Talk:Meghan Trainor: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 03:40, 18 January 2015 editJackmcbarn (talk \| contribs)31,380 edits →Protected edit request on 16 January 2015: Responded to edit request (EPH)← Previous edit		Revision as of 04:51, 18 January 2015 edit undoMaranoFan (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers30,179 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{GA nominee\|04:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)\|nominator=] ]\|page=2\|subtopic=Music\|status=\|note=}}
	{{Article history		{{Article history
	\|action1=GAN		\|action1=GAN

Revision as of 04:51, 18 January 2015

Meghan Trainor is currently a Music good article nominee. Nominated by Marano at 04:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.

Meghan Trainor was a Music good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 10, 2015	Good article nominee	Not listed

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Meghan Trainor 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 Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Template:Maintained

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography: Musicians

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as High-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Pop music High‑importance

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States: Music Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject American music (assessed as High-importance).

United States: Massachusetts

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Business Low‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Record Production Mid‑importance

	Record production portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Record Production; a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's documentation of Record Production articles. Questions or comments related to record production and related articles are welcome at the project's talk page. Anyone interested may join the project: add your name to the list of project members!Record ProductionWikipedia:WikiProject Record ProductionTemplate:WikiProject Record ProductionRecord Production
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Singer and songwriter VS Singer-songwriter

There seems to be mass confusion between the two, and which applies to Ms. Trainor; per Misplaced Pages's own definition, a singer-songwriter is someone whoare musicians who write, compose and perform their own musical material including lyrics and melodies. There has been no verifiable proof, that I am aware of, that showcases that Trainor does such. Simply playing an instrument does not mean you are a singer-songwriter. The page also clearly states: "As opposed to contemporary pop music singers who write or co-write their own songs, the term singer-songwriter describes a distinct form of artistry, closely associated with the folk-acoustic tradition" Please discuss instead of edit-warring. livelikemusic 04:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I was actually the one who brought this up in the first place, see the archive and go to singer-songwriter section. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

All of Lips are Moving reasons are bull, he/she is total fanboy. She is not a singer-songwriter, a lot of musicians do play acoustic instruments in concert but that does not mean she is singer-songwriter. Her music is pop and not acoustic like Neil Diamond (who is a singer-songwriter). And a lot of those sources have musicians listed as singer-songwriters. Please do not revert again. (Atomic Meltdown (talk) 06:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)).

Taylor Swift's, Drake Bell's, and others have been excepted. Why not her? Because she is pop? -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 06:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Some pop artists have been considered singer-songwriters. If memory serves, Hall and Oates were considered singer-songwriters. Elton John is considered a singer-songwriter. Carole King. But a brand-new possible flash-in-the-pan performer could be, in part, why Trainor cannot yet be considered a singer-songwriter. Number of songs written would, I think, be criteria as well. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense, my previous artists I mentioned wrote almost all of their songs. Oh, and Taylor Swift is pop now. And she's a singer-songwriter. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@Atomic Meltdown: So what you are saying is your opinion is more reliable than 10+ highly notable and highly reliable sources? If you actually bothered reading the article you would see Trainor released TWO acoustic album Only 17 and I'll Sing with You in 2011 but both have been pulled from circulation by Epic. Read through article and her related articles, she composes ALL her melodies, lyrics and music and performs live mostly in acoustic with her ukelele - all of which are reliably and widely sourced. - Lips 06:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

This RfC on the use of "singer-songwriter" could be helpful. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The RfC seems to concur with what's being said by the majority here. Singer-songwriter is a specific classification that doesn't fit all singers who also write songs. A specialty, if you will. In a way, it's similar to the difference between a medical doctor who is considered a general surgeon - a doctor who can do surgery but they aren't considered a surgeon, it's not their specialty.

