates.-- 1538:End of the Century (Boris the Sprinkler album) 4882:search turned up one article that quotes him. 4545:Notification of discussion of redirection of 3669:template:albumchart dates wrong *everywhere*? 284:bands don't tend to use any of these labels. 8: 5272:looked the business, certainly more so than 3805:gets deleted, which may cause problems with 3602:It should not be used - it definitely fails 3302:for moving the site to the reliable list. - 2568:– that’s the reason they are protected!!! -- 2422:. After bringing it up again a month ago at 1883:http://www.digitalradiotracker.com/faqs.html 5858:I agree that Acclaimed is for another day. 3606:. We should add it to the unreliable list. 1013:Thanks for your comments here, and also at 966:Categorisation at least by artist and year. 767:(I removed a few dozen of them last July). 5897:doesn't in fact go there – it's goes to a 5012:Should the unreferenced switch be removed? 4904:The rest seem to be from WP mirror sites. 4756:WikiProject collaboration notice from the 4723:Women in Red/English language mailing list 4520: 4350: 2814:Knowledge:WikiProject Albums/Popular pages 857: 163:I'd go by whatever the artists call them. 2367:they removed the Bio temp for this reason 1743:DRT seems to be the popular abbreviation. 1533:Road to Ruin (The Mr. T Experience album) 5016:I just discovered today that there is a 4405:It's already survived a very recent AFD. 3706:hastemplate:"album chart" insource:"uk2" 3408:I've been watching, and moved to where? 2834:to the page). Notice, for example, that 1674:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Record Charts 1543:Pleasant Dreams (Beatnik Termites album) 334:most basic identification of the subject 4787:The discussion about this can be found 4554:Talk:I'm Free (The Rolling Stones song) 3687:hastemplate:"albumchart" insource:"uk2" 3205:profile on their founder, Zach Redrup. 1624:Yes, Punknews.org is a reliable source 1184:Yep, that's the same criteria I use. -- 1147:Knowledge:WikiProject assessment#Grades 577:notice, but please explain why in your 4650:June 2018 worldwide online editathons. 1726:Knowledge:Identifying reliable sources 1672:that tells me one way or another, and 1015:Talk:Dave's Picks Volume 25#Assessment 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 4872:and link to archives of "sfloman.com" 4082:Project members may be interested in 3867:in mind while using any such source. 3573:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band 2456:Thanks for the ping. As discussed at 2203: 7: 5036:Category:Unreferenced album articles 4911:, that appears to be self-published. 4022:your article probably because it is 3944:etc., sometimes with "multiple runs. 3359:. Seems like that's worth something. 2458:Template talk:WikiProject Pink Floyd 2424:Template talk:WikiProject Pink Floyd 2269:/* Template:WikiProject The Beatles: 1979:Knowledge:WikiProject Albums/Sources 1879:Knowledge:WikiProject Albums/Sources 1844:Knowledge:WikiProject Albums/Sources 1630:Knowledge:WikiProject Albums/Sources 1628:for its user-submitted reviews, per 1593:Knowledge:WikiProject Albums/Sources 1343:and selecting the Albums project. -- 1017:. At the latter location, you said, 492:Discussion regarding personnel lists 133:If You're Reading This It's Too Late 5585:Template:Album ratings#Instructions 2957:from:FearlessRecords @deadpresszine 1570:Rocket to Russia (The Queers album) 1528:Rocket to Russia (The Queers album) 4627:June Women in Red focus on singers 4547:I'm Free (The Rolling Stones song) 3337:His Linked In verifies all of this 3011:from:ProstheticRcds @deadpresszine 2993:from:nuclearblasteu @deadpresszine 2975:from:HoldingAbsence @deadpresszine 2912:The use of Dead Press! as a source 2640:Knowledge:WikiProject coordination 2517:Knowledge:WikiProject coordination 2278:Knowledge:WikiProject coordination 1566:Leave Home (The Vindictives album) 1523:Leave Home (The Vindictives album) 566:deleted for any of several reasons 540:because of the following concern: 24: 4875:or "South Florida Insurance Man". 4859:Scott Floman as a reliable source 4154:I'm perplexed about this source, 3121:video game equivalent source page 2939:from:everytimeidie @deadpresszine 2866:if a page is already tagged with 2840:last month's popular pages report 1518:Ramones (Screeching Weasel album) 18:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Albums 5734:, which benefited from Larkin's 5589:MOS:ALBUM#Album ratings template 5365:MOS:ALBUM#Album ratings template 5109:). Most of the citations are to 5102:Music Story as a reliable source 5069: 4827:So far, 84 editors have joined. 3020:from:SonicBoomSix @deadpresszine 2930:from:ENTERSHIKARi @deadpresszine 2824:fixed this by adding a separate 2410:banner worked the same way when 2204: 1093:Breakin' It Up, Breakin' It Down 1091:I see little difference between 720:Chronologies and film franchises 29: 5263:. His linkedin page also names 4727:Women in Red/international list 4183:Top 10 in the nation by the AP. 2984:from:jamielenman @deadpresszine 1934:Theory of a Deadman discography 5578:WP:MOSALBUM#Critical reception 5506:star ratings in the 1970s was 4767:Portals are being redesigned. 4539:17:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC) 3002:from:PolarisAus @deadpresszine 2139:Is this article ready for FAC? 1418:Thoughts on a potential merger 771:Is this the current consensus? 1: 5738:Encyclopedia of Popular Music 5456:, which is paired on CD with 5394:The Rolling Stone Album Guide 5388:Encyclopedia of Popular Music 4709:#1day1woman Global Initiative 3990:Help with changing a redirect 3769:The use of YouTube interviews 2966:from:FOZZYROCK @deadpresszine 2948:from:factjapan @deadpresszine 2432:Talk:Blackbird (Beatles song) 845:18:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC) 821:17:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC) 788:10:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC) 710:21:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC) 672:13:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC) 639:12:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC) 624:00:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC) 510:19:29, 10 February 2018 (UTC) 4341:Article on unreleased album? 