This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taylor Swift, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Taylor Swift on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Taylor SwiftWikipedia:WikiProject Taylor SwiftTemplate:WikiProject Taylor SwiftTaylor Swift articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I propose to redirect/merge
Me! into this article (
ME! (Taylor Swift song)), in that I believe
Me! should redirect here. I believe that this should remain the article on the topic, as it has a longer history with more editors (that was partially split by Anthony Appleyard into
ME! (mural)), and the
Me! article is basically just repeating information (less, at this point). Another user, MaranoFan, created a redirect pointing to a disambiguation page yesterday for
Me!, then several hours after I had made
ME! (mural), they created content in a draft at
Draft:Me!, then moved that content into the mainspace at
Me! while I was working on this article. Creation of content (not redirects) by me at any of the split articles predates any content created by another user; see what is now split to
ME! (mural). I explicitly asked Another Believer for his help at
his talk page and said there, not long after starting what is now at
ME! (mural) that I was open to turning this article into one about the song, as the mural and song were for the same topic, and I did so. Ping @
Ad Orientem,
Sergecross73,
Anthony Appleyard,
Izno, and
Another Believer:.
Izno has recommended this discussion take place per
Help:Merge. I believe no history merging needs to take place at this point, as Anthony Appleyard has determined the two are parallel histories and cannot be history-merged. Nobody's redirects or contributions are being deleted. I want the drama over this article and "who wants their username first in the history" to end, so have opened this to get consensus. Ss11221:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)reply
What was the decision exactly? Link mostly seems like two people shouting at each other. Regardless, it seems clear that the article title should not have the song title in all caps since it's a stylization. So at the very least, the title could be Me! (Taylor Swift song). I'm hesitant to do the move myself since there seems to be some kind of drama about the article title...
Electricnet (
talk)
06:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)reply
This was not concerning a page move, but a merge of content. Anthony Appleyard decided not to merge two pages' parallel histories that were started on the same topic. If you wish to have the page moved, please start a move request before changing the article text again. We just went through a whole thing over it. Thank you. Ss11207:02, 26 April 2019 (UTC)reply
A user randomly decided that
my article; which was created first, expanded first (according to revision histories of both pages), made at the correct title according to naming conventions + without excess disambiguation, and as they themselves noted had almost the same amount of content as this one; should be redirected to this one (which only attracted more edits because the creator of this page gamed the system and linked this title from all the related pages. I am absolutely baffled.—
NØ07:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Oh dear God, let it go. Nobody "gamed" anything, and you're misrepresenting the situation based on opinion. Users don't win sway opinion or win anyone's favour by continuing to bring up about something that was decided and everyone else wanted to move past. Ss11207:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)reply
"everyone else wanted to move past" — I don’t. And I will make sure more admins know about your
WP:GAMING. And refrain from editing other users' comments.
[1]. The edit history at
Me! and
Draft:Me! still exists and thus it can still be proved my content was written first :)—
NØ07:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)reply
If you say so. I was trying to fix the indent. Also, I previously said that's not what gaming is. Admins are not going to care about you harping on about this issue. I am closing this discussion now per
Help:Merge, as a decision was already made by Anthony Appleyard. Ss11207:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Uhm, when someone eventually requests that this page be moved to
Me! then it will be brought up again that my creation of that page predates everything here. Don’t be under the misunderstanding that you’ve successfully swept it under the rug.—
NØ07:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC)reply
I didn't sweep anything under the rug; Anthony Appleyard made the decision, not me. Now please stop. The discussion was archived before you edited. Ss11207:29, 26 April 2019 (UTC)reply
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.
I disagree. While this is the only song that it literally called 'Me!', there is another article for a song called 'Me' (by Paula Cole). So while you're technically right that there is only one song called "Me!", I would say that it is informative to keep the "Taylor Swift" in the title of this article to avoid confusion with the "Me (Paula Cole song)" article
Marloura (
talk)
11:40, 26 April 2019 (UTC)reply
I'm certain that the guidelines detailed at
WP:SMALLDETAILS would support this article being under the article title
Me!. In fact, the policy gives
Airplane and Airplane! as an example of what can be considered acceptable article titling. So, surely
Me! would be sufficiently distinct from other meanings at
Me. TheKaphoxT16:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Me! is a good enough title to distinguish it from songs called Me (without exclamation). I support a history merge into
Me! as the article that's currently at the target was started for the same song.--NØ17:14, 26 April 2019 (UTC)reply
The exclamation mark at the end of the title is a stylization, so the article should be titled
Me (Taylor Swift song). The first sentence of the article could look like this: "Me" (stylized as "ME!") is a song by American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift featuring Brendon Urie, the lead singer of Panic! at the Disco. Also, in the article
Wow (Post Malone song), the period at the end of the song is considered a stylization. Both are punctuation, and are both used to stylize the song.
Electricwater (
talk)
14:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Lover
Taylor said that the names of the album and the second single are hidden in the music video. There is a neon sign, saying "Lover", next to the scene of Taylor and Brendon on the unicorn head. Many theorize "Lover" is both the name of the album and second single. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2601:802:8300:1475:8D4F:88D7:30DC:7134 (
talk)
00:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Remove the "polarizing review" part and move up the reviews from more important and reputed platforms like Billboard, Forbes, Rolling Stones, etc. Push down or remove the reviews from irrelevant platforms like Atlantic and Pitchfork
103.225.100.51 (
talk)
07:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Not done, Pitchfork is much more reputed in terms of musical reviews than the likes of Billboard. I don’t see any reason to remove the "polarising reviews" part either since it’s the truth, nor a reason to move up positive reviews, swiftie.—NØ07:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Why? The "polarizing reviews" assessment is correct, the reviews are almost evenly split in negative and positive.—NØ07:58, 27 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Track listing
Do we really need inclusion of the limited edition Billboard Music Awards Rehearsal vinyls which were clearly just a temporary promotional gimmick to help its Billboard chart performance?—NØ01:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)reply
That is an opinion. It should be included because it is a track listing, whether you think it was a “promotional gimmick” or not, it remains a track listing of the song.
Electricwater (
talk)
14:09, 12 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Electricwater, It doesn’t "remain a track listing of the song". Each version was sold separately. And those vinyls were limited edition items which are no longer available for sale. It would only make even the slightest bit of sense if the section was renamed to "versions".—NØ00:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC)reply
I check pages listed in
Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for
orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of
Me!'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not.
AnomieBOT⚡23:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)reply
I know the source given does state "Me!" is a bubblegum pop song, but I don’t think we should use an article that is hating on the subject of the article as a reliable source. Also, this is the only source I could find that used this genre to describe "Me!". Most articles state that "Me!" is a pop song, so it would make more sense to use that genre to describe the song.
Electricwater (
talk)
14:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)reply
The Independent is generally considered a reliable source. We can’t discount it because the review is negative. If there are sources calling it just "pop" as well then that should be added.—NØ16:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Rolling Stone Peak
Please stop changing the peak for "Me!" from 67 to 1 for the
Rolling Stone Top 100. Please read
WP:RSCHART. I will ping editors who continue to disrupt the charts section. There is no need for this article to get page-protected over something so trivial.
Nice4What (
talk ·
contribs) – (Don't forget to share a
Thanks♥)
17:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Curious why users "Jessintime" and "ThaddeusSholto" feel the need to continually disruptively change "mostly negative" to "mixed reviews" in the Critical Reception section given that almost every review quoted here is plainly negative. I invite them to discuss their points of view here, or add positive reviews from reputable sources, rather than further vandalize the page.
Justdoinsomeedtits (
talk)
21:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not "blanking" anything. For example? And do you think "a cloyingly goofy Disney-pop confection with an earworm chorus and a certain try-hard insidiousness to it". is a positive review? Do you think "anodyne" is a positive descriptor? Is this a reading comprehension issue?
Justdoinsomeedtits