Talk:Meghan Trainor discography/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Bubbling Under Note for "Title"

@Joseph Prasad: Hi. I'm not sure if you are not familiar with how Billboard charts works and the MoS for discographies, but your edit may be in good faith but it is not constructive for the following reasons:

  1. Having a separate column for Bubbling Under while there already is one Hot 100 makes no sense as they are the same chart, hence the note. This means 'Dear Future Husband' would not be able have a peak on Bubbling Under because it's already in the Hot 100 and vice-versa. Please familiarize yourself with Billboard Hot 100 and Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles.
  2. If you look at discographies of the likes of Lady Gaga and Katy Perry they also make use of notes. A note does not necessarily mean its only used when there is no space. That is common sense.
  3. You also keep removing the source with your reverts.

I have now undid your edits again, and I trust you now understand why. -Lips Are Movin (talk) 08:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@Lips Are Movin: Check the Featured List, Taylor Swift discography, and see other charted songs. Bubbling is separate. And again, the reason those have notes is because there are ten different positions already, the limit to how many charts can be shown. That's why bubbling can have a separate column. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 08:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
@Joseph Prasad: I might as well say check FLs Lady Gaga discography and Katy Perry discography, Bubbling is not separate. Ironically, Swift's discography also makes use of notes and in the singles section where Bubbling is not separate. But the point is they are the same chart, Bubbling is a component. -Lips Are Movin (talk) 08:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
@Lips Are Movin: I said to check other charted songs, it DOES have a separate section Taylor Swift discography #Other charted songs. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 08:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
@Joseph Prasad: At Wikipedia:Record charts its states: On singles discography tables, do not add 100 to a Bubbling Under peak if the song never entered the corresponding chart (i.e., Billboard Hot 100 and Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles, or Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs and Bubbling Under R&B/Hip-Hop Singles). Doing so would violate WP:SYNTH by creating information not directly supported by the source (i.e., the notion that the Bubbling Under chart is an extension to the main chart and the position). It should be indicated as an uncharted song with a footnote to indicate the Bubbling Under peak. In the song's article, just indicate it as a Bubbling Under peak, so long as it is verifiable. If an artist has had Bubbling Under entries but no songs that entered the Hot 100 proper, or has had multiple Bubbling Under entries, discography tables may use a separate "Bubbling Under" column to save on footnotes. Your theory and the Taylor Swift discography are both wrong and do not follow this guideline. Now please stop edit warring! Thank you! -Lips Are Movin (talk) 09:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
if a song has not charted on the

Billboard Hot 100 you may add any of the following: Billboard Bubbling is one of them. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 09:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@Joseph Prasad: Please learn to READ PROPERLY. It is added for song articles NOT DISCOGRAPHIES. Read the quoted bold section above. You are violating WP:CHARTS and edit warring. -Lips Are Movin (talk) 09:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Go ahead, report me, I don't care. I am attempting to get other opinions. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 09:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@Lips Are Movin:@Joseph Prasad: Third opinion I support Lips Are Movin in this discussion. The reason is that it is only sensible considering that Bubbling Under is an extension to the Hot 100. MaranoFan (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@Lips Are Movin:Ok, so at Drake Bell discography #Other charted songs, should bubbling be removed and replaced with notes, and at Taylor Swift discography #Other charted songs as well? -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 22:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@Joseph Prasad: Yes. WP:CHARTS states for Discographies Bubbling Under should be indicated as an uncharted song with a footnote to indicate the Bubbling Under peak. -Lips Are Movin (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@Lips Are Movin: Ok, but you said if a song charted on the hot 100, none of Drake Bell's song charted on the hot 100. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@Joseph Prasad: In that case Drake Bell can have a Bubbling Under Column as WP:CHARTS states If an artist has had Bubbling Under entries but no songs that entered the Hot 100 proper, or has had multiple Bubbling Under entries, discography tables may use a separate "Bubbling Under" column to save on footnotes. -Lips Are Movin (talk)

22:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@Lips Are Movin:OK, thanks, cause I've really been the only one managing the Drake Bell and his discography page. I get this now. I was just being ignorant. Thank you. And I would removed Taylor Swift's if I knew how to do it. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 December 2014