3947:Please add your comments at 2246:Ending the system of portals 464:13:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC) 443:07:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC) 428:00:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC) 403:19:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC) 389:21:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC) 348:02:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC) 323:02:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC) 296:01:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC) 279:18:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC) 259:called one of his projects, 244:00:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC) 228:18:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC) 207:23:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC) 175:23:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC) 158:17:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC) 5571:Add Acclaimed Music to the 5116:or are dead links. The WP 2822:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars 2816:, etc. see that pages like 2332:This is what it looked like 2061:Nine Inch Nails discography 1484:, the Beatnik Termites did 1125:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars 610:allows discussion to reach 591:{{proposed deletion/dated}} 574:{{proposed deletion/dated}} 336:to be one of those things. 255:Well yeah, Canadian rapper 5981: 5904:, with nothing related to 5761:WP:ALBUM/SOURCE#Aggregates 5573:WP:ALBUM/SOURCE#Aggregates 5404:The Great Rock Discography 5140:A February 2017 discussion 4597:is currently discussed at 3780:WikiProject Albums/Sources 3763:07:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC) 3737:06:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC) 2904:12:42, 17 April 2018 (UTC) 2885:20:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC) 2838:doesn't show up at all on 2755:08:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC) 2727:22:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC) 2712:22:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC) 2365:Actually almost 10 years 2264:13:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC) 2240:22:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC) 2220:19:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC) 2191:20:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC) 2134:19:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC) 2108:17:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC) 2087:17:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC) 2051:16:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC) 2019:13:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC) 1991:11:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC) 1921:11:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC) 1903:00:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC) 1652:15:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC) 1620:14:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC) 1606:14:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC) 1586:10:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC) 1559:00:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC) 1412:15:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC) 1400:11:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC) 1361:21:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC) 1332:15:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC) 1300:15:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC) 1277:15:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC) 1245:21:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC) 1225:21:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC) 900:13:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC) 602:exist. In particular, the 418:. I got that from Google. 106:Mixtapes or digital albums 5957:16:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC) 5943:15:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC) 5919:01:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC) 5096:04:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC) 5007:04:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC) 4731:Women in Red/Opt-out list 4635: 4633: 4552:There is a discussion at 2690:23:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC) 2676:21:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC) 2653:16:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC) 2633:15:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC) 2607:15:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC) 2593:14:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC) 2578:11:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC) 2497:21:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC) 2470:00:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC) 2452:00:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC) 2396:23:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC) 2379:11:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC) 2359:23:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC) 2344:23:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC) 2325:22:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC) 2311:22:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC) 2294:22:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC) 2160:14:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC) 1959:17:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC) 1856:19:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC) 1838:16:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC) 1820:16:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC) 1802:16:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC) 1776:17:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC) 1720:12:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC) 1686:08:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC) 1256:reflect this. Thanks. --- 1202:14:55, 3 March 2018 (UTC) 1179:12:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC) 1140:12:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC) 1117:07:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC) 1060:02:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC) 1039:01:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC) 998:19:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC) 981:19:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC) 851:Sources "anyone can edit" 596:proposed deletion process 5882:16:10, 9 June 2018 (UTC) 5868:10:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC) 5838:16:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC) 5791:05:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC) 