Jump to content

Talk:Yes, And?

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Flabshoe1 (talk | contribs) at 18:56, 16 February 2024 (→Additional discussion: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by PrimalMustelid talk 02:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that "Yes, And?" may be the new "Thank U, Next"? Source: Aswad, Jem (January 7, 2024). "Ariana Grande's New Single, 'Yes, And?', Arriving on Friday". Variety. Archived from the original on January 7, 2024. Retrieved January 8, 2024. "The song is apparently titled 'Yes, And?', a playful progression from her Grande’s 2019 semi-autobiographical single and album, 'Thank U, Next'."

Created by Lk95 (talk). Nominated by Your Power (talk) at 04:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Yes, And?; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • @Lk95 and Your Power: A QPQ is still needed for this nom. If this is not provided in a few days, this will be marked for closure. Z1720 (talk) 15:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doing a review. New enough at time of nom, no copyvio, long enough, two free use images (one in infobox and one of music video). To my understanding these should be ok, with the music video's image having a weaker case. QPQ done, sourcing good, article itself mostly good (there's some cleanup work that needs to be done, a good chunk of unsourced statements. Presumably this happened after your work). My main concern is the hook; it expresses I think a subjective statement without attribution to a source written in, potentially going against WP:VOICE. The hook could potentially be reworded to include an inline attribution or potentially just rewritten. My two cents, but as an unfamiliar reader I'd assume "her new x" implies it matches some qualities of her previous work, presumably popularity. I'm not familiar, do you think that the song achieved similar popularity to Thank U, Next, looking back now around a month later? Unfortunately this review came a bit late; maybe the speculative voice in the hook would work better if it had been reviewed sooner. toobigtokale (talk) 02:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lk95 and Your Power: Please address the above. Z1720 (talk) 02:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lk95 and Your Power have both been editing Wikipedia but have not returned to address the above. Unless they comment here, or someone is willing to adopt this nomination, this should be closed. Z1720 (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Single cover

The cover art used on both the cassette and CD single for the original version should clearly take precedence over the one used only for the edit on digital platforms. The original version of the song is the most notable one.--NØ 07:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the concern is with the fact that the cover art for the single is the same as the cover art for the album. In these cases, the cover art is only included on the album page rather than the single page. However, if there is an alternate cover, it is used for the single cover art instead. An example is "Flowers", which uses the same digital cover art as the album so instead an alternate cover is used for the single infobox. Flabshoe1 (talk) 14:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with @Flabshoe1 ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?"
📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 14:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Flabshoe1 I don't think the "Flowers" cover was used on CDs and cassettes bearing only the song. This seems to be a different case entirely, where the same picture is being simultaneously promoted as an album and single cover. Ultimately, the inclusion of covers on Wikipedia exists to guide readers on how the most notable recording of a song can be identified and found. In this case, the person reading the article would be reading about the original song, not the edit, and as such should be shown the original version's cover as the way to most easily seek that version. Best, NØ 21:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had not seen the EP earlier. Both covers seem prominent in that case and there might be a case to be made for inclusion of both. That's my 2¢.--NØ 22:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the album cover was used for digital singles of “Flowers” sold on her website as can be seen here, meaning that it also was simultaneously promoted as the main single cover. On the other hand, the cover currently used in the infobox was labelled an “alternate” cover. This is similar to our situation, in which the main cover is also the album cover, but we have an alternate cover used for the edit (and like you mentioned is also used for an EP on streaming services containing all versions, it’s not meant to represent the edit solely.) Flabshoe1 (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, what's different here is that the image is literally the cover of CDs and cassettes bearing just the song. Customers looking for the song in a physical music retailer will be misled by seeing just the edit cover. It is thus important for the physical cover to be present. Regardless, "Flowers" is not designated as a quality article that would be relevant as a "precedent".--NØ 22:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What’s the difference between a digital release of a single and a CD in terms of primary identification of the single? Additionally, this precedent is used in other articles like SZA’s Kill Bill, which uses the single EP art. I just listed one page but doesn’t mean it’s just for that one page.
In any case, if you truly believe that the EP cover is unsuitable, then there must be no cover on the page. The single and album cover image cannot be duplicated and the image can only be used for primary identification on one page, and the album takes precedent. Flabshoe1 (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The single and album cover image cannot be duplicated and the image can only be used for primary identification on one page, and the album takes precedent." What's your source for this? Grande's team evidently is using this as the cover of both the single and the album. There isn't a guideline against this type of usage considering this has not happened before.--NØ 23:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correction, this has happened before with "Flowers", with the same cover used for both the single and album. Other examples are "Green Light" by Lorde, the single which has the same art as the album. As a result, the single page uses an alternate remix cover in the infobox instead. "Green Light" has passed the requirements to be considered a "good article". This is certainly precedent enough to use in our case. Flabshoe1 (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit

@MaranoFan: to make things fair, I would also like to cite the WP:FALSETITLE essay for why, IMO, @Asknaffffwiki's revert was not incorrect. "However, if I remove an existing false title, and you read this essay and still think false titles improve prose, then go ahead and revert. I will accept the status quo, per WP:STATUSQUO. I only ask that you understand the change you're making — most people who add false titles don't know they're a thing." (the status quo in this situation being this) I am not here to question the logic of the essay or think it's complete bollocks---after all I just cited it to make a point---but what I am saying is that both versions of the sentence are valid. The relevant edits from both POVs do infinitesimal harm or improvement to the article, so I think arguing over this is a little silly, which is why I hope there is a quick resolution to this confusion ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?"
📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 11:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I decided to revert it back to MaranoFan's edit after reading the WP:FALSETITLE essay Asknaffffwiki (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion at Talk:Eternal Sunshine (album) concerning the non-free use of File:Ariana Grande - Yes, And.png, which is of relevance to this article. Thanks, Dylx 18:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lowercase title

