2827:, I would not have them as an album. They certainly weren't released that way; they were put up as separate two-track singles each week which were subsequently removed. None of them were collected together as one album release (at least not officially; I'm sure fans have done so). The article doesn't even suggest it as an album. If that's reason enough to change out the infobox then let it be changed. The compilation designation makes more sense for the Kim Petras release because at least it was officially collected later on, as the article states, but the same solution wouldn't fit for the Brockhampton series.
2098:
that, in the prose portion, "Robert
Christgau" is just another music web site. I've considered for years boldly changing the sources page and the template example, but thought I'd post here first (it always seemed that one editor just stuck him under R, and everyone forgot about it). At heart, I think this is genuinely misleading and confusing to both editors and readers, and bad information, where one term means two things--not helped by the fact that only a few "named" critics are used in the template; strangely,
1932:
offends their instant gratification and try to get users who call that out in trouble off of the flimsiest and fabricated of evidence, they are a lost cause and cannot be reasoned with. I am not naming names for the same reason teachers do not reveal to a classroom who got an F on the most recent test, but if the demise of music articles on this website keeps going, just know that all I did here was warn about it. So until circumstances here change, congratulations, you lost a participant!
2239:
2234:
2229:
2221:
2216:
2208:
31:
2309:, just write about it in the prose, without any kind of rating. If you want to keep a rating, cite his book or "him"/"his site" ... and therein lies the confusion. Again, I think "Robert Christgau", under C, is the best and clearest option, with the term referring to the journalist who has had some kind of a "guide" for around 50+ years, in 8, 9, 10, or however many outlets.
1902:
1040:: "An article should not be a complete presentation of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." Listing every best-of ranking is not a summary. A summary is not arbitrary. Limit of 10 aligns with longstanding practice at the album reviews template. Having no limit on the template is even more comical.
2267:--most of our short album articles are already ratings-heavy, prose-poor. Frankly, citing "Robert Christgau" is the easiest, clearest, and most straightforward at this late date. I'm not sure that changing something just to change it is necessary editing, and there may be some occasional pushback if the citation isn't accurate. Cheers.
2126:" in the template (in articles about 1990s albums), since that's where he originally published his reviews. Like you say, there's usually a link to an artist page on his personal website. I use a quote from it to search his site to find the full Consumer Guide, and then use it to find the issue on ProQuest, to fill a citation template (
577:, and neither is this Simple English Knowledge. This is regular English Knowledge which expects more sophistication from its readers and is about anything. Whether the human species are able to have editorial discretion in the manner you are talking is irrelative to how much Knowledge permits with its content.
1211:
Serge, can you please engage with the comment I just made instead of repeatedly linking me to a random AFD that took place six months ago and contains all of the same arguments as in the consensus I am disputing here? A small portion of users in a AFD from a specific seven-day time period is not "the
580:
Also, when it comes to that "rejection", you are talking about an AFD that took place six months that a small fraction of the users on this website participated in. We go off of current consensus agreed by all users, not what a random selection of users said in a specific topic page months ago. I had
253:
Seriously? Dude, stand up for yourself. It sounds like whoever put that restriction on you was trying to make you humiliate yourself going forward as some kind of a power play. Donāt let them have that. Iāll revert myself on your behalf, itās not that big of a deal to me. Just please donāt be a beta,
1719:
You are misrepresenting what I commented. I did not ask "what publications"; I asked what they meant by the specific adjective "reputable". Just mentioning the names of two sources tells me nothing. What do they mean by "reputable"? Does he mean all reliable sources or something different since this
1527:
I feel you. However, there was overwhelming agreement that a condensed list with no more than ten publications is preferable. I have seen remarkable situations where some mixed prose (also compacted) with tables where a record topped the ranking of several publications and/or all-time and decade-end
1407:
to write in such a manner that appeals to the masses' instant gratification, ignoring the fact that no one is putting a gun to anyone's head to read the entire articles, and can organize the table however they like and use the "Find in Page" feature to look for the year-end ranking, or can just read
1161:
page that I briefly referred to in my first bullet point. Yes, there is a lot of details we do not put in for a variety of reasons. we do not summarize every single level and button command in a video game. We do not cover every cheat code or glitch. We do not bring up every small thing that happens
2783:
by
Brockhampton. It's described in the article as a series of separately released songs that received an umbrella title. So is it an album? I personally don't think so, and therefore it should not have the album infobox and should be described as an unconventional project by the band. But this will
1396:
The whole reason I am starting this section is because none of their reasons were "valid" by any stretch of the imagination, and you are telling me to just accept what are you saying on blind faith. What's "Self-explanatory"? "Absurd" based on what? The lists are massive, but that is simply because
1377:
I mean, sure, but the reasons we developed that consensus in the first place are still valid. Have you looked back at the old versions of some of those articles with dozens of lists? It was absurd. I think having a hard limit is entirely self-explanatory, and I stand by it. What more is there to be
2084:
Hello, see this more and more, although still in a minority of articles--Robert
Christgau, listed alphabetically under R in the ratings template rather than C. This has always seemed super weird to me, as the linked term is to the person who has worked as a critic and journalist for 50+ years, not
1170:
statistics (and these are viewpoints from independent sources we are talking about here), this does not prohibit having the tables or coming up with a universally-applied bar of a number of rows. It does acknowledge that these tables can be sometimes "so lengthy as to impede the readability of the
550:
Again, incorrect. We are not robots working off of a computer program. We are humans capable of editorial discretion. These sorts of decisions are made all the time. Just because an RS published content does not make it compulsory for inclusion. RS coverage is the bare minimum for inclusion, not a
497:
I'm pretty certain
Richard's point is that a "best of" list that doesn't even take an entire year into effect, may not show much importance. That's not an uncommon sentiment. I add them occasionally on more obscure song articles that don't have a ton in the way of awards or reception, but it's not
2106:
or a book (again, so long as those works are actually cited, rather than his site), I'm just concerned about his name also equating to his site and the misinformation that results. I'm not exactly sure of WP's alphabetically sorting guidance--I remember a page that uses "George
Washington" as an
2097:
or his book, so it's often technically an incorrect citation right off the bat (he occasionally made changes to reviews/grades for his books and site). Most importantly, the linked term always refers to him, the person, not his site. I've read some album articles where an editor obviously thinks
1777:
I know
Billboard is known by a lot more people than MetalSucks, but you do not know if Apoxyomenus is referring to that. QuietHere assumed it was not "importance" Apoxyomenus was referring, but anything on WP:RSMUSIC, which includes Metalsucks. Do you see how contradictory and confusing this is?
