This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hip hop, a collaborative effort to build a useful resource for and improve the coverage of
hip hop on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.Hip hopWikipedia:WikiProject Hip hopTemplate:WikiProject Hip hopHip hop articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all
LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the
project page or contribute to the
discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT 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 United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
In the scene where they are getting married, isn't that P!nk the one who's marrying them? I'm pretty sure thats her, as Mary is behind one of the grooms. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.138.180.140 (
talk)
14:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)reply
I agree with what the person said above!! It is for sure P!nk the one who's marrying them!! Unless it's a real good look alike but I as well am pretty sure that's P!nk marrying the couple!!
216.167.239.216 (
talk)
10:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)reply
I have just modified one external link on
Same Love. 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: 5 June 2024).
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.
I think the 2017 Australian chart performance should be included and is important because it represents a revival of the song and a second ascendence that rarely occurs.
Me-123567-Me (
talk)
19:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)reply
WP:SINGLEVENDOR,
WP:BADCHARTS. We don't talk about iTunes statistics. Songs re-enter charts all the time, and its relevance to Australia is noted earlier in the article. You also don't restore material that is debated without getting consensus to include it first per
WP:BRD and
WP:CONSENSUS. Nobody is censoring you or its "revived" success. Ss11220:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)reply
If you like, we can talk about it
reaching number four on the
ARIA Charts again in 2017 (
also written about by ARIA here) after the controversy (but not #1 on iTunes as that is still against
WP:SINGLEVENDOR). As I stated on your talk page: "Also, it did not reach number one in Australia because of the marriage survey, it reached number one because
Macklemore came here to perform several of his songs including "Same Love" during the
2017 NRL Grand Final, when the survey was still underway, and conservatives thought it would prejudice people in favour of same-sex marriage. Also, your wording is not the best, as you've said "it was revived on the charts". That isn't encyclopedic language." Ss11220:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)reply
This isn't about other charts. iTunes stats should not be put on articles per
WP:SINGLEVENDOR. You're being reported to an administrator for going against
WP:BRD and not getting
WP:CONSENSUS first. You're in the wrong; you reverted after your addition was debated first. Ss11220:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)reply
iTunes charts should not be listed in the chart listing ever, but referencing the accomplishment if recognized and discussed in valid third-party sources (not Apple/iTunes or official Macklemore site) is allowable, but it needs to be placed in context. It would typically have to do with some type of accomplishment specially tied to iTunes, which is not the case here. The more important thing than it reaching number one after an initial run is the reason why it did so. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me17:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)reply
2017 Australian chart performance
Editors recommended posing a more specific question.
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.
The RfC needs to be redone......what is being discussed here?...when...where..what...we need sources....we need to know what propsed text is in dispute etc. ... --
Moxy (
talk)
20:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)reply
I think Starcheers' comment in the above thread sums up the best way for things to proceed here rather well, and I agree with Moxy that this RfC is malformed. I think you would have been better off simply pursuing a
third opinion, though of course one has now been provided. Cheers.
DonIago (
talk)
14:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Stop and start again The question, as phrased, is an invitation to simply discuss the issue and allows for a much too general and wide a scope. It will be very difficult for an admin to reach a conclusion. The Wikipedia article about the RfC process provides
examples of questions - note the bad ones. -
The Gnome (
talk)
07:24, 24 December 2017 (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.