Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums

Cult Following - exercise caution

A.k.a. https://cultfollowing.co.uk/

Months ago, when I was quite new to Wikipedia, I added an article from this source to a page, but I've since removed it because I noticed something quite glaring in hindsight. I can't find a single article that's not written by its "chief editor". Is this site essentially a glorified blog, subject to WP:BLOGS? I'd like to hear some of your thoughts on whether this should be listed under "generally unreliable", which is what I'm currently leaning towards. Around a few dozen articles on Wikipedia seem to use this source, so it's not unmanageable to deal with this if y'all view this as a problem. Thanks! Fundgy (talk) 22:50, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

It's a SPS. Their Instagram says "Owned, run and written by @ewangleadow". voorts (talk/contributions) 22:53, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

And I see no evidence that he's a subject matter expert. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:53, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I probably wouldn't have brought this up if it wasn't placed under Google's news tab when searching for reviews. Unfortunately, this serves to promote it to people to the point that editors have placed it in articles like Coles Corner (album) or The Car (album). Fundgy (talk) 23:06, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Added it to the list. Fundgy (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

RfC: AnyDecentMusic?

Should AnyDecentMusic?'s aggregate ratings be included in articles? Οἶδα (talk) 07:18, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Survey

• No. The aggregate ratings of AnyDecentMusic? should not be included because they have not received significant coverage in reliable sources, and including them in articles constitutes undue weight to their assessment of critical consensus, which violates WP:NPOV, a fundamental site-wide policy. Οἶδα (talk) 07:18, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
• No - Metacritic is sufficient, 2 aggregators isn't necessary, and there's far more reliable source coverage about MC scores than ADM scores in the music industry. Sergecross73 msg me 13:27, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
• Yes - ADM aggregates can be used, but only in lieu of Metacritic. We only need one aggregate score, especially because the two aggregators overlap in the sources that they use. So, either is fine, but only use one.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 14:03, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I should clarify: Use Metacritic whenever it's available. If there is a situation where ADM has an aggregate score and Metacritic doesn't, ADM is acceptable.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:55, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

• Yes – Include both. While ADM certainly has its own set of problems such as its choices of review websites, this is ignoring the problems Metacritic has as well. Metacritic often assigns arbitrary ratings to articles that do not have one in the first place, which IMO is quite a bad practice. Look here to see that they assign ratings to articles by The Quietus. They go by a non-transparent weighing system that is unclear to the public. On their FAQ, they outright say this.
  
  Considering how ADM is essentially Metacritic's only substantial competitor, I don't get the WP:NPOV argument. Removing it because it's perceived as less notable isn't a very neutral take either. Looking at the deletion discussion, it appears to have been deleted only based on the decision of two editors (correct me here if I'm missing something), based on a lack of sources that they found. I agree it's best not to leave its article up if people didn't add enough sources, but the failure of editors to find sources for it does not make it non-notable, only that it has yet to be established as such. At the very least, reputable sources have appeared to take it seriously, considering the list 3family6 gave.Fundgy (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

  The issue in this RfC is not whether Metacritic or ADM has the better methodology. It is whether ADM's aggregation is given sufficient weight in reliable, independent secondary sources to justify its widespread inclusion in Wikipedia articles. Metacritic has been cited in hundreds of reliable sources as a standard for critical reception. ADM has been cited in, at most, a handful of articles, which does not establish it as a significant voice in music criticism. By any reasonable standard of real-world prominence, that falls well short of what could be characterised as "substantial". The additional sources posted below do not change this. In total, we are looking at maybe 7 references over more than 15 years, none of which demonstrate consistent, in-depth, or authoritative use of ADM's raings in evaluating critical reception.

  Respectfully, you are misunderstanding what neutrality means on Wikipedia. WP:NPOV is not about giving equal treatment to all sources or viewpoints but rather giving proportionate weight to each, based on how they are represented in reliable, independent sources. It does not require that every perspective or platform be included just because it exists, or because it is a competitor to a more prominent source. This is an issue of content weight, not editorial bias. Article deletion is also not the basis for this discussion. You are right that not having an article does not prove a lack of notability, but the AfD deletion does mean that the community reviewed whether there was significant coverage in reliable sources, and found it lacking. You are welcome to expand Draft:Any Decent Music. But the result has been exactly the same: sources that are insignificant, passing mentions, non-independent, or unreliable. Οἶδα (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not opposed to getting rid of ADM in articles in general. It's just this proposal in effect bans all aggregators other than Metacritic, which I believe, while certainly notable, is dubiously reliable. A much more practical solution would be to establish rules that specify which and how many aggregators should be used, which would effectively take care of this entire problem. I do think that as an entity, AnyDecentMusic? is just notable enough to warrant inclusion in circumstances when no others are available, so after some thought, I've altered my choice to:

  Yes - use only in lieu of Metacritic, echoing 3family6.

  As an aside, at no point did I suggest we give equal treatment. The phrase I assume you inferred this from, "Metacritic's only substantial competitor", does not suggest I think they're equally qualified. Also, with a total of four editors contributing to the AfD, just two voted to delete. I agree with that decision, but it's a bit of a misrepresentation to call it a vote by the community. Fundgy (talk) 01:17, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

  this proposal in effect bans all aggregators other than Metacritic

  This discussion is exclusively seeking a consensus on the due weight of ADM as a source for aggregate ratings, not about Metacritic. We do not retain a source simply because it supposedly offsets another source. You are free to propose the addition of any other aggregator. The fact that no others exist has no bearing on our assessment of ADM as an individual source. I will state again: We should reflect how reliable secondary sources describe an album's reception, not how an unrecognized website scores it. Nor should we be resorting to ADM with the rationale being in lieu of Metacritic. There is no policy basis for making exceptions based on the absence of other sources. You are of course free to open a separate RfC proposing to remove Metacritic based on your reasoning that their methodology is unclear and unreliable. The reliability of AnyDecentMusic? as a source does not change based on the presence or absence of another source. Wikipedia does not operate on a scarcity model where any source fills the void; we only include what is verifiably used in the real world. The correct action is to not include an aggregated score at all. And as I indicated below, ADM's ratings have only ever been reported in a reliable source one (1) time in its entire history. That is not "enough". And it means that Wikipedia is currently the only major platform treating ADM as a standard or notable aggregator. This is why it violates the site-wide policy of WP:NPOV. Articles are made to reflect real-world significance, not manufacture it.

  As for the AfD: You agree with its decision, but claim it was "only that it has yet to be established as such". Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTAL ball. We do not predict a future where ADM's prominence as an aggregator rises to a level where it passes AfD. The lack of participation does not negate the conclusion that ADM's coverage is insufficient. AfDs are not decided by a votecount but by strength of arguments grounded in Wikipedia policy. Even a lightly participated AfD carries weight if it demonstrates that no significant coverage in reliable sources per WP:GNG were presented at the time, which was the case here. If you believes ADM has since gained notability, the appropriate route would be to improve the draft and submit it for the mainspace, not to disregard the original consensus or minimize it here. Οἶδα (talk) 03:14, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

  • About your WP:CRYSTAL statement, which is inadvertently arguing the semantics of "yet". Let's say I make a draft. Reviewer rejects it, says "it's yet to shown as notable." At no point do I take that to assume that it is somehow destined to be accepted one day, and I think just about everyone else would react in the same way.

  • "The fact that no others exist has no bearing on our assessment of ADM as an individual source." Not the takeaway I expected to hear back. I said: "AnyDecentMusic? is just notable enough to warrant inclusion in circumstances when no others are available". This same practice is routine and standard for limiting of number of reviews allowed in the ratings template, so how about extending this principle to the aggregators? Both Sergecross73 and 3family6 both appear to agree that only one is necessary, so I feel like this could be part of the takeaway here.

  I really hope this is all just a matter of misunderstandings, but after two replies in a row like this, I just don't want to be in a circular argument. To summarize, you think that ADM is not suitable for inclusion whatsoever based on notability, and I happen to disagree and think there's some nuance to be had here, which I tried to explain to the best of my ability. I shall leave my answer as is, and I'm happy to be outvoted here. Fundgy (talk) 06:34, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

  I appreciate your interest in discussing this efficiently. I want for us to understand each other. To that end, I am not going to reply to what is ultimately irrelevant because it is unproductive to stray from the RfC topic. Let me be clear, I believe that ADM is not suitable for inclusion based on WP:NPOV (WP:UNDUE) and WP:RS (WP:USEBYOTHERS). Not "notability", which is factor in deciding whether a given topic warrants its own article on Wikipedia, not whether a source should be used in Wikipedia articles. These are two different things. So please let's stop discussing "notability" and AfD.