5752:08:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC) 5716:15:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC) 5661:08:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC) 5606:15:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 5549:14:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 5501:09:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 5381:16:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 5341:04:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 5323:03:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 5286:03:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 5255:longstanding contributor 5245:02:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 5224:02:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 5194:20:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 5175:19:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 5155:19:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 5134:who is currently on the 5064:03:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC) 4972:19:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 4957:19:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC) 4927:18:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC) 4893:(a similar quote is in " 4854:10:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 4751:10:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC) 4622:14:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC) 4578:15:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC) 4497:04:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC) 4483:12:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC) 4452:03:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC) 4434:20:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC) 4419:19:04, 15 May 2018 (UTC) 4399:18:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC) 4369:18:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC) 4333:13:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC) 4315:17:45, 17 May 2018 (UTC) 4293:17:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC) 4267:18:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC) 4235:15:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC) 4206:14:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC) 4145:18:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC) 4128:Christgau's Record Guide 4104:21:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC) 4073:14:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC) 4043:16:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC) 4009:16:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC) 3985:16:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC) 3659:16:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC) 3643:14:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC) 3618:20:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC) 3597:20:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC) 3528:16:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC) 3511:14:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC) 3484:00:35, 10 May 2018 (UTC) 1251:Assessment Table Updates 4901:reviews from 1997–1998. 4839:WikiProject's talk page 4810:On April 8th, 2018, an 4779:Transclude lead excerpt 4672:Singers and Songwriters 4511:One-hit Wonder Criteria 3961:15:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC) 3925:15:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC) 3897:15:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC) 3877:15:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC) 3855:14:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC) 3840:14:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC) 3824:14:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC) 3799:13:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC) 3681:). So I search using 3469:19:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC) 3435:18:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC) 3418:17:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC) 3404:17:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC) 3384:12:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC) 3312:08:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC) 3293:02:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC) 3261:01:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC) 3222:00:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC) 3173:20:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC) 3143:19:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC) 3115:19:31, 8 May 2018 (UTC) 3093:19:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC) 3069:18:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC) 3051:17:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC) 3035:last discussion in 2011 2477:Category:Yoko Ono songs 2143:I have been working on 1670:Knowledge:Record charts 732:where it was said that 730:at least one discussion 583:the article's talk page 4643: 4458:Billboard states that 4347:Scorpion_(Drake_album) 3633:if it is being used. — 3563:Interstellar Overdrive 2736:WikiProject Rock music 2405:WikiProject Pink Floyd 2122:future). Thank you! — 1891:in theory we fail safe 1097:Dave's Picks Volume 25 916:Dave's Picks Volume 25 886:user-generated content 562: 529: 5724:the site used to list 4885:He is quoted once in 4696:Geofocus: Russia/USSR 4642: 4382:is the proper venue. 4172:Marilyn Manson (band) 3534:The use of Setlist.fm 2989:Nuclear blast records 2073:Metallica discography 2065:Pearl Jam discography 1664:Digital Radio Tracker 1380:(Ariana Grande album) 728:I remember there was 608:articles for deletion 542: 538:proposed for deletion 528: 42:of past discussions. 5778:list of contributors 5203:page for John Lennon 4993:October (soundtrack) 3679:Template:Album chart 3675:fix a bad date usage 1872:of it in particular. 1634:significant coverage 1466:The Mr. T Experience 110:There has been some 5736:development of the 5564:Add Music Story to 5530:On the other hand, 4758:Portals WikiProject 4345:Should the article, 4113:Please weigh in on 3941:Adult Contemporary, 3339:. He's written for 2069:Beyonce discography 1476:Boris the Sprinkler 126:. An editor named, 5561:a reliable source. 