Talk:Meghan Trainor/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Comments on mass changes

To be clear, my main objection(s) to the large amount of content addition is in regard to discussion that happened back in April: the article is too long, too bloated, and too full of bloat. Adding to that bloat is, in my estimation, poor article stewardship. Further, making huge changes to content and wording should be discussed. LipsAreMovin was bold, I reverted, now we discuss (see WP:BRD for more).

Below are my comments on specific areas of concern in regard to grammar, content, tone, and the lack of necessity in these additions/changes.

Part I of comments

• Born and raised on Nantucket, Massachusetts Should not be in the lede.

I feel it's notable as that's where she grew up, started singing, played in bands, recorded her first three albums etc. The entire Early life section and half of the Career beginnings section is based on how she was raised in Nantucket. A few words as such are a trimmed enough summary I feel.

But, it really isn't notable because it has no outstanding bearing on her development as a musician (which is where her notability starts). If she was raised in Nashville, or Memphis, or Detroit, or Muscle Shoals, I could see it. But Nantucket? If she were a Kennedy, it might be important. Not necessary for the lede; it's covered in the early life section and that's good enough. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Will remove this bit. - Lips ^{are movin} 18:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• Trainor wrote, recorded, performed and produced three independently-released albums between age 15 and 17. Is not, in my opinion, an improvement on what is currently there (She released three independent albums before signing with Epic Records and achieving her breakthrough in 2014 with the single "All About That Bass".

I'd settle for She released three independent albums between age 15 and 17. The Epic Records deal happened much later and after she signed a notable publishing deal with Big Yellow Dog and wrote tracks for a number of notable artists.

I think it's better, too. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• In 2011, she signed a publishing deal with Big Yellow Dog Music, and pursued a career in songwriting. Unsourced. Combining the previous with "pursued a career in songwriting" is a non-sequitur. The context is off.

It is sourced extensively in the Career beginnings section. The context is off though I agree. I can't think of an alternative rewording. It's important to state that she became a full-time songwriter after signing the publishing deal so we have to phrase that and the publishing deal in the same sentence some how.

I will be thinking about this for rewording and will let you know later (as soon as I can) what I come up with. If anyone else has suggestions, it would be good to see them -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

How does this sound? After signing to Big Yellow Dog Music in 2011, Trainor pursued a career in songwriting. - Lips ^{are movin} 18:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

That should work. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• she penned songs. Just say she wrote them.

Ok.

Good. Agreed. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• major-label debut and fourth studio album. It's debated as to whether it really is her fourth studio album. The other three were independently recorded and produced. "Studio album" typically means they were not independent but studio released. As I said, it's a debated point.

I raised my concern regarding the fourth studio album phrase consensus at Talk:Meghan Trainor discography. The albums are still studio albums, independently or not they were recorded in her home studio per the sources, just not label releases. A studio is a studio, "All About That Bass" was recorded at Kevin Kadish's home studio. Album#Studio album is helpful.

Actually, no. A studio is not a studio. Many early rock and roll recordings were done in basements or living rooms or garages (Buddy Holly, for the latter). This practice still goes on today, especially with digital recording systems available to amateurs and wanna-be YouTube and SoundCloud "artists". No one ever has called those early examples "studio recordings", and you'd be hard-pressed to call someone recording on a digital recording system in a converted bedroom a studio. A good question to ask is: does Trainor or anyone in the business refer to those three recordings as "studio recordings"? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The consensus at Talk:Title (Meghan Trainor album) came to the conclusion that "major-label debut and fourth studio album" was the appropriate wording. Though I disagree with the phrasing, I think we should use it that way until a new RFC/consensus for changing it otherwise is reached. - Lips ^{are movin} 18:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Seems to me that what we are doing now is building a new consensus. A consensus isn't written in stone and can be changed. As I've noted several times during this discussion, others are more than welcome to join in the discussion here. So far, no one has. If we consensus build now, no harm no foul and I don't think any policies will be violated. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I get what you're saying and agree. I just see other editors who disagreed last time popping up in future to say consensus was reached otherwise. If I'm deducing correctly were agreeing on "debut studio album"? - Lips ^{are movin} 18:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Prominently influenced What the hell does "prominently influenced" mean? I could see "primarily influenced", or "predominantly influenced", but the other? Makes no sense.

"Predominantly influenced" would be what was meant there.

Obviously, that needs to be fixed, then. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• Trainor's music has been noted for its retro style aesthetic. Another "what the hell does that mean?" from me. What is a retro-style aesthetic, exactly? Depending on the answer to this, I will likely then say, "Just keep it simple and say what you mean instead of trying to sound arty".

Will replace "aesthetic" with "sound".

That's a better, and more concise choice. Aesthetics generally refer to what one sees, not what one hears. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• She was the recipient of the Music Business Association's Breakthrough Artist of the Year accolade Groan. Just say it is an award or honor.

Ok.

Good. Agreed. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• , to jewelry store owners Kelli and Gary Trainor. Misplaced comma, would be better as "to parents Kelli and Gary Trainor" and add something following this about them owning a jewelry store (and is this sourced? it's the first I've seen about them owning a jewelry store).

Here's three of many sources in the article that say this: 123. A lot of FA/GA-class musical artists list the parents, siblings, and notable other family members' occupations. See for example: Mariah Carey (FA), Katy Perry (FA), Aaliyah (FA). In Trainor's case it's especially notable due to her being in a musical family which very much supported her to get where she is today (manifested throughout these first two sections). She was in a band with her family as well.

I don't have a problem listing her parents' business/occupation(s), but as it's written makes it seem as if it is directly related to Trainor at the time of her birth, as if being jewelry store owners made her who she is today. Mention it, but not in the prose as it is currently. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The FAs I reffered to and many others mention it in the Early life opening paragraph hence why I did the same. I don't know how/where else you're suggesting I should mention it otherwise. - Lips ^{are movin} 18:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm just saying to add it later in the area where early life is talking about her family. I believe this would be better: "In addition to her parents owning a jewelry store in Nantucket, Trainor's father taught music for eight years along with playing organ in the Methodist church attended by the family". -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

In reply to this and the subsequent family sections below - It's taken me a while to understand, apologies. I can agree to this suggestion, namely the rewording you used above. I just don't understand why numerous other FA-class BLP articles consistently do it this way but Trainor's section can't, it's not a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS either, if these articles went through the FA process. I can agree to mentioning her family and their names at the significant events but definitely do not agree to removing them altogether like you suggested below. Her whole family are much more influential and involved in her career than the numerous FA-class BLPs I'm referring to who also list relatives and their occupations in the opening paragraph. I still don't think it's trivia in the slightest, sorry. I also don't understand how you want to introduce the family, their names and occupations otherwise, it's going to be very cluttered (for example if we have to list the family members in Island Fusion). The opening paragraph listing her family essentially acts as a lead background for them in later sections of the article. I hope you get my viewpoint of the argument. - Lips ^{are movin}

• Her great-uncle, Bob LaPalm, was a member of the rock band NRBQ. Trivia, undue weight, should be removed. Doesn't help the reader better understand the article subject. Simply put: there's no context to relate it to Trainor and her development as a musician. Her father being a musician yes. A great uncle? No.

See above. The inline citation states that Trainor introduced herself to Al Anderson (NRBQ) (who essentially arranged Trainor's publishing deal), informing that she was LaPalm's granddaughter. Another NRBQ member Johnny (mentioned later) mentored her during her teens. The NRBQ influence and connection was quite significant actually

Okay, but keeping it where it is and leaving it hanging as it seems like unrelated trivia. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

See above. It is related and not trivia. Hence why the Early life section is separate from the Career section. - Lips ^{are movin} 18:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

We need to figure out a way to work it in better with the relevant content on the career section -- as it is in the section it's in, it is trivia. We're kind of asking the reader to put two-and-two together by cleverly mentioning it here, in my opinion. Let's just be straight forward with it. All of her relatives don't need to be mentioned in early life or personal life sections. Does that make sense? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

See my response above. - Lips ^{are movin} 18:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Trainor's aunt and Trinidadian uncle, Lisa and Burton Toney, are soca music performers and songwriters. More undue-weight, trivia, bloat. Not necessary at all for the same reasons mentioned directly above this.

See above.

She doesn't perform or specialize in Trinidadian/Caribbean/soca music as a genre, and based on how this is written, we have no idea how their familial relationship is significant in regard to Trainor's development as a musician. As it is, it's trivia and undue weight. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

If you skim down to the Influences section you'll see it was actually influential to her musical style and in the Artistry section it is stated and sourced that her music contains elements and influences of soca. - Lips ^{are movin} 18:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Same as what I just said previous. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Her elder brother, Ryan (born 1992), is an intern at Atom Factory, a recording artist management team. More bloat, undue weight, has nothing to do with Trainor but her brother.

See above. Also notable because Trainor is signed under the same management. (sourced in the Breakthrough with Title section).

As it's written, it just seems thrown in and the reader is supposed to make the connection based on what? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Should I use Her elder brother, Ryan (born 1992), is an intern at Atom Factory, a recording artist management team to which Trainor is signed to. instead? - Lips ^{are movin} 18:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Same as what I just said previous. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Her younger brother, Justin, studies record production at the Los Angeles Film School. Listing all these tibdits in the article is giving it the appearance of Teen Beat Magazine (or whatever the current fave fan-magazine of today is). More trivial undue weight.

See above.

Again, as it's written, it just seems thrown in and the reader is supposed to make the connection based on what? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

It's stated in the second sentence that she was born into a musical family, that's the connection. - Lips ^{are movin} 18:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Same as what I just said previous. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• They then settled in North Eastham, Massachusetts so that the children could attend Nauset Regional High School Why they moved there for school district reasons is unnecessary detail and adds to the bloat.

Shall remove.

Good. Agreed. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• and brought her to venues Poorly worded and vague.

Shall replace "brought" with "took" if that helps.

Good start, but "venues" is still vague without context. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The rest of the sentence explains what venues these are. - Lips ^{are movin} 18:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Let's leave it as it is for now and maybe something will come to me to write it more succinctly later. Or someone else might do something with it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• At age 15, Trainor played music with brothers and NRBQ band members, Johnny and Joey Spampinato, Exactly what does this mean/entail? If it's going to be mentioned (which I don't think it should), there should be some context as to what "played music" means. It could mean they sat next to each other on a piano bench and played "Chopsticks" together. How does it relate to her as a musician and/or professional or in regard to her musical development? Without any real context, it's just a "fun fact" and a chance to drop a few names.

Shall remove.

Ok. Agreed. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• also taking guitar lessons from the former who noticed Trainor's "mature head for chord changes". This is a good factoid, and doesn't need the previous stuff about the brothers and "played music" to make it meaningful. I say keep this, reword it slightly (get rid of "from the former") and remove the "played music" with the two guys content.

Will do.

Excellent. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• According to Johnny, Trainor would "write a pop song every day of the week like pouring water". No first names. One too many gushing quotes. Keep one, get rid of the other. Again, bloating.

Shall remove.

Ok. Agreed. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• and later worked independently from a home studio which her parents built for her. And now we have proof that her first three albums were not "studio albums" - but home recorded.

