Talk:Despacito

YouTube views

Is this really necessary? I haven't seen it in other song articles. Perhaps in prose maybe but that was just to update it. Before you know it, you're going to have 30 columns of its milestones, which makes it really bulky. The Shape of You article just has it in prose and someone comes by and updates it. Every 100 million views shouldn't be a milestone. 1 million, sure. 100 million. Sure. 1 billion, yes! --Jennica✿ / ^talk 00:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Have only one table of charts to resolve issues.

Proposal: Have only one table of charts to resolve issues.
The Billboard charts for US & Canada (and most likely any others that have Billboard charts) have combined the reporting for the Original version and the Bieber Remix version of the song. This is shown as the charting going forward due to the number of weeks of charting activity that Billboard shows. It's because the remix version doesn't show "1" for the number of charting weeks in its first week, but just adds "1" to the prior weeks' Original version count of charting weeks (and is shown in at least one other way as well). I believe we should accept their lead in just showing one table of charts with the highest peak regardless of version. Our table of charts can be sufficiently notated as such.
The huge problem I see currently is that Billboard in their own news articles mention with the remix release the jump in Billboard Hot 100 position occurred (sources are in the article itself), but all the credit is shown in the Original version table and not at all in the Remix version table? How can this be considered appropriate or accurate? And doesn't it seem a bit strange to "double report" the same chart (and position) in two different tables of charts? Where the charting differs, IPs will be prone to inappropriately "update" the lower position chart with the higher position chart values. We have already seen this occur. By having just one table of charts will resolve these issues.
If this proposal is not accepted, there needs to be resolution to the B100 issue as the charts appearing in the article read that the Original version has charted at "9" and that the remix version has not charted at all (both of which statements are explicitly contradicted by the Billboard news articles.—Iknow23 (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
In addition to the B100 issue, what is to be made of the many country/regions that show charting in the Original version charts, but do not show any charting in the Remix charts? Is this supposed to mean that the remix is not released in those areas or has failed to chart in all of those? Because there are 2 tables of charts, the first one is for the Original version only. It cannot include any remix data (without explanation) because there is a separate table of charts for the remix.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I think the article should have both tables but those charts that have combined data from both versions should appear on the original version's table with a note such as the one on Netherlands (Dutch Top 40), clarifying that the chart combined information from the original and the Justin Bieber version. Those charts that separated the Bieber remix should appear on the Remix version#Charts section. That being said, the No. 1 peak for the remix on Billboard's Hot Latin Songs and the No. 5 on the Dutch Top 40 should be removed. Also the No. 9 peak on the Billboard Hot 100 and the No. 1 on Hot Latin Songs should have a note clarifying the combined data. Sorry for my grammar, I am not an English-native speaker. Brankestein (talk) 04:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Monitor Latino charts

I was wondering if it is really necessary to have all Monitor Latino charts on the Charts table. "Despacito" already peaked at No. 1 on the Latin American chart, which compiles data from all countries Monitor Latino measure. I propose removing all Monitor Latino charts from the table, except the Latin American. Brankestein (talk) 18:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Please keep the Monitor Latino charts. Observing HERE makes it look similar to Billboard in that they are the provider of charts for various countries that we list out individually.—Iknow23 (talk) 23:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Please remove the combined Latin American chart and just keep all the individual countries charts.—Iknow23 (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

RIAA certification

@IndianBio: I was wondering if the Certified units/Sales column for the U.S. on the Certifications section should have the song's certified units (2,040,000 as of May 19, 2017) or its actual digital sales. I mean, if "Despacito" was certified for digital sales plus track-equivalent streams, maybe we should maintain its 2,040,000 certified units and add its 1,163,000 digital sales on the Chart performance section. Eventually its RIAA certification is going to be updated and those digital sales units are going to be outdated. Brankestein (talk) 16:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Brankestein: this updation of sales has been the norm for quite sometime now. We generally add another notation below indicating that the certification is for sales+stream eqv units. We can add that too. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Article's reorganization

@Music01: I have done some major reorganizations for the Justin Bieber remix version. Before undoing my edit (if you are considering it), please respond this. I think the article is better structured this way. Brankestein (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@Brankestein:: Oh no, this way is better. But I think that "Live performances" should go first, and then the "Remixes (and other versions)"; the Justin Bieber remix should be in a sub-section, like: "==Remixes==" and then "===Justin Bieber remix===", because it obviously had way more attention than the other ones. I also think that "Background and composition" should be in two different sections, first "Background and release" and then, "Composition". In my opinion, the critical reception for the Justin Bieber remix should be in the section about the Justin Bieber remix, but I don't think this is a major thing. Music01 (talk) 22:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

A sub-section for Bieber's remix should be okay. This article once had the "Background and composition" section separated, but I think that this way (both sections in one) is better because the "background" sentences complement the "composition" ones. Sorry if I can't explain myself, English isn't my native language. Brankestein (talk) 23:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry, English isn't my native language too. About the "Backgroun and composition", I think they should be separated because the composition, actually, is approached only in the second and third paragraphs. I think the section should be separated into "Background and release" and "Composition" - and the audio file should be in the "Composition" section. Made this, the audio file should be in the composition with some phrase (what about "A 30 second sample showing the chorus and Daddy Yankee's rap on "Despacito", a reggaeton-pop song."?); the sentence "During the 2017 Billboard Latin Music Conference, American-Puerto Rican singer-songwriter Nicky Jam revealed that the original version of "Despacito" featured him instead of Daddy Yankee" should be after the "release" part on "Background and composition"; and the entire name of Luis Fonsi, I think, is not needed. Music01 (talk) 02:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

What do you think about the changes? Brankestein (talk) 00:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Brankestein:: I think it's everything ok for now, but, I was thinking about separating the certifictations of the original song/combined with the Justin Bieber remix from the certifications of the Justin Bieber remix only, in a mode like it's on "Like a Virgin" and like it's on the Portuguese Wikipedia (which I made). I think this way would be way better than separating in two columns. Music01 (talk) 01:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Brankestein:: I already done this. It's more organized this way. You can revert it if you want, but I think it's better than adding a note or separating in two columns. Music01 (talk) 01:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Music01: Your way is better, it's more organized. Brankestein (talk) 02:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Combined charts and certifications

Surly everything in these sections only applies to the original version of the song as there is a separate section for the charts and certifications of the remix version of the song. In addition there are some references in these sections which only apply to the original version and others which only apply to the remix. So why isnt the table fully split? Mn1548 (talk) 21:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

You mean to have a table for the original version alone, other for the remix, and another for combined charts? Brankestein (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Brankestein: Yes! Mn1548 (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Mn1548: Hey, I was thinking about editing the certifications table by merging both "original or combined" and the "Bieber remix" parts, since it's hard to believe that al those sales/units for the remix version are only for that version. I mean, I know the BPI specifically states that the 3× Platinum certification is for the remix version, but the original was already charting within the top ten before the release of the remix (both versions were later merged into one). The same happens with almost the rest of the countries in the "remix" part, the original version had already chart entries before Bieber's version, so those units could not be just for the remix. I was thinking of merging both parts of the table and leaving a note above clarifying that some countries measured both versions, excepting Brazil and Germany, who separated both versions for its certifications. Brankestein (talk) 03:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Brankestein: That sounds good! Providing of course that the certifications use data for both temix and original. I think we should have it like the charts table: a table for certifications which only apply to the original, another for certifications which combine sales of both, and another for certifications which only apply to the remix. Mn1548 (talk) 15:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Mn1548: Well... it would be hard to make tables like the ones from the charts section since most countries measure both versions, with the exception of Brazil and Germany. Brankestein (talk) 01:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Brankestein: Well in that case combine the table but leave Brizil and Germany separate if they are the only exceptions. Mn1548 (talk) 05:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

parody or Appearances in other media

Amram Adar's version incorporates spiritual elements of prayer, rather than comedy, as is typical for a parody. You could say that he's commenting on the lack of prayer in the original, so that's comic... Given the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use exception for parody, it's unfair for a wikipedian to characterize the source and derivative artist's production as other than parody. The characterization ought to take place by the parties involved.MichelleInSanMarcos (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Spanglish will help readers understand this novel term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichelleInSanMarcos (talk • contribs) 17:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Weekly Charts

For some reason, the addition of the Indian chart details shows the country column as a bold 1 even though this has been followed the same way as the others and I don't know how to fix this. Iggy (talk) 10:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Iggy the Swan: Unless the chart is listed on the template page, it can't be included in singles chart tables without breaking the formatting. If you'd like to propose that an Indian chart be included, you may do so on the template talkpage. In the meantime, I've removed the Indian entry from the table. LifeofTau 18:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

IP Vandalism

Hello everyone, I was wondering if it's possible to block or ban IP addresses from Wikipedia. There's an IP address 24.187.50.53 who keeps editing music-related articles to write JY "El De La J" or Juan C Yepez Jr on pages such as Despacito, Update (Yandel album), El Dorado (Shakira album), and Yo Contra Ti. It seems that his IP address changed sometime during mid-2017 because there are various edits by IP 104.246.32.242 with the same "JY 'El De La J'", "JY (El De La J)", and "Juan C Yepez Jr" on articles including El Perdón, Duele el Corazón, Dangerous (Yandel album), Chantaje, Pretty Boy, Dirty Boy, De Líder a Leyenda, Nota de Amor, and Sex and Love, among others.

Edits by 104.246.32.242 were from 13 August 2016 to 20 January 2017, while vandal edits by 24.187.50.53 started on 14 August 2017 and the last one was on this article Despacito on 4 October 2017. It seems to be something related to self-promotion, but his "contributions" are annoying and there should be some way to block his vandalism. Brankestein (talk) 14:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Accolades received by "Despacito"

I was wondering if there sould be a standalone list of accolades received by "Despacito" because of the lenght of the table on its article (although the table is collapsed). Are there lists of awards and nominations dedicated to only one song or an album? I'm not talking about doing it now because it has only 28 nominations, but various music awards are going to be held during 2018 (Billboard Music Awards, Billboard Latin Music Awards, Lo Nuestro Awards, etc) and the amount of nominations is going to be notoriously increased. What do you think? Brankestein (talk) 03:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't think the accolades received by "Despacito" deserve their own article, and in fact I would argue for trimming down the existing list to reduce its length. The list's length does not seem to be a result of the song being exceptionally acclaimed but rather the addition of relatively trivial accolades. The articles for "El Perdedor", "Andas en Mi Cabeza", "Cheap Thrills", and "One Way or Another (Teenage Kicks)" never mention their respective Premios Juventud, Your World Awards, LOS40 Music Awards, and Nickelodeon Argentina Kids' Choice Awards wins. Removing these as well as the other Latin Kid's Choice Awards will leave a list reflecting only the most relevant awards while displaying an appropriate length (I also suggest replacing the "recipients" column with a "version" column, with the primary options being "original" or "remix featuring Justin Bieber" as well as removing the "date" column altogether). Since even recent musical works that were exceptionally award-winning such as 21 and To Pimp a Butterfly lack articles documenting their respective accolades, I fail to see why "Despacito" in particular should receive one. LifeofTau 07:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

