This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michael Jackson, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Michael Jackson on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Michael JacksonWikipedia:WikiProject Michael JacksonTemplate:WikiProject Michael JacksonMichael Jackson articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
RfC about the language in the review section[edit]
Is it necessary for this article to use the phrases "suck my cock" and "like shit?" EGarrett01 (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not censored, and we don't worry about whether articles or quotes contain dirty words. It might be better to paraphrase that quote instead, but if so, it would be for reasons of conciseness, not because of the dirty words. Popcornfud (talk) 13:58, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Besides WP:NOTCENSORED, I see no evidence of WP:RFCBEFORE - nor indeed any WP:TALK other than the above two posts. Discuss if you like, but don't jump straight for a full-blown thirty-day formal WP:RFC, that is a last resort, not a first step. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:31, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with the removal of the Rfc header in this edit, due to the failure to observe WP:RFCBEFORE. (The improper formulation of the Rfc question is secondary, but applies if you ever decide to create another Rfc.) This is simply a normal discussion, with normal responses, and actually has been definitively answered already, per Popcornfud. Egarrett01, if you wish to remove the phrases you find offensive, please state a policy- or guideline-based reason for it. Otherwise, if it's just a personal preference, I think we are done here. Mathglot (talk) 23:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If "Leave Me Alone" doesn't meet the criteria of WP:ALTTRACKLIST, what does?[edit]
This edit, when the song was released as a single from the album and is mentioned at least eight times before the track list section, is a mistaken and very heavy-handed application of that style guide. If being mentioned eight times as a significant part of this album doesn't meet what WP:ALTTRACKLIST suggests, what does? Do we need 10 paragraphs on one song before we can include it in the track listing section? It's on all editions apart from original LP editions and reissues of the original LP configuration. I would suggest even calling it a "bonus track" is inaccurate, hence I've reverted this edit and changed the wording in the track list. I would hope most editors who watch this page agree. @TheWikiholic: as one of the regular editors of this page. Ss112 19:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this looks like a good situation to preserve the extra track, given the extra context. The use of the word "bonus" took me to the wrong conclusion.
(Psst: You don't need to be angry. No need to begin a discussion with a furious rant next time.) Popcornfud (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}