I mean they aren't wrong.
this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2025
142 points (98.6% liked)
196
5400 readers
342 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
Other rules
Behavior rules:
- No bigotry (transphobia, racism, etc…)
- No genocide denial
- No support for authoritarian behaviour (incl. Tankies)
- No namecalling
- Accounts from lemmygrad.ml, threads.net, or hexbear.net are held to higher standards
- Other things seen as cleary bad
Posting rules:
- No AI generated content (DALL-E etc…)
- No advertisements
- No gore / violence
- Mutual aid posts are not allowed
NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.
Also, when sharing art (comics etc.) please credit the creators.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.
Other 196's:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It's highly subjective and adds nothing of value, though.
It should have a citation to something comparing popular bands over time and across countries... Because they were absolutely huge at the time
Past tense, see?
Like walking by a camping ground.
Well, if the single sentence description is supposed to also describe the popularity, then every musical group in Wikipedia would need to be described by that metric. It might get a bit absurd very fast. ("...a bit obscure band which was really really big in Japan at one point")
So how big were the Spice Girls? Well, they were big enough to warrant a Wikipedia article, if that is any metric worth of anything. I guess if you need to compare statistics, perhaps you need a deeper dive than a single sentence summary!
That's fair.
I just checked, looks like somebody changed it back lol.
Probably didn't help that they failed to capitalize "English".
This reminds me of an edit wars in the article, iirc, of Janis Joplin, because someone insisted on adding "female" to "One of the most iconic and successful rock performers of her era".
I've always hated the descriptions "girl group" and "boy group".
Imagine being a post-apocalyptic historian trying to make sense of what these people did or why they were famous enough to be pictured everywhere and the only description is that they were a group.
It's impossible to tell if they were a notorious mob group or famous for making gay group sex videos.