Talk:All About That Bass/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Upright bass

The wording has been batted back and forth about the Kate Davis/Scott Bradlee cover. We should decide how best to present the information. Here are the various versions that have been tried:

• Jan 3:

  In early September 2014, multi-instrumentalist Kate Davis sang the song and played double bass for Scott Bradlee's Postmodern Jukebox video channel; in three months their 1940s jazz version, called "All About that (Upright) Bass", had received 8 million hits.

• Jan 7:

  In September 2014, American musicians Kate Davis and Scott Bradlee released a cover version of the track.

• Jan 9:

  On Septmber 10, a rendition entitled "All About That (Upright) Bass" by American singer Kate Davis went viral, following its premiere on Scott Bradlee's Postmodern Jukebox. Davis' version saw her accompanied by a double bass and it took on a 1940s jazz theme.

References

The problem with the Jan 7 version is that it does not tell the reader why the cover is notable. The problem with the Jan 9 version is that it makes the mistaken assumption that the song went viral immediately; the sources do not determine when it achieved that status. It also uses clunky wording, with September 10 and "its premiere on Scott Bradlee's Postmodern Jukebox" presented as if they are different release dates, when in fact we can see that video was uploaded to YouTube on Sept 5, which was its premiere on Bradlee's Postmodern Jukebox. The Sept 10 date was merely when HuffPost noticed it. And Davis plays the bass, not someone accompanying her. Finally, the Billboard reference #3 is interesting and somewhat helpful, telling us that the cover version was Bradlee's idea, but the reference is primarily about another song, and about Postmodern Jukebox. References #1 and #2 are primarily about the cover version. Binksternet (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@Binksternet: My issue with the wording is the following:

1. "multi-instrumentalist" reads as an advertisement in this case when the word "musician" is more neutral and is what is used in Davis' infobox.
2. "early September" is vague. We need to be accurate, if it was posted on 5 Sept then that's the date we should use. WP:REALTIME
3. I used the word viral to avoid "in three months got 8 million hits" which reads again as an advertisement and sounds very informal. YouTube views are also generally avoided in song articles as I've observed in many GA reviews for song articles. It is also already stated in the same section that the song invited a slew of viral videos and tributes. If we were to state how many views Davis' cover got, we might as well say how many Bieber's got or NASA's got, hence the use of the "invited a slew of viral videos and tributes" to avoid such a scenario.
4. Your wording is also vague in the sense that it first says Davis covered the song for Bradlee and then later you say "their version"?
5. "their 1940s jazz version" could be written more encyclopedic, it's written as a fact here when its reads as an opinion.
6. One reference which backs up the whole sentence is really enough. WP:OVERKILL
7. Why use "Huff Post" in the citation when they are professionally known as The Huffington Post? WP:COMMONNAME - Lips ^{are movin} 22:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

If the facts are spread over several references, then that's the number of required references. It's always possible to combine refs into one footnote to answer your concern. The number of hits is what makes the version notable. The exact upload date of the cover is not important to this article about the song. I don't see any problem with adding the number of hits certain covers received. In fact, we already say how many 'likes' Trainor got on Facebook.

How about this wording?

In early September 2014, Kate Davis sang the song and played double bass under the leadership of pianist Scott Bradlee; in three months their 1940s jazz-style version, called "All About that (Upright) Bass", had received 8 million hits on Bradlee's Postmodern Jukebox video channel.

References

All three references are combined here, as all three are needed for specific facts. Binksternet (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Understood. That works perfectly. Though the PBS NewsWire ref should be linked with PBS as its publisher. Huff Post Entertainment should be The Huffington Post with AOL as its publisher. Thanks.- Lips ^{are movin}

Long quotations highlighted in quote boxes

Highlighting quotations in large quote boxes is really inappropriate. Look at Wikipedia articles on some of the undisputed greatest songs of all time, and you don't see long quotations in quote boxes. WP:QUOTE is a good WP:MOS article to read and get a better idea about how quotations are to be used in articles. Incorporating portions of the quotes into the article content is more appropriate. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

On a second look through and rethinking, it appears the quotations are already integrated into the article content. Removing the long quotes due to redundancy, as well. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: Thanks for the fixes and for pointing out. - Lips ^{are movin} 12:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Very overwritten

