Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 75

Archive 70

←

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

Best-of lists

I have added several dozen (hundreds?) of sources to album articles where the critical reception puts it on best of lists. E.g. see the tables at The Greater Wings. I added a number of these today and Ariaslaga removed one as "fluff". If other users think these are inappropriate, I'm not going to keep on adding hundreds to just be removed and waste my time. Do others agree that this shouldn't be added? If others agree with me, then someone please undo this removal. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Why can’t you undo it yourself? Are you trying to get people to proxy for you? Ariaslaga (talk) 00:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I am under an editing restriction and cannot undo anyone's edits. I am asking the community to see the consensus around this because I don't want to have my work undone hundreds of times over. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see. What is the editing restriction for, if you don’t mind my asking? Ariaslaga (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't at all: it's public knowledge. I have engaged in edit-warring, which is inappropriate. Hence, I am seeking to abide by the dispute resolution process, which includes getting a third party to comment, including via WikiProjects. If I am doing something inappropriate now, please let me know. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Seriously? Dude, stand up for yourself. It sounds like whoever put that restriction on you was trying to make you humiliate yourself going forward as some kind of a power play. Don’t let them have that. I’ll revert myself on your behalf, it’s not that big of a deal to me. Just please don’t be a beta, you’re better than that. Everyone is better than that. Ariaslaga (talk) 01:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, it's nothing like that: my behavior was wrong and the community was valid to sanction me. I appreciate your time and encouragement. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

This is absolutely terrible advice. Don't give unsolicited advice like this. Justin is handling things correctly, and your advice would do nothing but cause trouble. Sergecross73 msg me 14:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: I'm not sure they're going to see your message as they were blocked a week ago (a little harshly, to be honest, I don't see any evidence of blatant vandalism in their edits). Richard3120 (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

This (CW mass shooter) looks plenty blatant to me, and paired with this I think the ban was the right move. Found both in this talk page section. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, fair enough... not exactly the vandalism I was referring to, but that commentary certainly seems banworthy. Richard3120 (talk) 02:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

With regard to the tables, I believe there is a consensus that there should be a maximum of 10 rows in accordance with WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Heartfox (talk) 00:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, in regards to the edit mentioned above, is it appropriate to keep it in the article or to remove it? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with year-end ratings, but I feel "so far this year" or "of the first six months of 2024" lists are a bit pointless. I note that Ariaslaga has been indeffed since this thread started. Richard3120 (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Richard, using "pointless" as a rationale to remove perspectives from (specifically) reputable, reliable authors of a subject (as determined by this, obviously) is not valid. Everything on this encyclopedia is pointless. Just because you find something "pointless", does not ban it from inclusion here. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 18:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain Richard's point is that a "best of" list that doesn't even take an entire year into effect, may not show much importance. That's not an uncommon sentiment. I add them occasionally on more obscure song articles that don't have a ton in the way of awards or reception, but it's not really much of an achievement for some superstar to show up "Billboard's Top 50 Hard Rock Albums of 2024 so far (published in April 2024.)" I mean, how many notable rock albums even came out over the course of 4 months? Sergecross73 msg me 18:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Users are to have whatever viewpoints they have on how sources give their perspectives on music, and that's fine. But no sourcing policy is based on whether users like it or not. I do not even care about any of the albums that have been discussed in relation to this topic. If users start removing critics' rankings over not personally finding any of them "important", that's pushing a point of view, and that is not the goal of an encyclopedia. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 19:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Again, incorrect. We are not robots working off of a computer program. We are humans capable of editorial discretion. These sorts of decisions are made all the time. Just because an RS published content does not make it compulsory for inclusion. RS coverage is the bare minimum for inclusion, not a requirement. Please don't start this up again, your stance on this was thoroughly rejected last time. Sergecross73 msg me 20:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Serge, Wikipedia is not a scientific journal, textbook magazine or newspaper, and neither is this Simple English Wikipedia. This is regular English Wikipedia which expects more sophistication from its readers and is about anything. Whether the human species are able to have editorial discretion in the manner you are talking is irrelative to how much Wikipedia permits with its content.