5489:The New York Times 5424:Wish You Were Here 5348:Wish You Were Here 5306:– the article for 5296:Wish You Were Here 5260:Les Inrockuptibles 5025:WikiProject Albums 4832:newsletter archive 4644: 4583:MusicBrainz at ELN 4245:The New York Times 4223:as we do about.com 4160:MarilynMansonFan96 4054:Bad Self Portraits 4024:improperly sourced 3999:is the page Thanks 3938:Alternative Songs, 3355:Heavy Music Awards 3323:About us page here 3318:Here's my review: 3007:Prosthetic Records 2861:WikiProject Albums 2829:WikiProject Albums 1481:End of the Century 906:Article assessment 693:WP:NFC#cite_note-3 600:deletion processes 560:as currently used. 558:WP:NFC#cite_note-3 530: 114:in articles like, 5428:Electric Ladyland 5352:Electric Ladyland 5302:Electric Ladyland 5060: 5040:over ten thousand 5020:parameter in the 4907:He wrote a book, 4849:The Transhumanist 4739: 4738: 4734: 4710: 4697: 4685: 4673: 4661: 4592:authority control 4541: 4527:Nintendoswitchfan 4525:comment added by 4371: 4355:comment added by 4281:Chinese Democracy 4219:this 2012 article 4199: 4178:profile states: 3918: 3865:WP:INDISCRIMINATE 3817: 3585:WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES 3286: 3215: 3086: 3030: 3021: 3012: 3003: 2994: 2985: 2976: 2967: 2958: 2949: 2940: 2931: 2184: 1943:(you can find it 1436:Screeching Weasel 1317: 1262: 1238: 1222: 1176: 1137: 1080: 1036: 978: 875: 862:comment added by 833:more than silence 614:for deletion. -- 516:Proposed deletion 456:TheAmazingPeanuts 420:TheAmazingPeanuts 381:TheAmazingPeanuts 271:TheAmazingPeanuts 220:TheAmazingPeanuts 150:TheAmazingPeanuts 103: 102: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 5972: 5929: 5902:back-issues site 5852:Yellow Submarine 5826:Yellow Submarine 5764:SELFPUBLISHed. ( 5728:Le Rock de A à Z 5475:Record Collector 5436: 5357:Yellow Submarine 5308:Yellow Submarine 5242: 5237: 5172: 5167: 5093: 5088: 5083: 5073: 5072: 5058: 5051: 5045: 5029: 5023: 5004: 4999: 4986:Audio Jukeboxes. 4954: 4949: 4852: 4783: 4777: 4720: 4713: 4711: 4708: 4700: 4698: 4695: 4688: 4686: 4683: 4676: 4674: 4671: 4664: 4662: 4659: 4631: 4630: 4620: 4611: 4607: 4596: 4590: 4574: 4558:Out of Our Heads 4480: 4475: 4416: 4411: 4304: 4275:Help with a page 4264: 4259: 4202: 4197: 4196: 4184: 4162:suggested I use 4123:Robert Christgau 4099: 4092: 4091:Another Believer 4020: 3997:Free Yourself Up 3930:Succession boxes 3921: 3916: 3915: 3894: 3889: 3835: 3820: 3815: 3814: 3748: 3673:So in passing I 3656: 3651: 3615: 3610: 3525: 3520: 3432: 3427: 3381: 3376: 3342:Stencil Magazine 3289: 3284: 3283: 3218: 3213: 3212: 3200: 3140: 3135: 3089: 3084: 3083: 3066: 3061: 3025: 3019: 3010: 3001: 2992: 2983: 2974: 2965: 2956: 2953:Fearless Records 2947: 2938: 2935:Every Time I Die 2929: 2874: 2869: 2865: 2859: 2855: 2849: 2833: 2827: 2807: 2801: 2797: 2791: 2787: 2740: 2734: 2710: 2706: 2703: 2700: 2697: 2674: 2670: 2667: 2664: 2661: 2521:Songs-1970s-stub 2495: 2491: 2488: 2485: 2482: 2450: 2446: 2443: 2440: 2437: 2409: 2403: 2308: 2303: 2234: 2214: 2209: 2208: 2207: 2201: 2198:DannyMusicEditor 2187: 2182: 2181: 2171: 2154: 2084: 2079: 2037: 2029: 2016: 2011: 1708:reliable sources 1497:Too Tough to Die 1461:Rocket to Russia 1428:Selfless Records 1424:Lookout! Records 1359: 1355: 1352: 1349: 1346: 1330: 1315: 1310: 1288: 1275: 1260: 1241: 1236: 1235: 1223: 1221: 1200: 1196: 1193: 1190: 1187: 1177: 1175: 1167: 1158: 1138: 1136: 1128: 1115: 1111: 1108: 1105: 1102: 1081: 1079: 1057: 1052: 1037: 1035: 1021: 1012: 995: 990: 979: 977: 967: 962: 957: 956:A track listing. 952: 947: 941: 933: 897: 892: 819: 802: 761: 757:Extra chronology 755: 751: 745: 741: 735: 686: 660: 653: 593: 592: 576: 575: 527: 453: 413: 358: 345: 340: 293: 288: 254: 241: 236: 217: 191: 182:see this comment 172: 167: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 5980: 5979: 5975: 5974: 5973: 5971: 5970: 5969: 5923: 5434: 5401:, and Strong's 5240: 5235: 5170: 5165: 5111:Acclaimed Music 5104: 5091: 5086: 5077: 5070: 5057: 5049: 5043: 5027: 5021: 5014: 5002: 4997: 4982: 4952: 4947: 4897:") and has ten 4861: 4845: 4808: 4781: 4775: 4761: 4729:. Unsubscribe: 4721:(To subscribe: 4707: 4705: 4694: 4692: 4682: 4680: 4670: 4668: 4660:WiR Loves Pride 4658: 4656: 4651: 4629: 4609: 4603: 4602: 4594: 4588: 4585: 4572: 4550: 4513: 4489:TomasTomasTomas 4478: 4473: 4444:TomasTomasTomas 4414: 4409: 4357:TomasTomasTomas 4343: 4298: 4277: 4262: 4257: 4200: 4194: 4156:Something Else! 4152: 4150:Something Else! 4111: 4102: 4097: 4090: 4085:this discussion 4080: 4014: 3992: 3969: 3932: 3919: 3913: 3892: 3887: 3831: 3818: 3812: 3778:section of the 3771: 3742: 3671: 3654: 3649: 3613: 3608: 3536: 3523: 3518: 3430: 3425: 3379: 3374: 3372:at this point. 3321:They've got an 3287: 3281: 3216: 3210: 3138: 3133: 3087: 3081: 3064: 3059: 2971:Holding Absence 2914: 2872: 2867: 2863: 2857: 2853: 2847: 2831: 2825: 2805: 2799: 2795: 2789: 2781: 2738: 2732: 2708: 2704: 2701: 2698: 2695: 2672: 2668: 2665: 2662: 2659: 2493: 2489: 2486: 2483: 2480: 2448: 2444: 2441: 2438: 2435: 2407: 2401: 2306: 2301: 2271: 2248: 2232: 2212: 2205: 2195: 2185: 2179: 2174:Dreaming of You 2165: 2152: 2141: 2082: 2077: 2031: 2023: 2014: 2009: 1937: 1731:primary sources 1666: 1487:Pleasant Dreams 1446:the Vindictives 1420: 1373: 1357: 1353: 1350: 1347: 1344: 1312: 1304: 1282: 1257: 1253: 1239: 1233: 1216: 1198: 1194: 1191: 1188: 1185: 1170: 1131: 1122: 1113: 1109: 1106: 1103: 1100: 1074: 1055: 1050: 1030: 1006: 993: 988: 972: 908: 895: 890: 853: 805: 796: 759: 753: 749: 743: 739: 733: 722: 676: 654: 647: 604:speedy deletion 590: 589: 573: 572: 525: 523: 494: 447: 407: 352: 343: 338: 291: 286: 248: 239: 234: 211: 185: 170: 165: 108: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 5978: 5976: 5968: 5967: 5966: 5965: 5964: 5963: 5962: 5961: 5960: 5959: 5856: 5844: 5818: 5817: 5816: 5815: 5814: 5813: 5812: 5811: 5810: 5809: 5808: 5807: 5806: 5805: 5804: 5803: 5802: 5801: 5800: 5799: 5798: 5797: 5796: 5795: 5794: 5793: 5769: 5754: 5682: 5681: 5680: 5679: 5678: 5677: 5676: 5675: 5674: 5673: 5672: 5671: 5670: 5669: 5668: 5667: 5666: 5665: 5664: 5663: 5625: 5624: 5623: 5622: 5621: 5620: 5619: 5618: 5617: 5616: 5615: 5614: 5613: 5612: 5611: 5610: 5609: 5608: 5594: 5593: 5592: 5581: 5569: 5562: 5528: 5462: 5439: 5420: 5369: 5360: 5289: 5288: 5248: 5247: 5227: 5226: 5212:Le Guide du CD 5196: 5177: 5144: 5129:Piero Scaruffi 5103: 5100: 5099: 5098: 5055: 5038:compared with 5013: 5010: 4981: 4978: 4977: 4976: 4975: 4974: 4860: 4857: 4807: 4804: 4760: 4754: 4737: 4736: 4716: 4715: 4703: 4702: 4701: 4690: 4689: 4678: 4677: 4666: 4665: 4654: 4653: 4648:Women in Red's 4645: 4636: 4634: 4628: 4625: 4584: 4581: 4549: 4543: 4512: 4509: 4508: 4507: 4506: 4505: 4504: 4503: 4502: 4501: 4500: 4499: 4485: 4342: 4339: 4338: 4337: 4336: 4335: 4276: 4273: 4272: 4271: 4270: 4269: 4214: 