Talk:Poster Girl (album)

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

Ruin My Life as a single from the album[edit]

I don’t think Ruin My Life should be a single from the album. Template:Infobox song#album strongly advises songs released well in advance of the album to not have an album parameter. Ruin My Life was released 29 months before the album (October 2018 to March 2021), I think that’s well in advance plus some.

If you look at Talk:Smile (Katy Perry album)#Never Really Over as lead single, you would see that Katy Perry's songs Never Really Over (May 2019), Small Talk (August 2019), Harleys in Hawaii (October 2019) and Never Worn White (March 2020) were not included on Smile (Katy Perry album) (July 2020) as singles, even though they were all singles and were all released within 14 months of the album. I don’t see why this would be any different.

Other examples:

Please add your comments here, as I would like to get a consensus on this before anything else is implemented into the articles. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 00:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC) @MotherofSnakes, King G.A, and Mikezarco: pinging some recent editors of this page. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 21:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. "Ruin My Life" is on the album only because of its popularity. Less popular singles, such as "All The Time" or "Dont Worry About Me", did not make the final cut. MotherofSnakes (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ruin My Life should not be included, as it was never released in promotion of the album; it was released as stand-alone release. Its inclusion on the album is merely all they have in-common. Its release was standalone, and not made in promotion of the album. MotherofSnakes (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 22:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ohowcr, OliverP 2004, and Dangerousalex: pinging more editors (these are all the editors, with the exception of all IPs and two registered users, who have edited the page in the past two days). D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 00:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Um, yeah, I just agree with you. Ruin My Life is a great song of course and the song cover is even in the background of the album cover, it's so creative and cool! But unfortunately it's true, it came out too long ago and I also think that the song is on the album just because of the song's popularity. OliverP 2004 (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, 29 months is way too long, especially since the examples used in Template:Infobox song#album are only 16 months. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 03:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed – not a single, likely just added to the tracklist since it boosts streaming numbers as she smartly did with So Good. – DarkGlow (✉) 13:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editors keep restoring "Ruin My Life" as a single. Therefore, we should probably come to an even clearer consensus, so that whatever goes, goes, and the edit warring can stop. Before responding here, please read the entire thread, as points are made. Pinging editors directly involved in the edit war: AntonBLopez, Anonpediann (an IP and I were also directly involved). Pinging recent editors of the page so that we can get a broader range of opinions: Ss112, Jonathon3378, HungryForMusic, Peterpie123rww, Srodgers1701. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 13:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be included – "Ruin My Life" wasn't released as part of the album promo cycle. Smile and Music – Songs from and Inspired by the Motion Picture are good examples of similar situations ("Never Really Over" and "Saved My Life" respectively).. it's certainly a tough one though - Peterpie123rww (talk) 13:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So I think it should be a single because it was released as the first single and then the album was delayed so I feel it is a single due to this reason.HungryForMusic (talk) 02:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HungryForMusic: Could you please clarify? You’re saying that the single was supposed to be the lead single for the 2018 version of the album, but then the album was delayed, and released three years later. How does the lead single still apply here? Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 14:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, Zara Larsson released the song as a single of a completely different version of the album. The label should had pushed her to include it on the album as it was the most popular out of her non-album singles as it carries good numbers. Probably an extended edition including all the target bonus tracks as well as "All the Time" and "Don't Worry Bout Me" will be eventually dropped into streaming services to inflate the streaming numbers (see Astrid S's Leave It Beautiful - complete edition). If this is the case should be the other songs added as singles? I don't think so. Anyway, I think we have to be careful with this tactic because sometimes it is difficult to identify the nature of certain singles. For example, BTS' "Dynamite" really isn't considered a single of the album? I mean, it was probably not meant to be included initially and it was due to its success (as Ava Max's early singles in her debut album) but there's just a few months between the release of the song and the album (not the case of this song). So, where's the line exactly? Anonpediann (talk) 11:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Anonpediann: Should be the other songs added as singles? - No, we wouldn’t include these as singles as they were released after the standard edition. I was including the examples to show that, even though all those singles were released in an appropriate timeframe, they still weren’t included as singles because they weren’t released in promotion of the album. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 14:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In case my position isn't clear enough, I do agree in not considering "Ruin My Life" a single from the album. But, as I stated above, there should be certain parametres to clearly identify this. Anonpediann (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying :) D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 16:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So I do need to clarify. The album was originally scheduled for release in April 2019 but was delayed to March 2021. At all points in time Zara has referred to Ruin My Life as the lead single. She has also called Love Me Land the lead single though during the same time as Ruin My Life which is what I think is bringing on confusion. The reason Never Really Over and Harleys in Hawaii because Katy clarified these were standalone singles only added to the album at a later date. Zara has made it clear that Ruin My Life is the lead single still to this day but she also says Love Me Land is so it's a bit confusing to me but I would credit Ruin My Life as a single. It wasn't added because of popularity or anything its always been the albums lead single. Ruin My Life was even released in promotion of this album which is why a lot of people are saying it doesn't count as a single. HungryForMusic (talk) 18:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Delete[edit]

Wondering how this actually meets notability since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and the album has just announcements (not been released as of yet)? Hoping talk page watchers can chime in as this should be merged or deleted in my opinion. Wanted to discuss prior to AfD. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I 100000% agree. I’ve been redirecting the page for quite some time now, but I eventually caved (and also didn’t feel like breaking 3RR). The article completely fails WP:FUTUREALBUM as well as WP:NALBUM. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 02:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I would support a merge since the album has not been released. There is no charting, no sources that would allow it to meet WP:GNG, and likely going to be bludgeoned as WP:FANCRUFT. Give it a day to see if anyone else chimes in but I think redirecting the name to her main page and then going to AfD if necessary would be the cure. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41: While AfD might be a bit excessive for now, if the redirect keeps getting removed, it’s our next step, and a very possible one at that. Some of the editors who edit this page make it so like you’re invisible. They just restore the article without explanation (or minimal explanation) after you gave a lovely, detailed edit summary, they refuse to respond in talk conversations, and there’s not just one of them, so you’ll be getting to three reverts pretty quickly. This happened with me and a lot of editors (mostly IPs) a couple days ago, I felt like they pretended like I wasn’t even there. While I do assume that their intentions were in good faith, not leaving an edit summary leaves it up to the rest of the editors to decide what you meant. Examples: [1] & [2], [3] & [4], [5] & [6], [7] & [8], [9] & [10], [11] & [12]. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 02:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is only an option. If IP editors continue to violate guidelines you can always report them at WP:AIV. If no one chimes in with a policy based argument by tomorrow I would say go ahead and redirect and I will keep an eye on it as well. Cheers. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41: Good idea. I’ll give it until midnight UTC and see what happens. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 12:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41: I’m also going to try to do this at Nobody Is Listening. It definitely fails FUTUREALBUM, NALBUM and GNG. If you could please keep an eye on that one too, that would be great. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 12:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41: Just redirected the article. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 00:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Doggy54321:, perfect. I will keep an eye on it. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

album is out in 2 weeks and everything is announced, someone needs to reboot the page asap Dangerousalex (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds more like a demand than a proposal. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then make it work. The album is less than 2 weeks away and you’re still complaining about how it doesn’t meet the guidelines just to not add anything to the article? Embarrassing. Dangerousalex (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's embarrassing is your lack of understanding of Wikipedia guidelines. Until you propose something within guidelines, all you are doing is creating noise and there's no more need to respond. CNMall41 (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dangerousalex: You’re the one complaining. Unless you can provide multiple (WP:GNG) reliable sources (WP:RS) independent of the subject (WP:SELFPUB) that show notability and meet the criteria at WP:FUTUREALBUM, it’s useless to create a page as it will be redirected anyways. As well, I don’t think it’s appropriate to contribute to Poster Girl (Zara Larsson album) and then complain here.
Update: Dangerousalex, please follow the directions at WP:THREE and get back to me as that would really help me see your perspective. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 21:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC) (updated 00:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
@CNMall41 and Doggy54321: How do two experienced editors think it is OK to repeatedly revert to edit war to retain a redirect? This is never OK, so both of you need to stop this before I ask an administrator to get involved and look into why both of you are still doing this. The only discussion I see is between the two of you. That is not a formal consensus. You had no dissenting voices; it was just two people saying "yes, I agree, the article should be redirected" in January. It's now March, the article is not in the same state it was when redirected, and both of you very well know this album is now being released in two days. The album is guaranteed to have reviews in the music press published from tomorrow (as the British music press usually starts publishing its reviews the day before new releases are issued) and chart in several territories (certainly at least Sweden). Besides that, there is enough news coverage here already that would suffice in any other case. You are wasting your time still worrying about it and fighting a losing battle to keep it redirected. I encourage both of you to take future concerns about the notability of articles to AfD when a BOLD redirect is reverted the first time. Or establish a formal consensus involving significantly more than two editors so that you can point to that as fairly definitive. Nothing here is or was. Ss112 00:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most of my response on my talk page where you left a warning. However, I will reiterate that "guaranteed to have reviews in the music press published from tomorrow" doesn't meet criteria for notability guidelines. Until they are published, its a future event and the "current" press (which is what determines notability) simply isn't there. So, it needs to be discussed per WP:BRD. Removing the redirect was a bold move that I don't agree with so happy to discuss further per guidelines. Of course, if you feel an administrator needs to get involved, that is fine as well. As you say, I am an experienced editor, but I don't know everything nor do I claim to. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One of my main issues with what references are available is that they are all "will be" or "expected to be" references. They anticipate but don't say what it actually is. How do we know the track list when different references say different things? Why a rush to have this up when in two days (as you said), the press will likely be there?--CNMall41 (talk) 00:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41: I told you edit warring is never okay and you go right back on doing it. Stop or an admin is being involved. The article is in use right now. BRD is not a one-way street, so you are obligated to follow it if you are reverted as well. How do you think "current press coverage" on the album is not there when feature articles like this from Paper magazine https://www.papermag.com/zara-larsson-poster-girl-2650729604.html exist? And that's just what I found in one search. I've said I believe the article has enough already. Ss112 00:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How about stop threatening and do it? Threats of administration action to get your way is not acceptable. Your edit summary says "You do not edit war to retain redirects." Can you point me to the relevant guideline or policy that states such. In the meantime, I won't be baited into 3RR and will await the relevant policy. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BRD is simple here. The redirect has been there for a while. Today, someone boldly undid that redirect and I reverted. Now there should be discussion. That's how it works I believe. If not, please point out where I am wrong based on a policy or guideline, not just stating it shouldn't be done. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CNMall41, if the only contribution to the article today had been Anonpediann's recreation of it, I agree, BRD would apply if you reverted them. However, there have been multiple contributors to the article since that you've now stepped over. The BRD cycle was already broken with these intermediary edits that have expanded the article (including my edits, introducing coverage from two feature pieces on Larsson to the article). Doggy54321, who agreed with you to keep the redirect, has edited the article today knowing what you both discussed recently.
Citing BRD as if it's an exception to edit warring policies and allows one to keep reverting is also not acceptable. BRD does not give anyone a pass to "keep on edit warring because one editor disregarded the BRD cycle". I've seen first-hand how this contributes to misinformation about what BRD is for. Also, I didn't say what I said was in policy. Several admins, including Ad Orientem, now retired, repeatedly told me this, that if a BOLD redirect is reverted, in the absence of a formal consensus the next step is AfD because there is no justification to keep reverting to retain a redirect. Another feature article, GQ interview with Larsson: https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/culture/article/zara-larsson-poster-girl-interview I'm quite sure at this point most editors would be acknowledging the current press coverage, not what I said will be there in two days, does meet NALBUMS. Ss112 01:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, there was no "edit warring." I made a single edit to revert it back to a redirect prior to you coming at me with a heavy