# Talk:The Marble Index

Since the (relatively unknown) Candidan rock band (The Marble Index (band)) took its name from the Nico album (The Marble Index (album)), I think that the page "The Marble Index" should be about the album, with a disambiguation note on top, not a fork page. 
/skagedal... 16:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Deciding whether an article constitutes a primary topic is based on usage, not on what was the origin of the term. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary_topic. I am admittedly biased because I am Canadian, but I also note that many (perhaps the majority) of Google hits for The Marble Index are for the band, not the album. --Paul Erik 17:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I stand corrected! /skagedal... 21:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
The band average less than 5 views a day, while the album gets over 100 views a day. The band appear to be barely notable, and a Google search only turned up hits for Nico's album on the first few pages I checked - nothing on the band at all. A hatnote is sufficient for the few readers looking for the band, and there is no need to impose an extra click through for the majority of readers. Per WP:Primary topic the album is now at the main title. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Good. This will probably still be the right choice in 2027. :) /skagedaltalk 18:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I have (again) removed a Wordsworth quote from the beginning of the article.  This was previously restored with the edit summary "I do think that the Wordsworth quote fits in" but I'm afraid we need a better reason for its inclusion than "it fits." Is this poem actually the source for the album's title?  If so, we need a reference, and in any case it does not belong in the article's lead. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 22:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I am copy-editing this article. Feel free to send questions or comments to me. This edit should take up to three days.
Best. -EPDev (Talk to me) --EPDev (talk) 05:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Readers of this website send lists to the webmaster whom then adds them online. These informations were not verified by a journalist who had the documents in his hands.
Consequently it can't be considered as a wp:RS. A discussion with only the opinion of user 3family6 is not a wp:consensus. Carliertwo (talk) 11:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't find where you got that information, that readers of the website provide the webmaster with the information he then puts on the site. Even if true, how do you know the webmaster doesn't verify the information from readers by his own means? And the discussion I cited involved @JG66: along with @3family6:. Dan56 (talk) 19:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Because I sent him a list by mail years ago and I didn't join a picture of the magazine. I transcripted it. Carliertwo (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm confused by this response @Carliertwo:. "Transcripted" what? What "picture"? And again, how do you know the webmaster didn't verify the information you claim is sent by readers? Dan56 (talk) 07:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
I meant I didn't scan the page at the time as it was at least 10 years ago, @Dan56:. Anyway, it was not a list written in a non-English magazine, I doubt he bought it later. Carliertwo (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Lists based on Acclaimed Music have been used in Good Articles, such as Illmatic, for example.--Bleff (talk) 22:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
This is not a reason. It shouldn't be. What is the difference between this site and a blog ? None. The webmaster of this site is not a journalist.Carliertwo (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I think it's a very useful source. The site's sole purpose is to present album and song ratings and scores, critics lists, etc. – it just compiles stats, without any interpretation or subjectivity. Obviously it's preferable for us to use the individual reviews, books and lists as a source, but that's not always possible. For instance, in many cases an artist has been dropped from Rolling Stone's coverage in their latest Album Guide (the band Badfinger are one, surprising example), which would seem to suggest that any widely admired album by those artists has been completely ignored by the Guide. Acclaimed gives us a score from the 1992 edition, however, which I think is important from the point of view of presenting readers with an informed overview of an album's critical standing and legacy.
Acclaimed Music provides us with a record of a particular work's standing among critics internationally – which is important, because it's too easy to rely on, say, just a Rolling Stone or NME poll or list that's accessible online but actually end up misrepresenting how an album or song places with a variety of similar publications worldwide. And ever since we've gone for only scores/ratings in album ratings boxes (regrettably, imo), it seems perfect for albums that were first released long before professional reviews carried ratings and even when their reissues occurred in the late '90s or early 2000s, just before many of the UK music mags adopted ratings. For instance, I'm not surprised to see Le Guide du CD appearing for this Nico album, which might not be on every UK/US print and online reviewer's personal must-review-and-rate list. Music Story is another worthy European publication, and I've long been wanting to start an article on the site, but I'm reliant on someone at French Wikipedia expanding their article beyond its stub status (last time I checked).
To echo Dan56's question, Carliertwo, what leads you to think the site's editor/operator blindly follows whatever people post for inclusion? Admittedly, it's been a couple of years since I studied the site in any detail – probably when I started looking into Music Story and the like – but I remember being impressed with the transparency of the process there, and how discerning he/they were before accepting new information. I've got a lot of the UK mag issues appearing there, one or two of the books, and AllMusic, RS Album Guide, Christgau, Larkin's Encyclopedia of Popular Music and others are all accessible online to various degrees – I've never once found a score, rating or list appearance rendered inaccurately on Acclaimed Music. JG66 (talk) 04:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
See above. This site brings you lists that are interesting to know but what if there is one or 2 mistakes made on purpose.  Acclaimedmusic.net is not a website with a team, an editor... If you find something relevant, it is up to you to find by yourself a physical copy of a list if you want to mention it on wikipedia, especially for old magazines or foreign magazines. Carliertwo (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
What if? I'd say I've seen perhaps one or 2 hundred mistakes on AllMusic – whether they're made on purpose or through sheer incompetence, I wouldn't know. I'd say I see glaring errors in books, biographies and music magazines all the time, but that doesn't make everything on the same page unusable. JG66 (talk) 16:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Exactly but what is a wp:RS for wikipedia, it is a source from a professional website, or writer, recognized as such by others. This one is a blog, very rich, very well done but as I said earlier, everyone can send him transcriptions of lists. Carliertwo (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
@Carliertwo:. Not a blog. More a database published by a statistician, an expert at data collection. While I'm in favor of replacing citations to Acclaimed Music with citations to the original work (the list where an album's ranking is found, or the book where an album is rated), I don't think it should be removed or dismissed altogether. Dan56 (talk) 07:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
No matter how one dubs this website, it should be used for a basis of work and then if the list seems important to be mentioned, try to get the original document. Apparently there isn't any FA article using this source. Carliertwo (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Are you sure about that @Carliertwo:? Dan56 (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
What discussion was I involved with that dealt with Acclaimedmusic? I just got pinged but I have no idea what is going on.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

It was this one, 3family6: [1]. JG66 (talk) 02:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)