Talk:Future Nostalgia (song)

Single / promotional single status

There seems to be an issue with the release status of this song; either being a single or a promotional single. My reasoning that "Future Nostalgia" is a promotional single is that Lipa has stated this herself, announcing in advance in an interview that the song would not be a single. She reiterated this on her social media after its release, explicitly stating that the song "isn't a single" when providing the reason for the lack of a music video for the song. (I provided the sources for these on the article itself). The song is also not being promoted through her website, as was the case with the album's first single, "Don't Start Now". It is also not being referred to as a single by the record company itself, Warner, with its statements simply stating that it is a "release" or "title track".

The only reasoning that I can see for the song being an official single is that it was serviced to radio, and publications seemingly refer to it as such. However, as per advice on WP:PROMOSINGLE, and the fact that a promotional single is defined as a song that is made available to radio stations [...] to promote a commercial single or album, I think that the idea that a song's airplay / service to radio makes it not a promotional single seems to be untrue.

I would appreciate input from other editors, as well as those involved in the dispute (courtesy ping for; @CountyCountry: and @Mikgregor:), in order to avoid an edit war.

References

KHBritish (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, looks like Dua Lipa did confirm that it is not a single. I am changing my mind on this one because I was unaware of her confirming that. I have heard from multiple editors saying that WP:Promotional singles is flawed and inaccurate, so I tend not to use that. CountyCountry (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Key

There seems to be a dispute going about the key that the song is in. If you would like to see the full discussion, you can go to my talk page. I have published that I think the song is in A minor due to a Musicnotes.com source, whose author claims to be Dua Lipa (which is usually the author used in music-related articles). However, Will.hubbard93 claims the song is in D minor from another Musicnotes.com source from an author called "MUSICHELP," as well as just listening to the song. I have also discovered that on key/bpm finder websites, most claim that the key is G major. Lil-unique1, also chipped in and said that Musicnotes.com is not always a reliable source from a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard. Will.hubbard93 has also got into contact with Musicnotes.com and they have said that publishers might simplify the key. So what do you think? What key do you think it is in based on the evidence proposed? LOVI33 12:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Adding to all the helpful info LOVI33 provided above, Musicnotes.com states on their support page that recorded key and published key may be different. Again, as mentioned by LOVI33, I believe this the cause of the confusion here. Will.hubbard93 (talk) 16:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

It appears that this dispute is resolved. Best of all, I don't see a 3rd opinion request listed as of 02:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC). {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page!

Tempo

Universal Music Publishing specifies the tempo of the song as 116 bpm, but this conflicts with my own discoveries. Not only does the app "liveBPM" measure a tempo of 115 bpm, but this can also be confirmed using a DAW, in this case "Logic Pro X". If the beginning of the song is aligned to 115 bpm, the beat lays on the metronome click from start to finish. If instead the beginning of the song is aligned to 116 bpm, it takes less than four bars to hear song and metronome drifting away from each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dowmeant (talk • contribs) 22:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Future Nostalgia (song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kyle Peake (talk · contribs) 14:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

After your reviewing of my article "Wouldn't Leave", I'll follow up by taking this on. --Kyle Peake (talk) 14:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Infobox and lead

• Cover art needs alt text
• WP:OVERLINK of Dua Lipa under Songwriter(s)
• Target to Future Nostalgia should solely be on "of the same name"
• "included as the album's opening track" → "included as the opening track" since we know that's on the album
• "It was released on 13 December 2019" → "It was released for digital download and streaming on 13 December 2019"
• Target promotional single to Promotional recording
• "from Future Nostalgia as well as being serviced" → "from the album, while serviced"
• "the same day" → "that same day"
• ""Future Nostalgia" is a" → "the song is a"
• "electro and funk" → "electro, and funk"
• "song containing elements" → "track that contains elements"
• The critical reception sentence should start the second para instead
• "Upon its release, "Future Nostalgia" entered official" → "Upon its release, the song debuted on record"
• "UK downloads" → "UK Downloads" with the appropriate target
• Target music critics to Music journalism
• "After the release of its parent album" → "Following the release of Future Nostalgia" since italicisation clearly shows it is about the album instead
• "Slovakia and Spain" → "Slovakia, and Spain"
• "from music critics with many commenting on the song's" → "from music critics, with many commenting on the"
• "It received a lyric video on" → "A lyric video was released for it on"