4213: 4151: 4148: 4110: 4107: 4094: 4079: 4076: 4060: 4059: 4058: 4057: 4046: 4045: 3991: 3988: 3968: 3965: 3931: 3928: 3908: 3907: 3906: 3905: 3904: 3903: 3902: 3901: 3900: 3899: 3869:Walter Görlitz 3770: 3767: 3766: 3765: 3710: 3709: 3708: 3707: 3691: 3690: 3689: 3688: 3670: 3667: 3666: 3665: 3664: 3663: 3662: 3661: 3621: 3620: 3581: 3580: 3575: 3570: 3568:Live Intrusion 3565: 3560: 3555: 3550: 3545: 3535: 3532: 3531: 3530: 3499: 3498: 3497: 3496: 3495: 3494: 3493: 3492: 3491: 3490: 3489: 3488: 3487: 3486: 3446: 3445: 3444: 3443: 3442: 3441: 3440: 3439: 3438: 3437: 3410:Walter Görlitz 3387: 3386: 3365: 3364: 3363: 3360: 3350: 3333: 3326: 3315: 3314: 3276: 3275: 3274: 3273: 3272: 3271: 3270: 3269: 3268: 3267: 3266: 3265: 3264: 3263: 3235: 3234: 3233: 3232: 3231: 3230: 3229: 3228: 3227: 3226: 3225: 3224: 3184: 3183: 3182: 3181: 3180: 3179: 3178: 3177: 3176: 3175: 3152: 3151: 3150: 3149: 3148: 3147: 3146: 3145: 3098: 3097: 3096: 3095: 3072: 3071: 3023: 3022: 3016:Sonic Boom Six 3013: 3004: 2995: 2986: 2977: 2968: 2959: 2950: 2941: 2932: 2913: 2910: 2909: 2908: 2907: 2906: 2779: 2778: 2777: 2776: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2763: 2762: 2761: 2760: 2759: 2758: 2757: 2565: 2564: 2561: 2557: 2554: 2550: 2543: 2535: 2534: 2533: 2532: 2525: 2524: 2510: 2509: 2508: 2507: 2506: 2505: 2504: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2500: 2499: 2426:, that's when 2363: 2362: 2361: 2327: 2270: 2267: 2247: 2244: 2243: 2242: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2146:Amor Prohibido 2140: 2137: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2110: 1936: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1923: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1886: 1876: 1873: 1840: 1822: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1764: 1752: 1744: 1741: 1734: 1724:No mention at 1665: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1546: 1545: 1540: 1535: 1530: 1525: 1520: 1419: 1416: 1415: 1414: 1409:Viennese Waltz 1372: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1252: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1205: 1204: 1157:definition.... 1143: 1142: 1089: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1022: 1001: 1000: 969: 968: 963: 958: 953: 948: 907: 904: 903: 902: 852: 849: 848: 847: 824: 823: 777: 776: 772: 721: 718: 717: 716: 715: 714: 713: 712: 642: 641: 594:will stop the 534:Pet Fishsticks 522: 520:Pet Fishsticks 513: 493: 490: 489: 488: 487: 486: 485: 484: 483: 482: 481: 480: 479: 478: 477: 476: 475: 474: 473: 472: 471: 470: 469: 468: 467: 466: 177: 145:Slime Season 3 107: 104: 101: 100: 95: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5977: 5958: 5954: 5950: 5946: 5945: 5944: 5940: 5936: 5932: 5927: 5922: 5921: 5920: 5916: 5912: 5907: 5903: 5901: 5896: 5892: 5888: 5885: 5884: 5883: 5879: 5875: 5871: 5870: 5869: 5865: 5861: 5857: 5853: 5849: 5848:Rolling Stone 5845: 5842: 5841: 5840: 5839: 5835: 5831: 5827: 5823: 5792: 5788: 5784: 5779: 5774: 5770: 5767: 5762: 5758: 5755: 5753: 5749: 5745: 5741: 5739: 5733: 5729: 5725: 5721: 5720: 5719: 5718: 5717: 5713: 5709: 5704: 5703: 5702: 5701: 5700: 5699: 5698: 5697: 5696: 5695: 5694: 5693: 5692: 5691: 5690: 5689: 5688: 5687: 5686: 5685: 5684: 5683: 5662: 5658: 5654: 5650: 5645: 5644: 5643: 5642: 5641: 5640: 5639: 5638: 5637: 5636: 5635: 5634: 5633: 5632: 5631: 5630: 5629: 5628: 5627: 5626: 5607: 5603: 5599: 5595: 5590: 5586: 5582: 5579: 5574: 5570: 5567: 5563: 5559: 5555: 5554: 5552: 5551: 5550: 5546: 5542: 5537: 5533: 5529: 5525: 5521: 5520:Rolling Stone 5517: 5513: 5512:Record Mirror 5509: 5504: 5503: 5502: 5498: 5494: 5490: 5486: 5485: 5480: 5476: 5472: 5468: 5463: 5460: 5459: 5455: 5449: 5445: 5444:Rolling Stone 5440: 5433: 5429: 5425: 5421: 5418: 5414: 5410: 5406: 5405: 5400: 5396: 5395: 5390: 5389: 5384: 5383: 5382: 5378: 5374: 5370: 5366: 5361: 5358: 5353: 5349: 5344: 5343: 5342: 5338: 5334: 5330: 5326: 5325: 5324: 5320: 5316: 5312: 5309: 5305: 5303: 5299: 5297: 5293: 5292: 5291: 5290: 5287: 5283: 5279: 5275: 5270: 5266: 5262: 5261: 5256: 5252: 5251: 5250: 5249: 5246: 5243: 5238: 5231: 5230: 5229: 5228: 5225: 5221: 5217: 5213: 5208: 5204: 5200: 5197: 5195: 5191: 5187: 5183: 5182: 5178: 5176: 5173: 5168: 5162: 5159: 5158: 5157: 5156: 5152: 5148: 5141: 5137: 5136:WP:ALBUMAVOID 5133: 5130: 5124: 5122: 5119: 5115: 5112: 5108: 5101: 5097: 5094: 5089: 5081: 5076: 5068: 5067: 5066: 5065: 5062: 5061: 5048: 5041: 5037: 5033: 5026: 5019: 5011: 5009: 5008: 5005: 5000: 4994: 4990: 4987: 4979: 4973: 4969: 4965: 4960: 4959: 4958: 4955: 4950: 4944: 4940: 4936: 4931: 4930: 4929: 4928: 4924: 4920: 4915: 4913: 4910: 4905: 4903: 4900: 4896: 4892: 4890: 4889: 4884: 4881: 4877: 4874: 4871: 4870: 4865: 4858: 4856: 4855: 4851: 4850: 4842: 4840: 4835: 4833: 4828: 4825: 4822: 4820: 4815: 4813: 4805: 4803: 4801: 4800: 4794: 4792: 4791: 4785: 4780: 4771: 4768: 4765: 4759: 4755: 4753: 4752: 4748: 4744: 4735: 4732: 4728: 4724: 4718: 4717: 4714: 4712: 4699: 4687: 4684:Women in GLAM 4675: 4663: 4649: 4641: 4637: 4632: 4626: 4624: 4623: 4619: 4615: 4610:Pigsonthewing 4606: 4600: 4593: 4582: 4580: 4579: 4575: 4573:Contributions 4569: 4568:☎ Contact me! 4565: 4564: 4559: 4555: 4548: 4542: 4540: 4536: 4532: 4528: 4524: 4518: 4510: 4498: 4494: 4490: 4486: 4484: 4481: 4476: 4470: 4466: 4462: 4461: 4455: 4454: 4453: 4449: 4445: 4441: 4440:Nice_for_What 4437: 4436: 4435: 4431: 4427: 4422: 4421: 4420: 4417: 4412: 4406: 4402: 4401: 4400: 4397: 4396: 4395: 4391: 4388: 4387: 4381: 4377: 4374: 4373: 4372: 4370: 4366: 4362: 4358: 4354: 4348: 4340: 4334: 4330: 4326: 4322: 4318: 4317: 4316: 4312: 4308: 4302: 4297: 4296: 4295: 4294: 4290: 4286: 4282: 4274: 4268: 4265: 4260: 4254: 4250: 4246: 4242: 4241:About Us page 4238: 4237: 4236: 4232: 4228: 4224: 4220: 4216: 4215: 4210: 4209: 4208: 4207: 4204: 4203: 4190: 4185: 4179: 4177: 4173: 4169: 4166:to help cite 4165: 4161: 4157: 4149: 4147: 4146: 4142: 4138: 4134: 4133:Village Voice 4130: 4129: 4124: 4120: 4116: 4106: 4105: 4100: 4093: 4087: 4086: 4077: 4075: 4074: 4070: 4066: 4055: 4050: 4049: 4048: 4047: 4044: 4041: 4040: 4039: 4035: 4032: 4031: 4025: 4018: 4013: 4012: 4011: 4010: 4006: 4002: 3998: 3989: 3987: 3986: 3982: 3978: 3974: 3966: 3964: 3963: 3962: 3958: 3954: 3950: 3946: 3943: 3940: 3937: 3929: 3927: 3926: 3923: 3922: 3898: 3895: 3890: 3884: 3880: 3879: 3878: 3874: 3870: 3866: 3862: 3858: 3857: 3856: 3852: 3848: 3843: 3842: 3841: 3838: 3836: 3834: 3827: 3826: 3825: 3822: 3821: 3808: 3803: 3802: 3801: 3800: 3796: 3792: 3787: 3785: 3781: 3777: 