Talk:Levitating (song)

Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Levitating (song) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

This article was nominated for deletion on 17 May 2020. The result of the discussion was redirect.

Dua Lipa High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dua Lipa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dua Lipa 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.Dua LipaWikipedia:WikiProject Dua LipaTemplate:WikiProject Dua LipaDua Lipa articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Electronic music Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic 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.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Madonna Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Madonna, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Madonna 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.MadonnaWikipedia:WikiProject MadonnaTemplate:WikiProject MadonnaMadonna articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pop music Mid‑importance

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop 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.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Songs

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

Genres

Disco (Showcased as electro-disco and nu-disco)

Extended content

Funk and pop (Showcased as pop-funk)

Extended content

Slant Magazine: conjures Lizzo-esque pop-funk
Slant Magazine: midtempo pop-funk earworm
The Daily Telegraph: the glitterball funk of Levitating
Pitchfork: funk on "Levitating"
Totalntertainment: this funk driven song
Gay Times: the funk favourite
Entertainment.ie: classic pop
Esquire (UK): sugar-sweet pop
Atwood Magazine: "Levitating" was a nostalgic piece of 80's glitter pop

LOVI 33 02:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LOVI33, I hope you've got Good article status on your radar! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another Believer, definitely! LOVI 33 17:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LOVI33,

Like ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Music video credits

Gagaluv1 please stop removing the music video credits. Your only arguments for not including the credits are "an unnecessary detail that few would be interested in, it's not standard to put in articles, and it takes up a large part of an already very large article." Firstly, you can never predict was users would want to read, and it is always good to have lots of information. Just because it isn't in a lot of articles, doesn't mean it shouldn't be included. Finally, yes it is a large article, but it doesn't look like we will need to split it any time soon. As the article is pretty much finished besides a commercial performance section, we can probably assume it wont need to split it. At the end, it is sourced information and there really isn't any good reason to remove it. LOVI 33 23:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's extremely rare to see that level of detail for music video credits, and doesn't seem that relevant, since the only source is the description of a YouTube video. It feels unnecessary and bloated, I don't see what having music video credits in the article ads, except more space for people to scroll by.Gagaluv1 (talk) 00:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gagaluv1, I don't really see a problem with having a lot of detail in the section, and as I said earlier, you can never assume what people want to read, and added information is never a bad thing. Here is another source for The Blessed Madonna's remix video, but the sources used at the moment are published by Lipa herself, so they seem the most reliable. LOVI 33 00:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see a problem with them. They’re more information, isn’t Wikipedia an encyclopedia? I’ve added MV credits before, they’re actually really helpful. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 00:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, just because it's verifiable doesn't mean it warrants inclusion in this encyclopedia. I personally doesn't really find the necessity of this excessive credits. Okay, we need to know who is the director, photographer, but do we really need to know all these skaters cameos. I don't think so. Bluesatellite (talk) 04:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given the amount of detail, this article needs re-organising into different sections for the remixes much like Say So (Doja Cat song) ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 00:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the point made by Lil-unique1 above. As someone who often reads this article, I don't find the current structure easy to navigate. Also agree that music video credits should be cut down to the director, producer, and maybe the choreographer. The credit list is verifiable, but not notable, and as such giving it such hefty coverage is undue.--N Ø 04:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved editor notified from the WikiProject. This is way too much detail for an encyclopedia article. Much in the same way it would be inappropriate to transcribe the entire end credits of a movie, video game, or television show. Trim it way back. People can watch the video itself for the full thing. Sergecross73 msg me 13:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It should be trimmed to important credits i.e. director, 1AD, editor etc, kind of like what is on Cardigan (song)#Music video credits. No need to include irrelevant cameos unless they are notable people. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 17:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a 3rd party to the conflict, I'm surprised this even needed to be discussed. That is was too much info about the video. It is monstrous. Doctorhawkes (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Split

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Since there is so much information in "The Blessed Madonna remix" section, and it's promoting other body of work than original, shouldn't we split the site into two? Like "Ain't it Funny" and "Ain't It Funny (Murder Remix)". infsai (dyskusja) 12:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would support that decision. The article is already really big so it wouldn't a bad idea to split it (WP:SIZERULE). Also it 100% passes notability on its own and personally, I have also thought that they are two separate projects. LOVI 33 19:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LOVI33: Since you're the only one who responded, I'm choosing to ping you since I made a draft of The Blessed Madonna Remix. I tried to put as many things as I could from the parent article, but I'm not sure if I managed to transfer every bit of information about remix from "Levitating" article, so can you check if there is anything missing or needed to be fixed? infsai (dyskusja) 16:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infsai it looks good! You have done an amazing job at transferring the information. I would recommend submitting it now. LOVI 33 18:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not opposed to split, but also don't feel strongly absolutely must be done. Be bold! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

