Talk:Tiny Music... Songs from the Vatican Gift Shop

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Alternative music Mid‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.Alternative musicWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative musicTemplate:WikiProject Alternative musicAlternative music articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pitchfork Media

Pitchfork Media is NOT a reliable source for reviews, and not a professional website.

yes, true, specially in the beginning years.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.72.18.10 (talk) 04:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

pitchfork media is a reliable source it's a music media site not a personal site--Wikiscribe (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not just read this review, it's not professional at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.186.35 (talk) 22:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i will say again Pitchfork Media is a reliable source--Wikiscribe (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? It just uses the "review as an outlet for bashing a band, not to make any real criticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.186.35 (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While Pitchfork Media is a great website to get professional reviews from, this article doesn't even qualify as one. It's just a rant article that bashes a band for moot points, and gives it a ridiculously low score for silly reasons. I concur that we remove it from the list of reviews. Kris Semelka (talk) 03:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a Glam album

Just straight a simple. Why were the Grunge and Alternative tags removed? It does not make sense to call this Glam at all. And Allmusic isn't even listed as reliable according to Wikipedia's music sources TheCrew65 (talk) 03:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The grunge and alternative labels were removed because the sources did not directly, unambiguously describe the album as a whole as either of those labels (see WP:EXPLICITGENRES for further information), while glam is directly supported by the AllMusic source. And AllMusic's staff-written content is reliable per WP:RSMUSIC, and with the genre being explicitly used to describe this album in the prose, it is acceptable for the infobox. JeffSpaceman (talk) 03:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the problem though. Even if a source's website is considered reliable, there are instances in which a credible source lists a genre that does not fit the style at all, and are from articles from less then . The same thing happened two years ago on the Drive_(Incubus_song) page where it was listed falsely as nu metal for over a year. This is another case as such, and instances such as these should only be taken with a grain of salt.

Even the official Allmusic review (not user reviews) acknowledges that there are more hints of grunge than glam on the album: https://www.allmusic.com/album/tiny-musicsongs-from-the-vatican-gift-shop-mw0000646502. So even if we have to use Allmusic, their official description is more likely reliable than an editor's review of the album TheCrew65 (talk) 04:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The official description is objectively not more reliable -- in fact, WP:NOTRSMUSIC specifically states that the genre summary should be avoided, as it may be user-generated or sourced separately from the review: that may be just speculation, but what is not speculation is that there is consensus that the summary can't be used. And it's not the official album review that's being cited for the genre -- it's the official biography of the band written by the site, which unambiguously describes the album as "bold glam rock," thus satisfying WP:EXPLICITGENRES. Just because an editor doesn't think something fits in on a page does not mean it has to go, certainly not when reliable sources verify the information. Others are free to chime in with their thoughts, but until consensus swings into your favor, the article will remain as is, per WP:STATUSQUO. Sorry. JeffSpaceman (talk) 12:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you just add pitchfork as a source now? As above stated, it's literally just a website that berades everything in their reviews!

This is why I hate wikipedia because all they do is just rely on clearly quiestionable sources at best, and blatently fake sources at worst! There needs to be an overhaul with what's considered credible for this dishonest piece of crap! TheCrew65 (talk) 18:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]