And maybe that's the key: surgeons who are specialists in surgery pretty much only do surgery. Singer-songwriters pretty much only do their own music. A singer, songwriter does covers and music written by others and typically more than they would ever do their own songs they have written. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

My points are being completely ignored here. Trainor has released two acoustic albums. And doesn't "also" write songs, she COMPOSES all her songs WITH the melody of instruments, see their respective acreditations. All of the highly notable reliable sources are also being ignored. Please familiarize yourself with the artist and the content and the sources before making misinformed statements! - Lips 06:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with how to communicate appropriately and politely in talk page discussions. So much all bold lettering is basically the same as shouting. Thanks, -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Strange that a user a few lines above called my editing "bullshit" yet I am the one being called inpolite? The fact stands however that Trainor HAS released TWO acoustic albums, composes ALL her material. And is widely regarded among very reliable sources as a singer-songwriter. Stating otherwise would be false. I'm sure any casual reader would believe sources like Billboard and The Guardian over a random Misplaced Pages unsourced opinion that contradicts Taylor Swift, Jason Mraz and the like being recognized as singer-songwriters as well. - Lips 07:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

"'All About That Bass" is the debut single by American singer-songwriter Meghan Trainor. Producer Kevin Kadish composed and wrote the song with Trainor for her debut extended play (EP), Title (2014)," ; "'Lips Are Movin'" is a song recorded by American singer Meghan Trainor for her debut studio album, Title (2015). Written by Trainor and Kevin Kadish..." . Obviously, she doesn't write all of her own music as you claim, Lips. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 07:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Jason Mraz has also co-written with Kevin Kadish does that Mraz ineligible as a singer-songwriter? - Lips 07:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea. I thought we were talking about the Meghan Trainor article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 07:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I was just pointing out a mere contradiction in your point. Still, Trainor self-produced two acoustic albums and is recognized by a variety of notable sources as a singer-songwriter. I fail to understand why she should not be considered as one on Wiki as she ticks all the right boxes and all of which is reliably sourced. Just because her two most notable hits were co-written and are pop does not prove anything, as the likes of Taylor Swift, Jason Mraz (also considered singer-songwriters) have done the exact same thing.- Lips 08:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

An hour ago your proof that she qualified to be called a singer-songwriter was that she writes all of the songs she performs. That was quickly proven to be untrue. Now you're changing the criteria. Not too convincing. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 08:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

But she does. She has written every single song she has recorded, though her new album was co-written with Kevin Kadish, which seems to be the point you're trying to make. However, it falls flat as Taylor Swift and Jason Mraz have also co-written some of their songs and they are considered singer-songwriter. I'm not appreciating your snide remarks and discussing me behind my back on other users' talkpages. It's also strange that you warn me for edit warring but not the 3 other editors involved - it comes across as somewhat of a personal attack or vendetta? - Lips 09:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I actually was told I violated the three-revert rule, even though I only reverted twice. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 09:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Point is, per Misplaced Pages's definition, unless she composes all of her music by herself, performing each and every single instrument from production to release, she is not a singer-songwriter; mainstream publishers are mis-interpreted on the term. Being a singer-songwriter is not as easy as her writing material, per the Misplaced Pages policy. livelikemusic 14:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@Livelikemusic: That is false. On the singer-songwriter article it states 'Singer-songwriters often provide the sole accompaniment to an entire composition - which Trainor in fact has done with her three self-released albums and just last month with her Christmas song "I'll Be Home" and in October with her Thanksgiving Special. The very same singer-songwriter article lists Jagged Little Pill as an example yet the entire album was not entirely produced and composed by Morissette alone but in collaboration with Glen Ballard - very much like Trainor has done with Kevin Kadish for her Title (EP) & Title (Meghan Trainor album) releases recently. All my forementioned points in turn make your argument void, and your argument would inturn also discredit Morrissette, Jason Mraz and Taylor Swift and many others on Misplaced Pages as singer-songwriters as well. - Lips 15:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

We aren't discussing any other artist, you're making this a very defensive and personal argument, and I refuse to be attacked in a defensive manner in this discussion; if you cannot keep your attitude civil, I will not be involved in this discussion. livelikemusic 16:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I know we aren't discussing any other artist but they are all very much related to the dispute and Morissette is listed as an example on the singer-songwriter article after all. It's a perfect example of how the "singer-songwriter policy on Misplaced Pages" is being misinterpreted and contradicted. Likewise with the points being raised here. I honestly don't see how my last response was in any way WP:PERSONAL or uncivil in any way, and that is certainly not my intention either. - Lips 16:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