 Done all

Writing and production

• "Lipa alongside Clarence Coffee Jr" → "Lipa, alongside Clarence Coffee Jr."
• "how they wanted work together" → "how they wanted to work together"
• "They had not worked together previously, although, Lipa" → "The two had not collaborated previously, although Lipa"
• "a fan of his due" → "a fan of Bhasker due"
• "some sessions with him" → "some sessions together"
• "overly confident as well as" → "overly confident, as well as"
• "then suggested that they attempt" → "then suggested them attempting"
• "something bold so Bhasker" → "something bold, so Bhasker"
• Target experimental to Experimental music
• "and Lipa began writing down lyrics" → "and she began writing down lyrics"
• "half of the song, they got" → "half of "Future Nostalgia", the two of them got"
• "so Lipa called Clarence Coffee Jr" → "which lead to Lipa calling Clarence Coffee Jr."
• "they came up with" does this refer to those three studio members or the two music artists?
  • This refers to all three studio members.
    • Copyedited for you --Kyle Peake (talk) 06:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
• "Lipa placed it as" → "Lipa decided on placing the song as"
• "due to it's fearlessness" → "due to its fearlessness"

 Done all

Music and lyrics

• Target chorus to Refrain on the audio sample text, feminist to Feminism and wikilink Falsetto to itself
• "by Lipa as well as" → "by Lipa, as well as"
• Add ref(s) on the sample's text for verifying that info even though it is already written out in the section's prose
• Target chorus to Refrain
• Wikilink post-chorus to itself per MOS:LINK2SECT
• Target bridge to Bridge (music)
• "It's verses only use one chord, D5, while the song" → "The verses use solely the D5 chord, while the track" with the target
• Target synths to Synthesizer
• [14][15][16][17][18] is too many refs next to each other; like you have done for [13], place them after the relevant info where there is commas
• Add wikilink on drum machines
• "features a rhythm guitar" → "features rhythm guitar" with the wikilink
• "to D₅ and she makes" → "to D₅, and she makes"
• "spoken-word verses as well as" → "spoken word verses as well as" with the wikilink
• [12][5][20] should be in numerical order
• "backing vocals courtesy of the song's producer, Jeff Bhasker, where" → "backing vocals, courtesy of Bhasker, where"
• [22][16] should be in numerical order
• "the song deals with themes of" → "the song's lyrics deal with the themes of"
• "wrote about "Future Nostalgia"'s lyrics" → "wrote about the lyrics"
• [24][18] should be in numerical order

 Done all

Release and promotion

• Wikilink lead single to itself
• "from her second studio album Future Nostalgia (2020)" → "from her second studio album Future Nostalgia"
• "it's video release" → "its music video release"
• Target promotional single to Promotional recording
• "in every region.[28] It was released" → "in every region, being released"
• [2][28] should both be solely at the end of the sentence, since it will be the two current ones merged
• Add ""Future Nostalgia" was later included as the first track on Future Nostalgia, released on 26 March 2020" as the first para's last sentence with the ref
• ""Future Nostalgia" received a lyric video that premiered on" → "An accompanying lyric video was released that premiered through"
• "It takes place in a retro" → "It is set in a retro"
• "house in a white shirt" → "house, wearing a white shirt"
• "underwear as well as" → "underwear, as well as"
• Remove the last sentence since YouTube is constantly updating views

 Done all

Critical reception

• "received mixed to positive reviews from music critics" → "was met with mixed to positive reviews from music critics" with the target
• "what lies ahead"." → "what lies ahead.""
• "He went on to describe it" → "He continued, describing the song"
• Target pop to Pop music
• "as "self-assured" and" → "as "self-assured," and"
• "soundscape" as well as calling it" → "soundscape," while calling it"
• "from it's parent album" → "from the album"
• "In Nylon, Allison Stubblebine wrote" → "Stubblebine wrote"
• "as well a categorizing the song's" → "and categorized the song's"
• The Guardian should be italicised
• "Thomas Stichbury called it" → "Thomas Stichbury labelled it"
• ""it’s a flirty wink" → ""it's a flirty wink"
• Remove target on Clash
• "a positive review saying Lipa" → "a positive review, saying Lipa"
• "its talk-rapped verses" and that" → "its talk-rapped verses," and that"
• "praising it's production and lyrics" → "praising its production and lyrics"
• "criticized "Future Nostalgia" writing that" → "criticized "Future Nostalgia", writing that"
• "her vocals but praised" → "her vocals, but praised"
• "to compare it to" → "to compare it to the music of"
• "listed it as a notable track from it's parent album" → "listed the song as a notable track from Future Nostalgia"
• "Writing for the" → "For the"
• "one of the album’s" → "one of the album's"
• "Writing for Business Insider" → "For Business Insider"
• "called it" → "called the song"
• "on to state that it" → "on to state that the song"
• "a single," it's" → "a single" but it is" with the target
• "categorized Lipa confident and" → "categorized Lipa as confident, while he"
• PopSugar are a gossip website and not a reputable music critic, so remove this review.
• "calling the chorus" → "calling the song's chorus"
• "Writing for Rolling Stone" → "For Rolling Stone"
• "called "Future Nostalgia"" → "called the song"
• "as well as comparing it to" → "and compared it to the music of"
• "DIY and Variety both" → "Writers of both DIY and Variety"
• [43][16] should be put in numerical order
• "In a mixed review from" → "In a mixed review for"
• "backing and one of her" → "backing and one of Lia's"
• "Lipa's vocal style to" → "Lipa's vocal style to that of"
• "Nick Smith called it" → "Nick Smith called the song"
• "brassy" and went on" → "brassy," and went on"
  • wikilinked Brassy to Brass instruments
• "compared the song to" → "compared the song to the music of"
• "with it's lyrics and" → "with the lyrics and"
• Wikilink God Is in the TV to itself
• "compared it to" → "compared the song to"

