Jump to content

Talk:Deja Vu (Olivia Rodrigo song)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Decision to redirect

@MaranoFan, Sanastrology, and Dangerouspositions: I wanted to let you all know that I decided to redirect the article as it does not currently have significant coverage in sources. I did a quick Google search, and, while lots of sources turned up, they all only cover the announcement of the song. Even if there are 10 sources backing it up, there’s still not enough diverse coverage for the article to be notable. Moving forward, unless one of you wants to move the article to draftspace, please don’t recreate the article until the song has significant coverage from sources. Update: Significant coverage of the song will probably happen on Thursday, when the song is released. After all, unreleased songs are very seldom notable. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 01:03, 30 March 2021 (UTC) (updated 01:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC))

I think we have different standards for notability, which is fine. I will highly suggest not redirecting again after the article has been restored as that is considered bad form. I will leave it to your good judgement whether an AfD is something you want to pursue. Thanks, likewise!--NØ 02:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
@MaranoFan: I’m just trying to go by advice given to me by AfC patrollers, but I think AfD is a bit excessive. While I might not agree that the subject is 100% notable (although your expansion definitely helped), I don’t want to take any further action as adequate sources covering the song in full will be published in less that 48 hours when the song is released, and I can definitely aid in adding these sources if needed. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 15:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
@Doggy54321 and MaranoFan: I think the best way to approach this matter is to move this article into a draft form and work on it there. The reason why I say this is because I'm kind of reference to what happened to You All Over Me. Now, since Olivia announced it today that it will be releasing on Thursday, it is well to say that more sources — reliable ones — will be published and maybe even Olivia might be interviewed by someone to be talking about her new song "Deja Vu." Now, I agree with Doggy54321 that 10 sources do not cover the whole story. This is my take at it. I won't take immediate action now, but that's what I suggest. Jack Reynolds (talk to me!) (email me!!) 16:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
This is the second single from the year's breakout artist that drops in less than 48 hours. I think the article is fine where it is. If you are so inclined, AfD it. And this is on my watchlist so no more pings are necessary. Thanks.—NØ 16:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
@JackReynoldsADogOwner: Thanks for the suggestion! The situation is a tad different here. I do appreciate you helping, but I’m going to side with Marano here and say that the article is fine to be in the mainspace. AfC is a long process and, right now, it’s more work to move it to draft, expand it there and then submit it once the article is ready (which will be in the next day or two) than to simply have it stay put and expand it here. Thanks for the suggestion, though! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 17:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Emalee Flores.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Deja Vu (Olivia Rodrigo song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: VersaceSpace (talk · contribs) 18:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Will start this shortly. --VersaceSpace 🌃 18:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Lead and infobox

  • This section is mostly good, but the over-use of the word "pop" is sort of an eyesore. Maybe just leave it as a pop song and leave the descriptiveness in the infobox.
  • "mimick" should be spelled "mimic"

Background and promotion

  • Good

Composition

  • Good

Critical reception

  • Good

Commercial performance

  • Good

Music video

  • Good

Live performances

  • Good

Credits and personnel

  • Good

Charts

  • Good

Certifications

  • The Swedish cert has me confused. 4,000,000 streams or units? I also can't find the figure in the citation.
  • That's a stream count. It seems all hits from ~2019 or later are certified with only streams there.

Release history

References

  • Good, though cite 32 doesn't need the NYT wiki-link
  • I've linked works throughout actually so leaving it unlinked here would cause an inconsistency.

Overall

Very well written article, though, of course, I wouldn't expect anything different from thee MaranoFan. I'll put this  On hold pending the few issues I mentioned but this is good! --VersaceSpace 🌃 18:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the kind words, VersaceSpace! I've addressed everything.--NØ 19:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
No problem! I've gone ahead and  Passed the article. --VersaceSpace 🌃 19:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by 97198 (talk) 11:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by MaranoFan (talk). Self-nominated at 19:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC).

  • Hi MaranoFan! Nice to see you again. I'll take this review to ease the backlog.
  • The article is long enough at around 12k characters, well written, and neutral. It was brought to GA quality yesterday. All sources used are of good quality; no obvious copyright violations jump out. Reviewer has done their QPQ.
  • The hooks themselves are present in the article and are cited to a high-quality source. While I appreciate the Taylor Swift interpolation, I personally prefer ALT0, though I would trim down the "inspired by Notes app ideas" to make it shorter and punchier. The fact that Nigro and Rodrigo wrote the entire song in one day is interesting enough. Good to go. ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
    📝see my work     02:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Background section image

The Background section has room for one image. It should be one of Rodrigo, the most important person associated with the song, who is continuously mentioned throughout the article and not really properly visible in the artwork. Such an image is also appropriate to accompany the article on the main page. The image of Taylor Swift a swiftie is forcefully and repeatedly inserting cannot replace it due to those reasons. And the comparisons made here are musical, not of physical looks, so it is demonstrating nothing of value to the reader the removal of which would be detrimental to them. Hope that clears it up. Anyone else feel free to chime in.--NØ 15:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Billboard stats for “Deja Vu”…

I just wanted to clarify something— in the article, it’s stated with “deja vu”, ”the song debuted at number eight on the Billboard Hot 100 and made Rodrigo the first artist to debut their first two singles in the chart's top 10. It eventually peaked at number three.” I am a fan of hers, and I don’t mean any hate towards her at all, but is she really the “first” to debut two singles in the top ten, though? Because I can think of several other musicians or groups who’ve had similar (even slightly higher) chart performances over the years. For example…

Spice Girls: “Wannabe” (January 1997) entered the Billboard Hot 100 at No. 10, and eventually hit No. 1, where it stayed for four weeks. Then it dipped slightly, to No. 2, remaining solidly in that spot for another four weeks, as well. In total, “Wannabe” was in the top-10 for 15 weeks. The Girls’ second single, “Say You’ll Be There” (May 1997), entered the Hot 100 at No. 5; the following week it peaked at No. 3, where it stayed for three more weeks. Thus the Spice Girls’ debut two singles were Top Ten hits in the US. This was something that hadn’t been achieved in America—by a British group—since The Beatles. Even beyond that, their third single, “2 become 1” (August 1997), was in the Top-10 for nine weeks, debuting at No. 6 and rising to the No. 4 spot.

Even R&B singer Monica—while she may not be the biggest singer in history, her debut single “Don't Take It Personal (Just One Of Dem Days)” peaked at No. 2 in 1995, followed by the double A-side single “Before You Walk Out Of My Life/Like This And Like That“ reaching No. 7 on the chart.

I’m just saying, it has happened before. No hate! ❤️ Nepenthes1001 (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Monica's second single, "Before You Walk Out Of My Life/Like This And Like That", seems to have debuted at number 51 on the Billboard Hot 100 dated October 21, 1995 so not in the top 10. "Wannabe" debuted at number 11 on the issue dated January 25, 1997, also not in the top 10.--NØ 20:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

proper singles

i am having trouble confirming the statement, made both in the article lead and body, that this song "mad[e] Rodrigo the first artist to debut their first two singles in the [Billboard Hot 100] chart's top 10". in fact, the cited billboard source actually appears to explicitly refute this statement, mentioning that "deja vu" is the third single by rodrigo to have entered the chart.

As "License," which soared onto the Hot 100 at No. 1 in January and "Deja Vu" are Rodrigo's first two singles promoted to radio, streaming services and other platforms (and mark her second and third Hot 100 entries, respectively, after "All I Want," from High School Musical: The Musical: The Series [Music From the Disney+ Original Series], reached No. 90 in January 2020), she is the first artist to send her first two proper singles straight onto the Hot 100 in the top 10. [link removed]

to me, it seems like the statement in the article is missing the qualifier "proper". admittedly, though, i am not familiar enough with the music industry to know if "proper single" is a well-defined term, so perhaps the article should somehow explain that the singles being considered her first two in the statement are actually her first two "promoted to radio, streaming services and other platforms".

in case it helps, i also found another billboard source that makes a similar statement with respect to the streaming songs chart that might be easier to explain without qualification: "Rodrigo becomes the first artist in Streaming Songs history to debut their first two entries in the chart's top five".

please note that the statement about rodrigo's performance on the billboard hot 100 is also present in the tfa blurb scheduled to appear on the main page within two days. tfa blurbs have a character limit, which this blurb has already hit, so i am not sure how best to address the issue there.

courtesy pinging fac nominator MaranoFan. dying (talk) 07:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing this, dying. As you noted, there are limited ways to address this issue in the blurb due to the character limit but I have added a wikilink to clarify what Billboard meant by singles. In the article itself I have added a more comprehensive note. Singles and promotional singles are distinctly defined entities and I assure you that there is nothing factually inaccurate about the statement in either the blurb or the article. Let me know if there is still an issue.--NØ 10:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
MaranoFan, if billboard uses the word "single" to mean what you appear to be saying they mean by the term, then i believe there shouldn't be any need for billboard to qualify the term when mentioning rodrigo's feat. the fact that they felt the need to explain what they meant by "proper single" over a whole paragraph strikes me as evidence that billboard does not define the term "single" in that manner. i had tried searching for other articles on billboard that phrased the statement in a manner similar to how it currently appears in this wikipedia article, but instead found another article that made the same qualification, stating that "the 18-year-old star is the first artist to send her first two proper singles straight onto the Hot 100 in the top 10".
i think, if wikipedia distinctly defined "single" and "promotional single", then your solution of linking to wikipedia's definition of "single" would be proper. however, i could not find any evidence in the linked article that suggests that wikipedia considers the two terms distinct. in fact, the "promotional recording" article explicitly defines a "promotional single" as a type of single.

A promotional single (digital single in South Korea) is a single that is made available to radio stations, nightclubs, music publications, and other media outlets by a record label to promote a commercial single or album. [bold stylization and links removed]

in addition, our article on rodrigo's discography also lists her promotional singles under the "Singles" heading (and suggests that rodrigo had at least seven singles out before the release of "deja vu"). furthermore, the essay wp:promosingle covers how songs are generally categorized as either "promotional singles" or "official singles" (or "regular singles") on wikipedia, which suggests that we also use similar qualifications in our internal discussions.
i am not sure if hiding a qualification in a footnote is a proper way to deal with the issue. i believe the statements made in both the article lead and body are still factually inaccurate as is, and any reader who only looks at the article lead will be misled, as there is no way for the reader to realize that the statement is qualified by a footnote. (the same is also obviously true for those who only read the blurb.)
i have been racking my brain trying to figure out how to save the statement in the blurb, but the best idea i could come up with was adding the qualification "non-promotional" to the statement. this solution is admittedly problematic because "non-promotional single" does not appear to be an oft-used term in the industry (it does not seem to be used anywhere on billboard.com, and appears to be used only thrice in en wikipedia's article space), and linking the term "promotional single" for main page readers unfamiliar with the term would result in the phrase being presented as "non-promotional single", which may suggest that the phrase should be interpreted as meaning "a thing that is not a promotional single" rather than "a single that is not promotional".
another alternative is to add the parenthetical "(other than promotional singles)" before "in the top ten", though that would likely require the removal of something substantial from the blurb. (offhand, i would recommend dropping "performed the song on shows and" and the following "2022".) note that i think both of these solutions might violate wp:or because the billboard sources do not appear to present the statement in relation to the term "promotional single", but i believe that both options are much better than what is currently in the blurb. dying (talk) 10:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Sorry but this is a non-issue and several editors who reviewed the FAC, some of whom specialize in music FAs, took no issue with how the statement is articulated. Both statements are fine. Promotional singles are not singles or else there wouldn't be two different terms. Saying X song is a "proper" single and "Y" song is not a "proper" single clearly means Billboard also draws the distinction. This distinction is also validated by several FAs that have passed through community consensus, for e.g. 1989 states the album released seven singles (no mention of "proper") despite there being more promotional singles. Needlessly inserting the word "proper" is going to raise more questions for the average reader than it will answer so it is a no. I suggest you learn about the difference and not reply with walls of text as it is honestly a bit disrespectful. FAC is a consensus driven process and it is not right to unilaterally subvert the reviewers' preferred wording a few hours before an article is featured.--NØ 13:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I think you are all missing the actual point. The High School Musical song isn't really a Rodrigo release, it is an HSM cast release. The other two are properly hers.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 03:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia do PR and marketing for pop stars now?

Call it a hot take, but to choose the release date of Rodrigo's new album to feature an article about a song from her previous album hardly seems appropriate. 2601:281:D781:DEC0:855B:6794:AA9C:60B8 (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedians are free to create and edit any article they want. This includes bringing them up to Good Article or Featured Article quality for review. This article was promoted to FA in October of last year. Other artists from BTS to Taylor Swift, Jimi Hendrix, and Claude Debussy are featured. A featured article is, you guessed it, featured every day on the front page. Hope this helps! Zorblin (talk) 17:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Respectfully, it doesn't! It sidesteps the question wholesale. I take no umbrage with the article's existence or Featured Article status, or with Wikipedians' freedom to create or edit any article they want. I benefit greatly from that freedom.
Rather, I pointed out that it seems inappropriate that today, this article about a song by a living, producing artist who just so happens to have a brand new album dropping today, is featured on the homepage of Wikipedia. That does not at all seem to be in keeping with Wikipedia's values. 2601:281:D781:DEC0:A55F:8AE2:D979:24D0 (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2023

Raid In brookhaven — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.53.57.15 (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Unusual

How remarkable: a Wikipedia article about a song actually discusses what the song is about! Well done! Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 20:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deja_Vu_(Olivia_Rodrigo_song)/Archive_1&oldid=1174558941"