1931:
After years of working on album articles, I have decided it is not worth my time working with this group of people. I am still going to be editing elsewhere on this site, but if the group of music article editors consists of people who think that they can chop off parts of trees just because it
1825:
the same comment, too, Serge. To me, "reputable" could have met that with
Wikipedians here when it comes to reliability, with the entire music industry out of Knowledge, with other music journalists perceive them, OR with consumers of magazines. Those are not the same definitions. The fact that
1280:
Also, Heartfox, the
Summary style applies to how prose is written, not lists and tables. When they state you can't present every detail, they mean that you have to concisely describe all of the available literature (sentences on frequently-held viewpoints, for example), meaning you cannot just
1162:
in a film, book or TV episode when summarizing the plot. We do not have every definition in the dictionary on here. And we do not present every statistic and number that has ever been tracked by government and website logs. I have much time behind me editing this site and am very aware of that.
828:
Agreed. It's also less noteworthy to be singled out for said lists as the selection period grows shorter. Just like I rarely give any credence to these "Best songs released on June 28th, 2024" articles some reliable sources write, unless it seems 100% necessary to establish a song was notable.
691:
We've been through this before. It's not compulsory to include every single award/review an RS publishes. But yes, you should probably start a new discussion. Have you read this one all the way through? It already wrapped up days ago when the troublesome editor in question was indeffed.
581:
a way more hostile tone of voice and attitude than how I am commenting in this section currently that I am not proud of, which I imagine is the real reason other users were not willing to listen, and I have the right to give another go proper in case anyone has changed their minds.
1285:
reviews. We still have summary-style prose alongside long lists of numbers, films actors have starred in, albums and singles singers have released, polls and rankings for the popularity of political figures etc., and no such advocacy for the removal of that is taking place here.
2400:, in which I propose deleting the section altogether. Given how much participation the discussions have had so far, I can imagine there being a lot more for this one, and it even potentially evolving into an RfC if need be, so I'm leaving an invite to such participation here.
2285:. As far as I can see, there are only 2 places that show these stars: the book and artist pages on Christgau's website. Unless you mean removing the rating from the rating template and writing about it in prose, but I don't think that's ideal either, as there
1724:
rankings on a list? If he means everything on WP:RSMUSIC, then an Oppose vote is weird because every publication on the complete tables met WP:RSMUSIC. And if it's something different, what makes
Billboard and AllMusic so "reputable" over "other references"?
110:
one as "fluff". If other users think these are inappropriate, I'm not going to keep on adding hundreds to just be removed and waste my time. Do others agree that this shouldn't be added? If others agree with me, then someone please undo this removal. Thanks.
1252:. Literally six months ago. 3 participants did not give any rationale. 3 I had heavy back-and-forths with, the rest I could not respond to because I was blocked for an unrelated incident. All gave rationales that were invalid. You are not arguing anything.
1663:
Well you are replying to every comment in the discussion and making the same argument to everyone. I'd say that's pretty much the definition of BLUDGEONING as I understand it. If Serge is indeed making such an accusation, then I agree with it.
971:
It would really help if you did not make loaded statements. Nobody thought this website was an aggregator before we had this limit, and it objectively was not. This is still going to be an encyclopedia regardless if this limit is here or not.
813:
I don't agree with this actually, because it favours albums released in the first half of the year... nobody does "the best albums from July to
December", so I do think there is undue weight given to albums released between January and June.
2519:
twice as a reliable source in favor of writers who also worked at About.com (we use this same table on the RSMUSIC page in clarifying our stance on that publication). Seems like there's probably a strong case here, or at least one for
1165:
Here's the real question: How does this violate WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE? The most appropriate bullet point to this discourse is "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics", but ignoring the obvious that this is specifically for
2170:, I would use the name of whatever outlet he was reviewing for, with his name in the citation template. I would consider keeping his name in the scores template for his latest reviews, which he publishes independently.
2158:). However, these don't have stars on honorable mentions (and neither do ProQuest scans, so I guess he added stars later, in the book), in which case I have to link the artist page that includes stars. Sometimes I see "
1192:
2154:"; and it's several times easier to cite his website than the book on the Internet Archive, which may also soon disappear following the lawsuit), though I tend to replace artist page with a Consumer Guide page (
1702:
It does not make sense to ask questions like "what publications?" when they gave you 2 examples already. It gives off the vibe that you're not even paying attention to what people are saying to you (yet again.)
921:
it makes the false statement that sources need to be covered in other sources to be worthy of inclusion, which is ridiculous anyway and would cause the article count of this site to be 0 if applied universally
708:
I know what the section is about. It is about an editor who has been indefinitely block for vandalizing a page under the kind of rationale that's currently consensus on WikiProject Albums that I am disputing.
2085:
the web site that collects most of his previously published writing. I know this has always been a citing nightmare: he's on his 8th or 9th outlet, so there are now that many ways to cite him, starting with
458:
I don't have a problem with year-end ratings, but I feel "so far this year" or "of the first six months of 2024" lists are a bit pointless. I note that Ariaslaga has been indeffed since this thread started.
910:
its claims about the quality and editorial standards of the year-end lists in question is unsubstantiated and extremely speculative, and would be far from enough in a discussion about the reliability of a
2190:, but you don't change the link to his posted column--that's an incorrect citation. We seem to be undoing each other's work... I have no issue with the change, if you link to the proper column page.
1001:, it's valid to include it in these kinds of listings. This could visually or page-layoutwise only be a problem after a couple dozen and 99.9% of albums would never be on that many lists anyway. ā
2397:
2393:
889:. The reasons for why I am doing this are extensive and would require reacting to every comment made by several participating editors in that discourse, but just so you all have a basic idea...
161:
I am under an editing restriction and cannot undo anyone's edits. I am asking the community to see the consensus around this because I don't want to have my work undone hundreds of times over. ā
526:. I do not even care about any of the albums that have been discussed in relation to this topic. If users start removing critics' rankings over not personally finding any of them "important",
907:
on a note for possibly another discourse) to statements of what was the top 100, 50 and 10 of a set of hundreds of thousands of albums (pretty much the top 1%), indicating poor judgement
997:
10 is far too few and as you pointed out, will require some totally arbitrary decision criteria where editors all in some otherwise reliable sources and omit others. If an outlet is on
859:
If there was any ranking that was from an unreliable source or not sourced at all, it's objectively "fluff" or unnecessary. If not, than the editor does not have a valid argument.
955:
to loosening it up - we're an encyclopedia, not a reviews or awards aggregator compelled to document every approved website. INDISCRIMINATE was created for this sort of mindset.
2146:, no preference really) with date, issue number and pages. I keep a link to his website, since the reviews there were uploaded either by him or someone closely related to him ("
1542:(1) The "overwhelming agreement" was years ago, and just because lots of users supported it does not mean it was correct or sound. Knowledge discussions are not !vote systems.
750:
I am sorry for the delay in response because edit conflicts on this page prevented my comments from getting published, but it is not an opinion but rather the truth. It meets
326:
I'm not sure they're going to see your message as they were blocked a week ago (a little harshly, to be honest, I don't see any evidence of blatant vandalism in their edits).
