# Talk:Doo-Wops & Hooligans

Where is "Liquor Store Blues" single ? Why don't it say it.Wasn't that the 3rd Single Bruno Mars dose have a video out for "Liquor Store Blues" that is on Doo Wops & Hooligans album.

Number 5 in the year-end list for 2011
http://www.dutchcharts.nl/jaaroverzichten.asp?year=2011&cat=a  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.163.153.64 (talk) 13:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC) 

I'm opening this discussion due to a disagreement with an editor Aardwolf68 regarding the "generally favorable reviews from music critics" according to Metacritic. The editor claims that the general reception is lukeworm or mixed and I do have to agree, 61/100 is not the same as 70 or 80 and so on...out of 100. Nevertheless, the Metascores beg to disagree as 61/100 is inside the "Generally favorable reviews" indication. Threfeore, unless there is a change on the Metascore method and classification it should stay the way it always was. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
We had this very same discussion for "Kamikaze" by Eminem. The album's metacritic page stated "generally favorable", but the reviews in its entirety were mixed. The same goes for this album, as most of the reviews in the sidebar at 3/5 or other grading scales that indicate a semi-positive, or a lukewarm reception. We should be editing this type of stuff on our own accord, not just what Metacritic's flawed rating system indicates. ~aardwolf68 Aardwolf68 (talk) 12:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

This is not kamikaze, I don't care what happened there. You know we can't do that? The only you can edit to your own accord is the singles as there is no metacritic for it or simmilar. Sure it is flawed but it is what it is, I can't rate something just cause it seems more correct. There are rules. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Whether or not this is Kamikaze isn't apart of the issue, it's about accuracy, and considering that not only ADM has a 4.9/10 on its scale, which could be seen as negative could very well ALSO prove that the overall reception key words should be changed. And even then, yes, there are rules, however, this isn't breaking any rule, rather, this is helping people reach correct information rather than just abiding by what the source says, as there are moments and times where we can edit something even if the source says otherwise, this is one of them. ~aardwolf68
ADM is different from metacritic, already told you once, so let's stay on topic here. I do agree with you this scores on Metacrtic are not very well adjustes for music, despite being for video games, tv and others. Nevertheless, do you have any notion of what this could mean? The implications are much bigger than you might think, as for instance universal claim for me could be anything above 90, while for you it could be everything over 95, and for a different user it could be anything above 85...we are basing this under our own criteria (just an example to get my point across). The information is correct, wheter we like it or agree with it. Needs changes? Sure it does. Honestly its not to me you have to complain. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
@Aardwolf68: All I seeing you doing is adding unsourced content in the article, you need to add a source to justify the album's critical reception. If you didn't notice before, in the article Kamikaze, there's a source supported the fact that the album received mixed reviews from critics. Here's the source. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
That would also be aceptable. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
This was my mistake, as I had not not noticed the extra source provided on the Kamikaze page, my apologies. Aardwolf68 (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)