3776:other sources 3768: 3764: 3760: 3756: 3752: 3746: 3741: 3740: 3739: 3738: 3734: 3730: 3724: 3722: 3719:June 2017 by 3718: 3713: 3705: 3704: 3703: 3702: 3701: 3698: 3696: 3686: 3685: 3684: 3683: 3682: 3680: 3676: 3668: 3660: 3657: 3652: 3646: 3645: 3644: 3640: 3636: 3632: 3631:WP:NOTRSMUSIC 3628: 3625: 3624: 3623: 3622: 3619: 3616: 3611: 3605: 3601: 3600: 3599: 3598: 3594: 3590: 3586: 3579: 3576: 3574: 3571: 3569: 3566: 3564: 3561: 3559: 3556: 3554: 3551: 3549: 3546: 3544: 3541: 3540: 3539: 3533: 3529: 3526: 3521: 3515: 3514: 3513: 3512: 3508: 3504: 3485: 3481: 3477: 3472: 3471: 3470: 3466: 3462: 3458: 3457: 3456: 3455: 3454: 3453: 3452: 3451: 3450: 3449: 3448: 3447: 3436: 3433: 3428: 3421: 3420: 3419: 3415: 3411: 3407: 3406: 3405: 3401: 3397: 3393: 3392: 3391: 3390: 3389: 3388: 3385: 3382: 3377: 3371: 3366: 3361: 3358: 3356: 3351: 3348: 3344: 3343: 3338: 3334: 3331: 3327: 3324: 3320: 3319: 3317: 3316: 3313: 3309: 3305: 3301: 3297: 3296: 3295: 3294: 3291: 3290: 3262: 3258: 3254: 3249: 3248: 3247: 3246: 3245: 3244: 3243: 3242: 3241: 3240: 3239: 3238: 3237: 3236: 3223: 3220: 3219: 3207: 3204: 3196: 3195: 3194: 3193: 3192: 3191: 3190: 3189: 3188: 3187: 3186: 3185: 3174: 3170: 3166: 3162: 3161: 3160: 3159: 3158: 3157: 3156: 3155: 3154: 3153: 3144: 3141: 3136: 3130: 3126: 3122: 3118: 3117: 3116: 3112: 3108: 3104: 3103: 3102: 3101: 3100: 3099: 3094: 3091: 3090: 3076: 3075: 3074: 3073: 3070: 3067: 3062: 3055: 3054: 3053: 3052: 3048: 3044: 3039: 3036: 3031: 3028: 3017: 3014: 3008: 3005: 2999: 2996: 2990: 2987: 2981: 2978: 2972: 2969: 2963: 2960: 2954: 2951: 2945: 2942: 2936: 2933: 2927: 2926:Enter Shikari 2924: 2923: 2922: 2918: 2911: 2905: 2901: 2897: 2893: 2888: 2887: 2886: 2882: 2878: 2862: 2852: 2845: 2842:. The reason 2841: 2837: 2830: 2823: 2819: 2815: 2811: 2804: 2794: 2785: 2780: 2756: 2752: 2748: 2743: 2742: 2737: 2730: 2729: 2728: 2724: 2720: 2715: 2714: 2713: 2693: 2692: 2691: 2687: 2683: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2656: 2655: 2654: 2650: 2646: 2643:decision...-- 2641: 2636: 2635: 2634: 2630: 2626: 2622: 2618: 2614: 2613: 2612: 2611: 2610: 2609: 2608: 2604: 2600: 2596: 2595: 2594: 2590: 2586: 2582: 2581: 2580: 2579: 2575: 2571: 2562: 2558: 2555: 2551: 2549: 2544: 2541: 2537: 2536: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2526: 2522: 2518: 2515: 2514: 2513: 2498: 2478: 2473: 2472: 2471: 2467: 2463: 2459: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2433: 2429: 2425: 2421: 2417: 2413: 2406: 2399: 2398: 2397: 2393: 2389: 2385: 2382: 2381: 2380: 2376: 2372: 2368: 2364: 2360: 2356: 2352: 2347: 2346: 2345: 2341: 2337: 2333: 2328: 2326: 2322: 2318: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2309: 2304: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2291: 2287: 2283: 2279: 2275: 2268: 2266: 2265: 2261: 2257: 2253: 2245: 2241: 2238: 2235: 2229: 2225: 2221: 2218: 2215: 2199: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2189: 2188: 2175: 2169: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2158: 2155: 2148: 2147: 2138: 2136: 2135: 2132: 2131: 2127: 2126: 2109: 2106: 2105: 2101: 2100: 2094: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2085: 2080: 2074: 2070: 2066: 2062: 2058: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2049: 2048: 2044: 2043: 2035: 2027: 2022: 2021: 2020: 2017: 2012: 2006: 2002: 1998: 1994: 1993: 1992: 1988: 1984: 1980: 1976: 1973: 1970: 1966: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1957: 1956: 1952: 1951: 1946: 1942: 1935: 1932: 1922: 1918: 1914: 1910: 1904: 1900: 1896: 1892: 1887: 1884: 1880: 1877: 1874: 1871: 1867: 1863: 1862:Agree totally 1859: 1858: 1857: 1853: 1849: 1845: 1841: 1839: 1835: 1831: 1827: 1823: 1821: 1817: 1813: 1809: 1805: 1804: 1803: 1799: 1795: 1791: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1777: 1773: 1769: 1765: 1762: 1758: 1757: 1753: 1750: 1745: 1742: 1739: 1735: 1732: 1727: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1717: 1713: 1709: 1705: 1702: 1699: 1695: 1692: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1683: 1679: 1675: 1671: 1663: 1653: 1649: 1645: 1640: 1635: 1631: 1627: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1617: 1613: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1603: 1599: 1594: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1583: 1579: 1575: 1571: 1567: 1563: 1562: 1561: 1560: 1556: 1552: 1544: 1541: 1539: 1536: 1534: 1531: 1529: 1526: 1524: 1521: 1519: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1511: 1509: 1508: 1503: 1499: 1498: 1493: 1492:the McRackins 1489: 1488: 1483: 1482: 1477: 1473: 1472: 1467: 1463: 1462: 1457: 1453: 1452: 1447: 1443: 1442: 1437: 1433: 1429: 1425: 1417: 1413: 1410: 1406: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1397: 1393: 1389: 1385: 1381: 1379: 1371:Album credits 1370: 1362: 1342: 1338: 1335: 1334: 1333: 1328: 1324: 1320: 1319: 1311:- Thanks. --- 1308: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1297: 1293: 1286: 1285:Doomsdayer520 1281: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1273: 1269: 1265: 1264: 1250: 1246: 1243: 1242: 1229: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1220: 1214: 1210: 1203: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1174: 1168: 1162: 1159: 1153: 1150: 1148: 1141: 1135: 1126: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1098: 1094: 1078: 1072: 1068: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1058: 1053: 1046: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1034: 1027: 1023: 1016: 1010: 1005: 1004: 1003: 1002: 999: 996: 991: 985: 984: 983: 982: 976: 964: 959: 954: 949: 944: 943: 942: 937: 934: 929: 926: 924: 919: 917: 913: 905: 901: 898: 893: 887: 882: 878: 877: 876: 873: 869: 865: 861: 850: 846: 842: 838: 834: 830: 826: 825: 822: 817: 813: 809: 804: 800: 792: 791: 790: 789: 785: 781: 773: 770: 769: 768: 766: 758: 748: 738: 737:Infobox album 731: 727: 725: 719: 711: 707: 703: 699: 694: 690: 684: 680: 675: 674: 673: 669: 665: 658: 651: 646: 645: 644: 643: 640: 636: 632: 628: 627: 626: 625: 621: 617: 613: 609: 605: 601: 597: 586: 584: 580: 569: 567: 561: 559: 555: 551: 547: 541: 539: 535: 521: 517: 514: 512: 511: 507: 503: 499: 491: 465: 461: 457: 451: 450:In ictu oculi 446: 445: 444: 440: 436: 435:In ictu oculi 431: 430: 429: 425: 421: 417: 414:A mixtape is 411: 410:In ictu oculi 406: 405: 404: 400: 396: 395:In ictu oculi 392: 391: 390: 386: 382: 378: 374: 372: 370: 369: 364: 363: 356: 351: 350: 349: 346: 341: 335: 331: 326: 325: 324: 320: 316: 311: 306: 302: 299: 298: 297: 294: 