Wikipedia

Talk:Dua Lipa (album)/Archive 1

< Talk:Dua Lipa (album)
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Community Tech bot in topic A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
Archive 1

Writing credits

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have added a {{Refimprove section}} as the writing credits needs citations. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

New Love

Latest comment: 4 years ago28 comments9 people in discussion

"New Love" is the first single from "Dua Lipa" not "Be the One" DatBoy101 (talk) 18:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Yep, if "New Love" isn't a single, then "Last Dance" may not be a single too. --BomberXD3 (talk) 14:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
As confirmed by the Official Charts Company and the Warner Bros. UK president here, "New Love" is not listed among the official singles. snapsnap (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that this OCC article has been misconstrued to try omit single releases that were not successful. See New Love (Dua Lipa song), there are at least two dozen sources there calling it a single, the release was promoted with a music video and remixes and Lipa even said herself in an interview with Beats 1 that the album was "7 singles deep" when "New Rules" was released. Cool Marc ✉ 08:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

"New Love" is Lipa's debut single, however, it is not counted as part of the promotion of the album by her label. A similar case would be "Not on Drugs", which was released after lead single "Habits (Stay High)" but due to its commercial underperformance the label later stated that "Talking Body" was the second official single. --Paparazzzi (talk) 06:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
@Coolmarc: I would like to know the timestamp from that interview. Again, this is the official information from the label. Nobody is saying "New Love" is not a single. It is. It is just not considered to be part of the promotion of the record. That's it. Paparazzzi (talk) 06:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Paparazzzi, time stamp is around 00:30. "due to its commercial underperformance" does not mean it is not a single or because her label conveniently forgot to mention it in an article for the OCC. Lipa said in the Beats 1 interview that New Rules was the 7th single. Cool Marc ✉ 06:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
@Coolmarc: You are missing the point. "New Love" is a single, yes, but it is not considered to be part of the promotion of the record. Is that simple. Regarding the interview, she says that "New Rules" was the seventh single she released in her career. She never mentioned her album. So basically there is a source claiming the very Warner Bros president himselg saying "New Rules" is the sixth single from the record, and no other source claiming otherwise.Paparazzzi (talk) 07:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Paparazzzi, Unfortunately it is not that simple. Billboard, Rolling Stone The Fader, Much, among others all clearly call "New Rules" the seventh single. As well as Lipa saying the campaign was "7 singles deep" when New Rules was released in the Beats 1 interview. The OCC article / her label president conveniently not mentioning "New Love" does not mean it is not a single from this album and it appears as if this was done on purpose because "New Love" was not a hit on the charts. The fact is that "New Love" appears on this album and nowhere else so it is a single from this album. Cool Marc ✉ 09:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Timeline

@Coolmarc: "New Rules" is actually the sixth single from the album, with "New Love" not being considered to be the lead single.