2774:
1353:
Thank you for your input, but I am expecting more from opposing commenters. Do you have something better than "It's just consensus" and other aspects of articles have this?
1397:
lots of reputable publications considered the LPs one of the best of their respective years, so thus the size of the table reflect that. All of the publications meet
303:
This is absolutely terrible advice. Don't give unsolicited advice like this. Justin is handling things correctly, and your advice would do nothing but cause trouble.
2668:? I want to re-nominate it to hopefully be a good article, since this is the only thing which needs to be done to nominate the page, all help will be appreciated!
518:
Users are to have whatever viewpoints they have on how sources give their perspectives on music, and that's fine. But no sourcing policy is based on whether users
2058:
I also agree. Beyond agreeing with everyone above, most publications that started as print media publications in the 1980/90/2000s meet our requirements anyways.
2622:
1401:. And no, there is no evidence any of the listed publications or "self sourced" or created under a low-quality "clickbait" method as JG66 kneejerkedly presumed.
2512:
1594:
886:
84:
72:
67:
59:
2711:
Wow, I hope that doesn't happen. Allmusic is probably one of the most used sources for musician and album Knowledge articles, especially lesser known ones.
477:, obviously) is not valid. Everything on this encyclopedia is pointless. Just because you find something "pointless", does not ban it from inclusion here.
2731:
big of an issue for them. I'm more worried about reviews for albums that don't have articles. Not sure if there is a way to make sure these get archived.
1528:
listicles, which I personally find also acceptable. Reputable music publications (Billboard, AllMusic etc) would be the priority over other references. --
903:
it falsely equates ratings in reviews (which could range from extremely favorable, to lukewarm, to mixed, to unfavorable and should not have a limit for
2247:
via the Internet Archive. FWIW, if an album is not an honorable mention, I do change the link, as I believe the full Consumer Guide page is preferable.
502:
s Top 50 Hard Rock Albums of 2024 so far (published in April 2024.)" I mean, how many notable rock albums even came out over the course of 4 months?
2615:
663:, such as opinion polls, user ratings on sites like AOTY or IMDb, or crime numbers published by police departments. Best-of lists from sources like
2238:
2233:
2228:
2220:
2215:
2207:
268:
Well, it's nothing like that: my behavior was wrong and the community was valid to sanction me. I appreciate your time and encouragement. Thanks. ā
2551:
add sources that aren't on our list, I stand here looking a fool. I agree with adding it to the list for sure. I'm less familiar with the other. ā
97:
I have added several dozen (hundreds?) of sources to album articles where the critical reception puts it on best of lists. E.g. see the tables at
2263:
I agree, I've read him since the late 1990s and own all his books. You can always just write about the honorable mention in the prose if citing
473:
Richard, using "pointless" as a rationale to remove perspectives from (specifically) reputable, reliable authors of a subject (as determined by
218:, which includes getting a third party to comment, including via WikiProjects. If I am doing something inappropriate now, please let me know. ā
1121:
I made a side comment about the ratings template because the consensus compared year-end lists to ratings. That's what Heartfox is referring.
754:
to factor in all reliable sources. regardless if they are year-end lists or half-of-year-end lists. Therefore, it is the correct thing to do.
2625:. (Not entirely on-topic for WP:ALBUMS I know, but this project is a reliable resource for editors experienced in writing about musicians.]
2793:
by Kim Petras. See that article's talk page too. The folks behind that article can't even figure out what the title of the project was. ---
1398:
998:
552:
474:
621:
I'm not wasting my time on this again. This is misguided advice no one follows, placed in the middle of a week old unrelated discussion.
1745:
Come on, you're active in the music content area, you should be able to wrap your head around this. It's plain to see that websites like
2809:
2641:(I do the same thing for anything remotely related to music since WP:ALBUMS is so much more active than the other music Wikiprojects.)
778:
notable than saying that said album is one of the best of the mid-year. That's a more substantial coverage as far as I'm concerned. ā
2738:
2330:
2296:
2254:
2177:
1909:
1895:
47:
17:
2089:, his books, his site, a generic "Christgau Consumer Guide"--which sometimes means his column, book, or site--and his 4 or 5 post-
2836:
2533:
2409:
2035:
1673:
1584:
1387:
1344:
900:
it calls the cited example abstract names that are confusing to apply to what are simple tables with text and a gray background
364:
1543:
1354:
2823:
2779:
2733:
2696:
got rid of their reviews recently and now uses descriptions from Knowledge, so the same might be in store for AllMusic.
2472:
2325:
2291:
2249:
2172:
2497:. As far as I'm aware, they're both plenty reliable and typically treated as such. They're certainly both used plenty (
2044:
Agreed, I've never seen any problem with this publication and there's plenty of genuine journalistic experience there.
405:
With regard to the tables, I believe there is a consensus that there should be a maximum of 10 rows in accordance with
2572:
2372:
1085:
1022:
894:
799:
444:
289:
239:
182:
132:
1335:: 10 is plenty, and there's a history of consensus beyond that as a hard limit on multiple areas of album articles.
1171:
article" but recommends "to split into a separate article" and have a brief description of it in the main article.
38:
1947:
655:
absolutely does not apply to rankings of what the best of thousands of records in specific time periods were from
373:
Yeah, fair enough... not exactly the vandalism I was referring to, but that commentary certainly seems banworthy.
2186:
This is only part of the issue I brought up, but I have noticed that you often change from "Robert Christgau" to
660:
2204:
As I previously explained, these columns don't actually differentiate honorable mentions, so you can't support
2093:
firing outlets. On top of that, a substantial number of editors link to the site artist pages even when citing
1639:
all because I asked a user to elaborate on a point he did not define clearly enough, as any user would do in a
1167:
652:
406:
2116:
928:
weight to only 10 publications in cases where there are several more claiming the album to be a numberth-best
601:
Also, has this WikiProject actually made these decisions besides the YE limit? If so, that is a big problem.
2805:
2576:
2376:
1548:(2) What are "reputable" music publications? Is there an official WP policy or guideline that dictates this?
