Talk:Pitchfork (website)
Appearance
(Redirected from Talk:Pitchfork Media)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pitchfork (website) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 2 years |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
Lists
[edit]Over the last couple of weeks, I have completely rewritten and expanded this page. The one area I'm unsure about what to do with is the lists (albums of the year, song of the year, etc).
- Is this article the right place for these lists? Does it put us in danger of turning the article into an indiscriminate list of stuff? I have no strong feeling here.
- I'm particularly unsure of the list of "albums rated 10 on release". It feels like a slightly arbitrary criteria that might be WP:UNDUE and depends entirely on going to Pitchfork and counting the articles, without another secondary source to demonstrate why we care about albums rated 10 on release.
Any opinions please, I'm all ears. Popcornfud (talk) 13:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- I support removal. To me, it feels inappropriate to list. That feels like the sort of info Pitchfork should host, not an encyclopedia. But it could also be that I'm missing something too - it's not the first time I've witnessed lists like this on website articles (albeit I don't recall seeing it on articles that were actually in decent shape.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Let's remove the list of perfect 10 ratings. No WP:SECONDARY source discusses this aspect. The list itself was first added in 2010 by a Philadelphia IP editor,[1] completely lacking a source. The primary sourcing does not show significance of this concept. Adding a bunch of sources together to imply a larger concept is a violation of WP:SYNTH. Binksternet (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- OK, this has persuaded me that the 10.00 list at least is inappropriate, so I'll go ahead and remove that for a start. Thanks. Will wait for more opinions before removing any more. Popcornfud (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- I have gone ahead and removed the other lists. Popcornfud (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- i know i'm late, but would the pitchfork 10 list have notability bc of this? https://www.theringer.com/music/2020/5/11/21251822/pitchfork-perfect-review-history-10-fiona-apple-kanye-west-trail-of-dead Chchcheckit (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- This source could be used to expand the "Review system" section at the very least, so thanks. If the number of albums with 10s isn't that long we could potentially just list them in prose. I'll take a closer look soon. Popcornfud (talk) 02:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- i know i'm late, but would the pitchfork 10 list have notability bc of this? https://www.theringer.com/music/2020/5/11/21251822/pitchfork-perfect-review-history-10-fiona-apple-kanye-west-trail-of-dead Chchcheckit (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Categories:
- B-Class Alternative music articles
- High-importance Alternative music articles
- WikiProject Alternative music articles
- B-Class magazine articles
- Mid-importance magazine articles
- WikiProject Magazines articles
- B-Class Chicago articles
- Low-importance Chicago articles
- WikiProject Chicago articles
- B-Class Journalism articles
- Low-importance Journalism articles
- WikiProject Journalism articles