Talk:The Big Day (album)

Stop Blocking Review Scores From People Just Because You Don't Like Them Personally

Anthony Fantano is the most influential music reviewer out there right now. Reviewing music is his full time job. It's literally how he pays for food and rent, so the "he's not a professional" "argument" holds no water. Wikipedia should be about aggregating and spreading knowledge and information, not gatekeeping and nit picking details for no reason other than inflating some random editor's ego a bit. This is censorship for censorship's sake and it's, quite frankly, pretty disgusting to see. He even used to post written versions of his reviews that could have easily been cited by Wikipedia. If the editors actually worked with him instead of acting like children, he'd probably start doing it again and then everyone wins. Just because his reviews are currently in video form and not on some irrelevant website doesn't mean his opinion is invalid.

Anthony gave this album a 0/10, citing it's poor lyrics, poor vocal performances, and overall drop in quality compared to Chance's earlier releases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sexyputin69 (talk • contribs)

@Sexyputin69: This isn't something made up by the editors of this article to shield The Big Day from receiving a strong 0. Read WP:NOTRSMUSIC, where after three discussions about Fantano the conclusion was reached that "Reviews by Anthony Fantano are self-published. However, Fantano is usable if his review was published by a third party." Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 14:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@Nice4What: Honestly, trash excuse for a trash policy. His opinion is valid whether some soulless, blood-sucking corporation decides to fleece him for ad revenue or not. You're ruining Wikipedia's reputation with crap like this all across the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sexyputin69 (talk • contribs)

@Sexyputin69: Don't blame me when I had nothing to do with the revert or any of the three discussions regarding Fantano's reliability. If you want, start a new discussion about it for 2019 about how you want TheNeedleDrop to be an exempted self-published source. Also, I doubt Wikipedia's reputation is hardly hit... there were discussions to include his 10/10 review for Kids See Ghosts, but even then it wasn't added.

(Also, please don't forget to sign your messages.) Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 14:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

This Album has been incredibly polarising among the music community and I feel like that should be mentioned on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.193.146.193 (talk • contribs)

@194.193.146.193: Find a reliable source and add it to the article. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 14:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Affied: A third-party source has been found. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 13:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Aardwolf68: Bring your concerns here. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 22:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Dude, get over it. Fantano's review was NOT published by a third party source. Your constant vandalism just because you think this is about our opinions rather than Wikipedia's own policy guidelines is ridiculous. Grow up, his review is not allowed to be mentioned in the infobox, thank you. ~Aardwolf68 Aardwolf68 (talk) 03:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

The review is covered by two third-party sources here: Junkee and Don't Bore Us. Therefore, there's no reason to try to hide this poor review. It gives context in the later paragraph about Chance responding to criticism and memes. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 16:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Nice4What: It was covered by a third party source, not published. Read the rules, and follow them. And no context is needed for another paragraph that explains itself

~aardwolf68 Aardwolf68 (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Aardwolf68: Sounds good to keep it out the professional reviews template so long as the review itself isn't published by a third party. Though is there any example of a third-party source doing this? Also, be sure to use the "ping" template ( {{ping|User}} ) to notify an editor as just typing '@User' doesn't work. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 16:56, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Your argument makes little sense. His reviews are allowed if, and ONLY IF they are published by a third party source. And guess what? It isn't. So stop pretending that his review is allowed to be mentioned, because it isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aardwolf68 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Aardwolf68: I agreed with you not to include the review for now... my point is that if the review must be published by a third-party source, yet there are no third-party sources that ever do that, wouldn't that de facto exclude Fantano from ever being included? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 17:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it would exclude him from being include, because they are the rules, plain and simple..if it were MY way, I would include Fantano, Spectrum Pulse, ARTV, etc. But since the rules prevent them from being included, as they are independent reviewers, they are to be excluded. ~ Aardwolf68 (talk) 01:25, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

This sentence feels incredibly misleading

"The album was lauded by most critics..."

Not arguing about who's review scores should or shouldn't be in the article. But even the reviews that are clearly allowed in the article are pretty lukewarm.

Generally positive != "Lauded by most critics" CACarpenter (talk) 06:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)