 Done all

Personnel

• Use {{spaced ndash}} so there is the right space between personnel  Done

Charts

• Weekly chart performance for "Future Nostalgia" → Chart performance for "Future Nostalgia" because there is no year-end chart(s)  Done

Release history

• Format → Format(s)  Done

References

• Make sure that all of these archived by using the tool
• Copyvio score looks good at 14.5%
• YouTube should be cited as publisher instead for ref 3
• Apple Music should be cited as publisher on ref 4
• The Ringer should be cited as publisher on ref 5
• AllMusic should be cited as publisher on ref 8
• MTV should be cited as publisher on ref 9
• MOS:QWQ and MOS:CAPS issues with ref 10
• Universal Music Publishing Group should be cited as publisher on ref 11
• MOS:QWQ issues with ref 14
• Idolator should be cited as publisher on ref 15
• MOS:CAPS issues with ref 17
• Cite YouTube as publisher instead for ref 21 with no wikilink and remove Capital FM
• Remove or replace ref 26 since Instagram is an unreliable source
• Ref 29 is missing an accessdate
• YouTube should be cited as publisher on ref 30 with no wikilink
• Idolator should be cited as publisher on ref 31 with no wikilink
• Remove target on Clash for ref 35
• Remove wikilink on PopMatters for ref 36
• Ref 40 is from an unreliable source; remove it
• Remove wikilink on Rolling Stone for ref 42
• MOS:CAPS issues with ref 43
• The Arts Desk should be cited as publisher on ref 45
• Wikilink God Is In The TV on ref 48
• Remove Tidal from the title of ref 50 and Tidal should be cited as publisher
• MOS:CAPS issues with ref 54
• Cite Apple Music as publisher for ref 61 and remove the wikilink, plus add citations for various countries to verify the release was indeed various
• Wikilink The Music Network on ref 62

 Done all

Final comments and verdict

•  On hold until the issues are fixed, nice to review one of your articles though and I look forward to doing more in the future. --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Kyle Peake, thank you so much for reviewing this article. I have addressed all the issues above. Is there anything else you would like me to do? LOVI33 20:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
    • LOVI33 That was a quick response, thanks a lot. ✓ Pass! --Kyle Peake (talk) 06:13, 24 June 2020 (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.

Another example of this is if you look at Universal Music Publishing, "Future Nostalgia" has a temp of 116 bpm see here but on MusicNotes its 115 bmp. One example of many where it shouldn't be trusted. Musicnotes.com is an interpretation of the song but not necessarily the same version released commercially. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 11:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Linking genres

Linking words with a dash on them on wikipedia is generally frowned upon. It would be mis-leading for users to come to an article and see seveeral genres like dance-pop and then see electro-funk linked as two seperate terms. They were not discussed as two different genres in the sourced article, they were said as one. It would be wrong to interpret it in a way that was not used by the original author. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Future Nostalgia is a single!!

Future Nostalgia is a single of the the album. First, it was released separately from the album with its own cover art. Second, it was serviced to radio on the date of its release. Third, there are reliable sources calling it a single. Here are the link to the sources: https://web.archive.org/web/20191213230745/https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/dua-lipa-single-future-nostalgia-926610/

https://www.iheart.com/content/2019-12-14-dua-lipa-drops-sassy-retro-future-nostalgia-title-track-listen/

WAL209 (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)