I hope this information clears everything now. Your argument "The OCC article / her label president conveniently not mentioning "New Love" does not mean it is not a single from this album and it appears as if this was done on purpose because "New Love" was not a hit on the charts." does not make sense because "Last Dance" was also a flop but it is still considered to be part of the singles from the album. I'm going to ask Aoba47, Cartoon network freak, Another Believer, MarioSoulTruthFan and SnapSnap their opinion about this problem, in case they want to help to reach consensus about this. Thank You, Paparazzzi (talk) 04:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
You didn't ask for my opinion, but here it is: It doesn't make sense to me for "New Love" to not be considered a single from this album. It wasn't on a previous release like an EP or something, which would be a good reason to dismiss it as a single from this album. Also, although it is only on the deluxe edition of the album, so is "Last Dance", which is considered a single from the album. Most importantly, the sources don't label "Be the One" the lead single, so it doesn't make sense to label it as such. Popmusicstan101 (talk) 05:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
@Coolmarc:@Paparazzzi: This is quite a complicated question since, while "New Love" was released as a single, it is only included on the deluxe version of the album. However, since the deluxe edition was released on the same date as the album itself, I think we indeed can label "New Love" as the album's lead single (since this is technically what it is). But I would really encourage you to include a note next to "New Love" saying it is often not regarded as the lead single by publications and observers. I agree with Coolmarc, though, that publications can't deny facts—it is just a fact that "New Love" was released as Dua's first single and that it was included on the album. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 07:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Such difference might happen due to one of the singles have an exclusive release in a country. Warner and its affiliates, "Atlantic", "Elektra" and "Fueled by Ramen", among others do that quite often. So I would advise you, before deciding if its the sixth or seventh single, to take a closer look at that. However, even one of those was only released in a country or two, it would make "New Rules" the seventh single. Moreover, I do agree with the user above, perhaps a note would help to put this matter to the rest. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Before getting into my response, I must admit that I know nothing about Dua Lipa so apologies in advance for that. But, I will provide my input since I was pinged. Regardless of the outcome, I think a note would be necessary to clarify this to the reader and avoid having this discussion repeated in the future. I agree with MarioSoulTruthFan that it may be worthwhile to look into if the "New Love" single was released in a more limited way. According to the "New Love" article, it was released through an independent label, and I would ask if that was relevant, but it appears a number of the other singles were also released independently. This album seems to have had a strange roll-out. I would be more inclined to go with the information provided by the label and the artist herself over media outlets, but as shown above, they even appear to contradict themselves. Single releases have certainly got much murkier in the digital and streaming eras, and I have frequently seen people complain about a song no longer being a considered a "single" due to a lack of success. Unless there is more recent interview with Dua Lipa or her label on this, there may never be a clear-cut answer on this. Aoba47 (talk) 18:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Aoba47, The interview from Lipa I provided was from November 2019, where she says she was "7 singles deep" when "New Rules" was released. I think as Cartoon network freak mentions we should stick to facts here - "New Love" was a single and is included on this album which makes it a single from this album and not a non-album single or promotional single. Cool Marc ✉ 18:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. My first impulse is that it is the first single, but again, I am not super familiar (really at all in fact) with this particular artist. I would probably put in the article that it is the first single and then add a note about how this has been interpreted differently by media outlets. I think that is how I would have handled the situation. It is interesting how these types of discussions are becoming more and more common about a single v.s. a promotional single v.s. just a song that gets promoted without being a single. I am guessing this is happening because music can so easily be uploaded and made available to everyone. Aoba47 (talk) 20:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Dua didn't say "New Rules" was the seventh single from the album. Again, no one is saying "New Love" is not a single. It is simply not considered to be part of the promotion of the album by the label, which I believe is more reliable regarding releases than journalists. I already said something similar happened with Tove Lo's "Not on Drugs", which was released after "Habits" but flopped and then the label said "Talking Body" was the second single. Another similar case would be Ariana Grande's "Focus", which was released as a single and later added as a bonus track, just like "New Love".Paparazzzi (talk) 05:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
