Talk:34+35

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

Single status[edit]

Wasn't it made consensus that when a song is only released to Australian radios is only promotional single? Like "Sour Candy" or "Future Nostalgia". infsai (dyskusja) 06:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yea it was, but multiple sources call it a single as well. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 23:33, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

---Another Believer (Talk) 22:44, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AshMusique: You seem to be misinterpreting WP:NSONG. NSONG states that a song is probably notable if it has been the subject of multiple reliable sources. It doesn't state that those sources need to be on the article for notability to exist. In fact, the absence of sources or citations in an article does not indicate that a subject is not notable as per WP:NEXIST, hence redirecting an article on grounds of insufficient sources or inadequate material to fill the article is not supported by NSONG. Notability on Wikipedia is determined by the mere existence of notability, not the current state of the article. Repeatedly restoring the redirect by edit warring isn't going to help either. I've created the page with reliable sources for now, although it's always good to develop the article to a certain extent before publishing, that's not required for an article to exist. If you are unsure whether a song is notable, do a web search and see if the song has been the subject of multiple reliable sources, if it's not, then you can redirect. Otherwise, leave the article up and improve it if you wish. Thank you. Hayman30 (talk) 07:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hayman30, perhaps I misinterpreted WP:NSONG, but I'm aware of a song having notability if sources exist, hence why I said in my summaries "Fails WP:NSONG as is" and "This is not sufficient as an article, per WP:NSONG, wait for more sources". The article was created twice with a lack of appropriate sources and content. I wasn't edit warring, the WP:BURDEN shouldn't automatically lie on other users, as who's to say it will eventually be upgraded. AshMusique (talk) 07:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AshMusique: When you made this revert at 21:58, 31 October 2020‎ (UTC), notability already exists as far as I'm aware. Most of the sources in the article right now, as well as those posted by Another Belieber above, were published on or before October 31, 2020, mostly on October 30. So when you wrote "Fails WP:NSONG as is", you were referring only to the sources present in the article, because notability for the song already exists at that point. And you were edit warring–you made two reverts on this page, both were redirecting the page to the album (restoring to previous version). WP:BURDEN has nothing to do with this, it merely states that the burden of proof is on the editor introducing the material, it doesn't give you a free pass to edit war since both attempts to create the article were not vandalism, they were constructive, good-faith edits. Hayman30 (talk) 07:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hayman30, that does not constitute edit warring, and that was not the intention and I'm sorry you see it that way. Have a good day. AshMusique (talk) 08:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AshMusique: You didn't really explain much, so I had to assume you don't understand the definition of edit warring very well. According to WP:EW, an edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. When you revert an edit and an editor restores the edit, then they have started an edit war. If you revert that edit, you are now participating in the edit war as well. It doesn't matter if you have a valid rationale for reverting. Once an edit has been reverted, the reverted editor should take it to the talk page as per WP:BRD. If they don't and proceeds to restore the edit, they are in violation of the aforementioned guideline, but just because they didn't follow the rules doesn't mean you can revert them again and be excused for edit warring. In this case, you reverted multiple edits, involving the same material, which undeniably constitutes edit warring. But if you want to deny that, I can't and won't stop you from doing it, that wasn't the point of my message anyway, and I don't plan on arguing with you on simple facts based on objective observations. My first message was about NSONG and your apparent interpretation of it, and I hope you get what I mean and keep it in mind. Thanks. Hayman30 (talk) 08:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hayman30, I appreciate the explanataion, but I am aware ot what edit warring refers to and the concept behind BRD, which is why I stated I was not warring. "When editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions" - I wasn't doing any of that, as I was not in disagreement with any editors and no one was in actual fact in disagreement with me either or arguing about the content. You may have seen it that way, but that was not the case at all here, I wasn't reverting anyone per se, I was merely restoring the reditect per my interpretation of WP:NSONG, which, as you pointed out, was what we were initially talking about. So yes, thank you for pointing that out, I shall keep it in mind. AshMusique (talk) 08:55, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AshMusique: You were in disagreement with editors who wanted to create the page, and they are in disagreement with you–that's why the reverts happened. If you didn't disagree with anyone or anything, why did you revert? It's important to note that the "editors" here do not refer to only two editors, it could refer to a group of editors. You were disagreeing with a group of editors who were attempting to create the page, and you made multiple reverts, which constitutes edit warring. For clarity, edit warring doesn't even need to involve the same material. You can be reverting different things added by different editors on a page and still be viewed as engaging in an edit ear. Hayman30 (talk) 09:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hayman30, edit warring refers to disagreement about specific content, which was not the actual case. There was no actual disagreement, so I don't see how that can be labelled as warring. You are making it out to be as though I was involved in a back and forth of reverting and opposing views with other editors, which is where edit warring stems from and not what you're claiming it to be in this instance. They were creating the article, while I, in my capacity as an editor, felt it didn't meet notability. It's common for users to restore a redirect based on variety of reasons, in this case it was that it didn't meet the standards of notability, which we've been over with. That's not warring. If you still feel the same, then I'll agree to disgaree. AshMusique (talk) 09:29, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AshMusique: No, you're wrong, sorry. Edit warring is not limited to disagreement on specific content, as explicitly stated on WP:3RR: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." You are engaging in an edit war the moment you make a second revert, whether involving the same material or not. While you did not violate the three-revert rule, you have already made two reverts, which still constitutes edit warring, especially since you were restoring the redirect both times. If you're still confused about the edit warring policy, I can ask other editors to explain it to you, since I'm not sure if I'm explaining myself correctly, but you can always refer to the policy itself, which is very clear on what constitutes edit warring and what doesn't. Hayman30 (talk) 09:41, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Genre[edit]

Please research about the genre before you delete or edit something or judge about reliablity. I added sourced content. Although it's a reliable source or not, it's better than nothing. Jag-Eun Byeol (talk) 16:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is better than WP:OR. That is a policy. Having a genre in a page is not. (CC) Tbhotch™ 17:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. Jag-Eun Byeol (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remix as a single[edit]

It is pretty clear to me that the remix with Doja and Megan is a single FROM the deluxe edition and was used to promote the deluxe edition. I would just add it but there seems to be a disagreement on whether | album = should even be used for the remix's infobox.Perfect Koifish (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Perfect Koifish: You need to provide a source which states that "34+35 Remix" is a single from the deluxe version. You can't just presume that it is because it's included on the deluxe version. Simply being included on an album doesn't imply that it's a single from the album. Hayman30 (talk) 16:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:34%2B35&oldid=1197018806"