The article is very overwritten and essentially says the same things twice: once in the lead paragraph and then again in the body of the article. It needs to be trimmed down considerably in the lead as well as the article body. It's basically one of the most bloated articles I've ever come across. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: Gee, thanks. You are the most rude editor on here I've ever came across. The lead is supposed to summarize the body and not be entirely completely new information. The song was one of the biggest and most talked about of last year so obviously it's coverage was going to be broad. The article has been trimmed down and was copyedited by the GOCE. It seems you've just yet again gone out of your way to annoy me instead of actually editing in a way that's constructive. Time to go pick on another editor, or just stop altogether don't you think? - Lips ^{are movin} 05:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Lips, once again, you're taking my comments personally and shouldn't. I have no idea who bloated the article, could have been several people, which is typical for Wikipedia. Not trying to be rude, just stating an obvious fact. The article is overwritten, contains a lot of redundancies and needs to be more concise and encyclopedia-like. As far as my editing at the article, you're wrong. I've made a number of improvements on it a few hours ago. Please start looking at criticism of articles you've taken part in editing as being about the articles, not you and not specific editors. I'm here to help expand and improve an online encyclopedia. Hopefully, that's your purpose for being here, too. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: You're here to help and expand an online encyclopedia. Yet you are picking on my editing and every article I edit, as well as making snide remarks in edit summaries and saying things like "most bloated article ever", "this is not a fansite". It seems as if you're trying to begin the same bickering you started on Meghan Trainor, here. It's all very coincidental that you are all of a sudden interested in editing Meghan-related articles when you have been uncivil to me since your very first talk page reply to me, and then you go around badmouthing me on other editors talk pages. How would you feel if the same were done to you? No there is no redundancies, the article is encyclopedic and trimmed down. I, myself have copyedited several times and so has the GOCE. Your constant accusations of fanpedia and peacocking seem to be an exact dig at me as an editor, I am familiar with what is WP:PEACOCK and if you read the sources itself that is precisely how whatever topic being discussed is described as per the source. I have made this article very neutral so please don't throw around some more of your petty accusations. If a song as big as this, that's been covered in so many aspects by the media then obviously it is going to be a larger article, and this is no common occurrence. I've noticed in music articles, see Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It) for example. If it is your intention to chase me away from editing on Wiki, well done, you're getting right. - Lips ^{are movin} 05:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Last time I'll say it to you: please stop thinking my edit summaries, edits, and comments on talk pages have anything to do with you specifically. If I have something to say to you, I will let you know I'm saying it to you. Until then, don't take these things personally and you'll be much happier here. I'm sorry you took offense to my comments here and in edit summaries, but you shouldn't because they aren't about you. Or anyone, for that matter, the comments are about the article. The bottom line of how Wikipedia works is this: editors edit what others edit into articles. It can be frustrating at times, for sure, but you really shouldn't take it personally. There's always going to be someone who sees article content differently than you and there will always be someone changing what you have written and added or removed. And, no one is trying to chase you away, okay? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: I kindly ask you to please stop edit warring on the page. You are introducing factual errors and re-wording incorrectly against the general MOS for song articles with words that do not comply with WP:WORDS. You are also re-introducing unsourced content by other users, me and another user have pointed out, "All About That Bass" is among the list of best-selling singles and the "all time" phrase is used on many GA song articles with regard to list of best-selling singles. It is not "peacocking". You have been reverted three times by two different users yet you insist on an edit war and are derailing the article again just like you did on Meghan Trainor. I have also reported you on the admin noticeboard for harassment, yet you insist on continuing. - Lips ^{are movin} 13:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the article talk page already in progress. Generally, when a discussion is occurring, edits in discussion aren't reverted or changed until discussion is closed. I haven't added anything new, so it's impossible for me to have added unsourced content. I think you have mistaken unsourced for "not identical to what is found in the source". What I did is improve wording to be more in line with WP:MOS and encyclopedic in tone as well as more concise. Content is written by editors and we use sources to support it, not the other way around. Further, editing what has already been written by improving it is not derailing the article. And, I have to say that with your comments here, you seem to be wading into article ownership, which you really don't want to do. You also don't want to talk about editors in article talk page discussions, you want to talk about edits. Please do so here.-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes. your rewordings have been useful in some cases and I am all for improving the article. But the removal of the (2014) and (2015) in the lead is against the general MOS for song articles. Have a look at any GA-class or FA-class article. The use of the word "several" is against WP:WORDS. "Listed as one of the year's best songs" - this is vague - who listed it as such? You have also missed the additions of unsourced content inbetween your nitpicking where one editor added "In January 2015, "All About That Bass" was ranked at number 23, alongside Mark Ronson's "Uptown Funk" on The Village Voice's annual year-end Pazz & Jop critics' poll." to which I provided a source which has now been removed with your revert, and "All About the Bass was shot at StageTHIS located in Sun Valley, CA on May 8th & 9th, 2014." which was added completely unsourced by another editor. - Lips ^{are movin} 15:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: You have remained completely ignorant to my above response, and have reverted unsourced content back in the article yet again. Your edit summary "Still under discussion. please stop putting this back in until there is consensus." - what discussion and consensus, you have not done any of the above on here and are being completely ignorant to the two unsourced content you keep adding back into the article - how does that need any consensus? - Lips ^{are movin} 18:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: What exactly are we being invited to reach consensus on? Btljs (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

2 cents: This is a very well written and sourced article, but I agree that it's overwritten and bloated. I'd recommend going back over everything and trimming down on each section a bit, and it absolutely will make a difference. Gloss 17:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

