Talk:Thank U, Next (song)/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Thank U, Next (song). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Cover art
@Ss112: They're not the same. My version lacks the parental advisory label, but you're definitely gonna say "why does that necessarily make your version better? It's not standard blah blah blah". Anyway I don't give a shit, I'm fine with whatever makes you happy 
. Hayman30 (talk) 04:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Hayman30: I've just looked at the source of your image and you've claimed Tidal, but the URL says "resources.wimpmusic.com". I looked at Wimp Music (never heard of it previously), and their main store uses the Parental Advisory (at least, in Australia) (https://play.wimpmusic.com/album/97918443) so now I'm confused... Edit: Okay, apparently WiMP basically became Tidal. But it still has its own website one can access? Does your version of Tidal or WiMP show a Parental Advisory-less version? Ss112 05:01, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Lol the URL does not necessarily indicate where it's from, check this page and open the image in a new tab. You thought this is some fan made fake cover art? Also I love how you implied in your edit summary here that I knew this page existed when I was making my page and I was intentionally making an article separately lol. Hayman30 (talk) 05:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- How would I think a Parental Advisory-less cover art is a "fan made fake"? At most, I would think it was edited specifically to remove it. And no, I did not imply that, I said "I know it sucks" to preface what I was about to say: that you'd be disappointed having made an effort when I've then just said an article for the song already existed. Don't read into something that isn't there. Don't know why you're so pissed off, here now and this? You can chill, it's not life or death. This message doesn't require a retort about "hypocrisy" either. Ss112 05:08, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- As Parental Advisory-less versions are preferred if they clearly exist online and are not edits, I've reinstated your version. Now there's definitely no reason for you to continue to have this battleground mentality. Ss112 05:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- "Battleground mentality"? You were the one who escalated the situation. You immediately reverted me when I replaced and tagged the file you uploaded, when you were the one who initially changed the cover. Then you came my talk page and typed me a message when you told me to discuss? Why bother leaving me a message when you expected me to dicuss?
I know it sucks to have to not have made it yourself but Thank U, Next (song) existed first.
I interpret that as you implying that I knew it existed and subsequently felt that "it sucks" and proceeded to make my own page instead. I was clearly editing on mobile so I can't multitask with multiple tabs and closely monitor page histories of each individual namespace. Furthermore this isn't even the correct namespace. The album isn't notable yet and an article for it doesn't exist just yet so the song should be the primary topic. As far as I know we don't "reserve" namespaces for future articles, but I might be wrong. Hayman30 (talk) 05:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)- I don't believe reverting someone once indicates a battleground mentality, nor is asking you to discuss it. Again, I said you didn't need to come back with a retort about hypocrisy but there you go. It was unnecessary to escalate this further. I will say though that, well, you interpreted wrong. People sometimes preface statements with an expectation of how the person they're saying it to might feel, not always after they make the statement. It's a thing. I would find it hard to assume I meant you had bad intentions when nobody could really have put together the article you did in the five minutes between yours and this being made. That's not really realistic, so that's clearly not what I meant. You were obviously working on yours at the same time, that much is obvious. Please don't assume the worst of people. Finally, doesn't really matter where it was made so long as it's clearly notable and doesn't contain a bunch of wayward unsourced statements, etc. Ss112 05:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- You came off as aggressive immediately after you discovered that I made my article, saying that you know "it sucks" for me not have created the article first. I never felt that way. I recently lost interest in creating articles and definitely don't endeavor to be the first. I was actually surprised that the current article had more content than mine and just needed some fine tuning. You ramped it up from the beginning. Then when I replaced your image with mine you immediately reverted it and wrote me a message saying that I did that because I thought "I uploaded my file first"? I never said or implied that, you were putting words in my mouth. You didn't closely examine both of our images before reverting, and you were being skeptical of the source of my image because of what? You simply weren't happy that I replaced and tagged your image. I don't think I'm wholly at fault here. Alsp when I said this isn't the correct namespace, I mean that because it's incorrect I wouldn't be creating an article on or monitor it, not that I created the article in the correct namespace hence my article should be kept, if that makes sense to you. Hayman30 (talk) 00:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- You're still going with this? How is it "aggressive" to acknowledge that "it sucks" for somebody to have made an effort and for it to go to waste? That's a rhetorical question. I don't really care about the answer. Of course, let's ignore that I was actually trying to help you out by requesting a histmerge at this article after I reverted you at the other (It was denied due to it being a parallel history, which I suspected would happen). Hardly "aggressive right from the start". And no, I said I thought you might think yours should stay because it was uploaded first. Go read what I said again. Thinking somebody might say something is not putting words in their mouth. Honestly. Time for you to get over it, I think. It's best for everybody, because this conversation stopped being pertinent to this article after my first reply. Have your last word or whatever. Your opinion is not fact, sorry. Bye. Ss112 03:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- You came off as aggressive immediately after you discovered that I made my article, saying that you know "it sucks" for me not have created the article first. I never felt that way. I