This does not change the fact that "New Love" is a single included on this album. As others have pointed out, you are contradicting your arguments; "Last Dance" is on the deluxe version but is considered a single as well. A song being on the deluxe version does not mean it is not a single from it. Many songs on Deluxe version are released as singles from albums. "Focus" by Ariana Grande is a Japan bonus track. This is not the same thing. If "New Love" was "simply not considered to be part of the promotion of the album", it would have not appeared on the album altogether. The record label does not even mention anything about "New Love" in that article and as a primary source, we are not in the right to analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source; but instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. In this case, there are secondary sources that call "New Rules" both the 7th and 6th single, so it is not "that simple" as you keep saying, which is why it is better to stick to the facts and be consistent. Cool Marc ✉ 06:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm just sticking to what the label boss said regarding the singles, the very label that releases them. If his opinion doesn't matter then why all the other secondary sources such as NME, Pitchfork, Junkee and GQ started referring to "New Rules" as the sixth single (not seventh) after he gave that interview? All those secondary sources calling "New Rules" the seventh single appeared before he gave that interview. Besides that, since you said we are not in the right to analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source; but instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so, then you should leave Dua's comment about "New Rules" being the seventh single from her career (not from her album) out of the debate...Paparazzzi (talk) 06:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Paparazzzi, The difference is Lipa says "7 singles deep" whereas the label's statement doesn't even mention anything about New Love or it "not being used in the promotion of" an album it appears on. Lipa only had one album at that point of being "7 singles deep" in her career. The 7 singles do not appear anywhere else. Cool Marc ✉ 07:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Coolmarc But still that's a primary source that can't be used because she only said "7 singles deep", she didn't even mention "New Love" among those singles. And by the way, "Scared to Be Lonely" is one of the singles where she is credited as a main artist that were released before "New Rules"...Paparazzzi (talk) 07:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Paparazzzi, It doesn't matter if she mentions "New Love" or not because there are no other 7 singles. "Scared to Be Lonely" was released and promoted by Martin Garrix's record label. Cool Marc ✉ 07:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Coolmarc It is still one of her singles as a lead artist. Anyways, there are more secondary sources claiming "New Rules" as the sixth single, not seventh.Paparazzzi (talk) 02:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
So there is no consensus reached here. I'm going to add a footnote in the "New Rules" article explaining that it is claimed to be the sixth single of the album by the very own president of Warner Bros, despite some sources deeming it the seventh single before he gave that interview. Seems the best thing to do. Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 02:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Paparazzzi, before you go and add anything to that article, I want to know from you with all the attitude you have displayed here, what you think "New Love" is if "New Rules" is the sixth single? Is it a promotional single (no source for that) or a non-album single (impossible since it is on the album)? As far as I know, pop releases are either a) a single, b) promotional single, c) non-album single. Cool Marc ✉ 06:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
"With all the attitude you have displayed here", interesting you think that way of me just because I don't agree with your point. I already told you, "New Love" despite being released as a single, is simply not considered to be part of the promotion of the album by the label. I have already stated that but no one listens. Is this the first time this happens? Nope. "Love Ballad" by Tove Lo was released as her debut single (just like "New Love" for Dua), and included on her EP Truth Serum and album Queen of the Clouds but is not considered to be part of the singles. Paparazzzi (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Paparazzzi, There is no consensus for you to call "New Rules" the sixth single. Nobody here agrees with you. How can it "not be considered part of the promotion of the album" if it is a single included on the album? That makes no sense. I don't care about Tove Lo articles since you wrote the majority of those, ignoring the facts and probably picked the singles order to your preference there as well. Cool Marc ✉ 14:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
@Coolmarc: there is no consensus either about calling "New Rules" the seventh single. My opinion is based around the fact that the very own president of Warner called it the sixth single and after that, more publications started referring to it as such. You are claiming that "he doesn't recognize New Love because it was a flop" how can you speculate that? "I don't care about Tove Lo articles since you wrote the majority of those, ignoring the facts and probably picked the singles order to your preference there as well" those are very sweets comments about me, thank you so much :* but I sadly have to tell you that the chronology of the Tove Lo singles is based on reliable sources that specify the order in which they were released, they were not picked by my preference ;). Anyways, "New Rules" has been referred to as the sixth sigle since 2017 after that interview, unless consensus is reached or you find something else to consider the comments by the label president invalid (as well as those other sources claiming it is the sixth single after that interview) it's going to stay as the sixth single. Have a super nice day! Paparazzzi (talk) 14:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Room for 2 and Thinking bout You