289: 282: 281: 280: 276: 272: 268: 264: 263: 258: 252: 247: 246: 245: 242: 237: 231: 230: 229: 225: 221: 215: 210: 209: 208: 204: 200: 199:In ictu oculi 196: 189: 183: 178: 176: 173: 168: 162: 161: 160: 159: 155: 151: 147: 146: 141: 140: 139:Coloring Book 135: 134: 129: 128:In ictu oculi 125: 124: 119: 118: 113: 112:disagreements 105: 99: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 5905: 5899: 5894: 5890: 5851: 5847: 5825: 5819: 5765: 5737: 5727: 5535: 5531: 5524:Melody Maker 5523: 5519: 5515: 5511: 5507: 5488: 5482: 5478: 5474: 5471:The Guardian 5470: 5466: 5457: 5453: 5452:Beach Boys' 5447: 5443: 5431: 5427: 5423: 5416: 5412: 5408: 5402: 5392: 5386: 5356: 5351: 5347: 5307: 5301: 5295: 5274:sputnikmusic 5269:Radio France 5264: 5258: 5236:Sergecross73 5211: 5198: 5180: 5179: 5166:Sergecross73 5160: 5125: 5105: 5087:Harsh Rathod 5074: 5053: 5047:unreferenced 5031: 5017: 5015: 4998:Harsh Rathod 4985: 4983: 4948:Sergecross73 4939:Guitar World 4938: 4934: 4908: 4906: 4898: 4888:Guitar World 4886: 4879: 4867: 4862: 4847: 4844:Thank you. 4843: 4836: 4829: 4826: 4823: 4816: 4809: 4797: 4795: 4788: 4786: 4772: 4769: 4766: 4762: 4740: 4719: 4704:Continuing: 4652: 4618:Andy's edits 4614:Talk to Andy 4605:Andy Mabbett 4586: 4562: 4551: 4521:— Preceding 4514: 4474:Sergecross73 4464: 4459: 4410:Sergecross73 4393: 4389: 4385: 4383: 4351:— Preceding 4344: 4278: 4258:Sergecross73 4192: 4191:experience. 4188: 4186: 4180: 4155: 4153: 4132: 4126: 4112: 4083: 4081: 4061: 4037: 4033: 4029: 4027: 3993: 3970: 3934: 3933: 3911: 3909: 3888:Sergecross73 3833:Victão Lopes 3832: 3810: 3788: 3783: 3772: 3725: 3714: 3711: 3699: 3692: 3672: 3650:Sergecross73 3609:Sergecross73 3582: 3558:Give It Away 3553:Don't Bother 3537: 3519:Sergecross73 3500: 3426:Sergecross73 3375:Sergecross73 3369: 3357:voting panel 3354: 3349:was one too. 3341: 3299: 3298:I too am in 3279: 3277: 3208: 3134:Sergecross73 3079: 3060:Sergecross73 3040: 3032: 3026: 3024: 2980:Jamie Lenman 2919: 2915: 2875:parameters. 2851:WPBannerMeta 2793:WPBannerMeta 2566: 2547: 2511: 2412:User:Kaldari 2383: 2302:Sergecross73 2272: 2249: 2177: 2173: 2144: 2142: 2129: 2124: 2120: 2103: 2098: 2092: 2078:Sergecross73 2046: 2041: 2034:Sergecross73 2010:Sergecross73 1971: 1954: 1949: 1938: 1870:this section 1865: 1861: 1754: 1700: 1667: 1638: 1633: 1625: 1547: 1512: 1505: 1495: 1485: 1479: 1471:Road to Ruin 1469: 1459: 1449: 1439: 1421: 1377: 1374: 1314: 1259: 1254: 1231: 1209:this article 1206: 1169: 1163: 1160: 1154: 1151: 1144: 1090: 1051:Sergecross73 1009:Sergecross73 989:Sergecross73 970: 938: 935: 930: 927: 920: 915: 912:this version 909: 891:Sergecross73 858:— Preceding 854: 798: 778: 747:Infobox song 723: 598:, but other 587: 579:edit summary 570: 563: 543: 532:The article 531: 495: 415: 376: 366: 360: 339:Sergecross73 333: 309: 304: 301:Sergecross73 287:Sergecross73 260: 251:Sergecross73 235:Sergecross73 214:Sergecross73 188:Sergecross73 166:Sergecross73 143: 137: 131: 121: 115: 109: 78: 43: 37: 5773:Music Story 5558:Music Story 5556:Expand the 5541:Richard3120 5315:Richard3120 5186:Richard3120 5118:Music Story 4899:Daily Vault 4817:There's an 4646:Welcome to 4426:Richard3120 4307:Richard3120 4301:Ringerfan23 3774:across the 3697:from 2014? 3476:Richard3120 2803:The Beatles 2420:last August 2230:. Thanks – 2026:Atlantic306 1983:Atlantic306 1965:Miss Sarita 1913:Atlantic306 1893:of course. 1848:Atlantic306 1830:Atlantic306 1824:Looking at 1812:Atlantic306 1794:Atlantic306 1712:Atlantic306 1612:Atlantic306 1578:Atlantic306 1378:Yours Truly 1307:Richard3120 1292:Richard3120 946:An infobox. 864:Matharvest 683:Richard3120 679:Atlantic306 664:Richard3120 650:Atlantic306 631:Atlantic306 502:Favre1fan93 375:. I bought 355:Richard3120 315:Richard3120 36:This is an 5566:WP:RSMUSIC 5479:PopMatters 5417:Yellow Sub 5399:MusicHound 5207:Here's one 5181:Unreliable 5161:Unreliable 4806:Background 3883:WP:PRIMARY 3861:WP:NOTNEWS 3715:Ahh, docs 3201:I found a 2896:Richhoncho 2836:Abbey Road 2818:Abbey Road 2810:CopyPatrol 2784:Richhoncho 2747:Richhoncho 2719:Richhoncho 2682:Richhoncho 2645:Richhoncho 2599:Richhoncho 2570:Richhoncho 2388:Richhoncho 2351:Richhoncho 2317:Richhoncho 2286:Richhoncho 2067:(FA), and 2057:WP:PRIMARY 1997:WP:PRIMARY 1864:regarding 1860:Thanks... 1507:It's Alive 1500:, and the 1456:the Queers 1451:Leave Home 1316:DOOMSDAYER 1261:DOOMSDAYER 554:Steve Dahl 330:WP:PRIMARY 267:discussion 98:Archive 60 90:Archive 58 85:Archive 57 79:Archive 56 73:Archive 55 68:Archive 54 60:Archive 50 5771:With the 5265:Jazz News 5138:list)? 5034:pages in 4989:Take this 4980:Personnel 4465:Billboard 4253:USA Today 4168:glam rock 4135:in 1997. 4119:Raw Power 3807:WP:VERIFY 3791:SilentDan 3751:WP:BOTREQ 3749:You need 3695:this edit 3589:SilentDan 3548:Breakdown 3543:Aphrodite 3503:SilentDan 3461:SilentDan 3396:SilentDan 3304:SilentDan 3253:SilentDan 3165:SilentDan 3107:SilentDan 3043:SilentDan 2873:album=yes 2868:album=yes 2428:User:Moxy 2416:this edit 2274:User:Moxy 2168:AJona1992 2005:Team Rock 1981:, thanks 1710:? thanks 1644:IllaZilla 1639:I created 1598:IllaZilla 1551:IllaZilla 1502:Parasites 1384:this edit 1161:"Start": 1067:WP:NALBUM 936:"Start": 856:accurate. 829:WP:SILENT 702:Marchjuly 657:Marchjuly 616:Marchjuly 612:consensus 546:WP:NALBUM 536:has been 377:More Life 310:Billboard 305:More Life 262:More Life 5740:database 5484:The Word 5438:before.) 5199:Reliable 5092:Poke me! 5080:Champion 5003:Poke me! 4935:Goldmine 4895:Easy Now 4880:Goldmine 4869:Goldmine 4535:contribs 4523:unsigned 4365:contribs 4353:unsigned 4189:specific 4176:LinkedIn 4115:this RfC 4065:Rcollman 4017:Rcollman 4001:Rcollman 3784:recorded 3721:SnapSnap 3604:WP:USERG 3578:Slipknot 3370:reliable 3347:Buzzfeed 3203:LinkedIn 2256:NaBUru38 2001:Loudwire 1975:contribs 1704:contribs 1468:covered 1438:covered 1434:albums: 1327:Contribs 1272:Contribs 1219:Mudwater 1213:this one 1173:Mudwater 1166:more.... 1152:"Stub": 1134:Mudwater 1077:Mudwater 1033:Mudwater 975:Mudwater 971:Thanks. 928:"Stub": 872:contribs 860:unsigned 795:Justin ( 548:or even 362:Campaign 117:Campaign 5935:Ojorojo 5906:Blender 5895:Blender 5891:Blender 5887:Ojorojo 5874:Ojorojo 5855:Picaud. 5830:Ojorojo 5757:Ojorojo 5708:Ojorojo 5598:Ojorojo 5454:Friends 5448:Blender 5432:Blender 5413:Friends 5409:Friends 5373:Ojorojo 5147:Ojorojo 5059:HAMPION 4964:Ojorojo 4943:Discogs 4919:Ojorojo 4743:Ipigott 4117:at the 3977:Ojorojo 3953:Ojorojo 3847:Ojorojo 3717:changed 3635:Ojorojo 2998:Polaris 2877:Kaldari 2462:Kaldari 1895:Andrewa 1826:Cashbox 1768:Andrewa 1756:Cashbox 1694:Andrewa 1678:Andrewa 1441:Ramones 1432:Ramones 1392:Jc86035 1388:Epep123 1045:Discogs 837:Ojorojo 780:Jc86035 689:WP:NFCC 368:Jeffery 123:Jeffery 39:archive 5822:WP:ORG 5508:Sounds 5241:msg me 5171:msg me 5143:Music. 