"Lips Are Movin" has a new peak of number 12 in The Netherlands. See [1] -Lips Are Movin (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 December 2014

"I'll Be Home" has new peak of number six on US AC. Source: [2] -Lips Are Movin (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 21 December 2014

Add {{mergeto|Meghan Trainor|discuss=Talk:Meghan Trainor discography#Merger proposal|date=December 2014}} to the top of the article per below. –Chase (talk / contribs) 05:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Meghan Trainor does not even come close to warranting a size split. The contents of this article should be moved into Trainor's bio. –Chase (talk / contribs) 05:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I would agree, because Meghan Trainor is pretty small. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 06:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

:I would suggest to wait a little. Trainor's discography article is perfect the way it is and I am in the process of expanding Trainor's main article. MaranoFan (talk) 07:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Changing to merge. I see Chase's point. MaranoFan (talk) 11:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Honestly, no matter how much can be expanded about Trainor, I simply don't think she has enough material at this time to warrant a separate article. Discography articles are typically only made when discography sections would make the article unreasonably long. –Chase (talk / contribs) 08:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I would have to agree with Chase, if you see Taylor Swift, Drake Bell, Justin Timberlake, you will see why they have discography articles. That's why Echosmith doesn't have one. Not enough information. But I will wait a bit and see what you come up with. Even Zooey Deschanel deserves one more. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 08:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I have merged for now. The discography page is protected so I can't modify it. MaranoFan (talk) 11:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Redirect

This article has been merged into Meghan Trainor, per the above discussion. Please replace the contents with a redirect to [[Meghan Trainor#Discography]]. Thanks, — This, that and the other (talk) 01:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

  •  Done ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Opening

The opening of the article needs to focus on the article subject. In this case, the article subject is Trainor's discography, ergo, the first sentence should reflect that. Look at WP:MOS for more information, specifically the section on formatting the lead paragraph which states, "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects...The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context...". Mentioning Meghan Trainor before the discography itself is making Trainor the focal point of the article, not the discography. Doing so is the antithesis of what the MOS on formatting the lead section states. Also, before someone says "But such-and-such discography doesn't open that way...!", please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for why that isn't a valid argument. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

You say that for everything. Articles are made FLs, GAs, and FAs, for a reason. They can be used as examples. And there is no specific guideline on this, so... -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
There isn't a specific guideline for this? Have you ever looked at the MOS? There most certainly is a guideline for this (as noted above). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but there isn't anything specific to discography articles. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Are you serious? The MOS is for all articles. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
There seems no reason to deviate from the standard wording used on all other discographies I've seen on WP. The wording of "Meghan Trainor has released for four studio albums" seems better. I disagree with the rationale for changing this presented in edit summary as "Trainor didn't release anything, those financing her did" [3], because it seems understood that recording artists can release albums via record labels. Also, please note that the "has released" language was the stable version of this article from October 2014 until May 2015. I agree with Joseph and I don't think the opening sentence of the lead should be changed again absent consensus to change. (Add- please see: Taylor Swift discography, Lorde discography, Gwen Stefani discography, Iggy Azalea discography, Katy Perry discography, Bruno Mars discography, Beyoncé discography, Usher discography, Coldplay discography, Phil Collins discography, Bryan Adams discography, Kelly Clarkson discography, David Bowie discography, The Black Eyed Peas discography, Lady Gaga discography, Justin Timberlake discography, Mariah Carey albums discography, Madonna albums discography, Shakira discography, and Miley Cyrus discography -all feature list discographies).--BoboMeowCat (talk) 05:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is still not a valid argument. Mentioning Trainor before the article subject and its focus is not in line with the MOS for layout/lede, period. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Why should there be a different style for only this discography? I can't find another with your preferred wording. Certainly not a feature list one.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 05:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