recently lost interest in creating articles and definitely don't endeavor to be the first. I was actually surprised that the current article had more content than mine and just needed some fine tuning. You ramped it up from the beginning. Then when I replaced your image with mine you immediately reverted it and wrote me a message saying that I did that because I thought "I uploaded my file first"? I never said or implied that, you were putting words in my mouth. You didn't closely examine both of our images before reverting, and you were being skeptical of the source of my image because of what? You simply weren't happy that I replaced and tagged your image. I don't think I'm wholly at fault here. Alsp when I said this isn't the correct namespace, I mean that because it's incorrect I wouldn't be creating an article on or monitor it, not that I created the article in the correct namespace hence my article should be kept, if that makes sense to you. Hayman30 (talk) 00:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- I don't believe reverting someone once indicates a battleground mentality, nor is asking you to discuss it. Again, I said you didn't need to come back with a retort about hypocrisy but there you go. It was unnecessary to escalate this further. I will say though that, well, you interpreted wrong. People sometimes preface statements with an expectation of how the person they're saying it to might feel, not always after they make the statement. It's a thing. I would find it hard to assume I meant you had bad intentions when nobody could really have put together the article you did in the five minutes between yours and this being made. That's not really realistic, so that's clearly not what I meant. You were obviously working on yours at the same time, that much is obvious. Please don't assume the worst of people. Finally, doesn't really matter where it was made so long as it's clearly notable and doesn't contain a bunch of wayward unsourced statements, etc. Ss112 05:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- "Battleground mentality"? You were the one who escalated the situation. You immediately reverted me when I replaced and tagged the file you uploaded, when you were the one who initially changed the cover. Then you came my talk page and typed me a message when you told me to discuss? Why bother leaving me a message when you expected me to dicuss?
- As Parental Advisory-less versions are preferred if they clearly exist online and are not edits, I've reinstated your version. Now there's definitely no reason for you to continue to have this battleground mentality. Ss112 05:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- How would I think a Parental Advisory-less cover art is a "fan made fake"? At most, I would think it was edited specifically to remove it. And no, I did not imply that, I said "I know it sucks" to preface what I was about to say: that you'd be disappointed having made an effort when I've then just said an article for the song already existed. Don't read into something that isn't there. Don't know why you're so pissed off, here now and this? You can chill, it's not life or death. This message doesn't require a retort about "hypocrisy" either. Ss112 05:08, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Lol the URL does not necessarily indicate where it's from, check this page and open the image in a new tab. You thought this is some fan made fake cover art? Also I love how you implied in your edit summary here that I knew this page existed when I was making my page and I was intentionally making an article separately lol. Hayman30 (talk) 05:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Requested move 4 November 2018
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Withdrawn – Now that the album has an article, there is no need to move this one. JE98 (talk) 00:43, 7 November 2018 (UTC) JE98 (talk) 00:43, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank U, Next (song) → Thank U, Next – Only subject with this name right now. Despite the upcoming album, that does not have an article yet. My request can be reverted back to "Thank U, Next (song)" when there are more details about the album. JE98 (talk) 16:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- @JE98 and Another Believer: queried move request. (Thank U, Next is the album.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- @JE98: But, there is currently an article about the album as well. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- I oppose the move as long as there's a planned studio album of the same name. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support per nom – what AB is saying is not logically sound, we don't reserve namespaces for future articles. This song is the primary topic right now, because the album is not notable just yet. When the album becomes notable enough to have an article, we can revert the move and make way for the album. Edit: Seems like AB has hastily created an article for album already. I don't believe it is currently notable, the song is clearly getting more coverage than the album, and what we know about the album right now is primarily based on Tweets by Grande. I have tagged the article for notability, but that'll get reverted at any second. Hayman30 (talk) 23:32, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Hayman30: Excuse me? Can you please do a little more research here. I did not create the album article. I understand we don't reserve namespaces. I voted 'oppose' because there's an existing article, not a future article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Another Believer: I apologise. I did saw that an IP made the page but somehow I wrote your name instead. Perhaps I was somehow under the impression that you made it because I was talking about you above but whatever, it's my fault. Anyway I still don't believe the album is notable at this point, most of what we know about it stems from a few tweets from Grande, and the album currently fails to get detailed coverage from reliable sources. Regardless of whether or not the album has an article, the song is clearly more notable than it right now (and no this is not WP:RECENTISM), and because we shouldn't assume future notability, I think the sing is the primary topic right now. If you do not oppose, I will proceed to redirect the album article. Hayman30 (talk) 02:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Hayman30: Thanks for taking another look at the article's history. I do see what you mean about the album's notability, but I'm actually a bit more of an inclusionist, and if there are confirmed plans for an album release before end of year as well as a released lead single, I'm ok keeping the album article. Other editors might disagree, but since you asked, I'd prefer to just let the album article snowball. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'm cool with keeping the article. However I don't think its existence automatically makes the album the primary topic. We know very little about the album right now and it's obviously getting less coverage than the song. I'm not saying that the album won't gain more traction in the future but currently I believe the song is the primary topic. I suppose it immediately become the primary topic simply because it's an album. Once we know more about the album in detail, as the nominator suggested, we can easily revert this move. Hayman30 (talk) 02:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Hayman30: Thanks for taking another look at the article's history. I do see what you mean about the album's notability, but I'm actually a bit more of an inclusionist, and if there are confirmed plans for an album release before end of year as well as a released lead single, I'm ok keeping the album article. Other editors might disagree, but since you asked, I'd prefer to just let the album article snowball. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Another Believer: I apologise. I did saw that an IP made the page but somehow I wrote your name instead. Perhaps I was somehow under the impression that you made it because I was talking about you above but whatever, it's my fault. Anyway I still don't believe the album is notable at this point, most of what we know about it stems from a few tweets from Grande, and the album currently fails to get detailed coverage from reliable sources. Regardless of whether or not the album has an article, the song is clearly more notable than it right now (and no this is not WP:RECENTISM), and because we shouldn't assume future notability, I think the sing is the primary topic right now. If you do not oppose, I will proceed to redirect the album article. Hayman30 (talk) 02:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Opppose now that the album has an article. Before I'm accused of resorting to "other stuff exists" arguments, just for reference to a move discussion that happened recently, Cry Pretty by Carrie Underwood was originally about the song and the album was at Cry Pretty (album), before they were moved so Cry Pretty was about the album and the song was moved to Cry Pretty (song). Something like that will inevitably end up happening here if we move the song to the more basic namespace, because albums generally have taken the more basic namespace. In this specific instance, the song only seems more relevant at the moment because it's out, and we know less about the album because it's not out. In the long term I think the album will be more notable than the individual song. Like, personally, when I think of the term "Dangerous Woman" I think more about the album than the song, despite the song being pretty successful in its own right and being released before the album. Ss112 03:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose an IP just tried blanking Thank U, Next but I reverted it. If that's the album certainly we can't judge now whether it'll be more notable than the song. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support The album is not notable yet, and there's not a lot of confirmation whether this will actually even be branded as an album. The password to the Sweetener Tour pre-sale tickets was "Mixtape". I suggest the album article be moved back to draft space and the song article be moved to simply Thank U, Next until there's at least an album track list or release date instead of pure speculation.--NØ 19:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
- @MaranoFan: I am not aware of such policy. As far as I know, as long as the discussion is withdrawn by the nominator, it's fine. JE98 requested the move because there wasn't an article for the album. Now that there is, there's no need to keep this discussion open. Hayman30 (talk) 02:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Links
See also was getting too clogged. These can be introduced as inline links in the article, especially in the intro.
- List of Canadian Hot 100 number-one singles of 2018
- List of number-one singles of 2018 (Australia)
- List of number-one singles of 2018 (Ireland)
- List of number-one singles of 2018 (Portugal)
- List of number-one songs of 2018 (Malaysia)
- List of number-one songs of 2018 (Singapore)
- List of UK Singles Chart number ones of the 2010s
- List of UK Singles Downloads Chart number ones of the 2010s
(Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 02:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Musical analysis of the song; streaming records
- Here is an article from ClassicFM.com with a musical analysis of the song, if anyone wants to add analysis of the music of the song to the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
- Here is an article from Forbes.com that discusses the streaming records. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
7 Rings
Can someone explain why there's a note saying we shouldn't add 7 Rings as the next single "yet", when she has confirmed it quite explicitly?--NØ 06:11, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- It is probably best to wait until there is an official announcement from the record label as it could still change in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 07:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Also we should wait an official release date. --Miaow 17:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- @MaranoFan: I've started collecting sources at Talk:7 Rings. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- Awesome! She has revealed the cover artwork and its coming on the 18th. If there's enough sources then a draft or even a mainspace article could be expanded.--NØ 15:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- @MaranoFan: I've created a stub with an 'under expansion' tag, and invite you and others to help expand. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- Awesome! She has revealed the cover artwork and its coming on the 18th. If there's enough sources then a draft or even a mainspace article could be expanded.--NØ 15:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- @MaranoFan: I've started collecting sources at Talk:7 Rings. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- Also we should wait an official release date. --Miaow 17:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
"Bacon Eggs (Ariana Grande song)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bacon Eggs (Ariana Grande song). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. PamD 11:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)