For example, one reception paragraph contains 12 positive reviews about the song, almost half of them repeat the same thing, that the reviewer thought the song was "catchy". This should be trimmed down to at least half of the amount of reviews that are currently there. They all essentially say the same thing, so bloating the section with 12 positive reviews can certainly be avoided. Gloss 17:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Gloss: Thanks for the suggestion, I have trimmed the reviews section accordingly. - Lips ^{are movin} 18:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem. It's not just this section though, the feminism section as well as some other areas need a trimming. Most only need about half of what is currently there. Or if two/three reviews say almost the same thing you can summarize what was said about the song instead of saying exactly who said it. For example, in the reviews section, saying "Many critics thought the song was catchy" followed by the refs from the three reviews where it's called catchy would work a lot more efficiently. Gloss 19:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Gloss: Unfortunately that is one of my flaws as a new editor on here, I'm still learning how to summarize and reword sources better, and would appreciate if users could help me out in that aspect, my style of editing generally involves gathering all reliable sources together and trying to make use of what each source says about XY topic and then incorporating them into the article. I personally don't see the article being too bloated but I do agree that there is repetitiveness. Hence why I sent the article to the Guild of Copy Editors, and try to copyedit afterward to the best of my ability. I basically re-wrote this article almost entirely on my own from what was originally stub-like fan prose, so it's harder for me to fish out such flaws than say an uninvolved editor like yourself. - Lips ^{are movin} 19:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I could give it a shot myself, but I usually will give the suggestions before taking action on my own, since I know the feeling of writing up an entire article and then someone comes in and makes big changes. Feels like someone walked into your house and decided they wanted to dress your child for school. Gloss 19:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

When you start subjectifying an article you're editing, that can happen. When you look at it objectively and for what editing in Wikipedia really is (a place where anyone can edit and change what you've edited), then that feeling becomes less and less. Wikipedia isn't meant to be a "home" where we stake a claim, it's meant to be a thing we do voluntarily and can take or leave and not grow emotionally attached to. Getting too attached is dangerous. The noticeboards are full of comments, arguments, and sanctions, and tempers flaring because of those who take editing here too seriously and too personal.

All that said, Gloss, I appreciate your level head and the appropriate editing you've brought to the article. Bettering it is what it's supposed to be about and that's what you are doing. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. It's a sticky trap. Nobody ever means to get too attached, but it does tend to happen. I appreciate the compliment, WV! Gloss 21:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I've been working on WP for 10 years and like to think I'm quite objective and thick skinned, but I have to say that the original comment in this section was pretty tactless and not really that constructive - although I'm sure it was meant well. The lede is supposed to be repeated in the body and I find writing ledes concisely to be the hardest thing to do well, so a bit of tolerance and encouragement goes a long way. Btljs (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

A lot of things said by a lot of people in Wikipedia are seen by a lot of other people as tactless and nonconstructive. How it all looks to a varied group of editors, new and long-term, will differ from person to person. Nothing was said in a personal manner, no one was personally attacked, no one called names. Can we please get back to talking about edits and the article rather than editors? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Gloss: Thank you very much for your trim - very helpful. I will indeed re-read through every sentence of this article and trim and ajust where I can. [Personal attack redacted] - Lips ^{are movin} 08:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Quote in music video section

@Winkelvi: Care to explain how a quote about Trainor not previously dancing professionally is not notable in a music video almost entirely made up of choreography? - Lips ^{are movin} 18:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The quote in and of itself isn't notable enough to be separated out from the rest of the quotes. It doesn't merit its own block quote. Frankly, nothing in the article does. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you explain why though? - Lips ^{are movin} 18:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I already did. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

No you haven't you have merely just rephrased your own POV that it is "not notable" without any legitimate reasoning. If you feel so strongly that there shouldn't be a quotebox, at least put it in a sentence in the section. Speaking of Trainor's inability to dance prior to the video is only beneficial to the reader, and anything but "non-notable". - Lips ^{are movin} 21:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

A quote should be notable, should stand out from all the rest, should be worthy of being set apart in an article, not just "window dressing". There's nothing about that quote to make it worthy of being set apart. Incorporate it into the article, fine. But as a highlighted block quote? Definitely no. Clear enough? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the blockquote and now put the quote in a sentence, that way the information is not removed altogether. - Lips ^{are movin} 09:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Undue weight

As previously with Lips Are Movin, the video section of this article contains undue weight and needs to be pared down considerably. Reminder: this article is about the song, not the video.

I already pared down the video section of that article, as there is now an article on the video itself, and suggest we do the same here. I have already started an article on the video, and plan to work on both the video section of this article and the video article itself later today. A redirect link to the video article has been placed at the top of the video section. 17:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be very unfamiliar with song articles, there's a reason why 99% of GA and FA-class song articles don't have related music video articles, check the how many music video articles there are altogether - barely two dozen. WP:UNDUE states How much detail is required depends on the subject and this is the very sentence you seem to be misunderstanding, a song's popularity and in pop culture is very much related to its music video and live performances, and the same case here for AATB and Lips Are Movin - both sections hardly go into too much detail to warrant any article of their own. - Lips ^{are movin} 18:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Can other song article editors please weigh in here? @Tomica, Calvin999, HĐ, IndianBio, Prism, 11JORN, and IPadPerson: - Lips ^{are movin} 18:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose video article for All About That Bass. Here, the length of the video section is fine as the whole article is much longer. I would support a video article for Lips as it was created with consensus, was considered a milestone (starring several notable people). Lips was mostly known just for it's music video. MaRAno ^FAN 08:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

"Lips Are Movin" is still very much a new song and is still receiving media attention, reaching new peaks on charts etc there is lots of information that can be added about the song itself to balance "the undue weight". Music videos generally do not warrant their own articles as manifested in Category:Music videos because they tie directly in with the promotion of the song itself. WP:UNDUE states How much detail is required depends on the subject - and in this case if Lips is considered notable for its music video, then the music video should be part of Lips and in turn not have a separate topic of its own.- Lips ^{are movin} 08:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: Can you please co-operate so that we can reach a consensus regarding this matter instead of edit warring? - Lips ^{are movin} 09:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

suggestions

I'm not going to edit this because I know if's gone through several iterations but the phrase "...sales in excess of 6 million copies worldwide, in turn entering the list of best-selling singles." implies that there is such a thing as an (official) list of best-selling singles, whereas this is just a WP construction. I preferred the previous edit along the lines of "... , becoming one of the best-selling singles of all time." or if that is too much of a hyperbole: " becoming one of the best-selling singles of the digital age." Btljs (talk) 10:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

How does "and in turn became a best-selling single sound? Users at Talk:Meghan Trainor suggested that "all-time" et al require sources that state the song as such, though I entirely agree with your suggestion. - Lips ^{are movin} 10:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Lead too short tag

Alrighty, we clearly don't understand what edit warring is. Looks like nobody else wants to open up a discussion despite being on the lesser side of the numbers. Why is it felt that the lead is too short? Gloss 22:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you, Gloss, that the tag is completely nonsensical. It reads, "This article's lead section may not adequately summarize key points of its contents. Please consider expanding the lead to provide an accessible overview of all important aspects of the article." The lead summarizes key points and provides an accessible overview of all important aspects. I think Tomica is looking at WP:LEADLENGTH as an end-all-be-all. The table there is only a "suggestion" that "may" be useful. Having an over-long, 4-paragraph-for-the-sake-of-being-4-paragraphs lead that includes unnecessary detail isn't helping the reader at all.

Remember that the lead is supposed to be a summary, not a restatement. It is supposed to serve as an introduction so that the reader will be more interested in the topic, not something that keeps the reader from reading the rest of the article since they already know all there is to know. –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Simply because on Wikipedia we have rules and we have to respect those rules in order to help the reader understand the article. Simply per this length rule of the WP:LEAD policy. "All About That Bass" is a 121kb long article [which is kinda long article] and the rule directly states it should have longer lead. The prose is very bad. "All About That Bass" is a bubblegum pop and doo-wop song from American singer Meghan Trainor's 2014 EP Title and 2015 debut album Title. Toooo long sentence. We never add the genres of the song in the first sentence, because it's grammatically senseless (you mess up composition with miscellaneous). Plus, here we miss the writers [which is extremely needful, without them the song would not exist]. The song draws from music of the 1950s and '60s and embraces inner beauty, positive body image and self-acceptance. Then again, after having a release we return to composition. It reads awful for the record. Music critics' reception to "All About That Bass" was mixed. While the song received favorable reviews for its melody and vintage sound, some accused Trainor of anti-feminism and cultural appropriation for its lyrics. Nevertheless,- The critical sentence reads perfect, nevertheless is nor GA, and certainly not FA worthy word here. Despite the fact this was a commercially successful single, one sentence is not enough for it tbh [we need at least three]. Its accompanying music video received generally positive reviews and was a viral success. This is so general that nor just don't attract readers, I would say they won't try to read it after this, simply feeling too general information is included down the article. The song had cultural impact and other versions parodies that should be mentioned in the lead. This kinda of lead is too short, not interesting, too general and misses a lot of facts; you can ask whatever music editor you want. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 22:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

You're making two completely different arguments here - (1) that the lead is not well-written, (2) that the lead is too short. Right now, we're discussing the length. The article is also currently not undergoing a GAN or FAC. I think you need to focus on what your point is before we go any further.

Steering us back onto the main point of discussion... yes, the article is long. In my opinion, too long and could afford to be trimmed a little bit, but that's besides the point. But just because an article is long doesn't mean the lead should be longer than it needs to be. Songwriters are arguably trivial - they're listed in the infobox right beside the lead - but I wouldn't be opposed to that being added. (Be bold!) I am interested into any guidelines or policies that dictates how many sentences in the lead should be devoted to any one topic of an article. Finally, as previously mentioned, the lead is not supposed to cover every fact; it is supposed to be a summary of important points only. Greater detail is reserved for the body. (We are, after all, talking about a song that emphasizes the bass, not the treble; the bottom, not the top.) –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't care what this song emphasizes, at the end of the day I hate this song so much, If I am a president of a country I would make a special law with which this song would be banned! Lol, I overreacted but it's annoying to me. I expanded the lead a bit, I don't say that the lead should cover everything, but it should be synchronized with the length of the article. It's not acceptable, such long article [which is a GA candidate] to have short trivial lead [like your version]. Of course it should be about the important points, but not general, it should state some facts about the song, its videos, impact... etc etc — Tomíca^(T2ME) 22:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

My version does state facts about the song, its video, its impact, etc. It does so much more concisely than the previous version of the lead. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

IMO your version is not good and states general facts about the song which could have been made for every song. 'It had a visual and was a viral success' lol. I know 100 more songs that happened the same to their visuals. I can't fight with your stubbornness anymore. I had enough daily dose. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 23:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

You seriously need to work on your civility before you wind up at ANI; some of your comments at Talk:Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It) the other day were unacceptable and here you are yet again making rude comments about another editor's work "sucking". Wikipedia is a collaborative effort; you don't own articles, and you're going to have to be willing to make compromises and accept that your preferences may not always win out. Please drop back in here when you're willing to cooperate and engage in a civil manner. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Chase, incivility or not (which, it really wasn't incivility as much as being blunt due to some not getting Tomica's point), I'm going to come down on the side of Tomica, here. I think he has some very good points regarding this article, which really is poorly written and needs a lot of work. Even if you hadn't reviewed it, Gloss, it still would have failed GA. There's a reason why it would have. But here's a thought: how about we all work (nicely) together to make this article better? The four of us combined could do a good job with it, in my opinion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

We're talking specifically about the lead, though. I certainly agree the rest of the article needs work. I haven't touched it, though. And saying someone's work "sucks", blunt or not, is rude and incivil and strains the collaborative process. Tomica needs to learn to express his thoughts in a more constructive, appropriate way. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you @Winkelvi:. I work and collaborate with lot of people on Wikipedia, and tbh 90% of the time I consider good faith. However, this user above needs to understand that I don't want to talk, comment with him or certainly don't work wit him. In fact not he just don't understand, he also tries to AfD and mess up articles on which I have worked on Wikipedia (read WP:REVENGE). — Tomíca^(T2ME) 23:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess that's a 'No' from both of you. Ah, well. It was worth a try. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

"Bringing Anal Back"

OK, it's a pop tune by a pop artist, savvy with her social media and stuff, so "Kidz Bop Might Be Bringing Anal Back—Listen to the Accidentally R-Rated Tune", reliably sourced and all over the internetz, needs to be brought into this article. Totally. And let's do so please without discussing where "anal" has been all those years, or we'll all be before ArbCom on our hands and knees. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

It's nearly enough to make me reconsider watch listing this article. And to think "Light My Fire" was almost censored by the Ed Sullivan Show. That was just yesterday, wasn't it? But I digress from the import of truly important music trivia and various must-haves to be included here... -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Gushing, non-POV wording and other stuff

Non-POV terminology such as "praised"...let's keep it out, shall we? Unsourced claims such as "best selling single of all time" are also not appropriate. We should discuss these things before they are reinserted with prejudice. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Read the Music video section and open the best selling singles of all time list you will see the truth there. If you have cited material, that's an encyclopedi wording. I am enough of this article. I am out. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 16:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I've seen it. Weeks ago. It's a list of best selling singles by number placement. Being on the list does not make it one of the best selling singles of all time, it makes it number xxx in the list of best selling singles. We've had this discussion here more than once, and it's been agreed that saying it's one of the best selling of all time is misleading and peacock wording. As far as it being sourced as such: no, that's not true. Nowhere can you find the song being referred to by anyone as "one of the best selling singles of all time". What readers are going to go away from the article believing about the song is what we need to be concerned about. If we say "of all time", we've given a false impression. It's on editors to make the content as clear and accurate as possible. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I sure hope the article didn't claim that. My problem is more semantic--I don't exactly know what it means to say "X is a best-selling single". By definition, there can be only one "best-selling", and in this case the implication was that "best-selling" meant something like "included in the article of best-selling singles etc". So I removed that claim, which was a bit hollow anyway given that there was quantification already: more than 6 million sold. Drmies (talk) 00:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Drmies, the article has claimed that for weeks, and was edit warred over and put back in again regardless of consensus. The same was claimed and edit warred over at other Trainor-related articles, as well. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Trimming suggestions

Now, I'm not part of WP:SONG or music-related stuff. So as an outside editor, I do agree that this article is too large, in particular, I feel that the entire Commercial performance section, the entire Live performances section and the Cover versions subsection are the biggest offenders. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 11:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

@Starship.paint:  Done The article looks good to me, focusing on points and being concise. It currently sits below FA Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It) in length now. Took all your suggestions into account. Thank you MaRAno ^FAN 09:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

• @MaranoFan: - thank you for your efforts. Live performances looks much better, but I think Commercial performance could be trimmed even more, in terms of the performance in the United Kingdom. Does the sentence referenced by [102] overlap with the huge sentence by [44] c a few lines up? Either way, [44] c really should be trimmed. Additionally, you removed the entire plagiarism section, but I restored one sentence regarding the similarity to the Composition section. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 10:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Over-quotation tag?

May I ask which specific section's quote is not relevant in this article? All quotes look reasonable and in place to me. The person who placed this tag should reply. Also, if an explanation is not provided within 2 days, I will proceed to remove the tag and should not be asked to create a new talk page discussion. Good faith. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 08:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The quoting has been improved since I first placed the tag, but there still should be a lot of quotes removed (or at least paraphrased) that don't add much, if anything, to the article. Examples:

• "We were reluctant at first, but seeing how the song was exploding both locally and nationally, [program director] Steve [Petrone] and I felt we had to jump aboard"
• "I pictured it as a cartoon I'm going to play for the day, and it's gonna be adorable", but then the video became "bigger than anyone expected, it's like, crap, I have to kind of look like that now."
• "I never danced in front of people, but I didn't know if I was good or not. I knew if I had one lesson, though, I would get through it, and I just wanted to know where to put my arms. But, Charm is [Fatima's] prodigy that she grew up with, and Charm made up most of those dance moves, and taught me how to perform and 'make sure you smile!' Fatima would come in and be like, 'Okay, fix this,' or 'It looks good.'" –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on All About That Bass. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150416164455/http://www.fox23.com/ap/ap/entertainment/years-top-song-is-beyonce-sias-pretty-hurts/njXDZ/ to http://www.fox23.com/ap/ap/entertainment/years-top-song-is-beyonce-sias-pretty-hurts/njXDZ/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150417201103/http://www.huffpost.com/ca/entry/6248964 to http://www.huffpost.com/ca/entry/6248964

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Extended content

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on All About That Bass. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes: Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6GuWJIOEO to http://www.riaa.com/newsitem.php?content_selector=riaa-news-gold-and-platinum&news_month_filter=5&news_year_filter=2013&id=C19496E7-CEC0-C453-D8A1-BD80E56E610F When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}). N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool. If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC) Changed to correct URL. Drdaviss (talk) 03:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC) References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on All About That Bass. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141229224348/http://www.ultratop.be:80/nl/annual.asp?year=2014 to http://www.ultratop.be/nl/annual.asp?year=2014
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://hitlisten.nu/aarslister.asp?list=Download%2050

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on All About That Bass. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150122181029/http://www.billboard.com.br/tipo_lista/top-100/20150117/ to http://www.billboard.com.br/tipo_lista/top-100/20150117
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ultratop.be/nl/annual.asp?year=2014
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://hitlisten.nu/aarslister.asp?list=Download%2050
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150113005101/http://www.fimi.it/5233 to http://www.fimi.it/5233

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Publishers in references

I have noted that references in this article are very inconsistent. It is a common practice to not list publishers for websites that have their own articles. Thus I am in the process of removing publishers from some references currently. This will make the article in line with featured content such as Diamonds (Rihanna song) and Talk That Talk (Rihanna song).--NØ 16:57, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Israeli parody

Drummerdg The Israeli parody is only fit for inclusion in this article if it received coverage in several published reliable sources. Do not restore it again regardless of your personal vested interest in it unless you can find coverage of it in secondary sources. If we went to create an exhaustive list of every All About That Bass parody that exists and used YouTube videos as sources then it would need its own article. I plan on nominating this for FA status in the future and IsraellyCool is not a suitable source. Restoration of that parody is 2 of your 4 edits during the month of September [1] so I'm assuming you have some personal interest in its inclusion. Regards.--NØ 15:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, about Israellycool as a source, its about page states "Israellycool is one of Israel’s largest English-blogs", and blogs are not considered reliable sources in general let alone for GAs/FAs. The website literally has a "Submit a post" section where any random can submit an article. There's also no information about the staff or editorial oversight. Do not add it again here, or to any other article.--NØ 16:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

You threatening me? I never insinuated that Israellycool (which is some pro-Israel site) is a source for anything other than the fact that the Latma video is a parody of Meghan Trainor (you originally reverted my edit for lack of a second source, and so I added one, even though that was entirely unnecessary, as I had already linked to the video on YouTube). And if you want to talk about edit histories - you clearly have some bizarre self-professed obsession with Meghan Trainor, which you even admit on your own talk page, so you might want to go take a look at WP:OWN before you go spout off about any interest I have in this page (which is minimal - I care about world affairs, and this happens to be pertinent to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Which, by the way, makes it far more notable than the other parodies currently in the list, which are just the usual entertainers. Now back off, or I will involve an admin. Drummerdg (talk) 05:07, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

• I agree it should be removed until better sources are provided to show this is something we should care about enough to include. Calidum 05:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Please explain how this:

"On December 1, 2014, in an episode of Canadian comedy series This Hour Has 22 Minutes, the cast made a parody music video of the song, releasing it as a Conservative political ad smearing the Federal Liberal Party leader Justin Trudeau, with the video titled "Just a Pretty Face.""

which is regarding internal Canadian politics, is somehow more notable than a usage related to the globally watched Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Unless you can do that, my edit should be kept. Drummerdg (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Drummerdg, do not add the parody back again. It’s not covered in reliable sources. I’ll ask admins to block you if you keep adding it back, you’ve already restored it thrice with no reliable source and at this point it’s disrupting the article. For what it’s worth, I am “threatening” you because you just restored it again despite being explicitly told not to do so. Regards.—NØ 06:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and about "Now back off, or I will involve an admin", please feel free to do so. Any admin will tell you that a parody needs coverage in reliable sources to be added to this article. If I were to go into my backyard and shoot an All About That Bass parody about the "Israeli-Palestinian" conflict and upload it to YouTube, it would not automatically become suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia without coverage in a secondary reliable source.--NØ 07:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

• Apologies for butting into this conversation, but the sentence about the song's use in a Justin Tudeau smear campaign is notable as it was covered by a third-party, reliable source (in this case The Huffington Post). As it was stated above, a cover requires coverage from at least one third-party, reliable source for it to be considered notable enough for inclusion. Here is one potential source that could be used for the "All About the Facts" parody here, which was published by Arutz Sheva. However, I would check to make sure any source that covers this parody is considered reliable and appropriate for Wikipedia; you could use the reliable sources noticeboard for that. I only suggest the RSN as I do not feel comfortable enough, as an American, to determine whether or not an Israeli source is reliable or appropriate for Wikipedia. Aoba47 (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Your participation is welcome. The parody, though, still has just 32,000 views and looks like a failed attempt to go viral. Including it in this section feels like giving it undue weight considering it really didn't get much media (or otherwise) attention. Its so non-notable that it shouldn't be included in a section thats already so bloated. There are thousands of Bass parodies with millions of views, do we really want to send potential readers to a video that didn't get any attention in the first place? I will admit though that the Arutz Sheva source looks reliable.--NØ 19:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

And before someone breaks their heels running in here to accuse me of WP:IDLI, I'm simply trying to determine if the parody's inclusion is WP:UNDUE, which is also a Wikipedia policy. I have no personal feelings regarding the topic of the parody, it just looks like a failed attempt at getting views to the extent that its inclusion in this article almost looks like a promotional vesicle for the otherwise irrelevant parody video.--NØ 20:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Here are the facts of the matter: none of you is disputing that

• this parody is in fact a parody of the song
• the parody concerns the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
• the group responsible has a Wikipedia page

How, then, can anyone claim it's not notable? As mentioner, the group has it's own Wikipedia page; obviously if it were not notable, it would not. So, then, the reliable source argument holds no water, and neither does the notability argument. And for the record: I have zero affiliation with pro- or anti-Israel people (I support a mediated two-state- or even one-state solution), so I chave zero interest in promoting one side or the other, but the fact remains that a notable right-wing group (which even has its own show on Israeli TV) did this parody, and the parody is therefore itself notable, regardless of coverage.

And MaranoFan: your poor behavior (including threats and disruptive reverts of good faith edits) is plain for all to see. It speaks for itself. See my talk page for another example of MaranoFan's abusive behavior. Drummerdg (talk) 03:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Drummerdg Keep the discussion here confined to discussing improvements to the article. You've been reverted by several different editors, and justifiedly so for adding a self-published blog like Israellycool as a source to a GA candidate. You've gotten a lot of leeway for someone who has been edit warring (and adding unreliably sourced content) on this article for months. Attacking an editor who has two featured lists and six good articles related to Meghan Trainor is not gonna help you win any argument here. Thanks, and please use this talk page to interact about the content of this article only. And with regards to the parody itself, I still don't think coverage in one source warrants inclusion here but if consensus suggests so then I'll be okay with adding it back.--NØ 05:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is built mainly on WP:SECONDARY sources. You need such sources for inclusion of this bit. If the Israeli parody is described in a prominent reliable source, then the importance of the parody is established. Binksternet (talk) 04:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

MaranoFan: "Several editors"? Besides you, it's just been Calidum. "Months"? I've made a single edit, and have only reverted your reverts to it; when an uninvolved user reverted me yesterday, I left that in place. And your incessant editing doesn't make you an expert, so I'm not going to address that - I don't care how many edits you've made, you're subject to the same rules as everyone else, and you are the one who's been edit warring; I made a perfectly valid addition, and you've been attacking it ever since.

You didn't make a "perfectly valid addition", you've added content sourced by a highly unreliable self-published blog, thrice, which has been reverted out by multiple editors. Get a grip, you're not entitled to have your edits stay in the article if you fail to provide coverage in a reliable source. The Canadian parody which you tried to bring up above (which is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument anyway) has coverage from the Huffington Post. Now compare the reliability of HuffPost to the sources you added and get back to me genius.--NØ 06:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Nice straw man there - I'm not arguing that there's anything wrong with the bit about Trudeau, or with HuffPost, but that if you accept that as notable, then you can't argue that a clearly notable group like Latma is somehow not worthy of inclusion. That's a double standard, and I will remind you again: you don't own the article. Drummerdg (talk) 06:41, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Your obsession with me is kinda creepy. I'm just participating in this discussion that I started, just like everyone else who has participated here. You're bringing all sorts of offtopic terminology like "straw man" and "ownership" into the discussion when the reality is you're yet to post any coverage in secondary reliable sources of your parody (yes, your behaviour is looking like this is your own parody). Take several seats unless you can find coverage of it in, once again, reliable, secondary sources. I'm a self-admitted fan of Meghan Trainor but that has nothing to do with you adding WP:UNDUE stuff to this article, and others (including me and Calidum) removing it for lack of coverage. Its a flop video with 32 thousand views, I get it, but an encyclopedia article is not the place to promote it.--NØ 07:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

If anything is "creepy", it's the sheer amount of editing you do on this one topic. And my only interest in you is your repeated reverts and harassment directed at me. I already told you, I'm not promoting anything; I have no dog in the fight. It's not my fault if you can't comprehend my argument, but I will not have you twist my words: I never claimed there was a ton of coverage of this particular parody, only that is a verifiable fact that it exists, that it concerns the conflict, that is was created by a group with its own Wikipedia article, and that the YouTube link I provided plainly shows these things to be true. @Binksternet:, @Aoba47: and @Calidum: have stated their case for their interpretation of notability and RS guidelines (without personal attacks), and I will respect their contribution to consensus in that regard. As I said, I have not reverted Calidum's revert for that reason, and that reason only. Unless and until consensus shifts in favor of my edit, I will not reinstate it without sources as described by uninvolved editors. I respect the process - what I do not respect is harassment and condescension. Drummerdg (talk) 07:26, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

tl:dr - I and Calidum did the same thing, revert out your addition of unreliably sourced and undue content, but when I do it you have a problem with it because I'm a fan of the artist in question. Duly noted. No one personally attacked you, I just linked your contributions while starting this discussion because this being one of the only edits you've constantly made again and again over the year strongly suggests its either your parody, or you're a member or supporter of the group that made it. And thats not the reason we add content on Wikipedia, its when something receives enough coverage and its inclusion helps readers.., instead of promoting some video that has less than a hundred thousand views. And that too while using the video itself as a "reference". No need to get your feelings hurt, just look for sources because no amount of consensus in your favour can let the content stay in a good article if there aren't reliable sources covering it.--NØ 07:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

What an absolutely absurd mischaracterization.

• "I and Calidum did the same thing" -> No, Calidum calmly and clearly explained his position, while you harangued me here and on my own Talk Page. And yes, I take issue with the massive volume of your edits on this subject; that's why I put significantly more stock in third opinions of actual uninvolved editors, especially when they reach consensus.
• "edits you've constantly made again and again over the year" -> Coming from someone who has made literally thousands of edits about Meghan Trainor this year, that's just laughable. I made my single edit, and it's been reverted three times over the course of as many months. Nice try.
• "its either your parody, or you're a member or supporter of the group that made it" -> I've already addressed this one multiple times, but in case you either didn't bother reading or somehow failed to understand: I have no affiliation with Latma. Latma is a group of right-wingers; in fact, if you to the article, you'll find that it was me who pointed that out in the first place: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Latma&diff=659805572&oldid=651609283}}. I included a source there because I was making a claim; I am doing no such thing here.

You may have had luck bullying your way through arguments in the past, but that's not going to work here. I can and will call you out. Drummerdg (talk) 16:28, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Binksternet Fair enough, but then I would again direct you to the bit about the Justin Trudeau parody; the source cited there is HuffPost, hardly much of a trusted news source (I'd rank it perhaps one above BuzzFeed for quality). So if that is to be the standard, that's a very low bar that just about any blog can match. That, combined with the aforementioned fact that Latma is itself notable per Wikipedia's standard for article creation is surely more than enough basis for inclusion here. Drummerdg (talk) 05:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Drummerdg: If you would really like to see the information in the article, then I suggest finding a reliable, third-party source that covers it. The requirement for a notable source is typically some sort of editorial oversight, which excludes self-published blogs from consideration. You can read more about it here. I have provided a single source above to try and help. I would recommend you focus more on that if you would like to see the parody mentioned in the article. Whether or not the group in question has their own Wikipedia page is not relevant to this discussion. I disagree with the following statement "the parody is therefore itself notable, regardless of coverage" as coverage is what proves notability on Wikipedia. Nothing is inherently notable without coverage (i.e. Notability requires verifiable evidence). I am echoing a similar point raised by @Binksternet: and @Calidum: as it is the best way to handle this in my opinion. Aoba47 (talk) 06:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• Just wanted to provide a quick update. I asked the RSN about the Arutz Sheva source (which you can read about here) and it was determined that it was not usable for this article. I do not have an investment either way about this, but I just wanted to follow up with this. Pinging @Drummerdg: as they were the primary user regarding the inclusion of the parody. If you have any other questions or find a possible source regarding this parody, feel free to ping me and I will try my best to help out. I understand these kinds of situations can be frustrating. Aoba47 (talk) 01:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks - I would tend to agree as well; also, they're biased (although so is the parody itself). I have no personal investment in this particular addition to the article; any frustration I have comes purely from the fact that I was convinced the sourcing was perfectly fine, given that I was making no claim other than existence of the video (that, combined with some of the nastiness you can see in the posts above). Drummerdg (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• I understand. Again, I just wanted to help. I hope that you have a wonderful weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 01:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• I appreciate that, and was not referring to you at all. Thanks and same to you! Drummerdg (talk) 02:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

---

Cool, so that settles it. Just making a partition to encourage any admins, or uninvolved users, to put an archive top and bottom to this discussion. Since the source covering it is now proved unsuitable for use and its useless to leave this open for more pointless mudslinging.--NØ 01:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Fine by me. I have no desire to continue this discussion any further either. Everything is out in the open for admins and uninvolved users to see, exactly as you say. Drummerdg (talk) 02:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Strong Influence from Betty Wright

I was checking this article and there's absolutely no reference to the song "Don't Forget To Say I Love You Today" by Betty Wright. Check it out here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4YVE6KI7hY Listening to both songs, the similarities are way too strong to not have been an influence, so I wonder if this hasn't been confirmed, or if it has, if it's not noteworthy. Despite the heavy influence, there's no reference to the song, artist, musicians involved in Betty Wright's song. I'm not used to edit this kind of article, neither am I used to going after sources for this kind of thing, so I don't feel comfortable adding it to the article myself. But in my personal opinion it should definitely be present somewhere. Msbarrios (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Fish?

I had to read way, way down to find out whether the song (or at least its title is about a fish type or voice type). Only when it was contrasted with treble was it clear. There should be something in the lead to clear this up, e.g., a pronunciation guide. 79.134.37.73 (talk) 09:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

No commentary on such a distinction is prevalent in the reliable sources I checked. Please provide one if you want the change made.--NØ 12:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure how 2600:1700:C860:C160:E443:6DF3:9C33:2B97 (talk) 23:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)