It's probably helpful to note OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't say that argument isn't valid. Here is what is says in fact: "When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." So yea, it should probably stay consistent with similar articles recognized as featured content. Calidum T|C 05:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I was the one who suggested the original wording to stop an edit war and based on other discographies I randomly picked. Chris Rene discography, Natasha Bedingfield discography, Cœur de pirate discography. The last one looks to be a FL. --NeilN talk to me 05:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Why not just ask Winkelvi to stop edit warring. He seems to be the only one insisting on this language, and it may be found in a few rare discographies but it's clearly not the standard among feature list discographies. Also, the article was stable for months with the more standard wording.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 05:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
And it's the correct wording, NeilN as it focuses on the article subject. The wording JP and Snuggums reinserted focuses on Trainor. I don't understand how so many editors are arguing to keep something that isn't in line with the MOS on lede formatting. That one of those editors is a FA and GA reviewer is even more perplexing as that editor should know better. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what's going on here. The intro focuses on Trainor's discography, not Trainor herself; is this a word order issue? Also, "other stuff exists" carries more weight when the "other stuff" is featured, I think. 05:34 PS -- just looked at the proposed other wording and it conveys the exact same information. I don't see how choosing one over the other helps readers. ekips39❦talk 05:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Ekips39, the more appropriate opening wording supported by both NeilN and myself is "The discography of American singer-songwriter Meghan Trainor consists of...". It's being argued that "American singer-songwriter Meghan Trainor has released four studio albums, two EPs, and four singles" is better because there are similar articles which open in the same manner. It's been pointed out that there are articles which open in the manner of the former. Further, former puts the focus on the article subject (the discography), where it should be; the latter focuses on Trainor. Focusing on the article subject in the opening is in line with MOS. It also follows WP:COMMONSENSE. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
WP:WikiProject Discographies/style discourages using "The discography of ________" in opening sentence. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Not even a formal proposal, much less a guideline. I just wanted the frankly idiotic edit war occurring about a week ago to stop. I thought I had done that when both sides seemed happy with the wording. --NeilN talk to me 05:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Snuggums: Where, specifically, does it say that? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

For the lead, it states "It is encouraged to avoid direct replication of the article's title in the lead". Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I thought that was what you were referring to. The wording both Neil and I inserted doesn't directly replicate the article's title. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) (reply to Winkelvi's reply to me) I do see where you're coming from (and I found the wording in question, as I said), but I still think the difference is not one that renders the information any more or less accessible. It essentially shuffles the sentence without changing what it says; while it does put more focus on the discography, I think it will be understood as is because the focus is already on the songs Trainor has released, or her release of the songs. I disagree that it's common sense because it is not agreed on by those commenting here and "common sense" is by definition common, even if it doesn't hold up to close inspection. ekips39❦talk 06:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
For the record, four of the editors here disagreeing with me would still disagree with me if I said the sky is blue on a clear, sunny day. That's where their commonality lies. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Yet I have agreed with you on a few points. You can't just claim we disagree with you on everything, as I don't, and I'm sure they don't either. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 06:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Independent albums