Also, when it comes to that "rejection", you are talking about an AFD that took place six months that a small fraction of the users on this website participated in. We go off of current consensus agreed by all users, not what a random selection of users said in a specific topic page months ago. I had a way more hostile tone of voice and attitude than how I am commenting in this section currently that I am not proud of, which I imagine is the real reason other users were not willing to listen, and I have the right to give another go proper in case anyone has changed their minds. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 20:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, has this WikiProject actually made these decisions besides the YE limit? If so, that is a big problem. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 21:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not wasting my time on this again. This is misguided advice no one follows, placed in the middle of a week old unrelated discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 21:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I am going to start another section on this page against the 10-row limit, but this is a fact: WP:INDISCRIMINATE absolutely does not apply to rankings of what the best of thousands of records in specific time periods were from journalists writing for publications of strong editorial standards, as the examples provided are obviously WP:Primary sources, such as opinion polls, user ratings on sites like AOTY or IMDb, or crime numbers published by police departments. Best-of lists from sources like NME and Under the Radar are not primary. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 18:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

We've been through this before. It's not compulsory to include every single award/review an RS publishes. But yes, you should probably start a new discussion. Have you read this one all the way through? It already wrapped up days ago when the troublesome editor in question was indeffed. Sergecross73 msg me 18:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I know what the section is about. It is about an editor who has been indefinitely block for vandalizing a page under the kind of rationale that's currently consensus on WikiProject Albums that I am disputing. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 19:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@HumanxAnthro: a question... what's your view on including both half-yearly and end-of-year rankings for an album? Richard3120 (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry for the delay in response because edit conflicts on this page prevented my comments from getting published, but it is not an opinion but rather the truth. It meets WP:WEIGHT to factor in all reliable sources. regardless if they are year-end lists or half-of-year-end lists. Therefore, it is the correct thing to do. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 19:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

This also seems correct to me. In fact, a magazine posting a standard review seems less notable than saying that said album is one of the best of the mid-year. That's a more substantial coverage as far as I'm concerned. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree with this actually, because it favours albums released in the first half of the year... nobody does "the best albums from July to December", so I do think there is undue weight given to albums released between January and June. Richard3120 (talk) 13:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. It's also less noteworthy to be singled out for said lists as the selection period grows shorter. Just like I rarely give any credence to these "Best songs released on June 28th, 2024" articles some reliable sources write, unless it seems 100% necessary to establish a song was notable. Sergecross73 msg me 13:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

If there was any ranking that was from an unreliable source or not sourced at all, it's objectively "fluff" or unnecessary. If not, than the editor does not have a valid argument. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 18:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

The YE Rankings Consensus

I am starting a discourse on the current consensus set by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 64#Overly long ranking lists. The reasons for why I am doing this are extensive and would require reacting to every comment made by several participating editors in that discourse, but just so you all have a basic idea...

• its basis in any guidelines or policy is lackluster, with the only cited page being an incorrect usage of WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE,
• it calls the cited example abstract names that are confusing to apply to what are simple tables with text and a gray background
• it falsely equates ratings in reviews (which could range from extremely favorable, to lukewarm, to mixed, to unfavorable and should not have a limit for its template on a note for possibly another discourse) to statements of what was the top 100, 50 and 10 of a set of hundreds of thousands of albums (pretty much the top 1%), indicating poor judgement
• its claims about the quality and editorial standards of the year-end lists in question is unsubstantiated and extremely speculative, and would be far from enough in a discussion about the reliability of a source
• it attempts to push a point of view over what perspectives of professional music journalists are "noteworthy" and what are not
• it makes the false statement that sources need to be covered in other sources to be worthy of inclusion, which is ridiculous anyway and would cause the article count of this site to be 0 if applied universally
• And finally and most importantly, it opens the door to giving WP:UNDUE weight to only 10 publications in cases where there are several more claiming the album to be a numberth-best User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 21:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• Opposed to loosening it up - we're an encyclopedia, not a reviews or awards aggregator compelled to document every approved website. INDISCRIMINATE was created for this sort of mindset. Sergecross73 msg me 21:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  It would really help if you did not make loaded statements. Nobody thought this website was an aggregator before we had this limit, and it objectively was not. This is still going to be an encyclopedia regardless if this limit is here or not. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 22:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support 10 is far too few and as you pointed out, will require some totally arbitrary decision criteria where editors all in some otherwise reliable sources and omit others. If an outlet is on Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, it's valid to include it in these kinds of listings. This could visually or page-layoutwise only be a problem after a couple dozen and 99.9% of albums would never be on that many lists anyway. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING: "An article should not be a complete presentation of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." Listing every best-of ranking is not a summary. A summary is not arbitrary. Limit of 10 aligns with longstanding practice at the album reviews template. Having no limit on the template is even more comical. Heartfox (talk) 22:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  We are not talking about {{music ratings}}. You seem confused. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

It's referred to in the opening statement. Heartfox (talk) 22:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I made a side comment about the ratings template because the consensus compared year-end lists to ratings. That's what Heartfox is referring. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 22:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@Heartfox: @Sergecross73: This is exactly the misinterpretation of the WP:NOT page that I briefly referred to in my first bullet point. Yes, there is a lot of details we do not put in for a variety of reasons. we do not summarize every single level and button command in a video game. We do not cover every cheat code or glitch. We do not bring up every small thing that happens in a film, book or TV episode when summarizing the plot. We do not have every definition in the dictionary on here. And we do not present every statistic and number that has ever been tracked by government and website logs. I have much time behind me editing this site and am very aware of that.

Here's the real question: How does this violate WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE? The most appropriate bullet point to this discourse is "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics", but ignoring the obvious that this is specifically for WP:Primary source statistics (and these are viewpoints from independent sources we are talking about here), this does not prohibit having the tables or coming up with a universally-applied bar of a number of rows. It does acknowledge that these tables can be sometimes "so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article" but recommends "to split into a separate article" and have a brief description of it in the main article. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 23:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Please take a long hard read revisiting this discussion again. The community is largely and strongly against your approach. Sergecross73 msg me 23:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Serge, can you please engage with the comment I just made instead of repeatedly linking me to a random AFD that took place six months ago and contains all of the same arguments as in the consensus I am disputing here? A small portion of users in a AFD from a specific seven-day time period is not "the community". User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 23:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

10+ AFD participants rejected your notion. Zero supported it. Sergecross73 msg me 23:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

10 out of 10,000 active contributors. Literally six months ago. 3 participants did not give any rationale. 3 I had heavy back-and-forths with, the rest I could not respond to because I was blocked for an unrelated incident. All gave rationales that were invalid. You are not arguing anything. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 00:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, Heartfox, the Summary style applies to how prose is written, not lists and tables. When they state you can't present every detail, they mean that you have to concisely describe all of the available literature (sentences on frequently-held viewpoints, for example), meaning you cannot just individually describe every individual viewpoint, that you cannot WP:QUOTEFARM reviews. We still have summary-style prose alongside long lists of numbers, films actors have starred in, albums and singles singers have released, polls and rankings for the popularity of political figures etc., and no such advocacy for the removal of that is taking place here. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 14:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

"No such advocacy for the summary-style" is what I meant to write there, for clarification User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 14:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Opposed: 10 is plenty, and there's a history of consensus beyond that as a hard limit on multiple areas of album articles. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, but I am expecting more from opposing commenters. Do you have something better than "It's just consensus" and other aspects of articles have this? Consensus can change and be contestable. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 22:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I mean, sure, but the reasons we developed that consensus in the first place are still valid. Have you looked back at the old versions of some of those articles with dozens of lists? It was absurd. I think having a hard limit is entirely self-explanatory, and I stand by it. What more is there to be said than that? Serge put it as well as it could be put already anyway. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

The whole reason I am starting this section is because none of their reasons were "valid" by any stretch of the imagination, and you are telling me to just accept what are you saying on blind faith. What's "Self-explanatory"? "Absurd" based on what? The lists are massive, but that is simply because lots of reputable publications considered the LPs one of the best of their respective years, so thus the size of the table reflect that. All of the publications meet WP:WikiProject Albums/Sources. And no, there is no evidence any of the listed publications or "self sourced" or created under a low-quality "clickbait" method as JG66 kneejerkedly presumed.

There is no pillar on this website to write in such a manner that appeals to the masses' instant gratification, ignoring the fact that no one is putting a gun to anyone's head to read the entire articles, and can organize the table however they like and use the "Find in Page" feature to look for the year-end ranking, or can just read the in-prose summary of the year-end lists without having to read the table. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 23:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Bluesatellite (talk) 02:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

  I've already addressed how this does not fall under that guideline. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 00:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, we saw. We don't agree. Sergecross73 msg me 00:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  This is WP:NOTEVERYTHING disagreeing with you, not me. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 14:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose I feel you. However, there was overwhelming agreement that a condensed list with no more than ten publications is preferable. I have seen remarkable situations where some mixed prose (also compacted) with tables where a record topped the ranking of several publications and/or all-time and decade-end listicles, which I personally find also acceptable. Reputable music publications (Billboard, AllMusic etc) would be the priority over other references. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  (1) The "overwhelming agreement" was years ago, and just because lots of users supported it does not mean it was correct or sound. Wikipedia discussions are not !vote systems. WP:Consensus can change

  (2) What are "reputable" music publications? Is there an official WP policy or guideline that dictates this?

  (3) We do not write content based on what users "personally" prefer. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 21:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  To point 2, start with WP:RSMUSIC. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  I do not know if he is referring to that or the different standard of "noteworthy" users set in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 64#Overly long ranking lists, which this discourse is a response to. Please let the user themselves elaborate on their own point. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 23:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  They literally gave you 2 examples for point number 2. This is bordering on badgering. Sergecross73 msg me 22:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  Serge... Are you seriously accusing me of WP:BLUDGEONING all because I asked a user to elaborate on a point he did not define clearly enough, as any user would do in a WP:CIVIL discussion? User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 23:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  Well you are replying to every comment in the discussion and making the same argument to everyone. I'd say that's pretty much the definition of BLUDGEONING as I understand it. If Serge is indeed making such an accusation, then I agree with it. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  I am obviously not making the same comment in every reply. What? User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 12:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  It does not make sense to ask questions like "what publications?" when they gave you 2 examples already. It gives off the vibe that you're not even paying attention to what people are saying to you (yet again.) Sergecross73 msg me 12:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  You are misrepresenting what I commented. I did not ask "what publications"; I asked what they meant by the specific adjective "reputable". Just mentioning the names of two sources tells me nothing. What do they mean by "reputable"? Does he mean all reliable sources or something different since this conversation already talks about limiting reliable source rankings on a list? If he means everything on WP:RSMUSIC, then an Oppose vote is weird because every publication on the complete tables met WP:RSMUSIC. And if it's something different, what makes Billboard and AllMusic so "reputable" over "other references"? User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 12:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  Come on, you're active in the music content area, you should be able to wrap your head around this. It's plain to see that websites like Billboard or AllMusic are particularly prevalent in the industry. Billboard (magazine) and MetalSucks are not equal publications of importance in the industry, even if RSMUSIC both allows for their use. Sergecross73 msg me 13:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  I know Billboard is known by a lot more people than MetalSucks, but you do not know if Apoxyomenus is referring to that. QuietHere assumed it was not "importance" Apoxyomenus was referring, but anything on WP:RSMUSIC, which includes Metalsucks. Do you see how contradictory and confusing this is? That's why I am asking questions. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 13:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  I do know Apoxyomenus meant that, because I read their stance. Their point seems relatively straight forward, I have no confusion on the matter. Sergecross73 msg me 13:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  I read the same comment, too, Serge. To me, "reputable" could have met that with Wikipedians here when it comes to reliability, with the entire music industry out of Wikipedia, with other music journalists perceive them, OR with consumers of magazines. Those are not the same definitions. The fact that Quiethere did not interpret Apoxyomenus the same way you did proves my point. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 13:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  And also, if (big emphasis on if) that is what they are referring to, where in WP:WEIGHT does it claim something as subjective as "importance" determines it prevalence in an article? User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 13:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:In These Times (publication)#Requested move 4 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:In These Times (publication)#Requested move 4 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm leaving

After years of working on album articles, I have decided it is not worth my time working with this group of people. I am still going to be editing elsewhere on this site, but if the group of music article editors consists of people who think that they can chop off parts of trees just because it offends their instant gratification and try to get users who call that out in trouble off of the flimsiest and fabricated of evidence, they are a lost cause and cannot be reasoned with. I am not naming names for the same reason teachers do not reveal to a classroom who got an F on the most recent test, but if the demise of music articles on this website keeps going, just know that all I did here was warn about it. So until circumstances here change, congratulations, you lost a participant! User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 17:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Paper magazine

Hello: I'm currently reviewing Virtual Self (EP) at FAC and came across an article by Paper. I'm not sure if it's reliable or not and would really like some insight on this source. — lunaeclipse ^(talk) 17:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

In my experience, I don't see why it wouldn't be. Got a full editorial team listed here and I see plenty of writers with bylines at other reliable sources on Muck Rack, e.g. their music editor has written for NME, Uproxx, and Paste, and these two have both written for The New York Times. I would even recommend they be added to RSMUSIC, unless there's anything significant I've missed. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, I've never seen any problem with this publication and there's plenty of genuine journalistic experience there. Richard3120 (talk) 21:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I also agree. Beyond agreeing with everyone above, most publications that started as print media publications in the 1980/90/2000s meet our requirements anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 17:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Robert Christgau, everyone's fav

