Talk:Bloodmoney

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Metal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MetalWikipedia:WikiProject MetalTemplate:WikiProject MetalHeavy Metal articles

Women in Music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move 22 March 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodmoney → BLOODMONEY – How it's spelled elsewhere. The discrepancy is causing absurd chaos at the album's article. Should probably be deleted, but while it's here, it should reflect reality. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support absurd chaos. ~~And the move too.~~ The references seem fine, so deletion seems semi-equally absurd. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The semi-referenced article's existence is absurd because it's the only one from the album that has a problematic title, the only one that sounds like (intentional) pollution and the only one that exists here. Undue weight, in context. But yeah, the theoretical balance would be creating articles for the three others with videos and reviews. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The NME ~~article~~ reference is a substantial source. Probably enough to notablize the song. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The one linked in this article, or the one linked therein? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mistyped, meant the reference. Will strike and correct. And ALLCAPS does seem to decap this, so will strike there too, but I'll keep my support for weird chaos. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Want to help get "Girls in Bikinis" to FA status? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: WP:ALLCAPS / MOS:TM / WP:TITLETM promotional all-caps styling. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Song titles aren't trademarks, but ALLCAPS has a fair point. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - sources are mixed on the presentation of the title, so siding with ALLCAPS. -- Netoholic @ 08:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per ALLCAPS. I'm not seeing the purported 'absurd chaos' anywhere. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the purported absurd chaos is a reference to edit warring for the album article I Disagree. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Initially, yes, but it has since spread to Norman Fucking Rockwell! and Thank U, Next. In my estimation, it should transition into a diplomatic kerfuffle at Wikiproject Music by late April. But the scattered edit skirmish phase is over (at least as far as I'm directly responsible). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per ALLCAPS. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 10:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thanks for your new article on "Bloodmoney" by Poppy. Note that per WP:NSONG more evidence may be needed that the song made some sort of impact, beyond simply being released. If this matter is not addressed, future editors could call for the article to be deleted..

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]