  Yes, the ratings template limits the number of sources for clarity and consistency. But that practice does not mean we substitute in scores from sources whose scores have received virtually no recognition or usage in reliable secondary sources simply because there is an absence of better sources with scores. That would be inclusion by default, not due weight. I appreciate your attempt to find a compromise, but use "in lieu of Metacritic" is not backed by Wikipedia policy. If no reliable aggregator exists for an album, Wikipedia should reflect that reality, not fill the gap with a source whose aggregate ratings lack recognition in the field. That is what I meant when I said such an absence "has no bearing on our assessment of ADM as an individual source". This RfC is to discuss the reliability of ADM as a source for aggregate ratings, not subjective considerations about its usefulness in comparison to other sources. That was already discussed in the 2016 RfC.

  You say that you "happen to disagree and think there's some nuance to be had here". Again: ADM's ratings have only ever been reported in a reliable source one (1) time in its entire history. That is not "nuance" in its favor. And it means that Wikipedia is currently the only major platform treating ADM as a standard or notable aggregator. This is why it violates the site-wide policy of WP:NPOV. Articles are made to reflect real-world significance, not manufacture it.

  So to summarize, you believe the existence of a single BBC article from 2014 citing an ADM rating establishes ADM as a reliable source for aggregate ratings. And that the other six mentions constitute sufficiently consistent and widespread (WP:USEBYOTHERS) use by other sources, and that they sufficiently establish the influence, methodology, and editorial authority of ADM's aggregation. And that "nuance" warrants incorporating ADM's specific viewpoint (rating) only in the absence of another source's viewpoint, despite there being no Wikipedia policy that supports including sources conditionally based on scarcity, and which is effectively implying that a viewpoint (rating) inherits due WP:WEIGHT by virtue of a similar source's absence. I happen to disagree. Also, reliability is not simply established by Wiki users independently assessing a source directly and thinking it looks like it has enough editorial standards. And in the case of aggregators, the threshold for reliability and weight is necessarily higher. As I described below, because an aggregator is a source interpreting and synthesizing other sources, it is still entirely "reliable" within its own framework. Past RfCs decided that the aggregation from Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes aggregators were determined "reliable" by WP:WEIGHT because their aggregation had been consistently cited and treated as authoritative by reliable, independent secondary sources. Οἶδα (talk) 11:01, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

  ADM is reliable, Οἶδα. Your RfC doesn't ask about reliability, but the appropriateness of using it as an aggregator. I think, given that ADM does have references in multiple reliable sources, you have the uphill battle in arguing that it universally should be banned even in instances where Metacritic doesn't have aggregate scores (if such instances even exist).--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:06, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

  Respectfully, this RfC asks whether ADM's aggregate ratings should be included in articles. I believe you're drawing an artificial distinction between reliability and "appropriateness of use", which isn't supported by how Wikipedia applies sourcing policy, particularly for aggregators. When we are evaluating a review aggregator, we are not simply asking whether the source exists or generally publishes information accurately, we are asking whether its aggregation is itself "reliable" by virtue of it being consistently consistently cited and treated as authoritative as a summary of critical reception by reliable, independent secondary sources. All I am saying is that ADM's ratings have not received sufficient usage/recognition in reliable sources to justify routine inclusion across thousands of articles, especially not in the {{Music ratings}} template where inclusion signals editorial weight. As for the suggestion that excluding ADM is an "uphill battle", I respectfully disagree. The evidence remains that in 15+ years of operation, ADM's aggregate ratings have been cited maybe twice in reliable sources. The other handful of mentions are either passing, unrelated to its ratings, or come from questionable or minor sources. That is not a foundation for encyclopedic weight, that is an absence of it. It falls short of the threshold set by community precedent for determining the reliability of sources that synthesize and interpret other sources, i.e. aggregators: through their consistent citation and real-world usage by mainstream media sources, not by internal assessment or perceived usefulness. The former affirms their methodologies and aggregates, the latter does not and cannot. Review synthesis is an editorial process, not a passive reporting of facts, and aggregate reliability is inseparable from how that synthesis is reported by reliable secondary sources. This is precisely what WP:USEBYOTHERS addresses. At this point, we are shuffling between "I believe the sources listed below demonstrate [blank]" and "I believe the sources listed below do not demonstrate [blank]". We should stop arguing in circles. You believe the usage is sufficient and in keeping with Wiki policy, I do not. End of story. If you want to discuss this further please take it to the sources section. Bloating this section further will only discourage broader participation. Οἶδα (talk) 07:19, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

  I believe you're drawing an artificial distinction between reliability and "appropriateness of use", which isn't supported by how Wikipedia applies sourcing policy

  Sources are "reliable", i.e. "appropriate" for different things, with different weights. It's rarely "reliable" or "not-reliable", but rather "reliable for what". ADM is reliable in terms of verifiability and accuracy concerns. That doesn't necessarily mean that it is of the same weight as Metacritic.

  Yes, functionally blacklisting a reliable source is an uphill battle. Maybe the instances where ADM should be used are rare. Maybe Metacritic is always the preferable source (I personally would say it should always be the deferred to source, if it exists for that particular work). But banning a source, as you propose here, needs a very strong argument beyond just WP:DUE.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:21, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

  Well I am not actually looking to battle against an "in lieu of Metacritic" exception. I did explain why I disagree to that in my above replies to Fundgy, but I do not believe the difference is all that important. As you mentioned, the overlap between ADM and Metacritic is incredible. It is rare that ADM covers an album Metacritic has not, and ADM scores are predictably a few points below Metacritic's every time. And I agree about the issue of weight. The only issue I'm presenting is that the "reliable for what" with regard to ADM is "reliable for anything that it has not been deemed unreliable for". But also that the measure of real-world prominence (usage) indicates ADM to be virtually never "reliable" for its main product (ratings), for which it is cited in over 3000 articles across Wikipedia. And that due to the complex nature of aggregators, due weight is the only way to determine "reliability" for aggregation, and this is reflected in precedent. "virtually never" because there is virtually no established weight for its ratings. Wikipedia should reflect that. But again, the "in lieu" exception really isn't the issue, so I believe we are working in the same direction. Οἶδα (talk) 08:48, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

  I think we are largely in agreement here.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 11:58, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

  And it means that Wikipedia is currently the only major platform treating ADM as a standard or notable aggregator.

  Wikipedia is the only major platform that has a "notability" standard. Other sources aren't tertiary and with the same guidelines as Wikipedia. So there's nothing to compare Wikipedia to in this regard except other wikis, which generally are unreliable per WP:USERG.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:11, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

  You've misunderstood my point. I wasn't referring to Wikipedia's notability policy but to real-world weight, which is central to neutrality on Wikipedia. When I said Wikipedia is the only major platform treating ADM as a standard aggregator, I meant that no reliable secondary sources consistently do so. That should be clear from what I've written in the post right above. I've been very specific about why this is a matter of weight, not notability. If ADM's ratings aren't consistently cited or relied upon elsewhere, then giving them prominence here violates Wikipedia's core content policies. I was never claiming that journalistic sources use or follow a Wikipedia-style notability guideline. That would be asburd. I of course apologise for having previously used the word "notable" in an alternative way, though I was directly replying to a user who had also used the word to describe a source as "notable enough to warrant inclusion". Οἶδα (talk) 07:19, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for that clarification. I understand your argument. I agree that generally, it is WP:UNDUE to reference ADM. If Metacritic covers that work, it should be the preferred source.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:22, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

• Yes per 3family6. In absence of MC being used, there is no compelling reason to not use an alternative, in other words, use just one, and if that one happens to be ADM, then that is better than none at all. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:31, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

Relevant past discussions:

1. Template_talk:Music_ratings/Archive_2#Add_AnyDecentMusic?_to_aggregate_reviewers_option?
2. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_53#AnyDecentMusic?
3. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_78#AnyDecentMusic?_reliability
4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AnyDecentMusic?

TL;DR: Articles must fairly and proportionally reflect established viewpoints of a topic. Articles are based on reliable secondary sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered. Wikipedia does not independently assess, validate, or elevate information that is nonexistent in those sources. As such, we should not be conferring legitimacy on this website by consistently citing their consensus ratings, especially when no reliable source does the same.