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I also already made a draft for Room for 2 and Thinking 'Bout You. I am finding souces for the songs.-- Happypillsjr ✉ 06:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC - "New Love" and "New Rules" single descriptions

Latest comment: 3 years ago27 comments10 people in discussion

For this RFC, we are hoping to achieve consensus on one of the following:

  • Option A: "New Love (Dua Lipa song)" was released as the first single from the album, and "New Rules" was released as the album's seventh single
  • Option B: "New Love" was "not released as single in promotion of the album", "New Rules" was released as the album's sixth single.

Cool Marc ✉ 19:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

The facts for Option A:

  • "New Love" was released as Lipa's first single and is included on this album, backed up by dozens of sources at New Love (Dua Lipa song). Lipa did not release an album prior to this one; it did not promote any other album.
  • Upon release in 2017 and as well as more recently, "New Rules" was called the seventh single by a number of reliable sources: 1, 2 3, 4, 5 6
  • In a November 2019 interview, Lipa said she was "7 singles" deep when "New Rules" was released, although she does not mention the word "album", this was the only album she had released when the interview took place.

The facts for Option B:

Cool Marc ✉ 19:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Votes
  • Option A - With so many conflicting sources regarding whether "New Rules" is the 6th or 7th single, it is better to stick to the facts. Describing "New Love" as "a single not in promotion of the album" makes no sense since it is a single that appears on the album and it did not promote any other album. If "New Love" is a single that appears on this album, then "New Rules" can only be the seventh single due to the single release order:
  1. "New Love"
  2. "Be the One"
  3. "Last Dance"
  4. "Hotter than Hell"
  5. "Blow Your Mind (Mwah)"
  6. "Lost in Your Light"
  7. "New Rules"

Cool Marc ✉ 19:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Option A - Despite the label's try not to acknowledge "New Love" as a single, it indeed was one. They digitally released it, promoted it with music video and remixes, so it definitely is one. Logically, "New Rules" is the 7th single. — Tom(T2ME) 19:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Option B - Basically all secondary sources started calling "New Rules" the sixth single after the label president gave that interview. Paparazzzi (talk) 21:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Also, "New Love" was included on Dua Lipa's EP The Only, so the claim that it did not appear in other released is simply not true.Paparazzzi (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: Apologies for adding a comment rather than a vote. I am not sure where to add this so feel free to move it elsewhere. I have finally gotten around to watching the November 2019 interview, and Dua Lipa said: "I feel like I was like 7 singles deep by the time 'New Rules' came out". I am only noting this because I think the "like" part is very important because it shows that she is not be super exact with her wording. She also does not say that these singles were in support of her debut album per se. I could also see her quote being read as she released 7 singles before "New Rules" came out. I am not going to vote either way as I honestly am uncertain either way, but I just wanted to add this. Aoba47 (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Maybe she is not exact with her wording, however, multiple other sources are. Also, the fact that "New Love" was promoted and is part of Dua Lipa. — Tom(T2ME) 22:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I am only bringing this up because this interview is being used to support one of the two options, and I think the part about it above leaves out an important detail (i.e. the "like" part). Aoba47 (talk) 22:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Option A. There has been numerous times when labels have named singles as buzz songs, promotional singles etc. WP:DUCK applies here. Is the song included on the album track listing (at least on version)? yes, was it released independently of the album to at least streaming, download or airplay? yes, was it referred to a single? yes. Let's keep it simple. it was a single and is included as part of the chronology. I think its tit-for-tat as to what labels say. If a record label exec says 6 singles then inevitably media sources will re-quote the record label so it is important that you stick to facts. It was released and confirmed to be part of the album. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 22:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Option B - There's a bunch of things I've noticed. According to the "New Love" article, it was, never serviced to radio stations, never charted, not included on the standard edition of her album and wasn't performed until 5 months after its release. These are quite unusual things for an artist's debut commercial single, like was the record label just expecting it to promote itself? Also, contemporary publications have a bad habit of calling every song a single, thus I usually prefer deferring to primary sources instead when deciding if something was a single or just a promo, so my usual instinct would be to trust Warner. I mean there are sources calling "Future Nostalgia" a single, ([1], [2], [3]) though I'm sure we all know it wasn't one. There's this Idolator article which calls "Be the One" her "debut release"/"first official single in the US", and this one calling "New Rules" her sixth single from the album. However a lot of editors whose judgement I trust have opted for Option A, so I'll recuse myself from formally voting.--NØ 08:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Note that I am now formally voting for option B, for all the reasons I initially stated. Also, I'll request people from the other side to stop bludgeoning the process; this is a request for comments, not a request for people to be coerced into sharing a certain opinion. For anyone who wants to see them, all the facts are laid out in the section above.--NØ 07:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Option B Not easy judgment, I do strongly agree with what the previous user said that publications call everyhting a single nowadays and for that same reason I stand by the affirmation of Phil Christie. He states "This is the sixth single off that record". It could have been a single from the EP, but it wasn't a single to promote this album. What else do you want? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Going by the logic "it might have been a single from the EP" makes "Be the One", "Blow Your Mind (Mwah)" and "Hot like Hell" singles from the EP though and not from Dua Lipa. — Tom(T2ME) 14:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  • MarioSoulTruthFan, There is no coverage of that random EP or any source claiming New Love is a single from the EP. The EP isn't even available to buy or stream anywhere. Cool Marc ✉ 16:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't know about that, the only thing I know is that it wasn't used to promote the album, according to Warner Records. I'm sure the president of it knows a little more about what is a single than any publication out there. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more with you, Mario. Paparazzzi (talk) 03:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
MarioSoulTruthFan, The label boss as a primary source misconstrued facts. The fact is that there were 6 singles released before "New Rules" which is why Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources for fact-checking. Many of the album's singles were released under the label Dua Lipa Limited and not Warner (see below comment) so I do not agree that the Warner label boss "knows a little more about what is a single". Cool Marc ✉ 06:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Did he? So isn't a label boss a reliable source? Mainly during an interview...I mean the publications quickly changed the number of the single. What would be the point of him lying about the number of a single? I'm sure he does know. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
That's the whole point. Why would publications change the number of the single in case his opinion was not important? Paparazzzi (talk) 22:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Paparazzzi, when artists own their own masters or have a deal with their are operating as a limited company and paid via their label as a contractor, they often own the copyright to their recordings so it will say something like Dua Lipa Limited, under license to Warner Music. Dua Lipa Ltd is not necessarilyn a record label just a UK Limited Company to handle and organise Lipa's business affairs. Pussycat Dolls releases were also handled by Pussycat Dolls LLC as it was a brand machine, Jennifer Lopez owns her own publishing and masters so all her releases say Nuyorican etc. It's not a determining factor as to singles etc. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 22:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Lil-unique1 Thanks for the clarification! That seemed weird to me, I just wanted to address that. Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 22:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Option A as per comments above from Tomica and Lil-Unique. — Status (talk · contribs) 11:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Option A as it was included in the album. Pikavoom (talk) 08:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Option A per Cool Marc, since in the single release order, it is placed as seventh. Idealigic (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Artwork