hand, making the accusation, then threatening with administrative action. I am not trying to misquote anything or jam a policy down someone's throat and would have discussed that prior. Civility is important to me and I won't discuss anything without it. I also thank you for the calmer voice above and as such happy to discuss. I agree that it is almost certain the press will be there. No question in my mind so we are on the same page. However, I still don't think it is there yet and creating a page based on the inevitable doesn't fit within guidelines unless you apply WP:IAR (which is an option I guess). We can't even confirm that track list until it is released, even though different sources have quoted it. Larsson has stated what the track list is but that isn't even certain because record labels have the final say on what is released. I think at least we need to remove that section until it can be confirmed. The rest is useless as AfD takes 5 days which is likely why the redirect was removed (just speculation) as the editor knew it wouldn't make it to the end. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CNMall41, the track list is not just confirmed by Larsson. It's been independently listed on Apple Music, listed by other retailers (like the US Target), and on her official store, none of which Larsson has say over. I understand the concern over "social media confirmation" from artists, but nowadays an artist saying "here's the track list" is the formal confirmation that they've been given from the label about what is on the record, and it then appears elsewhere. Ss112 01:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily reliable but they can be used to confirm basic facts such as this. I am past that I guess, but still having an issue with lack of civility. Moving on. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Ss112: Hey. I’m not saying this in an accusatory tone, but could you provide recent evidence that I’ve been edit warring? I’m genuinely asking. The last time I redirected this page was January 19. It’s March 3. It’s been almost a month and a half. In that time, I have learned what WP:SIGCOV is and how to define it, I’ve learned a heck of a lot about WP:CONSENSUS and how it is made, and more. When you say before I ask an administrator to get involved, I’m confused as to why you would do that. No admin would block me for something I did almost two months ago, because blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive. There is no evidence that I am actively trying to redirect the page, especially since I demonstrated today that I’m fine with the article being live and active (I edited the article without redirecting it). Furthermore, when you say that is not a formal consensus, I tend to disagree, especially since Samsara (an admin), protected the page on Jan 19, citing Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content: crystal ball and consensus to suppress until release; via RfPP as the reason to XCP the page. Obviously, I don’t remember what I said at RfPP, but it really doesn’t matter, since Samsara shouldn't have taken my word for it and should have actually went to the talk page to see the consensus, which is what I assume they did since it was clear that I was an involved editor and that I could potentially have a bias. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 01:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Doggy54321: You previously edit warred to retain the redirect from November 2020 to January this year. You performed multiple reverts of editors who attempted to restore the article. Samsara's protection was in January. The article has changed since then, more in-depth coverage has been added, and so I hardly see how that applies, given some admins will protect based on a cursory glance or an experienced editor telling them so they don't have to read through a long discussion. I don't think most admins, given more of a look, would agree two editors with no dissenting voices in an original "discussion" is a consensus. Anyway, I acknowledged above that you have since edited the article today. I'm saying you did edit war, but thankfully haven't here since my warning to you to not after I saw you were doing this on multiple articles. I didn't say an admin would block anybody here. I said if the edit warring to retain the redirect continued I would ask them to step in and sort it out. That doesn't mean instant blocks and you've done nothing here recently to justify a block. Don't worry. Ss112 01:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ss112: Fair points, thanks for clarifying. As well, I just found the diff of my RfPP request, and nowhere in it do I mention consensus. I say that there is "disruptive editing by IPs and autoconfirmed users". That’s it. Oh well, what’s past is past, no need to squabble over little details. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 01:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ss112: I totally agree with you. The article that was reverted several times in the past has nothing to do with the new one. I can confirm it as I wrote it from scratch. Truth is, since then Larsson has been doing a lot of interviews and has been getting a lot of media coverage, which leads us to have a lot more reliable sources to back on. I tried to include a fair amount of reliable sources as Idolator, Clash, NME, ABC News Radio, GQ... and in my opinion, it really passes the WP:FUTUREALBUM guidelines. Nevertheless I'm planing to extend it during the week. Anonpediann (talk) 01:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional album art[edit]

Since everyone seems to have different opinions on what WP:NFCCP means and what files should be uploaded, I thought I’d bring it to the talk page before uploading. There is an additional German album cover [13], and I think it warrants addition in the article and meets the NFCCP. Since everyone has different opinions on what criterion 3a means, I think the cover is different enough from the standard edition artwork that it meets criterion 3a. Now, my gut is telling me to not be BOLD and instead take it to the talk page, because I don’t want to have to sit through a week-long FfD/wait for seven days before the file gets removed, therefore posing an inconvenience. Pinging recent editors Anonpediann, Ss112, CNMall41 for their thoughts, but other editors are totally allowed to add their opinions. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 02:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Anonpediann: There's always one ping that I mess up. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 02:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Doggy54321: I think it's better to wait as I'm not 100% sure if it is completely official as the cover really does look as a Coveralia fanart. Anonpediann (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Poster_Girl_(album)&oldid=1211325405"