Jump to content

Talk:List of music considered the worst

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rjrya395 (talk | contribs) at 03:06, 9 August 2019 (→‎Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue - Toby Keith). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Criteria for inclusion (pre-RFC discussion)

With continued reverting of the main article and continued disagreement on this talk page, I think it's clear that the only way forward is to reach a clear consensus (via a well-publicised RfC) about what the inclusion criteria should be so that all entries can be evaluated against that.
This section is intended to determine what options should be put to the RfC, it is not the place to argue for one or another. The initial options I present are my suggestions, they are not set in stone.
Add another option only if your preferred way forward is not possible with any of the existing ones - a successful RfC is only going to be possible with a finite number of clearly different options to choose from. Feel free to suggest tweaks to existing options that imrpove the wording without changing the meaning.
Remember the criteria will apply to all entries, so whether any specific song or album meets the criteria is not relevant at this stage.

Option 1 - At least one source, general consensus doesn't matter
To be included on this list a song or album must have been considered "the worst" in at least one reliable source, regardless of the general consensus about whether it is good or bad.
Option 2 - Multiple sources, general consensus doesn't matter
To be included on this list a song or album must have been considered "the worst" in multiple reliable sources, regardless of the general consensus about whether it is good or bad.
Option 3 - At least one source, general consensus matters
To be included on this list a song or album must have been considered "the worst" in at least one reliable source, and the general consensus of reviews must be negative.
Option 4 - Multiple sources, general consensus matters
To be included on this list a song or album must have been considered "the worst" in multiple reliable sources, and the general consensus of reviews must be negative.