Similar issue, similar argument:

As of 2025, AnyDecentMusic? (ADM) is cited in over 3,000 Wikipedia articles, usually for its aggregated scores of critical reception. This widespread usage warrants a deeper investigation into whether the website's aggregated scores merit inclusion under Wikipedia's content policies.

For context, the article for AnyDecentMusic? was deleted after an AfD discussion found no significant coverage. A widely-participated 2016 RfC agreed that the aggregator should be added to the template {{Music ratings}}. The discussion has been used to determine that ADM may be used as a "generally reliable source" at WP:A/S. However, general reliability does not automatically confer weight, nor does it justify including the source in every relevant album article. Furthermore, the RfC did not substantively evaluate the reliability of ADM as a source for aggregation. The evidence presented consisted of just four articles and a superficial suggestion for users to check Google News, which does not demonstrate widespread or consistent use. The discussion focused on the perceived usefulness of the source, rather than further examining its reliability. Support for inclusion mostly amounted to "It looks reliable, why not add it" and "I think it's useful and different enough from Metacritic for its inclusion to be interesting to readers".

AnyDecentMusic? has not been the subject of independent, in-depth coverage that would establish the influence, methodology, or editorial authority of their consensus. Citations of its ratings are so rare as to be virtually nonexistent. They are rarely, if ever, cited by mainstream media publications, reputable music journalists, or academic sources to quantify the critical reception of albums, indicating a lack of established notability or editorial authority. There appears to be no indication that it is more than a WP:SPS by "Ally and Terry",[1]. Contrast this to Metacritic, which has received countless mainstream coverage citing their aggregation. Reliance on ADM's coverage or aggregate scores directly would need to be backed by WP:USEBYOTHERS. And from what I can find, the site has never once been mentioned by major websites such as Billboard, Pitchfork, Rolling Stone, Stereogum, SPIN, NME and The Guardian. All of these publications are prominent in the world of music journalism. Including this album review aggregator in articles therefore gives WP:UNDUE weight to their consensus.

In a 2023 discussion concerning an obscure film review aggregator being introduced into numerous film articles, user Betty Logan explained: "The reason we use RT and Metacritic scores in reception for films is not because RT or Metacritic are inherently notable (that is what their articles are for) but because the mainstream media regularly use them for quantifying the immediate reception of a film i.e. they have become a kind of industry standard." This is confirmed in the community discussions for Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic linked at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, which determined those sites to be "reliable" for review aggregation. If you read through them, you will find that the focus of the discussions about their aggregation (and not about biographical data) rested on whether including the aggregation constitutes due WP:WEIGHT. These sources were considered "reliable" because their aggregation was widely used, cited, and established enough to warrant inclusion. Not because their review aggregation was 'reliable' in the traditional sense. Any aggregator is still entirely "reliable" within its own framework, even if it does not align with mainstream sources. After all, we are talking about ratings-based reviews combined with ADM's own subjective interpretation of unrated reviews, all filtered through its subjective synthesis of critics' reviews, which are themselves inherently subjective, as they convey an author's personal opinions.

Giving weight to the critical consensus of this site can misrepresent an album's reception by amplifying the voice of a platform that has not gained significant recognition or usage in reliable secondary sources. Keep in mind that articles must reflect the prominence of viewpoints in the real world. As previously mentioned, review aggregators are sources which assess other sources by providing scores and summaries using their own subjective methodologies. Thus, an aggregator's consensus is itself an editorial interpretation, a viewpoint about viewpoints: "We have a formula that is weighted to take into account the number of reviews an album receives, which gives an advantage to albums receiving more reviews." and "Not everyone gives numerical ratings so we read the reviews carefully and then have heated debates about whether it's a 7/10 or a 7.5/10. Sad, but true.". Including aggregator consensus from a website with little to no verifiable reputation artificially elevates its importance beyond what is supported by the broader music community and their published, reliable sources. We should reflect how reliable secondary sources describe an album's reception, not how an unrecognized website scores it. To do otherwise introduces systemic bias and an inconsistent application of Wikipedia's core content policies and guidelines of WP:NPOV (WP:UNDUE); WP:V; WP:RS (WP:USEBYOTHERS). Οἶδα (talk) 07:19, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Notified: Template talk:Music ratings, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Οἶδα (talk) 08:09, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Use by others

In the 2016 template RfC, these were the sources cited to demonstrate "the site's been mentioned in a number of third-party news sources as a gauge on critical consensus"

• http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/reviews/ana239s-mitchells-hadestown-union-chapel-london-2198229.html
• http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-24054123
• https://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/feb/07/anais-mitchell-jefferson-hamer-review (Not mentioned in the article; they confused a mention in the user comments located below the article itself).
• http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/alt-j-mercury-music-prize-awesome-wave-400890 (generally unreliable source per WP:IBTIMES)
• http://entertainment.ie/competitions/display.asp?CompID=7173 (dead link)

The user also suggested the following: "you'll have better luck finding hits that supports ADM's existence using GoogleNews". I am unsure what "hits" they were referring to in 2016. I would appreciate it if editors could collect here any other sources because after much research all I could turn up is the following:

• https://rollingstoneindia.com/look-back-top/
• https://www.thelineofbestfit.com/news/latest-news/little-simz-tops-the-any-decent-music-best-albums-of-2021-list

That is a very narrow footprint in terms of coverage by independent, reliable sources over more than 15 years of operation. So the question becomes: is that minimal usage sufficient to justify its widespread inclusion across thousands of Wikipedia articles? If a review aggregator plays no discernible role in shaping the narrative around album reception in reliable sources, then its inclusion in article after article is not a reflection of real-world prominence but an editorial choice by Wikipedia editors.

In comparison, the following is a selection of reliable sources that cite Metacritic for its consensus on the critical reception of albums:

Extended content

A New Taylor Swift LP? Metacritic Crunches the Reviews, as Fans Watch.–NY Times

It debuted on Metacritic, a website that collects and quantifies music reviews, with a score of 35 out of 100, becoming the site's lowest-rated album since 2011 and the worst-reviewed album by a female artist in its 23-year history.–NY Times

The review-aggregation site Metacritic credited the initial "Tortured Poets" LP with an overall score of 76 out of 100, and gave "The Anthology" a 69. Those may be passing grades, but for Swift — whose last new studio LP, "Midnights," got an 85 — they are notably low, and suggest a split in critical versus popular opinion about the superstar's music.–NY Times

The album has a solid 89 rating at Metacritic.com, the review aggregation site.–Billboard

The album has a 76 rating on Metacritic.com, the review aggregation site.–Billboard

Rina Sawayama's first full-length album, Sawayama, is a hit with critics. It has a robust 89 rating at Metacritic.com, the review aggregation site.–Billboard

Mr. Morale & the Big Steppers, Lamar's fifth full-length studio release, has a rare 100 rating at Metacritic.com, the review aggregation site. That's even better than Lamar's last three studio albums, all of which had ratings above 90.–Billboard

It has a perfect 100 score at the review aggregation site Metacritic.com, the highest rating for a studio album in the site's 19-year history.–Billboard

The album currently boasts a 92 score on review-aggregating website Metacritic, making it the second-best-reviewed set from any artist this year–Billboard

The album also has a high score (88) at Metacritic.com, a review aggregation site.–Billboard

Sour, which has a strong 84 rating at Metacritic.com, the review aggregation site–Billboard

For those wondering, Froot is among the best-reviewed pop albums of the year, with an average Metacritic score of 75 yielded from multiple rave takes on the third album.–Billboard

So far, the review aggregator Metacritic has tracked an average score of 68 out of 100, or, as they say, notching "generally favorable reviews," based on the 15 critics noted so far.–Billboard

RTJ4 has a lofty 89 rating at Metacritic.com, the review aggregation site. It is one of only 11 albums released so far in 2020 with such a high rating.–Billboard

What's more, the set drew near-unanimous acclaim, with a score in the 90s from critic-aggregating website Metacritic, making it easily one of the best-reviewed sets released by any artist this year.–Billboard

Critics have responded warmly to the album. On the review aggregator site Metacritic.com, Kiwanuka has a solid score of 89.–Billboard

Part of that I'd attribute simply to how good Modern Vampires was — it has their highest Metacritic score ever and it won over people who were haters of the first two albums.–Billboard

As of now, the LP is the lowest user-ranked album of the year on Metacritic, receiving a dismal score of 1.3 (for comparison, the next lowest score is for Ed Sheeran's Divide, and even that received a comparatively generous 4.3).–SPIN