An album that is independently recorded and is self-released, it is considered an INDEPENDENT album. It's self-explanatory, the albums were made and released independently.......there's really not much to discuss here but someone insisted I start a section here. Please feel free to try and make a counter argument, that's encouraged. But, you can't just start labeling things on discography pages whatever you please, there's a level of consistency that needs to be maintained through the tons of discography pages on this site. Funkatastic (talk) 22:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed already on Talk:Meghan Trainor and Talk:Title (Meghan Trainor album), with somewhat consensus on the latter. Though I do understand your point. I'm yet to see a single reliable source explicitally call Title Trainor's fourth studio album though, while dozens and dozens call it her debut album. I would have suggested something along the lines of what's used in the Hole discography, ala "Unofficial label releases". I can see the current wording being disputed over and over again in the future too for reasons mentioned above. The fact the three albums aren't available to buy anywhere or have any notable coverage don't help either. I can also see with forthcoming Trainor releases, wording like "fifth studio album and second major-label" becoming problematic in future. Some editors seem to fall back on Katy Perry's first album situation, but her album was actually released through a label and had coverage (the article is even GA). While Trainor's case is the opposite. I guess the argument is that they are indeed studio albums at the end of the day. - Lips are movin 00:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree that a situation like "Unofficial label releases" would be perfect for this scenario, but none of the albums had any label involvement whatsoever. Thus why they were listed as independent, these are just some songs she recorded, posted to her MySpace page, and sold a couple hard copies at the mall. I'm not trying to be a dick here, but I've yet to see anything that should indicate that an independent album that probably barely sold 100 copies (at a local mall nonetheless) should be categorized along with a Gold-certified album released by a major label. No sales aren't the only thing that determine these kinds of things. But no matter what you look at here, nothing points to these albums being anything more than amateur independent releases.Funkatastic (talk) 00:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay, what about Drake Bell's Telegraph? It was released independently, and I've seen a source call It's Only Time his debut, even though that isn't the case. Of course, the way you want to put it is how it's used in Hawk Nelson discography. It was available for purchase, and was pulled as a stunt from her label. -- 76.14.125.113 (talk) 01:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC) — 76.14.125.113 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed block-evading sockpuppet of Joseph Prasad (talk • contribs).
I still think as an encyclopedia it's inaccurate to state what all reliable sources are not saying, and what they're not saying is that Title is her fourth studio album. MySpace is really some remarkable source to prove an album's notability and release date. By classing what are clearly amateur independent releases as "unofficial label releases" (which is what they are as per numerous reliable sources) is the easiest way to spare us a lot of time for very likely future disputes of this nature. Using the "it's still an album just like XYZ" argument is as valid as saying the session Mary's gym class recorded yesterday and posted on Facebook is their first album. - Lips are movin 03:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Just wanted to reiterate that "Unofficial label releases" is still a bad choice, because those albums have zero label involvement whatsoever. "Independent albums" is still the best choice, not by opinion, but merely by logic. They're albums she recorded herself and released herself. INDEPENDENT. Like me or not, I still don't see how you can dispute this.Funkatastic (talk) 07:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I completely agree though. If the other editors who participated in the last consensus, could reevaluate, it would be great. - Lips are movin 08:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd recommend the name "Demo albums" as listed as an official category at Template:Infobox album/color. A demo album is, according to it's article "A demo (from "demonstration") is a song or group of songs recorded for limited circulation or reference use rather than for general public release. A demo is a way for a musician to approximate their ideas in a fixed format, such as cassette tape, compact disc, or digital audio files, and to thereby pass along those ideas to record labels, record producers, or to other artists." in which case the three albums would meet specified needs, considering they're no longer available for purchase. The category is also used at Charli XCX discography. Azealia911 talk 20:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm in support of Azealia's idea of labeling the section "Demo albums".Funkatastic (talk) 22:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Is "demo album" supported by sources? This, like anything else, needs to be verifiable and cannot be based on personal speculation or original research. Chase (talk | contributions) 20:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Chasewc91, my suggestion of switching to demo albums was purely due to the fact that arguing for studio albums seemed like too much effort, and would probably result in me getting bored and leaving it, so I went straight for compromise, I too think studio albums would be a better suit. Azealia911 talk 13:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Billboard describes her three non-Epic albums as "independent albums" only. That means they are legitimate albums (not demos), but were not released by a major label. Discography articles generally do not make distinctions for albums by record label (or lack thereof), and I have not seen such distinctions in any FL-class discog. Unless Funkatastic or Lips Are Movin are willing to provide sources supporting these releases as demos, I will merge them back with Title in the studio albums section within the next few days. Chase (talk | contributions) 20:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for providing a source confirming these Independent Albums, however your assumption that them being Independent albums means they must be merged into the same section as studio albums is purely opinion. I started this section, specifically to gather user opinions on the topic, so thank you for providing that. But I must advise you not to make any major changes to either of those sections unless it's a majority decision. Funkatastic (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Your preference, which is only backed by 1-2 other editors at most, is not standard for discographies and would require larger consensus. If you look at featured discographies (those that have been recognized as the best lists on Wikipedia through community discussion), it is standard to list all albums of a certain type (studio, live, compilation, etc.) together regardless of label. As your preferred method would deviate from the norm, it would require extensive discussion on why it's the best choice for this article (and you may wish to get a head start on demonstrating that now).
In the meantime, I am changing the section title now as I have not seen a source referring to these independent releases as demos; I am not merging the studio albums together yet. Chase (talk | contributions) 00:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Just merge it, if the Studio albums header was titled Label albums I'd see a point to split, but it's not, albums are albums weather released by Jimmy Iovine or Trainor's grandparents. The header concerns content, not release method. Azealia911 talk 21:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Not Only is our stance backed by multiple editors it is also backed by an extremely reliable source. Don't "Just merge it" extremely un-community-friendly editing Azalea. Funkatastic (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Nielsen's Mid-Year Charts