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

As I wrote here, I think it's important to capture the remaining 2 editions of the Dua Lipa album because each image represents a different commercial and story background, in addition to the fact that these two editions are better known because they are the ones with the most sales, especially the Complete Edition that contains several hits which Lipa participated and served for her recognition and growth as a global artist. Complete Edition has its own subsection and the article lacks images. It would not hurt to give a mere visual representation to those record work that ended up being more remarkables than the standard one. Alexismata7 (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@LOVI33:, @Isento:, @Kyle Peake: Alexismata7 (talk) 14:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

All three covers (standard, deluxe and Complete) are essentially the same, only differing in background colors, so adding two extra covers would violate WP:NFCCP. snapsnap (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Dua Lipa (album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hadger (talk · contribs) 04:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


I'll start reviewing this article soon. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 04:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Background and release

  • "back to England" - clarify that she was born in England to make this more clear
  • Current wording is too close to Rolling Stone's "intent on taking a shot at a music career" wording; you could change this to: "... 15 to pursue a music career"
  • Interview Magazine source doesn't cite Sylvia Young Theater School; you should include the Rolling Stone source at the end of that sentence (although I don't see where this source supports the use of the word "re-enroll")
  • Where does the Noisey article support that she had started modeling? Is this referring to her use of Instagram?
  • "...brought her wider exposure"
  • The end of the first sentence of the second paragraph is too close to the original source's wording
  • I'm slightly concerned about the use of London Evening Standard since there's no consensus on its reliability, but given that the source is used to cite an uncontroversial claim based on an interview, I think it's alright here.
  • The given sources don't adequately support the sentence beginning "Work on her debut album began..." The Music Business Worldwide source supports that she started writing music, but not necessarily work on an album. Seems like the J. Cole/Nelly Furtado bit might have come from the Rolling Stones article cited in the previous sentence, but in context she's giving examples of artists that influenced her sound, which isn't quite as strong as saying that she was "seeking a sound marrying that of J. Cole and Nelly Furtado".
  • I'm not sure the Music Feeds interview supports the claim that Lipa was "travel[ing] to promote music in the United States", given that the interview was in Australia. I'm also skeptical of using a video published in April 2016 to support the claim that work continued "throughout 2016".
  • Is Breathe Heavy a reliable source? It seems like a self-published source. I think the Official Charts source linked in the Breathe Heavy article would be preferable. (The MNEK claim seems like pure rumor—one that turned out to be true, but it was speculation in the context of the article.) I think it would also be worth mentioning that she was in Los Angeles for collaborations.
  • Third paragraph: find a better source than Breathe Heavy.
  • Source for Lipa pushing back the release date in August 2016?
  • Huge issue with close paraphrasing in the sentence that cites Idolator. (Also, italicize Idolator).
  • Going to need some sort of introduction to that quote at the end of the section.

I'm seeing some significant issues with sourcing and occasional close paraphrasing so far. I'll continue reviewing the article soon. For now, please feel free to address the issues I've raised here. (I should note: I've intentionally avoided reviewing the intro for now, as I believe it will be easier to properly assess it once I've reviewed the rest of the article.) Hadger (talk) (contribs) 18:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Hey Hadger, I was just over looking the article and I noticed a few issues I wanted to address. I nominated this a while ago, before I fully researched all of the album's respective songs. For now, I am going to retract this nomination, do you mind failing it? Thanks for taking this on, I appreciate it. LOVI33 17:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and do that. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 01:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Homesick

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I understand that "Homesick" was promoted to radio in Belgium and the Netherlands, but I'm pretty sure it is classified as a promotional single. I've seen many discussions on albums such as Reputation (Taylor Swift album) on whether songs promoted to radio in one certain place are considered singles and many of the discussions have resulted in a promotional single classification. Some other reasons why I think "Homesick" is not a single are:

  • Every other single from this album was announced prior to its release and confirmed by Lipa as a single, except this one. I am aware that singles don't always need to be confirmed by the artist, but I have always thought it is weird that this is the only one.
  • It wasn't fully promoted. It seems like it was released in order to boost the sales of "New Rules" as it was performed on many occasions with it. Also, it wasn't promoted with a music video or remixes like every other single.
  • Prior to the release of "Homesick", "IDGAF" was announced as the next single, which was released after it.
  • Reputable publications such as Entertainment Tonight Canada, Entertainment Weekly and Rolling Stone have called "IDGAF" the seventh single (leaving out "New Love" as well but that discussion has been closed).
  • It doesn't appear as a single on Lipa's website.

LOVI33 20:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@LOVI33: Promo single for sure. Lack of inclusion from ETC, EW, RS and OCC, no confirmation by Lipa herself, inconsistency on the website all indicate the song isn’t a single. As well, it seems like it was released in order to boost the sales of "New Rules" as it was performed on many occasions with it sounds like a "Lovesick Girls"/"Pretty Savage" situation, and this just re-enforced my opinion that the song is a promo single. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 01:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Dua Lipa: Complete Edition into Dua Lipa (album)