Babel earned a middling 63 score on review-aggregating site–SPIN

check out Metacritic, where he routinely places in the high 70s and low 80s, positive notices by any measure–SPIN

As of this writing, Some Loud Thunder has Clap Your Hands' career-worst aggregate score on Metacritic–SPIN

It received a score of 94 out of 100 from the review aggregator website Metacritic, which is the 4th highest score of all time for any hip-hop album.–SPIN

One year later, they dropped Bitter Rivals, which was met with a decidedly mixed reception, compared to its predecessors—its Metacritic score stands at 70, below Treats' 84 and Reign of Terror's 77. –SPIN

Local Business was hardly a disaster — the album became the band's first to chart on the Billboard 200, and on crit-aggregating site MetaCritic, it holds a score of 78, just four points below The Monitor's 82.–SPIN

Wonder Years albums achieve astronomical Metacritic scores–SPIN

Take it from critical aggregator Metacritic, where Rough and Rowdy Ways sits second only to Fiona Apple's Fetch the Bolt Cutters as the best reviewed album of 2020 so far.–Guardian

The album received almost unanimous critical acclaim, with a 96% approval score on Metacritic–Guardian

Metacritic – the recommendation website that aggregates various star ratings across the web – assigned it a very average "score" of 56 (out of 100).–Guardian

Brat is one of the most critically acclaimed albums of the year, now one of the top 20 all time on the site Metacritic (score: 95)–Guardian

Their second album, Sunbather, was Metacritic's best reviewed of 2013–Guardian

Fearless (Taylor's Version) has been well received by critics, with a score of 82 on reviews aggregator Metacritic.–Guardian

According to Metacritic, a website that collates ­reviews from around the world, the xx received the rare accolade of "universal acclaim"–Guardian

It's sitting pretty on review aggregator site Metacritic with 78/100, a few points below recent efforts from LCD Soundsystem and the National, and way ahead of Scouting For Girls' meagre 44.–Guardian

But the critics aren't on board. Rodeo has received a meh 63 Metacritic rating–Guardian

According to the website Metacritic, which collates reviews in the press, Stevens's concept album Illinois (the second in his Fifty States Project) was the most critically praised record of 2005–Guardian

This 18-song opus, the most praised album of the year according to the review-aggregating website Metacritic–Guardian

These are 2024's best rated albums so far – according to Metacritic–NME

Wolf Alice's new album 'Blue Weekend' is 2021's highest-rated album on Metacritic so far–NME

Fiona Apple's 'Fetch The Bolt Cutters' is the highest-rated album of all time on Metacritic–NME

The reviews have been mainly positive. At the moment 'Coexist' scores a 76 per cent on Metacritic.–NME

'Tranquility Base…', much like 'Humbug' was largely loved by critics (4/5 here on NME, and 76% on Metacritic)–NME

LCD Soundsystem's third full-length is one of the critical hits of the year so far, scoring an 88 on Metacritic.–NME

Kanye West's 'My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy' – which came out on Monday – is the most critically acclaimed album of 2010, scoring 97 on Metacritic.–NME

And on Metacritic – a website that aggregates reviews – it gets an overall score of 75, while 'Born To Die' languishes at 61.–NME

"U.F.O.F." ... is one of 2019's most critically-acclaimed records, according to the review aggregator Metacritic–WSJ

"Reputation" is Ms. Swift's most poorly reviewed album of the past decade, according to review-aggregator site Metacritic.–WSJ

Ms. Spears's latest album, 2016's "Glory," is her second best-reviewed album, according to review aggregator Metacritic–WSJ

"Compton," Dre's "grand finale," has earned positive reviews, including a 8.8 rating from Pitchfork. (It's got an 83 on aggregator Metacritic.)–WSJ

Kendrick Lamar's "Mr. Morale and the Big Steppers," from May, earned the Pulitzer Prize-winning rapper one of his lowest ratings on Metacritic, a website that aggregates critics' reviews.–WSJ

On Metacritic, which aggregates critics' reviews, "King's Disease III" carries a higher rating than its two predecessors. The only Nas release with a higher rating is "Illmatic XX," the 20 anniversary reissue of his seminal album.–WSJ

The album has not been as well-received as some of her previous work, with it receiving a score of 68 on metacritic, based on 29 reviews.–Independent

Lost in the Dream – the most acclaimed album on year-end lists in 2014, as tallied by Metacritic–Independent

Cohen's last album, Popular Problems, was released in September of 2014 to universal acclaim (based upon 26 reviews on Metacritic).–AV Club

The double album's Metacritic scores were "generally favorable" at 77 and 69.–AV Club

Ashes & Fire has garnered Adams' highest Metacritic score for a full-length album since 2002's Gold.–AV Club

Their debut full-length, released last Friday, is currently the lowest scored album of the year on Metacritic by a country mile.–AV Club

It presently languishes at 51 per cent on reviews aggregator Metacritic.–Telegraph

According to review aggregator site Metacritic, it was greeted with "universal acclaim", with an aggregated score of 83 (out of a 100) critical points.–Telegraph

Rough and Rowdy Ways was widely greeted as a late period masterpiece ... and according to Metacritic is the second most critically admired album of 2020?–Telegraph

Global reviews aggregator website Metacritic found that Little Simz masterful album Sometimes I Might Be Introvert has been the highest ranked by critics in 2021–Telegraph

Nickelback, a band who, alongside all the internet micky-taking, hold an average album rating of 51/100 on aggregator Metacritic, yet have sold gazillions of albums.–Telegraph

Rosalía's wildly adventurous third album, Motomami, has been the most acclaimed album of 2022 according to aggregate website metacritic.com, but didn't even crack the top 40 in the UK.–Telegraph

Critics were quick to praise the album, which currently holds a score of 85 out of 25 reviews on Metacritic, indicating "universal acclaim."–Entertainment Weekly

Boasting an early Metacritic score of 95 on reviews from four UK media outlets, Hit Me Hard and Soft is wowing critics.–Entertainment Weekly

It is now the top-rated album of 2020 on review aggregation site Metacritic, with an average score of 92.–BBC

Folklore has earned Swift the best reviews of her career - with an average score of 89% on review aggregation site Metacritic.–BBC

Guts has been praised by critics, with a score of 90/100 on review aggregation website Metacritic.–BBC

Moon Music has had a mixed reception from critics - with an average score of 61 on the review aggregation website Metacritic.–BBC

It's also the highest-rated album by a female artist this year, according to review aggregation site Metacritic (only Psychodrama, the debut album by fellow London rapper Dave, has a higher score).–BBC

The reviews so far have been positive. The site Metacritic, which aggregates ratings across media, gives The Tortured Poets Department an average score of 84 out of 100, which it judges to be "universal acclaim".–BBC

Reviews were also favourable, with aggregator site Metacritic scoring 70 so far.–BBC

Sing To the Moon that currently holds a score of 73 on Metacritic–BBC

The record ... is one of the best-reviewed new releases of the year, with an average score of 89% on the review aggregation site Metacritic.–BBC

Now, that might seem like a weird thing to say about a Top 10 record that scored an average of 81 on Metacritic–Stereogum

Songs For The Deaf was released in 2002 and hailed near-universally as an instant classic, and its esteem has not faded. Its Metacritic rating is 89.–Stereogum

Though it's easily their weakest album and one that Johnson has rued in nearly every single interview, it boasts one of the highest Metacritic scores of all time–Stereogum

Cowboy Carter is currently the highest rated album of the year on Metacritic–Stereogum

If you look at the numbers, The King Of Limbs was a success. Its Metacritic score rests at a robust 80, ranking it above 2001's Amnesiac and tying it with Kid A.–Stereogum

2006's Taiga, holds a more than respectable score of 78 on Metacritic, but it split Pitchfork listeners.–Pitchfork

Fatherhood, solo albums, tectonic cultural shifts, and the dismissal of a foundational member have not altered what Real Estate do or how their music is critiqued; all five of their albums have earned aggregate scores between 76 and 79 on Metacritic.–Pitchfork

Choir ranks near the bottom of the year's releases on Metacritic.com, neck and neck with Liz Phair's forgettable Somebody's Miracle.–Pitchfork

Reputation, which is ... the least well-received by critics, according to the aggregation site Metacritic–Rolling Stone

The record not only was "the best-reviewed major album of 2013," according to Metacritic–Rolling Stone

According to reviews aggregator Metacritic, Ghosteen was the second highest scoring album of the 2010s–Rolling Stone

Long ranked as one of the most revolutionary and influential albums in rock history, the "Sgt. Pepper" reissue scored a perfect 100 on Metacritic.com's aggregate review website–LA Times

It scored a 72 out of a possible 100 on Metacritic.com's aggregate of reactions in various publications.–LA Times

That album drew largely positive reviews, scoring 82 on a scale of 100 at the Metacritic.com aggregate website.–LA Times

"Good Kid M.A.A.D. City," which has become one of the most enthusiastically reviewed records of the year. It has scored 91 out of 100 on the aggregate review site Metacritic.com, based on 22 reviews, only one of which is categorized as mixed. The rest are positive.–LA Times

It was named album of the year by several rock critics and stands as the best reviewed non-reissue album of all time on the Metacritic.com review aggregate website.–LA Times

The album pulled a collective 64 on Metacritic.com's aggregate review meter out of a possible 100 points, based on 11 reviews.–LA Times

The glowing reviews that have largely greeted "Stranger to Stranger" — it scored an 85 (out of a possible 100) on Metacritic.com's aggregate website–LA Times

Upon its release in July the record was critically hailed and remains one of the year's top-rated albums, according to Metacritic–LA Times

"You Want It Darker" received near universal acclaim, scoring a 92 (out of a possible 100) on the Metacritic.com aggregate review site–LA Times

The new album has gotten generally favorable reviews, tallying a 76 on the Metacritic.com aggregate review site's 100-point scale.–LA Times

Reviews have been mixed, skewing positive, and the album has received a 66 (out of a possible 100) on the Metacritic.com review aggregate website based on more than 40 reviews.–LA Times

In addition to an extra day of retail and near-universal praise (the record attained an overall rating of 92 on Metacritic, making it the best-reviewed new album release of the year)–Variety

The South Korean Beatles managed to secure critical acclaim with "Map of the Soul: 7," an album that scored an 82 Metacritic rating.–Variety

The Alchemist's best rap album nominee "Alfredo," which has a whopping 88 Metacritic rating.–Variety

Despite the tendency of critics to undervalue conventional, this, the Gaga album with her most conventional singing and songwriting, tied with "The Fame Monster" for her best Metacritic rating up to the time of its release: 78–Variety

"In the Lonely Hour's" Metacritic average lingered at 62, the lowest rating of any of this year's five album of the year nominees.–Variety

But its low-ish rung on the pre-Metacritic ladder is due mostly to the deep compromise represented by Chris Lord-Alge's final mix of the album–Variety

Reviews for the Smile's debut album have been strong, with an aggregate score of 86 on Metacritic.–Variety

Critics were quick to praise the album, which currently holds a score of 85 out of 25 reviews on Metacritic, indicating "universal acclaim."–Entertainment Weekly

Boasting an early Metacritic score of 95 on reviews from four UK media outlets, Hit Me Hard and Soft is wowing critics.–Entertainment Weekly

Barring a handful of harsh assessments, critics were generally impressed with "Angles." On its website, Metacritic.com gave an aggregate rating of 75 out of 100 based on 11 reviews, ranging from 40 in Britain's Guardian newspaper to 90 on BBC Music.–Reuters

The Metacritic.com website, which assembles reviews from multiple sources, gave "Circus" an overall score of 66 out of 100.–Reuters

"Yeezus" has so far earned a score of 87 out of 100 on review aggregator Metacritic.com.–Reuters

The album scored 40 out of 100 on the review website Metacritic.com.–Reuters

But reviews for "Overexposed" are mixed, with the album earning a score of 51 out of 100 on review aggregator site Metacritic.com.–Reuters

Reviews have been generally favourable according to website Metacritic.com, which compiles criticism and gives albums a score. "Element of Freedom" earned 71 points out of 100.–Reuters

Reviews have been generally favorable with the album earning 70 out of 100 on review aggregator site MetaCritic.com.–Reuters

Critics have favorably received "+", which scored 65 out of 100 on review aggregator Metacritic.com.–Reuters

"Is Your Love Big Enough?" has been received well by critics, earning a score of 73 out of 100 on review aggregator website Metacritic.com–Reuters

Οἶδα (talk) 07:25, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Add these to the list of mentions:

• https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-15-7474-0_11 (need access, but includes ADM in discussion)
• https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-29847969
• https://www.thelineofbestfit.com/news/latest-news/little-simz-tops-the-any-decent-music-best-albums-of-2021-list
• https://www.icelandreview.com/news/bjork%E2%80%99s-vulnicura-among-top-10-albums-2015/?srsltid=AfmBOoqEzuD22tS63mbPH42p3AVoyQg1e9KlQyqGtkDxtelQXE4iPN3Z Yes, not nearly as extensive as Metacritic.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 14:33, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

The Springer link, to an obscure Danish research project, is the same one that was cited in the now-deleted AnyDecentMusic? article. I accessed it, and this is the full extent of its coverage:

Meta-review websites, such as Metacritic, RottenTomatoes, or Anydecentmusic, collect evaluations from various media and present average scores

I also already listed the The Line of Best Fit url above.

So that is, what, a total of 7 sources? And correct me if I am mistaken, but https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-29847969 appears to be the only source with actual coverage of ADM's ratings. So one BBC article. Sheesh. Οἶδα (talk) 23:10, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Because Google Searches are completely exhaustive? Sheesh, dude.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:42, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I never claimed that we should limit ourselves to Google searches or web sources alone. I've searched broadly across the web, newspapers, books, academic sources, and media archives. Though I'm not sure what purpose is served by downplaying how minimal the footprint is in web sources. AnyDecentMusic? is a website, one that has existed since 2009. If ADM were truly being cited with any meaningful regularity by reputable outlets for its aggregate ratings, we would expect to find clear evidence of that, especially in the world of online journalism, where aggregators like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are routinely referenced. But we don't. Οἶδα (talk) 07:22, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, it is a minimal web footprint.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 15:25, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh, oops, I missed that you also linked Line of Best Fit.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:08, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

There's also these:

• https://tonedeaf.thebrag.com/want-a-personalised-music-feed-matt-gudinski-has-an-online-app-for-that/
• https://www.antimusic.com/p/25/0404black_country_new_road_stream_new_album_forever_howlong.shtml (specifically mentions the aggregate score from ADM
• https://web.archive.org/web/20160516152518/https://hiphopdx.com/news/id.38786/title.is-drake-about-to-clap-back-at-joe-budden (specifically mentions the ADM score)
• https://www.barrons.com/articles/SB50001424052748704253204578475990725435484

I'm not arguing that ADM is a close competitor with Metacritic in terms of impact. I'm listing mentions for sake of inclusion. As to the argument, I don't think failing to find a lot of references in a Google Search is sufficient for what's essentially a blacklist against a source. Especially since Google Searches are a lot more skewed now. I've seen stuff disappear from the results if I search a keyword combination too much.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:42, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for compiling these four articles. Let's examine them:

• A 2013 minor source (Tone Deaf) with a passing mention that it does not engage with ADM's aggregate ratings or treat them as a reliable measure of critical reception.
• A 2025 blog (antimusic.com) that does cite ADM's rating, and is an obscure, unrecognized SPS that doesn't meet standards for reliability under WP:RS, and is not listed at WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES as reliable.
• A 2016 HipHopDX article is the only source here that both cites ADM's rating and comes from a generally reliable outlet. That brings us to exactly two reliable sources in over 15 years that actually cite ADM's aggregate ratings, one from BBC in 2014, the other HipHopDX in 2016.
• A 2013 Barron's article with a brief mention only to ADM's now-defunct Spotify app, not its website or aggregate ratings

So we have two citations for ADM's aggregate ratings across more than a decade. I appreciate you listing these mentions, they are exactly what I was looking to collect. But again, by any reasonable standard of real-world prominence, this falls well short of what could justify treating ADM's ratings as an authoritative reflection of critical consensus. This is not about ADM stacking up to Metacritic, it doesn't hold up by itself. This is a clear reflection that ADM's aggregate ratings are not consistently cited or relied upon in reliable, independent secondary sources. A source that is cited only a few times across more than 15 years, and almost never for its core function as an aggregator: ratings. This does not meet the threshold of WP:USEBYOTHERS or WP:UNDUE. Wikipedia is a reflection of how topics are treated in reliable sources. If ADM's ratings have not earned sustained recognition in independent coverage, we cannot justify giving them lasting prominence on Wikipedia, let alone across thousands of articles.