RIAA Certifications Update

All Abput That Bass is now 6x Platinum
Lips Are Movin is Platinum
Dear future Husband is Gold

Source: http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?content_selector=gold-platinum-searchable-database

Singer-songwriter issue

@Livelikemusic: @Atomic Meltdown:

This issue was previously resolved less than a month ago on this very same talk page.
Trainor does compose ALL her music, see the liner notes for Title. Most recently her Christmas song "I'll Be Home" was entirely written and produced by her alone.
She self-released two acoustic albums in 2011.
The majority of her live performances are acoustic and feature her accompanied by her ukelele.
AND here are some VERY reliable sources that ALL state she is a singer-songwriter:

- Lips 04:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I want to be civil here and solve this discussion once and for all. I have made myself aware with the definition of singer-songwriter. I strongly believe that Meghan is one. -- Marano 07:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not how it works. In a nutshell: discussion, consensus, policy. That's how it works. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 07:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi:Please be co-operative and civil with your replies. Thank you. These performances are evidence in order to determine consensus on her not using modifications and instrumentals-- Marano 07:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

There was nothing uncivil or uncooperative in my reply. Telling a number of veteran editors that you're going to "solve this discussion once and for all" isn't exactly a cooperative attitude, wouldn't you agree? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 07:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I am trying to end an edit war- Marano 08:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I came here from the dispute resolution board having noticed that Atomic Meltdown was involved and read all the post here, there and the definition on Misplaced Pages of singer-songwriter. (I came across the editing of Atomic Meltdown somewhere else and liked his editing work.) I've seen Meghan Trainor sing a few times on TV. I agree with Lips are Moving that Trainor is a singer-songwriter. Raquel Baranow (talk) 05:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree too. The sources clearly refer to Trainor as a singer-songwriter and so should we. We can't base our opinions on Misplaced Pages's definition of the term (though it seems should we qualify anyway); we need to follow what reliable sources do. -- Calidum 20:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Using the Misplaced Pages definition of "Singer-songwriter" is like using the Wiki definition of "anime", which was described as "Japanese animation". But what if a studio moved here? It wouldn't be anime anymore? -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 20:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The singer-songwriter article and "Misplaced Pages definition" is completely contradictory—it says things like singer-songwriters resemble folk tradition and then a few lines later say they are common in pop music / singer-songwriters mostly compose their material alone and then a few line later say they often provide sole accompaniment to their music and then Alanis Morissette's Jagged Little Pill is listed as an example a few line after that. And the users in the dispute against Trainor are misinterpreting and contradicting several lines on the singer-songwriter article. Like I said, any casual reader would believe the likes of Billboard over Misplaced Pages, especially when the singer-songwriter article is in the state it is in. But then again I'm the "bias defensive fanboy" on here who can't make an objective argument regarding the matter so just ignore me flat out and retaliate with a snide remark or two.- Lips 21:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

And people say it's for folk, but it says closely associated. Doesn't mean only. And then the user Atomic Meltdown is going on the Drake Bell page saying he's not one either, even though I've provided sources, he may play in the band fashion, but he also performs in the normal acoustic fashion, and I've made a consensus. And, I'm the only one editing the article most of the time, only one maintaining it, then he comes and just says he's not a singer-songwriter. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

One of the very few online sources for the singer-songwriter "Misplaced Pages definition" - AllMusic states "This resurgence of the style in the late 80's led to a new popularity and exposure for a new crop of contemporary singer/songwriters" - which means that after the 80s not every singer-songwriter is closely related to folk. AllMusic also states "Their lyrics were personal, although they were often veiled by layers of metaphors and obscure imagery" and "However, most singer/songwriter records have a similar sound, which is usually spare, direct, and reflective, which places the emphasis on the song itself" = Meghan Trainor. - Lips 21:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

@Lips Are Movin, Raquel Baranow, Calidum, and Joseph Prasad: Completely agree with all you guys. Also, I'm beginning to see consensus.-- Marano 08:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Same discussions have taken place regarding Mariah Carey, Taylor Swift and Adele. Lots of sources cite them as singer-songwriter, but people on here think we should still stick to the ancient folk music idea that a singer-songwriter is someone who always works alone. Who even does that anymore? — ₳aron 12:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