How do you define an award to be "relevant" though if we can't list them all? Jury-voted awards like both the Grammy and the Latin Grammy Awards? Billboard Music Awards and Billboard Latin Music Awards? EDIT: I think using the {{further}} template would be a better choice now that I think about. It could like to either Fonsi or Daddy Yankee's awards & noms page. Erick (talk) 13:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with whether the award is voted by a jury and everything to do with notability. I think most people would agree that a Grammy win is worthy of mention whereas a Premios Tu Mundo is most likely not, but where precisely to draw the line would have to depend on consensus. I agree that adding links to the more comprehensive awards and nominations pages for Daddy Yankee and Bieber (as well as the "Awards" section of Fonsi's article) would be helpful. LifeofTau 20:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

So fan-voted awards shouldn't appear on the list? That would mean that every award on the table (excluding Grammy/Latin Grammy, La Musa Awards, and the eventual Billboard Awards) should be removed? Brankestein (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

No, that is not what I said. Significant fan-voted awards such as (but obviously not limited to) the People's Choice Awards and the VMAs can certainly be included. LifeofTau 20:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Following that, I think that the Kids' Choice Awards, Teen Choice Awards, MTV Millennial Awards, Premios Juventud, Premios Tu Mundo, Los40 Music Awards could be removed. Brankestein (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@Magiciandude:@Life of Tau: Should I remove all those "non-relevant" awards?

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2017

Add {{Pp-semi}} template.

--186.84.65.243 (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

 Partly done. Adding that template like that produces a pretty big eyesore of a text box at the top of the article so I added a parameter, "small=yes", so it only added the little gray padlock at the top right. Although I could be wrong. If so, please let me know how and I can change it. CityOfSilver 00:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Adding a "critics lists" table

@Magiciandude: @Life of Tau: Hey, I was wondering if we could add a "critics' lists" table or something like that and at the sime time removing the awards table or simplifying it by showing only the most relevant awards. Maybe having two tables is too much. Brankestein (talk) 15:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Despacito. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170607171800/http://www.teletica.com/Entretenimiento/163505-Ed-Sheeran-Yo-queria-cantar-Despacito-con-Luis-Fonsi-y-Daddy-Yankee-pero-Justin-Bieber-me-gano.note.aspx to http://www.teletica.com/Entretenimiento/163505-Ed-Sheeran-Yo-queria-cantar-Despacito-con-Luis-Fonsi-y-Daddy-Yankee-pero-Justin-Bieber-me-gano.note.aspx
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://lista.vg.no/artist/luis-fonsi-daddy-yankee-feat-justin-bieber/singel/despacito-remix/6651

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Weekly charts: Combined entries

@Ss112: Hi! Since you seem to involve in all chart-related sections, I have been thinking about merging the Original version and the Original and remix combined sub-sections of the Weekly charts section. I know I was the one who proposed to separate them various months ago, but maybe it would be better to have one table including peaks for the original version and combined entries with the Justin Bieber remix. This table could have a note like the one in the Year-end charts sub-section, clarifying that various peaks are combined chart entries between the original and remix versions. The standalone table for the remix should remain as it is today (separated). Brankestein (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

'See also' section

@Life of Tau: Hi, I have been thinking about making some changes on the 'See also' section, since it is too long and almost all of those lists are already categories at the bottom of the article. Shouldn't be better to remove all those lists from the See also section? Brankestein (talk) 18:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

100 Million views left to reach 5 billion

4.90 million views. He'll reach 5 billion views by the end of the March or April.

2606:6000:D6C7:0:193E:A4FC:C484:4301 (talk) 00:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

YouTube video not found as of 09:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Any updates on this? 101.160.14.63 (talk) 09:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

All links back up and working , the video is back and running Pauseypaul (talk) 12:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Despacito Internet Meme

Online, there have been a surge of Despacito memes, especially those concerning the fictional sequel "Despacito 2". Many video parodies, images, etc have been made regarding this meme. Is this noteworthy enough to be included on the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:183:4400:9C1:4C3E:2181:3440:54E4 (talk) 13:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Not unless a reliable source states that the memes helped the chart performance of the song (or any other significant achievement). For example, "Dame tu cosita" reached number-one on the US Hot Latin Songs chart and the top 40 in the Hot 100, and Billboard described it as a "meme-assisted song." The same happened to Childish Gambino's "This is America" and "Redbone", and Smash Mouth's "All star". Brankestein (talk) 19:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Despacito/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Fhsig13 (talk · contribs) 04:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Excellent work in this area. No concerns here.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	A bit lengthily, but overall complies with the applicable MoS.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Immense source list present, a very pleasant surprise.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	I'm not going to check 400+ citations in depth, however the vast majority seemed to standard when I gave the list a once-over.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Again, 400+ citations. I have no concerns here.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	I found nothing of the sort, thus it's a pass here too.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	This articles covers multiple aspects of the the topic very very well, and in good depth. The article is a tad lengthily for the average reader, however there is visibly some necessity to that.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Again, it is a little on the long side for the average Joe, however, this is a particularly broad subject, and the authors have done a commendable job of giving a good overview of it's many facets. That said, fat-trimming may become necessary down the road.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No concerns here. Well written.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article's history page shows some reverting here and there, but nothing too serious or causing of any instability.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	No copyright status given on most images.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No concerns here. Everything is as it should be.
	7. Overall assessment.	This articles meets 6 of the 7 criterion to be considered a Good Article, so I am happy give it a pass, however as stated above, some fat-trimming and work on the images may be required down the road. Overall though, excellent work.

Thank you for your review! I'm glad the article got a pass. Do you suggest some editing on long sections? Brankestein (talk) 00:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Russian roots? 2009

• On youtube.com there is a curious video (Rockerjoker. "Америка"). In the distant 2009, this song in Russian was remotely resembling the rhythmic structure of Despacito. Sincerely, --Lasius (talk) 01:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Unless something comes out of this like a lawsuit, I don't see any reason for bringing this up. Otherwise, this falls under WP:OR. Erick (talk) 04:44, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Community reassessment

Despacito

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept There are a few misconceptions that I should address first. There is actually no requirement for an editor to comment on each criteria. They have to assess it against each one, but we allow a lot of latitude in how they present this assessment. That includes referencing previous reviews. The table is a perfectly fine way to do this. Tbhotch is wrong in saying all citations have to be checked. FA doesn't even require this (or they didn't, they had a RFC recently and I am not up-to-date on their current position here). What GA requires is that citations are at least present for "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons". I doubt many reviewers check all sources. It is simply not possible for some articles with foreign language or offline ones. I would hope all reviewers check for the statements covered above and at least spot check a few others. This is supposed to be a lightweight process and expecting someone to check 400+ sources is not lightweight. Saying that the review could have been carried out better. I view this project as a way for editors to improve their articles and passing is often just a means to the end. As such it is almost always helpful to offer some feedback on what could be improved. Others might see it differently though and that is fine. The bottom line here is that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the review and nothing has been presented here to suggest that the article fails the criteria (I checked the images and they have rational or licenses, although I feel the graphs are getting close to original research). As such this will be kept as a Good Article. Anyone is welcome to take it through an individual reassessment if they wish to give it a more in-depth review. AIRcorn (talk) 10:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it would probably be a good idea for this article's GA status to be reassed based upon the discussion at User talk:Fhsig13#Despacito, in particular this comment left by Tbhotch. Although I believe the GA review was carried out in good faith, the statement I'm not going to check 400+ citations in depth, however the vast majority seemed to standard when I gave the list a once-over. left by the reviewer for item 2b as well as the statement No copyright status given on most images. given for item 6a since the version which was reviewed make it seem that the review was hastily carried out. There were only six files (three non-free ones and three Commons files) and checking their respective pages for their licensing shouldn't have been to difficult to do. Out of the seven parts of a GA review, it seems that making sure copyright files are properly licensed and being used correctly would be quite important. Finally, no reference was made to earlier failed GA review or how the issues raised therein were fixed; this makes me wonder whether the GA reviewer was aware of the previous review. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment -- Off a glance, I'm seeing no glaring issues that could not be quickly addressed. This is comprehensively written and has good enough prose quality. Though I agree that the GA review for this definitely looks rushed and its unlikely that there were absolutely no problems with an article this lengthy. I suggest having an experienced GA reviewer look this over and post their suggestions for improvement here. I'd even volunteer myself to address them in case the original nominator doesn't want to. If that happens I'd support not delisting. Regards.--NØ 15:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Minecraftcito