Latest comment: 3 years ago27 comments14 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge. LOVI33 19:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Several similar cases exist, with one common article sufficient. — Kochas 00:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Support merge. Clearly most of the material is already covered in the original article's title. No reason for a separate article. Onel5969 TT me 13:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose merge. Per WP:SIZERULE an article should be split (if possible) if it exceeded 100 kb. Also the reissue has gotten a lot of coverage and considering it is the third most streamed album on Spotify, I would say it is notable enough for it's own article. There are also several similar cases where one common article isn't sufficient, which I think is the case here. If the result of this discussion is a merge, I think that the reissue should have its own section with an infobox due to its notability. LOVI33 15:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @LOVI33: Just to clear things up, 100k is actually readable size. The Dua Lipa article is 100k+ bytes in total size (which includes references, images, templates), and not the readable size. Per XTools this article is now 2,742 words. To put it in perspectives, a 50 kB prose contains 10,000 words. Therefore, this article is roughly 15 kB in readable size, which still has much room for development. HĐ (talk) 10:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose An WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS nomination where the nominator fails to bring up why it's like that other stuff. Yes, there are reissues out there that aren't notable on their own, but this is the opposite. HumanxAnthro (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose I have refrained from commenting on the matter because I am a relatively new user and do not yet know all the policies for giving a neutral opinion. But I am opposed to merge the article because of LOVI33's comments. I consider that Dua Lipa: Complete Edition is of sufficient notability to have its own article. Alexismata7 (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Support merge. Doesn't feel necessary to me at all. It's not exactly its own body of work like The Fame Monster, only an expanded edition of the original album. --Sricsi (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Just because it's not its "own body of work" doesn't mean it doesn't deserve an article. Some examples of this include Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded, Teenage Dream: The Complete Confection, Halcyon Days (Ellie Goulding album), etc. Also I would argue that it is its own body of work since the new tracks are added on as a new disc. LOVI33 17:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Each of those examples just prove the initial point (similarly, the album Beyoncé and its Platinum Edition — or even OK Computer and its reissue). The "other edition" repackaging idea is pure marketing of the same artistic project, or its prolonged relevance, and the articles should be merged. Even if the re-release itself has a significant amount of references. See: albums and their anniversary reissues, eg. Abbey Road (1969→2019), Appetite for Destruction (1987→2018), Achtung Baby (1991→2011), Superunknown (1994→2014), etc. — Kochas 00:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I am unsure of the point you are trying to make. Are you going to request mergers of all those articles? Not every Wikipedia article needs to follow the same process and I was just mentioning a few above that hadn't followed that process and are very similimar to Dua Lipa: Complete Edition. But if we are talking about notability, the reissue clearly passes WP:NALBUMS, further proving why this merger is unnecessary. LOVI33 14:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I'm suggesting the Rihanna and Ellie Goulding (and Radiohead, for that matter) albums should be merged, so that the albums' mutations are described in dedicated paragraphs, in one article per one album. I'm trying to see this practically, as a reader or researcher: separate articles for separate editions it's just too much hassle. Otherwise, Wikipedia is playing the marketing game of record companies here. The tracklists are most often the same, only filled with extra tracks; the credits, payrolls are the same; sometimes the good part of references is repeated. But of course I wouldn't ignite a revolution on my own now. — Kochas 20:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Kochas What are you talking about? What marketing game is Wikipedia playing?? The reason why these reissues have their own separate articles is that the original article already is pretty long and there is enough information (reliable sources) that describe/review the reissued version of the ablums. Also, good luck with Rihanna's album. It's a featured article, one of the best articles on Wikipedia. — Tom(T2ME) 20:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
@Tomica: Please don't use rhetorical figures literally. I value your opinion. I'm not a fan of these pop acts, and wasn't considering a relevance of the aforementioned albums in terms other than marketing. In the end, significant amount of reliable sources could be convincing. Still, I won't ever consider album mutations as separate titles in the artists' discographies. — Kochas 20:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Merging will result the page too long to read. Cross-linking between two pages is OK. -- BrandNew Jim Zhang (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
@BrandNew Jim Zhang: Per WP:RPS this article is not too long--it is currently 15 kB in readable prose size, which is well below the threshold of 50 kB for a readable article (using WP:PAGESIZE tool). HĐ (talk) 09:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Support Merge Whether the article is too long to read can be reasonably designed through summary style writing and source examinations. I can see the "Background and release" section being a part of the Dua Lipa (album) article. Apart from the songs "Want To" and "Running", the new material all have their respective articles, so there is little need to address them in detail at the "New material" section. While I agree that in some cases, reissues and repackaging of certain albums deserve a standalone article, this is not that case. Little critical reception has been available (I am only seeing two critical reviews), and the chart positions are considered to be extensions of Dua Lipa's existing chart positions, thus it is not seen as an independent body of work on albums charts (which makes it fundamentally different from reissues that have standalone articles). HĐ (talk) 03:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • To note, I also made some comments regarding this article's readable prose size. Currently, it is 13 15 kB in readable size (don't be fooled by the 100 kB, it is total size consisted of files, templates, references, etc.) An article < 50 kB does not need to be split, and this article certainly has enough room for future developments. HĐ (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Support Merge Per same reasons as written by HĐ . --Kirtap92 (talk) 09:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Support Merge Complete Edition did not chart significantly, did not produce any major singles, and does not warrant enough content to be separated away from the original album's article. The k nine 2 (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Support Merge the Complete Edition is not enough support. Sunrise In Brooklyn ✉ 22:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
As this discussion is currently about 50/50, I would just like to mention once again that the Complete Edition 100% passes notability. For one, like most notability checks, the song has been the subject of several reputable sources. It didn't chart but it boosted the chart positions of its parent album significantly. Although it didn't produce any singles, it is the only project "One Kiss" and "Scared to Be Lonely" appear on and the first project "Electricity" appeared on. Those were extremely successful singles that charted worldwide. There were several notable live performances for the singles. Additionally, "Electricity" received a Grammy award and "One Kiss" received a Brit award. So overall, I would say it passes at least 4 of the seven criterion at WP:NALBUMS and it says that it only needs to pass one. LOVI33 13:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
It's 6 support merge and 5 oppose merge, actually. I think it will take some more time to have a conclusion. --Sricsi (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Still too soon to jump to conclusion. Singles are notable but that does not make the album notable... like I said, I have not seen extensive coverage on this album as a whole. Saying that certain songs from this album made it notable is cherry-picking and undue weight. HĐ (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Support merge per HD. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose merge. DuaLipaFan23951 (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
It looks like this is going to be WP:SNOW and all my points are being taken down so I'll change my opinion to support. LOVI33 03:40, 12 April 2021 (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.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Dua Lipa (album)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 01:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

