Talk:2002 in music

I dislike the "<- xxxx in music | ( yyyy ) | zzzz in music ->". It looks awful. Would this be better as "See also: xxxx in music, yyyy in general, zzz in music."? -- SGBailey 17:44 Dec 23, 2002 (UTC)

Is there an arrow character? That would be the ticket. But yeah, the <- is hardly aesthetically pleasing.

- Tubby

There are &larr and &rarr. -- Zoe

In mathematics articles we often use -> (edit the page to see how this is done). <- and -> look better than <- and -> on all browsers I've tried, and unlike ← and → they do actually work on all browsers. --Zundark 20:46 Dec 23, 2002 (UTC)

I've tried the <tt> on 2002 (only) and it looks better but not good. The entire line looks too geeky. I really do prefer a textual approach such as my original suggestion, however I'm not (too) fussy about the details. I don't like the arrows, the pipes or the parentheses. -- SGBailey 22:54 Dec 23, 2002 (UTC)

Votes for 'years in music' event

(I note that as of 2002-12-30, neither the two events listed in "years in music" is in 2002 itself! -- SGBailey)

• Nothing stands out to me, I abstain -- SGBailey

• In the abscence of a better choice (or maybe I'm not suppressing my biases as well as I think I am...), The Rolling Stones' Forty Licks. nknight 14:04 Jan 1, 2003 (UTC)

• Yoshimi gets my vote.
  

- Tubby

---

Small question

Hey, is that list of top selling 10 albums actually accurate? Looks very fishy to me.... --

Yeah, we should put a source on that. - Tubby

Changed it to that from a citable source that also looked like it probably had sane data, namely http://www.soundspike.com/story/724

Here's the list that WAS on the page:

1. Korn - Untouchables
2. Queens Of The Stone Age - Songs For The Deaf
3. Sum 41 - Does This Look Infected?
4. Beck - Sea Chage
5. Crazy Town - Darkhorse
6. System of a Down - Steal This Album
7. Audioslave - Audioslave
8. Red Hot Chili Peppers - By The Way
9. Soundtrack - 8 Mile
10. Various Artists - Now That's What I Call Music! Vol. 11

nknight 00:28 Jan 9, 2003 (UTC)