Talk:Love Me Harder

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

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2015[edit]

177.177.70.208 (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See below. Shearonink (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2015[edit]

177.177.70.208 (talk) 15:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] 

 line and above the  line.
I'm sorry but I can't tell what your request is. Shearonink (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chart[edit]

Finland's chart need to be update! Love Me Harder peak at #14 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.53.166.64 (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Certification[edit]

Love Me Harder is Gold in Italy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.53.166.64 (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Certification[edit]

Love Me Harder is Gold in Denmark! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.18.209.68 (talk) 14:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chart[edit]

Why are Israel and Lebanon's charts unnecessary?? In Israel the song peaks at #1 and in Lebanon at #8! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.55.218.35 (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2015[edit]

Love Me Harder reached number 4 in Billboardcanadachrtop40,according to the graph of nielsen BDS the song has received certificate for 1 million digital copies and currently passes 1,060,000.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Amortias (T)(C) 22:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Love Me Harder. 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:

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reception at the top[edit]

Ever since I started to contribute and/or develop articles here on Wikipedia, by everything that I read, I have always used a good article as an example to know how can I improve and contribute in the best possible way. Whenever an editor is editing an article, we need to understand which topics we are going to approach at the top of the article, and the critical reception part has always been useful and very important for the reader. Featured articles such as "Love the Way You Lie", "Déjà Vu (Beyoncé song)" and even "Imagine (John Lennon song)" (to name only a few) have always presented a critical point of view. It's very important and in every good article here on Wikipedia (with very few exceptions) the critical reception is present at the top. I have worked on many articles and most of them that received a good article status were approved with the critical consensus at the top (which was always said to be extremely important). I have observed that though is important to sum up, it's not good to exclude the critical consensus, because though they differ in their opinion about a song, in all of the articles that are approved to be "good", the contributors always know how to deal with different opinions.

In this case (and on the "Into You (Ariana Grande song)" article, which was also taken away, even though both songs were positively reviewed), it's very easy to interpret as "The song was acclaimed by music critics", citing a few reasons. My main reason to edit on Wikipedia is to improve articles and reaching them for "good article" status, but with this kind of exclusion of a very important part which is the critical at the top is going to be very hard. For every song/single article on Wikipedia, with different reviews, it is necessary to find a critical consensus about the song, and it's not a hard task to take it away like that, I have always done, and it's what make an article to stand out. It's simple, we can't generalize, but it's necessary to exhibit what critics said about the song in general. FanofPopMusic (talk) 05:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had a few problems with your edit, later restored without comment by an IP.
  • This was not a minor edit. Please review Help:Minor edit. Edit summaries are also helpful. Thanks.
  • If the IP was you (as seems to be the case), please note that when you boldly make a change and it is reverted, it is generally time to discuss the issue (WP:BRD). Simply reverting to your preferred version without comment is unlikely to resolve the issue and is really little more than a step toward edit warring.
  • If you take issue with an edit and wish to discuss the issue, canvassing for support of your preferred outcome is not acceptable.
  • As for the content, I do not doubt for a moment that there are other articles -- even "featured" articles -- that have various types of things in them. These other articles are not this article. Maybe the situation is exactly the same as the one we are discussing and the same content based on the same sources was specifically reviewed as part of the FA review. Or not.
  • You stated the song was "Critically acclaimed". Yes, there are some positive reviews. "Acclaim" is not merely positive, it is enthusiastically positive. That does not cover "Grande surprisingly holds her own", "the least bad thing the Weeknd has done in recent memory or Grande is "effective" on the track and that The Weeknd "worryingly hits higher-pitched peaks than Grande." Your summary is not an accurate summary.
  • You then list things that you selected as things the song "received praise for". Yeah, there were several things it was praised for, you chose a few, and ignored the repeated rips on The Weeknd in those same reviews.
  • "Commercially, the song proved to be successful in the United States..." is probably meant to summarize that the song "peaked at number seven on the Billboard Hot 100". If "commercially...proved to be successful" is an undeniably accurate reflectiong of peaking at number 7, the first half of that sentance is completely redundant and unnecessary. If it summarizes that information and other information, it is WP:SYN.
  • The statement that it "achieved moderate success" elsewhere is certainly a combination of information from multiple sources to say something that none of the sources say individually.
  • The statement "reaching the top-twenty in over seven countries" is interesting. Is "over seven" eight? Why not say "under nine"? Because "over seven" sounds like more? The the "top-twenty"? Why not the top five or the top 50? Vague statements like this are used by restaurants to make their skimpy wine lists seem larger or by car companies to promote their cars. It is you looking through the charts, deciding which is a meaningfully country representative chart and coming up with a way to boost the song. It is not a simple, verifiable statement of relevant information. To get to that "over seven", it would seem you had to use at least two "digital", "radio play" or similar charts. What is the criteria for selecting which charts count as countries' top charts? Where did those criteria come from?
  • Yes, the song was performed live and played on tour, probably to promote the song (and album and tour and artist). Mel Gibson has feet, but Mel Gibson doesn't mention them. - SummerPhDv2.0 02:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The IP is not mine at all, I only have this user account and always enter with my nickname. ALWAYS. FanofPopMusic (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Love Me Harder. 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:

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) 19:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Acoustic Version[edit]

No mention of this excellent version, with its dry studio acoustics showcasing their unadorned vocal capabilities. It has 13m+ views on Youtube. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.82.0.245 (talk) 09:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Love Me Harder. 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:

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) 10:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Love_Me_Harder&oldid=1221688632"