Also, this is not an attempt to "blacklist" a source, but to evaluate how its ratings are cited and how much weight they receive in the broader media landscape. As for concerns that Google is "skewed" or hiding content after repeated searches, there's no evidence that this materially affects the kind of high-quality, published sources that matter for Wikipedia's standards. Respectfully, it seems rather dishonest to suggest that this is a search issue. ADM is a website, not a print publication, andhas been around since 2009, not 1999, or 1970, or 1930. Usage is not as elusive you seem to be suggesting. Where's ADM's usage in Billboard? Or NY Times, Pitchfork, Spin, The Guardian, NME, Exclaim!, AV Club, The Telegraph, Stereogum, PopMatters, Rolling Stone, Consequence, American Songwriter, Variety, Entertainment Weekly, LA Times, Clash, The Quietus, Reuters, Blabbermouth.net, Loudwire, Under the Radar, BrooklynVegan, Complex, UPROXX?. I checked all of these sources before posting this RfC, and several others listed at WP:A/S and cited across thousands of Wikipedia articles. Tedious, I know. I also painstakingly searched between both "Any Decent Music" and "AnyDecentMusic". All the aforementioned sources had mentions of Metacritic scores. Nothing for ADM. I fail to see how the selection of articles presented above illustrate any meaningful pattern of ongoing or widespread usage. That isn't a demonstration of real-world prominence. It's just a selective scraping of minor references being stretched to imply a level of established editorial weight they clearly don't support. Οἶδα (talk) 07:33, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

this is not an attempt to "blacklist" a source

So you agree that there hypothetically are situations where ADM could be reliably used?

Respectfully, it seems rather dishonest to suggest that this is a search issue

You're reading too much into that. Let me clarify, as I am not accusing you of negligence. I'm suggesting that a few mentions might be buried, not dozens. I don't disagree that Metacritic has a much greater media presence, by several factors of multiplication. I'm also sure that you did your due diligence in searching for sources. I apologize if my statements implied otherwise.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:29, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

there hypothetically are situations where ADM could be reliably used?

Of course: as an external link, as a citation to indicate an album was reviewed by a number of/certain publications, as a citation for review quotes. In the latter circumstance, a direct reference is of course preferred but not easy for a lot of editors, particularly in the case of print publications. In such objective instances, there is no issue. I have seen Metacritic used and cited for all of the aforementioned purposes. It can be assessed that ADM generally publishes information accurately. That is a completely different standard from what makes an aggregator "reliable" for their review aggregation.

I don't disagree that Metacritic has a much greater media presence, by several factors of multiplication. I'm also sure that you did your due diligence in searching for sources. I apologize if my statements implied otherwise.

No worries, I wasn't really intending it that way. I believe we agree on this. But of course, I don't predict any elusive buried mentions to change the due weight of ADM's aggregation. Οἶδα (talk) 07:45, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Another one: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Black_Sabbath_e_Ozzy_Osbourne/Oy80EQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PT134&printsec=frontcover Italian-language biography. As far as I can tell, the publisher is legitimate and not self-published. I think the impact of this book is pretty minimal.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:45, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Avery Friedman sources

Hi all, got directed here from WP:RSN. I happened upon an article that seems to hard to read, per MOS:LEADCITE / WP:OVERCITE. The lede is dense:

Avery Friedman is a Brooklyn-based[4][5] musician and singer-songwriter[6] from Cleveland, Ohio.[7] Her lineup includes James Chrisman (Sister. / CIAO MALZ) and Felix Walworth (Florist / Told Slant).[8][9] She released her debut album 'New Thing' via Audio Antihero[10][11] on April 18, 2025,[12][13][14] which received support from NPR Music's All Songs Considered,[15][16] The Line of Best Fit,[17] Under the Radar Magazine,[18] KEXP,[19][20] BBC Radio Scotland,[10][21] No Depression,[8][22] Hanif Abdurraqib,[23][24] New Noise Magazine,[6] KLOF Magazine,[12][25] WFUV,[26][27] WNYU,[28][29][30] Rockerilla,[31] FM4,[32] Out Front,[33] Spotify,[34][35][36] and others.[37][38][39]

There are 185 sources total. Here's my clumsy attempt to count the publications:

~99 publications

1. https://thekevinalexander.substack.com/
2. https://nysmusic.com/
3. Under the Radar Magazine
4. https://www.npr.org/
5. New Noise Magazine
6. https://atwoodmagazine.com/
7. No Depression
8. https://rosyoverdrive.com/
9. BBC
10. fm4.ORF.at
11. KLOF Mag
12. https://www.godisinthetvzine.co.uk/
13. www.analoguetrash.com
14. KNKX Public Radio
15. https://www.ifitbeyourwill.ca/
16. The Line of Best Fit
17. X (formerly Twitter)
18. https://bsky.app/
19. wfuv.org
20. www.instagram.com
21. wnyu.org
22. STATIC
23. www.rockerilla.com
24. OUT FRONT
25. Lonely Ghost Records
26. https://x.com/
27. Hype Machine
28. POST-TRASH
29. Swim Into The Sound
30. Atwood Magazine
31. Various Small Flames
32. School of Media Studies, The New School
33. Global Citizen
34. MUSIC Matters
35. The Michigan Daily
36. https://www.ecurrent.com/
37. Rainbow Rodeo
38. joyzine.org
39. The Ugly Hug
40. Where the Music Meets
41. Steakhouse Records
42. Frankie Cosmos
43. https://glidemagazine.com/
44. The FADER
45. Pitchfork
46. https://www.stereogum.com/
47. https://idioteq.com/
48. https://varioussmallflames.co.uk/
49. https://www.mindies.es/
50. musosguide.co.uk
51. tigerbombpromo.com
52. www.musosguide.co.uk
53. https://austintownhall.com/
54. https://theautumnroses.org/
55. www.dandelionradio.com
56. spinitron.com
57. https://wmse.org/
58. https://throughthelookingglasscfru.blogspot.com/
59. https://kgnu.org/
60. https://amazingradio.us/
61. Amazing Radio US
62. https://hypem.com/
63. The Alternative
64. The Honey POP
65. Grimy Goods
66. Beats Per Minute
67. glamglare
68. LOUD WOMEN
69. www.austinchronicle.com
70. https://jenesaispop.com/
71. www.mixcloud.com
72. NPR Illinois
73. NYS Music
74. https://start-track.com/
75. Silêncio no Estúdio
76. UpToHear
77. The Daily Music Report
78. https://klofmag.substack.com/
79. BROKEN 8 RECORDS
80. https://janglepophub.home.blog/
81. AMPLIFY THE NOISE
82. WXPR
83. New Hampshire Public Radio
84. https://www.brooklynvegan.com/
85. Paste Magazine
86. https://spillmagazine.com/
87. HIVE
88. https://thedailymusicreport.com/
89. Mindies
90. https://bestfitmusic.substack.com/
91. https://www.turnandwork.com/
92. www.facebook.com
93. Bluesky
94. X
95. https://wfuv.org/
96. https://www.kdur.org/
97. CJSR
98. CiTR
99. https://www.radio3hive.com/

I see New Noise, NPR, Stereogum, and Paste on the reliable list. I verified the Stephen Thompson NPR quote as real, though that Template:Cite web probably should be converted into a Template:Cite podcast or Template:Cite AV media with a timestamp since it happens near the end of a podcast.

But there are still a lot of sources I don't recognize. Can some editors help? I don't know what's typical for a musical artist. Blepbob (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Requesting assistance in trimming Double Infinity

I've tagged the article for overquoting, but it's to the point that the article is becoming mostly long quotes. Can someone somewhat familiar with the subject help out to trim all the unnecessaries? Fundgy (talk) 23:16, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Citing Ultimate Guitar for basic composition info, with attribution

My question here is very simple: can staff-created Ultimate Guitar tabs/chords be used in the composition section for a song article, or when discussing that song in an album article, if given proper attribution?

To explain my reasoning for asking this: many featured articles for songs include what key, time signatures, and/or beats-per-minute that song is played in. Or, in the case of albums, include that information when discussing specific songs in the album. Sometimes, featured article candidates are asked to include this information (example: the FAC for "Mean" by Taylor Swift) if not already there. And while not in an FAC, I myself have been asked to include information like this (Talk:Blackened_(song)#GA_review). And I agree that, if verifiable and cited properly, the information should be included in the article. However, there are many cases where this is not possible (mainly due to the lack of officially published sheet music). To cite an example of my own for this, "The Foundations of Decay" is a fairly new song that has never had sheet music published for it. Nor have any reliable sources reported on this information. Therefore, it is impossible at present to cite things such as its key and beats-per-minute.