The single is stylized everywhere as "yes, and?" (in lowercase). Edgarasb (talk) 08:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, great, but this is trivial information at best. We standardize stylizations on Wikipedia per MOS:CT, MOS:CAPS and so on, and most editors here know this. Literally the only place we would denote this is in the lead in an unnecessary parenthetical note that disrupts the prose, and the creator of the article chose not to include the stylization and to put a note there explicitly stating it should be disregarded. Ss112 06:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Edgarasb As per MOS:MUSICCAPS, stylization is irrelevant and not needed. I would say what best explains this would be "Exceptions are not made to mimic logo/cover stylization, even if such mimicry is common in the music press." Asknaffffwiki (talk) 06:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ss112 @Asknaffffwiki thank you! I’m quite new, so please, disregard this. Edgarasb (talk) 06:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about Infobox cover

Which file should be used as the cover in the infobox?--NØ 14:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Option A: The file distributed as the vinyl, CD, and digital cover of "Yes, And?", as well as the digital cover of the album.
  • Option B: The file distributed as the cover of the digital EP of "Yes, And?".
  • Option C: Both files, with option A as the primary cover in the infobox and option B in the alternate cover field.
  • Option D: Both files, with option B as the primary cover in the infobox and option A in the alternate cover field.
  • Option E: No cover

Vote

Additional discussion

is there any disagreement about the current cover? >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 15:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard uses the other image, and People and the OCC refer to it as the single art, which makes me lean towards option A personally.--NØ 15:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Potentially see the logic in that yes. It was the one released first and arguably the most recognisable one or one people would refer to first. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 16:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flabshoe1, you should make your vote in the Vote subsection more concise and save the bulk of it for this subsection. However, WP:NFCC does not say that "the same image must not be used on two pages"; on quite the contrary, what it says is one-article minimum. "Non-free content is used in at least one article." See non-free files like File:Rihanna - Diamonds.ogg or File:Meghan Trainor - Made You Look.ogg for examples; it is extremely common for them to be used on multiple pages.--NØ 08:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, a single cover being physically distributed does not mean we can throw out WP:NFCC. Either way, per WP:NFCC's rule of minimal usage the same photo should only be used once on either the single or album page. Flabshoe1 (talk) 15:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The WP:NFCC does not state "the same photo should only be used once on either the single or album page".--NØ 17:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An audio is in fact different than an artwork. I'd love to be proven wrong with an example of the same music cover art being used on multiple pages. The part of WP:NFCC that it fails is Minimal usage. Flabshoe1 (talk) 14:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The NFCC is not written differently for audios and artworks, point stands. Minimal usage does not specify it needs to be used only on "one" page, but on the contrary, just that it should just be used where applicable. Option A is used as the physical cover of the single, and at least according to listings on Grande's store, is used on zero physical pressings for the album.--NØ 17:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The minimal usage rule has been used by common practice and consensus to mean that an album's cover art should not be replicated on single's pages. Your argument is that this should be changed, as the same album art should be used when applicable for singles. Therefore, it's my understanding you'd like to suggest a change in practice such that any single using the same cover art should replicate the album's artwork on its own page. Following this logic, the aforementioned pages such as "...Ready for It", "Flowers", and "Green Light" and numerous other articles should use the main single artwork, which is the same of their respective albums. This can easily get out of hand, as many albums including Melodrama have multiple singles all sharing the album's cover art, resulting in a complete failure to apply "minimal usage".
    However, you mention that Yes, And? should be treated differently because its physical cover is also the same as the album, and physical covers matter the most as "the one readers need to look at to identify it in physical record stores in the future". However, it is not Wikipedia policy that physical covers have any precedence over digital covers at all. On all music-related pages, the digital covers are prioritized over physical covers when possible - in fact, for this very season the Eternal Sunshine page uses the standard digital cover rather than the physical cover, which is different as you mention. Applying your logic, you believe there should be a change in Wikipedia practice to prioritize physical covers instead of digital covers, which would mean a change in many music articles where the digital cover is used rather than the physical, including Eternal Sunshine ([4]) for albums and "Houdini" ([5]), "I Got You" ([6]), "Seven" ([7]) for singles among many other examples.
    Either way, using the same cover art here for Yes, And? and Eternal Sunshine requires a complete change in Wikipedia practice that is not currently used. Flabshoe1 (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image selection

Currently, this article has two images of Beyoncé, one of Madonna, one of Taylor Swift, and none of people who are actually involved in the creation of this song.

---Another Believer (Talk) 15:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remix cover

The remix has already a cover that will be used for all streaming platforms, the photo of them both together, used right now, isn't the official one. Can someone please update it?

https://shopde.arianagrande.com/ Mirrored7 (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So now we are using two covers that are not the cover primarily associated with the song by secondary sources. Omegalul--NØ 07:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MaranoFan: please try to be more level-headed with this topic. Your attitude around the discussion of cover arts for this article has been less than conducive for civil, productive conversation; this is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND. This uncivil behavior has been something you have been warned about in the past. ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?"
📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 08:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(not pinging due to request from this person in the RfC section) My comment is focused on the covers we are using in the article, so I am not sure how it is uncivil. You reacted emotionally to the RfC above and are now launching personal attacks in this section, so it might help you to step back from this as you seem too emotionally invested in this issue at this point. You would be encouraged to strike the last comment immediately.--NØ 09:47, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yes,_And%3F&oldid=1208197873"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy