This is an archive of past discussions. 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.
@
Ronherry: Hello. You wrote "
Stop this nonsense" in the edit summary with a link for
Wikipedia:Genre warrior; I don't remember having created my WP account to do genre warring, and if I were a GW, I would not use the talk page.
What I had in mind was not "elements" nor "influences" but rather "R&B" since it's quite clear in the article. What is ironic is that
WP:EXPLICITGENRE says: "When you see a source mention a genre, it must use direct language. Like so: ... a successful fusion of jazz rap ...", is considered correct. Now when we read in the article: "... while Consequence's Mary Siroky and Glenn Rowley believed it 'incorporates more R&B sounds'", is it no longer good? Also, the sentence in the article says "with elements of R&B" with a source
by Sputnikmusic which says: "Rn'B style pop hits like 'Oh My God'", it is still not enough?
An experienced user has done a lot of work on the "Oh My God" article and, just like me, is not bothered by R&B.
Oroborvs (
talk)
22:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
If you have to talk to me directly, please use my talk page. Now coming to the topic, I wasn't addressing you or any other editor specifically. I saw a lot of reverting activity on this article, and I simply removed the "element" genres from the infobox. I detest genre wars and indeed find them nonsensical because they hinder our editorial ability and make the article unstable. Nevertheless, if you felt like my edit summary was directed at you, I am sorry about that. Regards.
ℛonherry☘08:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
And no, "experience" doesn't overrule sources. If there is no source calling Oh My God an "R&B song", then R&B shall not be mentioned in the infobox.
ℛonherry☘08:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
You did address me, and I answer you. The article's talk page is used to reach a consensus, but you are not taking into account the opinion of others. Well, you removed dance-pop without any explanation, and it's the others who are making edit wars. You removed two genres that were initially in the infobox mentioning "elements" while I restored it once, but that's still questionable considering other sources. WP:EXPLICITGENRE does not use the words "genre" or "song" in its two examples but words like "quintessential example of avant-rock" and "fusion of jazz rap"; but according to you, "Rn'B style pop" and "R&B sounds" are not the same thing, and we should not include R&B in the infobox. If it has an R&B sound ... that means it is not R&B.
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.
I will take on another article for you now; this one hasn't been lying around for as long so I'm saving it from that! --
K. Peake08:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Infobox and lead
Infobox looks good!
"Adele wrote the song with its producer" → "Adele wrote the song alongside the producer"
Mention that the release was to US contemporary hit radio stations
""Oh My God" has lyrics about" → "it has lyrics about"
The reviews should be listed as generally positive instead, per one being negative
"and identified commercial potential in it." → "and identified the commercial potential."
Remove "on it" at the end of the sentence since this is implied
Remove the "Can I Get It" mention, as that is only one of these reviews so only mention the song in the review's sentence
Remove "to it" per earlier
Commercial performance
Decapitalise gold and mention the date of the certification in the United Kingdom
Ditto for the platinum one but write the US per
MOS:US
Decapitalise platinum and mention the date of the Australian certification (country is already here though)
No date is available for the Australian certification; it seems they certify everything in bulk at the end of the year.
Ditto for New Zealand
I'm confused about the grammar for the grouped chart positions; should it always be commas after the first one without any usage of "in" or should the last of each position use "and"?
"earned a Gold certification" → "further earned gold certifications"
Cert decapitalisations not done for same reasons as our discussions on prior GANs, since this is a matter of stylistic choice.
Music video
Mention that Sam Brown previously directed the visual for "Rolling in the Deep" per the source
The shooting date is not sourced
The date of shooting is sourced as being the same as "Easy on Me"'s release date from the NME source directly after the sentence.
"and it premiered on" → "and the video premiered on"
It's great to see you're on fire again,
K. Peake! It is especially appreciated after some nominations sat out for months. All addressed!--NØ10:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
MaranoFan No problem, had to step in for my duty after so many reviewers stopped! For the Australian certification, mention the year, also add url-access limited to the last Rolling Stone ref (72) and write US before the radio stations in the lead. --
K. Peake12:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
@
Kyle Peake: Done with the others but the Rolling Stone ref already has url-access limited in its code but isn't displaying it in the preview for some reason. If you're able to fix this, go ahead, or I guess we'll just have to ignore it.--NØ12:23, 15 April 2023 (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.
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.
Bruxton, Adele actually sings all of the vocals on this song but I understand your concerns so I have now tweaked it to something more explicitly stated in the source.--NØ03:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
@
MaranoFan: I think we may have to qualify the statement by stating this was the opinion of the LA Times reviewer. And perhaps quotes.
ALT1: ... that a review in the
Los Angeles Times claimed that some of the backing vocals on
Adele's song "Oh My God" are "processed nearly beyond recognition"?
This seems unnecessary to me. The vocal processing (and the unrecognizability for that matter) is an objective fact and can easily be verified if you play the song. We can save the attribution for the article and keep it out of the hook, in my opinion. Regards.--NØ04:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
A review is akin to an editorial so it is an opinion piece. We probably have to qualify it or we are stating the opinion as fact. It may seem objective, but opinions are subjective: do we have other reviews which also call the backing vocals "processed nearly beyond recognition"?
Bruxton (
talk)
14:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Disagreed. The vocals are objectively processed and unrecognisable and you just have to play the first few seconds of the song to hear them. "The song is good/bad" would be an opinion, this is not. Your proposed hook is not interesting or DYK-worthy so I'll stick with the one already approved by another reviewer. That’s all I have to say about that, and the promoter can make the final decision about which hook they prefer.—NØ15:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I have to agree with Bruxton here. Even if one could verify something about a song by themselves, that could still be considered a subjective view and to me at least sounds too close to original research for my tastes. I have to agree that ALT1 or at least some variant thereof is a suitable compromise: while ALT0 is technically accurate, Bruxton has a point, and we have modified or pulled hooks in the past when hooks based on opinion pieces were clearly not indicated as such. We just want to avoid a trip to
WP:ERRORS or another
WT:DYK discussion.
Narutolovehinata5 (
talk ·
contributions)
07:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. 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.
@
Ronherry: Hello. You wrote "
Stop this nonsense" in the edit summary with a link for
Wikipedia:Genre warrior; I don't remember having created my WP account to do genre warring, and if I were a GW, I would not use the talk page.
What I had in mind was not "elements" nor "influences" but rather "R&B" since it's quite clear in the article. What is ironic is that
WP:EXPLICITGENRE says: "When you see a source mention a genre, it must use direct language. Like so: ... a successful fusion of jazz rap ...", is considered correct. Now when we read in the article: "... while Consequence's Mary Siroky and Glenn Rowley believed it 'incorporates more R&B sounds'", is it no longer good? Also, the sentence in the article says "with elements of R&B" with a source
by Sputnikmusic which says: "Rn'B style pop hits like 'Oh My God'", it is still not enough?
An experienced user has done a lot of work on the "Oh My God" article and, just like me, is not bothered by R&B.
Oroborvs (
talk)
22:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
If you have to talk to me directly, please use my talk page. Now coming to the topic, I wasn't addressing you or any other editor specifically. I saw a lot of reverting activity on this article, and I simply removed the "element" genres from the infobox. I detest genre wars and indeed find them nonsensical because they hinder our editorial ability and make the article unstable. Nevertheless, if you felt like my edit summary was directed at you, I am sorry about that. Regards.
ℛonherry☘08:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
And no, "experience" doesn't overrule sources. If there is no source calling Oh My God an "R&B song", then R&B shall not be mentioned in the infobox.
ℛonherry☘08:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
You did address me, and I answer you. The article's talk page is used to reach a consensus, but you are not taking into account the opinion of others. Well, you removed dance-pop without any explanation, and it's the others who are making edit wars. You removed two genres that were initially in the infobox mentioning "elements" while I restored it once, but that's still questionable considering other sources. WP:EXPLICITGENRE does not use the words "genre" or "song" in its two examples but words like "quintessential example of avant-rock" and "fusion of jazz rap"; but according to you, "Rn'B style pop" and "R&B sounds" are not the same thing, and we should not include R&B in the infobox. If it has an R&B sound ... that means it is not R&B.
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.
I will take on another article for you now; this one hasn't been lying around for as long so I'm saving it from that! --
K. Peake08:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Infobox and lead
Infobox looks good!
"Adele wrote the song with its producer" → "Adele wrote the song alongside the producer"
Mention that the release was to US contemporary hit radio stations
""Oh My God" has lyrics about" → "it has lyrics about"
The reviews should be listed as generally positive instead, per one being negative
"and identified commercial potential in it." → "and identified the commercial potential."
Remove "on it" at the end of the sentence since this is implied
Remove the "Can I Get It" mention, as that is only one of these reviews so only mention the song in the review's sentence
Remove "to it" per earlier
Commercial performance
Decapitalise gold and mention the date of the certification in the United Kingdom
Ditto for the platinum one but write the US per
MOS:US
Decapitalise platinum and mention the date of the Australian certification (country is already here though)
No date is available for the Australian certification; it seems they certify everything in bulk at the end of the year.
Ditto for New Zealand
I'm confused about the grammar for the grouped chart positions; should it always be commas after the first one without any usage of "in" or should the last of each position use "and"?
"earned a Gold certification" → "further earned gold certifications"
Cert decapitalisations not done for same reasons as our discussions on prior GANs, since this is a matter of stylistic choice.
Music video
Mention that Sam Brown previously directed the visual for "Rolling in the Deep" per the source
The shooting date is not sourced
The date of shooting is sourced as being the same as "Easy on Me"'s release date from the NME source directly after the sentence.
"and it premiered on" → "and the video premiered on"
It's great to see you're on fire again,
K. Peake! It is especially appreciated after some nominations sat out for months. All addressed!--NØ10:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
MaranoFan No problem, had to step in for my duty after so many reviewers stopped! For the Australian certification, mention the year, also add url-access limited to the last Rolling Stone ref (72) and write US before the radio stations in the lead. --
K. Peake12:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
@
Kyle Peake: Done with the others but the Rolling Stone ref already has url-access limited in its code but isn't displaying it in the preview for some reason. If you're able to fix this, go ahead, or I guess we'll just have to ignore it.--NØ12:23, 15 April 2023 (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.
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.
Bruxton, Adele actually sings all of the vocals on this song but I understand your concerns so I have now tweaked it to something more explicitly stated in the source.--NØ03:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
@
MaranoFan: I think we may have to qualify the statement by stating this was the opinion of the LA Times reviewer. And perhaps quotes.
ALT1: ... that a review in the
Los Angeles Times claimed that some of the backing vocals on
Adele's song "Oh My God" are "processed nearly beyond recognition"?
This seems unnecessary to me. The vocal processing (and the unrecognizability for that matter) is an objective fact and can easily be verified if you play the song. We can save the attribution for the article and keep it out of the hook, in my opinion. Regards.--NØ04:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
A review is akin to an editorial so it is an opinion piece. We probably have to qualify it or we are stating the opinion as fact. It may seem objective, but opinions are subjective: do we have other reviews which also call the backing vocals "processed nearly beyond recognition"?
Bruxton (
talk)
14:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Disagreed. The vocals are objectively processed and unrecognisable and you just have to play the first few seconds of the song to hear them. "The song is good/bad" would be an opinion, this is not. Your proposed hook is not interesting or DYK-worthy so I'll stick with the one already approved by another reviewer. That’s all I have to say about that, and the promoter can make the final decision about which hook they prefer.—NØ15:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I have to agree with Bruxton here. Even if one could verify something about a song by themselves, that could still be considered a subjective view and to me at least sounds too close to original research for my tastes. I have to agree that ALT1 or at least some variant thereof is a suitable compromise: while ALT0 is technically accurate, Bruxton has a point, and we have modified or pulled hooks in the past when hooks based on opinion pieces were clearly not indicated as such. We just want to avoid a trip to
WP:ERRORS or another
WT:DYK discussion.
Narutolovehinata5 (
talk ·
contributions)
07:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)