A home studio is still a recording studio is still a studio album at the end of the day.

• At a music conference in Nashville, Tennessee Don't need Tennessee added. Nashville is iconically Nashville. Linking to it is enough.

Will do. I linked it that way because that's how the Nashville wiki page was titled/linked.

• When she was fifteen, Trainor enrolled in the 2009 Summer Performance Program at Berklee College of Music, where she reached the finals of the program's songwriting competition. This needs to be added back in.

A factually correct version is already in the same section.

I must have missed it. It looked to me as if this was completely removed in the midst of your changes. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• Throughout 2013, Trainor frequently travelled from Nantucket to Nashville, New York and Los Angeles to write and help produce country and pop music. She would also sing lead and background vocals for demos of other artists, with her vocals occasionally making the final cut. Poorly written prose. "Frequently" needs to go as weaselish.

I honestly don't know how to write this otherwise, lol.

At this moment, I don't either. Think about how to reword it, propose it here. More than likely with your attempted rewrite and with me (and anyone else who wants to) putting in their two-cents, we can come up with something. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

How does Throughout 2013, Trainor traveled to Nashville, New York and Los Angeles, where she would write and help produce country and pop music. sound? - Lips ^{are movin} 18:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

That should work okay. Don't get upset if I think of something better later and tweak it, okay? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

No problem. - Lips ^{are movin} 18:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• In November 2013, Trainor decided to relocate to the more affordable Nashville instead, POV. Who says Nashville is more affordable?

This was actually from the trimmed down version from April. Her parents said it was less expensive than LA.

But how is it pertinent or relative to anything? From what is written in the article, it seems her parents have money. Why are they concerned with cost? And, why is this encyclopedic? I think it's just a tidbit that really doesn't have encyclopedic value. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Shall remove the "less expensive" bit. - Lips ^{are movin} 18:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Good; agreed. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• where she would permanently reside. When? Sometime in the future? After she arrived? Vague, needs to be reworded.

The infobox doesn't have a residence section - I was trying to reflect that Nashville is where she currently has residence as well.

Do you have a suggestion regarding how I should present this otherwise? - Lips ^{are movin} 18:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• There, she penned songs for a number of acts, including Hunter Hayes, More of "she penned"? Just say she wrote songs. Plus, it's now redundant since it was already used previously. Blech.

Will do.

Good. Agreed. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to stop for now as I don't want to over-saturate the section with criticisms -- I'd rather allow these to be looked at and we can talk about the next sections after these points have been discussed. Let's take what's here for now, work on it, and then move onto the next batch. Thanks,-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I've replied accordingly. - Lips ^{are movin} 07:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a good start toward cooperative editing and getting the article into a better shape. Anyone else who's interested is certainly welcome to add their thoughts here, as well. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Second set of replies posted. - Lips ^{are movin} 18:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your work so far. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for investing your time into this. The only issue left in this section appears to be the listing of her family members and their occupations, and then we can move onto part two. - Lips ^{are movin} 18:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi I honestly think the opening paragraph re:family is fine as it is now. The occupations of her brothers were removed. The important line re:Trainor attributing her early start to her musical family is there and if anything makes the listing of her family members there essential and not "trivial". It's either this or a suggestion of how you would like to include it otherwise. I won't be budging on removing it altogether, sorry. Could we possibly strike out the addressed concerns now and move on to part 2? - Lips ^{are movin} 10:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Extended content

These points are laughable and just further evidence of WP:WIKIHOUNDing and that you have no clue of what the subject is, what made her notable. You don't even bother reading the sources. I'm honestly not going to pointlessly argue for weeks over every perfectly fine sentence backed up by numerous perfectly sources for every single line in this article. Like I said take the music snobbery and wikihounding elsewhere, I don't need my perfectly fine contributions to be put up for some laughable GA review like this that only you have agreed to. - Lips are movin 02:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC) Not laughable at all, just an honest attempt at cooperative editing behavior. This is what WP:BRD is about. Your continuation of personal attacks is noted as is your uncooperative attitude. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC) If I had the energy to deal with another one of your pointless soap operas, I'd respond and prove exactly how every single point is laughable. You have been the only editor who has ever had a problem with my editing and quite frankly you have no clue on music articles let alone Trainor or any of the sources in this article - all proven in these "points" you've made which are all clearly in bad faith. I'm retiring again. I'm not falling for the baiting and wikihounding you did with MaranoFan and Joseph Prasad. You can go find another user to inflict on. I have better things to do. - Lips are movin 03:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC) More personal attacks noted. If you spent less time on personal attacks and taking everything personally when it comes to your edits, we might be able to work together to get this article into better shape. "You have been the only editor who has ever had a problem with my editing" First of all, my comments aren't about your editing, they are about the article, what's best for it and what's best for the encyclopedia. After all, that's what we are supposed to be doing here: creating and improving the encyclopedia. Earlier today, you were cheery and glad I helped remind you of a policy -- within just an hour or so after, you turned surly and started in with personal attacks and getting upset that I've commented on your changes and exercised WP:BRD. When are you going to get a clue that just because you write something here, not everyone is going to like it, agree with it, not edit it themselves or not revert it? Until you come around to getting that Wikipedia is a cooperative effort, you will never be happy here. Ever. "I'm retiring again. I'm not falling for the baiting and wikihounding you did with MaranoFan and Joseph Prasad." Now you sound just like Marano and Prasad. Imagine that... What would be better all around is if you swallowed your pride and actually participated in the D part of BRD. And, in so doing, hopefully at some point you will finally realize that you editing here isn't all about you. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

start smaller

Winkelvi and Lips Are Movin, I think it might be helpful to tackle it a section at a time via collaborative editing: as in restoring reliably sourced content from "Early Life" section first, then trim and copy edit as needed. Then move on to later sections. I think there's too much to productively discuss at once on talk page like this.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 05:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

BoboMeowCat. I have my version my at User:Lips Are Movin/sandbox, so as we discuss the concerns I'll make changes accordingly in my sandbox, and then once the BRD comes to a close I'll just copy and paste it to the main article, adding in of course the notable edits made by others on the main article during this time. I'm currently drafting my response to part 1. - Lips ^{are movin} 05:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, but I think with a lot of content, editing can go smoother if editors are willing to collaboratively copy edit and trim in article space, but I think adding all of that back at once is probably too much. I'm suggesting starting with just the Early life section. Then move on to later sections. At the end, we can look at possible changes to lead to reflect any substantial additions to body of article (re-pinging Winkelvi because signature was added before last ping and apparently pings won't work then).--BoboMeowCat (talk) 05:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC),

I agree to adding the amendments back in section by section. I've replied to WV's concerns about the lede and first two sections. - Lips ^{are movin} 07:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Lips Are Movin, I readded text and sources from “Early Life”, but also trimmed and copy edited.[1] Could you take a look and make sure I didn’t accidentally incorporate any factual errors like I did during previous copy editing attempt? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Add:Lips Are Movin could you help me fix the refs. I used your previously added text, but since we are starting small, only text from the early life section, and not text previously added to the lead. Apparently, now some of the refs are not defined. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

BoboMeowCat I've fixed errors and copyedited the Early life section per your request. Me and WV were still busy resolving his concerns for the section, but I will edit the section again once his concerns have been resolved. The refs not defined from that section I've fixed, the rest are in other sections we haven't gotten to add back in yet - they will automatically be redefined once that content is added back in. - Lips ^{are movin} 13:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I was asked to comment on the newest revisions, because I'm familiar with some of the struggles of this article, yet I am not a fan myself, so I have no motivation to include any non-neutral/trivial/fancrufty information myself. Overall, I support BoboMeowCat's newest revisions. I think it stays on topic, and sounds more like a encyclopedic entry than a fansite gushing over her or anything like that. My only suggestion would be to see if some of those refs could be trimmed out. I didn't look into it specifically, but I find it hard to believe some of these single sentences really take 5-6 refs to prove, especially as they don't strike me as especially controversial or anything. But if they truly are all needed, I suppose that's fine too. Sergecross73 msg me 12:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Sergecross73, thanks for the suggestion. I will see how I can trim the refs down once we've reevaluated and added all of the new content back in, I can't trim them at this time as all of the refs are interlinked in different sections we haven't got to yet. - Lips ^{are movin} 13:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

And that's fine, its nothing pressing. Its not as much of a problem as much as its just a bit unnecessary, and sometimes it can make it harder for people to edit the article when there's so many raw text from the references to wade through... Sergecross73 msg me 13:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Lips Are Movin, I tweaked some of your recent edits including "she began making music at age seven, writing a reworking of the song Heart and Soul" because "writing a reworking" sounds a bit awkward to me. I checked the Reuters source for their wording on this and found: "Trainor began her career in music early, writing her first song, a reworking of Hoagy Carmichael’s “Heart & Soul,” when she was only 7 years old," so I tweaked it to "she began writing music at age seven, reworking the song Heart and Soul". --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

BoboMeowCat No prob, works for me. - Lips ^{are movin} 15:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think a better version of it would be "She began writing music at age seven, starting with her own arrangement of the song "Heart and Soul". -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi, I agree that's better wording. It seems clearer. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Good! I have to admit, BoboMeowCat, it takes more time and one must exercise more patience, but I think I like this "working together" thing. One of those, "Why didn't I do this before?" ah-ha! moments. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Winkelvi, I noticed your removal of text regarding Trainor performing her first music writing effort at a wedding, but leaving the text regarding her writing that musical rearrangement. I tend to agree what was there was wordy and didn’t flow well, but I think it may be important that this was performed at a wedding, because otherwise, it doesn’t seem notable. Any kid could “rearrange music” but most would probably not be very good at it, and it wouldn’t be performed anywhere. Do you have any objection to a briefer mention of the wedding performance at age 7, and if not, do you have any suggestions on how to better briefly word it?--BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's important to include it at all, BoboMeowCat. Your reasoning doesn't change my mind, either. I don't know about you, but I've been witness to some pretty bad music at weddings -- performing it at a wedding doesn't show her musical prowess any more than if a now renowned chef cooked a meal for his relatives when he was young. If she had performed it at a high-profile, celebrity wedding that was televised around the world, that would be a different story. The wedding performance isn't a litmus for or proof of anything. The presence of it in the article is just more trivia. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi, I agree with you regarding bad music at weddings. Still, I think the factoid that Trainor's first music writing endeavor consisted of rearranging that song at age seven and performing it at a family wedding seems on topic. It seems like the sort of thing people bothering to read an early life section of a recording artist would be interested in.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The arranging is relevant. Performing it at a wedding isn't because there's no context. Did it lead to a recording contract? No. Did it mark her at that point as a budding artist? We don't know because nothing becomes of the moment apart from the wedding performance. Did a video of it appear anywhere and that was the beginning of her career? No. Was she contacted by a publishing house for a job as a songwriter/arranger? No. Was it any kind of milestone that is noted as the start of her songwriting and performing career? No. What you are doing by including it is: cluttering up the article with more unencyclopedic fan-cruft and trivia as well as borderline synthesis in order to lead the reader to believe it's something significant to her career. It's not significant, it's not relevant. It is trivia and doesn't belong in the article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