.. and please be sure to add appropriate split/attribution templates on both talk pages, if completed. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I support to split the articles, I also consider that there is a bulk of content in one. Good luck Infsai. Alexismata7 (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for splitting! Should Levitating (The Blessed Madonna Remix) be mentioned in the intro and article body/prose for easier access? Unless I'm overlooking, the remix is only linked in the infobox and track listing. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:53, 26 March 2021 (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.

About RIAA cert

@LOVI33: Hey, I note the RIAA cert as solo version at this edition considering these reasons:

RIAA has the examples which are certified as different version: Hawái remix by Maluma and The Weeknd (6x Plat Latin) , and Hawái original version (14x Plat Latin), see Hawái (song).
The note "solo version" makes it easier for readers to clarify that the award is not certified for the DaBaby remix.

I think there are two solutions: adding the note or separate certs of the remix version. Regards. :)

-- BrandNew Jim Zhang (talk) 12:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BrandNew Jim Zhang. Before I give my reasoning on why it isn't necessary to specify which version was certified, I would just like to mention that the Danish, Italian, Norwegian and British certifications are also credited to the solo version of "Levitating". So the reason it isn't necessary to include the version is that both the DaBaby Remix and original are being promoted as the same single. This can been seen as all of the live promotion (besides the Grammmys) are for the original and the remix is the same as the original, just DaBaby adds a new verse. The original was a single for adult contemporary radio and the remix was a single for top 40, which is a good marketing strategy. Unlike "Hawái", the version with the Weeknd is credited as a "Remix" whereas with this song it is just credited as "Levitating featuring DaBaby". It was never called a remix by Lipa or her record label, further proving why they are being promoted at the same song. As for certifications, according to the RIAA requirements (which is also used by many other markets), edited versions of songs are combined for certifications, which is 100% what has happened here. As for the separate table idea, each version has different certifications which are obviously combined sales which again, just takes up unnecessary space. If we start crediting which version for charts and certifications, a lot of unnecessary space gets taken up. About half of the charts are credited to the original version and we have already tried the note and separate table previously, which didn't work. Overall, they are the same song. It is unnecessary to specify. I hope this clears song things up. LOVI 33 20:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Get it and thank you for the response!

Like — BrandNew Jim Zhang (talk) 23:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Levitating (The Blessed Madonna Remix) into Levitating (song)

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 merged. Bluesatellite (talk) 01:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NSONGS This the same song, but remixed with additional vocals. Richhoncho (talk) 13:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richhoncho, Did you see the discussion above? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Are we sure the remix really needs a page on its own? The discussion above mentioned "Ain't It Funny" and the remix, but I don't think the two articles over there needs to be split either, and also – the remix of "Ain't It Funny" is way more notable than this remix, which hardly charted anywhere and was released to promote a remix album. The previous discussion also mentioned article size, but the two articles have a combined prosesize of 35kB, which is readable and does not need division per WP:TOOBIG. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 16:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. The Blessed Madonna Remix is not even a hit to begin with. There are a lot of other remixes which are way more popular and still don't have their own page. Sizing should never be a problem, Wikipedia is not a fansite where every details should be written. "Ain't It Funny" and "Ain't It Funny (Murder Remix)" are totally different songs both lyrically and melodically (listen on YouTube[1][2]). So it does make sense to have separate articles. Bluesatellite (talk) 02:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge. It’s the same song, just remixed and with new artists. That’s all. DuaLipaFan23951 (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. That was the case before, and the article was really hard to navigate and hard to organize as well. Also, the lyrics are the same yes (except Missy's part), however, the music and the production are totally different. Additionally, the remix received significant review coverage and also charted separately. — Tom^(T2ME) 07:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As Tomica said above, article about original version of the song is huge, and The Blessed Madonna Remix made it even huger and messy. The discussion about the split happened a month ago, and it was approved, why we're going to reverse that? @DuaLipaFan23951: the fact it wasn't a hit, doesn't make the remix unnotable to have an article about. It was covered by the critics separately from the original + it's promoting other effort than original. infsai (dyskusja) 23:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: per comments above. Alexismata7 (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support: per Bluesatellite. The music video and background will be the trickiest portions to merge. However, not so much detail will help. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Before my reasoning for not merging was that they were two different projects but I have changed my mind. Even though they are two different projects, the chart positions and certifications are defiantly combined. Yes, the page will be a little difficult to navigate with the merger but I think that is a small reasoning for an oppose. They are the same song, just different versions. LOVI 33 20:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge: per comments above. --Sricsi (talk) 16:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - merge: since when a remix has to have a separate article? It's the same song and the remix wasn't successful, depite adding stars like Madonna and Missy E. It should be just a section in the main article. --Max24 (talk) 12:24, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per NSONGS. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 03:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per comments above, since Blessed Madonna remix is sonically different and promoted separately from the album and DaBaby versions of the song, and is also in support of a different album. The k nine 2 (talk) 10:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support It will be easy to merge the both articles. We can just create a new section for the song and we can put all the info there. Piece of cake 🍰 DuaLipaFan23951 (talk) 14:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree that it's the same song remixed with new artists--nothing we haven't seen before. Separating these out is inconsistent with how others remixes are treated. Shoestringnomad (talk) 20:29, 26 May 2021 (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.