  • The image's non-free use rationale looks good.
  • Add WP:ALT text to every image used in the article.
  • Change some uses of "in order to" to just "to" as it is less wordy.
  • Add a hyphen between "high quality".
  • Add a hyphen between "most streamed".
  • "a X Factor commercial" → "an X Factor commercial"
  • "due to the fact that" → "because" (less wordy)
  • Remove MOS:CONTRACTIONS ("didn't" / "wasn't" / "isn't")
  • "cowriters" → "co-writers"
  • "where written" - typo?
  • Add commas after every use of "however".
  • "concluded my mentioning" → "concluded by mentioning"
  • Add a hyphen between "self identification".
  • Described by Lipa "one of → Described by Lipa as "one of
  • "it's title" → "its title"
  • "it's meaning" → "its meaning"
  • "explained the title saying" → "explained the title by saying"
  • Add a hyphen between "ninth best".
  • "In the June 2017" → "In June 2017"
  • #Track_listings needs sources for verification.
    • Per MOS:ALBUM, track listings don't need explicit citations since it is assumed the album's itself (or liner notes) are being cited. LOVI33 05:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Mark references from GQ with "|url-access=limited".
  • Mark references from Los Angeles Times with "|url-access=limited".
  • Mark references from The New York Times with "|url-access=limited".
  • Mark references from Rolling Stone with "|url-access=limited".
  • Mark references from Vulture with "|url-access=limited".
  • We Got This Covered is not reliable so remove its use.
  • Ping when done. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:09, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:52, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dua_Lipa_(album)/Archive_1&oldid=1140782100"