All of the "early life" sections for recording artists I've read on WP, seem to contain factoids non-fans would consider "trivia". I think in general, while editing this article, it would help to keep the reading audience in mind, which seems likely to be people interested in Meghan Trainor, even if we do not find Trainor interesting at all. I think a big part of the problem on these articles has been a lot of WP editors don't find Trainor particularly interesting or do not find her worthy as a recording artist, and they are perhaps even perplexed by those who do. It seems these editors have been clashing with fans who find her very interesting. BTW, if it's synthesis, I don't support including it. Is it synthesis that she performed that particular song at a wedding?--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

One need not be a "fan" of an article subject to edit Wikipedia articles according to policy and guidelines. In fact, I think it's better if one is not a fan of the article subject as they are more apt to edit the article objectively and without any emotion that would cloud their judgement. Especially if it's a younger fan who would have a tendency to be thinking emotionally rather than in a mature, objective manner. We've seen that happen already with more than one editor ending up blocked for edit warring out of emotional attachment to the article subject. As far as the wedding tidbit being synthesis: as I said, it's borderline. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting one needs to be a fan to edit the article. I don't consider myself a fan, although I am familiar with her music from the radio and do not actively dislike it. I am concerned when I see fans leave the article in frustration, because I think article content suffers when that occurs. Fans are usually the only people motivated to seek out and read the reliable sources on the topic. However, I do tend to agree contributions from fans often need trimming and copy editing to keep content encyclopedic.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with BoboMeowCat on this. Sorry Winkelvi. It's important that we as an encyclopedia are clear and interpret what is said in the sources correctly. "arrangement" and "reworking" aren't exactly the same thing when she only added new lyrics to the song, and as trivial as it may sound to you, the wedding part is actually needed because as it now reads, this "musical arrangement" was just done randomly and is misinterpreting what is said in the sources. All we have to point out with this sentence is that A- Trainor began MAKING (hence piano) B- she began WRITING music (a reworking of Heart & Soul) C - why did she do this reworking? For her aunt and uncle's wedding and not just randomly. Also on a side note: BoboMeowCat the "mature head for chord changes" was from the Cape Cod Times source where Johnny Spampinato spoke a lot out about his experience with Trainor during her teens, I thought that quote summarized his thoughts best hence why I included it. (His statement is on the left hand bar of the article) - Lips ^{are movin} 06:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

You don't need a piano to rewrite words; arrangement is the correct terminology; does the source say she did it specifically for the wedding? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 10:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes. - Lips ^{are movin} 10:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Anti-Feminist WHAT?

"However, her lyrics have been dismissed by some critics as being anti-feminist."

I don't understand why this is in the article. I couldn't find any source for this. The "source" listed, doesn't say she's anti-feminist, just that she doesn't consider herself a feminist. Which is fundamentally, a completely different thing than anti-feminism. Can we please removed this or find a critic that actually dismissed her lyrics as anti-feminist? Because it's extremely misleading what the author of the source actually said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.235.216.141 (talk) 20:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I went ahead and removed it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Infobox image

I would say this pic is better

Trainor performing on the The Today Show in May 2015

Cornerstonepicker (talk) 00:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't like it at all. But, that's me. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The infobox image used should be the clearest version of Trainor's face; this image has a microphone in front of her face and her eyes are almost closed. The one currently in use has a microphone away from her face and her eyes are open. - Lips ^{are movin} 06:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Lips Are Movin summarizes my stance on this as well. I think its usable, but not better than the prior one. Sergecross73 msg me 14:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

R&B project tag

In response to this, since it was archived before I ever saw it (whoever is archiving needs to stop doing it prematurely on a talk page that is not excessively active, but that's another matter): this source that BoboMeowCat provided to support keeping the R&B project tag only says that Trainor's album is "sung like 21st-century R&B, but imagined in the milk bars of the early 60s, where the Shirelles reigned supreme." Pointing out that Trainor's vocal styling is similar to that of R&B singers ≠ "Trainor makes R&B music." I removed the tag because Trainor is widely considered a pop singer, her music appears on the pop charts and not the R&B charts, and there is little to no association of the singer with this genre.

Just because someone's music is influenced by a genre does not make their music that genre. And just because someone's music is influenced by a genre does not mean their article needs to be included in the scope of that genre's project. Trainor also raps in her songs, but her article is not a part of the hip hop wikiproject despite the clear hip-hop influence of her rapping. –Chase (talk / contribs) 07:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject R&B and Soul Music has been notified of this discussion. –Chase (talk / contribs) 07:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the big deal about letting the tag remain here. It was originally added by a member of the Wikiproject in question (who I have notified of this discussion) and at least some of her music seemingly falls under a sub genre of soul. Calidum T|C 16:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

First off, I'm only familiar with the subject via a satirical Onion article. I don't really know anything about her or her music (that said, I'll offer that this makes me pretty neutral about the subject). I think the question is whether this article belongs in 2 particular categories, Category:American rhythm and blues keyboardists and Category:Blue-eyed soul singers, and that WikiProject inclusion is secondary to this. I don't see anything in the text that describes her keyboard/piano style (for example, "Critic Jane Doe likens Trainor's playing style to that of Allen Toussaint"), much less a citation to that effect, that would suggest placing the article in Category:American rhythm and blues keyboardists. There is at least one cited source that supports placement in Category:Blue-eyed soul singers, Trinidad Express, though that source is derived from a Billboard article cited elsewhere in the article and, in turn, uses the phrase "tropical and retro-R&B/Motown blend". However, I flagged another citation to Allmusic concerning doo-wop and R&B, because the Allmusic page (as currently written, anyway) doesn't actually mention doo-wop or R&B. As for its inclusion in WP:RSM, I would suggest that the subject's placement in a particular WikiProject has more to do with that project's willingness and ability to improve/maintain the article, and less about categorization (since that's what the article categories are for, and that's why I suggest that those form the primary question). If someone from WP:RSM came along and added the banner, then that suggests that this article might belong there, but maybe that individual should weigh in here about it. If it's any help, we went through this with the WP:JAZZ template; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jazz/Archives/2010 1#WP:JAZZ template and project scope (and, if you really have time on your hands, the discussions at Talk:Topper Headon#Jazz drummer which, in part, prompted the WP:JAZZ discussion). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

ten choice awadsr

can somebody add the 2 nominetions new. From http://www.eonline.com/news/674216/teen-choice-awards-2015-nominees-wave-2-revealed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.98.116 (talk) 07:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