New York Times published an article yesterday (but it's dated the 8th online) that says she's a singer-songwriter. Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

What we on Misplaced Pages need to sort out is if we are going to use the rather ancient way of thinking that you can only be a s-s if you write and produce yourself, or if you co-wrote the majority of your songs, which is what most artists who write and and sing do now. There's no doubt in my mind that Mariah Carey is a singer-songwriter, all the print and media sources say so, but some editors on here think in the old term. — ₳aron 16:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

If the definition truly hNumber One still Number One stillas changed, then yes, we need to conform to that. Personally, I'd need to see something definitive that the definition truly has changed in order to make that mental change. A decent number of reliable, unbiased sources (not the news saying singer-songwriter in an uninformed, non-professionally connected fashion) would be a good start, I think. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if it is something you can source as such. I'm 22 and my idea of a singer-songwriter are people like Mariah (particularly because she wrote the lyrics to her first six albums by herself, and since then has co-written and co-produced everything), Taylor, Gaga, Adele etc. A singer-songwriter in the sense that that person is the only person involved is such an extreme rarity now, I can't even think of anyone who writes, produces, mixes etc. completely by themselves anymore. — ₳aron 09:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I've personally had this discussion multiple times regarding multiple artists, and it comes down to the same thing. I fully agree with the Wiki article on singer-songwriters, and that's the standard or criteria artists should be held to in order to be considered as such, however, ultimately, it's down to secondary, reliable sources. Like one of the comments on the linked RfC above said, as a tertiary source, Misplaced Pages reports what secondary sources say. If reliable, music sources categorize her as a "singer-songwriter", then she can be sourced as such. We should rely on WP:V and WP:RS.--Lapadite (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Errors on front page

Firstly, All About That Bass was number one for eight consecutive weeks. See here. Secondly, Title was released, and was aimed for release on the 13th on January, not the 9th. See her website.

Rockstar324 (talk) 01:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

We only listed the first-known release date, which is January 9, 2015. livelikemusic 02:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

@Rockstar324: They are not errors. Firstly, AATB was not number one for consecutive weeks, if you read the song's article you'd see it was dethroned by Shake It Off (Taylor Swift song) in its second week. Secondly, 13 Jan is the US release date. It was released in various countries internationally on 9 Jan. Using 13 Jan as a release date would be a factual error. - Lips 07:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

@Lips Are Movin:

OK. I was unaware of the international release date. However, AATB in fact dethroned Shake It Off in Shake It Off's second week at the top. SIO moved to number one again after 8 weeks of AATB being on top. Then, Blank Space dethroned Shake It Off, and now Uptown Funk dethroned Blank Space. See here, and here. Rockstar324 (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

@Lips Are Movin:

If you need more proof, here: Here, the peak of AATB is 2 Moves to number 1 here Number One still Number One still Number One still Number One still Number One still Number One still Number One still Dethroned by Shake It Off and then it hasn't been back to number one since, as Shake It Off was dethroned by Blank Space here and Blank Space by Uptown Funk here Rockstar324 (talk) 15:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@Rockstar324: Thanks. It is an error. But the page is locked, so we can't edit it yet unless an admin is willing to do so, I sugget you make an edit request.- Lips 16:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

"one of the best-selling singles of all time" really? If you go to the chart it is not even in the top 200. Salazar45 (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@Salazar45: It is. See the 6—6.9 million copies section. - Lips 08:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@Lips Are Movin: While a cute catchy song according to my count it is number 213 from the top Salazar45 (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Salazar45: It still is among the list of best-selling singles though. Top 200 or not, the list does not conform to a top 200. - Lips 15:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

In the list, but not considered one of the best selling singles of all time. That bit pretty much equates original research. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

LOL. So that would make GA-class song articles that make use of the term "best selling singles of all time" also original research? Such as "...Baby One More Time", "Poker Face (Lady Gaga song)", "Just the Way You Are (Bruno Mars song)", "Bad Romance", "Waka Waka (This Time for Africa)" etc. It is no way original research but pure logic as the list essentially comprises the best-selling singles of all-time. - Lips 16:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