Hello, see this more and more, although still in a minority of articles--Robert Christgau, listed alphabetically under R in the ratings template rather than C. This has always seemed super weird to me, as the linked term is to the person who has worked as a critic and journalist for 50+ years, not the web site that collects most of his previously published writing. I know this has always been a citing nightmare: he's on his 8th or 9th outlet, so there are now that many ways to cite him, starting with The Village Voice, his books, his site, a generic "Christgau Consumer Guide"--which sometimes means his column, book, or site--and his 4 or 5 post-VV firing outlets. On top of that, a substantial number of editors link to the site artist pages even when citing VV or his book, so it's often technically an incorrect citation right off the bat (he occasionally made changes to reviews/grades for his books and site). Most importantly, the linked term always refers to him, the person, not his site. I've read some album articles where an editor obviously thinks that, in the prose portion, "Robert Christgau" is just another music web site. I've considered for years boldly changing the sources page and the template example, but thought I'd post here first (it always seemed that one editor just stuck him under R, and everyone forgot about it). At heart, I think this is genuinely misleading and confusing to both editors and readers, and bad information, where one term means two things--not helped by the fact that only a few "named" critics are used in the template; strangely, Martin C. Strong as a name is almost always under S. I don't care at all if an editor chooses to cite VV or a book (again, so long as those works are actually cited, rather than his site), I'm just concerned about his name also equating to his site and the misinformation that results. I'm not exactly sure of WP's alphabetically sorting guidance--I remember a page that uses "George Washington" as an example, with the guidance that he's sorted under W, but maybe that is something old. Thanks. Caro7200 (talk) 13:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I've been replacing "Robert Christgau" with "The Village Voice" in the template (in articles about 1990s albums), since that's where he originally published his reviews. Like you say, there's usually a link to an artist page on his personal website. I use a quote from it to search his site to find the full Consumer Guide, and then use it to find the issue on ProQuest, to fill a citation template ({{cite magazine}} or {{cite news}}, no preference really) with date, issue number and pages. I keep a link to his website, since the reviews there were uploaded either by him or someone closely related to him ("as we can put up"; and it's several times easier to cite his website than the book on the Internet Archive, which may also soon disappear following the lawsuit), though I tend to replace artist page with a Consumer Guide page (example). However, these don't have stars on honorable mentions (and neither do ProQuest scans, so I guess he added stars later, in the book), in which case I have to link the artist page that includes stars. Sometimes I see "Christgau's Consumer Guide" instead, which I keep, even though I think it's not entirely correct since he reprinted the VV reviews in the book. For post-VV, I would use the name of whatever outlet he was reviewing for, with his name in the citation template. I would consider keeping his name in the scores template for his latest reviews, which he publishes independently. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 14:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

This is only part of the issue I brought up, but I have noticed that you often change from "Robert Christgau" to The Village Voice, but you don't change the link to his posted column--that's an incorrect citation. We seem to be undoing each other's work... I have no issue with the change, if you link to the proper column page. Caro7200 (talk) 12:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

As I previously explained, these columns don't actually differentiate honorable mentions, so you can't support , , and in articles with them. If you insist, I can cite Christgau's Consumer Guide via the Internet Archive. FWIW, if an album is not an honorable mention, I do change the link, as I believe the full Consumer Guide page is preferable. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 16:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree, I've read him since the late 1990s and own all his books. You can always just write about the honorable mention in the prose if citing VV--most of our short album articles are already ratings-heavy, prose-poor. Frankly, citing "Robert Christgau" is the easiest, clearest, and most straightforward at this late date. I'm not sure that changing something just to change it is necessary editing, and there may be some occasional pushback if the citation isn't accurate. Cheers. Caro7200 (talk) 17:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Writing about the stars without the source supporting it would violate WP:V. As far as I can see, there are only 2 places that show these stars: the book and artist pages on Christgau's website. Unless you mean removing the rating from the rating template and writing about it in prose, but I don't think that's ideal either, as there is a rating (even if it's assigned retrospectively). AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 17:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry we keep misunderstanding each other. What I mean is, if citing VV, just write about it in the prose, without any kind of rating. If you want to keep a rating, cite his book or "him"/"his site" ... and therein lies the confusion. Again, I think "Robert Christgau", under C, is the best and clearest option, with the term referring to the journalist who has had some kind of a "guide" for around 50+ years, in 8, 9, 10, or however many outlets. Caro7200 (talk) 18:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Correction: if the rating is an honorable mention. There should be no issues with letter gradings. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 18:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

It goes under "C" for sure. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Release history table discussion

There have been multiple ongoing discussions regarding the release history section of album articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice the past few months. I have just launched one, Getting rid of "Release history" tables, in which I propose deleting the section altogether. Given how much participation the discussions have had so far, I can imagine there being a lot more for this one, and it even potentially evolving into an RfC if need be, so I'm leaving an invite to such participation here. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)