Charts additions

At the charts topic there should be a different part with levitating solo original version chart peaks. Aridabestbro (talk) 21:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aridabestbro please see my response above about the RIAA certification. Long story short, the peaks are combined for all versions of "Levitating" and the two versions are being promoted as the same single so there really isn't a need to specify. Also just to note, excluding when the solo version charted as an album track, each chart has credited either the solo or DaBaby version, not both. LOVI 33 22:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tag?

So we split the article, then merged the two articles, and now there's a tag suggesting a split because the article's too long?

---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:11, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer: I know, it's confusing. The article is at 74kb of readable prose size, so, per WP:SIZESPLIT, it should be split soon. However, there are ways to lower the readable prose size without splitting right away, such as rethinking the amount of detail there needs to be. For example, does #Controversy need two full paragraphs with three- to four-sentence quotes when all of this happened a week ago? Does #Commercial performance need to be detailed with specific peaks instead of detailing two or three and adding "the song additionally charged in x, y and z", especially knowing that the exact same information can be found in #Charts? Do we need to include the details of the camera used to shoot the cover art for the remix in #Release and promotion? Giving the article a good copyedit and getting rid of information that isn't crucial to the readers' understanding of the subject as a whole (such as what I just detailed above) should lower the readable prose size a lot, which should save us from splitting the article anytime soon. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 13:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DaBaby Billboard Credit Removal Clarification

I don't see the claim being made here yet but I have seen it being made on the DaBaby and DaBaby discography pages so I would like to clarify some things about what happens when Billboard changes how a song is credited (due to a remix). The change in credit looks retroactive, but it is actually not. This is a bug with their website. Now, Billboard's rules state that whichever version of the song accounts for the majority (over 50%) of a song's activity gets credited. However, there is a bug that results in whichever version is currently credited being credited for every week, regardless of which version actually charted at the time. Just look at the fact that the DaBaby remix could be seen on the Bubbling Under chart for the week of June 29, 2020, when viewed in May 2021 while DaBaby was credited on most charts despite the version with him on it not even existing at the time. The Blessed Madonna version actually charted that week. Even now the solo version appears (with the DaBaby cover art oddly enough) when you look at it now. Billboard themselves noted that for historical purposes whichever version was credited the week a song peaks counts towards the artists' discographies even if the version is not the same version accounting for the majority of activity in the following weeks. (See this article). CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 22:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article too long/excessive detail?

I started to read this article, then noticed how long it was. It seems at times far too detailed and more like a detailed biography of a song rather than an encyclopedic entry. I checked the article size on XTools and can see it's 6,679 words in 36 sections. For contrast, Yesterday by The Beatles is only 3,437 words in 15 sections and Hello by Adele is 3,318 words in 19 sections. I know this article has a lot of references and chart information, but the whole thing seems a bit out of proportion to the song's notability. I was going to add the "Overly detailed" template, but wasn't sure.Seaweed (talk) 18:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What makes Yesterday or Hello good examples of well-written articles? In fact, Yesterday is a former featured article that was demoted because, among other things, the "Article seems a bit short, considering the popularity of the song". (CC) Tbhotch^™ 06:43, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]