1448:
1440:
1089:
1037:
1026:
803:
448:
423:
Okay, in regards to the edit mentioned above, is it appropriate to keep it in the article or to remove it? ā
348:
340:
293:
243:
186:
136:
2753:
2717:
2676:
2647:
2130:
2064:
1937:
1859:
1831:
1812:
1783:
1767:
1730:
1709:
1687:
1648:
1625:
1602:
1556:
1501:
1486:
1465:
1413:
1404:
1362:
1311:
1291:
1257:
1238:
1217:
1201:
1176:
1126:
1058:
977:
961:
933:
904:
893:
its basis in any guidelines or policy is lackluster, with the only cited page being an incorrect usage of
864:
835:
759:
714:
698:
676:
627:
606:
586:
560:
535:
523:
508:
482:
309:
2840:
2815:
2758:
2742:
2722:
2705:
2680:
2652:
2634:
2607:
2603:
2581:
2537:
2476:
2452:
2413:
2392:
There have been multiple ongoing discussions regarding the release history section of album articles at
2381:
2334:
2318:
2300:
2276:
2258:
2199:
2181:
2069:
2053:
2049:
2039:
1980:
1921:
1917:
1869:
1841:
1817:
1793:
1772:
1740:
1714:
1697:
1677:
1658:
1636:
1630:
1612:
1588:
1566:
1537:
1533:
1511:
1491:
1475:
1452:
1423:
1391:
1372:
1348:
1321:
1301:
1267:
1249:
1243:
1227:
1206:
1186:
1136:
1116:
1094:
1049:
1031:
987:
966:
943:
874:
840:
823:
819:
808:
769:
745:
741:
724:
703:
686:
632:
616:
596:
571:
565:
545:
513:
492:
468:
464:
453:
418:
382:
378:
368:
335:
331:
314:
298:
263:
248:
205:
191:
156:
141:
2595:
1597:, which this discourse is a response to. Please let the user themselves elaborate on their own point.
2630:
1806:
read their stance. Their point seems relatively straight forward, I have no confusion on the matter.
1761:
are not equal publications of importance in the industry, even if RSMUSIC both allows for their use.
1754:
2026:. I would even recommend they be added to RSMUSIC, unless there's anything significant I've missed.
736:
a question... what's your view on including both half-yearly and end-of-year rankings for an album?
2832:
2529:
2405:
2323:
Correction: if the rating is an honorable mention. There should be no issues with letter gradings.
2031:
1669:
1580:
1383:
1340:
1282:
360:
352:
259:
201:
152:
2795:
2314:
2272:
2195:
2140:
2112:
2022:
1444:
1112:
1045:
414:
1593:
I do not know if he is referring to that or the different standard of "noteworthy" users set in
651:
I am going to start another section on this page against the 10-row limit, but this is a fact:
2748:
2712:
2673:
2642:
2494:
2162:" instead, which I keep, even though I think it's not entirely correct since he reprinted the
2107:
example, with the guidance that he's sorted under W, but maybe that is something old. Thanks.
2059:
1961:
1933:
1855:
1854:
does it claim something as subjective as "importance" determines it prevalence in an article?
1827:
1807:
1779:
1762:
1726:
1704:
1683:
1644:
1620:
1598:
1572:
1552:
1497:
1481:
1461:
1409:
1358:
1307:
1287:
1253:
1233:
1213:
1196:
1172:
1152:
1122:
973:
956:
929:
860:
830:
755:
731:
710:
693:
672:
622:
602:
582:
574:
555:
531:
519:
503:
478:
321:
304:
215:
211:
99:
2701:
2599:
2468:
2446:
2099:
2045:
2009:
1974:
1966:
1913:
1851:
1529:
815:
751:
737:
460:
374:
327:
1306:"No such advocacy for the summary-style" is what I meant to write there, for clarification
2727:
I was told links that are already in articles get archived automatically, so it shouldn't
2665:
2664:
Since the people involved in the discussion are not responding, can anyone check the page
2626:
2568:
2368:
1640:
1081:
1018:
925:
918:
over what perspectives of professional music journalists are "noteworthy" and what are not
795:
440:
344:
285:
235:
178:
128:
1970:. I'm not sure if it's reliable or not and would really like some insight on this source.
2244:
2828:
2525:
2401:
2027:
1665:
1619:
They literally gave you 2 examples for point number 2. This is bordering on badgering.
1576:
1379:
1336:
915:
527:
356:
255:
197:
148:
104:
2155:
1991:
and I see plenty of writers with bylines at other reliable sources on Muck Rack, e.g.
2436:
2310:
2268:
2191:
2108:
2102:
as a name is almost always under S. I don't care at all if an editor chooses to cite
1158:
1145:
1108:
1041:
410:
2147:
1987:
In my experience, I don't see why it wouldn't be. Got a full editorial team listed
774:
This also seems correct to me. In fact, a magazine posting a standard review seems
1988:
2697:
2464:
2282:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
1850:
And also, if (big emphasis on if) that is what they are referring to, where in
147:
Why canāt you undo it yourself? Are you trying to get people to proxy for you?
2552:
2428:
2420:
2352:
1826:
Quiethere did not interpret Apoxyomenus the same way you did proves my point.
1758:
1065:
1002:
779:
424:
269:
219:
162:
112:
1408:
the in-prose summary of the year-end lists without having to read the table.
196:
Ah, I see. What is the editing restriction for, if you donāt mind my asking?
528:
that's pushing a point of view, and that is not the goal of an encyclopedia
2493:
Actually a bit surprised that neither of these publications are listed at
2693:
2686:
2623:
Talk:Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations#Requested move 15 July 2024
1992:
1901:
1378:
said than that? Serge put it as well as it could be put already anyway.
2281:
Writing about the stars without the source supporting it would violate
2017:
1595:
Knowledge talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 64#Overly long ranking lists
887:
Knowledge talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 64#Overly long ranking lists
2784:
probably be controversial so maybe some consensus can be found here.
2747:
Indeed. It would be sad if they were t doing future reviews as well.
2305:
Sorry we keep misunderstanding each other. What I mean is, if citing
2003:
1551:(3) We do not write content based on what users "personally" prefer.
2432:
2789:
2787:
There is a precedent for which a solution was never really found:
2014:
1458:
I've already addressed how this does not fall under that guideline
1281:
individually describe every individual viewpoint, that you cannot
657:
journalists writing for publications of strong editorial standards
1682:
I am obviously not making the same comment in every reply. What?
2460:
1195:. The community is largely and strongly against your approach.
1997:
1232:
10+ AFD participants rejected your notion. Zero supported it.
924:
And finally and most importantly, it opens the door to giving
214:, which is inappropriate. Hence, I am seeking to abide by the
25:
498:
really much of an achievement for some superstar to show up "
2431:
and related subjects is reliable despite it being a blog as
2394:
Knowledge talk:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice
1910:
Talk:In These Times (publication)#Requested move 4 July 2024
1900:
1896:
Talk:In These Times (publication)#Requested move 4 July 2024
885:
I am starting a discourse on the current consensus set by
347:
mass shooter) looks plenty blatant to me, and paired with
2122:
Personally, I've been replacing "Robert Christgau" with "
210:
I don't at all: it's public knowledge. I have engaged in
1912:
that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.
2505:
2498:
1496:
This is WP:NOTEVERYTHING disagreeing with you, not me.
1457:
254:
youāre better than that. Everyone is better than that.
107:
553:
your stance on this was thoroughly rejected last time.
2775:
Category:Album articles with non-standard infoboxes
2289:a rating (even if it's assigned retrospectively).
2226:
2213:
2205:
351:I think the ban was the right move. Found both in
2427:I wholeheartedly believe this source that covers
2243:in articles with them. If you insist, I can cite
2463:by mainstream press. I'd say they're reliable.
2396:the past few months. I have just launched one,
572:Knowledge is not a scientific journal, textbook
551:requirement. Please don't start this up again,
2777:due to some confusion over what it really is:
1157:This is exactly the misinterpretation of the
8:
1753:are particularly prevalent in the industry.
1107:It's referred to in the opening statement.
1720:conversation already talks about limiting
1635:Serge... Are you seriously accusing me of
659:, as the examples provided are obviously
2616:Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations
1908:There is a requested move discussion at
1191:Please take a long hard read revisiting
2398:Getting rid of "Release history" tables
1355:Consensus can change and be contestable
2590:to RSMUSIC. I don't know enough about
103:. I added a number of these today and
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
1964:at FAC and came across an article by
1802:know Apoxyomenus meant that, because
7:
999:Knowledge:WikiProject Albums/Sources
2543:As someone who has routinely added
1778:That's why I am asking questions.
1405:There is no pillar on this website
24:
2773:We have an article showing up at
18:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Albums
2388:Release history table discussion
2237:
2232:
2227:
2219:
2214:
2206:
2080:Robert Christgau, everyone's fav
29:
2433:the founder and editor-in-chief
1960:Hello: I'm currently reviewing
2166:reviews in the book. For post-
1:
2351:It goes under "C" for sure. ā
1480:Yes, we saw. We don't agree.
1399:WP:WikiProject Albums/Sources
2824:Technical Difficulties Radio
2780:Technical Difficulties Radio
2547:and who makes it a point to
2513:This ten-year-old discussion
2857:
2594:to give an opinion; their
2245:Christgau's Consumer Guide
2160:Christgau's Consumer Guide
1250:10,000 active contributors
216:dispute resolution process
2841:14:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
2816:13:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
2759:22:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
2743:12:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
2723:11:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
2706:10:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
2681:03:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
2653:16:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
2635:15:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
2621:Opinions needed, please:
2608:12:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
2582:19:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
2538:18:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
2477:17:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
2453:16:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
2414:04:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
1453:02:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
1424:23:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
1392:22:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
1373:22:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
1349:22:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
1268:00:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
1244:23:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
1228:23:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
1207:23:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
1187:23:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
1137:22:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
1117:22:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
1095:22:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
1054:We are not talking about
1050:22:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
1032:21:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
988:22:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
967:21:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
944:21:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
881:The YE Rankings Consensus
875:18:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
809:19:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
770:19:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
746:18:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
725:19:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
704:18:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
687:18:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
633:21:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
617:21:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
597:20:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
566:20:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
546:19:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
514:18:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
493:18:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
469:14:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
383:02:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
369:21:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
336:16:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
315:14:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
2586:I'm in favour of adding
2382:16:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
2335:18:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
2319:18:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
2301:17:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
2277:17:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
2259:16:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
2200:12:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
2182:14:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
2117:13:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
2070:17:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
2054:21:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
2040:19:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
1981:17:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
1948:17:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
1922:22:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
1870:13:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
1842:13:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
1818:13:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
1794:13:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
1773:13:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
1741:12:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
1715:12:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
1698:12:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
1678:03:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
1659:23:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
1631:22:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
1613:23:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
1589:22:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
1567:21:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
1538:21:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
1512:14:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
1492:00:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
1476:00:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
1322:14:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
1302:14:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
841:13:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
824:13:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
454:01:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
419:00:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
299:01:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
264:01:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
249:01:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
206:01:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
192:01:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
157:00:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
142:00:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
2735:AstonishingTunesAdmirer
2459:They're also regularly
2327:AstonishingTunesAdmirer
2293:AstonishingTunesAdmirer
2251:AstonishingTunesAdmirer
2174:AstonishingTunesAdmirer
1926:
1571:To point 2, start with
1544:WP:Consensus can change
2020:have both written for
1905:
1064:. You seem confused. ā
914:it attempts to push a
353:this talk page section
1904:
1193:this discussion again
575:magazine or newspaper
42:of past discussions.
2692:Just a warning that
2598:should be relevant.
1755:Billboard (magazine)
895:WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE
2079:
2614:Requested move at
2592:Americana Highways
2484:Americana Highways
2023:The New York Times
1993:their music editor
1906:
1894:Requested move at
661:WP:Primary sources
2813:
2799:
2655:
2499:at least 110 for
2461:cited and covered
2435:used to work for
2188:The Village Voice
2124:The Village Voice
2087:The Village Voice
1962:Virtual Self (EP)
1934:User:HumanxAnthro
1856:User:HumanxAnthro
1828:User:HumanxAnthro
1780:User:HumanxAnthro
1727:User:HumanxAnthro
1684:User:HumanxAnthro
1645:User:HumanxAnthro
1599:User:HumanxAnthro
1553:User:HumanxAnthro
1498:User:HumanxAnthro
1462:User:HumanxAnthro
1410:User:HumanxAnthro
1359:User:HumanxAnthro
1308:User:HumanxAnthro
1288:User:HumanxAnthro
1254:User:HumanxAnthro
1214:User:HumanxAnthro
1173:User:HumanxAnthro
1168:WP:Primary source
1123:User:HumanxAnthro
974:User:HumanxAnthro
930:User:HumanxAnthro
861:User:HumanxAnthro
756:User:HumanxAnthro
711:User:HumanxAnthro
673:User:HumanxAnthro
671:are not primary.
