Talk:Rate Your Music

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rate Your Music article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was nominated for deletion on November 2, 2007. The result of the discussion was The result was Keep.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

"Geek Attitude: RateYourMusic.com" Daily-Rock. June 2009. Issue 31. (in French)

Proposed for deletion

Confirm that the article is eligible for proposed deletion by checking that it has:

   * not previously been proposed for deletion

Sources were given at the time of the original AfD. That these sources have not been incorporated into the article is not a valid reason to place a deletion proposal on RYM.

-ClockworkLunch (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rate Your Music is NOT usable for citations

Rate Your Music is a commercial website composed of user-generated content with no editorial oversight. It is not usable for citations according to Wikipedia policy WP:NOTRSMUSIC. KokoPhantom (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that RateYourMusic.com is, like Discogs, "a website and crowdsourced database of information about audio recordings, including commercial releases, promotional releases, and bootleg or off-label releases." Rate Your Music is a reliable source: it is not based solely on user content. Its factual information is objective and agrees with information at sites that are accepted as sources by Wikipedia. I've spent the last two years exhaustively researching, and writing a biography of a music band and its related artists and professional associates. I have found that Rate Your Music provides data that agrees with Wikipedia-approved source sites including AllMusic, and Discogs, and presents the information in a more comprehensive and efficient format. In one page, RateYourMusic displays full information in an attractive format, that combined partial information seen at other sites into one whole, with information displayed and accessed by simply entering the group name, without having to click and drill down through multiple pages. I found no errors in the information, and was pleased to find full information on one page with record names, full recording credits, full release dates (not just years), catalog numbers, one-click access to display all reissues; everything factual and accurate, all in one place. I verify everything to make sure it's accurate, cross-check information, and I repeated searches to see whether anything new became available. My experience is that Rate Your Music is reliable and factual, an exceptional resource for researchers. Its cross-references were valuable to my research: in addition to full information about the recordings of the groups, recording personnel, management personnel, record art designers, etc, Rate Your Music also displayed compilations my subjects' music is on, and some of their concert appearances. If any content at Rate Your Music was user-generated for the variety of subjects I researched, there must have been an editor verifying information because I found accurate information, professionally formatted, without exception. I would recommend not deleting Rate Your Music, and in fact I recommend accepting Rate Your Music as a credible acceptable source for information for references to cite for Wikipedia. The only apparent user-generated content at the website is in a comments and ratings section Rate Your Music allows, which does not diminish or affect the factual information at the site; it provides some additional, potentially useful and interesting information that might provide leads to direct researchers to do additional investigation at objective verifiable sources.

GoldDustProspector 19 March 2020 11:32 AM PDT — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldDustProspector (talk • contribs) 18:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Related websites?

I'm surprised that I had never heard of this site before. I believe it pulls some of its data from MusicBrainz.org... Are there related, more popular user-edited music review sites out there that you can recommend or add to "See also"? Metacritic.com is comparable, but they don't do individual tracks like RYM. The Online music databases category has a few sites, but nothing comparable to RYM, in my opinion. See my album ratings on RYM if you're curious. --J. J. 19:55, 2005 August 8 (UTC)

I've been a registered member for three years. A very good site. I'd ask the users over at the forum there if there's any good related sites, I know some have been brought up, but I really don't think any are superior. Nagelfar 19:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RateYourMusic is a fine site that is made even better via the presence of the renowned Obbop.

The "advertisment free" information was outdated, so I removed the paragraph, replacing it with a basic description of the new pay-per-click system, incorporated in 2006. Cravenmonket 21:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC) ____________________________________________________________________________________________[reply]

Hi, I am the lovely, talented, non-pareil and lithe Obbop. My presence at Rate Your Music provides a pleasing panache that the Antique Road Show folks would drool over. My modesty extends across the Web, providing a winsome frolicsome banality that reaches out and grabs the masses by their proverbial furry nodules and causes their hearts and minds to follow. In udder words, Rate Your Music is a darn good site and grows daily. 209.50.1.56 20:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The wondrous Obbop again. Hi. Recent changes at Rate Your Music. Additional neato goodies added that allows more information about bands and artists to be displayed. Site users input the vast majority of the content. SOme is apparently of the copy-and-paste variety but there is also a lot of unique content created by the large user base.68.13.191.153 15:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there so many metal bands on this site?

Because - this is music for music lovers.

Are there? I haven't been registered for even a week, but my general impression is that there's a decent mix of genres to be found? Of course, I enjoy several different metal genres (and something tells me that's not the case when you're concerned, anonymous contributor ;) ) so I guess I might not think twice about it if metal's indeed being slightly over-represented. I kind of doubt it, though. Calanor 20:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Musician which play on music instruments? Nowadays only site for music lover.Classical and modern ,symphonic and metallic.

No doubt down to the fact Americans users of the site outnumber Brits, for example, 3-4 to 1. Vauxhall1964 17:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A wiki?

I don't think it's a wiki. Here's what it says in the lead: "It is a wiki in the sense that users can add, edit and remove content; however, the majority of new, edited content must be approved by a moderator."--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC

I mean, it obviously doesn't use MediaWiki, but something else altogether.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, RYM does allow, "easy creation and editing of any number of interlinked Web pages", which is part of the definition of a wiki, according to Wikipedia. It isn't a standard wiki though. Hmm... Adammanifold (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Site documentation operates as a wiki (http://rateyourmusic.com/wiki/). The main database probably shouldn't be thought as one. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 22:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Rym20.jpg

Image:Rym20.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Fantano / The Needle Drop

Should Anthony Fantano (aka The Needle Drop) really be mentioned in the reception section of the article? Because WP:NOTRSMUSIC lists him as an unreliable source due to him being a WP:SPS, and there were 4 discussions about him, one in 2014 which came to no conclusion, 2017 (which would later be followed up in the reliable sources noticeboard, to somewhat of a conclusion, but would later be brought up again in the noticeboard that same year, and more recently an RfC in 2021, which finally came to a conclusion to what we have today in WP:NOTRSMUSIC, which says the following: "Editors have achieved a consensus that additional considerations apply when considering whether the use of The Needle Drop as a source is appropriate. Strong consensus was reached that Anthony Fantano's reviews that are published via The Needle Drop constitute self-published sources. Rough consensus among editors was reached that Fantano is considered to be an established subject-matter expert as it pertains to music reviews and that that these reviews may be used in an article as attributed opinion. However, per Wikipedia policy regarding self-published sources, these reviews should never be used as third-party sources about living people. Furthermore, there is a rough consensus that Fantano's reviews do not always constitute due weight and that discretion should be applied on a case-by-case basis when determining if content from The Needle Drop is appropriate to include in a given article." So this begs, and probably revives the question I brought up: Should Anthony Fantano (aka The Needle Drop) really be mentioned in the reception section of the article? Chrome Boy (talk) 12:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]