List of awards

30 awards, almost 40% of the article. Since it looks like a list in the "contents" box, pretty sure it should be split into a new article. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Registered songs

I found 2 registered songs on the BMI database namely "Someday Maybe" (Written with Harry Styles) and "I'd Do It All Again" (Written with James G. Morales and Shane Stevens). I am unsure where and how to include them. Thoughts?--MaranoFan (talk) 14:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Since those are unreleased songs, IMO shouldn't be included Cornerstonepicker (talk) 02:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Meghan Trainor. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/meghan-trainor/id348580749
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/take-care-of-our-soldiers/id368325789
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/who-i-wanna-be-single/id522960442

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Meghan Trainor genres

An IP claims R&B should be listed first on Meghan's list of music genres. Tho there isn't a guideline, it is always better to list the main genre first. Pop and doo-wop are the most-talked about genres by critics while reviewing Title. Need opinions for this. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 06:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Title (EP)states that her music is full of "doo wop-inspired songs straddling the line between modern R&B and melodic pop." Even in the aricle her music is described as "mix-mashed" R&B. And if there isn't a guide line why is this even deemed to be relevant? I loves Meghan Trainor (talk) 12:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC) (Blocked as a sock of MariaJaydHicky.)

@I loves Meghan Trainor: Read Title_(Meghan_Trainor_album)#Composition, the order is great. In the main article, fashion magazine Elle—the source used for "a "mix-mash" of R&B..."—, fails WP:MUSIC/SOURCES. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Why are we wasting time arguing about the first genre, if it stays as R&B who cares? Will time end? Will the world end? Will it wipe out the human race? No to all of them this is pointless 82.132.234.72 (talk) 06:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC) (Blocked as a sock of MariaJaydHicky.)

If the order is so unimportant, why are you arguing about it? If R&B doesn't stay first, will the world end? - SummerPhD^v2.0 11:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Changed back to Pop - doo woop - the others, since it is pointless. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 23:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Undid; let's wait until a consensus has been reached and if it goes either way that's it yeah?I loves Meghan Trainor (talk) 21:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC) (Blocked as a sock of MariaJaydHicky.)

A radical suggestion: What we have here is little different than a common WP:GWAR. Citing sources often resolves such problems. The first three sentences at Meghan_Trainor#Musical_style_and_themes currently list R&B, pop, doo-wop, blue-eyed soul, modern R&B and melodic pop.

The sources cited there are all over the map:

• "mix-mash R&B sound", according to Elle[2], hardly a music source.
• " from Nantucket, Massachusetts, and defined as an artiste who does pop, blue-eyed-soul and doo wop. Don’t tell Trainor that to her face, though, as she insists that her music is influenced by the music of Trinidad and Tonbago and her number one charting hit is soca." from Trinidad Express Newspapers[3], again not your first stop for music info.
• "on the pop music scene...doo-wop influence... a more strictly doo-wop sound à la “All About That Bass,”", according to MTV.[4]
• "Genre: Pop/Rock; Styles: Pop, Dance-Pop, Contemporary Pop/Rock", per Allmusic.[5]

Sources not yet cited for genre include:

• "Doo-wop is Trainor's thing",from Rolling Stone review of Title
• "Pop Star...a ska-inflected bridge", from the intro section of a Rolling Stone article on Trainor.[6]
• "50s-inspired novelty doo-wop and bubble-gum hip-hop...Trainor was also wary of resting too comfortably on the sweet sounds of doo-wop. “I do reggae and I rap,” she said, adding that her uncle is a Trinidadian soca musician", from the New York Times.[7]

I see:

• R&B - Elle
• pop- Trinidad Express Newspapers, MTV, Allmusic, Rolling Stone
• blue-eyed soul - Trinidad Express Newspapers
• doo wop - Trinidad Express Newspapers, MTV, Rolling Stone, New York Times
• pop/rock - Allmusic
• dance-pop - Allmusic
• contemporary pop/rock - Allmusic
• bubble gum hip-hop - New York Times

I do not see modern R&B or melodic pop (from the article body)

Three of the best sources (and one of the questionable two) say "pop". That unquestionably belongs in the list and, IMO, being the broadest category, should be first. It is defining. Three of the best sources (and one questionable) say doo wop. That, IMO, is next. I'm open to being convinced on the "Styles" from Allmusic and "bubble gum hip-hop" from NYT.

Other than that, I'd being willing to look at anything else from solid sources -- something found by saying, "Gee, I wonder what the New York Times calls her..." I'm not interested in something found by specifically looking for somebody, anybody who supports a particular opinion. That I can find a source saying she is influenced by "teenage vampire death thrash" does not mean that the information is valuable.

That a fashion magazine says she is R&B or a small paper says she is "defined as an artiste who does...blue-eyed-soul" is not reporting what independent reliable sources say, it is looking for support of an opinion. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, Cornerstonepicker has been editing other articles and has had no comment here; I loves Meghan Trainor has been indefinitely blocked and I have no way to reach the IP(s). So, I've made the change to the list.