Add a thing about minecraftcito JAX4981 (talk) 19:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2019

Can you add link brackets to Leo Moracchioli in the section "Other mixes and cover versions", where he's already mentioned? Thanks, 82.132.213.153 (talk) 00:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC) 82.132.213.153

 Already done This change has already been made. Gangster8192 01:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Despacito 2

There is a draft article for the "Despacito 2" video by FlyingKitty, mainly because it has SO MANY VIEWS ON YOUTUBE (here). What do you think?

I disagree, but I am not an editor, so you have a chance. Also, I have heard about it. 172.58.19.119 (talk) 17:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

98.167.135.188 (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Split out J-biebs remix

This article is so massive to navigate and there is a lot of information broken up throughout. I would suggest that the Justin Beiber remix information is all collated into a section with subsections OR that it is given its own article. There is a lot of information here and it is very jumbled. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 15:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually, this is not a bad idea. Splitting it will be more clear. At this point the article is huge and it takes a while to load and also navigate. — Tom^(T2ME) 16:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The remix had its own section before but I merged both versions in the "Background" section because I think that the information is better presented this way. It's better to write about the remix's recording and release before both versions' reception and chart performace. Brankestein (talk) 17:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Brankestein: actually disagree with that sentiment. Its very difficult to understand the flow of the article particularly as the Bieber remix became more notorious in its own right and the chart table is ridiculously big and also hard to navigation. WP:SIZERULE also suggests that because the article is over 100kb, it should be split into two articles. My preferred solution would be splitting into two separate articles as they have separate chart listings, award nominations etc. In fairness, I would personally delist this article as a GA and then have both of the new articles re-listed for GA nomination given the number of references. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 18:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Well... they don't have separate chart placements. The remix version alone charted in a few countries but in most of them both versions were merged. Splitting the song into two articles wouldn't be necessary since the text regarding the remix isn't that large. Brankestein (talk) 21:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I personally recommend just giving the Bieber remix its own section and subsections, no matter how much it may have overshadowed the original version. One should be able to reduce any redundant content or excess details without needing to split off. We could perhaps use articles like All I Want for Christmas Is You and Old Town Road as bases for structuring original and remix versions. If this gets delisted as GA and is split off into separate pages, though, then each new page should formally go through new GA reviews of their own given how lots of content would be changed. No sheer number of references will inherently guarantee an article is worthy of such a classification. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

It would be hard to give the remix its own section and subsections because both versions share chart placements, unless the Bieber section only includes its background, recording and reception. Brankestein (talk) 22:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Completely agree with Unique here in accordance to WP:SIZERULE. This article is HUGE and should be split up. Even without taking that into consideration, I think that the remix is notable enough on its own to justify its own article. — Status (talk · contribs) 19:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I honestly oppose this split. The remix is part of the song's history, and it's by the same (lead) artist. "I Will Always Love You" (and a lot of cover songs) is even messier, and it's by different artists. I agree with SNUGGUMS that a lot of excess details and non-essential info should be trimmed. Bluesatellite (talk) 01:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Even though there is a clear guide per WP:SIZERULE, it seems that people are leaning more towards a trim and better organisation. As a way forward, could I suggest that the Bieber remix information is contained with one section as is standard practise. This would make things like the chart section more legible and make more sense rather than having double entries. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 09:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Isn't it better for an article to have detailed information? I don't know what to trim since everything is important. Brankestein (talk) 19:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I was able to trim 69,478 bytes today. Brankestein (talk) 02:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)