Billboard July 2, 2015 [4]

  • 2015’s Mid-Year Top 10 Albums (Based on Overall Equivalent Album Units)

Meghan Trainor, Title (1,209,000)

  • 2015’s Mid-Year Top 10 Selling Albums

Meghan Trainor, Title (727,000)

which should be added here?

Cornerstonepicker (talk) 21:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Meghan Trainor discography. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 17:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Meghan Trainor discography. 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:

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Meghan Trainor discography. 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:

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) 08:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Meghan Trainor discography. 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:

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) 05:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Leave a Kiss listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Leave a Kiss. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Richhoncho (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

"Why'd You Have to Go?" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Why'd You Have to Go?. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Richhoncho (talk) 12:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Meghan Trainor discography. 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:

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)

Are Can't Dance and All the Ways singles or promotional singles?

(non-admin closure) Consensus reached. "Can't Dance" is a single, "All the Ways" is not.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Hayman30: Can't Dance and All the Ways are not singles. Idolator is the only source that wrongly called them so. All of Trainor's singles received music videos and were serviced to radio but these weren't. Idolator also wrongly referred to one of her prior promotional singles as a single "These two new singles now mark the reckoning for anyone who was doubting Trainor or hoping she’d fade quietly into pop listicles past." but that didn't receive a music video, radio release or promotion either.--MaranoFan (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh, right, because a random guy on Wikipedia is more reliable than Idolator. As I've stated countless times, music video and radio push are not valid determining factors, I guess you just don't want to hear it. So it doesn't matter if these songs weren't released to radio or got a music video, period. Hayman30 (talk) 12:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
These songs are not released as singles. Idolator has a history of wrongly referring to promotional singles as official singles. Wikipedia has an essay detailing what constitutes a single release (WP:SINGLE?; which is not a guideline but its fairly accurate). So unless you can find a source with Trainor or a primary source (someone from Epic Records) calling it a single it wasn't one.--MaranoFan (talk) 12:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
They have a history of wrongly referring to promo singles as actual singles because of your narrow-minded belief that singles must be released separately, serviced to radio and get a music video? No. If you're not gonna give up your obviously inaccurate presupposition about singles, this discussion will (continue to) be entirely pointless. WP:SINGLE? is a failed essay that has been widely regarded as misleading. And no we do not need explicit confirmation from Trainor or her label. A thrid party, independent source is often preferred over primary sources. Hayman30 (talk) 12:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Idolator is a reliable source for music related news but they literally have referred to Trainor's previous promotional singles as official singles incorrectly. They referred to "Watch Me Do" as the second single from Thank You in the aforementioned article yet contradicted themselves in a future article when they referred to "Me Too" as the second single to the album in a future article [5]. "No Excuses" received a total of six television performances and "Let You Be Right" received three of them. Both also got music videos and adds date to radio. In comparison, "Can't Dance" and "All the Ways" received no televised performance, music videos or adds dates. Its clear to anyone who works on music related articles and followed this campaign that these were always promoted as instant grat tracks from the album (aka only promotional singles; examples: Ariana Grande's Be Alright or Taylor Swift's Out of the Woods, even though it later became the album's fifth single). Its just very obvious that these two Trainor songs were not singles, they were treated exactly like "Watch Me Do", "I Love Me" or "Treat Myself" aside from this one incorrect claim in an Idolator article. The tweet that the article is written about didn't even call it a single in the first place.

