<P>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.
<P>Zoe
<P> <B><I>rose.parks@att.net</I></B> wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Hi,<BR><BR>Having finally checked the Recent Changes last night and read some of <BR>the "Year XXXX in music" articles, I agree with Mr. Manske. I think this is <BR>not a good idea and foresee this followed by "Year XXXX in painting," "Year <BR>XXXX in dance," "Year XXXX in literature."<BR>Further, the articles are rather summary, listing publication of songs, <BR>performers' highpoints, deaths etc.<BR>I would think this information will be incorporated in Wikipedia in some <BR>other form eventually, if it isn't already. For me. it is hard to find much <BR>meaning in these entries, as events appear out of context. For this reason, I <BR>think we should consider whether this is a good idea, before it goes much <BR>further.<BR><BR>As Ever,<BR><BR>Ruth Ifcher<BR><BR>--<BR><BR>> Someone's creating articles like "1974 in music".Can't that just go <BR>> under [[1974]]?<BR>> <BR>> Magnus<BR>> <HTTP: 1974_in_music wiki www.wikipedia.org><BR>> <BR>> _______________________________________________<BR>> Wikipedia-l mailing list<BR>> Wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org<BR>> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l<BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>Wikipedia-l mailing list<BR>Wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org<BR>http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l</BLOCKQUOTE><p><br><hr size=1>Do you Yahoo!?<br>
<a href="http://rd.yahoo.com/mail/mailsig/*http://mailplus.yahoo.com">Yahoo! Mail Plus</a> - Powerful. Affordable. <a href="http://rd.yahoo.com/mail/mailsig/*http://mailplus.yahoo.com">Sign up now</a>