I didn't care for it from the beginning, especially since it seems to be solely dedicated to The Year in Rock Music, and all other genres are ignored. Also, I don't like that he's predicting the future with "2003 in music", etc. Zoe rose.parks(a)att.net wrote:Hi, Having finally checked the Recent Changes last night and read some of the "Year XXXX in music" articles, I agree with Mr. Manske. I think this is not a good idea and foresee this followed by "Year XXXX in painting," "Year XXXX in dance," "Year XXXX in literature." Further, the articles are rather summary, listing publication of songs, performers' highpoints, deaths etc. I would think this information will be incorporated in Wikipedia in some other form eventually, if it isn't already. For me. it is hard to find much meaning in these entries, as events appear out of context. For this reason, I think we should consider whether this is a good idea, before it goes much further. As Ever, Ruth Ifcher -- _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l(a)wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now

I see nothing wrong with the "the year in music 1981" entries. Most of what goes there would not go in a "1981" entry. It would be fine to link Joan Jett's "I love rock and roll" from the rock and roll anthem page to the year in music, but I don't think you'd link it to 1981. Nor do I see anything wrong with having parallel entries for "the year in dance", "the year in books" or whatever anyone might want to put together. Like the regular year entries, they are sketchy now, but I see no reason that the year in music (pottery, anthropology) shouldn't start with a brief essay on the overall year. For instance, "the year in music 1966" might say that the Beatles had six songs in the top ten (whatever it was) but the most popular song of the year was "The Ballad of the Green Berets". There's an awful lot of social history flowing together in "the year in music 1966". Tom Parmenter Ortolan88 |From: rose.parks(a)att.net |X-Authenticated-Sender: cm9zZS5wYXJrc0BhdHQubmV0 |Sender: wikipedia-l-admin(a)wikipedia.org |Reply-To: wikipedia-l(a)wikipedia.org |Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 17:37:04 +0000 | |Hi, | | Having finally checked the Recent Changes last night and read some of |the "Year XXXX in music" articles, I agree with Mr. Manske. I think this is |not a good idea and foresee this followed by "Year XXXX in painting," "Year |XXXX in dance," "Year XXXX in literature." | Further, the articles are rather summary, listing publication of songs, |performers' highpoints, deaths etc. | I would think this information will be incorporated in Wikipedia in some |other form eventually, if it isn't already. For me. it is hard to find much |meaning in these entries, as events appear out of context. For this reason, I |think we should consider whether this is a good idea, before it goes much |further. | | As Ever, | | Ruth Ifcher | |-- | |> Someone's creating articles like "1974 in music".Can't that just go |> under [[1974]]? |> |> Magnus |> <http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974_in_music> |> |