5018:switch 4953:msg me 4937:or or 4479:msg me 4415:msg me 4380:WP:AFD 4263:msg me 4201:editor 3920:editor 3893:msg me 3819:editor 3745:Shenme 3729:Shenme 3655:msg me 3614:msg me 3524:msg me 3431:msg me 3380:msg me 3288:editor 3217:editor 3139:msg me 3125:Kotaku 3088:editor 3065:msg me 2699:cheers 2663:cheers 2484:cheers 2439:cheers 2307:msg me 2186:editor 2130:Sarita 2104:Sarita 2083:msg me 2063:(FA), 2047:Sarita 2015:msg me 1955:Sarita 1761:WP:IRS 1749:iTunes 1626:except 1574:WP:GNG 1454:, and 1348:cheers 1240:editor 1189:cheers 1104:cheers 1071:WP:GNG 1056:msg me 994:msg me 896:msg me 881:verify 581:or on 550:WP:GNG 344:msg me 292:msg me 240:msg me 171:msg me 5900:Maxim 5458:20/20 5075:Agree 4691:New: 4679:New: 4667:New: 4655:New: 4469:Drake 4198:music 4195:danny 4137:Dan56 3917:music 3914:danny 3816:music 3813:danny 3300:favor 3285:music 3282:danny 3214:music 3211:danny 3085:music 3082:danny 2962:Fozzy 2702:peaks 2666:peaks 2553:lost. 2487:peaks 2442:peaks 2434:). -- 2384:*Note 2183:music 2180:danny 1941:WP:FL 1572:pass 1564:Hi, * 1351:peaks 1237:music 1234:danny 1192:peaks 1107:peaks 775:page? 698:WP:F5 257:Drake 195:WP:RS 16:< 5953:talk 5949:JG66 5939:talk 5926:JG66 5915:talk 5911:JG66 5878:talk 5864:talk 5860:JG66 5834:talk 5787:talk 5783:JG66 5748:talk 5744:JG66 5732:Muze 5712:talk 5657:talk 5653:JG66 5602:talk 5587:and 5545:talk 5536:Mojo 5497:talk 5493:JG66 5477:and 5467:Mojo 5426:and 5377:talk 5350:and 5337:talk 5333:JG66 5329:this 5319:talk 5300:and 5282:talk 5278:JG66 5220:talk 5216:JG66 5190:talk 5151:talk 4968:talk 4923:talk 4799:here 4790:here 4747:talk 4725:and 4563:Tyw7 4531:talk 4493:talk 4448:talk 4430:talk 4386:King 4361:talk 4329:talk 4325:RF23 4311:talk 4289:talk 4285:RF23 4231:talk 4227:JG66 4164:this 4141:talk 4098:Talk 4069:talk 4030:King 4005:talk 3981:talk 3957:talk 3873:talk 3863:and 3851:talk 3795:talk 3759:talk 3755:X201 3733:talk 3639:talk 3593:talk 3507:talk 3480:talk 3465:talk 3414:talk 3400:talk 3330:here 3308:talk 3257:talk 3169:talk 3111:talk 3047:talk 3027:NOTE 2944:Fact 2900:talk 2894:. -- 2892:here 2881:talk 2751:talk 2723:talk 2709:wars 2707:lost 2705:news 2696:Star 2686:talk 2673:wars 2671:lost 2669:news 2660:Star 2649:talk 2629:talk 2625:Moxy 2621:talk 2617:Moxy 2603:talk 2589:talk 2585:Moxy 2574:talk 2494:wars 2492:lost 2490:news 2481:Star 2466:talk 2449:wars 2447:lost 2445:news 2436:Star 2400:The 2392:talk 2375:talk 2371:Moxy 2369:. -- 2355:talk 2340:talk 2336:Moxy 2321:talk 2290:talk 2260:talk 2254:. -- 2252:here 2233:jona 2228:here 2213:jona 2153:jona 2125:Miss 2099:Miss 2042:Miss 2030:and 1995:Per 1987:talk 1969:talk 1950:Miss 1945:here 1917:talk 1899:talk 1852:talk 1834:talk 1816:talk 1808:here 1798:talk 1772:talk 1736:See 1716:talk 1698:talk 1682:talk 1648:talk 1616:talk 1602:talk 1582:talk 1568:and 1555:talk 1504:did 1494:did 1478:did 1458:did 1448:did 1396:talk 1358:wars 1356:lost 1354:news 1345:Star 1341:here 1337:This 1323:Talk 1296:talk 1268:Talk 1199:wars 1197:lost 1195:news 1186:Star 1114:wars 1112:lost 1110:news 1101:Star 1095:and 1069:and 1026:Here 868:talk 841:talk 784:talk 752:and 706:talk 681:and 668:talk 635:talk 620:talk 506:talk 500:. - 498:here 460:talk 439:talk 424:talk 399:talk 385:talk 365:and 319:talk 275:talk 224:talk 203:talk 154:talk 142:and 120:and 5516:NME 5257:to 4612:); 4560:-- 4394:God 4390:And 4249:NPR 4247:or 4170:on 4038:God 4034:And 3975:. — 3951:. — 3129:MTV 2093:but 2003:or 1386:by 1318:520 1263:520 914:of 518:of 5955:) 5941:) 5917:) 5880:) 5866:) 5836:) 5789:) 5766:If 5750:) 5742:. 5714:) 5659:) 5604:) 5547:) 5522:. 5499:) 5473:, 5469:, 5397:, 5391:, 5379:) 5339:) 5321:) 5284:) 5222:) 5192:) 5153:) 5050:}} 5044:{{ 5028:}} 5022:{{ 4970:) 4925:) 4878:A 4846:— 4841:. 4834:. 4821:. 4793:. 4784:. 4782:}} 4776:{{ 4749:) 4741:-- 4616:; 4601:. 4595:}} 4589:{{ 4576:) 4570:• 4537:) 4533:• 4495:) 4450:) 4432:) 4367:) 4363:• 4331:) 4313:) 4291:) 4233:) 4158:. 4143:) 4071:) 4007:) 3983:) 3959:) 3885:. 3875:) 3853:) 3809:. 3797:) 3761:) 3753:- 3735:) 3641:) 3595:) 3509:) 3482:) 3467:) 3416:) 3402:) 3310:) 3259:) 3171:) 3131:. 3113:) 3049:) 3018:- 3009:- 3000:- 2991:- 2982:- 2973:- 2964:- 2955:- 2946:- 2937:- 2928:- 2902:) 2883:) 2864:}} 2858:{{ 2854:}} 2848:{{ 2832:}} 2826:{{ 2812:, 2806:}} 2800:{{ 2796:}} 2790:{{ 2753:) 2745:-- 2739:}} 2733:{{ 2725:) 2717:-- 2688:) 2658:-- 2651:) 2631:) 2605:) 2591:) 2576:) 2468:) 2408:}} 2402:{{ 2394:) 2377:) 2357:) 2349:-- 2342:) 2323:) 2292:) 2262:) 2210:– 1989:) 1919:) 1901:) 1854:) 1836:) 1818:) 1800:) 1774:) 1718:) 1684:) 1650:) 1618:) 1604:) 1596:-- 1584:) 1557:) 1510:. 1490:, 1474:, 1444:, 1407:-- 1398:) 1298:) 1217:— 1171:— 1132:— 1075:— 1031:— 973:— 925:. 874:) 870:• 843:) 801:vf 797:ko 786:) 760:}} 754:{{ 750:}} 744:{{ 742:, 740:}} 734:{{ 708:) 670:) 637:) 622:) 585:. 568:. 508:) 462:) 441:) 426:) 401:) 387:) 321:) 303:– 277:) 226:) 205:) 184:. 156:) 136:, 94:→ 64:← 5951:( 5937:( 5933:— 5928:: 5924:@ 5913:( 5876:( 5862:( 5832:( 5785:( 5746:( 5710:( 5655:( 5600:( 5596:— 5591:. 5543:( 5532:Q 5495:( 5435:' 5375:( 5371:— 5335:( 5317:( 5280:( 5218:( 5188:( 5149:( 5145:— 5131:, 5082:: 5078:@ 5056:C 5032:7 4966:( 4962:— 4921:( 4917:— 4745:( 4733:) 4608:( 4566:( 4529:( 4491:( 4446:( 4428:( 4376: 4359:( 4327:( 4309:( 4303:: 4299:@ 4287:( 4229:( 4139:( 4101:) 4095:( 4067:( 4019:: 4015:@ 4003:( 3979:( 3955:( 3871:( 3849:( 3793:( 3757:( 3747:: 3743:@ 3731:( 3637:( 3591:( 3505:( 3478:( 3463:( 3412:( 3398:( 3332:. 3306:( 3255:( 3167:( 3109:( 3045:( 2898:( 2879:( 2786:: 2782:@ 2749:( 2721:( 2684:( 2647:( 2627:( 2619:( 2601:( 2587:( 2572:( 2464:( 2390:( 2373:( 2353:( 2338:( 2319:( 2288:( 2258:( 2237:✉ 2217:✉ 2200:: 2196:@ 2170:: 2166:@ 2157:✉ 2036:: 2032:@ 2028:: 2024:@ 1985:( 1972:· 1967:( 1915:( 1897:( 1850:( 1832:( 1814:( 1796:( 1770:( 1763:. 1751:. 1714:( 1701:· 1696:( 1680:( 1646:( 1614:( 1600:( 1580:( 1553:( 1394:( 1329:) 1325:| 1321:( 1309:: 1305:@ 1294:( 1287:: 1283:@ 1274:) 1270:| 1266:( 1127:: 1123:@ 1011:: 1007:@ 866:( 839:( 818:☯ 816:M 814:☺ 812:C 810:☮ 808:T 806:❤ 803:) 799:a 782:( 704:( 685:: 677:@ 666:( 659:: 655:@ 652:: 648:@ 633:( 618:( 504:( 458:( 452:: 448:@ 437:( 422:( 412:: 408:@ 397:( 383:( 357:: 353:@ 317:( 273:( 253:: 249:@ 222:( 216:: 212:@ 201:( 190:: 186:@ 152:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 56 - Knowledge

Index