I do not currently have a strong preference for any of them, although I slightly prefer multiple sources over single sources. Thryduulf (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for strengthening the criteria, though I'd prefer to stick to more objective criteria. I feel like "general consensus" criteria, unless we find a way to quantify it, is going to lead to arguments on subjectivity. (Much like how there are so many arguments over making generalizations to the capacity of "generally positive, mixed, critical acclaim, etc etc" in reception sections all across music articles.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73: do you have a suggestion for something more objective? Thryduulf (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly your option 2 - multiple journalists or polls that deem it the worst. Sergecross73 msg me 23:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the article's title, "List of music considered the worst", this article is seen as the list of music considered the worst by the general audience. Someone said that only one source was enough to be put in the list, but if that's the case, I think the article should be renamed to something like, "List of music considered the worst by at least one source". But of course, that's not going to happen. Therefore, because of the article's title and the readers' perception of it, I'd like to change the criteria for inclusion to your option 4. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 22:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How would you practically quantify/enforce the “general consensus” part though? It’s easy to say, but harder in actual application. Sergecross73 msg me 23:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking specifically about albums, each article contains a box with the most important critics and the score they gave the album. I would say that if >=80% of the critics in that box gave the album < 2/5 (or its equivalent), then it can be considered to be "generally bad". WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 19:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
10 appraisals is a tiny sample size, and album articles are primarily edited by ardent fans who naturally tend toward acclamatory reviews. Micky Moats (talk) 11:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
10 reviews from the most relevant critics - I would say that it is enough to determine if an album is considered good or bad by the general audience. Your second point, which establishes that articles are edited by ardent fans and naturally tend towards acclamatory reviews, is not true. Be free to check any article about a "bad" album - you'll see several negative critics there (Example, Eoghan Quigg (album)). WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 17:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Those appear to be the only available reviews of the Quigg album. Judging by the scores box remains a concerning proposal. Micky Moats (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Still, they can give you a general idea of how the album was received by critics. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 00:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can't be done. This would rely on either collating and analysing a preposterously enormous volume of reviews (ideally every one), or going by what some writer claims was the overall consensus. Either approach is decidedly unscientific and contaminated by bias (for what it's worth, WP:COMMON tells me that consensus can shift). 1 and 2 are literally the only options here. Micky Moats (talk) 13:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It can be done. If a song or album is truly considered the worst, it will routinely get negative, not positive, reviews. Even if it got positive reviews when it was first published, if the consensus on it has changed, contemporary reviews of it will consistently be negative. Bias is what the article is doing now, which is ignoring the majority in favor of the minority. Use a little common sense. If a song or album is frequently, continuously cited as being among the worst of all time, it belongs on the list; if a song or album is frequently, continuously cited as being among the greatest of all time, it doesn't. 2600:1700:B280:B1C0:5C3E:18F3:5076:DD91 (talk) 05:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
this section is not for discussion about the inclusion or otherwise of any individual song or album. Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello IP. I'm using common sense: the article is about music that's been called the worst, a fate that has befallen Sgt. Pepper. It adds the qualifier that Pepper is generally acclaimed. Where's this supposed "bias"? Micky Moats (talk) 11:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The bias is something merely being called the worst is not notable. You are cherry picking sources that are not reflective how of the album has actually been received by critics and the public as a whole so you can include it in a list whose name and lead give the impression this is music widely regarded as being among the worst ever made. Above you say you have a problem going off a writer claiming something is the consensus view, but when even the person who's calling it the worst album ever says the general consensus is that its good (as many of the sources for Sgt Pepper do), that is a tipoff it doesn't belong on the list. If a song or album is truly widely considered one of the worst ever made, there will be no shortage of negative reviews. (This is the same IP as above) 104.184.182.119 (talk) 18:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"It adds the qualifier that Pepper is generally acclaimed. Where's this supposed "bias"?".
I'm actually surprised that Sergecross73 hasn't removed it (again), as he has done in the past. So yeah, there's the bias. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 00:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to work with people and find compromise. (And I again remind you that was one revert from 9 months ago that no one even bothered bringing to the talk page.) Sergecross73 msg me 10:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I know we're just brainstorming, so its fine to float concepts like this, but when formulating things like effective "inclusion criteria", you've got create it so it's enforceable. You can't assume people's idea of "common sense" is going to match yours. Quite the opposite, you need to create them so that they hold up when tested by people without common sense. For example, you use terms like "frequently" or "consistently", but terms like that are too vague to hold up as inclusion criteria on their own. What do they mean? How much is enough to say something was generally well received? Is a Metacritic of 80 enough to say its frequently positive? 70? 60? How many reviews is necessary to make the claim? 10? 7? 3? What about old albums that don't have any aggregate score, and our access to sources may be more limited? What about songs, which generally don't receive enough dedicated reviews to even have an aggregate score of any type? Sergecross73 msg me 12:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If going by a metacritic review, or aggreate of reviews or something like that, I'd say that 50% would be the fairest cutoff point. Below 50% and it's fair to say the reviews are generally more negative than positive, above 50% reviews are generally more positive than negative. If that were adopted I'd say therefore that any song/album with 50% or greater would not qualify for this list. There are other issues as you say, but I'm not certain they are insurmountable. Thryduulf (talk) 15:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, its probably not so much insurmountable as much as that we've got to come to a consensus on where cut off points are, and how to deal with every situation. (Not to mention establishing they even need to be created.) I support the above/below 50% as being a cut off point - that's actually one of them that was implemented over at the video game equivalent list. One of the criteria there is that a game can't be on there if its got a Metacritic score over 50. But that covers a lot more ground in the world of video games. MC won't have anything on an album older than like 2005 or something, and won't have one for any songs, so it helps less here. But it could still be part of a bigger vetting process. Sergecross73 msg me 15:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Frequent - common, usual; often repeated or occurring [1]
Consistent - marked by harmony, regularity, or steady continuity; marked by agreement [2]
If nine out of every ten contemporary reviews are positive, it doesn't belong. If five out of every ten are positive, and five are negative, it doesn't belong. If nine out of every ten are negative, it belongs.
When it comes to inclusion criteria, it should not be so broad the burden is put on editors to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt why a song/album should excluded, it needs to be narrow so the burden is on demonstrating why it should be included. If it truly belongs on the list, that should be easy to do. (This is the same IP as above) 2600:1700:B280:B1C0:C5B9:DA78:12EC:5C89 (talk) 19:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the definition of the words, I'm saying, creating inclusion criteria with words like "frequently" is too vague to be effective because people quantify it differently. Have you created or maintained effective inclusion criteria before? If so, I'd like to see where and how it went. Because your suggestions keep sounding very idealistic, without any understanding on how things play out in reality. Your suggestions are the equivalent of defining drunk driving as "lots of alcohol" and giving advice like "Don't drink a lot and you won't have a problem." It's not "incorrect" per se, but it's relatively poor guidance for drivers and police alike. Sergecross73 msg me 19:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would go with Criteria 4 personally, because it would make more sense to include only songs/albums/acts that are universally or near-universally reviled by critics and the press. As for how we all got into this mess, well, I think we would need some experienced editors to weigh in once the RfC is ready. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 19:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What are your ideas on how we should quantify or set objective criteria for including or excluding entries? As this talk page would suggest, vague terms like "general consensus" or "near-universal" are not enough to stop disputes, and many experienced editors participated in the last RFC related to a specific entry's inclusion. (I'm not trying to re-ignite that debate, I'm just showing that vague conceptual ideas have still lead to disputes.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My criteria would be:
1) A Metacritic score of 50 or lower
2) Placement on a number of high-profile lists of the worst songs or albums of all time or a specific time period
3) Poor album sales
If at least one of the above criteria is met, I think that would qualify a song/album for inclusion. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 22:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sales really hasn’t been a focus thus far, and “poor” falls into vague subjective territory again... Sergecross73 msg me 23:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think sales (which would need to be song or album as there are two lists) are a useful point here for two reasons. "Poor" and similar is extremely subjective (much more so than "general consensus of critics") meaning there would just be endless argument. Although it's easy to make sales objective, just pick a number, but the number of units sold is not comparable between songs/albums more than a few years apart (e.g. see the second chart at [3], US music sales totalled ~600 million units in 1973, peaked at around 1.9 billion in 2008 but reached only 530m in 2018). Album sales peaked in 1999, meaning the worst album of the late 1990s will have likely outsold the best of the mid 2010s by an order of magnitude. Thryduulf (talk) 09:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is absolutely correct. I work a lot in album sales too, and have seen this plenty too. Albums often only need 100,000 in sales to top the US albums charts these days, yet may have been seen as a dud back in the 1990s. Performances that are celebrated today would have been derided in the 1990s or early 2000s as failures, and its hard to set an objective criteria on it when it's been a very gradual shift in expectations over the years. Incorporating sales as a criteria would drastically change the contents of the article and likely lead to many new disputes as well. Many entries currently uncontentiously on the list would now become debate points. Critics were harsh with Ice Ice Baby, but it went platinum and helped its respective album go 15 times platinum. Same with Achy Breaky Heart, which also went platinum and helped its album sell 9 million copies. There's a big disconnect between critical and commercial reception. Sergecross73 msg me 13:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing participants to two related lists. The video game list was renamed from "considered the worst" and now resides at List of video games notable for negative reception. The inclusion criteria is a bit along the lines Electricburst has mentioned above, such that Metacritic is used as a starting point to judge general consensus. It wraps a few rules around what sources need to have said about the game, and also includes some criteria about user (or in this case listener) reaction. Also related, and also renamed from "considered the worst", is List of automobiles known for negative reception. The criteria here has to deal with the fact there's no Metacritic for automobiles. So the inclusion criteria starts with the basic rule that the entry must actually be notable, and with a requirement of 3 sources at minimum. There was also a rule added that the negative reception had to span a reasonable time frame to show that its a lasting opinion and not just a couple one offs. I believe between the two inclusion criterias these articles use, which have been hammered out due to quite similar discussions and content issues as this page has seen, could produce a usable rule set. Note that both lists have an exclusion rule in place that boils down to "If it was some no name minor thing no one expected to be any good, leave it out" that might be worthwhile here to deal with non-notable or self-published junk albums. -- ferret (talk) 12:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I guess it wasn't ever declared formally over here, but over the years I have been against entries in that ballpark of "If its not even independently notable then it's probably not notable for the list", in the same vein of the inclusion criteria of the video game list. (You know, the "Youtuber Jared64 released "The Carrot Song" in 2018, which received over 100 dislikes and was derided by Reddit members" or whatever.) But it definitely deserves a spot in the inclusion criteria once they're finally formulated. Sergecross73 msg me 13:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The list sort of does have a notability criterion, "A piece of music needs to be notable, popular, or memorable to be deemed the "worst ever", or it would be unlikely to top all-time public polls a few years after it was released. As such, a piece usually needs to have been high-profile at the time of its release, such as an unexpected hit that was highly disliked outside of its fan base, albums with poor material, or songs that are most disappointing by artists." although it's marked as requiring a citation. Thryduulf (talk) 10:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 4, obviously, or this article remains what it is now -- a ridiculous joke that is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 12:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Barring a more wordy inclusion rule set such as noted on related media lists, Option 4. I'd be ok with Option 2 if there's significant coverage from strong reliable sources, and such entries note that this is in contradiction with general reception. -- ferret (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then a second question would be, how many sources does a song/album need to be included in this list? WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 16:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • In regards to option 4, 3+ should be fine. It's backed up by general consensus, so Metacritic or something similar is supporting the view as well. If option 2 continues to be allowed (with my previously mentioned restrictions), I'd want at least 5-8+, with the key again being strong reliable sources. I want to go ahead and note that Option 2 (with every restriction I've mentioned) would still easily retain Sgt. Pepper on the list. Bottom line is that multiple (10+ even) reliable sources hold this view. I'm not strongly for option 2 though, because it'll just turn into a debate to raise the bar higher and higher until Sgt. Pepper finally ends up disqualified. -- ferret (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would agree that 8+ sources would be enough, but I would like them to be very relevant, important sources, and not random websites. Rolling Stone, for example, would be a relevant source. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 16:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • From what I can tell, every source currently in use is a strong reliable source in anyone's view. They are all well known newspapers and the like. There's no weak blogs or similar stuff in place. But that can all be debated *after* the inclusion criteria is settled. -- ferret (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • I agree. I also would choose Option 4, but if Option 2 is chosen, I would like to establish how a source is relevant - for example, calling a song/album "bad" or "overrated" shouldn't be enough - they should call it "the worst". WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 17:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • It seems uncontroversial that the songs/albums need to be called "the worst", and not just of a small set either. In archive 3 of this talk page one song that was regarded as the "second worst of 2015" was removed from the list, and "What's Up" by 4 Non Blondes, deemed simply one the top ten "most irritating" "party songs" was also removed from the list. When I was looking back through the archives when closing the RfC I remember coming across others that were removed/not added for similar reasons. Thryduulf (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- FYI, in regards to sourcing, we’ve already got WP:RSMUSIC and WP:NOTRSMUSIC in effect for general guidance on source usage across any music-related Wikipedia articles. Though as Ferret notes, for the most part, bad sources have been weeded out, reverted out, or declined to even be let in through page protection and rejected edit requests. Sergecross73 msg me 20:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good. As long as they're respectable, known sources that called the item "the worst" (and for example, more than 8 sources) - I would say that it would belong in this list. Of course, that's if Option 2 is finally selected. As I have said before, I lean towards Option 4. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 20:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 4 if this ridiculous article is to maintain any shred of credibility. This cannot be an article about albums somebody, somewhere has hated at sometime. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 4 I'm a regular editor at List of films considered the worst, a similar article which has been mentioned previously in these debates. There are sources which describe critically acclaimed films such as Titanic and Eyes Wide Shut the worst but they don't appear there. Likewise, many sources call films that were popular with audiences such as The Twilight Saga the worst. Because of their popularity, at least in some circles, it would take a very high bar for such a film to end up there. There needs to be a similar high bar for inclusion here, probably even higher because there's a lot more music than films and it has been around longer.LM2000 (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion has been going on for two months now, the general consensus seems to be for Option 4, and there hasn't been anyone joining in in a few weeks. Would anyone say that the RfC is ready for prime time? ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 17:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Electricburst1996: I think we can move on to the next step, which is getting some more precise language for option 4 (which does seem to be the general consensus) before putting it to RFC. Thryduulf (talk) 08:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[Comment by Electricburst1996 moved to the #Defining general consensus section below. Thryduulf (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC)][reply]
Thanks for the heads up - I checked the article and it has been already deleted, per common sense. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 17:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Defining general consensus