Enter Ultimate Guitar. In addition to publishing articles written by a staff team, they also publish tabs for thousands of songs on their website. We already consider Ultimate Guitar's staff-created content to be a reliable source. Obviously, while much of the tabs on Ultimate Guitar are user-generated, the ones created by Ultimate Guitar staff are designated as "Official", and these would be only ones allowed to be cited. Should citing Ultimate Guitar for stuff like this be allowed, it would obviously be with attribution as, in most cases, it is not officially published sheet music by the artist. To give an example of how I'd imagine this information be included in "The Foundations of Decay": "According to Ultimate Guitar staff, the song is played in the key of C-sharp minor at 75 beats-per-minute". Or something similar. And while this probably goes without saying, citing such information from Ultimate Guitar would only be acceptable in cases where official sheet music has not been published, and/or the songs basic composition information has not been reported by other reliable sources. Basically, only use it as a last resort. An issue to maybe take into account would be that accessing official tabs requires a subscription, but it's not like a subscription has prohibited what is or is not a reliable source on Wikipedia. Any thoughts? λ NegativeMP1 00:43, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Do you any information on their editorial process RE the tabs? voorts (talk/contributions) 00:54, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

No, but I can't imagine its any different than their already established editorial staff and their policies. The tabs are marked as staff-made, and the only staff team detailed on the site is the one that writes articles. Considering all of their editorial staff are also seemingly musicians, I can't imagine there wouldn't be significant overlap - if the two aren't flat out the same. Or at the very least, they'd undergo some oversight. I suppose this isn't officially detailed anywhere but the thought they'd operate completely independently of each other seems very unrealistic. Unless there's something that I'm missing here, as I'm not a user of the site. λ NegativeMP1 01:06, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm gonna say no here. Their news post regarding Official Tabs (link) notes that each song is "tabbed out by professional musicians", but there is no indication who these "professional musicians" are. At least in the case of sheet music released by music publishers, you can assume a general sense of reliability because it's a primary source; in this case, the credentials of the UG staff as journalists has no standing on their credentials as musicians or transcribers (assuming that they are one and the same). Leafy46 (talk) 00:35, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it was worth a shot. λ NegativeMP1 00:57, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Complex

I just noticed that Complex is listed as reliable on WP:A/S, when questions were raised about it at the (admittedly decidedly unmusical) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 472#Sophie Rain. Does this affect anything here?--Launchballer 17:28, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Nobody said anything about Complex in that discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:48, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Reliability of Our Generation Music

I'm not a Hip Hop head, so keen to get some second opinions on this. There's currently an AFD taking place that has called into question the use of Our Generation Music as a reliable source. I've been unable to find any prior discussions in the archive.

It appears to have an editorial team and staff writers, but asking here in case there's anything glaringly obvious that I may be overlooking? The only red flag I have is their contact us page says they're open to sponsored content, but I haven't seen (yet) any content that is labelled as sponsored. Nil🥝 23:04, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Just noting also that OGM has been used as a source by NME, HotNewHipHop & Rap-Up who are all listed at WP:RSMUSIC. Nil🥝 23:15, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

To me, it looks like they're misunderstanding what a primary source is. Sources aren't "primary" because it's the "main" source. Fundgy (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Looking for advice before I begin adding album pages for Black musicians

Hello - I started a personal listening project seeking to listen to every album indexed on Wikipedia category pages (1973 album, 1988 albums, etc) from the 1970s and 1980s. I thought I was being systematic, but then I kept finding other artists/albums through YouTube or through mentions in other songs; every single time, this was a Black musical artist/act. Even in the cases where they had pages for the artist, there were no pages for the albums. I'm an academic reference librarian by trade, so to me, if something's not indexed, it functionally doesn't exist! I can't imagine that a more robust set of category pages for albums by year would be out of line with Wikipedia's goals, but when I made my first page today (for Latimore's debut album, Latimore), it was removed on the basis of not meeting notability guidelines by a user who uses a bot to make their edits (didn't even know you could do this on Wikipedia). I'd like to make sure I'm working in line with best practice lest I have this happen with every album. I am still reading up on best practices for this kind of thing, but I write here for advice on how to make sure my work has a better statistical likelihood of meeting a bot's standards. Thanks! Caseyroberson (talk) 23:31, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Casey. On Wikipedia, we only write articles about notable topics. For albums, the relevant guideline is WP:NALBUM. An album is generally only notable if it has received several reviews in reliable sources, such as newspapers or magazines. Unless those exist, the proper thing to do is to create a redirect to the article about the band/artist, not create an article. Also, your article wasn't removed by a bot; it was redirected to another article. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:40, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Generally, you should add those sources to the article via prose and citations. If you don't do that, an editor is likely to move your article to a draft until it has sources demonstrating that it is notable. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:42, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks! My plan is to add some more pages to fill out the blank categories I added on the article too, per your other edit. Caseyroberson (talk) 23:51, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

The first thing you should do is determine if this article is actually notable, and if it isn't, restore the redirect to the article about the musician. There's no rush to create more articles before you get the hang of writing just one. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:57, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

For reference, WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES is a list of sources deemed reliable by the community. It is not exhaustive, merely a list of sources vetted by the community as being reliable. For the eras you are working with, though, newspapers and magazines are probably going to be more helpful.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 01:19, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Hmm. The notification I got said that the page was reviewed by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DannyS712_bot_III

So if that doesn't mean a bot did it...? Caseyroberson (talk) 23:52, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

The bot marked the redirect as reviewed. See WP:NPP. The bot has nothing to do with another editor asserting that the page is not notable. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:55, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for King Kong (2005 film)

King Kong (2005 film) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Should the main title header of the article be Nat King Cole & Me or Nat "King" Cole & Me ?

The album cover depicts the title as Nat "King" Cole & Me, but while some references use the form in quotes, other references do not use the quotes. WikiProject members may wish to join the discussion at Talk:Nat King Cole & Me#Requested move 5 September 2025. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 04:46, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Hot Press - reliable?

Is there any reason why we shouldn't use the Irish magazine Hot Press as a music source? I'm a bit surprised it's not on the generally reliable list already, considering how it's been around since the 70s and nothing appears to be giving any red flags. Fundgy (talk) 06:05, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I have used it in articles. Must admit, I thought it was listed as an RS. Agreed to adding. ResonantDis_tortion 06:14, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I have used it before too and consider it reliable. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 12:52, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Certainly should be included. The sources list is by no means exhaustive.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 15:27, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Include: I couldn't locate their editorial team (the team's quality usually used as arguments for inclusion). (1) Their early stuff included notable Irish journalists Declan Lynch and Liam Fay, the latter has contributed to Sunday Times Ireland. (2) Hot Press is a print magazine, and there is an opinion that print magazines are usually reliable unless otherwise proven. These aren't the strongest arguments, but I don't reasons to not include it. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 15:50, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Adding it. I'm assuming their normal coverage is generally limited to popular music. The online reviews go by a 10 point scale, but I don't know if the in-print version differs. Fundgy (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Definitely reliable. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 02:35, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Ocean of Sound

Ocean of Sound has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. czar 01:54, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Cuarto azul nominated for deletion

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuarto azul, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Rosaece ♡ talk ♡ contribs 09:49, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Canta en Italiano (Daniela Romo EP)

The article Canta en Italiano (Daniela Romo EP) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced for almost 8 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. No evidence exists that it charted. No reliable sources exist; all Google hits are either copyright violations of the lyrics or about different LPs by other artists.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

AllMusic

AllMusic is a reliable source, but I'm vague with this part: [2]

In here, album's studios are listed, Blackbird Studios, Nashville, ... Franklin, TN, titled as "Recording Location". Are we able to use this part as a source in Wikipedia? I once heard that we should not use contents listed like that way, instead we have to excerpt contents from proses, but I've seen a lot of articles citing them even though they are not in prose. (Of course, in that part, album's genre(s) is listed too, as Country. Fortunately, however, many people are not using it as a source.) Camilasdandelions (talk!) 02:41, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

WP:ALLMUSIC says that only their reviews should be used in articles, and not biographical details about the artists; I'd extend this to include other facts like recording location. However, it is normal to cite liner notes for recording information as a primary source, and so if these locations are backed up there, there's no reason to use AllMusic. Leafy46 (talk) 00:04, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Short version - the prose is usable, their version of "infoboxes" are not. Limit use to the stuff written in paragraph form basically. Sergecross73 msg me 00:46, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you to both Leafy and Sergecross, I read WP:ALLMUSIC and removed all of the studios stated in {{infobox album}}s. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 00:52, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

When User:Leafy46 writes that WP:ALLMUSIC says it should not be used for biographical details about the artists... I'm not sure I understood well, could any of you clarify? Does this comment extend to the prose written by professional staff in biographies and reviews?