As I am lazy by nature, I've added them bare URLs with a "linkrot" tag to bring the bot in to fix them. After that's done, I'll condese the sources and clear out the BS from Elle and the Trinidadian paper in favor of the reliable sources. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

AllMusic and MTV aren't really reliable and seeing how this is ongoing, we need a request for comment on here before we change the genres 1980s - 2000s music (talk) 09:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Also I agree with the original of keeping all four genres, all of her singles + albums mention those genres too 1980s - 2000s music (talk) 09:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC) (Blocked as a sock of MariaJaydHicky.)

If I understand you correctly, you think Elle and the Trinidadian newspaper are better sources for music genres than Allmusic and MTV and we should keep contemporary R&B and blue-eyed soul based on that. I think we can just take this straight to the RS noticeboard/ - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I have restored the reliably sourced genres I discussed above. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Infobox?

This was brought up by (the now-blocked) Joseph Prasad back in Dec. 2014, but it's a good question – why does this article use {{Infobox person}} over the more topically-correct {{Infobox musical artist}}? Is there any objection to changing it to the later?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:56, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I have changed the infobox back to what it should be. But yes, is it indeed mysterious as to why it got changed; no reason was given by Joseph. Interlude 65 (Push to talk) 22:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Genre

Meghan Trainor is a pop singer not primarily R&B. Link with R&B doesn't say she is more R&B than pop.

Pop should be primary genre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.76.243 (talk) 21:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2018

change "which would be sung by herself" to "which would be sung by her." change "features a collaboration between herself and R. City." to "features a collaboration between her and R. City." These are incorrect usages of reflexive pronouns. Hap196 (talk) 02:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 04:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Meghan Trainor. 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/20150630114719/http://www.ariacharts.com.au/news/50574 to http://www.ariacharts.com.au/news/50574

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) 19:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Singer-songwriter

I have changed the article to reflect the 2015 consensus that Trainor is a singer-songwriter and not a 'singer and songwriter'. ANYONE should have a discussion here and gain consensus before changing it back.--NØ 13:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Commenting here to note that it has been changed back to "singer and songwriter" by Winkelvi. I believe it should be "singer-songwriter" per the consensus of users and cited sources, but I don't know who between 2015 and your edit changed it to "singer and songwriter" so have left it alone. If the GA reviewer or somebody else recommends it be changed back, I personally have no objections—being so hard-line about what constitutes a hyphenated "singer-songwriter" and fighting against any sources that use it for newer artists has not been a fruitful pursuit for anybody on Wikipedia. Ss112 11:05, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

2014 eating disorder comment / Demi Lovato's response

• Should the article include a short part about Trainor's statement about anorexia/eating disorders as part of a 2014 Entertainment Tonight Interview (which you can read about here)? Her statement was quite controversial, and was criticized by fellow singer Demi Lovato (which you can read about here). If this information is included in the article, it should be kept in a brief sentence as it should not be given too much undue weight, but I was a little surprised to see that it is not addressed at all in the current version of the article. However, I could understand an argument that it is trivial, but it did receive coverage and may help to balance out the POV issues raised in the current FAC. This is not intended to be overtly negative to Trainor, but I just wanted to point this out to help improve the article. Pinging @MaranoFan: as they nominated this for the FAC. Apologies if this topic has already been discussed. Aoba47 (talk) 00:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• The article is also missing information on her performance at a 2018 halftime show (here). Aoba47 (talk) 00:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Aoba47 Thank you so much for these suggestions, I added both of the above to the article. Feel free to copyedit what I added wherever you see fit or make any more suggestions here!--NØ 07:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• I am glad that I could help somewhat. I am currently taking somewhat of a wikibreak until the end of the year, so I apologize for not being able to help directly with the FAC. If I notice anything else missing from the article though, I will leave it here for you to know. Good luck with the FAC! It does inspire me to work on articles about singers themselves rather than just albums and singles/songs. Aoba47 (talk) 08:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Why isn't Trainor considered an actress?

She has lent her voice to two animated films and the first article even references that. So why isn't she considered an American singer, songwriter, and actress? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey kl22 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what her voice acting in two films would have to do with the fact that she is a singer-songwriter and wrote and produced three albums completely alone and plays six instruments. As for the actress part, she is still majorly-known for her contributions to music and thats where all her notability comes from. I would only suggest adding "voice actress" when at least Playmobil is out, and if a lot of reliable sources start referring to her as a voice actress, or she gets awards/noms for that.-NØ 07:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Married Name

Should we change her article's name to her married name so instead of it being called "Meghan Trainor" we should change it to either "Meghan Trainor-Sabara" or "Meghan Sabara"? Techoliver298 (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

No. There's no evidence she is using "Meghan Sabara" or "Meghan Trainor-Sabara" or even changing her name at all.--NØ 17:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit request, 21 March 2019

Per WP:CATV, please remove Category:American female rappers and Category:21st-century American rappers. The article gives no indication that she raps. 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 04:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

 Already done NiciVampireHeart 09:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

2014 eating disorder comment

Just making note that the content about Trainor's 2014 anorexia comments that was requested back in December has recently been removed with this edit. I don’t personally have a strong opinion about this development but I remember people complaining that the article was too overly positive of Trainor before it’s addition.—NØ 19:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Don't worry, I've added it back, and explained in my edit summary how unbalanced the article's neutrality becomes without it being there. Interlude 65 (Push to talk) 16:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Lead photo

Why is the focus on the lead photo so far short of sharp? If it's intentional, we shouldn't be using publicist-approved glam shots. There are plenty of other pix out there, including elsewhere in the article. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 15:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Name, birthdate of child

In general, we exclude the birthdates and names of non-notable minor children. Even if other sources include it. This is consensus, governed by a few policies, namely WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:CHILDPROTECT. See the essay WP:NONAME for more information. Elizium23 (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

We do if the person hasn't mentioned it, In this specific case Megan has publically named her baby which to me implies she's more than happy for everyone (including the media) to know (not to put words in her mouth but if she's happy enough to broadcast it to everyone then she's happy enough for it to be here - If you didn't want you babys name plastered everywhere you wouldn't announce it to the world?).

