Talk:Broke with Expensive Taste

Promotional singles
Isn't No Problems (Angel Haze diss) a promotional single from the album?--Nikinikolananov (talk) 06:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Technically, yes. It says here that promotional singles are normally free recordings used to promote an album. However, I'm not quite sure if it was actually released through Banks' record label, or if it was given to radio stations, nightclubs, etc. We'll definitely need to do some research.--Bgatzby (talk) 23:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Broke with Expensive Taste
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Broke with Expensive Taste's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article. Reference named "so12": From 1991 (EP):  From Azealia Banks:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2014
"BBD" contains a sample of "Swoop" by ETC!ETC! & Brillz

2602:304:958:C3A0:449F:69E2:9375:F9BC (talk) 01:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

For expansion

 * http://www.vogue.com/4529433/azealia-banks-broke-with-expensive-taste-interview/
 * http://www.complex.com/music/2014/12/azealia-banks-interview
 * http://www.rollingstone.com/music/features/azealia-banks-long-twisted-road-to-broke-with-expensive-taste-20141125

Simon (talk) 04:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Tour: http://web.archive.org/web/20150318104843/http://www.ampya.com/news/Live/So-war-s-bei-Azealia-Banks-in-Berlin-EN100186/

HĐ (talk) 10:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Tour review

 * http://www.mtv.co.uk/the-wrap-up/blog/review-azealia-banks-live-in-brixton
 * http://diymag.com/2014/09/24/azealia-banks-brixton-academy-london-live-review

— HĐ (talk) 10:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should the ratings template repeat a score discussed in prose?
Should the score from Metacritic be included in the ratings template? Dan56 (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Votes


 * 1) No per my comments below. Dan56 (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes per my comments below. Azealia911 (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes.  I would think that it's more of a courtesy to readers to repeat the Metacritic score than it is putting undue weight on a single score.  It's not that big of a issue, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) No. Per Dan and per repetition. The score is already in the prose and there is no need for it to be in the score box again. Simple. —  Tomíca (T2ME) 19:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe it is neutral to repeat a score that is discussed in detail in the second sentence of the Critical reception section. No other score that is in the ratings template is given undue weight and repeated twice for readers. The ratings template is meant to be an optional supplement to the text, not a quick-glance summary for looky-loos who aren't actually readers. There's no encyclopedic purpose of reiterating one score in particular for actual readers IMO. The ratings template has several other optional parameters other than for aggregate scores such as Metacritic that do not need to be used but still have value for a particular circumstance, such as when the section's prose is in development and the scores/reviews have yet to be summarized. The current state of this article's section on reviews does not seem to warrant using the "MC" parameter anymore than it does the "subtitle", "width", or "no prose" parameters. Dan56 (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Discussion

MOS:ALBUM says to keep a neutral point of view when editing the ratings template, but it seems like undue weight (depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, take your pick) if the article regurgitates a score in an illustrative box when the score's meaning and context is detailed already in prose as it currently reads: "At Metacritic, which assigns a normalized rating out of 100 to reviews from mainstream critics, it received an average score of 77, based on 26 reviews." Dan56 (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

If Metacritic's score isn't discussed in prose, as none of the scores currently in the template are, then I would understand its placement in the template, however. Dan56 (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is really a neutrality issue here, repeating a score isn't really boasting about an albums reception, but it definitely is worth discussion on the basis of if it needs to be there twice. I'd say yes, as it sums up the infobox, and gives an overall score of the critical reception in easy figures, for quick viewing.
 * I don't think it's really a point to use the argument you gave about "Looky-loos", Wikipedia isn't just for readers who want to spend time reading everything, so an easy score separated into the sub-section of "aggregate scores"
 * Finally, I'm not sure if there's an official rule on using other articles as examples, but heaps of other album articles use the sum-up, while still including it in the main body of text, and nobody else seems to mind. Just my two-cents. Azealia911 (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the 10 scores from reviewers currently in the template already give a sufficient illustration of what kind of reception this record received, which was positive. Repeating "77 out of 100" becomes an issue of emphasizing the point of view of one source in particular, Metacritic, and it may be give readers the impression we're being partial as editors to one source. Dan56 (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I do see your points! I guess we'll just have to wait for some other usual editor to chime in.
 * @HĐ, @IPadPerson, @Sweden Rocks hard, any thoughts? Azealia911 (talk) 19:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I didn't realise "Per Dan" was an arguable point in a debate, Tomica. Azealia911 (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I am gonna rephrase. I agree with all of the Dan's comments and arguments why it shouldn't be in the ratings template, is it better now? :) — Tomíca (T2ME) 19:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, don't take my comments as sounding sassy and sarcastic, I just genuinely wasn't sure if you were giving that opinion because they gave the same one, per "Per Dan". Azealia911 (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)