Look at the announcement tweets: She called Let You Be Right a single SINGLE ARTWORK 😘✨⚡️#LYBR #LETYOUBERIGHT But while announcing Can't Dance #CANTDANCE OUT TOMORROW✨ She didn't call it a single. Someone working at Idolator wrongly inferred that both were singles even though Can't Dance is just an insta grat (Thus no music video or radio release).-_MaranoFan (talk) 12:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

None of what you said is properly supported by a source, so you're basically just throwing out your opinion here, which is irrelevant to the discussion. It's not up to you to determine whether they've correctly identified or distinguished between promotional singles and official singles. You're literally deeming Idolator unreliable merely because you don't agree with what they wrote, but unfortunately it's not a unreliable source listed under WP:ALBUMAVOID so either take it up on respective noticeboards (e.g. WP:RSN) or quit baselessly arguing. And lmao not calling it a single doesn't mean it's not a single lol, that's literally the weakest argument I've ever seen. Saying that it's not a single merely because she didn't explicitly call it one is obviously WP:OR. This isn't Maranopedia, it's Wikipedia, everything is based on reliable sources, not your personal belief. It might not be an actual single, so what? A source calls it one. Case closed. Hayman30 (talk) 13:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't know why you're so adamant on attacking me personally. The article in which Idolator wrongly called "Can't Dance" a single is not an interview with Trainor, its based solely on two Instagram posts by Trainor in which she called "Let You Be Right" a single and did not call "Can't Dance" a single. Then it was not promoted with anything a single actually receives and Let You Be Right received the single treatment. It was original research on the Idolator writer's part for misinterpreting Trainor's announcement. Its not a new thing for a reliable source to be wrong once in a while. Can't Dance was not a single, it was an insta grat released along with the album's second single "LYBR". I'll wait for other users to give their opinion on this situation. Pinging some users from the Trainor Wikiproject for their two cents. @FanofMusic:, @Cornerstonepicker:, @U990467:, @Davey2010:--MaranoFan (talk) 13:34, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I am in no way and at no point personally attacking you, but I'm highly irritated by the fact that you still don't wanna accept the reality after several disputes between us, and the reality is a) singles are not required to be sent to radio; b) they are not required to be released separately; c) they are not required to have their own music videos and; d) calling it a song doesn't mean it's not a single, and likewise, the artist not calling it a single doesn't mean it's not a single. We don't need extra confirmation from the artist or their label. Oh you think the source is wrong? How are you to determine? Your determination (which is invalid and irrelevant) is solely based off your personal beliefs. And now you are making assumptions towards what the Idolator writer was thinking when they were writing the article, which is absolutely irrelevant. There is no such thing as a "single treatment", that's a term a bunch of promo single fighters made up to back up nonsensical arguments. Hayman30 (talk) 14:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
@Hayman30: Is it okay if I remove All the Ways as a single? None of the sources currently linked call it a single. We'll keep Can't Dance as a single until further discussion.--MaranoFan (talk) 14:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
There is a source calling it a single. Check again. Hayman30 (talk) 12:05, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
@Hayman30: It seems that after Billboard backtracked from calling All the Ways the fourth single, the iHeartRadio source has done the same. The wording has been changed from "Check out this incredible single from Meghan Trainor titled, 'All The Ways'" to "Check out this incredible song from Meghan Trainor titled, 'All The Ways'". There is now officially no reliable source calling it the fourth single. Should Wikipedia do the same?--NØ 11:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Sure. I wasn't the one who added it as a single after all. Hayman30 (talk) 14:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"More Than Friends" (Jason Mraz) writing credits.

So I went to Know. (Jason Mraz album) and looked at the track listing. It credits Meghan Trainor as one of the songwriters, though she is not credited through Meghan Trainor discography? CJJuarez17 (talk) 21:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Spotify-exclusive live albums

We have Billboard as a source for the Spotify Singles (2018), and they confirm that these are Spotify exclusive live recordings and do not call it an EP. Us classifying them as EPs is WP:Original research. I have changed them to live albums just as done on Taylor Swift discography which is a featured list. DO NOT change them to EPs without a reliable source calling them EPs.--NØ 13:43, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Meghan_Trainor_discography/Archive_1&oldid=1137002147"