Talk:Everything Is Love

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
WikiProject iconR&B and Soul Music Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music articles
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2019 and 28 February 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Leelee19951995.

Above undated message substituted from

talk) 20:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Critical reviews

So, is it "widespread critical acclaim"? No. Is it "some critical acclaim"? No. Is it "mostly positive reviews"? No. Is it "positive reviews"? No.

As we do not have an independent reliable source saying any of these things, all of them are your

opinions
and do not belong here.

If the reviews section "obviously" supports your opinion, you are not adding anything. You are repeating what the section already says. You are saying what the section says. You are rewording the section. You are being redundant. You are saying the same thing several times. You have making the section repeat itself. Should I say that several more times?

If the reviews section does not "obviously" support your opinion, you are adding something new without a source. - SummerPhDv2.0 17:59, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]


And yes, Metacritic's score indicates "universal acclaim". A few problems, "universal acclaim" is not the same as "widespread acclaim" or any of those other phrases that have been tried. (Further, it isn't true. While it received a lot of positive reviews, there are a few that I would not call "enthusiastic public praise" (i.e., "acclaim"), though the word "universal" would mean everyone.)
Next, because Metacritic's wording is applied by algorithm and is not subject to editorial oversight, the general consensus is that we may directly quote it with in-line attribution, we should not use it in the lead or echo it in Wikipedia's voice. (Usually, we give the numbers in the "Critical reception" section and say "...indicating 'universal accliam'.") - SummerPhDv2.0 06:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're behaving like a stickler; I'm just going to open an RfC.
talk) 17:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:SYNTH since Metacritic is a reliable source stating "acclaim". If you forgot about it, here's the discussion awhile ago [1]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 12:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
You seem to be referring to a different situation. Ss112 provided an independent reliable source (subject to editorial oversight, rather than generated by an algorithm). Their opinion on Metacritic at that point was moot. - SummerPhDv2.0 18:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SummerPhDv2.0: Let me get this straight, are you saying it should say "universal acclaim" instead of "widespread acclaim", since the word "universal" is on Metacritic but "widespread" isn't? Like for example, Everything Is Love received universal acclaim from critics. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm saying we should quote it with inline attribution. Saying an album received universal acclaim (or widespread critical acclaim or any of the other phrases editors have come up with) in Wikipedia's voice is quite different from saying that Metacritic's score indicates "universal acclaim". - SummerPhDv2.0 02:00, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SummerPhDv2.0: Do you mean this style? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No to the first part, yes to the second, as explained below. - SummerPhDv2.0 04:27, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SummerPhDv2.0: Okay, but why the first part is a problem? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 23:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
it says -- without sources and in Wikipedia's voice -- that every critic praised the film enthusiastically. - SummerPhDv2.0 04:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SummerPhDv2.0: It's already sourced in the critical reception section, it doesn't always needs to be sourced in the lead section if there's a source (Metacritic) below the article. Like the article Beautiful Thugger Girls. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:22, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I take it you are not following the discussion below this. You seem to be re-asking questions answered there. - SummerPhDv2.0 06:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SummerPhDv2.0: Sorry, I didn't notice that. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Metacritic shows "generally positive reviews". I guess it should be changed.

Cornerstonepicker (talk) 21:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

The consensus established below was not to take "universal acclaim", assigned by Metacritic's algorithm without editorial oversight, and repeat it in the article in Wikipedia's voice.
It would seem to me that taking "generally positive reviews", assigned by Metacritic's algorithm without editorial oversight, and repeating it in the article in Wikipedia's voice would be similar enough to share a similar fate. - SummerPhDv2.0 23:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Metacritic's indication of "universal acclaim"

The consensus is that Metacritic's indication of "universal acclaim" cannot be used to verify the assertion that this album "was met with widespread critical acclaim".

The consensus is that the "universal acclaim" descriptor should be attributed to Metacritic instead of being stated in Wikipedia's voice.

Cunard (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Can Metacritic's indication of "universal acclaim" be used to verify that this album "was met with widespread critical acclaim"? One editor has objected to this, reasons detailed in the

talk) 17:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Votes
No - I change my vote to due to De88 has pointed out. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 10:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - Why reword a two word statement, replacing one word with two? There are clearly multiple editors with multiple interpretations (see below). Picking one ignores rather than resolves the disagreement. Inline direct attribution eliminates all of the expressed concerns: "At Metacritic, which assigns a normalized rating out of 100 to reviews from mainstream critics, the album received an average score of 82, based on 19 reviews, indicating 'universal acclaim'." Simple, factual, zero question of which interpretation is "correct". - SummerPhDv2.0 19:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. I agree with SummerPhDv2.0 that the "univeral acclaim" conclusion should be explicitly attributed to Metacritic. Plenty of music critics are not sounding the "acclaim" line in their reviews – they are describing the flaws in the album, or some sense of dissatisfaction along with the good stuff. To me, it does not look like the album has received actual universal acclaim, only calculated "universal acclaim" according to Metacritic's algorithm. Binksternet (talk) 23:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No – In my time editing articles on here, particularly albums, the line "widespread critical acclaim" is normally reserved for albums that get an overwhelming amount of praise from critics. Judging by the article's score, the tag "universal acclaim" should be used as it has one negative and one mixed review. Widespread acclaimed albums tend to have all positive reviews, hence the "widespread" tag. Take Melodrama and Damn as examples, two albums which scored above a 90 on the aforementioned site. Also, I'd reserve using that line after year-end lists are conducted, not two weeks after the album dropped. And for reference, take the Arctic Monkeys' Favourite Worst Nightmare and Whatever People Say I Am, That's What I'm Not albums which both have the same Metacritic score as Everything Is Love and have "universal acclaim" written in their sections. De88 (talk) 01:06, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No a blanket line like that needs a source validating it. —IB [ Poke ] 03:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No as stated by SummerPhDv2.0. I would add "At Metacritic, which assigns a normalized rating out of 100 to reviews from mainstream critics, the album received an average score of 82, based on 19 reviews, indicating 'universal acclaim', by most music critics" as there is a mixed review and a negative one. I'm sure if you look outside Metacritic you can find more mixed/negative reviews. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - We already have guidance on this at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources#Aggregates - use the exact wording Metacritic does and directly quote/attribute it to MC. That way, we can avoid these silly squabbles. Additionally, I generally oppose the phrase "widespread critical acclaim". It's redundant. Acclaim is already widespread. It's like saying "really very good reviews". I'm only okay with "universal" because that can be directly attributed and sourced. Otherwise, just "critical acclaim" is fine. Sergecross73 msg me 15:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Just quote what Metacritic says, attribute their "universal acclaim" descriptor, and leave it at that. A single negative review proves that the acclaim was not "universal", but we're not saying this in Wikipedia's voice. We're just quoting a source that uses silly, overly-promotional language. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No per comments by De88 and User:NinjaRobotPirate, above. -The Gnome (talk) 11:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No per comments before me, as well as the thought that one source doesn't pass the eye test for the phrase "widespread" critical acclaim. StrikerforceTalk 20:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No per above comments, especially SummerPhD, Sergecross73, and NinjaRobotPirate's. Metacritic's critical reception summaries (based on their own calculations of the reviews they select) should be directly attributed to Metacritic. I'm also against the redundant,
    talk • contribs) 04:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Discussion

There seems to be precedent already, or at least validation, of this method of distributing the information available from a Metacritic source; see

talk) 17:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

As an aside, your understanding of calls for "universal healthcare", "universal vaccination", "universal suffrage", etc. must leave you puzzled, as healthcare, vaccination and voting rights are already "widespread". I checked the first ten results on my search and found a more universal definition then the one you are citing.[2],[3],[4], etc.
More to the point, there is clearly a lack of universality in your interpretation here. Over the past few days, we've had the article saying it had received "widespread critical acclaim", "some critical acclaim", "mostly positive reviews", "positive reviews", "widely positive reviews"(?) and probably a few others. Inline attribution nicely resolves this and is widely used.
Thus Star Wars: The Force Awakens has four independent reliable sources, written by humans with editorial oversight which directly state that the film received "overwhelmingly positive reviews" and a bit from Metacrtic stating, "On Metacritic, the film has a score of 81 out of 100, based on 55 reviews, indicating 'universal acclaim'."
If, as you seem to be arguing, Metacritic's meaning of "universal acclaim" is obvious, citing Metacritic saying it should obviously convey that meaning. Why reword it if quoting it directly does the same job and negates my concern? - SummerPhDv2.0 19:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's shitty writing.
talk) 20:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources#Aggregates, which you pointed to, recommends similarly "shitty writing": "At Metacritic, which assigns a normalized rating out of 100 to reviews from mainstream critics, the album has an average score of 46 out of 100, which indicates 'mixed or average reviews' based on 11 reviews." - SummerPhDv2.0 01:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are overlooking context; even "universal healthcare" does not imply all people everywhere but
talk) 20:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
"...even 'universal healthcare' does not imply all people everywhere but 'all citizens...'". "Universal critical acclaim" seems to mean all critics agreed except those who disagreed. - SummerPhDv2.0 01:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
talk) 20:05, 27 June 2018 (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.

Lead sentence

I have revised it to introduce the artists of the work as "Beyonce and Jay-Z, billed as the Carters". They are referred to by their individual stage names throughout the article, and known best to readers this way (

talk) 21:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Future singles and dates

The infobox lists single releases. Currently, an IP editor who is ignoring talk page comments is re-inserting future singles into the infobox. These have future dates, have not happened and are unsourced.

If they are still there later today, I will remove them. The IP will receive a final warning. If they restore them without first discussing the issue, they will be blocked from editing. - SummerPhDv2.0 12:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We're still getting a bunch of unsourced singles being added by the IP. Over the course of their editing, the dates have been shifting, indicating they aren't using a reliable source. Maybe they're valid, maybe they aren't. Without sources confirming the dates, they will not stay in the article.
We've already tried page protection, which stopped the problem briefly. Next up is a range block, stopping anyone using their ISP from editing Wikipedia. Failing that, an abuse report to the ISP is a last resort. - SummerPhDv2.0 15:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should this album be considered as part of both artists' (Beyoncé and Jay-Z) respective discographies?

What is the consensus about this? I think it should be. Beyoncé herself includes the album as part of her discography, as it can be seen on her site: https://beyonce.com/album/. Sites like Pitchfork lists Everything is Love as a collaborative project under both artists' name: https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/the-carters-everything-is-love/

The album is also listed as part of those artists' discographies on RYM and Album of the Year.

Last, but not least, it is credited too on several international charts as Beyoncé and Jay-Z's album: Germany - https://www.offiziellecharts.de/album-details-363223 France - https://lescharts.com/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Beyonc%E9 Sweden - https://swedishcharts.com/showitem.asp?interpret=The+Carters&titel=Everything+Is+Love&cat=a

Jimoincolor (talk) 15:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes - Because Wikipedia articles are based on
    talk) 03:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Everything_Is_Love&oldid=1207157488"