@Thryduulf: So, for precise language. What we need to do is define what "general consensus" is. My thinking is that the reviews must be predominantly negative, around 75% of all reviews left give-or-take. Would this be okay? Or do you have something else in mind? ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 18:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have anything specific in mind. "Predominantly" is probably not a bad word and 75% doesn't seem unreasonable at first glance. What do other people think? Thryduulf (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. This should have been implemented since day one. Rjrya395 (talk) 19:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the registered users who commented above and aren't blocked: @Wanna Know My Name? Later, LM2000, Sergecross73, and Ferret:. Thryduulf (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC). Also pinging @Jayron32 and Popcornduff: who commented elsewhere on this page recently. Thryduulf (talk) 19:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree - if 75% or more of all collected reviews are negative, then it can be established that the "general consensus" say that the album/song is bad. This, of course, means that if a user collects more reviews from trusted sites or magazines, and the percentage of negative reviews is lowered, then it would not longer be considered to be a bad song/album by "general consensus". WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 19:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to be a bit flexible on the 75% - 5 of 7 (71%) would likely be OK for example, especially if the other two are mediocre at best. If more reviews are found and the percentage lowered out of the range then I think it should be discussed on the talk page before a final decision is made to allow others to see if other new reviews are available and avoid things like (accidental or deliberate) selection bias and things bouncing on and off the list (4/5 is 80% but 4/6 is only 66% of example). The same should be true for items that are not currently on the list for the same reasons. Thryduulf (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with all of this. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 20:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My two cents: This all feels a bit unrealistic. We can barely get editor interest to get the most basic of cleanup work. Do we really think editors are going to through all this legwork of researching reviews and compiling percentages? I feel like it’ll be used as a means to remove the Beatles entry, and likely never actually fully implemented. Sergecross73 msg me 12:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The entry on Sgt. Pepper is the reason we're even having this discussion in the first place. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 17:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least you’re honest with the fact that you only care about one thing here, not the list itself, but read the section title. We’re talking about inclusion criteria. They apply to the entire article. Sergecross73 msg me 19:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason it's even on the list is because of the lack of proper inclusion criteria. None of this would have happened if User:The abominable Wiki troll didn't abuse that. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 23:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since there are some few editors going their way to keep Pepper on this list, I would hope that there are editors that are going to follow the rules from the consensus obtained. And as another editor said it above us - we're doing this so this article is not a "a ridiculous joke that is an embarrassment to Wikipedia" anymore. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 17:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not about “following the rules”, it’s about whether anyone is going to put the time in to implement it. As mentioned before, I’ve been watching over the article for half a decade now. I don’t recall a single other consistent, thorough writer consistently writing the entries. It’s all people (trying) to add/remove a particular entry and then move on. Consensus on inclusion criteria means nothing if it’s not plausible. We could also come to a consensus that the article should include 200 book sources from the 1900s, but unless you’ve got some dedicated people willing to do a lot of work, it’s not going to happen. Sergecross73 msg me 19:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm kind of skeptical about this too. I don't really have an opinion on whether the Beatles should be included, but look, if we use the proposed method then of course Sgt Pepper will go. The current version of the text relies on things like polls and quotes from notable people who don't like the album, not reviews. So I think the real question we should be asking is whether we want to consider those sorts of sources grounds for keeping things on this list. Popcornduff (talk) 12:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In practice it would be hard to cite a statistical consensus of opinion on each entry without a measure of original research and that's also overly time-consuming for a minor and unserious article like this. A proxy for consensus, which is easy to define and doesn't require OR, might be: a record is a candidate for inclusion if at least one notable source has described it as being extremely bad, or placed it amongst the worst in a list. A famous record with many sales might need two clear sources of that kind, to reflect the amount of overall coverage. Amongst these candidates, if a record has at least 3 stars from AllMusic, or has been placed in a notable list of best records, or highly praised by one or two notable sources, it should be disqualified due to a lack of consensus that it's bad. You end up with a list including the likes of "Elvis's greatest shit" but excluding Sgt. Pepper, which would make it conform more to what is usually meant by "considered the worst". I don't believe implementing this criterion requires excessive legwork, it's a simple check and most of the article would remain as it is. Glumblebee (talk) 21:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding upon this: perhaps if you find an album that's been called "the worst" by 3+ respectable sources, AND the album has an AllMusic score of <=2/5, then it can be determined that by "general consensus" the album is considered "the worst". And not a single source without taking into account scores like AllMusic, like the article currently does. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 02:16, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you guys are overestimating the importance of Allmusic review scores. They’re known for the expansive breadth of musicians/albums they cover. It’s not like their review scores are particularly revered as important. It’s not like getting a good/bad Allmusic review score is a particular big deal or something. Sergecross73 msg me 02:24, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AllMusic's rating are not canonical, but I think it's more unfortunate for good records to appear on this list than some bad ones not to. I'm suggesting that AllMusic scores (as well as appearing in notable best-of lists and multiple instances of notable enthusiastic commentary) be used as a yes/no criterion to determine whether a record should be excluded from the list, _not_ included. There might be a few "false negatives", compared to the general consensus, but these might be considered less harmful than false positives (in the absence of such a rule), namely Sgt. Pepper which is generating all this discussion. Glumblebee (talk) 03:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I think Sergecross73 will do everything he can to keep Pepper on this list, even making up reasons, like saying that the score of AllMusic has no meaning on the "general consensus", when everybody agrees that they're an important factor when determining general critical response. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 03:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes, I know you like to try to make it about me when you’ve run out of real things to argue about, but please note I was not the only person who opposed your shoe-horning of Allmusic review score into the article relatively recently. Sergecross73 msg me 13:22, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please go ahead and tell the guys at List of video games notable for negative reception that the Metacritic score means nothing, or the guys at List of films considered the worst that the RottenTomatoes score means nothing. Come on. Are you really going to say that regarding music, AllMusic score means nothing?
Also, yes, another editor opposed including the AllMusic score in the article itself - that has nothing to do with considering the AllMusic score whenever an album is considered "good" or "bad". Two completely different things. Try again. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 15:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, there’s a person directly below me who objected it’s inclusion in the article and in these these inclusion discussions, so that’s a very bizarre approach to try to take here. The rest of your comment is easily debunked as well - Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes scores are often cited as very important indicators in their respective industries. Allmusic review scores, not so much. Sergecross73 msg me 15:24, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit I too don't really get why Allmusic should be the be-all-and-end-all here. Popcornduff (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AllMusic, Metacritic, etc., there are some websites that can give you an idea for a "general consensus". WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 15:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Metacritic is a review aggregator. Allmusic is a single reviewers opinion. Completely different. Sergecross73 msg me 15:24, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A respected one, still. But if people don't agree with letting an AllMusic review be an indicator, then we can return to the other proposed method: if >= 71% of collected reviews are negative, then it can be considered bad by "general consensus". WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 15:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If the AllMusic review happened to be too generous to one or two terrible albums, it doesn't matter if those records are removed from the list. In this context, false positives bother people more than false negatives. If a few entries were removed, there would still be enough left for it to be a valid non-exhaustive list. At the moment, the article includes records on the basis of a single source (not an aggregator), such as the false-positive Sgt. Pepper entry due to an obscure one-off poll, so excluding things on the basis of a single source would be in keeping with that general approach. Glumblebee (talk) 16:51, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Using a single reviewer as inclusion criteria (A set "local policy" for inclusion) is a non-starter. It needs to be based on an aggregation of some sort. -- ferret (talk) 16:54, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you view that 1999 Melody Maker poll as an aggregation of views? There might have been five people who voted for Sgt. Pepper, assuming the results weren't manipulated by the magazine's editors, and the variety of records pollees were allowed to nominate is unknown. That's the only source that names Sgt. Pepper as a worst album, rather than just being critical, so just looking at that entry, the existing list does not reflect an aggregation of views. These are contradictory ideas: 1. You have to aggregate reception 2. It's too difficult to aggregate reception 3. "Considered the worst" means at least one source considers a record the worst. Pick #1 (would obviously lead to Sgt. Pepper being excluded) or #2 and #3, in which case I am just suggesting 4. These source(s) are trumped by significant counterexamples. If it's too difficult to survey all relevant sources, AllMusic is a source that would be easy to check. To demand aggregation to determine exclusion but not inclusion is inconsistent and just leads to unsuitable entries on the list. Glumblebee (talk) 18:22, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that some users can't comprehend the basic idea that there are some sites that can give you a general idea of the general consensus of an album/song. AllMusic, Metacritic, etc., all of those are respected sites. Melody Maker was a poll done in 1999, in which by submission, Sgt. Pepper won as the "worst album", contradicting various decades of appraisal which continues to get.
Also, since we're here, I want to clarify that various users that were in favor of including Pepper in this article, since the very beginning, were the same person, under different accounts. This was proven here. Even when they were a troll account, they were trying to make "opposing" votes invalid [4]. Sergecross was against the RFC because a link was put in Reddit that asked users to come and give their opinions on the matter. Sergecross, however, looked into the other direction when it was proven that some users voting in favor of Pepper were Sockpuppets. These users were the ones which agreed with everything Sergecross said, and when he minimized the effort of opposers, the Sockpuppets were in favor[5]. When a user even said that this article doesn't follow WP:LISTN, he was told by one of the Sockpuppets to "DROPTHESTICK" [6]. Do you know who agreed with the Sockpuppet? Sergecross of course [7]. When the users were discovered to be Sockpuppets, Sergecross has now changed his instance into "some users had valid reasons" instead of declaring the RFC invalid by manipulation and suggesting to start a new one [8]. Coming from a Wikipedia admin, this surprises me, and should be looked into. I'm more than willing to suggest to the Noticeboard to check this behavior, especially when he has removed anything positive about Pepper in the list, citing that is not the scope of the article [9] [10], but if you check the edits, there are other albums with positive things in their entries, and those were never removed by him. So, the scope of the article only applies to one album? This was shown to be WP:BIAS against one specific entry. After the discussion heated in this talk page, and someone added in the article that Pepper is considered one of the best albums, he suddenly changed his instance, because, of course, didn't want his bias to show anymore.
To finish, these users say if we want a better way to add/remove albums from this list, we should have a website or something to dictate it. When we nominate some, like AllMusic, they say that, "that website is not valid", and that's it. But they agree that an obscure, 1999 poll from Melody Maker, which I've never heard from in my entire life, can dictate if an album stays or go. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 23:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You...seem to have a lot of misunderstandings adminship. I can’t just go around deeming RFCs illegitimate months after the fact, especially one I personally participated in as an editor. It’s probably in my best interests not to meet your expectations as an admin. The things you expect me to do, would get me in hot water. Sergecross73 msg me 02:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, now we can continue our discussions here. I'd be happy to hear what do you propose to improve this article, and not let ridiculous entries such as Pepper here. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 03:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we could continue the discussion on deciding an inclusion criteria for "music considered the worst", instead of "how can we craft a set of rules that specifically and explicitly gets Sgt Pepper off this list?". I'm confident Sgt Pepper will end up removed, but the discussion is bogged down in "how can we craft this to make sure" arguments. Allmusic is a single reviewer, not an aggregator, unless I've missed something, so it's not valid for use in the inclusion criteria in my view. Countering arguing "but sgt pepper uses melody maker" is pointless, it's not about what sgt pepper uses today and what justifies it right now. What should entries, ALL entries, going forward be held to? -- ferret (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To try to steer this back to it's true mission of an inclusion criteria, I'd propose the following regarding "general consensus":
The score on Metacritic must be 'generally unfavorable' (<40). In cases where there is no Metacritic score, a discussion can be started to sample reliable sources from WP:ALBUM/SOURCES and determine if more than 30% are positive or mixed.
This is in addition to the already-generally-agreed rule that there must be multiple reliable sources describing the album or song as "the worst" or similar synonyms. Metacritic's "unfavorable" cutoff is at 39 (40 is mixed). Only when Metacritic is missing do we look to the reliable sources and gauge (through a discussion) whether the consensus is negative. Unfortunately, I don't see much other option for cases where we have no aggregated score. However, ALBUMS has a vetted source list, and in most cases a discussion shouldn't be difficult to hold. This could even be more of a BRD condition, where only challenged entries must be discussed, again only if Metacritic is missing. -- ferret (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that would be good for inclusion criteria. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 17:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. In the rare case that an album doesn't appear in Metacritic, it can be discussed here. Although obscure albums don't appear on Metacritic, some others do and Metacritic should be taken into account when discussing if the album belongs here. For example, Sgt. Pepper's has a score of 100/100, Philosophy of the World has a score of 86/100, and Chinese Democracy has a score of 64/100. At least those three are far from being considered "worst" albums. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 21:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. Glumblebee (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds pretty sensible, and workable. Thanks, JG66 (talk) 00:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like we have a consensus that this rule should be enacted for the article. I will give it a day or two and if no-one objects I will remove the entries that have a Metacritic score >40. Glumblebee (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No. Re-read what this discussion is. This is prep for the WP:RFC, not the RFC itself. Sergecross73 msg me 22:03, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK. User:Ferret, I think it's time to open an RFC on your proposal, since enough people in favour of "support" for a rule along those lines have expressed approval. Glumblebee (talk) 22:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So... is anyone going to do anything? Rjrya395 (talk) 02:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for Positive Sgt. Peppers Reviews?

I only put this here because I'm unsure how to proceed due to being new and the topic understandably being locked.. I do agree that, with the sources given, Sgt. Pepper should remain on the page, and while I am pleasantly surprised that there is indeed a quick notice on the positive reception the album received, it feels rather incomplete.

Would it mean more, or would it be more of a NPOV, to allow a few more references for that sentence? Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums as a source instantly comes to mind, as they listed it as no. 1. I feel something like this might ease some of the weird tensions going on about Sgt. Pepper, from what I've read on the talk page. Ryanson209 01:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanson209 (talk • contribs)

I don't think it's a case of needing to add more on the favourable reaction to Pepper, necessarily – more a case of cutting down the amount of negative comments that appear. There's currently a litany of unfavourable opinions almost for the sake of it – very few actually correspond with the title "List of music considered the worst". For example, the Hilburn, Goldman and DeRogatis quotes offer highly unfavourable assessments but no indication that those writers said the album was "the worst", nor do those from Childish, Goldstein, Bangs or Kelly, for that matter. In the case of Goldstein, he was under considerable pressure to recant what he'd said in NYT but he didn't back down: he wrote a second piece about the album, in The Village Voice, in which he restated his opinions and described Sgt. Pepper as "better than 80 per cent" of contemporary music (just not as good as what he expected from the Beatles). So, Goldstein never identified it as "music considered the worst" ... But Pepper's entry here seems to be home to any derisive remark about the album. Get rid of all that stuff, and retain or add comments that explicitly identify it as "the worst [album]", and it would be okay.
Having said that, the next album on the page, the Shaggs' Philosophy of the World, does carry information that balances the situation – comments from/about AllMusic, Blender, and the albums' legacy. So ... well, I'm confused. At least with Philosophy, there doesn't seem to be that derision-for-the-sake-of-it approach. JG66 (talk) 15:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This article is biased against Sgt. Pepper's. Always has, since its inclusion. Those points you presented are the most notable evidence. That's why I'm willing to proceed to an RFC - to formally establish why an album appears in this article. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 17:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well yeah, someone's just added a whole lot of examples of critics and musicians not liking it, which is clearly a far cry from the album being "considered the worst" by those individuals. JG66 (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We require a source to call it the worst ever in some capacity for inclusion in the article, though it’s not uncommon to include more general negative commentary to round out the prose premise a bit. Not defending anything in particular, just saying that’s present in many entries here and in similar lists, not just the Beatles entry in question. Sergecross73 msg me 18:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so some commentary might be welcome to avoid each entry becoming a short list of "worst ever" mentions. But are you saying that having seven such comments is appropriate? It's quite obvious from all that text, and from comments in previous threads such as the Pepper RfC above, that one or two editors are treating this issue as an opportunity to vent some sort of personal vengeance against the album. That's no more appropriate on Wikipedia than if editors only want to see flattering things said about the subject.
I've done a lot of work on the Pepper article over the previous year (and intend to get back to it sometime soon), and that's not through any affection for the album – it's because it was such an important work in the development of 1960s music. The reason why some critics and musicians (not to mention at least two of the four members of the band that created the damn thing) turned against Pepper was and is mostly in reaction to the impact it had, what it symbolised and what it continues to symbolise. At the album article, we had the same derisive opinions (MM poll, John Robb quote, the Guardian, er, "critic") all added in 2014, as they were here. I replaced most of that with text from a 2007 Mojo feature by John Harris and a comment on the album's fall from grace from Chris Ingham/Rough Guides, because those writers reported on and explained this phenomenon (quite well, I thought); I was then encouraged to go further, which is why the Robb quote is now relegated to a footnote. The point is, while the album's always had its detractors, the only reason why it would belong in this "List of music considered the worst" is because of that backlash or, in Harris's description: its "seismic and universal" impact and its identification with 1967 has led to a "fashion for trashing" the album as "iconoclastic", etc. I appreciate we're now working on a clear criteria for inclusion in the list, and thank god (and Thryduulf) for that. But to see the amount of gratuitous negativity provided by the Robb-Childish-Goldstein-Bangs-Kelly-Hilburn-Goldman-DeRogatis combination is ridiculous, as was your statement, Serge, that all their opinions should appear without anything in the way of context. As far as including Sgt. Pepper in this list, the context is paramount. JG66 (talk) 06:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I again note that, that dif of mine was one revert, from almost a year ago, that was uncontested for months, and when it was contested, I didn’t revert it again, nor have I to-date. One revert from a year ago. It’s truly baffling how much of an argument point that has been. At the time, it looked like a bit of “fan-commentary-creep”. Fans add that sort of unsourced commentary to commercial products they like all the time. I have no connection or thoughts on the album. Just maintaining an article that has otherwise been poorly maintained. Sergecross73 msg me 09:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"One revert, from almost a year ago. It's truly baffling how much of an argument point that has been." No, not once. You did it more than once. So stop saying that "it was only one revert" when you have proven, time and time again, that you don't want any positive light about Pepper in the article. In fact, as @JG66 says, Pepper is painted as extremely negative in the article, contrary to the other albums. I'm sure that the only sentence that remains in the article (which is very recent), "The Beatles' 1967 album has topped several lists of the best albums ever recorded and is a totem of the 1960s psychedelic era, yet its status has also invited a critical backlash", hasn't been deleted by you, because now you noticed how you've acted against Wikipedia guidelines in the past. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 20:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, it appears two reverts, not one, occurred almost a year ago, on a point I’m no longer advocating. Thanks you for clearing this up! This of course changes everything... Sergecross73 msg me 20:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least I don't have to read "ONE revert from almost a year ago" again. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 20:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn’t have had to have read it this time. I have no idea why this point keeps being brought up. It is no longer being advocated for anywhere. Sergecross73 msg me 21:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for "worst albums of all time"

Starting a list of useful sources – anyone, feel free to add to it. JG66 (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Thanks for those. Those would serve as a start-up point for including albums in the article. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 17:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive negative bias against Sgt. Pepper

All right - I'm getting tired of this. This page contains the next for "Philosophy of the World":

The Shaggs recorded this album at the behest of a band member's father, Austin Wiggin; the album achieved wider release in 1980, long after the band had disbanded and Wiggin had died. Chris Connelly wrote for Rolling Stone: "Without exaggeration, [Philosophy of the World] may stand as the worst album ever recorded."[7] The New York Times dubbed it "the worst rock album ever made".[8] Much of the attention surrounding Philosophy of the World was derived from the perception that it was so bad that it was good; Debra Rae Cohen in Rolling Stone was so enthralled by the album's poor quality that she referred to it as "the sickest, most stunningly awful wonderful record I've heard in ages".[9] However, other reviews were kinder, with AllMusic giving the album 4.5 out of 5 stars.[10] Blenderplaced it 100th on a 2007 list of the "100 Greatest Indie-Rock Albums Ever", and it was cited as influential to other musicians, including Kurt Cobain, Frank Zappa, Kimya Dawson of The Moldy Peaches, and Deerhoof.[11]

And for "Chinese Democracy":

This album was mired in development hell for 14 years, and it received widely polarized responses ranging from positive to scathing. Popular music historian Stephen Davis named it "the worst album ever".[31] Music editor Ayre Dworken[32] wrote: "Chinese Democracy is the worst album I have heard in years, if not in all my life of listening to music."[33] It was included in Wired magazine's unranked list of the "5 Audio Atrocities to Throw Down a Sonic Black Hole",[34] and placed first in Guitar Player's "10 Awful Albums by 10 Amazing Bands".[35] Chinese Democracy was ranked as the worst record of 2008 by several publications, including Time Out New York, Asbury Park Press and IGN.[36][37][38] Chicago Tribune noted the record in its end-of-year appraisal of the worst in arts and entertainment.[39]On the other hand, Rolling Stone ranked it number 12 on its year-end list of 2008's best albums.[40]

So naturally I edited out many of the negative reviews of Pepper, which said it was an "overrated" album, and left only the reviews that called it "the worst album". I added some positive reception, following the same formula from the other two albums. It read:

The Beatles recorded their eighth album after deciding not to tour again. Released in 1967, it was voted the worst record ever made in a 1998 Melody Maker poll of pop stars, DJs and journalists.[2] Guardian blogger Richard Smith said it is "if not the worst, then certainly the most overrated album of all time". He contended that the "excruciating" LP was often named the best ever for its cultural impact, and "not because of anything intrinsically great about the record".[3] In a 2007 article in The Guardian where musicians were asked to select the "supposedly great records they'd gladly never hear again", Billy Childish named Sgt. Pepper and argued that it "signalled the death of rock 'n' roll".[4] In 2010, musician and author Bill Drummond called the album "the worst thing that ever happened to music for a lot of reasons".[5] The album, however, has been called one of the best albums ever recorded,[6] earning a 5 out of 5 stars in AllMusic,[7] and Rolling Stone placing it number one in their list of "500 Greatest Albums of all Time".

The user Popcornduff reverted my change. I reverted it back, saying that since the other two albums follow that formula, Sgt. Pepper should be no different, to write as per WP:NPOV states. Sergecross73 then reverted it, saying that it added unnecessary detail. I then left the entry as follows:

Voted the worst record ever made in a 1998 Melody Maker poll of pop stars, DJs and journalists.[2] Guardian blogger Richard Smith said it is "if not the worst, then certainly the most overrated album of all time". He contended that the "excruciating" LP was often named the best ever for its cultural impact, and "not because of anything intrinsically great about the record".[3] In a 2007 article in The Guardian where musicians were asked to select the "supposedly great records they'd gladly never hear again", Billy Childish named Sgt. Pepper and argued that it "signalled the death of rock 'n' roll".[4] In 2010, musician and author Bill Drummond called the album "the worst thing that ever happened to music for a lot of reasons".[5] The album, however, has been called one of the best albums ever recorded,[6] earning a 5 out of 5 stars in AllMusic,[7] and Rolling Stone placing it number one in their list of "500 Greatest Albums of all time".

Popcornduff reverted me again, saying that two editors are against me.

I'm trying to follow a Neutral point of view here. If the other albums talk about when it was recorded, the bad reception it has, and then the good reception it obtained, why must Pepper be different? In first place, I didn't agree about its inclusion here, but since the RFC about it is taking ages, I rewrote its section to make it more neutral.

I really don't see where's the problem. It clearly shows a negative bias from this article, and its editors, against Pepper. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 17:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This is a long article and I've so far only touched the Sgt Pepper section, and only because it attracts controversy and has needed help the most urgently. This is not an implicit endorsement of the rest of the article, nor does it suggest that the Sgt Pepper section should be written in the style of the other sections. It is altogether a fairly poorly written article and using other sections as any kind of model is not a good idea. Popcornduff (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I hope then, that you remove any positive reception from the other albums - so the article is completely neutral to every entry. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 18:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly this. Please learn the concept of WP:OSE, WKMNL. Additionally, I’ll point out that I didn’t write the Beatles entry or the Philosophy of the World entry. Nor are there currently opposed changes to Philosophy of the World. Sergecross73 msg me 17:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I still fail to see why you have reverted any positive blurb about Pepper citing that it doesn't belong here, yet the other albums contain information about their positive reception and you haven't had any problem there. I don't understand why if the other albums contain it, Pepper can not. I'm not implying you wrote either section - but you have advocated deleting any positive thing about Pepper, while leaving positive receptions from the other albums intact. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 18:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I still fail to see why you have reverted any positive blurb about Pepper citing that it doesn't belong here, yet the other albums contain information about their positive reception and you haven't had any problem there Because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Popcornduff (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So you are in favor of deleting any positive reception from one entry, but not from the others, even if it's against WP:NPOV and WP:BIAS? WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 19:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I’ve been doing the same thing for years - I review changes that pop up on my watchlist, and I address/approve/deny edit requests that arise because the article is frequently protected. It’s not any more complicated than that. I do this for lots of pages. Many regulars do. Sergecross73 msg me 18:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I asked why did you delete positive blurb about Pepper, citing that it's not the scope of the article, but left positive receptions from the other albums, and never deleted those with the same argument. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 19:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And I explained: no other edits for other entries have popped up on my watchlist that have needed to be reverted. Sergecross73 msg me 19:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is about the scope of the entire article, not individual entires. As it appears right now, you're against positive reception in the Pepper entry, saying that it's against its scope, but the other albums have it, and there's no problem there. So you're dictating a scope from an individual entry, not the whole article. Should I go ahead and delete the positive receptions from the other albums, to leave the article completely neutral in all of its entries? WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 19:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you have good faith changes you want to make on other entries, feel free to make changes. (Though be aware of WP:POINT.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would like the article to follow the same formula for all entries. So if somebody says, "Why does this entry mention this?" - we can reply, "All of the entries follow the same rules". WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 19:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you want to make an actual proposal that you feel could work with every entry, you’re free to propose a well thought out plan and try to get a consensus for it. But just picking one entry and blindly replicate it isn’t going to work. And you’re probably going to have a hard time creating a one size fits all formula that adheres to WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:RS. Not all music is received the same. Some things aren’t covered positively and negatively, and some aspects aren’t covered at all. Sergecross73 msg me 20:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I don't understand why if another entry contains "Blenderplaced it 100th on a 2007 list of the "100 Greatest Indie-Rock Albums Ever", and it was cited as influential to other musicians, including Kurt Cobain, Frank Zappa, Kimya Dawson of The Moldy Peaches, and Deerhoof.[11]", Pepper cannot contain something similar. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't apply here, all I'm saying is to include more positive reviews of the album, to balance the entry as the others have. I still haven't read a valid reason of why my changes were reverted and why they're not valid here. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 04:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WKMN, the information about Sgt Pepper being widely acclaimed is already in the section. It's the first thing the section says, which I think is appropriate because the album is far more notable as an acclaimed album than a derided one, so it's good to qualify that first. We don't need extra sources or claims about that - we have the whole Sgt Pepper article to cover the critical acclaim.

As for the other sections, as I said before, I've barely looked at them, but they don't seem to be in good shape. Letting those stand is nothing to do with bias, it's just work that hasn't been done yet (remember Wikipedia is volunteer work - no one has to do anything). I'll take a look at them next. Popcornduff (talk) 04:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All right, thank you very much. I'm willing to help there. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 06:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that would be a welcome change, as I don’t think you’ve made an edit unrelated to Sgt Pepper since like last February. Sergecross73 msg me 11:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if that's a personal attack, but either way, I don't see the problem with trying to improve this page, especially in a controversial entry such as that one (although my changes are reverted without a logical explanation other than WP:DROPTHESTICK). I'm still looking forward to the RFC though.WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 15:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not an attack, just literally what your contributions show. Your every edit for almost half a year has been related to the Beatles entry on this list. Take that as you will. Certainly not a bad thing that you want to branch out to other entries, I’m just shocked, because you’ve never edited another entry on this list, and generally don’t even mention other entries unless it’s a thinly-veiled, obvious effort to advance a change to you want for the Beatles entry. Sergecross73 msg me 23:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, well, well

Look likes two of the biggest pushers on keeping the Sgt. Pepper's entry turns out to be nothing more than sock puppets for the User:The abominable Wiki troll. Good job, Sergecross! Rjrya395 (talk) 08:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rjrya395: I've reverted your removal of the entry (although I shouldn't have used rollback, I apologise for that) as there are good faith arguments made for it's inclusion by users in good standing and the inclusion criteria are still being discussed above. Thryduulf (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, if that's the case, could we start the RFC? WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 14:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@WKMN: If you want to start the RfC you can, but as I posted upthread I think it would be better to get have proposals that include (reasonably) objective definitions of "general consensus" first as without that I think consensus for anything will be harder to achieve. Thryduulf (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there was far more support for it beyond those socks, and it’s not the same entry from many years back either. Sergecross73 msg me 13:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, Serge. Rjrya395 (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfC - Inclusion criteria

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Further discussion needed, namely in regard to the definition of "general consensus". ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 18:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It has been proposed that for an album or song to be included on the list, the album or song must have been considered "the worst" in multiple reliable sources, and the general consensus of the reviews must be negative. An album or song does not meet the criteria for inclusion if the general consensus of the reviews is positive.

Would anyone be on board with this inclusion criteria for this article? ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 16:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak support Let's put this to bed. But it needs spelled out what "general consensus" is. -- ferret (talk) 16:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - this proposal, as is, is too vague to be effective inclusion criteria. “General consensus” is too vague, and will just lead to the same sort of arguments that we’re trying to avoid with this. This also completely ignores the brainstorming/planning discussions that have been happening for the last few months. If something as vague as this would work, we would have started this RFC months ago. Sergecross73 msg me 17:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Noting that the RFC writer attempted to change the premise of the entire RFC after 5 people have given stances. That’s extremely dishonest and not okay. This really needs to be closed and redone by someone who knows what they’re doing. Sergecross73 msg me 18:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support I would like to see something more stringent than "general consensus" which is vague enough to be almost useless as a qualifier, but I concur with the spirit of the idea. --Jayron32 17:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Establish what "general consensus" means first, though: 8+ sources, 3+ sources? Etc. After that's defined, yes, an album only should be included under that criteria. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 17:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Sergecross73. This RfC is premature as "general consensus" is too vague per all the discussion on this page. Thryduulf (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

And it's already closed. Rjrya395 (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue - Toby Keith

I may have found some sources for Toby Keith's "Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue (The Angry American)" as being a candidate for the list. I'm not sure if they're enough or are actually considered valid sources.

https://web.archive.org/web/20050124091143/http://www.blender.com/guide/articles.aspx?id=819 https://www.villagevoice.com/2009/12/09/the-50-worst-songs-of-the-00s-f2k-no-18-toby-keith-courtesy-of-the-red-white-blue-the-angry-american/ https://music.avclub.com/week-31-toby-keith-american-1798219834 https://www.wideopencountry.com/14-controversial-country-songs-throughout-history/

73.240.105.138 (talk) 02:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, none of these actually called it “worst song ever”. Two only place it around 20th worst - not a convincing argument - an the others just seem to calm it “controversial”, which is a separate issue really. Sergecross73 msg me 13:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yet Sgt. Pepper's gets to stay on. Rjrya395 (talk) 02:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing is very different between the two. Have you not taken the time to read it all? Sergecross73 msg me 02:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Buddy, your entire argument for Sgt.'s inclusion is one critic poll calling it the worst and a handful of people claiming its over-rated (which apparently trumps the majority of sources calling it the best album ever made). You have no right to talk. Also, when are we going to open that RFC? Rjrya395 (talk) 03:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please actually comment on the sources in question. Sergecross73 msg me 03:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What? You don't like I'm pointing out your hypocrisy? Rjrya395 (talk) 03:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_music_considered_the_worst&oldid=910014630"