It's the wording "of all time" that's problematic. Nothing I've found in the realm of reliable sources supports that statement. If you can find something that specifically says it's one of the biggest sellers of all time, then it can be added. Without a reliable source backing that up, it's synthesis and original research. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Rather strange that more than two dozen GA song articles use the exact same wording and have not been found "problematic" or deemed WP:OR. Since you are the expert, of what timeframe are the list of best-selling singles then? One can't simply state "All About That Bass" is a best-selling single, you have to state of what time period, otherwise as a fact it would be WP:VAGUE, and by pure logic the list of best-selling singles is in the time frame of "all time". The article list of best-selling singles is self-explanatory and has a realm of reliable sources, with AATB's source being listed there and on the article itself. - Lips 18:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what my criteria is for what makes a song one of the biggest selling of all time. It doesn't matter that other GA music articles have that same wording in them. What matters is that there is no source (that I have found) which names All About as one of the biggest selling singles of all time. Best selling singles charts are just that: a listing of best selling songs. That doesn't make them the greatest of all time of anything unless there is a reliable source that names them as such. Look online for a start. Is All About named by any reliable source using that specific wording (best of all time)? If not, the term doesn't belong in the article because it's original research and synthesis. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: I understand your reasoning. Though, my point is that the general MOS as I've made in examples above is for incorporating list of best-selling singles by using the term "of all time" as a self-explanatory time frame, irregardless of whether a source directly refers to it as such or not - because the list of best-selling singles is a compilation of reliable sources itself and is self-explanatory. If you wish to take up the issue to the WP:SONGS talk page or List of best-selling singles feel free to do so, because your issue in turn affects the general MOS for both projects, and all other GA, FA etc articles that use the phrase "all-time" need to be relooked at as well, not only "All About That Bass". - Lips 20:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

When articles contain content or wording that shouldn't be there we don't use it as an example of, "Well, it's in that article, so we can do it here, too". If it's wrong there, it would be wrong here, which means we can't put it in knowing that doing so violates policy and guidelines. I will not bend on this. Unless you can come up with reliable sources that name the song as one of the biggest hits of all time, we simply cannot put that wording in the article. If it's not sourced it's WP:SYNTH, it's WP:OR, and it's essentially WP:PEACOCK. All of that equals: unsourced and unencyclopedic content. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Could we not just change it to read "it is the 213th best-selling single of all time."? Salazar45 (talk) 05:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@NE Ent, Winkelvi, Lapadite77, and Binksternet: The Courier Journal writes: "'All About That Bass' has sold an astonishing 6 million copies, good enough for a place on the list of history's best-selling singles". Source: - Lips 18:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

First, the article isn't accessible without a subscription. I'm certainly not going to sign up for one. Second, "good enough for a place..." doesn't mean that it is and has been named as "one of the best selling singles of all time". -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 16 January 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Article reads, "All About That Bass" became one of the best-selling singles of all time, topping the charts in 58 countries." There is no reliable reference that supports this claim and nothing I can find verifies it as true.

Please reword the sentence as "All About That Bass" became a best selling single." -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 16 January 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Meghan's album Title is now No. 1 in the New Zealand album charts, so the chart position can now be added to the studio album discography. Source. Thanks!

Robyn2000 (talk) 05:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Spelling of "ukulele"/"ukelele", etc.

Firstly, sorry for my recent edit through page protection. I didn't realize that the page was fully protected, because that's hard to tell with a screen reader.

Secondly, I've been asked to bring a dispute about the spelling of the word "ukulele"/"ukelele" here. Personally, I'd never encountered the spelling "ukelele" (which is currently used in the Meghan Trainor article) before reading the article about her song "Title". It struck me as wrong because it was pronounced incorrectly with my screen reader (as "yooka-lell"). I can't access either of the relevant sources in the Ukulele article, but they both seem very reliable and indicate that the spelling with three E's is only used in British English. Therefore, since Meghan Trainor is American, I think the spelling should be changed to "ukulele" in all the articles about her. What are your thoughts on this? Graham87 14:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

"Ukulele" is the correct spelling, so it should be changed to that. Feel free to make a protected page edit request. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Categories: