Talk:Hummingbird Heartbeat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Hummingbird Heartbeat was a Music good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are 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
August 17, 2012 Good article nominee Not listed
February 25, 2013 Articles for deletion Kept
February 16, 2014 Articles for deletion Kept
Current status: Former good article nominee


Who on earth thinks a radio station playing it in one country for a couple weeks equates to this being an official single? It has no add date, no single art, no individual purchase and none of her fans or crew have ever called this a single. BlaccCrab (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Single or not a single[edit]

There is no secondary conclusion to this discussion. No evidence has been put forward that discredits the two reliable sources that explicit state that "Hummingbird Heartbeat" WAS indeed an Australia-only single release. This conversation should not be modified; please start a new conversation only if new information becomes available.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In my research, I have not found any reliable sources indicating this song was ever released as a single. "Wide Awake" was also officially declared as the end of the "Teenage Dream" era. Her songs "Pearl" and "Who Am I Living For?" have articles, but were never singles. If anything, this song may have been more like a promotional single, though. Thesomeone987 (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The Music Network, Australia's equivalent of Billboard, spoke of "Hummingbird" being serviced to Australian radio. Pop Crush says it would be the ninth single in the UK and Australia, however, I live in the UK and can verify it was never serviced or played on UK radio. In AUS charts are not compiled by Airplay thus this should probably be noted as a promotional single as it was never released for digital download and AUS seems to to be the only country where it was serviced to radio. Lil_niquℇ 1 [talk] 21:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
PopCrush isn't exactly a reliable source, just saying. Living in the USA, I never heard anything about it on the radio and it never played for us either. If TheMusicNetwork is equivalent is Billboard, then that should be used in place of PopCrush, as Billboard is known to be very reputable. Since you mentioned it, playing a song in one country alone really isn't enough to make it an official single. Thesomeone987 (talk) 02:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what country a song is released in; it doesn't make it a single or not a single. It's an Australian-only single.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 02:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
In any case, it should be listed in chronology for "Promotional singles" rather than "singles" chronology. Thesomeone987 (talk) 03:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
A promotional single is a song that is released for free of charge (please make yourself familiar with what a promo single actually is). Unless there's a specific source calling it a promo single (which none has been provided, and there is one calling it a single), it's a single. Case closed.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Whatever Status, the problems remain of the article starting with "Humbingbird Heartbeat is a song...." but the Infobox stating "Single by Katy Perry"'. For the people who don't follow fanzine articles that's pretty ambiguous. So I changed the intro to help make it a little clearer, but you reverted me without saying why. Please explain. Moriori (talk) 03:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I fixed the problem. I hadn't realized the lead didn't mention it's release as a single. Now it's there twice. The first sentence is how it is a song recorded by her. This is following proper formatting of a song article.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
The YouTube trailer for Wide Awake specifically stated that it, not Hummingbird Heartbeat, would be Teenage Dream's last single. Every KatyCat I've talked to says Wide Awake (or perhaps KP3D) officially ends the Teenage Dream era (Katy herself also states so here: It's like Peacock- "charted" in some instances, but NOT a single. (talk) 03:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Since when artists release their own songs and fans are reliable sources? Singles are released by record labels for commercial reasons, not because artists state them. For many months Dance in the Dark was in doubt to be a single because "Lady Gaga didn't promotion it as her other singles", but it was released as a single in a few territories. The persistant removal of content here, Wide Awake and Teenage Dream will lead your account to be blocked, and considering the last time this IP was blocked for six months the next one will last a year, so for your good stop edit-warring, because citing "the truth" is not a justification for warring. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually, artists DO have say in choosing singles. For example, Katy chose The One That Got Away as her sixth single as shown here:
Also, she would certainly not release anything without even once (or even indirectly) mentioning so. Case closed. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Multiple reliable sources call it a single. Case closed.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Other than Music Network, what would those sources be? Keep in mind, even reliable sources can be wrong at times. As mentioned above, Katy herself repeatedly stated Wide Awake was to be the last single from the Teenage dream era. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Read the above discussion and find out. Katy herself is a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE, so thus, is unreliable anyway. It was a single; deal with it and move on.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Although this track was serviced as the ninth (!!) single from Teenage Dream in Australia, a full music video and worldwide push would have been more satisfactory.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

From my searches (and based on previous comments), it would appear that Music Network has been the only reputable source to list this track as a single. If word from Katy herself is not accepted for verification, what about her website ( Her twitter would surely be one. (talk) 02:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
two sources both reliable: Digital Spy and The Music Network call the song a single. All a song needs to be classified as a single is: acknowledgment and a release (which includes service to radio) independent of the parent album. Yes, normally a full single release gets a music video etc, but an independent release in just one territory is enough for a single release to be established. The artist doesn't need to announce that the song is a single... this is especially the case where singles are only released in limited territories. Of course, Katy talks of their being eight official singles from the album, but why would she make a concession for a single released in one territory?. This conversation is over. — Lil_niquℇ 1 [talk] 18:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Rather than have an image of her ex-husband in the article, it would be more suitable to have a cover as the profile picture and perhaps a photo or two of Katy performing the song itself. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

well it was inspired by Russell Brand ans as for "cover picture", there isn't an official single cover. Finally as for pictures of her performing the song, if someone took a picture during a concert they can upload it. The pics have to be free. — Lil_niquℇ 1 [talk] 21:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Inspiration for material or not, the only logical reasons to have his photo featured would be if he was part of a music video of the song or if he co-wrote/sang any parts of the song. (talk) 22:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
No... you are completely incorrect. — Status (talk · contribs) 02:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Think of it this way: If inspiration alone was counted as sufficient criteria for using photos, there would be lots more image-filled articles. Having so many image-filled articles wouldn't make much sense. (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

An image is appropriate where it can be justified to expand upon or clarify the topic of an article. Perry talking about the song being inspired by her husband is sufficient justification for the inclusion of the image of Brand. → LilniquԐ 1 -{ Talk }- 19:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

What I meant was that articles shouldn't have inspiration images as their only image(s). It would be better off with only a "cover photo" (though there doesn't appear to be one) or photo(s) of her performing the song (cover or performance could be used for profile pic). (talk) 19:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Can you login to your account please? — Status (talk · contribs) 23:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The dispute[edit]

This has gone on long enough. For the sake of resolving this, can we come to a consensus on the Russell Brand image, PopCrush and Tricky Stewart, please? Starting a discussion because me protecting the page would be a blatant abuse of the admin tools, given my participation in the dispute. Pinging @Status:, @Tbhotch:, @Tomica: and @XXSNUGGUMSXX:. Acalamari 21:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

As I have mentioned, calling PopCrush reliable is as inaccurate as saying Fox News supports liberals or that Steve Jobs never made a penny in his life. That website has been known to repeatedly give out false/fabricated information. Yes, I have looked into the site and know exactly what I'm saying. For example, when Demi Lovato's biological father passed away in June 2013, PopCrush gave the impression that the two were close when in reality Demi repeatedly made clear that she never had interest in connecting with him and that they hardly ever spoke to each other after he and her mother divorced. No explanation has been given for how it could be credible. @Till: also mentioned in the debate on whether to keep this article that it is not a reliable source.
As for Tricky, it seemed more appropriate to list him simply as "Tricky" since he does not go by "Christopher". If a biographical article of a relative mentioned him, it would be a more suitable situation to list him as "Christopher". No reason has been given to list him as such in a song article.
Regarding images, as I mentioned in the "images" section of this talk page, it would be much more suitable to have covert art, a photo of someone who contributed vocals, lyrics, instrumentals, etc., or someone (especially Katy herself) performing the song, in this article. There has been no explanation for how/why containing an image of him would provide any benefit. Especially in this case, since it basically has the same words as the section first mentioning him and he did not even contribute to the song, it would be redundant to have his photo. If he performed the song, then an image of him doing so would be more suitable for feature.
For some reason, my explanations have been shot down without providing any counter-reasons. Even if people disagreed with my inputs, I at least provided explanations for why I disagree. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

You must stop calling PopCrush unreliable with zero sources to back up your claims. And if you truly believed it was unreliable (and not just unreliable because it posted articles about things you dispute), you would make a move to get the site blacklisted from use on Wikipedia. The album booklet credits him as C. "Tricky" Stewart; you can't just pick whatever the hell you want to name him. The image has been discussed in an earlier thread. I get it, she isn't with him anymore, but the song was about him. The picture stays. It's a relevant image. — Status (talk · contribs) 01:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

One of many instances were PopCrush was proven to be lying:
To add an image of someone already mentioned and to use the same description is quite redundant. Therefore, the pic is redundant and unnecessary. It would be better to add if he perhaps performed it and/or contributed vocals, lyrics, instrumentals, etc. For this reason, the article would be better off with an image of someone like Katy herself and/or Tricky Stewart, who actually contributed to the song.

XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


I'm not too sure how this song is notable enough to have its own article. While it may have charted, the song didn't exactly have an impact (unlike the previous Teenage Dream singles) and is widely unheard of outside of Katy Perry's fanbase and music critics. I suggest we reassess the decision to keep this article. If not delete, it's best to redirect this article to the Teenage Dream album page. The "Who Am I Living For?" and "Pearl" articles are even less notable and really shouldn't have their own articles. For now, I am placing a tag indicating this article's notability is questioned. (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Re-nominate for deletion[edit]

Since for some reason the AfD tag links to the previous debate, a reassessment will be held here. The song fails notability per WP:NSONGS as it never exactly made headlines or achieved any popularity whatsoever. Regarding release and charting, the chart positions it reached were rather low, and never really made highlights in the music industry. Also, not every single released becomes notable. The song also had no impact whatsoever on Katy Perry's career. If the singles from Katy Hudson aren't notable enough to have their own articles (which actually were significant to her career unloke this song), than this definitely isn't either. If not delete, I strongly suggest merge. (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

You used an incorrect tag when trying to nominate the article for an AfD. See WP:AFD for detailed instructions about what to do when nominating an article that was previously listed for AfD. Note also that apart from tagging the article, you'll need to create a new AfD discussion page and to list the article in today's AfD log. Nsk92 (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, I see that you used the correct AfD tag now. However, the AfD nomination process is not yet completed. You still need to do two more steps: create a new AfD discussion page and then list the article in today's AfD log. If you are having difficulty with these steps, please mention it here, and I'll complete the AfD listing process for you. Nsk92 (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes I'm having difficulty. (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, hold on, I'll try to fix this in a few minutes. Nsk92 (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, done. I have created a new AfD page, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hummingbird Heartbeat (2nd nomination) and have corrected the listing of this nom in today's AfD log, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 16. Nsk92 (talk) 19:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)