User talk:Ronherry/Archives/2023/September

Talk:The Storm Before the Calm
Hi Ron. Share your thoughts regarding the album if you wish to. 183.171.121.205 (talk) 12:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring in Chennai articles
Hi Ronherry. Can you please look into the recent changes in Tambaram, Chromepet, Pallavaram, Avadi etc. Have explained the user on their talk page. Would like to have your opinion. Thanks. Rasnaboy (talk) 06:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah, looks good to me.  ℛonherry  ☘  08:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

About Guts (Olivia Rodrigo album)
Hey Ron. Pop rock is sourced from The Guardian review rather than BBC. I guess pop already comes with the scope of pop rock. 183.171.123.114 (talk) 17:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Plus The Times says "Instead she has made a smart second album that flits between heartfelt balladry and raucous indie rock on songs", which means it between ballads and indie rock songs. 183.171.123.91 (talk) 10:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Taylor Swift photo
Which photo do you think is better: 1 or 3? Rangel Carregosa (talk) 00:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * They are both fine, if not great. I'd rather use one of those in the article body of Taylor Swift rather than the infobox.  ℛonherry  ☘  05:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 14
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1989 (Taylor's Version), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cassette.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Ratings template
(excuse the largeness of the messages btw...) 𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 (talk &#124; contribs) Hi. Yes, in fact. The aggregates, by showing a list of nearly all the professional and major review sources, do serve as a model for representation. Which is the same model meant for the ratings template. To illustrate, in accordance with WP:NPOV, which says to represent sources/viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. If say, there are three perfect scores (equivalent to an A, or 5 stars, or 100), out of 10 available reviews, then it would be reasonable to represent three such scores in a ratings template of 10 scores. Of course, not all reviews have scores, so the average aggregated score is also another way of demonstrating the whole in a holistic way, just another way of approaching it. But as far as the notability of a source, the Telegraph is ranked 829th globally in web traffic (according to [similarweb.com similarweb.com]), well above American Songwriter, or Under the Radar. So, with all these factors, or nuances, I made the decision to replace in themanner I did. Open to discussing more if needed at the article talk page. Gotta get back to work now tho, cheers. 𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 (talk &#124; contribs) 13:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

The current configuration of scores gives an average that's just above Metacritic's and well above ADM? --> 8 + 10 + 7 + 8 + 10 + 10 + 8.3 + 8 + 8 + 8 = 85.3. I think that's reasonable, and fairly notable review sources. As far as Americansongwriter, the site is ranked 9,000th something in global web traffic, while clashmusic.com is 137,000th. So perhaps that can be replaced. Maybe with The Observer? By virtue of its association with guardian.co.uk, it ranks 17,000th. 𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 (talk &#124; contribs) 16:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, I do not care where they rank on "web traffic", fellow editor. That should not be the criterion. American Songwriter, The Observer and Clash reviews are included by virtue of Metacritic, as the said publications' ratings are part of the Metascore (see citation in the infobox). Please abstain from trying to find a non-existent reason/problem to fix so that you can justify including Xgau.  ℛonherry  ☘  21:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Just fyi, as another barometer of familiarity or notability, the article for American Songwriter gets 30 page views a day here, while Clash gets 50. Marginal, sure. Meanwhile, Robert Christgau gets 600 :p (joking).. Also, the Observer gets 300. So, again, probably a more suitable replacement. 𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 (talk &#124; contribs) 19:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I think Esquire is a wonderful compromise. By far the highest ranked of all the sources mentioned, probably historically too, notable. 𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 (talk &#124; contribs) 19:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Your unconstructive sarcasm aside, I strongly advise you to abstain from making disruptive edits, which have been subsequently point-making as well. It is not helpful. I would be okay with including Xgau in the critical reception section if the included line is going to be paraphrased, summarizing Xgau's review of the album in a short and crisp way; the quotation you initially cherry-picked to include in the section is quite verbose and unclear as to what it's trying to say. I would support a short, concise and paraphrased sentence.  ℛonherry  ☘  21:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Okay. 𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 (talk &#124; contribs) 00:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Removal of Ray Stevens
We should discuss. See Ray Stevens Karl Twist (talk) 09:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Seven (Taylor Swift song)
The article Seven (Taylor Swift song) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Seven (Taylor Swift song) and Talk:Seven (Taylor Swift song)/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pamzeis -- Pamzeis (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Travis Kelce
Per WP:NOTGOSSIP, dating rumors or mentions of being "romantically linked" should not be mentioned in articles. Until Kelce or Swift confirm a relationship, nothing should be mentioned in either article about the other.-- Rockchalk 717 03:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)