653:WP:INDISCRIMINATE
603:User:HumanxAnthro
583:User:HumanxAnthro
532:User:HumanxAnthro
479:User:HumanxAnthro
407:WP:INDISCRIMINATE
100:The Greater Wings
90:
89:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
2848:
2814:
2803:
2797:
2756:
2751:
2741:
2736:
2720:
2715:
2679:
2650:
2645:
2640:
2596:call for writers
2580:
2563:
2561:
2455:
2451:
2449:
2380:
2363:
2361:
2333:
2328:
2299:
2294:
2257:
2252:
2242:
2241:
2236:
2231:
2224:
2223:
2218:
2211:
2210:
2180:
2175:
2145:
2139:
2135:
2129:
2100:Martin C. Strong
2067:
2062:
1995:has written for
1983:
1979:
1977:
1944:
1940:
1866:
1862:
1838:
1834:
1815:
1810:
1790:
1786:
1770:
1765:
1737:
1733:
1712:
1707:
1694:
1690:
1655:
1651:
1628:
1623:
1609:
1605:
1563:
1559:
1508:
1504:
1489:
1484:
1472:
1468:
1441:WP:NOTEVERYTHING
1420:
1416:
1369:
1365:
1318:
1314:
1298:
1294:
1264:
1260:
1241:
1236:
1224:
1220:
1204:
1199:
1183:
1179:
1156:
1149:
1133:
1129:
1093:
1076:
1074:
1063:
1057:
1038:WP:NOTEVERYTHING
1030:
1013:
1011:
984:
980:
964:
959:
940:
936:
871:
867:
838:
833:
807:
790:
788:
766:
762:
735:
721:
717:
701:
696:
683:
679:
630:
625:
613:
609:
593:
589:
563:
558:
542:
538:
511:
506:
489:
485:
452:
435:
433:
325:
312:
307:
297:
280:
278:
247:
230:
228:
190:
173:
171:
140:
123:
121:
81:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
2856:
2855:
2851:
2850:
2849:
2847:
2846:
2845:
2821:In the case of
2794:
2771:
2754:
2749:
2734:
2732:
2718:
2713:
2690:
2672:
2666:Afrique Victime
2662:
2648:
2643:
2619:
2566:
2559:
2554:
2491:
2447:
2445:
2443:
2425:
2390:
2366:
2359:
2354:
2326:
2324:
2292:
2290:
2250:
2248:
2173:
2171:
2143:
2137:
2133:
2127:
2082:
2065:
2060:
1975:
1973:
1971:
1958:
1942:
1938:
1929:
1899:
1864:
1860:
1836:
1832:
1813:
1808:
1788:
1784:
1768:
1763:
1735:
1731:
1722:reliable source
1710:
1705:
1692:
1688:
1653:
1649:
1626:
1621:
1607:
1603:
1561:
1557:
1506:
1502:
1487:
1482:
1470:
1466:
1418:
1414:
1367:
1363:
1316:
1312:
1296:
1292:
1262:
1258:
1239:
1234:
1222:
1218:
1202:
1197:
1181:
1177:
1150:
1143:
1131:
1127:
1079:
1072:
1067:
1061:
1055:
1016:
1009:
1004:
982:
978:
962:
957:
938:
934:
883:
869:
865:
836:
831:
793:
786:
781:
764:
760:
729:
719:
715:
699:
694:
681:
677:
669:Under the Radar
628:
623:
611:
607:
591:
587:
561:
556:
540:
536:
509:
504:
487:
483:
438:
431:
426:
319:
310:
305:
283:
276:
271:
233:
226:
221:
176:
169:
164:
126:
119:
114:
95:
77:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2854:
2852:
2844:
2843:
2770:
2767:
2766:
2765:
2764:
2763:
2762:
2761:
2689:
2684:
2661:
2658:
2657:
2656:
2618:
2612:
2611:
2610:
2584:
2490:
2481:
2480:
2479:
2424:
2417:
2389:
2386:
2385:
2384:
2349:
2348:
2347:
2346:
2345:
2344:
2343:
2342:
2341:
2340:
2339:
2338:
2337:
2081:
2078:
2077:
2076:
2075:
2074:
2073:
2072:
1957:
1951:
1928:
1925:
1914:--Animalparty!
1898:
1892:
1891:
1890:
1889:
1888:
1887:
1886:
1885:
1884:
1883:
1882:
1881:
1880:
1879:
1878:
1877:
1876:
1875:
1874:
1873:
1872:
1848:
1847:
1846:
1845:
1844:
1637:WP:BLUDGEONING
1617:
1616:
1615:
1549:
1546:
1521:
1520:
1519:
1518:
1517:
1516:
1515:
1514:
1433:
1432:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1428:
1427:
1426:
1402:
1330:
1329:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1273:
1272:
1271:
1270:
1163:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1119:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1034:
992:
991:
990:
947:
946:
922:
919:
912:
908:
901:
898:
882:
879:
878:
877:
857:
856:
855:
854:
853:
852:
851:
850:
849:
848:
847:
846:
845:
844:
843:
777:
727:
649:
648:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
642:
641:
640:
639:
638:
637:
636:
635:
599:
578:
403:
402:
401:
400:
399:
398:
397:
396:
395:
394:
393:
392:
391:
390:
389:
388:
387:
386:
385:
94:
91:
88:
87:
82:
75:
70:
65:
62:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2853:
2842:
2838:
2837:contributions
2834:
2830:
2826:
2825:
2820:
2819:
2818:
2817:
2811:
2807:
2802:
2801:
2792:
2791:
2785:
2782:
2781:
2776:
2768:
2760:
2757:
2752:
2746:
2745:
2744:
2740:
2737:
2730:
2726:
2725:
2724:
2721:
2716:
2710:
2709:
2708:
2707:
2703:
2699:
2695:
2688:
2685:
2683:
2682:
2678:
2675:
2669:
2667:
2659:
2654:
2651:
2646:
2639:
2638:
2637:
2636:
2632:
2628:
2624:
2617:
2613:
2609:
2605:
2601:
2597:
2593:
2589:
2588:No Depression
2585:
2583:
2578:
2574:
2570:
2565:
2558:
2550:
2546:
2545:No Depression
2542:
2541:
2540:
2539:
2535:
2534:contributions
2531:
2527:
2523:
2518:
2514:
2510:
2509:
2503:
2502:
2496:
2489:
2488:No Depression
2485:
2482:
2478:
2474:
2473:contributions
2470:
2466:
2462:
2458:
2457:
2456:
2454:
2450:
2441:
2439:
2434:
2430:
2423:
2422:
2418:
2416:
2415:
2411:
2410:contributions
2407:
2403:
2399:
2395:
2387:
2383:
2378:
2374:
2370:
2365:
2358:
2350:
2336:
2332:
2329:
2322:
2321:
2320:
2316:
2312:
2308:
2304:
2303:
2302:
2298:
2295:
2288:
2284:
2280:
2279:
2278:
2274:
2270:
2266:
2262:
2261:
2260:
2256:
2253:
2246:
2240:
2235:
2230:
2222:
2217:
2209:
2203:
2202:
2201:
2197:
2193:
2189:
2185:
2184:
2183:
2179:
2176:
2169:
2165:
2161:
2157:
2153:
2151:
2142:
2132:
2131:cite magazine
2125:
2121:
2120:
2119:
2118:
2114:
2110:
2105:
2101:
2096:
2092:
2088:
2071:
2068:
2063:
2057:
2056:
2055:
2051:
2047:
2043:
2042:
2041:
2037:
2036:contributions
2033:
2029:
2025:
2024:
2019:
2016:
2012:
2011:
2006:
2005:
2000:
1999:
1994:
1990:
1986:
1985:
1984:
1982:
1978:
1969:
1968:
1963:
1955:
1952:
1950:
1949:
1945:
1935:
1924:
1923:
1919:
1915:
1911:
1903:
1897:
1893:
1871:
1867:
1857:
1853:
1849:
1843:
1839:
1829:
1824:
1821:
1820:
1819:
1816:
1811:
1805:
1801:
1797:
1796:
1795:
1791:
1781:
1776:
1775:
1774:
1771:
1766:
1760:
1756:
1752:
1748:
1744:
1743:
1742:
1738:
1728:
1723:
1718:
1717:
1716:
1713:
1708:
1701:
1700:
1699:
1695:
1685:
1681:
1680:
1679:
1675:
1674:contributions
1671:
1667:
1662:
1661:
1660:
1656:
1646:
1642:
1638:
1634:
1633:
1632:
1629:
1624:
1618:
1614:
1610:
1600:
1596:
1592:
1591:
1590:
1586:
1585:contributions
1582:
1578:
1574:
1570:
1569:
1568:
1564:
1554:
1550:
1547:
1545:
1541:
1540:
1539:
1535:
1531:
1526:
1523:
1522:
1513:
1509:
1499:
1495:
1494:
1493:
1490:
1485:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1473:
1463:
1459:
1456:
1455:
1454:
1450:
1446:
1445:Bluesatellite
1442:
1438:
1435:
1434:
1425:
1421:
1411:
1406:
1403:
1400:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1389:
1388:contributions
1385:
1381:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1370:
1360:
1356:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1346:
1345:contributions
1342:
1338:
1334:
1331:
1323:
1319:
1309:
1305:
1304:
1303:
1299:
1289:
1284:
1279:
1269:
1265:
1255:
1251:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1242:
1237:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1225:
1215:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1205:
1200:
1194:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1184:
1174:
1169:
1164:
1160:
1154:
1147:
1142:
1138:
1134:
1124:
1120:
1118:
1114:
1110:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1096:
1091:
1087:
1083:
1078:
1071:
1060:
1059:music ratings
1053:
1052:
1051:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1035:
1033:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1015:
1008:
1000:
996:
993:
989:
985:
975:
970:
969:
968:
965:
960:
954:
951:
950:
949:
948:
945:
941:
931:
927:
923:
920:
917:
916:point of view
913:
909:
906:
902:
899:
896:
892:
891:
890:
888:
880:
876:
872:
862:
858:
842:
839:
834:
827:
826:
825:
821:
817:
812:
811:
810:
805:
801:
797:
792:
785:
775:
773:
772:
771:
767:
757:
753:
749:
748:
747:
743:
739:
733:
728:
726:
722:
712:
707:
706:
705:
702:
697:
690:
689:
688:
684:
674:
670:
666:
662:
658:
654:
650:
634:
631:
626:
620:
619:
618:
614:
604:
600:
598:
594:
584:
579:
576:
573:
569:
568:
567:
564:
559:
554:
549:
548:
547:
543:
533:
529:
525:
521:
517:
516:
515:
512:
507:
501:
496:
495:
494:
490:
480:
476:
472:
471:
470:
466:
462:
457:
456:
455:
450:
446:
442:
437:
430:
422:
421:
420:
416:
412:
408:
404:
384:
380:
376:
372:
371:
370:
366:
365:contributions
362:
358:
354:
350:
346:
342:
339:
338:
337:
333:
329:
323:
318:
317:
316:
313:
308:
302:
301:
300:
295:
291:
287:
282:
275:
267:
266:
265:
261:
257:
252:
251:
250:
245:
241:
237:
232:
225:
217:
213:
209:
208:
207:
203:
199:
195:
194:
193:
188:
184:
180:
175:
168:
160:
159:
158:
154:
150:
146:
145:
144:
143:
138:
134:
130:
125:
118:
109:
106:
102:
101:
93:Best-of lists
92:
86:
83:
80:
76:
74:
71:
69:
66:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
2822:
2796:
2788:
2786:
2778:
2772:
2750:Sergecross73
2728:
2714:Sergecross73
2691:
2670:
2663:
2644:Sergecross73
2620:
2591:
2587:
2556:
2548:
2544:
2521:
2516:
2507:
2500:
2492:
2487:
2483:
2437:
2426:
2419:
2391:
2356:
2306:
2286:
2264:
2187:
2167:
2163:
2159:
2149:
2123:
2103:
2094:
2090:
2086:
2083:
2061:Sergecross73
2021:
2008:
2002:
1996:
1965:
1959:
1953:
1930:
1907:
1822:
1809:Sergecross73
1803:
1799:
1764:Sergecross73
1750:
1746:
1721:
1706:Sergecross73
1643:discussion?
1622:Sergecross73
1524:
1483:Sergecross73
1436:
1332:
1283:WP:QUOTEFARM
1235:Sergecross73
1212:community".
1198:Sergecross73
1153:Sergecross73
1069:
1006:
994:
958:Sergecross73
952:
905:its template
884:
832:Sergecross73
783:
732:HumanxAnthro
695:Sergecross73
668:
664:
656:
624:Sergecross73
557:Sergecross73
505:Sergecross73
499:
428:
322:Sergecross73
306:Sergecross73
273:
223:
212:edit-warring
166:
116:
98:
96:
78:
43:
37:
2769:Song Series
2600:GanzKnusper
2448:lunaeclipse
2046:Richard3120
1976:lunaeclipse
1927:I'm leaving
1530:Apoxyomenus
816:Richard3120
738:Richard3120
461:Richard3120
375:Richard3120
328:Richard3120
36:This is an
2798:DOOMSDAYER
2627:Popcornfud
2506:1,300 for
2421:Wiwibloggs
2152:can put up
1759:MetalSucks
1573:WP:RSMUSIC
1248:10 out of