Agreed with date of birth - OTT - February 2021 is specific enough. –Davey2010^Talk 22:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

No name for non-notable minor child per WP:BLPNAME, and month + year is specific enough for birth date. Binksternet (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

BLPNAME makes no mention of children and actually states inclusion of family members is fine if sourced - There's plenty of coverage of her birth and the naming of her baby.

It also states "Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed" - In this specific case she's shared the babies name and hasn't concealed it in any way, shape or form ?.

Personally speaking I'm all for not naming kids providing there's evidence of concealment and providing the mother/father has not publically stated the name. I'm also not fussed whether the name's included or not however as I said BLPNAME doesn't actually state we shouldn't include names - Just mentions context and sourcing. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 23:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Davey2010, consensus has developed against inclusion of this kind. Yes, even when they are in sources. Instagram is a WP:PRIMARY and WP:SPS and cannot be used to support assertions about living people, especially an assertion about a third party (which is what Trainor's child is, unless he has his own IG account?)

You are welcome to begin a centralized RFC to change the consensus that has developed. Elizium23 (talk) 01:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

RFC would be more hassle than it's worth. I just it silly that we would exclude a name where it's been announced by that person elsewhere ..... just seems illogical. I appreciate child protect and all that but we're not parents either. As I said I'm not fussed but I just find it silly. –Davey2010^Talk 11:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs has an RFC

Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs has an RFC for the use of radio station/networks' playlists being cited in articles. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Heartfox (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2021

Add her newest album “The Love Train” underneath the discography page Raemwzx (talk) 08:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Not done: That section is for studio albums only. “The Love Train” is an EP and can be found on her separate discography page. Bowling is life (talk) 12:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2021

Change year of Best New Artist from 2016 to 2015; verified on grammy.com. Cburdick1958 (talk) 20:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Grammys are held in February and consider music from the past year. Here we use the year of the ceremony (2016), which was considering music released from late 2014 - late 2015, which is why the Grammy website says 2015 next to the 58th Grammy Awards. Cannolis (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Ethnic Heritage

Both Meghan and Trainor are Irish names, just curious if there are any citable sources about her parent’s background, Irish and otherwise.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 00:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Found the answer a lot faster than expected. Here is the source. See paragraphs 4 thru 8 in the source article.

I’m busy right now but will add the info plus citation later, or maybe someone else has time.

She has multiple ethnic heritages, so it will be a small project.

The source is also a bit overcomplicated— for Wikipedia purposes— and the information needs to be simplified.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 00:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

MT4

Hey!

I dont know if anyone else follows Mtrain on Tikok... Well a few days ago M posted a tikok of her new studio and showed over a tracklist to a album and if you go watch that tikok in the bottom corner of the whiteborad there is a little stection that says "Target" which means she is making a new album i dont know if it notiable enough to write that she is teasing MT4??

HELP!?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgiaPowell15 (talk • contribs) 08:10, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2023

Add an episode of How I Met your Father to the TV filmography Page

SOURCE: OrpheusGrey519 (talk) 06:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. IMDb is not a reliable source per WP:RSP. Lightoil (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Infobox image

Hey all - I've seen that there has previously been a discussion about the infobox image, but it was seven years ago, so I think a new one is warranted. The image quality of the current image is pretty dreadful, so I propose we change it to something with a better resolution. [[File:150426 Meghan Trainor.jpg]] is used for the featured topic, so I don't see why it wouldn't be used here as well. Frzzl talk · contribs 19:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree , this is a much higher quality image. FatalFit | ✉ | ✓  02:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

It's also eight years old, and Trainor has lost weight since then which makes her look significantly different. So I strongly object. How about File:Meghan Trainor Alt. 2020.png as a compromise?--NØ 02:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, as long as the quality is higher. FatalFit | ✉ | ✓  02:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

why can’t we use this one? This is way better to me. Wikisteveb4 (talk) 01:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2023

She now has 2 children. 2601:247:4102:BAA0:2C21:10E9:215F:7C11 (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 23:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Done: @2601:247:4102:BAA0:2C21:10E9:215F:7C11: @M.Bitton: I updated the number of children in the infobox because it is sourced in the article. Bowling is life (talk) 01:22, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Politics Section

Hi all, noticed that in the politics section it says that Meghan has never voted - this is a baseless claim. Anyone able to update? Bkatler (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I have added a source for that claim. Cerebral726 (talk) 21:49, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

She has participated in several voting campaigns since then and corrected the original statement. Feel as though that comment (which is nearly 10 years old) evidently does not reflect her stance. Links below to support:

https://www.etonline.com/news/193518_exclusive_meghan_trainor_says_she_ready_to_vote_after_out_of_context_voting_revelation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C77arfuWcQw

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=632875237420429 Bkatler (talk) 22:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The statement in the article correctly says she said in 2016 that she had not voted in an election until then. Since then, I remember she posted a song called "Go vote" on Tiktok but that failed to attract the type of high quality coverage that could be cited in an FA. This is the best thing I can find but it does not say much.--NØ 22:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)