Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than28 days may be auto-archived byClueBot III if there are more than 5.

Hi ActivelyDisinterested,

I'm preparing to open an RfC regarding the widespread use of a little-known review aggregator in music articles, and I wanted to ask your advice on where the discussion best belongs. The aggregator in question, AnyDecentMusic?[1], is obscure (its article was deleted for failing notability) and has been cited in maybe twoWP:RS articles ever[2][3]. I'm unsure whether this RfC belongs onWP:RSN or theWikiProject Albums talk page. You participated in the book aggregator consensus atMOS:NOVELS where, similarly, it was a matter of due weight rather than reliability in the traditional RSN sense since an aggregator isn't reporting facts, but publishing its own subjective synthesis of subjective reviews. Some users in that discussion were adamant that RSN was the only appropriate avenue. I wanted to pre-empt such concerns. Thanks in advance for your help.Οἶδα (talk)22:33, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you first start a normal discussion, rather than a formal RFC, onWikiProject Albums. Musical sources are an odd bunch, and expertise in the area can be very important. AlsoWP:WikiProject Albums/Sources#Aggregates is a project level concensus. The last discussion there appears to beWT:WikiProject Albums/Archive 78#AnyDecentMusic? reliability, I would suggest reading that first just so you don't repeat questions that have already been answered. If after discussion you still believe that a RFC is necessary then either RSN or Project Albums would be an appropriate venue, I would just suggest notifying the other. So if the RFC is at the project then notify RSN, and vice versa. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°23:43, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've read through all the previous discussions I could find, and have linked to and analyzed them in the RfC rationale I drafted over the last few days. I had participated in the last discussion, the one to which you linked, where the general takeaway was that editors shouldn't be removing the aggregator without consensus on its reliability because notability (the reasonAnyDecentMusic? was deleted) is different from reliability. I myself voted to not restrict its usage given the lack of consensus. The project-level consensus was in 2016 in the form of an RfC (Template_talk:Music_ratings/Archive_2#Add_AnyDecentMusic?_to_aggregate_reviewers_option?) which added the aggregator to the{{Music ratings}} template. One of my main arguments is pushing back against the 2016 template-level consensus as having inadequately investigated the source's "reliability". And considering the last normal discussion, which originated from an editing dispute, already resulted in users recognizing the need for a wider reliability discussion, I wasn't planning on opening another normal discussion. Much of my rationale is similar to the points previously raised atMOS:NOVELS. Meaning the discussion is nuanced and time-consuming, which is why I believe an RfC is the appropriate avenue. But I'm unsure between RSN and WikiProject Albums. Does it make any difference? I'm inclined to avoid RSN (but still advertise it there) because the issue pertains more toWP:WEIGHT rather than "reliability" in the traditional RSN sense. Cheers!Οἶδα (talk)04:01, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right that if the RFC is about more than just straight reliability then WikiProject Albums is the more appropriate forum. Do notify RSN, I'll be interested to see what comes of the discussion. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°09:54, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inyou comment on the discussion of the closing of the discussion of the article on the killing of a football player (in the house that jack built), I think there's a typo. Ithink where you wrote "sort", you meant "sought", but am also not 100% certain of that, and if it's confusing me, it may be confusing others. Even if it isn't a typo, you may wish to clarify your point. --Nat Gertler (talk)14:52, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks that's one of many typos today. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°14:55, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a couple more comments to clarify what I'm trying to say. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°15:08, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think now it's clear. (I'm making a lot of typos myself these days; hopefully I catch the ones that make things nuclear... I mean,unclear.) --Nat Gertler (talk)15:19, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes my thumbs type faster than my keyboard can react and autocorrect takes over, or maybe they're just getting fat. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°15:22, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The invention of the smartphone has been a great thing for mankind and a horrible thing for the Internet. --Nat Gertler (talk)15:24, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:53, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]