500:Billboard'
85:ArchiveĀ 76
79:ArchiveĀ 75
73:ArchiveĀ 74
68:ArchiveĀ 73
60:ArchiveĀ 70
2829:QuietHere
2674:šTheNugg
2660:Check GAN
2526:QuietHere
2515:mentions
2402:QuietHere
2141:cite news
2028:QuietHere
1852:WP:WEIGHT
1747:Billboard
1666:QuietHere
1577:QuietHere
1380:QuietHere
1337:QuietHere
752:WP:WEIGHT
357:QuietHere
256:Ariaslaga
198:Ariaslaga
149:Ariaslaga
105:Ariaslaga
2810:CONTRIBS
2694:AllMovie
2687:AllMusic
2671:Thanks,
2553:Justin (
2440:magazine
2353:Justin (
2311:Caro7200
2269:Caro7200
2192:Caro7200
2109:Caro7200
1956:magazine
1751:AllMusic
1641:WP:CIVIL
1146:Heartfox
1109:Heartfox
1066:Justin (
1042:Heartfox
1003:Justin (
926:WP:UNDUE
780:Justin (
425:Justin (
411:Heartfox
270:Justin (
220:Justin (
163:Justin (
113:Justin (
2677:eteerš
2495:RSMUSIC
2156:example
1943:Kazooie
1865:Kazooie
1837:Kazooie
1789:Kazooie
1736:Kazooie
1693:Kazooie
1654:Kazooie
1608:Kazooie
1562:Kazooie
1507:Kazooie
1471:Kazooie
1419:Kazooie
1368:Kazooie
1333:Opposed
1317:Kazooie
1297:Kazooie
1263:Kazooie
1223:Kazooie
1182:Kazooie
1132:Kazooie
995:Support
983:Kazooie
953:Opposed
939:Kazooie
870:Kazooie
765:Kazooie
720:Kazooie
682:Kazooie
612:Kazooie
592:Kazooie
570:Serge,
541:Kazooie
520:like it
488:Kazooie
108:removed
39:archive
2755:msg me
2719:msg me
2698:Mika1h
2649:msg me
2465:voorts
2225:, and
2066:msg me
2013:, and
2007:, and
2004:Uproxx
1823:I read
1814:msg me
1769:msg me
1711:msg me
1627:msg me
1525:Oppose
1488:msg me
1437:Oppose
1240:msg me
1203:msg me
1159:WP:NOT
963:msg me
911:source
837:msg me
700:msg me
629:msg me
562:msg me
510:msg me
311:msg me
2790:Era 1
2015:these
2010:Paste
1967:Paper
1954:Paper
1939:Banjo
1861:Banjo
1833:Banjo
1785:Banjo
1732:Banjo
1689:Banjo
1650:Banjo
1604:Banjo
1558:Banjo
1503:Banjo
1467:Banjo
1415:Banjo
1364:Banjo
1313:Banjo
1293:Banjo
1259:Banjo
1219:Banjo
1178:Banjo
1128:Banjo
979:Banjo
935:Banjo
866:Banjo
761:Banjo
716:Banjo
678:Banjo
608:Banjo
588:Banjo
537:Banjo
484:Banjo
16:<
2833:talk
2806:TALK
2729:that
2702:talk
2631:talk
2604:talk
2530:talk
2504:and
2486:and
2469:talk
2438:Time
2406:talk
2315:talk
2283:WP:V
2273:talk
2196:talk
2113:talk
2050:talk
2032:talk
1989:here
1918:talk
1757:and
1670:talk
1581:talk
1534:talk
1449:talk
1439:per
1384:talk
1341:talk
1113:talk
1046:talk
1036:Per
820:talk
776:less
742:talk
667:and
475:this
465:talk
415:talk
379:talk
361:talk
349:this
341:This
332:talk
260:talk
202:talk
153:talk
2800:520
2549:not
2511:).
2429:ESC
2148:as
2136:or
2018:two
1998:NME
1749:or
665:NME
524:not
522:or
2839:)
2835:|
2812:)
2739:é£ēµ”
2704:)
2633:)
2606:)
2555:ko
2536:)
2532:|
2524:.
2522:ND
2517:ND
2508:ND
2501:AH
2475:)
2444:ā
2412:)
2408:|
2355:ko
2331:é£ēµ”
2317:)
2307:VV
2297:é£ēµ”
2287:is
2275:)
2265:VV
2255:é£ēµ”
2212:,
2198:)
2178:é£ēµ”
2168:VV
2164:VV
2150:we
2144:}}
2138:{{
2134:}}
2128:{{
2115:)
2104:VV
2095:VV
2091:VV
2052:)
2038:)
2034:|
2001:,
1972:ā
1946:)
1920:)
1868:)
1840:)
1800:do
1798:I
1792:)
1739:)
1696:)
1676:)
1672:|
1657:)
1611:)
1587:)
1583:|
1575:.
1565:)
1536:)
1510:)
1474:)
1460:.
1451:)
1443:.
1422:)
1390:)
1386:|
1371:)
1357:.
1347:)
1343:|
1320:)
1300:)
1266:)
1226:)
1185:)
1135:)
1115:)
1068:ko
1062:}}
1056:{{
1048:)
1005:ko
986:)
942:)
873:)
822:)
782:ko
768:)
744:)
723:)
685:)
615:)
595:)
544:)
530:.
491:)
467:)
427:ko
417:)
409:.
381:)
367:)
363:|
355:.
345:CW
334:)
272:ko
262:)
222:ko
204:)
165:ko
155:)
115:ko
64:ā
2831:(
2808:|
2804:(
2700:(
2629:(
2602:(
2579:āÆ
2577:M
2575:āŗ
2573:C
2571:ā®
2569:T
2567:ā¤
2564:)
2562:f
2560:v
2557:a
2528:(
2471:/
2467:(
2442:.
2404:(
2379:āÆ
2377:M
2375:āŗ
2373:C
2371:ā®
2369:T
2367:ā¤
2364:)
2362:f
2360:v
2357:a
2313:(
2271:(
2194:(
2111:(
2048:(
2030:(
1941:x
1936:(
1916:(
1863:x
1858:(
1835:x
1830:(
1804:I
1787:x
1782:(
1734:x
1729:(
1691:x
1686:(
1668:(
1652:x
1647:(
1606:x
1601:(
1579:(
1560:x
1555:(
1532:(
1505:x
1500:(
1469:x
1464:(
1447:(
1417:x
1412:(
1382:(
1366:x
1361:(
1339:(
1315:x
1310:(
1295:x
1290:(
1261:x
1256:(
1221:x
1216:(
1180:x
1175:(
1155::
1151:@
1148::
1144:@
1130:x
1125:(
1111:(
1092:āÆ
1090:M
1088:āŗ
1086:C
1084:ā®
1082:T
1080:ā¤
1077:)
1075:f
1073:v
1070:a
1044:(
1029:āÆ
1027:M
1025:āŗ
1023:C
1021:ā®
1019:T
1017:ā¤
1014:)
1012:f
1010:v
1007:a
981:x
976:(
937:x
932:(
897:,
868:x
863:(
818:(
806:āÆ
804:M
802:āŗ
800:C
798:ā®
796:T
794:ā¤
791:)
789:f
787:v
784:a
763:x
758:(
740:(
734::
730:@
718:x
713:(
680:x
675:(
610:x
605:(
590:x
585:(
539:x
534:(
486:x
481:(
463:(
451:āÆ
449:M
447:āŗ
445:C
443:ā®
441:T
439:ā¤
436:)
434:f
432:v
429:a
413:(
377:(
359:(
343:(
330:(
324::
320:@
296:āÆ
294:M
292:āŗ
290:C
288:ā®
286:T
284:ā¤
281:)
279:f
277:v
274:a
258:(
246:āÆ
244:M
242:āŗ
240:C
238:ā®
236:T
234:ā¤
231:)
229:f
227:v
224:a
200:(
189:āÆ
187:M
185:āŗ
183:C
181:ā®
179:T
177:ā¤
174:)
172:f
170:v
167:a
151:(
139:āÆ
137:M
135:āŗ
133:C
131:ā®
129:T
127:ā¤
124:)
122:f
120:v
117:a
111:ā
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.