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
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.
Article is new enough and long enough. Gave it a heavy copy edit. The "Use in television" (renamed from "Pop culture") section needs attention, as one of those sources there is a YouTube link, and another does not explicitly say that the song appears in the commercial. Generally if a secondary source can not be used to establish a use of the song in a particular commercial/clip/episode/etc. it's not worth mentioning.
DigitalIceAge (
talk)
02:38, 23 November 2022 (UTC)reply
@
TonyTheTiger:viral platform on the platform Whoops, fixed. Fair enough; I have adjusted the section to my liking. I felt it was worded a bit oddly and getting too overly detailed, so I pared it down e.g. to only include months instead of exact dates and general platforms for airings of ads instead of listing every site that they appear on. Article should now be good to go.
DigitalIceAge (
talk)
05:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment: I removed most of the advertising section; ispot.tv, thedrum.com, and Looper aren't reliable enough sources for me to feel comfortable calling an advertisement's usage of a song encyclopedic information. This shouldn't affect the status of this nomination, unless the prose is restored.
theleekycauldron (
talk •
contribs) (she/her)
09:32, 26 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Overall: Article was created on November 6, and nominated within seven days. Length is adequate. Article meets basic sourcing requirements. The article is neutral in tone. No plagiarism issues were detected. All three hooks are interesting, properly mentioned and cited inline, and verified by the sources. No images are used on this nomination, and the album cover has a proper fair use rationale. QPQ requirement is complete.
Flibirigit (
talk)
22:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
All right – I'm not going to continue engaging with this nomination, but I've been asked to clarify where this article needs to be improved. After that, I'm outta here :)
Ispot.tv is not a reliable enough source to justify the inclusion of the information it currently supports.
In "Use in television", paragraph 1, sentences 1–2 read like puffery and should be trimmed back. Why is it necessary to say which company produced the ad, the exact date it debuted, or what the exact title of the ad was?
In "Use in television", paragraph 2 reads like puffery and should be trimmed back. Why is it necessary to say how many ads this company produced, their lengths and titles, and their exact debut date, as well as the commercials' actors, target platforms, and corporate backers? This article is an encyclopedic entry about a song, not a platform for elevating whichever company pays for the song's licensing.
In "Use in television", paragraph 3, sentence 2 has a primary non-independent source, which does not justify inclusion.
Do what you will with all that – I don't plan on being back at this nom to argue whether these points are valid, nor to certify that they've been rectified. Cheers :)
theleekycauldron (
talk •
contribs) (she/her)
09:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)reply
This article has now twice passed independent DYK reviews and has passed a GAC review. I will come by to take a look at the pronounced drive-by issues claimed to be outstanding. I can say that three people have supported the article and we only have a drive-by objection.--
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD)
06:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)reply
WP:DRIVEBY seems to be a term for objecting without sufficient explanation. In the past it has been used for objections without willingness to engage in discussion, but that is not the official use of the term. I mean objecting without any willingness to discuss. Whatever that is is what I am pointing out.--
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD)
06:49, 8 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Ispot.tv is not listed at
WP:RSPSOURCES, hence I feel it sufficient and reliable. I found no such "primary non-independent source" as noted in the complaint. Discussing the name of the advertisement is relevant to understanding how the song was used. Three different users have read through the "Use in television" section and none found concerns of puffery.
WP:puffery defines it as " praise-filled adjectives and claims". I found no such adjectives or claims. A few words could be trimmed, but mentioning the length of an advertisement is not puffery, it's just wordiness. I stand by my review that the article meets all DYK criteria.
Flibirigit (
talk)
14:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC)reply
User:Theleekycauldron, Given the list of leading companies that apparently rely on iSpot.TV per
this and
this, iSpot is reliable for the content that is at issue. TheDrum.com seems to be a form of media with an
editorial masthead (I have never seen anything with that many listed editors contested as an RS). MSN.com should be a reliable enough source to confirm that the song was in the add.--
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD)
19:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)reply
@
TonyTheTiger: A list of "partners" doesn't establish to what extent, if at all, those companies care about the data iSpot produces. It does establish that iSpot has a vested financial interest in covering the advertisements of various companies (primarily by selling analytics data), which makes me even less inclined to support the notion that we should be treating it like a neutral RS. In other words, a source that has a vested financial interest in covering a topic can't establish whether or not that topic is important.
The MSN.com article you've linked is actually a Looper article that MSN has reprinted – Looper is marginally reliable at best.