Let me copy what I wrote once in another talk page (I'm copying instead of linking because I was even less experienced then, so I'm correcting here an inaccuracy in what I wrote then)... well, on second thought, I'm adding the link too, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Unreferenced articles/Backlog drives/June 2025#AllMusic biographies and reviews in prose authored by professional staff.

But what I originally intended to highlight from what I wrote there (with a small correction in the third bulleted point) is what follows:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles/Resources lists AllMusic and says: "Allmusic: Music artist biographies and album reviews."
• WP:MUSIC/SOURCES says about AllMusic: "Biography/staff reviews are reliable, but do not use the summary, as it may be user-generated or otherwise separately sourced from the prose."
• WP:ALLMUSIC says "additional considerations apply" (or "no consensus", it's not clear to me what it says) and (as I understand it) objections are against the user-generated sections of AllMusic, not against the section in prose authored by professional staff.

There's also a problem with what's written in WP:ALLMUSIC, because it conflates AllMovie (which is largely a mirror of Wikipedia) with AllMusic (which is a different thing and has content that was published in print before Wikipedia existed, and obviously that content was not user-generated). AwerDiWeGo (talk) 11:02, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I do not know what Leafy meant in that part either. Unless I'm misunderstanding what they're referring to, I think that part is incorrect. Sergecross73 msg me 11:38, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

AwerDiWeGo the AllMovie reference is from when AllMovie wasn't a Wikipedia mirror but the movie version of AllMusic. The guidance just didn't get updated.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:19, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I can admit when I'm wrong. However, I was by no means trying to be malicious by saying this: I based my response here on ALLMUSIC saying that editors "question the accuracy of these websites for biographical details and recommend more reliable sources when available", which I mistakenly overextended here when I said that no biographical details should be used. Sorry. Leafy46 (talk) 15:58, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

No need to be sorry! I'm sure no one thought you were trying to be malicious. In fact, if you go to the talk page that I linked in my comment above, there you can read a very experienced editor who said practically the same that you have said here. Let me copy what he said: "As per WP:ALLMUSIC, this source should be avoided for biographical details, especially for a BLP."

What I wrote is not meant as a criticism to that editor or to you. AwerDiWeGo (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dadaruhi

The article Dadaruhi has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced for almost 12 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. The Turkish language article has no sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 04:01, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Showbiz by PS

I've seen kinda many people citing this source when they put sources in Critical reception section. It would be better when we decide whether it's reliable or not.

Per its About page:

Showbiz By PS is an independent online magazine dedicated to music, cinema, and pop culture criticism. Founded and curated by Pavel Snapkou, the project is built on passion, integrity, and cultural curiosity. We offer in-depth reviews of albums, movies, and series — always with a strong personal voice, critical thinking, and a global perspective.

Pavel is a Warsaw-based music and film critic with over 10 years of experience in cultural journalism. He is the creator and main editor of Showbiz By PS, and has built a loyal international audience through his unique voice, taste, and independent approach. - 🎬 Accredited journalist at Cannes Film Festival 2024/2025 - 🎤 Covered Eurovision 2023-2025 as part of the official media - 🎧 Recognized by labels like XL Recordings, Domino, 4AD, Matador, Warp, Sony Music and others — with regular access to advance releases and press materials - 🎙 Runs a Telegram blog followed by over 7k readers, mostly from Eastern Europe - 📡 Hosts personal culture podcasts and video essays on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and YouTube, blending critical insight with personal storytelling.

To champion bold artistic voices — from the underground to the mainstream. To amplify music and films that deserve more love. To be brutally honest, always respectful, and impossible to ignore.

For submissions or press coverage requests, head over to the Contact page.

I wonder if it violates WP:SPS or not? Camilasdandelions (talk!) 23:41, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

It says he has over 10 years of experience in cultural journalism, but looking at Snapkou's verified LinkedIn profile, his background prior to launching Showbiz in 2020 was in PR, social media marketing and admin for a Youtube influencer. Unless you count the period from 2015 - 2018 when he did his undergrad and lists "Articles for the university, editing texts for publication on the university website" as journalism?

I am skeptical of calling him a subject-matter expert in any case (given his background is PR, not journalism) so would say this doesn't pass WP:SPS imho. Nil🥝 00:13, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Also noting that neither Rotten Tomato nor MetaCritic use Showbiz by PS in their TV/Film critic review aggregations. Nil🥝 00:27, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for late reply, @Nil NZ, then can I sure that you regard Showbiz by PS as an unreliable source? Camilasdandelions (talk!) 07:45, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm leaning that why – if more established sources were available I'd certainly be prioritising those instead. Nil🥝 22:17, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

SongBPM?

I noticed that SongBPM is used in quite a few article to source key and BPM information, including quite a few good article passed as recently as this year. SongBPM seems to be a website managed by some group called Blendist; if I had to guess, they seem to get this information by taking song data from Spotify and running it through some algorithm. On one hand, it doesn't seem like the information on this site is user-generated, the same way that sites like WhoSampled are. On the other, it is unclear what exactly their algorithm is, or if there is any sort of editorial oversight involved. I'd guess that there isn't (since a song like "15 Step", which is notably in 5/4 time, is marked as being in 4/4 time on their website), but I can't be certain about this given that stuff like BPM and key tend to be somewhat subjective. Ultimately, the question is: should we consider this a reliable source for song articles? Leafy46 (talk) 01:02, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I'd be extra cautious about using a technical source that doesn't make its methodology easily available for anyone to check, or that doesn't identify its running team. Seems like a "last resource" case, if it's even acceptable. Victor Lopes ^Fala!•C 14:54, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of It Is Useless to Resist Us

The article It Is Useless to Resist Us has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced and for Notability concerns for 6 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. Fails WP:NALBUM.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 00:48, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Entertainment Focus, That Grape Juice

I brought two sources which are frequently used among editors.

1. Entertainment Focus, About page

There's no advertisement thing so I would say we can believe this source. The owner, Pip Ellwood-Hughes, stated he has been qualified as 20 years experienced expert.

2. That Grape Juice, About page

We have garnered coverage in Billboard, The Independent, Huffington Post, New York Post, The Voice, as well as on MTV, BET, AOL, and E! News (TV). BBC 1 Xtrarecognized That Grape Juice as “the UK’s #1 Urban blog” and one of the most popular on the net worldwide). seems kinda reliable for me, plus no advertisement content. What's your think? Camilasdandelions (talk!) 07:58, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I would be unhappy listing blogs in a list covering reliable news sources. I would hold out until they decide to go professional, like BrooklynVegan which started out as a blog but is now reliable source. Mburrell (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I could have sworn we'd had a discussion about "That Grape Juice" before and that it wasnt reliable, but I'll have to search and see. Skimming it over now, at least it has established staff and college educated writers. Sergecross73 msg me 01:17, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for replying; @Sergecross73, if you found it, you can put a link of it in here. I'll add That Grape Juice source in unreliable sources section soon, also linking this discussion. But @Mburrell seems to regard both sources are unreliable because they are the blogs, right? Yet, I think I have to listen Sergecross's opinion for Entertainment Focus either. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 01:23, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, no rush to make any changes, both Mburrel's and my comments are pretty general and anecdotal - not much to form a consensus around yet. I'll do some digging in the coming days. Sergecross73 msg me 01:54, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Past discussions about "That Grape Juice" include:

• WT:WikiProject Albums/Archive 77#That Grapejuice.net
• WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 253#thatgrapejuice.net -and- stereogum.com.

Left guide (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to a group blog, provided that we can be reasonably sure that it actually exercises editorial and quality control.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 13:23, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of Me vs Me (Yung Fazo mixtape) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Me vs Me (Yung Fazo mixtape) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Me vs Me (Yung Fazo mixtape) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Leafy46 (talk) 04:24, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:How Did I Get Here?#Requested move 1 October 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:How Did I Get Here?#Requested move 1 October 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. jolielover♥talk 05:14, 1 October 2025 (UTC)