Talk:FourFiveSeconds

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeFourFiveSeconds was a Music good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 3, 2015Good article nomineeNot listed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 15, 2015.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Kanye West sings instead of raps his guest verse on "FourFiveSeconds"?

Peacock language[edit]

Tomica has repeatedly reverted the change from "rave" to "positive" when discussing critics' reviews of the song. Although this word is cited in the article body with this source, it means the same thing as "positive" – Dictionary.com defines it, when used as an adjective, as "extravagantly flattering or enthusiastic". WP:PEACOCK - which cites similar words such as "acclaimed" - as words that "promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information". Gloss agreed with me on this but was also reverted by Tomica. Seeking other users' opinions. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well as you said, I do agree with you that it should say "positive" or something similar. Just adding in this comment since nobody else seems to have any input so far. Gloss 03:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PEA says those words are often used "without attribution" and warns to avoid making "unprovable proclamations". "Rave" in this case is attributed and proven by the source cited. It'd be best to replace it with something that means the same thing--like "highly positive" or "very favorable"--since the source uses "rave" and to properly paraphrase it where the source is cited. But I don't see a problem with having it in the lead. Dan56 (talk) 05:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a source uses it doesn't make it any less puffery. "Awesome" is cited as an example and if the source said that, we would absolutely not use it in a paraphrase. "Highly positive" would be preferred in both the article body and lead. –Chase (talk / contribs) 13:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Chase has been extremely immature and trivial in this pursuit of word changing. Saying "positive" does not indicate the level to how good the song was received. It did indeed receive "rave" reviews, a word which has even been used in a source given. "Generally positive" does not equal "Rave". It implies two completely different levels of positively and reception. "Rave" should have remained in the article until a discussion had taken place as to whether or not it should be changed. Instead, like a child throwing its toys of out of the pram kicking and screaming, Chase deliberately provoked Tomica into reverting, knowing the response he would get out of it. Chase should have instead posted on this talk page or Tomica's talk page and discussed it like an adult, not edit warring purposely like a child. It has made the article history very unstable and an editor has been unfairly blocked as a result, while Chase has not even been given so much as a disapproved eye roll. It is quite clearly an attack on the Rihanna Wikiproject and it's members, once again. Most probably because Chase when on a deletion spree (arguably a rage fuelled vendetta) and nominated a ridiculous amount of Rihanna articles for deletion which all pass criteria, then gave up after none were deleted and the first 4 or 5 nominated were unanimously kept or overwhelming voted as keep, and then gave up nominating the rest because he knew what a complete fool he had made of himself, which was rather sad and embarrassing to witness (I speak on behalf of countless editors). I can't believe that a such a huge mountain has been made out of a tiny molehill. All of this has been caused because of one word. I need not remind certain individuals that there are far worse, horrific, things going on in the world, and other things on Wikipedia need more attention than your trolling over choice of word. I am happy to engage in discussion about this comment/paragraph with anyone who has a high level of common sense, intelligence and respect on my talk page. I shall not respond to childish exchanges in this thread. I speak from experience. Thank you.  — ₳aron 15:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Chasewc91:, "rave reviews" is a common phrase used even in encyclopedias and the most reliable newspapers when discussing creative works and how they are received. The only reason I would suggest not to use it in the body where the source is cited is to avoid copyright issues since it would be language from the source itself rather than summarizing in our own words. Other words come to mind, like "... was met with praise from critics", but in it of itself, I don't find "rave reviews" to be on the same level of puffery as "awesome". If other encyclopedias use "rave reviews", then it seems like acceptable, encyclopedic writing to me. Dan56 (talk)
What other encyclopedias use the word "rave reviews"? Also, encyclopedias do not write in the same style as newspapers. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stay on topic and save the essays and personal remarks for someone who cares. Your comments are the definition of childishness, immaturity, and disrespect; quite hypocritical that that's wha you expect from others. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is on topic. And it's true. That's why you delivered such an irrelevant and laughable answer, because you don't know how to. Class is over.  — ₳aron 18:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've locked the article for 5 days because of this relatively silly content dispute. Calvin999, keep your uncivil comments to yourself. Chasewc91, I don't expect to see you reverting after the lock expires, no matter what anyone does, short of blatant vandalism. Hopefully, during the lock, you (collectively) will achieve a clear consensus as to how the material should read. If you can't do it on this Talk page, there are other dispute resolution mechanisms to help you.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Question to all in opposition of removing the word "rave": is there a reason why you are so strongly opposed to using a less-puffy synonym? –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because it doesn't reflect the level of reception to use "very" or "generally" positive. Critics raved over this song, therefore "rave reviews" is more than acceptable. Simple.  — ₳aron 22:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Critics gushed over the song" means the same thing and could reasonably be used in a reliable source, but we wouldn't use that language here because it's not encyclopedic. –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But "raved" is...  — ₳aron 09:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How? what other encyclopedias use such poofy language? I asked Dan this earlier and have yet to receive a response. –Chase (talk / contribs) 15:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Raved is not an encyclopedic word" is a WP:OR and needs a citation. We have a source stating that the song got "rave" reviews, not very positive reviews which reads awful for the record. If one user and his stalker disagree about using it, it's their big problem. As Dan56 (talk · contribs) said, because of a copyright status I propose in the lead, "critical acclaim" because it's something closest to rave, and "rave" [under quotes] in the Critical reception section. — Tomíca(T2ME) 06:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah even I'm failing to see why using "rave" is such an issue when it is supported by citation. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 11:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Chasewc91:, I'm barely involved in this article, let alone this discussion. You could easily search GoogleBooks for quick examples--Oxford, Britannica, for instance. Dan56 (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Bearing" in Analysis and Reception[edit]

Should be "baring," but "bearing" is the word in the quoted source (currently [19]). Normally, an editor would clarify that this kind of error is from the source by adding "[sic]" after the malaprop. Not sure if that's proper style for wiki, but I'm sure there's at least an equivalent mark. 73.36.49.44 (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I changed it (you can look at how).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 12 February 2015[edit]

It is now 6 on Billboard Hot 100 Agent5514 (talk) 13:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 13:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The source is already in the article. It just needs to be updated, not just the Hot 100, but also the accompanying US and Canada charts too. — Tomíca(T2ME) 13:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

US chart performance section...[edit]

... is going a little out of hands. Every intricate detail need not be present. The song is turning out to be a worldwide success, so balance should be maintained. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 04:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@IndianBio: I trimmed it a bit. The thing is the European one will be also updated, however, I am waiting the song to get its final peak, so I don't go over and over to it. And as for the US performance, what can you do when McCartney makes history :). — Tomíca(T2ME) 10:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tomica, just sit back and roll my eyes, lol. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 17:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

McCartney photo[edit]

Why is there a 35 year old photo of Paul McCartney in this article? What relevance is that? Kingturtle = (talk) 18:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the section you can understand it. It discuss his record making + the picture is free and we can use it. — Tom(T2ME) 18:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The description says "With the song's advance in the top-ten on the US Billboard Hot 100, McCartney made record by ending the longest break between top-ten songs on the chart". That break goes from 1986 to 2015. The photo is from 1980. If the photo has no relevance, it shouldn't be used. "the picture is free and we can use it" isn't enough. It should be relevant. Having a photo of the "Spies Like Us" single cover would make sense: File:Paul_McCartney-_Spies_Like_Us.jpg, or the September 1986 cover of Rolling Stone, which has Paul on the cover. That would be a fair use, and it could be used. Kingturtle = (talk) 18:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gentleman's Rule reference[edit]

I strongly dispute the inserting of an a cappella cover by a little-known band in the cover section of this article. The justification for its insertion is that "Billboard magazine covered it". No, it didn't. A daily blogger on the site posted that she liked the cover. Things she has also posted: "GOP Debate: We Give Each Republican Presidential Candidate a Theme Song" and "*N SYNC or Backstreet Boys? The Ultimate Boy Band Debate". Unless I am allowed to insert a reference to Jeb Bush in Kacey Musgraves' "Family is Family" entry or that same song in Jeb Bush's entry, a mere mention and link by a daily blogger should not be sufficient. This group averages tens of thousands of hits on their Youtube videos (and 128,000 hits on this specific cover) which, while no small accomplishment, does not support their notability. They have not won any awards, had any hit songs, or won widespread critical acclaim. I suspect that the reason this cover is being inserted in the article is because the contributor really likes it. Which is great (I really like it too - I was in the CMEA Men's Honor Choir in high school, I love good a cappella music), but does not qualify it for an entry in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.38.170 (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

-Update- This edit continues to go back-and-forth with the same editor. I would also add the point that if you do a search by billboard.com and the word "cover" in Google, it lists literally thousands of covers of popular songs, performed by both famous artists and not-so-famous artists. Unless all of these references are, in and of themselves, notable for inclusion in their respective subject articles purely because they were "covered by Billboard magazine", it seems unfair to exclude all of those covers while excluding others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.38.170 (talk) 10:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who the fuck undid my edit?[edit]

Dude this is fucking country music but you have the audacity to remove my edit and keep the "soul pop" category. What the hell is wrong with you

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on FourFiveSeconds. 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) 15:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on FourFiveSeconds. 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) 08:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on FourFiveSeconds. 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) 05:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:FourFiveSeconds&oldid=1207280948"