Simply having a masthead isn't the only measure of reliability – The Drum looks to me to be primarily a marketing platform where you can pay to boost your content. At best, it's an advertising trade publication, so I guess I could see the content staying in with that.
theleekycauldron (
talk •
contribs) (she/her)
19:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Even if you sidestep the fact that Nielsen ratings are basically recognized as not just king analyst, but kingmaker in television analytics, there's a difference between the way Nielsen ratings are used in articles versus what's happening here: Nielsen ratings are generally best used to supplement content about the article subject, not third parties that interact with the article subject. For example, it might be used in an article about a TV episode to say how well-watched it was; that's okay, if not ideal. If you were using analytics to say that the song got, say, a hundred thousand streams on Spotify, that might be fine (depending on where you got that number from). But what iSpot is doing here isn't that; it's emphasizing the importance of a third party's usage of the song in an ad, and there's just nothing in the source or the source's reputation to suggest that that's a link the article needs to be making. It comes off as pretty promotional to use a primary and likely non-independent source to highlight the advertisements of specific companies.
theleekycauldron (
talk •
contribs) (she/her)
21:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)reply
DYK articles have to conform to
WP:V, same as FA articles – I'd wager that at least 4,000 viewers are going to read this article when its DYK date comes along. That means that it's important for us to make sure the article meets some minimum standards.
theleekycauldron (
talk •
contribs) (she/her)
21:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)reply
The time in the episode is just a statement that a popular show used the song. It is not a statement about notability of the appearance. This is just a section showing that the song had lots of commercial use and trying to give the reader a way to understand how the song is being used commercially.-
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD)
21:46, 29 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Do you have any secondary sources showing the song's noted use in the commercial sphere?
People use to wildly input commercial uses as unsourced lists. I have enabled the reader to
WP:V this commercial use in the D'Amelio show, by properly sourcing the primary. The notability of its use in the show is its use in the show by pop culture tastemakers/trendsetters, which is itself self evident.-
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD)
22:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)reply
P.S. regarding the commercial use by Toyota, I believe that the combination of the iSpot.TV and Looper are adequate sources for the type of fact at issue. Whether a Toyota commercial existed and aired is a fact that the existence of the commercial itself as a Primary is a valid proof of existence. Not much expertise is required to verify that it existed. It is like saying a baby's name, birth date and its parents' names could be verified by social media, whereas we might require a more reliable source on the baby's place of birth or whether the birth was a medical emergency, etc. The commercial had a name, birth date and parent agency. If we want more sources for stylistic nuances about the commercial a more serious set of sources might be required.-
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD)
00:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Memetic and slang usage
I notice that in your edit summary
reverting a recent change, you say that I "seem to be making it a mission to hatchet the article". I don't think you really addressed the point that the section contains no secondary sources linking the song to the slang, making the section a violation of
WP:OR.
theleekycauldron (
talk •
contribs) (she/her)
21:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)reply
2021 was a time of high memetic, slang, adlib and viral tiktok usage of the term. The phrase is used in a similar manner in the song to those uses. It clearly is enlightening to the reader to understand the contemporaneous pop culture use of the terms.-
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD)
21:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)reply
I don't think that's a reliable source, but The Austin Chronicle gives a passing mention. Maybe you could use that for a single-line section, but if a source doesn't directly mention the song, it should probably be considered extraneous.
theleekycauldron (
talk •
contribs) (she/her)
22:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)reply
While
this verstion of the article was nominated at
WP:AFD, there were a lot of eyes on it. I added a lot of content in order to get it to pass at
WP:AFD and what you seem intent on doing is insisting that since the borderline content that I added to get consensus approval is not top of the line content, you want to now revert the addition of the content that I added after several trips to
WP:RSN,
WT:SONGS,
WT:ALBUMS to get guidance toward consensus approval. I am not going to pretend these are the greatest sources, but this is what we have got and what has gotten consensus approval at AFD after several trips to RSN.--
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD)
22:15, 29 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Well, let's take a look at those RSN discussions.
This one got no outside input at all, while
this one turned up no consensus for the reliability of the source in question – in fact, consensus arguably leans against its usage as a selfpubbed blog. Consensus at AfD simply means that there are sources to establish notability – it has nothing to do with whether every source is considered reliable, nor what should go into the article.
theleekycauldron (
talk •
contribs) (she/her)
22:29, 29 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Not a bad idea to remove the Banger of the Day for the reasons you state.-22:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Make the first sentence one with the composer credits, then add a second sentence about the song being recorded at a place fitted with music production equipment
TonyTheTiger Regarding incomplete points, the composers should be mentioned in the lead's recording sentence rather than the first one, comma is not needed before Pacifco since that is not the lead, adding info for a section meant composition of the song and QWQ issues refers to when you have used double speech marks ("") in ref titles. --
K. Peake20:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)reply
TonyTheTiger I left those points unanswered because I felt they were fine so needed no further response; apologies if you found this rude. Also, I already replied to the reception and charts query by mentioning that you should add info for a composition section; this is almost good to go now. --
K. Peake08:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Kyle Peake:, I have pretty much milked all available sourced info on the song. I would not know where to find additional content. Would you prefer that I carve out a composition section from the content currently in Production and release. You are free to make this adjustment as well.--
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD)
12:56, 7 January 2023 (UTC)reply